Every July it is the same thing. Is Brett Favre going to play football this year? Well, if you're tired of this question either blame ESPN, July, or yourself, but don't blame Brett Favre. Favre is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time, and he's probably my favorite for the way he plays, while the play is going on and after it's over.
July is the worst sports month of the year. There is no denying it. You've basically got 3 days of Wimbledon, the British Open which is on too early to watch, and baseball. So ESPN talks about Brett Favre every day. They send reporters to Hattiesburg, Mississippi because they don't have anywhere else for them to go. And they can afford to do thing because you'll watch it. If you don't want to hear about it then change the channel. But do you really want to watch baseball highlights?
After the 2005 season many people were calling for Favre to retire coming off his worst season ever, but he announced he'd come back for 2006. After a mediocre 2006, he waited until mid-summer before declaring he would come back. Then after a stellar 2007 season, which ended in the NFC Championship Game, Favre announced he was going to retire in early 2008. But then in the summer of '08 he said he still could play but the Packers forced him out, so he signed on with the Jets. And after leading the Jets to an 8-3 start, they finished 1-4 and Favre played poorly.
In 2009 everyone said Favre shouldn't come back to play for the Vikings. Well, I'm proud to say I didn't. After having a really bad end to the season with the Jets, it looked like Favre was done. I kept reminding people how Kurt Warner had 5 bad seasons and then took the Cardinals to the Superbowl, and he doesn't exactly have Favre's credentials; so I thought Brett could overcome just 5 bad games...and he did rebound to have on of his best years ever. And of course, since they barely lost in the NFC Championship Game, he is probably going to end up coming back to have one more shot before he hangs it up. And I think 2010 will definitely be his last season, not only because he is over 40 but with the impeding 2011 lockout there is no reason for him to even try to be ready to play next summer.
Many fans really enjoy watching Favre play because of his reckless abandon and youthful attitude. Then they get turned off every summer while we go through this charade. I'll blame Favre in '08 for not requesting a trade when the Packers asked him to retire, but I don't blame him for the rest. He is the most durable quarterback in the history of the NFL, as he hasn't missed a start since he was named the starting quarterback for the Packers in 1992 (and he's been in his prime the entire time); so I think he has the right to skip training camp. And this charade he's playing is just so he won't get fined by the team for missing practices. If they were really mad about it, they wouldn't let him play. It's not his fault for July being a boring month so ESPN comes down to Mississippi to watch him throwing passes to high school-ers.
Maybe I'm a fan of Brett Favre because I like the way he plays. Maybe it's because he's just a good-ole-boy from Mississippi and I like that. I just read an article the other day about how he was shooting water moccasins and armadillos on his farm when Brad Childress came down to visit him. He drives an awesome truck and plays on his tractor all day, he's not attracted to all the glam of the NFL like many of the other star players. He's a grandfather and he's going to play in the NFL, so if that doesn't show you how tough he is I don't know what does. He's the Clint Eastwood of football players.
JB
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Best & Worst Sports Announcers
When watching a sporting event, the announcers can be very important. There are three kinds of announcers: ones that add to the game you're watching with great calls and excitement, ones that hurt the game you're watching with dumb anecdotes and annoying calls, and those who stay in the background and let the game entertain you instead of them entertaining you. The analysts can be good or bad, but the ones you notice the most are the play-by-play guys, so those are the fellows I've given my opinion on. This is long, but there are a lot of announcers.
THE BEST
Keith Jackson - No doubt in anybody's mind he's the greatest college football announcer of all time. He's been retired for over 10 years but has come back to do some west coast games over the last decade. He doesn't take the game too seriously and he's great at letting the game sell itself rather than him trying to take over with some magical call. When he came on the air for the '05 Rose Bowl between USC and Texas I knew it would be a great game.
Jim Nantz - Nantz is the #1 guy at CBS, and deservedly so. He is professional and calls the game the way it should be called. He gets excited when the games calls for it, and is calm when he needs to be as well, and lets the game be the focus not trying to make signature calls. He also does a great job setting up a play or event, especially in golf.
Brad Nessler - Nessler is the best ESPN has to offer. He is equally great at college football and basketball. If I were going to be an announcer, I'd want to be like him.
Pat Summerall - Pat is retired but he was one of the best. He's probably the only really good announcer to ever work at FOX, but probably because he was trained at CBS. I miss him on NFL Sundays since we've got Joe Buck for the next 20 years. He had a great voice and was enjoyable to listen to.
Dick Endberg - It is sad that Dick Endberg is retiring because he's one of the best ever. He knows how to call a game, he's professional, and he's very much in the background allowing the viewer to enjoy the game instead trying to tell some dumb anecdotes.
Al Michaels - Al Michaels is great at what he does. He's been a top announcer for years because he's great with the game flow and he's very knowledgeable. However, I don't really care for his efforts to make a memorable call at the end of exciting games. Yes, the miracle on ice call was classic, but just let it happen.
Bob Costas - Bob Costas is solid, but he loves big words and allusions the viewers may know nothing about. He's great in the studio, and pretty good in the booth. But he's rarely seen anymore since NBC only does Olympics and horse racing.
Craig Bolerjack - Bolerjack is the most under-rated announcer in the country. The only time I get to hear him is when there are two SEC football games on CBS in one day (about twice a year) and during the NCAA tournament he does the 1st and 2nd round games. Other than that he is the voice of the Utah Jazz. He always knows just when to get excited, he does a great job setting up plays, and he's got a great voice for broadcasting. If he's announcing I'll watch it just to hear his call.
Sean McDonough - While his New England accent works against him, he does a great job calling games for the most part. He has bounced around and usually ends up calling crappy games, but he is pretty good aside from his occasional premature excitement outburst and voice-cracking.
Dave Neal - A lot of people don't like Dave Neal, but I don't think he's that bad. He knows who he is, he's not trying to be a big shot. Plus he really loves SEC football and keeps the focus on the game.
Verne Lunquist - Old Verne is 70, but looks like he is 85 years old. He is pretty good for the most part but I think his time has passed, or maybe he should just stick to golf and tennis. The outrageous calls like "By George!" and "Oh My!" really have to go. And then you'll be watching the SEC game of the week, there's a 5 yard run where the player goes out of bounds and you'll get a "Wow!" from Verne. Really?
Mike Tirico - He's not too bad, usually they stick him with some real doufuses. He's good at staying in the background and not trying to make the next greatest call. The problem is I can't hardly watch Monday Night Football because he's paired with the worst analysts ESPN can find.
Mike Breen - Breen does all the top NBA on ABC games including the Finals and he does a good job. I think he does a better job than Al Michaels did. He's good about not intruding on the game with stupid and annoying anecdotes and cultural references like his sidekicks do.
Brent Musberger - Musberger is pretty good, being the top college football man at ABC and doing college basketball on ESPN. He was much better in his younger days when he was more like Brad Nessler. Now, he interjects too many of his opinions and always talks about the Vegas odds. He'll spend an entire quarter of football taking about other teams instead of the ones on the field. It's like the 'Brent Musberger show with a game going on'.
Dick Stockton - We should call him 'average Dick'. He's not that great, he's not that bad. He's like a 'C' on your report card. He does an adequate job at NFL football and NBA basketball. But I'd rather him be on the "A-team" for FOX NFL than Joe Buck.
Gus Johnson - I enjoy Gus' enthusiasm, however it goes overboard at times. When you're watching an NCAA tournament game and you get "The shot from _________!!...this is incredible!" at the top of his lungs with 5 minutes to go, it's a little too much. Start ramping up the excitement in the final minute. But I'll put him on this side of the argument for the part of the game when he's not wetting his pants.
THE WORST
Chris Berman - I can't stand this guy. He is almost tolerable in the studio, but when he gets in a booth he goes into super annoying mode. He mostly does baseball games, but has one of the worst signature calls: "back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, and outta here!". Not to mention his terrible nicknames for every player and his talking so much without taking a breath that it takes 10 seconds to get the last three words of his sentence out.
Joe Buck - The beneficiary of being Jack Buck's son, he was able to break Sean McDonough's record for the youngest person ever to call a major sports championship when he did the 1996 World Series at age 27. He is the top guy on FOX, but that really isn't saying much. He is arrogant, boring and generally displays a lack of interest or respect for the game he is calling.
Bryant Gumbel - The worst announcer I have ever heard. Can't you hear that high-pitched voice saying, "Well gee, Cris, am I the one who always has to point out there aren't enough black coaches? I've talked to numerous reporters that suggest black coaching minds are on the rise, it really bothers me!" Thanks, buddy. Nothing like a little politics mixed with my football by an arrogant nancy-boy like yourself. How he is related to Greg Gumbel is beyond me because Greg is actually pretty good and has a man's voice.
Mike Patrick - How many times have we heard "This guy is just incredible, the effort he has shown tonight is unmatched! Another 40 yard punt, he just keeps doing it!"? The non-stop love affair with athletes is sickening. Maybe he's just prone to hyperbole, but tone it down a notch and just call the game without being amazed the quarterback can throw the ball 20 yards.
Chip Carey - Perhaps his family heritage, like Joe Buck's, got him a job when FOX started carrying baseball in 1996. From there he followed his grandfather's footsteps with the Cubs and then his father's with the Braves. He was even TBS' top position when they started carrying MLB playoff games, however, he got fired after last fall. Now he's with the Braves only, and he continues to be annoying. He is more of a professional then the rest of his family, but his annoying love of baseball and asking the analyst obvious questions he already knows the answers to really turns me off.
Jon Miller - How he got into the Hall of Fame I don't know. "Oh boy, Joe, another pitching change! Well this sure is a twist I wasn't expecting." Right on, this is baseball, right? And I don't know whether he's taken some Rosetta Stone Spanish courses or what but he's always making an emphatic point to correctly enunciate the names of Latin players. So instead of calling their names like everyone else, we get to hear his take, subtly hinting we are all idiots for not using proper annunciation.
In my opinion, CBS has always had the best announcers, and they carry the best sporting events. The worst is FOX and will probably always be. ABC has pretty good announcers and NBC doesn't do enough stuff to even be noticed but their guys arn't so bad. I rate ESPN's announcers just ahead of FOX. I'll do the best and worst analysts next week.
JB
THE BEST
Keith Jackson - No doubt in anybody's mind he's the greatest college football announcer of all time. He's been retired for over 10 years but has come back to do some west coast games over the last decade. He doesn't take the game too seriously and he's great at letting the game sell itself rather than him trying to take over with some magical call. When he came on the air for the '05 Rose Bowl between USC and Texas I knew it would be a great game.
Jim Nantz - Nantz is the #1 guy at CBS, and deservedly so. He is professional and calls the game the way it should be called. He gets excited when the games calls for it, and is calm when he needs to be as well, and lets the game be the focus not trying to make signature calls. He also does a great job setting up a play or event, especially in golf.
Brad Nessler - Nessler is the best ESPN has to offer. He is equally great at college football and basketball. If I were going to be an announcer, I'd want to be like him.
Pat Summerall - Pat is retired but he was one of the best. He's probably the only really good announcer to ever work at FOX, but probably because he was trained at CBS. I miss him on NFL Sundays since we've got Joe Buck for the next 20 years. He had a great voice and was enjoyable to listen to.
Dick Endberg - It is sad that Dick Endberg is retiring because he's one of the best ever. He knows how to call a game, he's professional, and he's very much in the background allowing the viewer to enjoy the game instead trying to tell some dumb anecdotes.
Al Michaels - Al Michaels is great at what he does. He's been a top announcer for years because he's great with the game flow and he's very knowledgeable. However, I don't really care for his efforts to make a memorable call at the end of exciting games. Yes, the miracle on ice call was classic, but just let it happen.
Bob Costas - Bob Costas is solid, but he loves big words and allusions the viewers may know nothing about. He's great in the studio, and pretty good in the booth. But he's rarely seen anymore since NBC only does Olympics and horse racing.
Craig Bolerjack - Bolerjack is the most under-rated announcer in the country. The only time I get to hear him is when there are two SEC football games on CBS in one day (about twice a year) and during the NCAA tournament he does the 1st and 2nd round games. Other than that he is the voice of the Utah Jazz. He always knows just when to get excited, he does a great job setting up plays, and he's got a great voice for broadcasting. If he's announcing I'll watch it just to hear his call.
Sean McDonough - While his New England accent works against him, he does a great job calling games for the most part. He has bounced around and usually ends up calling crappy games, but he is pretty good aside from his occasional premature excitement outburst and voice-cracking.
Dave Neal - A lot of people don't like Dave Neal, but I don't think he's that bad. He knows who he is, he's not trying to be a big shot. Plus he really loves SEC football and keeps the focus on the game.
Verne Lunquist - Old Verne is 70, but looks like he is 85 years old. He is pretty good for the most part but I think his time has passed, or maybe he should just stick to golf and tennis. The outrageous calls like "By George!" and "Oh My!" really have to go. And then you'll be watching the SEC game of the week, there's a 5 yard run where the player goes out of bounds and you'll get a "Wow!" from Verne. Really?
Mike Tirico - He's not too bad, usually they stick him with some real doufuses. He's good at staying in the background and not trying to make the next greatest call. The problem is I can't hardly watch Monday Night Football because he's paired with the worst analysts ESPN can find.
Mike Breen - Breen does all the top NBA on ABC games including the Finals and he does a good job. I think he does a better job than Al Michaels did. He's good about not intruding on the game with stupid and annoying anecdotes and cultural references like his sidekicks do.
Brent Musberger - Musberger is pretty good, being the top college football man at ABC and doing college basketball on ESPN. He was much better in his younger days when he was more like Brad Nessler. Now, he interjects too many of his opinions and always talks about the Vegas odds. He'll spend an entire quarter of football taking about other teams instead of the ones on the field. It's like the 'Brent Musberger show with a game going on'.
Dick Stockton - We should call him 'average Dick'. He's not that great, he's not that bad. He's like a 'C' on your report card. He does an adequate job at NFL football and NBA basketball. But I'd rather him be on the "A-team" for FOX NFL than Joe Buck.
Gus Johnson - I enjoy Gus' enthusiasm, however it goes overboard at times. When you're watching an NCAA tournament game and you get "The shot from _________!!...this is incredible!" at the top of his lungs with 5 minutes to go, it's a little too much. Start ramping up the excitement in the final minute. But I'll put him on this side of the argument for the part of the game when he's not wetting his pants.
THE WORST
Chris Berman - I can't stand this guy. He is almost tolerable in the studio, but when he gets in a booth he goes into super annoying mode. He mostly does baseball games, but has one of the worst signature calls: "back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, back, and outta here!". Not to mention his terrible nicknames for every player and his talking so much without taking a breath that it takes 10 seconds to get the last three words of his sentence out.
Joe Buck - The beneficiary of being Jack Buck's son, he was able to break Sean McDonough's record for the youngest person ever to call a major sports championship when he did the 1996 World Series at age 27. He is the top guy on FOX, but that really isn't saying much. He is arrogant, boring and generally displays a lack of interest or respect for the game he is calling.
Bryant Gumbel - The worst announcer I have ever heard. Can't you hear that high-pitched voice saying, "Well gee, Cris, am I the one who always has to point out there aren't enough black coaches? I've talked to numerous reporters that suggest black coaching minds are on the rise, it really bothers me!" Thanks, buddy. Nothing like a little politics mixed with my football by an arrogant nancy-boy like yourself. How he is related to Greg Gumbel is beyond me because Greg is actually pretty good and has a man's voice.
Mike Patrick - How many times have we heard "This guy is just incredible, the effort he has shown tonight is unmatched! Another 40 yard punt, he just keeps doing it!"? The non-stop love affair with athletes is sickening. Maybe he's just prone to hyperbole, but tone it down a notch and just call the game without being amazed the quarterback can throw the ball 20 yards.
Chip Carey - Perhaps his family heritage, like Joe Buck's, got him a job when FOX started carrying baseball in 1996. From there he followed his grandfather's footsteps with the Cubs and then his father's with the Braves. He was even TBS' top position when they started carrying MLB playoff games, however, he got fired after last fall. Now he's with the Braves only, and he continues to be annoying. He is more of a professional then the rest of his family, but his annoying love of baseball and asking the analyst obvious questions he already knows the answers to really turns me off.
Jon Miller - How he got into the Hall of Fame I don't know. "Oh boy, Joe, another pitching change! Well this sure is a twist I wasn't expecting." Right on, this is baseball, right? And I don't know whether he's taken some Rosetta Stone Spanish courses or what but he's always making an emphatic point to correctly enunciate the names of Latin players. So instead of calling their names like everyone else, we get to hear his take, subtly hinting we are all idiots for not using proper annunciation.
In my opinion, CBS has always had the best announcers, and they carry the best sporting events. The worst is FOX and will probably always be. ABC has pretty good announcers and NBC doesn't do enough stuff to even be noticed but their guys arn't so bad. I rate ESPN's announcers just ahead of FOX. I'll do the best and worst analysts next week.
JB
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The 80s - Music & Movies
The 80s were great, too bad I was born in the 80s so I don't really remember them. Were the 80s campy and materialistic, probably. But maybe that's what made them so cool. Or maybe what makes it cool was the fact that I didn't really live through it (wasn't 12+ years old) so I only see what I perceive to be cool. Oh well, I love getting a hold of a 80s movie I've never seen and I love listening to music from the 80s I've never heard. Am I a dork for coming up with this? Oh, without a doubt.
Music
When you say 80s music, it starts with New Wave for me. No doubt, one of the greatest genres of music to ever come about if only because when a New Wave song comes on, you immediately point to the 1980s. From there, there's some good stuff but it's not that memorable, I could probably put 2 or 3 songs outside of New Wave on a Top 10, but for this I'm just going to stick to New Wave. Here's my Top 10 songs from the 80s:
1. "True" by Spandou Ballet
2. "Drive" by The Cars
3. "I Just Died in Your Arms Tonight" by Cutting Crew
4. "Don't You Forget About Me" by Simple Minds
5. "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" by Tears for Fears
6. "Take On Me" by A-HA
7. "Forever Young" by Alphaville
8. "The Reflex" by Duran Duran
9. "Head Over Heals" by Tears for Fears
10. "Always Something There to Remind Me" by Naked Eyes
Honorable Mention: "Hold Me Now" by Thompson Twins
Great songs from other genres:
"Africa" by Toto
"Will You Still Love Me" by Chicago
"Stuck with You" by Huey Lewis & The News
"My Home's in Alabama" by Alabama
"Dancing in the Dark" by Bruce Springsteen
"Out of Touch" by Hall & Oates
"Texas Flood" by Stevie Ray Vaughn
Movies
What can I say about 80s movies, I love them! Are they cheesy? Well, that's a derogatory term for most people but I love cheese so I say bring on the cheesy. Here's my Top 10:
1. Back to the Future
2. Top Gun
3. Breakfast Club
4. Secret of My Success
5. Ferris Bueller's Day Off
6. Cocktail
7. Bull Durham
8. Risky Business
9. Can't Buy Me Love
10. Big
Honorable Mentions:
The Karate Kid
National Lampoon's Vacation
Not so cheesy:
Die Hard
Rain Man
The 80s were great. That's all there is to it.
JB
Music
When you say 80s music, it starts with New Wave for me. No doubt, one of the greatest genres of music to ever come about if only because when a New Wave song comes on, you immediately point to the 1980s. From there, there's some good stuff but it's not that memorable, I could probably put 2 or 3 songs outside of New Wave on a Top 10, but for this I'm just going to stick to New Wave. Here's my Top 10 songs from the 80s:
1. "True" by Spandou Ballet
2. "Drive" by The Cars
3. "I Just Died in Your Arms Tonight" by Cutting Crew
4. "Don't You Forget About Me" by Simple Minds
5. "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" by Tears for Fears
6. "Take On Me" by A-HA
7. "Forever Young" by Alphaville
8. "The Reflex" by Duran Duran
9. "Head Over Heals" by Tears for Fears
10. "Always Something There to Remind Me" by Naked Eyes
Honorable Mention: "Hold Me Now" by Thompson Twins
Great songs from other genres:
"Africa" by Toto
"Will You Still Love Me" by Chicago
"Stuck with You" by Huey Lewis & The News
"My Home's in Alabama" by Alabama
"Dancing in the Dark" by Bruce Springsteen
"Out of Touch" by Hall & Oates
"Texas Flood" by Stevie Ray Vaughn
Movies
What can I say about 80s movies, I love them! Are they cheesy? Well, that's a derogatory term for most people but I love cheese so I say bring on the cheesy. Here's my Top 10:
1. Back to the Future
2. Top Gun
3. Breakfast Club
4. Secret of My Success
5. Ferris Bueller's Day Off
6. Cocktail
7. Bull Durham
8. Risky Business
9. Can't Buy Me Love
10. Big
Honorable Mentions:
The Karate Kid
National Lampoon's Vacation
Not so cheesy:
Die Hard
Rain Man
The 80s were great. That's all there is to it.
JB
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Lame Kiffin
Lane Kiffin is the worst coach in the history of football. Well, maybe that is a little strong, but he is the worst of this era. He lies, cheats, steals. He says dumb stuff. He's a little snot-nosed punk. Does anyone like Lane Kiffin? Someone has to, how does he keep landing high-profile jobs at such a young age? 1. His father 2. Luck 3. Al Davis.
The brief bio history of Lane Kiffin is he graduated college with a degree in Leisure Service Management...so I guess that is why he's so nonchalant and worthless. Then he was given a job by Pete Carroll at USC, and we all know he got that job because his father is Monte Kiffin. Then, because of USC's success, their assistant coaches began getting pecked away by other schools and the NFL so Kiffin ascended to co-offensive coordinator and recruiting coordinator by the age of 29. He held these positions in 2005 while Reggie Bush was accepting $100,000 which has USC on probation now. Despite being highly criticized for the lack of success in 2006, Al Davis hired Kiffin to be the head coach of the Oakland Raiders for the 2007 season. This made him the youngest coach in NFL history at only 31 years old. Not surprisingly, the Raiders went 4-12 and Davis wanted Kiffin to resign...he wouldn't and Davis waited it out until 4 games into the regular season (1-3 record) when he went ahead and fired 'ole Lane. At that point, Al Davis looked like a crazy old man when he called Kiffin a "flat-out liar" and a disgrace to his organization, however recent events have lead us to believe he may have been accurate. Then Tennessee hired Kiffin, perhaps only because he had been an NFL coach; this made him the youngest coach in college football at 33. Then we all know the mess he stirred up in the ensuing months with his bold statements and gaffes. Even though UT fans loved him at the time, they now hate him because he bolted for USC once Pete Carroll left for the NFL. One season at Tennessee, 7-6 record. Now at USC, the 35 year-old Kiffin is still making news for his bonehead mistakes, which he doesn't seem to have a problem with.
While Kiffin seemed to stir the pot behind the scenes with the Raiders, he turned over a new, public leaf once he got the job at Tennessee. Here are a few of his most notable accomplishments:
-1st day on the job he talked about how UT would beat Florida and their other rivals in the upcoming year
-Hired his father, Buccaneers coach Monte Kiffin, to join him at UT as Defensive Coordinator with 4 games left in the NFL season, the Bucs went 0-4 after that
-He hired a coach away from the Raiders with 2 weeks left in the NFL season without asking the Raiders interim coach
-Picked off several coaches on other SEC school's staffs without telling the head coaches he was contacting them
-Gave his newborn child the middle name of "Knox" for Knoxville
-He went on to accuse Urban Meyer of cheating by illegally contacting a recruit and was publicly reprimanded by the SEC commissioner
-He accused Georgia of cheating during a radio interview
-Tennessee self-reported double-digit secondary recruiting violations during Kiffin's two months of recruiting there
-He told a South Carolina recruit if he went there he'd be pumping gas for the rest of his life like everyone else who has gone to South Carolina
-It only took him 11 days to get his first secondary recruiting violation at USC for picking up a player at the airport
-He tried to persuade some of his UT recruits to come to USC through Ed Orgeron, who hadn't taken a job with USC yet
-He offered a 13 year-old a scholarship to USC
-And most recently he is being sued by the Tennessee Titans for hiring their running backs coach, just a week before training camp starts...without consulting Jeff Fisher or anyone with the Titans organization about his interest in the coach
So basically, not only is Lane Kiffin a moron but he's also unethical. He's under-qualified, he'll do anything to gain an edge, and to make matters worse his sidekick Ed Orgeron was cut out of the same mold. Coach "O" is known as a tireless recruiter, just like Lane Kiffin. He'll beg, borrow, and steal until he gets a player. At Ole Miss, after Hurricane Katrina displaced the Tulane football team, he attempted to raid their roster. He was with Kiffin at USC, then came with him to Tennessee, and followed him to USC but not before he tried to steal some of the recruits that were already committed to UT.
USC just hired Pat Haden to be their Athletic Director, and clean up the program. Unfortunately, having Lane Kiffin and his cronies running things probably makes it worse than it ever was. If Haden is smart, and I think he is, he will fire Kiffin at the end of the season regardless of their record. There are plenty of coaches who would love to coach in sunny southern California with the kind of tradition they have at USC. Kiffin might be able to motivate players enough to win some games, but his antics are too much headache and will get USC or any other school into a lot of trouble.
If only Al Davis wouldn't have hired Kiffin in 2007. He was way under-qualified, only having been the co-offensive coordinator on a college team....on an '06 USC team that underperformed. Tennessee thought it was great they were getting a former NFL coach, and USC thought it was great they were getting a former USC guy who had been a head coach. It is a terrible cycle of events that has led to Lame Kiffin getting one of the most prestigious jobs in the country and irritating everyone with his antics.
JB
The brief bio history of Lane Kiffin is he graduated college with a degree in Leisure Service Management...so I guess that is why he's so nonchalant and worthless. Then he was given a job by Pete Carroll at USC, and we all know he got that job because his father is Monte Kiffin. Then, because of USC's success, their assistant coaches began getting pecked away by other schools and the NFL so Kiffin ascended to co-offensive coordinator and recruiting coordinator by the age of 29. He held these positions in 2005 while Reggie Bush was accepting $100,000 which has USC on probation now. Despite being highly criticized for the lack of success in 2006, Al Davis hired Kiffin to be the head coach of the Oakland Raiders for the 2007 season. This made him the youngest coach in NFL history at only 31 years old. Not surprisingly, the Raiders went 4-12 and Davis wanted Kiffin to resign...he wouldn't and Davis waited it out until 4 games into the regular season (1-3 record) when he went ahead and fired 'ole Lane. At that point, Al Davis looked like a crazy old man when he called Kiffin a "flat-out liar" and a disgrace to his organization, however recent events have lead us to believe he may have been accurate. Then Tennessee hired Kiffin, perhaps only because he had been an NFL coach; this made him the youngest coach in college football at 33. Then we all know the mess he stirred up in the ensuing months with his bold statements and gaffes. Even though UT fans loved him at the time, they now hate him because he bolted for USC once Pete Carroll left for the NFL. One season at Tennessee, 7-6 record. Now at USC, the 35 year-old Kiffin is still making news for his bonehead mistakes, which he doesn't seem to have a problem with.
While Kiffin seemed to stir the pot behind the scenes with the Raiders, he turned over a new, public leaf once he got the job at Tennessee. Here are a few of his most notable accomplishments:
-1st day on the job he talked about how UT would beat Florida and their other rivals in the upcoming year
-Hired his father, Buccaneers coach Monte Kiffin, to join him at UT as Defensive Coordinator with 4 games left in the NFL season, the Bucs went 0-4 after that
-He hired a coach away from the Raiders with 2 weeks left in the NFL season without asking the Raiders interim coach
-Picked off several coaches on other SEC school's staffs without telling the head coaches he was contacting them
-Gave his newborn child the middle name of "Knox" for Knoxville
-He went on to accuse Urban Meyer of cheating by illegally contacting a recruit and was publicly reprimanded by the SEC commissioner
-He accused Georgia of cheating during a radio interview
-Tennessee self-reported double-digit secondary recruiting violations during Kiffin's two months of recruiting there
-He told a South Carolina recruit if he went there he'd be pumping gas for the rest of his life like everyone else who has gone to South Carolina
-It only took him 11 days to get his first secondary recruiting violation at USC for picking up a player at the airport
-He tried to persuade some of his UT recruits to come to USC through Ed Orgeron, who hadn't taken a job with USC yet
-He offered a 13 year-old a scholarship to USC
-And most recently he is being sued by the Tennessee Titans for hiring their running backs coach, just a week before training camp starts...without consulting Jeff Fisher or anyone with the Titans organization about his interest in the coach
So basically, not only is Lane Kiffin a moron but he's also unethical. He's under-qualified, he'll do anything to gain an edge, and to make matters worse his sidekick Ed Orgeron was cut out of the same mold. Coach "O" is known as a tireless recruiter, just like Lane Kiffin. He'll beg, borrow, and steal until he gets a player. At Ole Miss, after Hurricane Katrina displaced the Tulane football team, he attempted to raid their roster. He was with Kiffin at USC, then came with him to Tennessee, and followed him to USC but not before he tried to steal some of the recruits that were already committed to UT.
USC just hired Pat Haden to be their Athletic Director, and clean up the program. Unfortunately, having Lane Kiffin and his cronies running things probably makes it worse than it ever was. If Haden is smart, and I think he is, he will fire Kiffin at the end of the season regardless of their record. There are plenty of coaches who would love to coach in sunny southern California with the kind of tradition they have at USC. Kiffin might be able to motivate players enough to win some games, but his antics are too much headache and will get USC or any other school into a lot of trouble.
If only Al Davis wouldn't have hired Kiffin in 2007. He was way under-qualified, only having been the co-offensive coordinator on a college team....on an '06 USC team that underperformed. Tennessee thought it was great they were getting a former NFL coach, and USC thought it was great they were getting a former USC guy who had been a head coach. It is a terrible cycle of events that has led to Lame Kiffin getting one of the most prestigious jobs in the country and irritating everyone with his antics.
JB
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Watching Sports on TV
There are so many people who don't know how to watch sports on TV. Of course, this is one of my favorite hobbies and I have an opinion on how it is to be done. There is an art to it, one that many don't understand. And it's fine they don't understand as long as I'm given the remote control upon entering the room.
If you're going to watch TV in the first place, regardless of if it's sports or not, you should have a DVR unless you just can't afford it. A DVR is a necessity to proper television viewing, and is rule #1. Most of this is based on having a DVR.
What gets to me the most is when you are watching a game and a play happens which calls for a rewind to get a closer look...maybe a close call or just a fantastic play. The person in charge of the remote rewinds, watches the play, then presses the 'skip to live' button to watch the live action. Why?! When you do that you probably missed a couple plays! Once you rewind, just leave it there until the commercial break, then fast forward to catch up, it is ok to be a minute behind! This serves two purposes because one, we don't have to miss any plays and two, we don't have to sit through as many commercials. This issue is 101 of proper sports viewing but I've seen it over and over again.
The second thing that I find very irritating really comes into play during football season. On football Saturdays around 3:30 EST there is a bunch of great games getting started up, and the 12:00 and 12:30 games are ending. Way too often people switch the channel to the 3:30 game and leave it there because that is the marquee match-up. No, please no! The proper way to handle this situation is to record that marquee match-up and watch the exciting finishes of the early games. And when there is a commercial break with 2:00 to go, switch to another game that started at 3:30 or any other game but not the marquee game. You need to wait until you've watched all the good finishes from the early games before you start the 3:30 one. Now, once you've done this it should be close to 4:00 and you may be itching yourself to get started on that marquee game but just cool-it, this is watching TV a real-man's way. You've just seen all the great finishes without relegating yourself to having to watch it on Sportscenter, and most notably you can skip through all the commercials in the first half of that marquee game! So now you'll have non-stop action for the next hour+. The same scenario goes for NFL games between the early and late kickoffs.
And that brings me to my next point. Have some patience and start games 30-45 late so you can skip the commercials. Who cares about commercials? Unless you're just really excited to start the game and there are no other games on. If you're out with your wife or girlfriend why piss her off by leaving early to catch the start of the game...think ahead, record the game and when you get home you'll be able to watch the whole thing without commercials! If you've got to check the grill, pause the game, you can fast-forward later through the commercials. When the hunger attack strikes at halftime and you need to go get some wings, don't become a victim by missing the first 5 minutes of the 3rd quarter because they didn't have your order ready, you should have been recording it so you can start with the second half kick. Commercials and the DVR are vital important tools, use them to your advantage.
This next one is very counter-cultural, folks don't like it when I do this. People fuss and say it is stupid. So maybe it's not for you or the people your watching with, but I think it's great. When two people are after one TV to watch two separate games then record them both. Obviously this leaves out any watching other games since most DVRs can only record two things at once. But start the first game and watch it all the way to the end of the first quarter, then start the other game and do the same thing. Do this until both games are finished. What you'll find is both people get to watch their games in their entirety. And, the run time in most games is almost double the actual time so in the end you'll actually only be about 30 minutes past the point when the games actually ended.
All this said, throw all these rules out for the Superbowl because the commercials are an American tradition, you have to watch them, however, if you had to pee in the 2nd quarter, just pause and fast-forward during the lame halftime show. And if you don't have a DVR, I don't know what you're doing. You probably need to cancel your internet connection and get one.
If you don't have a DVR, or you do but are watching live action, then you probably need to know when to switch channels to see what's going on in the other game. Well, for one don't use rapid fire with the previous channel button. No one wants to watch one second of a game and risk their eyes convulsing because of the quick change of colors rolling over on the tube. If a play ended in football, you've got 40 seconds before the next one starts so it's ok to leave it on the other game for 15-20 seconds before you change it back, even if nothing's happening...the announcer might tell what just happened or what's about to happen. If it's basketball then just wait until a timeout or someone's at the free throw line...if it's baseball, wait a minute there's no reason to be watching more than one baseball game at a time. And make sure you have a good time clock in your head of commercial times when you're in charge of the remote. Don't leave it on the game in the 2nd quarter for 3 minutes during a commercial break for the tie game with 1:15 left to play! You need to know that commercial breaks are different for each phase of the game. During a timeout they are about 60 seconds, after a kickoff they are about 3 minutes, after a punt they are about 90 seconds. Halftime they are 4 minutes. Know your stuff and get the TV controlling instincts or just sit on the couch and watch!
That is all the major stuff. Whether you're by yourself or with your friends, there is a way to watch the games. There is a way to catch the most action you can and still not miss the game you really want to see. It may take some practice, but it's really not that hard. If you're not a big sports fan but your watching sports in your home with someone who is, then just give them the remote control.
JB
If you're going to watch TV in the first place, regardless of if it's sports or not, you should have a DVR unless you just can't afford it. A DVR is a necessity to proper television viewing, and is rule #1. Most of this is based on having a DVR.
What gets to me the most is when you are watching a game and a play happens which calls for a rewind to get a closer look...maybe a close call or just a fantastic play. The person in charge of the remote rewinds, watches the play, then presses the 'skip to live' button to watch the live action. Why?! When you do that you probably missed a couple plays! Once you rewind, just leave it there until the commercial break, then fast forward to catch up, it is ok to be a minute behind! This serves two purposes because one, we don't have to miss any plays and two, we don't have to sit through as many commercials. This issue is 101 of proper sports viewing but I've seen it over and over again.
The second thing that I find very irritating really comes into play during football season. On football Saturdays around 3:30 EST there is a bunch of great games getting started up, and the 12:00 and 12:30 games are ending. Way too often people switch the channel to the 3:30 game and leave it there because that is the marquee match-up. No, please no! The proper way to handle this situation is to record that marquee match-up and watch the exciting finishes of the early games. And when there is a commercial break with 2:00 to go, switch to another game that started at 3:30 or any other game but not the marquee game. You need to wait until you've watched all the good finishes from the early games before you start the 3:30 one. Now, once you've done this it should be close to 4:00 and you may be itching yourself to get started on that marquee game but just cool-it, this is watching TV a real-man's way. You've just seen all the great finishes without relegating yourself to having to watch it on Sportscenter, and most notably you can skip through all the commercials in the first half of that marquee game! So now you'll have non-stop action for the next hour+. The same scenario goes for NFL games between the early and late kickoffs.
And that brings me to my next point. Have some patience and start games 30-45 late so you can skip the commercials. Who cares about commercials? Unless you're just really excited to start the game and there are no other games on. If you're out with your wife or girlfriend why piss her off by leaving early to catch the start of the game...think ahead, record the game and when you get home you'll be able to watch the whole thing without commercials! If you've got to check the grill, pause the game, you can fast-forward later through the commercials. When the hunger attack strikes at halftime and you need to go get some wings, don't become a victim by missing the first 5 minutes of the 3rd quarter because they didn't have your order ready, you should have been recording it so you can start with the second half kick. Commercials and the DVR are vital important tools, use them to your advantage.
This next one is very counter-cultural, folks don't like it when I do this. People fuss and say it is stupid. So maybe it's not for you or the people your watching with, but I think it's great. When two people are after one TV to watch two separate games then record them both. Obviously this leaves out any watching other games since most DVRs can only record two things at once. But start the first game and watch it all the way to the end of the first quarter, then start the other game and do the same thing. Do this until both games are finished. What you'll find is both people get to watch their games in their entirety. And, the run time in most games is almost double the actual time so in the end you'll actually only be about 30 minutes past the point when the games actually ended.
All this said, throw all these rules out for the Superbowl because the commercials are an American tradition, you have to watch them, however, if you had to pee in the 2nd quarter, just pause and fast-forward during the lame halftime show. And if you don't have a DVR, I don't know what you're doing. You probably need to cancel your internet connection and get one.
If you don't have a DVR, or you do but are watching live action, then you probably need to know when to switch channels to see what's going on in the other game. Well, for one don't use rapid fire with the previous channel button. No one wants to watch one second of a game and risk their eyes convulsing because of the quick change of colors rolling over on the tube. If a play ended in football, you've got 40 seconds before the next one starts so it's ok to leave it on the other game for 15-20 seconds before you change it back, even if nothing's happening...the announcer might tell what just happened or what's about to happen. If it's basketball then just wait until a timeout or someone's at the free throw line...if it's baseball, wait a minute there's no reason to be watching more than one baseball game at a time. And make sure you have a good time clock in your head of commercial times when you're in charge of the remote. Don't leave it on the game in the 2nd quarter for 3 minutes during a commercial break for the tie game with 1:15 left to play! You need to know that commercial breaks are different for each phase of the game. During a timeout they are about 60 seconds, after a kickoff they are about 3 minutes, after a punt they are about 90 seconds. Halftime they are 4 minutes. Know your stuff and get the TV controlling instincts or just sit on the couch and watch!
That is all the major stuff. Whether you're by yourself or with your friends, there is a way to watch the games. There is a way to catch the most action you can and still not miss the game you really want to see. It may take some practice, but it's really not that hard. If you're not a big sports fan but your watching sports in your home with someone who is, then just give them the remote control.
JB
Monday, July 26, 2010
Omelets & Hamburgers
Two of the best meals you can have are omelets and hamburgers. While there are many meals that taste better, there aren't very many that are as versatile. While an omelet is mainly for breakfast, you can eat it for lunch or dinner too. Vise-versa with a hamburger although a hamburger for breakfast doesn't sound appealing. These two meals are great and I'll tell you why.
I used to be someone who just put ham and cheese on my omelet. And I was someone who just put mayonnaise, mustard, ketchup, maybe a pickle, maybe some lettuce on my hamburger. Now, I pity the people who do that each and every time they form up their omelet or hamburger.
Omelets and hamburgers are the most versatile foods because you can put almost anything in them and it will be great! You can experiment a million times and it will give you a great tasting meal. Just follow a couple basic rules and then be creative with your taste buds.
Omelets:
You always need a meat and a cheese. This goes for the standard ham and cheese (cheddar), but goes a few steps further. Use sausage, bacon, turkey, roast beef, crab, etc. Anything that looks good put it in there, but remember you need the meat because this is a meal and you need it to fill you up. Next is cheese. Cheese is your most important ingredient, you can go down my list of Cheeses and experiment if you want to. Put some cream cheese, American, blue cheese, pepperjack...anything in there and it will give it the flavor. And you can leave your omelet here but why do that if you've got some more stuff in the fridge. Put some mushrooms in there, maybe some jalapenos, sauteed onion, hot sauce, diced tomatoes, anything that you like! The key is don't think, "well I like these, but I don't think they'll be good in an omelet". Nonsense! Throw it in there, it will be good if you like the ingredients.
Suggestion 1: Cream cheese, blue cheese crumbles, diced jalepenos and bacon
Suggestion 2: Shredded white American cheese, crab, diced sauteed mushrooms and chives
Hamburger:
The rule is meat and bread. With a sub-rule of don't use pre-made patties because that just isn't enough beef, and your toppings will overpower it. Use some ground chuck or ground beef and form your own. I prefer ground chuck because it will hold it's shape a lot better than ground beef. (Don't forget that ground beef is cheaper because it has more fat in it, once you put it on the grill the fat is going to cook out and it's going to shrink so you'll end up with the same amount of meat anyway.) From there put whatever you want on the burger. Bacon, mustard, B-B-Q sauce, mayonnaise, lettuce, tomato, blue cheese crumbles, onion, grilled onion, guacamole, ketchup, hot sauce, chipolte mayo, whatever kind of cheese you can think of, etc.
Suggestion 1: Mayo, bacon, blue cheese crumbles, grilled onion, tomato and lettuce
Suggestion 2: Chipolte mayo, onion, slice of pepperjack cheese, jalepenos, lettuce, tomato, a dab of hot sauce and of course and napkin to wipe the sweat off your forehead.
Preparation:
Omelet - Wisk 3 eggs, put in a skillet on medium heat for 10 minutes, start putting the ingredients in around the 7th minute.
Hamburger - Put a squirt of mustard, Worcestershire, and a fair amount of Montreal seasoning in the ground chuck and form the burgers.
If you are a fan of eating good food and trying new things then your sure to enjoy endless fun with omelets and hamburgers!
JB
I used to be someone who just put ham and cheese on my omelet. And I was someone who just put mayonnaise, mustard, ketchup, maybe a pickle, maybe some lettuce on my hamburger. Now, I pity the people who do that each and every time they form up their omelet or hamburger.
Omelets and hamburgers are the most versatile foods because you can put almost anything in them and it will be great! You can experiment a million times and it will give you a great tasting meal. Just follow a couple basic rules and then be creative with your taste buds.
Omelets:
You always need a meat and a cheese. This goes for the standard ham and cheese (cheddar), but goes a few steps further. Use sausage, bacon, turkey, roast beef, crab, etc. Anything that looks good put it in there, but remember you need the meat because this is a meal and you need it to fill you up. Next is cheese. Cheese is your most important ingredient, you can go down my list of Cheeses and experiment if you want to. Put some cream cheese, American, blue cheese, pepperjack...anything in there and it will give it the flavor. And you can leave your omelet here but why do that if you've got some more stuff in the fridge. Put some mushrooms in there, maybe some jalapenos, sauteed onion, hot sauce, diced tomatoes, anything that you like! The key is don't think, "well I like these, but I don't think they'll be good in an omelet". Nonsense! Throw it in there, it will be good if you like the ingredients.
Suggestion 1: Cream cheese, blue cheese crumbles, diced jalepenos and bacon
Suggestion 2: Shredded white American cheese, crab, diced sauteed mushrooms and chives
Hamburger:
The rule is meat and bread. With a sub-rule of don't use pre-made patties because that just isn't enough beef, and your toppings will overpower it. Use some ground chuck or ground beef and form your own. I prefer ground chuck because it will hold it's shape a lot better than ground beef. (Don't forget that ground beef is cheaper because it has more fat in it, once you put it on the grill the fat is going to cook out and it's going to shrink so you'll end up with the same amount of meat anyway.) From there put whatever you want on the burger. Bacon, mustard, B-B-Q sauce, mayonnaise, lettuce, tomato, blue cheese crumbles, onion, grilled onion, guacamole, ketchup, hot sauce, chipolte mayo, whatever kind of cheese you can think of, etc.
Suggestion 1: Mayo, bacon, blue cheese crumbles, grilled onion, tomato and lettuce
Suggestion 2: Chipolte mayo, onion, slice of pepperjack cheese, jalepenos, lettuce, tomato, a dab of hot sauce and of course and napkin to wipe the sweat off your forehead.
Preparation:
Omelet - Wisk 3 eggs, put in a skillet on medium heat for 10 minutes, start putting the ingredients in around the 7th minute.
Hamburger - Put a squirt of mustard, Worcestershire, and a fair amount of Montreal seasoning in the ground chuck and form the burgers.
If you are a fan of eating good food and trying new things then your sure to enjoy endless fun with omelets and hamburgers!
JB
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Concerts
I've been to a bunch of concerts. Pretty much all of them have been within the last 10 years, since I was old enough to go without my parents. I've seen rock bands, jam bands, country artists, pop, etc. Bottom line, I've been to enough concerts to conclude that they are one of the most over-rated things in American culture.
People say to me, you don't like going to concerts? Are you crazy? No, I'm not because I've gone through the same routine about 30 times and it's always the same.
First, I hear about the artist that is coming to town. Then I go and buy a ticket, which was way over-priced for 90% of the concerts I've been to. Unless it's a jam band, then you probably arn't going to get anything much more than you get on their album. No improv, cool guitar solos, or a great cover of a song where they gave the song a face lift and it was awesome. So do I really have to pay $40-50 to see them play for an hour and a half?
Assuming you don't have to travel any distance to see this concert, you pay for parking, then go to your seat. Or maybe there are no seats at the concert, just a bunch of people standing in front of the stage. If that's the case then you can forget about concessions unless you want to give up your spot, which you may have sacrificed 2 hours of your time, endured sweaty armpits in the face, and seen a couple worthless opening acts to get. But maybe it's at a good venue where you have a seat and you can enjoy the opening acts in a comfortable atmosphere. So after talking really loudly (if your in an arena) to your friends for an hour or two it's finally time for the artist you came to see take the stage.
If you're in front of the stage then without a doubt you are standing up. I really don't like standing up at a concert. What's the point? Unless your going to dance with your significant other, what is the point? And most likely you can't dance with them because you are squeezed between a bunch of sweaty people you don't know. But maybe you have a seat. Well, the person in front of you is probably going to stand up when they start playing their hit songs so you can either stand up too or just not see it. But why do you need to see it anyway, arn't you there to listen. Concerts are pretty boring to watch unless they have pyrotechnics. I mean, just watch one on TV. Bor-ing. So whether you are sitting or standing, what exactly do you do with yourself at a concert? Assuming you arn't that person who gets completely hammered and is flailing their arms up and down, what do you do? Should I dance? No, don't really care to stand here and dance like a moron. Should I raise my hands and act like I'm having some kind of incredible connection with the song? I don't think so. What I'd really like to do is sit here, or stand here, eat my nachos and drink a beer while talking to my friends with the band playing in the background. And when it comes to a song we really love, we'll stop and sing-a-long. But it won't be background music, instead it will be really loud and if it is in an arena then my ears are going to ring for about 5 hours afterwords.
And what's up with the people at concerts? If you go to a rock concert, it's a bunch of bikers and weirdos wearing black shirts and nasty hair. If you go to a jam band concert, it's a bunch of hippies...a pop concert a bunch of teenage girls screaming, a country concert there a ton on rednecks. For me, just a regular middle-class suburban white boy, the only concerts I can go to where people look like me is for an artist whose members average age is 60+. But really those are the best concerts to go to and not because people look like I do. It's because the musicians giving the show don't find it important to intoxicate themselves before or during the show, and they are at the top of their craft having done this for many years. So I'm basically saying they are professionals. I want them to entertain me, that means a sober performance with good instrument playing and engaging music.
The only reason I can think of to go to a concert is if someone gave me a ticket. There is just no reason to pay for all these annoyances. Instead of spending $45 on a ticket, maybe I'll just buy 3 of their albums and enjoy them repeatedly in the comfort of my own home.
JB
People say to me, you don't like going to concerts? Are you crazy? No, I'm not because I've gone through the same routine about 30 times and it's always the same.
First, I hear about the artist that is coming to town. Then I go and buy a ticket, which was way over-priced for 90% of the concerts I've been to. Unless it's a jam band, then you probably arn't going to get anything much more than you get on their album. No improv, cool guitar solos, or a great cover of a song where they gave the song a face lift and it was awesome. So do I really have to pay $40-50 to see them play for an hour and a half?
Assuming you don't have to travel any distance to see this concert, you pay for parking, then go to your seat. Or maybe there are no seats at the concert, just a bunch of people standing in front of the stage. If that's the case then you can forget about concessions unless you want to give up your spot, which you may have sacrificed 2 hours of your time, endured sweaty armpits in the face, and seen a couple worthless opening acts to get. But maybe it's at a good venue where you have a seat and you can enjoy the opening acts in a comfortable atmosphere. So after talking really loudly (if your in an arena) to your friends for an hour or two it's finally time for the artist you came to see take the stage.
If you're in front of the stage then without a doubt you are standing up. I really don't like standing up at a concert. What's the point? Unless your going to dance with your significant other, what is the point? And most likely you can't dance with them because you are squeezed between a bunch of sweaty people you don't know. But maybe you have a seat. Well, the person in front of you is probably going to stand up when they start playing their hit songs so you can either stand up too or just not see it. But why do you need to see it anyway, arn't you there to listen. Concerts are pretty boring to watch unless they have pyrotechnics. I mean, just watch one on TV. Bor-ing. So whether you are sitting or standing, what exactly do you do with yourself at a concert? Assuming you arn't that person who gets completely hammered and is flailing their arms up and down, what do you do? Should I dance? No, don't really care to stand here and dance like a moron. Should I raise my hands and act like I'm having some kind of incredible connection with the song? I don't think so. What I'd really like to do is sit here, or stand here, eat my nachos and drink a beer while talking to my friends with the band playing in the background. And when it comes to a song we really love, we'll stop and sing-a-long. But it won't be background music, instead it will be really loud and if it is in an arena then my ears are going to ring for about 5 hours afterwords.
And what's up with the people at concerts? If you go to a rock concert, it's a bunch of bikers and weirdos wearing black shirts and nasty hair. If you go to a jam band concert, it's a bunch of hippies...a pop concert a bunch of teenage girls screaming, a country concert there a ton on rednecks. For me, just a regular middle-class suburban white boy, the only concerts I can go to where people look like me is for an artist whose members average age is 60+. But really those are the best concerts to go to and not because people look like I do. It's because the musicians giving the show don't find it important to intoxicate themselves before or during the show, and they are at the top of their craft having done this for many years. So I'm basically saying they are professionals. I want them to entertain me, that means a sober performance with good instrument playing and engaging music.
The only reason I can think of to go to a concert is if someone gave me a ticket. There is just no reason to pay for all these annoyances. Instead of spending $45 on a ticket, maybe I'll just buy 3 of their albums and enjoy them repeatedly in the comfort of my own home.
JB
Friday, July 23, 2010
The NCAA, Agents & College Football
In the last few days there has been a rash of accusations that college players have been given improper benefits by agents which has compromised their eligibility. The NCAA is now investigating North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, and Georgia. Southern California has been put on heavy probation for agent tampering with Reggie Bush when he was there. Why is all this coming out now? Is it because it has gotten so bad that the NCAA has had enough and is cracking down hard? Is it because these players and agents were too obvious and got caught? Is there a conspiracy brewing against the SEC since they have won the last 4 BCS title games and are running away with college football? I've come up with that last one on my own, but I think this is all a combination of all three.
Agents tampering with players seems to be a huge problem. I've heard a lot of solutions:
- Get the NFL Players Association to ban an agent's license if they are found to give improper benefits to college players
- Don't let agents on college campuses
- Pay college athletes so they won't take the money
- Develop a rookie pay scale in the NFL so the agents won't have much incentive to tamper with the players
- Develop more ways to educate players on agents and their schemes
- Let college football players have agents so agents won't be hunting them
Those are a few of the arguments I've heard. The problem with them is that they all have major drawbacks. It's hard to trace what agent the money came from. If you don't let agents on campus, deals will happen on the street corner. If you pay an athlete, does the star player get more - what about basketball, baseball, softball players? Won't agents still contact players even if they're not going to make $20 million on a rookie contract - maybe they will give them $10K instead of $50K. Educate all you want, this is still going to happen. If you let them have agents won't it just transfer the problem to high schools?
What exactly is the problem with agents giving money to players? Oh yeah, it violates their amateur status. What is this? Golf, tennis, the Olympics? I don't think so, who cares about amateur status. The only guys these agents are going after are 1st and 2nd round picks, maybe a few 3rd round picks because those are the guys who are going to make the money. So set up a time frame, maybe from the end of spring practice until July 15th where agents can sit down on campus with an assistant coach and the player and make their pitch, and an offer to that player. What is wrong with a star wide receiver or linebacker signing a contract with an agent after his sophomore or junior year and getting a check for $40,000. Now he can take advantage of his talents and buy a car or send some money to his parents. Maybe more players will finish school since they've already gotten some money.
As long as the school itself, its boosters and fans are not giving that player money to come there or stay there then I don't see anything wrong with it. If it was legal for the player to accept the "signing bonus" then you could get rid of runners and other misleading people and the player can meet the agent face-to-face and make an informed decision with guidance from coaches, parents, etc. The confusion, gray areas, and wasted time by the NCAA would be put to rest.
Will any of this ever happen? Of course not! For one, I am in the way down deep minority on this because I've never even heard anyone say this was a good idea. I've had to come up with it on my own so I know the NCAA would never even table this discussion. But even if this was a topic, the NCAA would shoot it down because they are a worthless monopoly that needs to be done away with. The NCAA is worse than the federal government. They can pass down judgment with no recourse. At least the federal government has three branches to provide checks and balances. The NCAA investigates where they want to, what they want to, they put whatever probation they want to on whoever they want to. Who's winning these days? Ah, let's investigate them! My wife doesn't like that school...ah, let's investigate them! Let's pass a rule that no one agrees with just because we can! Let's spend years on end investigating a violation, leave the school and fan base on pins and needles for years before we pass our biased judgements!
Well this could all be fixed if the conferences would break off and separate from the NCAA, thereby not having to be ruled under their judgment. The problem is, they are under the illusion that the NCAA is good for college athletics. However, the saving grace may be getting a playoff system. I've already stated my many ways to formulate a college football playoff, now if they'll break away from the NCAA's dictatorship we'll be free to enjoy the greatest sport of all. And the simple fix for finding violations and infractions would be to hire multiple private organizations to continually investigate each school to make sure they are on the up and up.
Maybe the players are to blame for taking money while they are still in school. Or maybe it's the agents or maybe both. Who's job is it to correct the problem, the NFL? Well how about the NCAA! If the NCAA would just pass some rules that make sense instead of creating rules and sub-rules and blah, blah, blah. But since they won't do this, let's just get rid of them and start fresh.
JB
Agents tampering with players seems to be a huge problem. I've heard a lot of solutions:
- Get the NFL Players Association to ban an agent's license if they are found to give improper benefits to college players
- Don't let agents on college campuses
- Pay college athletes so they won't take the money
- Develop a rookie pay scale in the NFL so the agents won't have much incentive to tamper with the players
- Develop more ways to educate players on agents and their schemes
- Let college football players have agents so agents won't be hunting them
Those are a few of the arguments I've heard. The problem with them is that they all have major drawbacks. It's hard to trace what agent the money came from. If you don't let agents on campus, deals will happen on the street corner. If you pay an athlete, does the star player get more - what about basketball, baseball, softball players? Won't agents still contact players even if they're not going to make $20 million on a rookie contract - maybe they will give them $10K instead of $50K. Educate all you want, this is still going to happen. If you let them have agents won't it just transfer the problem to high schools?
What exactly is the problem with agents giving money to players? Oh yeah, it violates their amateur status. What is this? Golf, tennis, the Olympics? I don't think so, who cares about amateur status. The only guys these agents are going after are 1st and 2nd round picks, maybe a few 3rd round picks because those are the guys who are going to make the money. So set up a time frame, maybe from the end of spring practice until July 15th where agents can sit down on campus with an assistant coach and the player and make their pitch, and an offer to that player. What is wrong with a star wide receiver or linebacker signing a contract with an agent after his sophomore or junior year and getting a check for $40,000. Now he can take advantage of his talents and buy a car or send some money to his parents. Maybe more players will finish school since they've already gotten some money.
As long as the school itself, its boosters and fans are not giving that player money to come there or stay there then I don't see anything wrong with it. If it was legal for the player to accept the "signing bonus" then you could get rid of runners and other misleading people and the player can meet the agent face-to-face and make an informed decision with guidance from coaches, parents, etc. The confusion, gray areas, and wasted time by the NCAA would be put to rest.
Will any of this ever happen? Of course not! For one, I am in the way down deep minority on this because I've never even heard anyone say this was a good idea. I've had to come up with it on my own so I know the NCAA would never even table this discussion. But even if this was a topic, the NCAA would shoot it down because they are a worthless monopoly that needs to be done away with. The NCAA is worse than the federal government. They can pass down judgment with no recourse. At least the federal government has three branches to provide checks and balances. The NCAA investigates where they want to, what they want to, they put whatever probation they want to on whoever they want to. Who's winning these days? Ah, let's investigate them! My wife doesn't like that school...ah, let's investigate them! Let's pass a rule that no one agrees with just because we can! Let's spend years on end investigating a violation, leave the school and fan base on pins and needles for years before we pass our biased judgements!
Well this could all be fixed if the conferences would break off and separate from the NCAA, thereby not having to be ruled under their judgment. The problem is, they are under the illusion that the NCAA is good for college athletics. However, the saving grace may be getting a playoff system. I've already stated my many ways to formulate a college football playoff, now if they'll break away from the NCAA's dictatorship we'll be free to enjoy the greatest sport of all. And the simple fix for finding violations and infractions would be to hire multiple private organizations to continually investigate each school to make sure they are on the up and up.
Maybe the players are to blame for taking money while they are still in school. Or maybe it's the agents or maybe both. Who's job is it to correct the problem, the NFL? Well how about the NCAA! If the NCAA would just pass some rules that make sense instead of creating rules and sub-rules and blah, blah, blah. But since they won't do this, let's just get rid of them and start fresh.
JB
Thursday, July 22, 2010
LeBron Joining the Heat
People are making a very big deal about LeBron James joining established superstars in Miami in an attempt to dominate the NBA and win multiple championships. People are not only upset he had a 1-hour prime time special which broke the hearts of Cleveland fans, but that superstars like Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson didn't leave their teams to win championships, so why is LeBron doing it? I've never been a LeBron fan so to speak, just a fan of his talent and I root for the Hawks, but I really don't understand the big fuss.
There was no reason for him to stay in Cleveland. Just because he grew up there doesn't mean he needs to stay there his whole career. He never demanded a trade, he honored his contract and did the best he could. He made the now ungrateful owner a ton of money, and pumped money into the pathetic city of Cleveland. And the reality is he would've stayed except Chris Bosh didn't want to play in Cleveland because the city sucks.
The main reason he left is because he wants to win 7 NBA titles, or more if Kobe Bryant gets more. He didn't want to only get one with Cleveland, he wants more rings than Jordan...that is the bottom line. Is that the wrong approach? Probably, it's greedy and lacks humility. I would be critical if he was a vocal Christian and was demonstrating these qualities, but he's not, he's an NBA player and those qualities don't matter here. He wants to go down as the best ever, and in my estimation there is a good chance that he will. At first I thought he should have gone to Chicago because they have a great nucleus and in Miami it would be 3 great players and a bunch of scrubs, but Miami has assembled a great team and if they don't win it all 4 of the next 6 years I will be surprised. After his contract is up I think he will leave Dwayne Wade and head back to Cleveland or go to New York (Knicks or Nets) and have 7-8 years to win 2-3 more championships. That way he'll do it on his own and have more rings than Wade.
Another group of people upset with this move are the ones that say past superstars didn't do this. Well, they didn't have to. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were drafted by the two winning-est franchises in the NBA and they surrounded them with great players. They were able to win early and often in their careers and never had to leave their original teams. Michael Jordan, who is probably the best ever was fortunate that the Bulls had the #5 overall pick in 1987 to draft Scottie Pippen. Most people compare LeBron to Jordan because after all, that is who he is chasing, but LeBron didn't have anyone in Cleveland who could hold a candle to Pippen. I've heard that Pippen was a role player, well he was much more than that. He is without a doubt the greatest sidekick in sports history because he recognized Jordan was better and let him have the team while he played a great supporting role. When Jordan played baseball, Pippen led the Bulls to a record that was only 3 games less than the previous season, finished 3rd in the MVP voting, and took the Knicks (who went to the Finals) to 7 games. That is not something a role player does. So the Jordan & Pippen combo is equivalent to Shaq & Kobe in my opinion, two GREAT players on the same team.
And while those players never left their teams, there were many other players during the same era who should have done what Lebron did if they wanted to win it all. Patrick Ewing only made it to the Finals when Jordan was not playing ('94 & '99), Karl Malone could never get past Jordan (even with John Stockton), Hakeem Olajuwon won two rings - the year Jordan was gone, and the year he played the final month of the season (he would never have won it if Jordan hadn't left). Charles Barkley, Reggie Miller, the list goes on. Those players could have left their team to join other superstars and create a great team...but they didn't, and now they wish they had rings but criticize Lebron for making a different choice even though he was a FREE agent.
And then there is another group of people who are mad at LeBron & ESPN for televising his 1-hour "The Decision". Well, that is stupid because practically every sports fan watched it. Not only that, but Jim Grey was on a radio show I was listening to that morning and he said the whole thing was his idea! And all the proceeds went to charity! And it's not like LeBron took away from anything ESPN was going to show at 9PM on a Thursday night in the middle of the summer. There was nothing on TV, July is the worst sports month, which is most of the reason why ESPN talked about LeBron non-stop anyway. That is why they go down to Mississippi and watch Brett Favre every summer, there is nothing going on in July except baseball! I don't blame LeBron or ESPN, it wasn't that big of a deal, it was compelling TV on a otherwise boring Thursday night in the middle of the summer. Was the whole thing a shove in Cleveland's face? No, because on July 1st LeBron James was no longer employed by the Cavaliers.
In my opinion LeBron put money ($3-4 mil a year) and ego (playing on D-Wade's team) aside for the chance to be on a championship team. He should be praised for that instead of being called a traitor and a lackey. Chris Paul is the one who should be getting all the criticism, he is under contract but is demanding a trade, LeBron honored his contract. I'm not too happy about the mega teams because the Hawks pretty much have no chance unless there's a rash of injuries which doesn't make its way to Atlanta. But I don't understand all the hatred towards Bron Bron, it should make for an exciting season and I will be rooting against the Heat without a doubt.
JB
There was no reason for him to stay in Cleveland. Just because he grew up there doesn't mean he needs to stay there his whole career. He never demanded a trade, he honored his contract and did the best he could. He made the now ungrateful owner a ton of money, and pumped money into the pathetic city of Cleveland. And the reality is he would've stayed except Chris Bosh didn't want to play in Cleveland because the city sucks.
The main reason he left is because he wants to win 7 NBA titles, or more if Kobe Bryant gets more. He didn't want to only get one with Cleveland, he wants more rings than Jordan...that is the bottom line. Is that the wrong approach? Probably, it's greedy and lacks humility. I would be critical if he was a vocal Christian and was demonstrating these qualities, but he's not, he's an NBA player and those qualities don't matter here. He wants to go down as the best ever, and in my estimation there is a good chance that he will. At first I thought he should have gone to Chicago because they have a great nucleus and in Miami it would be 3 great players and a bunch of scrubs, but Miami has assembled a great team and if they don't win it all 4 of the next 6 years I will be surprised. After his contract is up I think he will leave Dwayne Wade and head back to Cleveland or go to New York (Knicks or Nets) and have 7-8 years to win 2-3 more championships. That way he'll do it on his own and have more rings than Wade.
Another group of people upset with this move are the ones that say past superstars didn't do this. Well, they didn't have to. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were drafted by the two winning-est franchises in the NBA and they surrounded them with great players. They were able to win early and often in their careers and never had to leave their original teams. Michael Jordan, who is probably the best ever was fortunate that the Bulls had the #5 overall pick in 1987 to draft Scottie Pippen. Most people compare LeBron to Jordan because after all, that is who he is chasing, but LeBron didn't have anyone in Cleveland who could hold a candle to Pippen. I've heard that Pippen was a role player, well he was much more than that. He is without a doubt the greatest sidekick in sports history because he recognized Jordan was better and let him have the team while he played a great supporting role. When Jordan played baseball, Pippen led the Bulls to a record that was only 3 games less than the previous season, finished 3rd in the MVP voting, and took the Knicks (who went to the Finals) to 7 games. That is not something a role player does. So the Jordan & Pippen combo is equivalent to Shaq & Kobe in my opinion, two GREAT players on the same team.
And while those players never left their teams, there were many other players during the same era who should have done what Lebron did if they wanted to win it all. Patrick Ewing only made it to the Finals when Jordan was not playing ('94 & '99), Karl Malone could never get past Jordan (even with John Stockton), Hakeem Olajuwon won two rings - the year Jordan was gone, and the year he played the final month of the season (he would never have won it if Jordan hadn't left). Charles Barkley, Reggie Miller, the list goes on. Those players could have left their team to join other superstars and create a great team...but they didn't, and now they wish they had rings but criticize Lebron for making a different choice even though he was a FREE agent.
And then there is another group of people who are mad at LeBron & ESPN for televising his 1-hour "The Decision". Well, that is stupid because practically every sports fan watched it. Not only that, but Jim Grey was on a radio show I was listening to that morning and he said the whole thing was his idea! And all the proceeds went to charity! And it's not like LeBron took away from anything ESPN was going to show at 9PM on a Thursday night in the middle of the summer. There was nothing on TV, July is the worst sports month, which is most of the reason why ESPN talked about LeBron non-stop anyway. That is why they go down to Mississippi and watch Brett Favre every summer, there is nothing going on in July except baseball! I don't blame LeBron or ESPN, it wasn't that big of a deal, it was compelling TV on a otherwise boring Thursday night in the middle of the summer. Was the whole thing a shove in Cleveland's face? No, because on July 1st LeBron James was no longer employed by the Cavaliers.
In my opinion LeBron put money ($3-4 mil a year) and ego (playing on D-Wade's team) aside for the chance to be on a championship team. He should be praised for that instead of being called a traitor and a lackey. Chris Paul is the one who should be getting all the criticism, he is under contract but is demanding a trade, LeBron honored his contract. I'm not too happy about the mega teams because the Hawks pretty much have no chance unless there's a rash of injuries which doesn't make its way to Atlanta. But I don't understand all the hatred towards Bron Bron, it should make for an exciting season and I will be rooting against the Heat without a doubt.
JB
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Cheeses
I love cheese. There are so many different kinds of cheeses. You can melt cheese and put it into some food, you can put a slice of it on a sandwich, you can shred it, you can do anything with it. Each different type of cheese has a unique flavor and you can put cheese on almost anything and it will make it taste better, or at the very least give it a different flavor. Just thinking about cheese is making my mouth water.
I am still a novice when it comes to cheese knowledge, but I have a few favorites ranked below. Of course, this is based on what I have tried. I may have forgotten some but I know I've included the main ones that I dream about at night.
1. Pepperjack
2. Blue Cheese
3. American
4. Cream Cheese
5. Mozzarella
6. Fontina
7. Monterrey Jack
8. Provolone
9. Gouda
10. White Mexican Cheese
11. Colby-Jack
12. Swiss
13. Cheddar
14. Ricotta
In my opinion, the best way to buy cheese is to have it sliced at the local deli from a huge block of cheese. Unless you are melting the cheese, then you can just buy a small block of it.
There are a ton of cheeses in the world. You could spend a lifetime making your way through all the Italian cheeses. Eating cheeses, and experimenting with them is very fun. Something doesn't taste that good? Melt some cheese and pour on top of it! You're hungry, only have a couple of ingredients but one of them is cheese? Then put them together and make something great because you have cheese! I love cheese!
JB
I am still a novice when it comes to cheese knowledge, but I have a few favorites ranked below. Of course, this is based on what I have tried. I may have forgotten some but I know I've included the main ones that I dream about at night.
1. Pepperjack
2. Blue Cheese
3. American
4. Cream Cheese
5. Mozzarella
6. Fontina
7. Monterrey Jack
8. Provolone
9. Gouda
10. White Mexican Cheese
11. Colby-Jack
12. Swiss
13. Cheddar
14. Ricotta
In my opinion, the best way to buy cheese is to have it sliced at the local deli from a huge block of cheese. Unless you are melting the cheese, then you can just buy a small block of it.
There are a ton of cheeses in the world. You could spend a lifetime making your way through all the Italian cheeses. Eating cheeses, and experimenting with them is very fun. Something doesn't taste that good? Melt some cheese and pour on top of it! You're hungry, only have a couple of ingredients but one of them is cheese? Then put them together and make something great because you have cheese! I love cheese!
JB
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
College Football Playoff
Should there be a college football playoff? Yes. Basically because one or two, maybe even three teams get left out almost every year, and even though we probably know they arn't as good as the two teams at the top, wouldn't it be nice to find out on the field? Who can argue with more football?
I've heard all the arguments on a playoff vs. the current system. The one thing I like from the current system is how much emphasis is placed on the regular season. Without a doubt, there is no debate that the college football regular season is the most exciting in all of sports. Even if a team is not chasing a championship, they (and the fan base) have something invested in each game because of the rivalries and bragging rights. That is something that is the utmost of importance to maintain.
So what is the best way to do a playoff? Initially, I thought taking the 11 conference champions and then 5 at-large teams would be best. A lot of people like this solution. It would offer 4 rounds, with the first round to be played at the higher seeds home field. The main reason I don't like this is you're basically making this college basketball where the regular season is dwarfed to nothing. In basketball, does anyone really pay much attention to a January matchup between #1 Duke vs. #4 Wake Forest? Other than college basketball junkies, not that many people are going to make plans to watch because the outcome really has almost no meaning other than a measuring stick for those teams. So I don't want #2 Texas vs. #3 Oklahoma to turn into just another game since we all know they will make it into the playoffs. The Red River Shootout IS A PLAYOFF GAME. That is round one, it is just in October instead of December. And sure, the 16 team field lets even the little guys have a chance, but that model is just too big.
The next suggestion is 8 teams. You could do this one several ways. You could just let the BCS formula pick the top 8 teams and play on from there, or you could pick 6 BCS conference champs and 2 at-large. Or you could take all of the conference champions (11), give the top 5 a bye and let the bottom 6 duke it out in a play-in round to advance to the round of 8. I used to be in favor of the conference champions, but really all that does it dumb down the regular season as well. Maybe not to the extent of a 16-team playoff, but each team would only focus on its conference. Games like Florida St. vs. Florida and USC vs. Notre Dame would have a whole lot less meaning. Plus, coaches wouldn't want to get their players hurt playing in a game without meaning, especially the week before the conference championship game. If an 8-team playoff was going to be the case, it would be best to have the BCS formula pick the top 8 teams because at least teams will play out their seasons. For example, if you only took conference champions and Florida was 9-0 (7-0 in the SEC), and had already wrapped up the SEC East, they could cruise and lose 2 out of the last 3 games without any worries like the Colts do every year in the NFL. But at least having to be in the top 8 would force them to play those games the best they can knowing they need to maintain that rank. I like this scenario because it would be really exciting. You could play the first round on New Year's Day. Then play the semi-finals about 10-11 days later, and the championship game during the off week before the Superbowl. You could use the BCS bowl locations as hosts of each game, rotating each year. What I don't like about this is the logistics of having a school's fans purchasing airline tickets, game tickets, hotel reservations, etc. for possibly 3 games in one month at distant locations. Sure, the same fans might not attend each game, but many schools probably don't have enough fans to fill 40,000 seats 3 times over with those parameters. The other thing I don't like is that the 7th & 8th teams, maybe even the 6th probably don't deserve a shot because they have 2, maybe 3 losses. But with this you would be assured of giving the teams that deserve a shot, a shot at the title.
The next scenario is one I got from Phil Steele, who I know has given it a lot of thought. A four team playoff. The first two games would be just after all of the bowl games, and then the championship game would be during the off week before the Superbowl. This means only two games for fans to attend, and you would know the top 4 teams deserve to be there. You probably have a 50% chance of having the #4 team with 2 losses, but I think it would be worth it for the years when there are 4 undefeated teams. When there are 5 undefeated teams, then I don't know what to say other than sorry, bad luck this year. You could have a play-in game but is that fair for the #4 team, they may really be #2? I would just leave it at 4. And I would make a stipulation that you have to win your conference. That might get a little hazy like when Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech all had 7-1 conference records, but each conference needs to make up a tie-breaker and have a conference championship game. My suggestion in the case of that 3-way tie would be to come to a pre-determined location on the Monday following the final weekend and play it out. Play a round-robin of overtime rules until somebody wins.
The final scenario is a plus-one. Many people advocate for this. The idea is that after all the bowls you come up with the top 2 teams and play a championship game. The idea behind this is that teams who play a weaker schedule will either be weeded out or rise to the front once they play a top-tier team in the bowl. This is a good idea except that it could, and in most cases probably would create more chaos when there are still 3 undefeated teams, or 3 really good 1-loss teams, or just no clear cut two teams. How do you decide? It may have been clear before the bowls but now it is worse. I don't like this idea for those reasons.
So my first choice is the 4-team playoff, but I could go for the 8-team playoff too. Both of them would keep the importance on the regular season, but ultimately I think the 4-team playoff has less drawbacks.
JB
I've heard all the arguments on a playoff vs. the current system. The one thing I like from the current system is how much emphasis is placed on the regular season. Without a doubt, there is no debate that the college football regular season is the most exciting in all of sports. Even if a team is not chasing a championship, they (and the fan base) have something invested in each game because of the rivalries and bragging rights. That is something that is the utmost of importance to maintain.
So what is the best way to do a playoff? Initially, I thought taking the 11 conference champions and then 5 at-large teams would be best. A lot of people like this solution. It would offer 4 rounds, with the first round to be played at the higher seeds home field. The main reason I don't like this is you're basically making this college basketball where the regular season is dwarfed to nothing. In basketball, does anyone really pay much attention to a January matchup between #1 Duke vs. #4 Wake Forest? Other than college basketball junkies, not that many people are going to make plans to watch because the outcome really has almost no meaning other than a measuring stick for those teams. So I don't want #2 Texas vs. #3 Oklahoma to turn into just another game since we all know they will make it into the playoffs. The Red River Shootout IS A PLAYOFF GAME. That is round one, it is just in October instead of December. And sure, the 16 team field lets even the little guys have a chance, but that model is just too big.
The next suggestion is 8 teams. You could do this one several ways. You could just let the BCS formula pick the top 8 teams and play on from there, or you could pick 6 BCS conference champs and 2 at-large. Or you could take all of the conference champions (11), give the top 5 a bye and let the bottom 6 duke it out in a play-in round to advance to the round of 8. I used to be in favor of the conference champions, but really all that does it dumb down the regular season as well. Maybe not to the extent of a 16-team playoff, but each team would only focus on its conference. Games like Florida St. vs. Florida and USC vs. Notre Dame would have a whole lot less meaning. Plus, coaches wouldn't want to get their players hurt playing in a game without meaning, especially the week before the conference championship game. If an 8-team playoff was going to be the case, it would be best to have the BCS formula pick the top 8 teams because at least teams will play out their seasons. For example, if you only took conference champions and Florida was 9-0 (7-0 in the SEC), and had already wrapped up the SEC East, they could cruise and lose 2 out of the last 3 games without any worries like the Colts do every year in the NFL. But at least having to be in the top 8 would force them to play those games the best they can knowing they need to maintain that rank. I like this scenario because it would be really exciting. You could play the first round on New Year's Day. Then play the semi-finals about 10-11 days later, and the championship game during the off week before the Superbowl. You could use the BCS bowl locations as hosts of each game, rotating each year. What I don't like about this is the logistics of having a school's fans purchasing airline tickets, game tickets, hotel reservations, etc. for possibly 3 games in one month at distant locations. Sure, the same fans might not attend each game, but many schools probably don't have enough fans to fill 40,000 seats 3 times over with those parameters. The other thing I don't like is that the 7th & 8th teams, maybe even the 6th probably don't deserve a shot because they have 2, maybe 3 losses. But with this you would be assured of giving the teams that deserve a shot, a shot at the title.
The next scenario is one I got from Phil Steele, who I know has given it a lot of thought. A four team playoff. The first two games would be just after all of the bowl games, and then the championship game would be during the off week before the Superbowl. This means only two games for fans to attend, and you would know the top 4 teams deserve to be there. You probably have a 50% chance of having the #4 team with 2 losses, but I think it would be worth it for the years when there are 4 undefeated teams. When there are 5 undefeated teams, then I don't know what to say other than sorry, bad luck this year. You could have a play-in game but is that fair for the #4 team, they may really be #2? I would just leave it at 4. And I would make a stipulation that you have to win your conference. That might get a little hazy like when Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech all had 7-1 conference records, but each conference needs to make up a tie-breaker and have a conference championship game. My suggestion in the case of that 3-way tie would be to come to a pre-determined location on the Monday following the final weekend and play it out. Play a round-robin of overtime rules until somebody wins.
The final scenario is a plus-one. Many people advocate for this. The idea is that after all the bowls you come up with the top 2 teams and play a championship game. The idea behind this is that teams who play a weaker schedule will either be weeded out or rise to the front once they play a top-tier team in the bowl. This is a good idea except that it could, and in most cases probably would create more chaos when there are still 3 undefeated teams, or 3 really good 1-loss teams, or just no clear cut two teams. How do you decide? It may have been clear before the bowls but now it is worse. I don't like this idea for those reasons.
So my first choice is the 4-team playoff, but I could go for the 8-team playoff too. Both of them would keep the importance on the regular season, but ultimately I think the 4-team playoff has less drawbacks.
JB
Monday, July 19, 2010
The Beginning of My Blog
Today, I started this blog. It is going to be about my opinions and what not.
I've heard people say that opinions are like butt-holes, everybody has one and they all stink. Well, that is their opinion and they probably don't wipe very well. Perhaps they should use a wet-wipe. My opinion on wet-wipes is they are very good to use if you have the means, however I wouldn't suggest using them if you don't have regular t.p. to follow up with because that won't be enjoyable for the following minutes after you've left the throne.
Nevertheless, I like opinions because without them how do you argue? I enjoy arguing, or as I like to call it...debating. If someone thinks a certain way and they voice their thought process, and you don't agree with them, in the appropriate venue then you should tell them your opinion and why their opinion is not good or ill-contrived. My way of thinking is not followed by many, but generally as I see it, if someone speaks an untruth, or some kind of position I don't agree with and no one in that setting rebukes it, then I make the assumption that they all agree with it or have no opinion. If I were to leave it at that all of those people might grasp onto that opinion and their mind could go astray, into the abyss of foolish thinking. So, I make my point so those people can get a fair and balanced view of the issue at hand. Some people call this arguing, I call it debating.
I've always thought to myself, maybe I'll write a book that states all my opinions, all the things I think people should be doing. People could read this book so they could live in harmony with me! Not really, I am not the most important person in the world but I think that the volumes of useless knowledge I have in my head can be used by those who appreciate it. So this blog is my book, all the things I've wanted to write down but have been to lazy to.
JB
I've heard people say that opinions are like butt-holes, everybody has one and they all stink. Well, that is their opinion and they probably don't wipe very well. Perhaps they should use a wet-wipe. My opinion on wet-wipes is they are very good to use if you have the means, however I wouldn't suggest using them if you don't have regular t.p. to follow up with because that won't be enjoyable for the following minutes after you've left the throne.
Nevertheless, I like opinions because without them how do you argue? I enjoy arguing, or as I like to call it...debating. If someone thinks a certain way and they voice their thought process, and you don't agree with them, in the appropriate venue then you should tell them your opinion and why their opinion is not good or ill-contrived. My way of thinking is not followed by many, but generally as I see it, if someone speaks an untruth, or some kind of position I don't agree with and no one in that setting rebukes it, then I make the assumption that they all agree with it or have no opinion. If I were to leave it at that all of those people might grasp onto that opinion and their mind could go astray, into the abyss of foolish thinking. So, I make my point so those people can get a fair and balanced view of the issue at hand. Some people call this arguing, I call it debating.
I've always thought to myself, maybe I'll write a book that states all my opinions, all the things I think people should be doing. People could read this book so they could live in harmony with me! Not really, I am not the most important person in the world but I think that the volumes of useless knowledge I have in my head can be used by those who appreciate it. So this blog is my book, all the things I've wanted to write down but have been to lazy to.
JB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)