Betting information courtesy of 5dimes.com at the time of post (this blog has no affiliation with that site)
January 14, 2012: 16:30 EST
New Orleans Saints (-3.5, -175) vs. San Francisco 49ers (+3.5, +165) O/U 47
Going into the playoffs I really liked New Orleans to go deep, but I felt myself starting to hedge. They aren't that good on the road, and the 49ers are by far the most underrated team in the playoffs. But I think Brees and the Saints playoff experience carries the day. If the 49ers can get their ground game going with Vernon Davis and Michael Crabtree making big 3rd down catches they might be in business. Keep away from the Saints is a must. I think the game goes to the 4th quarter but the Saints pull it out. Final Prediction: Saints 28, 49ers 23.
January 14, 2012: 20:00 EST
Denver Broncos (+13.5, +575) vs. New England Patriots (-13.5, -710) O/U 50
The Broncos had a banner week last week, but two main factors gave them the edge (albeit barely). A home crowd (for the most part) and an opposing QB very limited in mobility. The Patriots have struggled at home in the playoffs (crowds seem more nervous than enthused) and, oh yeah, remember that Brady is banged up (as are a dozen others). And their defense is porous A week off helped, but the tight lipped Patriots might be hiding something. I can't pick the Broncos to win, but I think they'll keep it close. Final Prediction: Patriots 28, Broncos 21.
January 15, 2012: 13:00 EST
Houston Texans (+7.5, +305) vs. Baltimore Ravens (-7.5, -335) O/U 36
Some people look at the earlier season matchup (of which Baltimore won 29-14) and think it wasn't close. The Texans were leading that game deep into the 3rd quarter before running out of offensive juice. That game they had Schaub but not Johnson. The Ravens will play textbook, try to get Rice going and torment Yates. I think they will mostly succeed. Final Prediction: Ravens 24, Texans 16.
January 15, 2012: 16:30 EST
New York Giants (+7.5, +305) vs. Green Bay Packers (-7.5, -335) O/U 53
Other than gamblers, this seems to be the game that most people think will be the closest. The Giants have an "it" factor with Manning (which I didn't fully appreciate when picking against them last week). Something is off with the Packers, it was too easy early in the year, and things aren't smooth late. Some injuries, too. Maybe some rust today. And cold weather. I'm going to pull the trigger on a Giants upset, they do look like that 2007 team that faced a huge battle every week and seemed beat teams that seemed comfortable (at home and rested). Final Prediction: Giants 34, Packers 31.
Gambling summary :
My 3-game parlay last week only hit one but overall (if 100 units assumed gambled on ATS, Money Line, and O/U) I would have gambled 1200 and ended the week with 1470. A bit below even except for the Broncos money line. This assumes -110 on all lines and O/U.
This week's best bets (for parlay)
Giants ATS
Broncos ATS
NYG/Packers Over
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
Sportsman of the Week Ending 1/8/2012
This was a close contest, but I went with my gut, recent memory trumped candidates from earlier in the week:
I'm going with Demaryius Thomas. In addition to his jaw dropping 80-yard historic overtime catch, his numbers on the day were simply amazing. After catching only 551 yards of passes in the regular season, he exploited a banged up Steelers defense for four catches, 204 yards (over 50 yards a catch, that's half the field for you math whiz's out there). Some people might remember the controversy when the Broncos drafted Thomas at #22 instead of Dez Bryant, then took Tim Tebow three picks later (in 2010). Have to say this one win might justify that decision.
I'm going with Demaryius Thomas. In addition to his jaw dropping 80-yard historic overtime catch, his numbers on the day were simply amazing. After catching only 551 yards of passes in the regular season, he exploited a banged up Steelers defense for four catches, 204 yards (over 50 yards a catch, that's half the field for you math whiz's out there). Some people might remember the controversy when the Broncos drafted Thomas at #22 instead of Dez Bryant, then took Tim Tebow three picks later (in 2010). Have to say this one win might justify that decision.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
2012 Major League Baseball Hall of Fame Vote
Tomorrow, January 9, 2012, the Baseball Writers vote for the 2012 Major League Baseball Hall of Fame will be revealed. Holding the keys to such an elite fraternity must be a daunting task. You're voting on players to proverbially sit next to Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Mathewson and the like.
Click here for the list of 2012 candidates
Mixed in to this responsibility is the specter of performance enhancing drugs that pervaded the league during the so called "Steroid Era". On the bubble now are the first generation "users", ones that presumably were clean earlier in their career but found a "fountain of youth" late which contributed significantly to jaw-dropping numbers.
If I were asked to vote (and of course I believe I should be), below reflects my ballot. The players on the ballots these days usually span my late childhood through young adulthood. I watched and attended a lot of games and have memories of all these players. I don't think I would be alone in allowing my personal (but not biased) "feeling" about a player influence the vote. What I mean by that is, when this player came to the plate or pitched, what was my feeling of how they would perform. Did they always seem to get the big hit, pitch their team to victory, make the heartbreaking defensive play, etc.?
Players I would put on my ballot (in order of credibility)
1) Jeff Bagwell - He was an offensive machine in the mid-1990's, career numbers reflect that (.297, 449, 1529 RBI). Only Palmeiro and McGriff on the ballot have more RBI. More walks than anyone else on the ballot (fear factor and eye), .409 OBP. He also stole 200 bases and was an above average 1B (Gold Glove in the closet). No evidence of PED's, he was a weight-lifting machine and didn't see anything late in his career that would lead one to believe he was juicing.
Factors against him: Perceived use of PEDs, playing in a small market, lack of postseason success.
He garnered 41% of the vote last year in his first eligibility, I expect that to go up 20% or so.
2) Larry Walker - He was another 5-tool player, finished his career with a .313 batting average, higher than anyone else on the ballot. Also stole 200 bases, also hit 383 home runs. He has so many gold gloves he probably had to build an extra wing on his trophy case. Like Bagwell, he won one MVP. He's also a member of the .400 OBP club (he, Bagwell, and Edgar Martinez the only three on the ballot).
Factors against him: Perceived higher numbers due to Colorado, soft-spoken personality, injury-prone (only 4 seasons of 140+ games).
He only received 20% of the vote last year, that needs to trend up for people to start noticing.
3) Edgar Martinez - He's of the mold of the previous two players. Hit for high average, good (but not awe inspiring) power, gets on base all the time. While I am not a fan of the DH, if MLB has it as a position, you can't hold that against him. With the previous two, defense pushes their case, for Edgar it can't but he still deserves it. Career .312 hitter, .418 OBP, slugged .515 (more than McGriff). He's also a member of the 300 HR club for a guy who didn't try to lift the ball as much as others.
Factors against him: Primarily a DH, played in small market, lack of speed.
He was voted for the affirmative on 32.9% of last years ballots, he needs to get closer to 50% to continue the momentum, now in his third year.
4) Lee Smith - The Hall of Fame is still figuring out how to accommodate closers, it's my opinion that they are indeed a key element to the game and the best of the best should be included. With Smith, it's not about the numbers (ERA, W-L) as much as the raw pile of saves he accumulated. No matter where he played, he never seemed phase by a momentary lapse of success. Fourteen seasons in a row of 25 or more saves shows a level of consistency matched by few. If there are going to be closers in the HoF, Smith should be there.
Factors against him: Voters don't trend toward closers, wasn't overpowering, played for a lot of teams
Received 45% of the vote last year, might start to trail off now in his 10th year.
First four out
5) Barry Larkin - His numbers are just a hair better than Alan Trammell, someone who I think was great, but not HoF material. Only slugged .444 (Brian Jordan slugged better). .295 average, almost 200 Home Runs, I just don't see it. I will say his defense, speed, and team leadership (including postseason success) move him a little closer but just not enough. He has the one MVP and a Gold Glove. He just wasn't a guy to be feared in the lineup like the above three hitters.
Factors against him: Lack of overwhelming offensive numbers (that's pretty much it).
At 62% last year, he's the most likely candidate to get in.
6) Tim Raines - Rock is another guy who falls just short on the numbers. Besides SB's (of which he is more than deserving), his average and power is there with Larkin, no MVP's, no Gold Gloves. He did accumulate the most hits of anyone on the ballot (besides Palmeiro) playing to the age of 40. Like Larkin, he wasn't a feared hitter.
Factors against him: Played in Montreal during his prime, average defense, never was higher than 5th in an MVP vote.
At 37.5% now in his fifth year, needs to get close to 50% or his candidacy may lose support.
7) Jack Morris - He was a gamer who was consistent, just not consistently great. A three-time 20-game winner, but 3.90 ERA shows me he outlasted a lot of opponents for those wins instead of dominating them. Never had an ERA below 3.05 in a single season. I probably hold starting pitchers to the highest standard when considering Hall of Fame, if you start to take 250 game winners and folks with ERA's near 4.00, you start to let in a lot of slightly better than average pitchers.
Factors against him: ERA, lack of dominating presence, allowed a lot of baserunners (WHIP).
At 53.5% last year, he's got a shot this year to approach 75%. I think he still falls short.
8) Fred McGriff - You can't ignore the near 500 home runs, but he hung on a while to get so close and wasn't elite enough in his prime to warrant the Hall. Average defense, below average speed, not an outstanding OBP. He also never broke 110 RBI in a season.
Factors against him: Low average, lack of dominating seasons, lack of speed.
At only 17.9% he might fizzle this year. Numbers are distant when compared to the three hitters I would vote in, I doubt many voters put 5 or 6 hitters on their ballot.
The remaining repeat candidates fall into two categories, steroid specter or double digit ballot opportunities, the numbers aren't there.
Steroid specter: Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, and Juan Gonzalez
Vets with short stats: Alan Trammell, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy
The new guys aren't even close except MAYBE Bernie Williams, but he'll only get a good piece of the vote due to the New York media and postseason successes. He wasn't a feared player in that lineup, never made a dent on MVP voting.
Amazing how few pitchers are even considered these days, Mulholland and Radke joining Morris and Lee Smith as the only ones. Perhaps for another blog, but an artifact of the Steroid Era? Roger and Curt coming soon.
Click here for the list of 2012 candidates
Mixed in to this responsibility is the specter of performance enhancing drugs that pervaded the league during the so called "Steroid Era". On the bubble now are the first generation "users", ones that presumably were clean earlier in their career but found a "fountain of youth" late which contributed significantly to jaw-dropping numbers.
If I were asked to vote (and of course I believe I should be), below reflects my ballot. The players on the ballots these days usually span my late childhood through young adulthood. I watched and attended a lot of games and have memories of all these players. I don't think I would be alone in allowing my personal (but not biased) "feeling" about a player influence the vote. What I mean by that is, when this player came to the plate or pitched, what was my feeling of how they would perform. Did they always seem to get the big hit, pitch their team to victory, make the heartbreaking defensive play, etc.?
Players I would put on my ballot (in order of credibility)
1) Jeff Bagwell - He was an offensive machine in the mid-1990's, career numbers reflect that (.297, 449, 1529 RBI). Only Palmeiro and McGriff on the ballot have more RBI. More walks than anyone else on the ballot (fear factor and eye), .409 OBP. He also stole 200 bases and was an above average 1B (Gold Glove in the closet). No evidence of PED's, he was a weight-lifting machine and didn't see anything late in his career that would lead one to believe he was juicing.
Factors against him: Perceived use of PEDs, playing in a small market, lack of postseason success.
He garnered 41% of the vote last year in his first eligibility, I expect that to go up 20% or so.
2) Larry Walker - He was another 5-tool player, finished his career with a .313 batting average, higher than anyone else on the ballot. Also stole 200 bases, also hit 383 home runs. He has so many gold gloves he probably had to build an extra wing on his trophy case. Like Bagwell, he won one MVP. He's also a member of the .400 OBP club (he, Bagwell, and Edgar Martinez the only three on the ballot).
Factors against him: Perceived higher numbers due to Colorado, soft-spoken personality, injury-prone (only 4 seasons of 140+ games).
He only received 20% of the vote last year, that needs to trend up for people to start noticing.
3) Edgar Martinez - He's of the mold of the previous two players. Hit for high average, good (but not awe inspiring) power, gets on base all the time. While I am not a fan of the DH, if MLB has it as a position, you can't hold that against him. With the previous two, defense pushes their case, for Edgar it can't but he still deserves it. Career .312 hitter, .418 OBP, slugged .515 (more than McGriff). He's also a member of the 300 HR club for a guy who didn't try to lift the ball as much as others.
Factors against him: Primarily a DH, played in small market, lack of speed.
He was voted for the affirmative on 32.9% of last years ballots, he needs to get closer to 50% to continue the momentum, now in his third year.
4) Lee Smith - The Hall of Fame is still figuring out how to accommodate closers, it's my opinion that they are indeed a key element to the game and the best of the best should be included. With Smith, it's not about the numbers (ERA, W-L) as much as the raw pile of saves he accumulated. No matter where he played, he never seemed phase by a momentary lapse of success. Fourteen seasons in a row of 25 or more saves shows a level of consistency matched by few. If there are going to be closers in the HoF, Smith should be there.
Factors against him: Voters don't trend toward closers, wasn't overpowering, played for a lot of teams
Received 45% of the vote last year, might start to trail off now in his 10th year.
First four out
5) Barry Larkin - His numbers are just a hair better than Alan Trammell, someone who I think was great, but not HoF material. Only slugged .444 (Brian Jordan slugged better). .295 average, almost 200 Home Runs, I just don't see it. I will say his defense, speed, and team leadership (including postseason success) move him a little closer but just not enough. He has the one MVP and a Gold Glove. He just wasn't a guy to be feared in the lineup like the above three hitters.
Factors against him: Lack of overwhelming offensive numbers (that's pretty much it).
At 62% last year, he's the most likely candidate to get in.
6) Tim Raines - Rock is another guy who falls just short on the numbers. Besides SB's (of which he is more than deserving), his average and power is there with Larkin, no MVP's, no Gold Gloves. He did accumulate the most hits of anyone on the ballot (besides Palmeiro) playing to the age of 40. Like Larkin, he wasn't a feared hitter.
Factors against him: Played in Montreal during his prime, average defense, never was higher than 5th in an MVP vote.
At 37.5% now in his fifth year, needs to get close to 50% or his candidacy may lose support.
7) Jack Morris - He was a gamer who was consistent, just not consistently great. A three-time 20-game winner, but 3.90 ERA shows me he outlasted a lot of opponents for those wins instead of dominating them. Never had an ERA below 3.05 in a single season. I probably hold starting pitchers to the highest standard when considering Hall of Fame, if you start to take 250 game winners and folks with ERA's near 4.00, you start to let in a lot of slightly better than average pitchers.
Factors against him: ERA, lack of dominating presence, allowed a lot of baserunners (WHIP).
At 53.5% last year, he's got a shot this year to approach 75%. I think he still falls short.
8) Fred McGriff - You can't ignore the near 500 home runs, but he hung on a while to get so close and wasn't elite enough in his prime to warrant the Hall. Average defense, below average speed, not an outstanding OBP. He also never broke 110 RBI in a season.
Factors against him: Low average, lack of dominating seasons, lack of speed.
At only 17.9% he might fizzle this year. Numbers are distant when compared to the three hitters I would vote in, I doubt many voters put 5 or 6 hitters on their ballot.
The remaining repeat candidates fall into two categories, steroid specter or double digit ballot opportunities, the numbers aren't there.
Steroid specter: Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, and Juan Gonzalez
Vets with short stats: Alan Trammell, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy
The new guys aren't even close except MAYBE Bernie Williams, but he'll only get a good piece of the vote due to the New York media and postseason successes. He wasn't a feared player in that lineup, never made a dent on MVP voting.
Amazing how few pitchers are even considered these days, Mulholland and Radke joining Morris and Lee Smith as the only ones. Perhaps for another blog, but an artifact of the Steroid Era? Roger and Curt coming soon.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
NFL Playoff Week One Predictions
Betting information courtesy of 5dimes.com at the time of post (this blog has no affiliation with that site)
January 7, 2012: 16:30 EST
Cincinnati Bengals (+3, +170) vs. Houston Texans (-3, -185) O/U 38.5
Both teams are relatively unfamiliar with the playoffs, particularly the QB's who are unfamiliar with being professionals. As a Houstonian I would fear this game if a veteran team (say the Jets) were coming to town but the Bengals inexperience evens that factor out. These teams met once in the regular season and it came down to the very end (and some lucky bounces) for the Texans to pull it out. But that was in the Queen City. Houston should get an appreciable home field advantage, plus Andre Johnson playing full speed. Although there's a good chance he won't finish the game, the hammys are just so tender. I think the reliable Texans running game plus loud crowd plus healthy Texans defense wins the day. It will be close and low scoring. Final Prediction: Texans 20 Bengals 13.
January 7, 2012: 20:00 EST
Detroit Lions (+11, +490) vs. New Orleans Saints (-11, -580) O/U 59
On paper everyone agrees that the New Orleans Saints are too much of a juggernaut for the Lions to keep up with. The Lions do have the offense to stand toe to toe, but I can't disagree that the Saints, at home, the day before another certain game goes down in that stadium will not be at a loss for fan support. Drew Brees is such a great leader I don't see the team coming out flat. Combine that with a Lions team that is very playoff inexperienced and I smell a blowout. Lots of points for both teams, but this is probably the worst game to watch, it will be out of hand early. I'd give 5:1 odds that Suh gets ejected, I'm betting on the ejection. Final Prediction: Saints 41, Lions 21.
January 8, 2012: 13:00 EST
Atlanta Falcons (+3, +135) vs. New York Giants (-3, -145) O/U 47
I feel like the Falcons are positioned well in this matchup. The Giants had a lot of emotion last week riding on the game against their chief rival and might have trouble getting back up. The Falcons seem to be consistent and peaking. Also rested, their ridiculous blowout of the Bucs last week allowed key players to rest. The Falcons match up well on the corners against the Giants passing game and have offensive weapons and balance. Manning's play has been up and down, if it's up, he's like his brother and can't be beat. But I feel an off day. Final Prediction: Falcons 30, Giants 24.
January 8, 2012: 16:30 EST
Pittsburgh Steelers (-8, -375) vs. Denver Broncos (+8, +335) O/U 33.5
This is the game I have the least feeling for. I'm more than convinced that Roethlisberger is less than healthy, maybe closer to 50% than 100%. And his style of play requires him to get out of the pocket. I am also more than convinced that the Broncos couldn't score against grass at this point, and the Steelers defense is tougher than grass. The Steelers also lost Mendenhall and Pouncey is looking more and more questionable. Plus Ryan Clark sidelined. This seems like the Broncos might be able to use smoke and mirrors and some Tebow magic to pull this out. They're going to need some breaks and big plays in all phases but I'm leaning toward Broncos here. Final Prediction: Broncos 16, Steelers 13.
Gambling note: I'll assume some sort of uniform units on each of the above during a recap next week, but if I had to make three bets this week (let's say a parlay), I would go with:
Steelers vs. Broncos: Under
Falcons: Money line
Saints: ATS
January 7, 2012: 16:30 EST
Cincinnati Bengals (+3, +170) vs. Houston Texans (-3, -185) O/U 38.5
Both teams are relatively unfamiliar with the playoffs, particularly the QB's who are unfamiliar with being professionals. As a Houstonian I would fear this game if a veteran team (say the Jets) were coming to town but the Bengals inexperience evens that factor out. These teams met once in the regular season and it came down to the very end (and some lucky bounces) for the Texans to pull it out. But that was in the Queen City. Houston should get an appreciable home field advantage, plus Andre Johnson playing full speed. Although there's a good chance he won't finish the game, the hammys are just so tender. I think the reliable Texans running game plus loud crowd plus healthy Texans defense wins the day. It will be close and low scoring. Final Prediction: Texans 20 Bengals 13.
January 7, 2012: 20:00 EST
Detroit Lions (+11, +490) vs. New Orleans Saints (-11, -580) O/U 59
On paper everyone agrees that the New Orleans Saints are too much of a juggernaut for the Lions to keep up with. The Lions do have the offense to stand toe to toe, but I can't disagree that the Saints, at home, the day before another certain game goes down in that stadium will not be at a loss for fan support. Drew Brees is such a great leader I don't see the team coming out flat. Combine that with a Lions team that is very playoff inexperienced and I smell a blowout. Lots of points for both teams, but this is probably the worst game to watch, it will be out of hand early. I'd give 5:1 odds that Suh gets ejected, I'm betting on the ejection. Final Prediction: Saints 41, Lions 21.
January 8, 2012: 13:00 EST
Atlanta Falcons (+3, +135) vs. New York Giants (-3, -145) O/U 47
I feel like the Falcons are positioned well in this matchup. The Giants had a lot of emotion last week riding on the game against their chief rival and might have trouble getting back up. The Falcons seem to be consistent and peaking. Also rested, their ridiculous blowout of the Bucs last week allowed key players to rest. The Falcons match up well on the corners against the Giants passing game and have offensive weapons and balance. Manning's play has been up and down, if it's up, he's like his brother and can't be beat. But I feel an off day. Final Prediction: Falcons 30, Giants 24.
January 8, 2012: 16:30 EST
Pittsburgh Steelers (-8, -375) vs. Denver Broncos (+8, +335) O/U 33.5
This is the game I have the least feeling for. I'm more than convinced that Roethlisberger is less than healthy, maybe closer to 50% than 100%. And his style of play requires him to get out of the pocket. I am also more than convinced that the Broncos couldn't score against grass at this point, and the Steelers defense is tougher than grass. The Steelers also lost Mendenhall and Pouncey is looking more and more questionable. Plus Ryan Clark sidelined. This seems like the Broncos might be able to use smoke and mirrors and some Tebow magic to pull this out. They're going to need some breaks and big plays in all phases but I'm leaning toward Broncos here. Final Prediction: Broncos 16, Steelers 13.
Gambling note: I'll assume some sort of uniform units on each of the above during a recap next week, but if I had to make three bets this week (let's say a parlay), I would go with:
Steelers vs. Broncos: Under
Falcons: Money line
Saints: ATS
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
More BCS woes
I'm going to try not to repeat themes from last year's BCS rant. But I think I've found enough "new" problems with the BCS this year to further my opinion.
First of all, it took me this long (and I am thick headed) to realize that the BCS is really no reflection of conference strength when considering participation. I thought it kinda resembled and was worthy of bragging, but it became apparent this year the the Big 10 will always get two teams only because of name recognition. Anytime two Big 10 teams are eligible, punch your ticket. The Big 12 (bias warning here) frequently has very worthy participants, but nobody considers Kansas State or to be worthy as Michigan. It's just names. Fine, I get it.
Alluded to last year, but regional autonomy is lost. The Sugar and Orange have struggled to sell tickets this year. Somehow the Cotton Bowl doesn't. Why, because they have two regional teams (SECW vs. Big 12). And aren't stuck with some draft style team selection. Sugar this year with two teams people in that region really don't care about. Orange just about every year with two teams from areas not really tied into that region (Big 8 in the old days used to send the OU or Neb fans, it was tradition). Even the bowl in Houston (which has changed names multiple times) seems to get a Texas A&M or Baylor or TCU or Houston or Rice in recent years. And sells really well and makes for good games.
Backing up to Bowls in general, the ticket sales are of absolutely no consequence. TV contracts and sponsorships pay all the bills. All the more reason to take Michigan instead of Boise State, Ohio State instead of Purdue, etc.
Also in the BCS woe mix is the Bowl stadia. The Orange Bowl is not played in...the Orange Bowl. That was demolished. The Fiesta Bowl is not played in Tempe anymore, but rather a new stadium people aren't familiar with. I'll pick on the Cotton Bowl (non-BCS) which is not played in the Cotton Bowl. The Ticket City Bowl is. The end result, the big bowl games are played in stadia that we are not familiar with and it loses luster.
Final rant, just watching these last few bowls, I really can't tell what game I'm watching. The TV contract holder seems to advertise graphics for the BCS (watch it flash before replay) instead of the bowl played. Only when the teams are at midfield do I see the logo. Check the endzones, too, big BCS logos. I remember being overdosed with the Orange bowl guy or that bowl of Sugar in my 80's memories. That with the lack of consistency in Bowl participants and really, they're all just random games now.
Much of this is unintended consequence. Like side effects. Great idea to put the best two teams in the title game, oh wait, that leaves two bowls without good matchups and total bowls minus one with no relevance. Didn't see that coming.
Easiest solution (resembling last year's rant) is to take the Top 2 teams and put them in the "only" BCS game. Same as it is now. The rest of the current BCS games have picks like the non-BCS, best team available from their home conference (even if third place). Big East loses AQ, the rest of the games are filled regardless of BCS standings, all teams are fair game. This year would resemble:
Fiesta & Rose the same (great matchups)
Sugar: Arkansas vs. Kansas State
Orange: Clemson vs. Oklahoma
Last Orange slot is really up for grabs. South Carolina was my first pick but would be a rematch. As would VT. OU would sell tix and has an Orange Bowl tradition (and would have been favored IMO).
First of all, it took me this long (and I am thick headed) to realize that the BCS is really no reflection of conference strength when considering participation. I thought it kinda resembled and was worthy of bragging, but it became apparent this year the the Big 10 will always get two teams only because of name recognition. Anytime two Big 10 teams are eligible, punch your ticket. The Big 12 (bias warning here) frequently has very worthy participants, but nobody considers Kansas State or to be worthy as Michigan. It's just names. Fine, I get it.
Alluded to last year, but regional autonomy is lost. The Sugar and Orange have struggled to sell tickets this year. Somehow the Cotton Bowl doesn't. Why, because they have two regional teams (SECW vs. Big 12). And aren't stuck with some draft style team selection. Sugar this year with two teams people in that region really don't care about. Orange just about every year with two teams from areas not really tied into that region (Big 8 in the old days used to send the OU or Neb fans, it was tradition). Even the bowl in Houston (which has changed names multiple times) seems to get a Texas A&M or Baylor or TCU or Houston or Rice in recent years. And sells really well and makes for good games.
Backing up to Bowls in general, the ticket sales are of absolutely no consequence. TV contracts and sponsorships pay all the bills. All the more reason to take Michigan instead of Boise State, Ohio State instead of Purdue, etc.
Also in the BCS woe mix is the Bowl stadia. The Orange Bowl is not played in...the Orange Bowl. That was demolished. The Fiesta Bowl is not played in Tempe anymore, but rather a new stadium people aren't familiar with. I'll pick on the Cotton Bowl (non-BCS) which is not played in the Cotton Bowl. The Ticket City Bowl is. The end result, the big bowl games are played in stadia that we are not familiar with and it loses luster.
Final rant, just watching these last few bowls, I really can't tell what game I'm watching. The TV contract holder seems to advertise graphics for the BCS (watch it flash before replay) instead of the bowl played. Only when the teams are at midfield do I see the logo. Check the endzones, too, big BCS logos. I remember being overdosed with the Orange bowl guy or that bowl of Sugar in my 80's memories. That with the lack of consistency in Bowl participants and really, they're all just random games now.
Much of this is unintended consequence. Like side effects. Great idea to put the best two teams in the title game, oh wait, that leaves two bowls without good matchups and total bowls minus one with no relevance. Didn't see that coming.
Easiest solution (resembling last year's rant) is to take the Top 2 teams and put them in the "only" BCS game. Same as it is now. The rest of the current BCS games have picks like the non-BCS, best team available from their home conference (even if third place). Big East loses AQ, the rest of the games are filled regardless of BCS standings, all teams are fair game. This year would resemble:
Fiesta & Rose the same (great matchups)
Sugar: Arkansas vs. Kansas State
Orange: Clemson vs. Oklahoma
Last Orange slot is really up for grabs. South Carolina was my first pick but would be a rematch. As would VT. OU would sell tix and has an Orange Bowl tradition (and would have been favored IMO).
Monday, January 2, 2012
Sportsman of the Week Ending 1/1/2012
The player who caught my attention this week was Keith Price, QB for Washington.
Finishing his sophomore year as a relative unknown to the mainstream college football fan (myself included), he nearly outdueled the Heisman Trophy winner Robert Griffin III in the Valero Alamo Bowl. Throwing for 438 yards (4 TD, no INT) and running for another 40, he looked like the better player in that game, in which his team was a 10 point underdog. If not undone by a shaky run defense, the Huskies would have pulled off the biggest upset of the bowl season to date. So congratulations Keith Price, you are the first ever LHD_on_Sports player of the week!
Finishing his sophomore year as a relative unknown to the mainstream college football fan (myself included), he nearly outdueled the Heisman Trophy winner Robert Griffin III in the Valero Alamo Bowl. Throwing for 438 yards (4 TD, no INT) and running for another 40, he looked like the better player in that game, in which his team was a 10 point underdog. If not undone by a shaky run defense, the Huskies would have pulled off the biggest upset of the bowl season to date. So congratulations Keith Price, you are the first ever LHD_on_Sports player of the week!
Almost a year
Unfortunately, I let this blog drop off my priority list in 2011, but rest assured, one of my 2012 resolutions is to revive it. I think part of my problem is having too many thoughts and the time to write them all was overwhelming. In that light, here are a few features I plan to roll out this year:
1) Shorter, quicker hitting entries. Most people don't want to read pages and pages of blabber anyway, so a few paragraphs will be the norm.
2) The "Sportsman" (or "Sportswoman") of the week. After the conclusion of action on Sunday, I will select an individual (or maybe a team) that represented what I liked about sports the last week. It may not be the player with the biggest stats or who won the big game, but someone who caught my attention. With focus on an "outside" entity, not someone you'd see on the headline of Sportscenter.
3) Revision and reposting of the "Best sports franchises". They take a while to assemble, but I thought was a unique look into the world of sports.
4) Continued focus on how sports are presented by the media.
5) No bias toward teams I like, and definitely no bias toward big market teams (I'd bet yesterday the sports analysts spent half their time talking about the Cowboys and Jets blowing the playoffs, and about none on Oakland or Tennessee.
That's all for now, stand by for the first "Sportsman of the Week".
1) Shorter, quicker hitting entries. Most people don't want to read pages and pages of blabber anyway, so a few paragraphs will be the norm.
2) The "Sportsman" (or "Sportswoman") of the week. After the conclusion of action on Sunday, I will select an individual (or maybe a team) that represented what I liked about sports the last week. It may not be the player with the biggest stats or who won the big game, but someone who caught my attention. With focus on an "outside" entity, not someone you'd see on the headline of Sportscenter.
3) Revision and reposting of the "Best sports franchises". They take a while to assemble, but I thought was a unique look into the world of sports.
4) Continued focus on how sports are presented by the media.
5) No bias toward teams I like, and definitely no bias toward big market teams (I'd bet yesterday the sports analysts spent half their time talking about the Cowboys and Jets blowing the playoffs, and about none on Oakland or Tennessee.
That's all for now, stand by for the first "Sportsman of the Week".
Monday, January 17, 2011
Best NFL Players in my lifetime (1980-2011)
Okay, truth in advertising, I wasn't born in 1980. But that was the first meaningful game I remember watching...Steelers vs. Rams in Super Bowl XIV. I was 5, I remember telling my babysitter (of course, my hip parents were at a rocking Super Bowl party) that some day I would play in the Super Bowl and she told me to remember to say "Hi" to her and I promised I would.
In a side story, the TV was probably all of 28 inches, you had to move a dial left and right to get another channel, but that was okay, there were only 5 channels.
But I digress.
As I was watching Ray Lewis play last Saturday, I thought "only other LB I've ever seen as good as him was LT". Then I saw Ed Reed make a stick tackle and thought "only S I've ever seen hit like that was Ronnie Lott". And then and there, I grabbed a pad of paper and decided to write down who I thought the best players by position were in my lifetime. No research, no Pro Bowl counts, no external influences. Bias's inherent, I saw certain players more than others, I remember certain plays that cemented players in my personal Hall of Fame, and no second teams.
Here we go!
QB: Peyton Manning - Indianapolis Colts
Honorable Mention (in order): Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Dan Marino, Brett Favre, John Elway
Peyton is a surgeon. Nobody prepares harder, nobody scans a defense better, no other players is his equal. Put him on any other team of the other HMs and he'd have won the title by more points. And he did win one.
HB: Earl Campbell - Houston Oilers
HM (not in order): Eric Dickerson, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Walter Payton
Earl in his prime, which was only a couple of years really, was unstoppable. Personal bias figures in, but Payton and Emmitt were more steady as she goes guys, Eric is close, Barry was electric. If I lived in Detroit I'd probably put in Barry.
FB: Moose Johnston - Dallas Cowboys
HM: Tom Rathman
Moose was the complete package.
WR: Jerry Rice - San Francisco 49ers, Marvin Harrison - Indianapolis Colts
HM: Sterling Sharpe, Cris Carter, Randy Moss, Michael Irvin, Isaac Bruce
Jerry, no explanation needed. Marvin was always underrated. The rest of the guys were mroe hype. Sharpe would have been my #3 receiver.
TE: Tony Gonzales - Atlanta Falcons, Kansas City Chiefs
HM: Kevin Winslow Sr., Ozzie Newsome, Shannon Sharpe
Tony might be in the Top 10 all around athletes to ever play the game.
OT: Tony Munoz - Cincinnati Bengals, Jonathan Ogden - Baltimore Ravens
HM: Larry Allen, Willie Roaf, Randall McDaniel, Orlando Pace
Munoz is slowly ascending to best OL of all time. Ogden was unbeatable. The rest were pretty darn good.
OG: Bruce Matthews - Houston Oilers, John Hannah - New England Patriots
HM: Mike Munchak
I really stopped after those two. Hannah weighed all of 265, I could go on a non-diet and match him. He must have done it with technique.
C: Mike Webster - Pittsburgh Steelers
HM Jeff Saturday
Sad his life took a tragic turn, but he was one of a kind.
DT: Howie Long - Oakland Raiders, LA Raiders
HM: Ray Childress, Randy White, Ed Jones, Joe Klecko
I'm going with a 3-4 here, Howie was unblockable, his son is already getting close.
DE: Mark Gastineau - New York Jets, Bruce Smith - Buffalo Bills
HM: Reggie White, Lyle Alzado
Reggie was solid over many years, but I just never felt like he'd take over a game like Bruce or Mark.
LB: Ray Lewis - Baltimore Ravens, Lawrence Taylor - New York Giants, Derrick Thomas - Kansas City Chiefs, Mike Singletary - Chicago Bears
HM: Brian Urlacher, Karl Mecklenberg, Jack Lambert
No arguing the top 4, Mecklenberg was close, he really was solid. Lambert might get the nod if I was born a little earlier.
S: Ronnie Lott- San Francisco 49ers, Ed Reed - Baltimore Ravens
HM: Troy Polamalu
You can stop at those three and you're done. Razor thin between Troy and Ed, went with Ed.
CB: Deion Sanders - Atlanta Falcons, Lester Hayes - Oakland Raiders
HM: Everson Walls
Darrell Revis is already right there, but I have to see more before bumping one of the top 2.
K: Sebastian Janikowski - Oakland Raiders
HM: Adam Vinatieri
Janikowski has the best, most accurate leg I've seen, he just doesn't play on winners. I don't remember enought about Stenerud.
P: Reggie Roby - Miami Dolphins
HM: Ray Guy
Roby and the wrist watch.
KR: Devin Hester - Chicago Bears
HM: Dante Hall
Both are almost unstoppable, Devin just a little more scary
PR: Eric Metcalf - Cleveland Browns
Best of the era
Coach: Bill Belichek - New England Patriots
HM: Bill Walsh, Don Shula, Tom Landry, Bill Parcells
Belichek has done more will less for years. It's an attitude that got them over the top. Walsh close, but he had a lot of talent.
Announcers: Pat Summerall (PBP), John Madden (Color)
HM: Howard Cosell, Al Michaels, Dick Enberg, Don Criqui, Frank Gifford
I won't get into my worst (cough Theismann cough) but Pat and John were the best. Al Michaels close.
In a side story, the TV was probably all of 28 inches, you had to move a dial left and right to get another channel, but that was okay, there were only 5 channels.
But I digress.
As I was watching Ray Lewis play last Saturday, I thought "only other LB I've ever seen as good as him was LT". Then I saw Ed Reed make a stick tackle and thought "only S I've ever seen hit like that was Ronnie Lott". And then and there, I grabbed a pad of paper and decided to write down who I thought the best players by position were in my lifetime. No research, no Pro Bowl counts, no external influences. Bias's inherent, I saw certain players more than others, I remember certain plays that cemented players in my personal Hall of Fame, and no second teams.
Here we go!
QB: Peyton Manning - Indianapolis Colts
Honorable Mention (in order): Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Dan Marino, Brett Favre, John Elway
Peyton is a surgeon. Nobody prepares harder, nobody scans a defense better, no other players is his equal. Put him on any other team of the other HMs and he'd have won the title by more points. And he did win one.
HB: Earl Campbell - Houston Oilers
HM (not in order): Eric Dickerson, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Walter Payton
Earl in his prime, which was only a couple of years really, was unstoppable. Personal bias figures in, but Payton and Emmitt were more steady as she goes guys, Eric is close, Barry was electric. If I lived in Detroit I'd probably put in Barry.
FB: Moose Johnston - Dallas Cowboys
HM: Tom Rathman
Moose was the complete package.
WR: Jerry Rice - San Francisco 49ers, Marvin Harrison - Indianapolis Colts
HM: Sterling Sharpe, Cris Carter, Randy Moss, Michael Irvin, Isaac Bruce
Jerry, no explanation needed. Marvin was always underrated. The rest of the guys were mroe hype. Sharpe would have been my #3 receiver.
TE: Tony Gonzales - Atlanta Falcons, Kansas City Chiefs
HM: Kevin Winslow Sr., Ozzie Newsome, Shannon Sharpe
Tony might be in the Top 10 all around athletes to ever play the game.
OT: Tony Munoz - Cincinnati Bengals, Jonathan Ogden - Baltimore Ravens
HM: Larry Allen, Willie Roaf, Randall McDaniel, Orlando Pace
Munoz is slowly ascending to best OL of all time. Ogden was unbeatable. The rest were pretty darn good.
OG: Bruce Matthews - Houston Oilers, John Hannah - New England Patriots
HM: Mike Munchak
I really stopped after those two. Hannah weighed all of 265, I could go on a non-diet and match him. He must have done it with technique.
C: Mike Webster - Pittsburgh Steelers
HM Jeff Saturday
Sad his life took a tragic turn, but he was one of a kind.
DT: Howie Long - Oakland Raiders, LA Raiders
HM: Ray Childress, Randy White, Ed Jones, Joe Klecko
I'm going with a 3-4 here, Howie was unblockable, his son is already getting close.
DE: Mark Gastineau - New York Jets, Bruce Smith - Buffalo Bills
HM: Reggie White, Lyle Alzado
Reggie was solid over many years, but I just never felt like he'd take over a game like Bruce or Mark.
LB: Ray Lewis - Baltimore Ravens, Lawrence Taylor - New York Giants, Derrick Thomas - Kansas City Chiefs, Mike Singletary - Chicago Bears
HM: Brian Urlacher, Karl Mecklenberg, Jack Lambert
No arguing the top 4, Mecklenberg was close, he really was solid. Lambert might get the nod if I was born a little earlier.
S: Ronnie Lott- San Francisco 49ers, Ed Reed - Baltimore Ravens
HM: Troy Polamalu
You can stop at those three and you're done. Razor thin between Troy and Ed, went with Ed.
CB: Deion Sanders - Atlanta Falcons, Lester Hayes - Oakland Raiders
HM: Everson Walls
Darrell Revis is already right there, but I have to see more before bumping one of the top 2.
K: Sebastian Janikowski - Oakland Raiders
HM: Adam Vinatieri
Janikowski has the best, most accurate leg I've seen, he just doesn't play on winners. I don't remember enought about Stenerud.
P: Reggie Roby - Miami Dolphins
HM: Ray Guy
Roby and the wrist watch.
KR: Devin Hester - Chicago Bears
HM: Dante Hall
Both are almost unstoppable, Devin just a little more scary
PR: Eric Metcalf - Cleveland Browns
Best of the era
Coach: Bill Belichek - New England Patriots
HM: Bill Walsh, Don Shula, Tom Landry, Bill Parcells
Belichek has done more will less for years. It's an attitude that got them over the top. Walsh close, but he had a lot of talent.
Announcers: Pat Summerall (PBP), John Madden (Color)
HM: Howard Cosell, Al Michaels, Dick Enberg, Don Criqui, Frank Gifford
I won't get into my worst (cough Theismann cough) but Pat and John were the best. Al Michaels close.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Why the BCS has failed
It's not for the reasons you think. Which are in rough order:
1) Isn't the best way to decide a National Champion
2) Is subjective, not objective
3) Isn't fair to teams in smaller conferences
4) Rewards teams for softer schedules
5) Doesn't maximize NCAA revenue
Actually most of those are true, but that's not my premise.
The problem is, it was thought the BCS would tidy up a small loophole in which sometimes the top two teams wouldn't play each other, this would make it happen. That's all it was supposed to do. It wasn't supposed to be a playoff. It wasn't supposed to redefine the way the college season was played out, but it did. All of the sudden, the emphasis in college football didn't become "win your conference", it became "win your conference and hope other teams lose and argue against smaller conferences and if you lose, hope your loss is better...". And college football is the worse for it.
One unintended consequence is that the non title BCS games are rendered meaningless. For a few reasons. One is that there is no identity for each. You don't get the same conference champ in each one, half the time that champ goes to the BCS title game. It's not the same (not even close) to have a runner up represent that conference in the title game (i.e. Illinois against USC that one year). It makes it where the SEC champion DOESN'T want to go to the Sugar Bowl, because they failed. If you make the Sugar Bowl out of the SEC, it's because you FAILED in the SEC title game. The Big XII champ has NO desire to make the Fiesta Bowl, because that means they aren't playing for anything. The Big 10/Pac 10 champs the same. Yes, they love the tradition. But if Ohio State's goal coming into the year is to play in the Rose Bowl, then their sadly undershooting.
So a playoff is the next step, right? I argue no. It just extends the same issues. There's subjective criteria, conference titles become secondary to defensible playoff position, you still have the same debates (i.e. this year, does 11-1 Boise make it ahead of 10-2 Arkansas?). And bowl ties are meaningless as they are now.
I'm here to say, the OLD system should be restored post haste. Tie the conferences to their bowl. Invite good unaffiliated teams as opponents. It would work out. Trust me. Here's the framework (bowl, champs):
Rose: Pac 10 vs. Big 10 period
Cotton: Big XII
Fiesta: All At large
Sugar: SEC
Orange: ACC
Big East gets a berth but as an At Large or opponent. Assuming favorites tomorrow, this is how it would look this year:
Rose: Oregon vs. Wisconsin
Cotton: Oklahoma vs. Ohio State
Fiesta: Boise State vs. Stanford
Sugar: Auburn vs. TCU
Orange: Virginia Tech vs. Arkansas
Suddenly both the Sugar and Rose are in play. The Cotton is darn interesting, Fiesta ain't bad (on par with current non-BCS title bowls). Tradition is maintained and lots of debate.
Last year would look like:
Rose: Oregon vs. Ohio State
Cotton: Texas vs. TCU
Fiesta: Cincinnati vs. Florida
Sugar: Alabama vs. Boise State
Orange: Georgia Tech vs. Iowa
So you reshuffle two games, but makes two games of interest suddenly, the same quantity of teams will be undefeated, and if Texas and Alabama both win, perhaps split title, but bragging rights for the ages for sure.
What you sacrifice is the occasional 1997 scenario where Nebraska and Michigan are darn good but don't get to play. What you don't get is all or nothing that TCU has played the last two years, and Boise last year. All are still in the mix through the bowl games under this scenario. Admittedly, Texas vs. Alabama may not have happened. But in some ways, it didn't really happen as intended anyway with the Colt injury.
It's a trade off. Some years like 2005, things wouldn't have been as good without the BCS. But most years and overall, it gives all teams one goal...win the conference, go to YOUR bowl, win that, and see what happens.
I'd even entertain a "plus one" at that point. Go through the traditional bowls, take the two best winners by heritage rank and quality of opponent defeated, then "Let's get it on".
1) Isn't the best way to decide a National Champion
2) Is subjective, not objective
3) Isn't fair to teams in smaller conferences
4) Rewards teams for softer schedules
5) Doesn't maximize NCAA revenue
Actually most of those are true, but that's not my premise.
The problem is, it was thought the BCS would tidy up a small loophole in which sometimes the top two teams wouldn't play each other, this would make it happen. That's all it was supposed to do. It wasn't supposed to be a playoff. It wasn't supposed to redefine the way the college season was played out, but it did. All of the sudden, the emphasis in college football didn't become "win your conference", it became "win your conference and hope other teams lose and argue against smaller conferences and if you lose, hope your loss is better...". And college football is the worse for it.
One unintended consequence is that the non title BCS games are rendered meaningless. For a few reasons. One is that there is no identity for each. You don't get the same conference champ in each one, half the time that champ goes to the BCS title game. It's not the same (not even close) to have a runner up represent that conference in the title game (i.e. Illinois against USC that one year). It makes it where the SEC champion DOESN'T want to go to the Sugar Bowl, because they failed. If you make the Sugar Bowl out of the SEC, it's because you FAILED in the SEC title game. The Big XII champ has NO desire to make the Fiesta Bowl, because that means they aren't playing for anything. The Big 10/Pac 10 champs the same. Yes, they love the tradition. But if Ohio State's goal coming into the year is to play in the Rose Bowl, then their sadly undershooting.
So a playoff is the next step, right? I argue no. It just extends the same issues. There's subjective criteria, conference titles become secondary to defensible playoff position, you still have the same debates (i.e. this year, does 11-1 Boise make it ahead of 10-2 Arkansas?). And bowl ties are meaningless as they are now.
I'm here to say, the OLD system should be restored post haste. Tie the conferences to their bowl. Invite good unaffiliated teams as opponents. It would work out. Trust me. Here's the framework (bowl, champs):
Rose: Pac 10 vs. Big 10 period
Cotton: Big XII
Fiesta: All At large
Sugar: SEC
Orange: ACC
Big East gets a berth but as an At Large or opponent. Assuming favorites tomorrow, this is how it would look this year:
Rose: Oregon vs. Wisconsin
Cotton: Oklahoma vs. Ohio State
Fiesta: Boise State vs. Stanford
Sugar: Auburn vs. TCU
Orange: Virginia Tech vs. Arkansas
Suddenly both the Sugar and Rose are in play. The Cotton is darn interesting, Fiesta ain't bad (on par with current non-BCS title bowls). Tradition is maintained and lots of debate.
Last year would look like:
Rose: Oregon vs. Ohio State
Cotton: Texas vs. TCU
Fiesta: Cincinnati vs. Florida
Sugar: Alabama vs. Boise State
Orange: Georgia Tech vs. Iowa
So you reshuffle two games, but makes two games of interest suddenly, the same quantity of teams will be undefeated, and if Texas and Alabama both win, perhaps split title, but bragging rights for the ages for sure.
What you sacrifice is the occasional 1997 scenario where Nebraska and Michigan are darn good but don't get to play. What you don't get is all or nothing that TCU has played the last two years, and Boise last year. All are still in the mix through the bowl games under this scenario. Admittedly, Texas vs. Alabama may not have happened. But in some ways, it didn't really happen as intended anyway with the Colt injury.
It's a trade off. Some years like 2005, things wouldn't have been as good without the BCS. But most years and overall, it gives all teams one goal...win the conference, go to YOUR bowl, win that, and see what happens.
I'd even entertain a "plus one" at that point. Go through the traditional bowls, take the two best winners by heritage rank and quality of opponent defeated, then "Let's get it on".
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Blog Status
Contrary to popular belief, this blog is not dead. I'm just a busy guy who waits for inspiration to flow my thoughts. Why this is not good for enticing and retaining regular readers I apologize. I do, however, promise semi-regular (some might say semi-annual) thoughts to come. I still owe the crowd the top 40% of pro sports franchises, some thoughts on NFL and MLB playoffs, and maybe some NHL discussion. And perhaps a blog explaining why I will not watch one minute of NBA action this year (**cough** waste of time **cough**).
I appreciate your patience!
I appreciate your patience!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)