This week's episode of Joe & Joe Sports will focus on hoops in America, and we'll get into both professional and college basketball. But not women's basketball. Come on.
As a treat, we've got a guest expert to talk about NCAA basketball, which is good because neither of us Joe's are experts on that topic....or any topic, really. Anyways, it's a step in a positive direction for our show. Speaking of positive steps for the show, don't forget you can e-mail the show any questions or comments at joe.joe.sports@gmail.com, and in all likelihood, we'll respond to your e-mail on the air, since we don't really have any independent thoughts.
And remember, you can always listen to any old episodes by using the link to the right.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
We actually shot a satellite out of the sky?
Listen, I've always had all the respect in the world for the United States when it comes to science and military operations. Part of that I'm sure comes from a "home field" bias, a standard feeling of patriotism, but I've always felt pretty confident in the ability of Americans to execute plans.
But I've got to say, this business about the satellite has got me really wowed about where we are scientifically. Word is, we've successfully targeted and destroyed the fuel tank on the satellite, which had posed something of a threat to life were it to come crashing down to Earth. Now, granted, these satellites are pretty large, but the main body of the device was a paltry 15 feet long. This object, with a decaying orbit, was targeted by an SM-3 missile and, according to all reports thus far, successfully destroyed to the point that the debris poses no immediate threat.
If it were a stationary object, it'd be pretty impressive to hit the fuel component squarely from hundreds of miles away. But we're talking about shooting a moving satellite out of the sky whose orbit is decaying. Out of the sky! Do you know how ridiculously large the sky is?
Alright, that's enough gushing for now, especially since there's still a chance that the mission was a failure. But it looks good, and I think that speaks volumes towards what science can accomplish. So be nice to your local nerds; they may be able to pinpoint your bedroom from a missile silo.
But I've got to say, this business about the satellite has got me really wowed about where we are scientifically. Word is, we've successfully targeted and destroyed the fuel tank on the satellite, which had posed something of a threat to life were it to come crashing down to Earth. Now, granted, these satellites are pretty large, but the main body of the device was a paltry 15 feet long. This object, with a decaying orbit, was targeted by an SM-3 missile and, according to all reports thus far, successfully destroyed to the point that the debris poses no immediate threat.
If it were a stationary object, it'd be pretty impressive to hit the fuel component squarely from hundreds of miles away. But we're talking about shooting a moving satellite out of the sky whose orbit is decaying. Out of the sky! Do you know how ridiculously large the sky is?
Alright, that's enough gushing for now, especially since there's still a chance that the mission was a failure. But it looks good, and I think that speaks volumes towards what science can accomplish. So be nice to your local nerds; they may be able to pinpoint your bedroom from a missile silo.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
N
I'm sure a lot of you have already played this game, as I remember playing it way back when I was a 25-year-old in the dorm in Altoona (which was perhaps the most awful experience I've ever had). Anyways, it's called N, where you're a ninja hopping around, grabbing gold coins, flipping switches, and trying to escape levels or something. There's a story, but really, it's just a puzzle game. Anyways, it's sweet ass fun, so check it out if you're bored and want to kill some time.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Spring Training and the Mild Insanity of the Fantasy Baseball Fan
The 6 weeks from the middle of February through the end of March make up an exciting time for the baseball fan and player alike. Everyone's got a shot (yes, even Kansas City), everybody's got reason to be hopeful, and it's not all about the Red Sox and Yankees...yet. You get to hear about all the little position battles throughout the league between the grizzled veterans and the cocky youngsters. You learn the names of some of your team's young up-and-coming hurlers who are getting a shot at the bullpen (but will probably start in triple-A), and you get to look at some statistics that mean absolutely nothing, but will get you reaching for the stars.
Yep, it's great to be a baseball fan during spring training...well, unless you're into fantasy baseball. For a fantasy baseball fan, spring training makes you feel like Santa Claus, marking your lists with "nices" and "naughties." And every day brings a new story about that guy you were watching, or a guy you didn't realize you should be watching. It's hell. You can read a hundred things a day every day from February 15th through March 30th and still not know half of the ups and downs from the baseball exhibition season.
So here's my recommendation: Don't. Listen, the stuff that happens in spring training tends to have only a minimal impact on fantasy baseball. 95% of all starting lineup spots are already set, as well as 80% of starting rotations. And really, do you think you should be that concerned about who the Reds' fifth starter is going to be? Is that the guy you want on your fantasy team? Keeper leagues obviously rely a little more on these battles, as they will sometimes involve stud prospects, but if he's truly a stud prospect, he'll get to the majors eventually anyways. And come on, keeper leagues are more serious on all levels, so you should be used to this kind of stuff.
The one exception, of course, is each team's closer situation. Every year there are a few bullpens whose hierarchy remains undetermined until midway through spring training or later. Remember? Jonathan Papelbon was supposed to be in the rotation last year. But that information can change daily anyways. Your best bet is to check out all the closer battles during the days leading up to your draft and head into your draft with the most current data you can get your hands on. They're mostly a crapshoot anyways (think Joel Pineiro from last year), but as long as you don't use an early pick on someone in a questionable situation, you won't come away looking like a fool. That, of course, is the value of the high end guys (Putz, Papelbon, Nathan, K-Rod); you can draft them with the confidence that they won't get shelved in spring training.
But if you can afford it, if you can delay your fantasy baseball research just a little while, you really should. It's a great time of year to be a fan of baseball. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go update Josh Fogg on my list. He just signed with the Reds, and will be competing for that 5th starter spot.
Yep, it's great to be a baseball fan during spring training...well, unless you're into fantasy baseball. For a fantasy baseball fan, spring training makes you feel like Santa Claus, marking your lists with "nices" and "naughties." And every day brings a new story about that guy you were watching, or a guy you didn't realize you should be watching. It's hell. You can read a hundred things a day every day from February 15th through March 30th and still not know half of the ups and downs from the baseball exhibition season.
So here's my recommendation: Don't. Listen, the stuff that happens in spring training tends to have only a minimal impact on fantasy baseball. 95% of all starting lineup spots are already set, as well as 80% of starting rotations. And really, do you think you should be that concerned about who the Reds' fifth starter is going to be? Is that the guy you want on your fantasy team? Keeper leagues obviously rely a little more on these battles, as they will sometimes involve stud prospects, but if he's truly a stud prospect, he'll get to the majors eventually anyways. And come on, keeper leagues are more serious on all levels, so you should be used to this kind of stuff.
The one exception, of course, is each team's closer situation. Every year there are a few bullpens whose hierarchy remains undetermined until midway through spring training or later. Remember? Jonathan Papelbon was supposed to be in the rotation last year. But that information can change daily anyways. Your best bet is to check out all the closer battles during the days leading up to your draft and head into your draft with the most current data you can get your hands on. They're mostly a crapshoot anyways (think Joel Pineiro from last year), but as long as you don't use an early pick on someone in a questionable situation, you won't come away looking like a fool. That, of course, is the value of the high end guys (Putz, Papelbon, Nathan, K-Rod); you can draft them with the confidence that they won't get shelved in spring training.
But if you can afford it, if you can delay your fantasy baseball research just a little while, you really should. It's a great time of year to be a fan of baseball. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go update Josh Fogg on my list. He just signed with the Reds, and will be competing for that 5th starter spot.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Joe & Joe Sports
I know this blog doesn't get a ton of traffic, but for those of you who happen upon this page, I want to inform/remind you that we've been publishing episodes of the Joe & Joe Sports radio show (through TalkShoe.com) at a torrid pace (two in the past month). We've got another episode scheduled for tomorrow night (Thursday the 31st), and we'd love to have some more live listeners. At this point we don't have a mechanism for involving our listeners in the broadcast, but we do have an e-mail address (joe.joe.sports@gmail.com), and we love hearing from our listeners. Also, depending on the quantity and quality of emails, we're looking at adding a small segment during which we read and respond to emails on the show, so for the time being, that's your best shot to have some input on the show.
TalkShoe also has all of our previous shows archived (there's a direct link to our show's archive to the right), so feel free to reach back into the past and have a listen. Mostly we talk about football, but we do touch on a few other topics, and since the football season will be coming to a close shortly, we'll have to start looking elsewhere to generate content for our shows.
Also, I'm working with a few of my fellow sports junkies on production of another show. It's still in the formative stages, but it would be in the vein of a certain ESPN show. I'll leave it to you to think about which show that might be.
TalkShoe also has all of our previous shows archived (there's a direct link to our show's archive to the right), so feel free to reach back into the past and have a listen. Mostly we talk about football, but we do touch on a few other topics, and since the football season will be coming to a close shortly, we'll have to start looking elsewhere to generate content for our shows.
Also, I'm working with a few of my fellow sports junkies on production of another show. It's still in the formative stages, but it would be in the vein of a certain ESPN show. I'll leave it to you to think about which show that might be.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Are The Colts Actually Any Good?
I mean, of course they're good, but are they really an elite team? Historically, up until last year, they had been a disappointment with regards to the postseason, frequently being upset by lower-seeded teams, from a 41-0 drubbing against the Jets in wild card weekend in 2002 to the mistake-laden game against the Steelers in the 2005 divisional round. They won the Super Bowl last year, but do you really remember them getting anybody's best shot? The Ravens managed to win 13 games in the regular season but then couldn't do anything against a mediocre Colts defense. The Colts/Patriots game from the playoffs last year was one for the ages, but neither team played particularly well; the game was entertaining because of its back-and-forth nature.
Listen, I slurp the Colts as much as most people. I think Peyton Manning is the best quarterback in football, and it's obvious that Reggie Wayne and Joseph Addai are superstars. While my buddy Lu (and countless others) are more impressed with Bob Sanders than I am, there's no question he's a difference-maker for that defense. And though I didn't give him credit a few years ago, Tony Dungy is a hell of a football coach, leading his teams to the playoffs in 10 of the past 12 years. That's Cowher-esque.
But go talk to a Colts fan, and you'll find that they've endured the football equivalent of a generation of disappointment. After yesterday's loss to a depleted Chargers team, there can be little doubt that, despite "exorcising the demons" last year, this Colts team is not a playoff juggernaut. They are the same team they've been for the past 6+ years: a great regular season team.
Don't get me wrong, they fooled me, too. I thought the Colts were the real deal after last year, and agonized over whether or not to pick them to win the Super Bowl prior to the most recent iteration of Joe & Joe Sports (which you can listen to by clicking the link on the right). But I'm done with them. Last year was an anomaly, and we can expect them to continue to disappoint in the playoffs going forward.
Sorry Sam, but empirical data doesn't lie. And the data says the Colts are no Super Bowl team.
Listen, I slurp the Colts as much as most people. I think Peyton Manning is the best quarterback in football, and it's obvious that Reggie Wayne and Joseph Addai are superstars. While my buddy Lu (and countless others) are more impressed with Bob Sanders than I am, there's no question he's a difference-maker for that defense. And though I didn't give him credit a few years ago, Tony Dungy is a hell of a football coach, leading his teams to the playoffs in 10 of the past 12 years. That's Cowher-esque.
But go talk to a Colts fan, and you'll find that they've endured the football equivalent of a generation of disappointment. After yesterday's loss to a depleted Chargers team, there can be little doubt that, despite "exorcising the demons" last year, this Colts team is not a playoff juggernaut. They are the same team they've been for the past 6+ years: a great regular season team.
Don't get me wrong, they fooled me, too. I thought the Colts were the real deal after last year, and agonized over whether or not to pick them to win the Super Bowl prior to the most recent iteration of Joe & Joe Sports (which you can listen to by clicking the link on the right). But I'm done with them. Last year was an anomaly, and we can expect them to continue to disappoint in the playoffs going forward.
Sorry Sam, but empirical data doesn't lie. And the data says the Colts are no Super Bowl team.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Star Trek Online
Listen, I'm gonna go ahead and come right out and say it: I'm a nerd. I like all the stuff nerds like: Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, computers, video games, and the like. So when I heard that there would be a massive online multiplayer Star Trek game, I was obviously delighted. The concept of crewing a starship in the Star Trek universe was very appealing, and, barring some foul-up, should be a lot of fun.
See this article:
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50065
For those of you who aren't fans of reading, the article says that a new company has taken over the development of the game, and is planning on setting it up to be a more casual (their word, not mine) experience.
Vomit.
Are you kidding me? The most enjoyable games are those that are in fact too complex. I don't want a game that has been dumbed down for the masses; I want the game that every gaming company wants to make: easy to learn, hard to master. When I hear that they want to make it a "casual" game, I'm thinking it's going to be more like the Sims online or something.
Also mentioned in the article is that the company is exploring a different payment structure, where there wouldn't be a month-to-month fee, but you would have to pay for extra features inside the game. Apparently this strategy has been very successful in Korea. Well that's great, except this isn't Korea. What exactly am I going to have to pay for inside the game? Flight school? Engineering lessons? Transportation? Food? I don't like this, not one bit.
I play World of Warcraft. I've tried out Star Wars: Galaxies, Final Fantasy XI, Dungeons & Dragons Online, and Lord of the Rings online, and I found all of them to be seriously lacking when compared to WoW. I was disappointed, but not surprised. The Star Wars universe has its own flaws and foibles, so it's only fitting that its video game counterparts have some of the same problems.
But when it comes to complexities and fanship, Star Trek blows Star Wars out of the water. You can't give "Trekkies" a subpar effort; they'll lose their shit. The one thing I like about that is that, in those vehement supporters of the Star Trek universe, I've got a group of dedicated advocates who will do their best to ensure the game lives up to the standard of Star Trek. Many previous Star Trek games have disappointed, but an MMO should be held to a higher standard. You're not just creating an adventure. You're regenerating the entire Star Trek universe that thousands of people already know cover-to-cover, so to speak. You can't mess this up; they won't stand for it.
The main difference is that the average Star Wars fan is a casual fan, often young, and not necessarily a critical thinker. The average Star Trek fan expects a high level of discourse when they talk about their show, and certainly will expect a genuine representation of their universe from a game purported to offer gamers the true "Trek" experience.
Maybe this is all for nothing, and it'll end up being awesome, and everyone will go home happy. But I'm not holding out hope.
See this article:
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50065
For those of you who aren't fans of reading, the article says that a new company has taken over the development of the game, and is planning on setting it up to be a more casual (their word, not mine) experience.
Vomit.
Are you kidding me? The most enjoyable games are those that are in fact too complex. I don't want a game that has been dumbed down for the masses; I want the game that every gaming company wants to make: easy to learn, hard to master. When I hear that they want to make it a "casual" game, I'm thinking it's going to be more like the Sims online or something.
Also mentioned in the article is that the company is exploring a different payment structure, where there wouldn't be a month-to-month fee, but you would have to pay for extra features inside the game. Apparently this strategy has been very successful in Korea. Well that's great, except this isn't Korea. What exactly am I going to have to pay for inside the game? Flight school? Engineering lessons? Transportation? Food? I don't like this, not one bit.
I play World of Warcraft. I've tried out Star Wars: Galaxies, Final Fantasy XI, Dungeons & Dragons Online, and Lord of the Rings online, and I found all of them to be seriously lacking when compared to WoW. I was disappointed, but not surprised. The Star Wars universe has its own flaws and foibles, so it's only fitting that its video game counterparts have some of the same problems.
But when it comes to complexities and fanship, Star Trek blows Star Wars out of the water. You can't give "Trekkies" a subpar effort; they'll lose their shit. The one thing I like about that is that, in those vehement supporters of the Star Trek universe, I've got a group of dedicated advocates who will do their best to ensure the game lives up to the standard of Star Trek. Many previous Star Trek games have disappointed, but an MMO should be held to a higher standard. You're not just creating an adventure. You're regenerating the entire Star Trek universe that thousands of people already know cover-to-cover, so to speak. You can't mess this up; they won't stand for it.
The main difference is that the average Star Wars fan is a casual fan, often young, and not necessarily a critical thinker. The average Star Trek fan expects a high level of discourse when they talk about their show, and certainly will expect a genuine representation of their universe from a game purported to offer gamers the true "Trek" experience.
Maybe this is all for nothing, and it'll end up being awesome, and everyone will go home happy. But I'm not holding out hope.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Beowulf: The Game
GameStop has Beowulf: The Game on a massive price drop from $59.99 down to $19.99 for both the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3. I've heard good things about it so far in limited reviews, and for twenty bucks, it's not that much of a risk to take a chance on it.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Hawaii Isn't So Sunny These Days
What a load of crap. As you might have guessed, I'm talking about the BCS system that has produced a title game of Ohio State versus Louisiana State.
Now, I have no problem with those two teams going head-to-head, and in fact, I'd probably venture to say that they're the two best teams in the country, at least based on the limited information I have, as a casual NCAA football fan. Sure, Hawaii is undefeated, but their schedule very weak, having only played one team viewed as a top 25 team this year (last year's Cinderella Boise State). Georgia looks to be on fire, but the fact is they aren't the champion of their conference. Virginia Tech is the ACC champion, but they lost (handily) to LSU earlier in the year, so it seems silly to send them to the title game ahead of LSU.
But hang on a second. Why does it seem silly to send VT over LSU? Could it be because we think that, when two teams "settle it on the field," the team that won is the better team? Doesn't that capture the entire idea behind a playoff system? And doesn't a system that fails to give a championship opportunity to an undefeated team seem to miss the whole goddamn point? Every chance Hawaii has had to "settle it on the field," they've come out on top. I know it doesn't look good if you put a team with such a weak schedule into the championship game, and the pressure on Hawaii (and on everyone who picked them to play in that game) would be immense, since it'd be an unconventional pick. But sometimes you've got to go with what makes sense. I applaud the few voters who gave Hawaii their first-place vote.
Here's my biggest problem. Was there any way Hawaii could've played its way into the title game? Last year's Boise State team was dominant and went undefeated, but didn't play any ranked teams. They were left out of the championship talk. Hawaii defeated a ranked Boise State team this year, but still didn't get any serious consideration for the BCS championship game.
I'm not someone who tends to think that playing fields should be leveled. I'm not crazy about affirmative action or quotas, or the concept that you can improve your stock when applying to colleges if you're able to legitimately classify yourself as Black, Hispanic, or Native American. But the reason I don't like those things is because we've got lots of examples of minorities who have achieved. Certainly not enough to be able to say that we, as a nation and as a species, have grown beyond the stigmas based on color, creed, or anything else, but enough to say that most everybody has a shot.
But that's not the case for non-BCS schools. They simply have zero chance of being able to play for the championship of their own league. That's insane. It's one thing to say, "We know we're not good enough to win the title, but we're going to go out there and play our hearts out and try to win some games." But that's entirely different from, "We're as talented as anybody, and we can win every game on our schedule. But even if we do, we won't be given the opportunity to play for our championship." If I were anyone of influence at any of those schools, I'd start telling people that we need to try to get sent back down to 1AA, so that we can have a shot at a title.
This year was like a perfect storm for a non-BCS conference team to sneak into the title game. Everybody relevant lost at least 2 games except for Ohio State, who had a notoriously weak out of conference schedule and played in a Big Ten that endured a down year. Nobody looks all that good, but Hawaii still gets no "dap." What would it take? Would a team like Hawaii, Boise State, or Utah need to schedule multiple out of conference big time BCS teams? Say something like playing Arizona, North Carolina, and Texas A&M? Oh, you mean like the Utes DID in 2004, and then they went on to wipe the floor with Pittsburgh in the Fiesta Bowl.
How do we not learn from that? Or from Boise State/Oklahoma last year? Do people really think that the best team can only be one of the 65 teams in BCS conferences? And do we really think that, by picking teams only from those conferences, we're assuring ourselves of a great, competitive, memorable championship game? Let's explore the history of BCS title games, shall we? To make things easier, I've bolded the games that were won by 17 points or more:
I'm not going to argue that there haven't been a couple of tremendous games. Ohio State/Miami was a classic, and Texas/USC was perhaps the greatest college football game I've ever seen. But it is by no means a guarantee that, when you match up two BCS teams, you'll have a highly competitive, down-to-the-wire game. So why not give Hawaii a chance?
I'll tell you why. Because nobody gives a shit about Hawaii. Hawaii doesn't have the storied history of LSU, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, and on and on. So when you poll coaches to figure out who the best teams in football are, is it any surprise that they go with the big name programs? As a matter of fact, why in the hell are we asking NCAA coaches, 95% of whom have their jobs on the line for the entire season, to make objective evaluations of every other college football team in the country? Steve Spurrier makes no secret of the fact that he votes for Duke as the #25 team in his poll until they lose. Granted, that's usually week one, but the fact that that's even possible is evidence of how flawed the system is. Whatever happened between the colleges and sports writers to cleave the writers from the evaluation process has got to be buried in the interest of a more perfect system.
Is a playoff system the answer? Probably. It's worked for every other sport I've ever watched or cared about. There isn't a playoff system out there that I've ever seen or heard of that hasn't worked, that hasn't accomplished its precise goal of making sure that the team it declares as champion had to go through the other contenders.
Now, I have no problem with those two teams going head-to-head, and in fact, I'd probably venture to say that they're the two best teams in the country, at least based on the limited information I have, as a casual NCAA football fan. Sure, Hawaii is undefeated, but their schedule very weak, having only played one team viewed as a top 25 team this year (last year's Cinderella Boise State). Georgia looks to be on fire, but the fact is they aren't the champion of their conference. Virginia Tech is the ACC champion, but they lost (handily) to LSU earlier in the year, so it seems silly to send them to the title game ahead of LSU.
But hang on a second. Why does it seem silly to send VT over LSU? Could it be because we think that, when two teams "settle it on the field," the team that won is the better team? Doesn't that capture the entire idea behind a playoff system? And doesn't a system that fails to give a championship opportunity to an undefeated team seem to miss the whole goddamn point? Every chance Hawaii has had to "settle it on the field," they've come out on top. I know it doesn't look good if you put a team with such a weak schedule into the championship game, and the pressure on Hawaii (and on everyone who picked them to play in that game) would be immense, since it'd be an unconventional pick. But sometimes you've got to go with what makes sense. I applaud the few voters who gave Hawaii their first-place vote.
Here's my biggest problem. Was there any way Hawaii could've played its way into the title game? Last year's Boise State team was dominant and went undefeated, but didn't play any ranked teams. They were left out of the championship talk. Hawaii defeated a ranked Boise State team this year, but still didn't get any serious consideration for the BCS championship game.
I'm not someone who tends to think that playing fields should be leveled. I'm not crazy about affirmative action or quotas, or the concept that you can improve your stock when applying to colleges if you're able to legitimately classify yourself as Black, Hispanic, or Native American. But the reason I don't like those things is because we've got lots of examples of minorities who have achieved. Certainly not enough to be able to say that we, as a nation and as a species, have grown beyond the stigmas based on color, creed, or anything else, but enough to say that most everybody has a shot.
But that's not the case for non-BCS schools. They simply have zero chance of being able to play for the championship of their own league. That's insane. It's one thing to say, "We know we're not good enough to win the title, but we're going to go out there and play our hearts out and try to win some games." But that's entirely different from, "We're as talented as anybody, and we can win every game on our schedule. But even if we do, we won't be given the opportunity to play for our championship." If I were anyone of influence at any of those schools, I'd start telling people that we need to try to get sent back down to 1AA, so that we can have a shot at a title.
This year was like a perfect storm for a non-BCS conference team to sneak into the title game. Everybody relevant lost at least 2 games except for Ohio State, who had a notoriously weak out of conference schedule and played in a Big Ten that endured a down year. Nobody looks all that good, but Hawaii still gets no "dap." What would it take? Would a team like Hawaii, Boise State, or Utah need to schedule multiple out of conference big time BCS teams? Say something like playing Arizona, North Carolina, and Texas A&M? Oh, you mean like the Utes DID in 2004, and then they went on to wipe the floor with Pittsburgh in the Fiesta Bowl.
How do we not learn from that? Or from Boise State/Oklahoma last year? Do people really think that the best team can only be one of the 65 teams in BCS conferences? And do we really think that, by picking teams only from those conferences, we're assuring ourselves of a great, competitive, memorable championship game? Let's explore the history of BCS title games, shall we? To make things easier, I've bolded the games that were won by 17 points or more:
- 2000 - Florida State 46, Virginia Tech 29
- 2001 - Oklahoma 13, Florida State 2
- 2002 - Miami 37, Nebraska 14
- 2003 - Ohio State 31, Miami 24 (2OT)
- 2004 - LSU 21, Oklahoma 14
- 2005 - USC 55, Oklahoma 19
- 2006 - Texas 41, USC 38
- 2007 - Florida 41, Ohio State 14
I'm not going to argue that there haven't been a couple of tremendous games. Ohio State/Miami was a classic, and Texas/USC was perhaps the greatest college football game I've ever seen. But it is by no means a guarantee that, when you match up two BCS teams, you'll have a highly competitive, down-to-the-wire game. So why not give Hawaii a chance?
I'll tell you why. Because nobody gives a shit about Hawaii. Hawaii doesn't have the storied history of LSU, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, and on and on. So when you poll coaches to figure out who the best teams in football are, is it any surprise that they go with the big name programs? As a matter of fact, why in the hell are we asking NCAA coaches, 95% of whom have their jobs on the line for the entire season, to make objective evaluations of every other college football team in the country? Steve Spurrier makes no secret of the fact that he votes for Duke as the #25 team in his poll until they lose. Granted, that's usually week one, but the fact that that's even possible is evidence of how flawed the system is. Whatever happened between the colleges and sports writers to cleave the writers from the evaluation process has got to be buried in the interest of a more perfect system.
Is a playoff system the answer? Probably. It's worked for every other sport I've ever watched or cared about. There isn't a playoff system out there that I've ever seen or heard of that hasn't worked, that hasn't accomplished its precise goal of making sure that the team it declares as champion had to go through the other contenders.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Cheap Jerseys
ESPN Shop has a bunch of deals on football and basketball jerseys under $25. I'm hoping that link takes you directly to the lists of jerseys, but if not, I'll try to post better links later tonight/tomorrow.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Expansion Packs
When I was a kid, I hated expansion packs. I felt like the game company was robbing me, asking for more money just so that I could have a few more levels, a few more features, a little more functionality. And as a video game kid, I couldn't help but comply. Thirty dollars more for the Lord of Destruction expansion for Diablo II? You're an ass, Blizzard. Why didn't you just include this in the original game?
But I was wrong. Dead wrong, in fact, 95% of the time. It's true, a lot of the stuff included in the Diablo II expansion probably could've been included in the original game, though it obviously would've taken some time to get it resolved and programmed and tested and produced. But hey, what's a few more months when you're talking about thirty whole dollars? Well, it's time for the next game to come out, like Dungeon Siege for example.
But more than that, how about the fact that it is thirty dollars? Expansion packs very rarely rival the original game in price, and often, shortly after the expansion comes out, a full package include the game, expansion, and occasionally a strategy guide becomes available for $50. The "Battle Chest," as it's sometimes called. Take that into consideration the next time you pay full price for the newest Tiger Woods, or Madden, or 2K game. Expansion packs offer about the same amount of new content as the annual iteration of the popular sports games, but are available for substantially less money than the original game.
Let's cite a few examples of particularly impressive expansion franchises (Blizzard will dominate the list, but they dominate gaming, so it's reasonable).
World of Warcraft - The Burning Crusade expansion offered a brand new continent, two new races, a new profession, hundreds of new items, monsters, and skills, and a few more "instances," or dungeons, to those unfamiliar with the game. The next expansion, set for this winter, will add another continent, another new profession, a new class (far more interesting than a new race), siege weapons and destructible buildings, and another bevy of new items, monsters, skills, etc. The new expansion, in fact, is the main reason I'm continuing to play and pay for World of Warcraft. I've always wanted to be a death knight.
Starcraft - The Brood War expansion was one of the earliest expansions in my gaming career. It offered a few new units (not too impressive), but also offered completely new campaigns, with a full compliment of missions to undertake that rivaled and perhaps even surpassed the original campaigns, at least in terms of difficulty. That shit was hard.
Half-Life - Not along the same conventional expansion pack lines, but Half-Life spawned a number of expansions, such as Opposing Force, Blue Shift, and Team Fortress. On top of that is the immensely popular Counter-Strike, which started as an independent mod of Half-Life, but was developed into an official release. All of these games were relative successes on some level, and they're all built on the same framework of the original Half-Life. Chip, I promise, someday I'll play that set you bought me for my birthday a few years ago.
However, to be completely fair, there is one game franchise that has completely murdered the concept of an expansion pack to the point of obscenity: The Sims. The Sims came out with seven total expansion packs from August 2000 to October 2003, and while each was available for a reasonable price of $20-$30, the rapidity with which they were released suggests that they were not delayed by coding or testing constraints, but rather in an attempt to generate as much revenue as possible from each set of added features. While Maxis and Electronic Arts are entitled to take whatever path they choose to released their product, it has made me wary of purchasing new games, knowing that the potential for several expansion packs in the near future exists.
But The Sims is the exception and not the rule. For the most part, expansion packs offer game companies the opportunity to respond to requests and suggestions from their respective gaming communities, and expand and enhance their video game experiences. As a sincere gamer, I'm all for the production of top-quality titles, and I like the idea that, if enough people think a certain new feature or game change is a good idea, the company has the chance to integrate it into the game through an expansion pack.
And now you know part of the reason I refuse to buy brand new sports games.
But I was wrong. Dead wrong, in fact, 95% of the time. It's true, a lot of the stuff included in the Diablo II expansion probably could've been included in the original game, though it obviously would've taken some time to get it resolved and programmed and tested and produced. But hey, what's a few more months when you're talking about thirty whole dollars? Well, it's time for the next game to come out, like Dungeon Siege for example.
But more than that, how about the fact that it is thirty dollars? Expansion packs very rarely rival the original game in price, and often, shortly after the expansion comes out, a full package include the game, expansion, and occasionally a strategy guide becomes available for $50. The "Battle Chest," as it's sometimes called. Take that into consideration the next time you pay full price for the newest Tiger Woods, or Madden, or 2K game. Expansion packs offer about the same amount of new content as the annual iteration of the popular sports games, but are available for substantially less money than the original game.
Let's cite a few examples of particularly impressive expansion franchises (Blizzard will dominate the list, but they dominate gaming, so it's reasonable).
World of Warcraft - The Burning Crusade expansion offered a brand new continent, two new races, a new profession, hundreds of new items, monsters, and skills, and a few more "instances," or dungeons, to those unfamiliar with the game. The next expansion, set for this winter, will add another continent, another new profession, a new class (far more interesting than a new race), siege weapons and destructible buildings, and another bevy of new items, monsters, skills, etc. The new expansion, in fact, is the main reason I'm continuing to play and pay for World of Warcraft. I've always wanted to be a death knight.
Starcraft - The Brood War expansion was one of the earliest expansions in my gaming career. It offered a few new units (not too impressive), but also offered completely new campaigns, with a full compliment of missions to undertake that rivaled and perhaps even surpassed the original campaigns, at least in terms of difficulty. That shit was hard.
Half-Life - Not along the same conventional expansion pack lines, but Half-Life spawned a number of expansions, such as Opposing Force, Blue Shift, and Team Fortress. On top of that is the immensely popular Counter-Strike, which started as an independent mod of Half-Life, but was developed into an official release. All of these games were relative successes on some level, and they're all built on the same framework of the original Half-Life. Chip, I promise, someday I'll play that set you bought me for my birthday a few years ago.
However, to be completely fair, there is one game franchise that has completely murdered the concept of an expansion pack to the point of obscenity: The Sims. The Sims came out with seven total expansion packs from August 2000 to October 2003, and while each was available for a reasonable price of $20-$30, the rapidity with which they were released suggests that they were not delayed by coding or testing constraints, but rather in an attempt to generate as much revenue as possible from each set of added features. While Maxis and Electronic Arts are entitled to take whatever path they choose to released their product, it has made me wary of purchasing new games, knowing that the potential for several expansion packs in the near future exists.
But The Sims is the exception and not the rule. For the most part, expansion packs offer game companies the opportunity to respond to requests and suggestions from their respective gaming communities, and expand and enhance their video game experiences. As a sincere gamer, I'm all for the production of top-quality titles, and I like the idea that, if enough people think a certain new feature or game change is a good idea, the company has the chance to integrate it into the game through an expansion pack.
And now you know part of the reason I refuse to buy brand new sports games.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Sorry Shula, No Champagne this Year
Now that the "Game of the Century" is over and everyone is looking forward to the rest of the season, its time to take a brief look back at the game and a look into what is coming. The Pats/Colts game came with a lot of hype and a lot of action. Both teams played extremely well and, as we usually see in the NFL, a turnover is the play that seals the deal.
Its all over now with the Patriots leaping over their last true hurdle in what will end up being a spectacular season. Watching and hearing about what the Patriots have been up to all year, there should be little doubt that they are going to push that gas-peddle even more.
The Patriots remaining schedule starts with a Bye Week this weekend, three (3) away games, and four (4) home games. The away games are at Buffalo, at Baltimore, and at NY Giants. The furthest is Buffalo at 458 miles away. Their home games, which should all be easy wins, come against Philadelphia having an off year, Pittsburgh, who will be the only chance of a loss, the NY Jets, who can't decide which QB is best for them right now, and the 0-7 Miami Dolphins.
At this point in time (week 9 before the Monday Night game between Pittsburgh & Baltimore), New England's opponents have a combined record of 23-32, and its probably a safe bet that it'll be 24-33 after this evening's match up.
There's talk that the Ravens will give them trouble in Baltimore during their Monday night showdown. As a fan, "Any given Sunday" drops into my head, but this Ravens team has had an inconsistent year. I don't see this being nearly as tough of a match-up for Brady and his Boys as Pittsburgh will, and with that game at home, New England will have the home-field advantage.
The green light is on. Belichick has not shown any signs during games of slowing down, so why start slowing down now?
Sorry Shula and the rest of the 1972 Dolphins, you will have to save that champagne for another celebration.
Its all over now with the Patriots leaping over their last true hurdle in what will end up being a spectacular season. Watching and hearing about what the Patriots have been up to all year, there should be little doubt that they are going to push that gas-peddle even more.
The Patriots remaining schedule starts with a Bye Week this weekend, three (3) away games, and four (4) home games. The away games are at Buffalo, at Baltimore, and at NY Giants. The furthest is Buffalo at 458 miles away. Their home games, which should all be easy wins, come against Philadelphia having an off year, Pittsburgh, who will be the only chance of a loss, the NY Jets, who can't decide which QB is best for them right now, and the 0-7 Miami Dolphins.
At this point in time (week 9 before the Monday Night game between Pittsburgh & Baltimore), New England's opponents have a combined record of 23-32, and its probably a safe bet that it'll be 24-33 after this evening's match up.
There's talk that the Ravens will give them trouble in Baltimore during their Monday night showdown. As a fan, "Any given Sunday" drops into my head, but this Ravens team has had an inconsistent year. I don't see this being nearly as tough of a match-up for Brady and his Boys as Pittsburgh will, and with that game at home, New England will have the home-field advantage.
The green light is on. Belichick has not shown any signs during games of slowing down, so why start slowing down now?
Sorry Shula and the rest of the 1972 Dolphins, you will have to save that champagne for another celebration.
Monday, October 29, 2007
World Series / Opt-out
World Series
Did people forget that all year, as well as all last year, the consensus was that the American League had the 4 or 5 best teams in baseball? I guess last year's World Series confused us, but we all knew the Tigers weren't one of the three best teams in baseball; they just happened to win enough games at the right time to make it to the World Series. But the Red Sox were one of the top 3 teams in baseball, and they proved it by rolling over the Rockies.
The Rockies had a very nice lineup, but the Sox pitchers shut them down mostly. The Rockies had a staunch bullpen, but the Sox got to 'em. The Rockies were hot, but the Sox cooled 'em down (it's up to you to decide if the 8-day layoff caused that). While I was very disappointed with both the outcome and the lack of competitiveness throughout, there can be no doubt that the better team won.
Is there any doubt anymore, though, that the Red Sox are simply a hairier version of the Yankees? While the Yankees have the highest payroll, a staggering $52 million higher than Boston, the Red Sox' payroll is another $26 million higher than the #3 team, the Mets. Any time you can fit another team's payroll (even if it's just the lowly Devil Rays) between yours and the next one behind you, you're paying some outrageous salaries. And remember, Alex Rodriguez just declared that he'll be opting out, so that salary and Roger Clemens' salary come off the books for the Bronx Bombers, as well as potentially Jorge Posada's, Mariano Rivera's, and Bobby Abreu's. There's a distinct chance, though probably still less than 50%, that the team with the highest payroll next year is in fact the Red Sox. They're no longer the "idiots" or what-have-you.
I'll still root for them against the Yankees, but that's it. They're the baby Evil Empire, like the Olmec when compared to the Mayans.
Alex Rodriguez Opts Out
How exciting is this? The best player in baseball (try to look at Rodriguez's numbers and argue that) is suddenly on the free market, barring some radical change in his intentions. It's such big news that, on ESPNews tonight, it co-owned the "Breaking News" headline on the bottom line, along with "Red Sox win World Series." That's big.
I'd make guesses as to where he'll end up, etc, but I really need to be hitting the hay. So I'll just give you one intriguing idea: the Philadelphia Phillies. Nobody's talked about them being a big spending team, but certainly a team in Philadelphia has got plenty of money. Howard, Utley, and Hamels should still be in their arbitration periods, which will keep their salaries in check. With Rowand likely departing due to free agency, the Phillies will be in the market for some kind of bat. Obviously Rodriguez is a little bigger bat than Rowand, but I think he'd fit great. Plus, with someone like A-Rod in the fold, you have to think that Utley, Howard, and Hamels are more enticed to stick around; you know the offense is going to have some juice to it. I'm not a Phillies fan, nor am I an A-Rod fan, but I think it's a good fit.
Feel free to share your thoughts or guesses as well.
Did people forget that all year, as well as all last year, the consensus was that the American League had the 4 or 5 best teams in baseball? I guess last year's World Series confused us, but we all knew the Tigers weren't one of the three best teams in baseball; they just happened to win enough games at the right time to make it to the World Series. But the Red Sox were one of the top 3 teams in baseball, and they proved it by rolling over the Rockies.
The Rockies had a very nice lineup, but the Sox pitchers shut them down mostly. The Rockies had a staunch bullpen, but the Sox got to 'em. The Rockies were hot, but the Sox cooled 'em down (it's up to you to decide if the 8-day layoff caused that). While I was very disappointed with both the outcome and the lack of competitiveness throughout, there can be no doubt that the better team won.
Is there any doubt anymore, though, that the Red Sox are simply a hairier version of the Yankees? While the Yankees have the highest payroll, a staggering $52 million higher than Boston, the Red Sox' payroll is another $26 million higher than the #3 team, the Mets. Any time you can fit another team's payroll (even if it's just the lowly Devil Rays) between yours and the next one behind you, you're paying some outrageous salaries. And remember, Alex Rodriguez just declared that he'll be opting out, so that salary and Roger Clemens' salary come off the books for the Bronx Bombers, as well as potentially Jorge Posada's, Mariano Rivera's, and Bobby Abreu's. There's a distinct chance, though probably still less than 50%, that the team with the highest payroll next year is in fact the Red Sox. They're no longer the "idiots" or what-have-you.
I'll still root for them against the Yankees, but that's it. They're the baby Evil Empire, like the Olmec when compared to the Mayans.
Alex Rodriguez Opts Out
How exciting is this? The best player in baseball (try to look at Rodriguez's numbers and argue that) is suddenly on the free market, barring some radical change in his intentions. It's such big news that, on ESPNews tonight, it co-owned the "Breaking News" headline on the bottom line, along with "Red Sox win World Series." That's big.
I'd make guesses as to where he'll end up, etc, but I really need to be hitting the hay. So I'll just give you one intriguing idea: the Philadelphia Phillies. Nobody's talked about them being a big spending team, but certainly a team in Philadelphia has got plenty of money. Howard, Utley, and Hamels should still be in their arbitration periods, which will keep their salaries in check. With Rowand likely departing due to free agency, the Phillies will be in the market for some kind of bat. Obviously Rodriguez is a little bigger bat than Rowand, but I think he'd fit great. Plus, with someone like A-Rod in the fold, you have to think that Utley, Howard, and Hamels are more enticed to stick around; you know the offense is going to have some juice to it. I'm not a Phillies fan, nor am I an A-Rod fan, but I think it's a good fit.
Feel free to share your thoughts or guesses as well.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Damn Yankees
To briefly summarize the relevant information:
Joe Torre, manager of the Yankees, is offered a 1-year contract with a pay cut that has incentives based on reaching/winning the World Series. He declines.
About a week later, Yankee ownership says that whoever the new manager will be taking over a "team in transition," and will not be expected to win the World Series every year.
Sportswriters and the general fan population cry foul, saying that by the Yankees offering the type of contract they offered Torre, they illustrated their sentiments and expectations. Additionally, because their payroll outweighs everyone else's in baseball, any manager for the Yankees should be and will be expected to win big right away.
Alright, so now you're caught up. And I, of course, disagree with the sportswriters and general fan population mentioned above.
Expectations will always be high for the Yankees; I don't debate that point. But wasn't there a little bit of disdain for George Steinbrenner when he said if the Yankees didn't go to the World Series, Torre would lose his job? Wasn't that disdain from exactly the belief that it's stupid to expect to win the World Series every year? Maybe the new management team actually has some baseball sense. You can't be offended when one guy says something, and then be offended again when the new guy says he disagrees with the old guy.
Secondly, why can't Joe Torre be held to a different standard than some new manager? Joe Girardi, Don Mattingly, and Tony Pena have a combined 4+ years of managerial experience, with Pena as the only one with more than a year. Joe Torre has 26 years under his belt as a manager, and 11 first place finishes. Even if the roster stays essentially the same, the team will be "in transition" because they'll have a relative neophyte at the helm. If you keep expecting managers to win in their first year with the club, you're going to be going through a lot of first-year-managers.
Finally, the roster may in fact look quite different. The following players from the Yankees' 25-man roster have either expiring contracts or some kind of option (player or team): Bobby Abreu, Roger Clemens, Doug Mientkiewicz, Jose Molina, Andy Pettitte, Jorge Posada, Mariano Rivera, Alex Rodriguez, Luis Vizcaino. It's a safe bet that at least 4 of those players won't be back, and potentially up to 8 (Abreu has a team option which I imagine they'll pick up). That means you could have new starting third baseman, catcher, right field, closer, and 2 new starting pitchers. And you'd be replacing Hall of Famers at at least 3 of those spots (A-Rod, Clemens, Rivera).
I'm not saying it's wrong to expect the Yankees to be a playoff team. Even if they lose all of those players, they'll sign new guys who can play ball, without question. But this is the first time in 34 years that Yankees higher-ups have demonstrated some ability to evaluate Major League Baseball with some logic, some temperament. We should not be castrating the new guys for not being as crazy as The Boss.
Joe Torre, manager of the Yankees, is offered a 1-year contract with a pay cut that has incentives based on reaching/winning the World Series. He declines.
About a week later, Yankee ownership says that whoever the new manager will be taking over a "team in transition," and will not be expected to win the World Series every year.
Sportswriters and the general fan population cry foul, saying that by the Yankees offering the type of contract they offered Torre, they illustrated their sentiments and expectations. Additionally, because their payroll outweighs everyone else's in baseball, any manager for the Yankees should be and will be expected to win big right away.
Alright, so now you're caught up. And I, of course, disagree with the sportswriters and general fan population mentioned above.
Expectations will always be high for the Yankees; I don't debate that point. But wasn't there a little bit of disdain for George Steinbrenner when he said if the Yankees didn't go to the World Series, Torre would lose his job? Wasn't that disdain from exactly the belief that it's stupid to expect to win the World Series every year? Maybe the new management team actually has some baseball sense. You can't be offended when one guy says something, and then be offended again when the new guy says he disagrees with the old guy.
Secondly, why can't Joe Torre be held to a different standard than some new manager? Joe Girardi, Don Mattingly, and Tony Pena have a combined 4+ years of managerial experience, with Pena as the only one with more than a year. Joe Torre has 26 years under his belt as a manager, and 11 first place finishes. Even if the roster stays essentially the same, the team will be "in transition" because they'll have a relative neophyte at the helm. If you keep expecting managers to win in their first year with the club, you're going to be going through a lot of first-year-managers.
Finally, the roster may in fact look quite different. The following players from the Yankees' 25-man roster have either expiring contracts or some kind of option (player or team): Bobby Abreu, Roger Clemens, Doug Mientkiewicz, Jose Molina, Andy Pettitte, Jorge Posada, Mariano Rivera, Alex Rodriguez, Luis Vizcaino. It's a safe bet that at least 4 of those players won't be back, and potentially up to 8 (Abreu has a team option which I imagine they'll pick up). That means you could have new starting third baseman, catcher, right field, closer, and 2 new starting pitchers. And you'd be replacing Hall of Famers at at least 3 of those spots (A-Rod, Clemens, Rivera).
I'm not saying it's wrong to expect the Yankees to be a playoff team. Even if they lose all of those players, they'll sign new guys who can play ball, without question. But this is the first time in 34 years that Yankees higher-ups have demonstrated some ability to evaluate Major League Baseball with some logic, some temperament. We should not be castrating the new guys for not being as crazy as The Boss.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
HaloCountry
Since HaloNation seems to escape us with every attempt, we are making a solid attempt to get people together for HaloCountry.
What is HaloCountry? Getting together a serious group of people online for some Halo2 custom games.
Leave Saturday evening, November 3rd open for some serious Halo2 online gaming with some great company.
Contact Joe Mattingly or myself (or respond to this blog) if you have any questions
What is HaloCountry? Getting together a serious group of people online for some Halo2 custom games.
Leave Saturday evening, November 3rd open for some serious Halo2 online gaming with some great company.
Contact Joe Mattingly or myself (or respond to this blog) if you have any questions
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Kobe Bryant Trade (3)
To re-iterate, here are the criteria that a potential trade must satisfy for Kobe and the Lakers to both approve of it:
A) Kobe must be traded to a playoff team.
B) Lakers must receive a starter who can handle the ball.
C) Lakers must receive young talent.
D) Lakers must receive expiring contracts/unload undesireable contracts.
I decided to reword aspect D to take into account the value of moving a bad contract. Now, let's look at a couple less trite trade ideas, ones that don't involve the front-running Bulls or Mavericks.
Trade #3: Hawks trade Joe Johnson, Josh Childress, Lorenzen Wright, Acie Law IV, and Shelden Williams to Lakers for Kobe Bryant and Vladimir Radmanovic.
A) 1 point - While the Hawks were once again a lottery team last year, they keep stockpiling talent, and keep maturing. They've got playoff potential. Plus, Atlanta is very supportive of its athletes; I have to think Kobe can appreciate that.
B) 2 points - Joe Johnson can play either guard or small forward, and is a marquee player. He gets buried in Atlanta right now, but for the Lakers he'd be a big deal.
C) 2 points - Childress, Law, and Williams are all very young and talented.
D) 2 points - Almost $7 million comes off the books next year between Childress and Wright. More than that, however, Radmanovic's $20+ million over the next 4 years gets shipped out of town.
Total - 7 points, it's a little unconventional because of how bad the Hawks have been, but in my heart, I think it would work.
Trade #4: Knicks trade Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry, Nate Robinson, and Fred Jones to Lakers for Kobe Bryant and Vladimir Radmanovic.
A) 1 point - The Knicks seem somewhat improved, and a starting five of Marbury, Bryant, Quentin Richardson, David Lee, and Zach Randolph seems like it could work.
B) 2 points - Both Crawford and Robinson have ball handling skills.
C) 2 points - Curry, while turnover-prone, is talented offensively and still pretty young. Robinson is young as well.
D) 1 point - Again, Radmanovic's contract gets tossed, which is nice. Fred Jones also has $3.3 million expiring this season.
Total - 6 points, again, it's not a playoff team from last season, but a team that could be a 48-50 win team if this trade were to happen.
Trade #5: Celtics trade Paul Pierce, Brian Scalabrine, Glen Davis, and Tony Allen to Lakers for Kobe Bryant and Vladimir Radmanovic.
A) 2 points - Nobody questions that the Celtics are ready to compete.
B) 2 points - While not everyone would be crazy about it, Pierce can handle the ball.
C) 1 points - Davis and Allen figure to not be prominent in Boston's rotation, but they could develop in the Lakers' system.
D) 1 point - Allen's $2 million contract expires, plus they unload Radmanovic (see a trend?). Scalabrine's contract negates about half of Radmanovic's, though.
Total - 6 points, another one that I couldn't realistically see happening, but it gives the Lakers a lot of potential pieces.
Trade #6: Suns trade Shawn Marion and Eric Piatkowski to Lakers; Lakers trade Kobe Bryant to Jazz; Jazz trade Andrei Kirilenko, Gordan Giricek, and Matt Harpring to Suns. ($8M trade exception used to acquire Harpring).
A) 2 points - Jazz? Yes.
B) 1 point - Piatkowski isn't a dream to handle the ball, but Marion is probably the best player they could hope for in any Kobe trade.
C) 1 point - Marion's not really young, but he's so good you have to give another point here.
D) 1 point - Marion's contract is $3M less and a year shorter than Kobe's, and Piatkowski is a free agent after this season.
Total - 5 points, I know, it's not "enough" points, but wouldn't this be the trade that would leave everyone involved pretty happy? The Suns get another defensive force in AK47, plus two flexible hustle guys in Harpring and Giricek. The Lakers get Marion, a perfect guy to build your team around because he can fit into so many roles. And the Jazz get Kobe, the scoring guard they haven't had since Jeff Hornacek.
In the end, the trade that happens will probably be a permutation of one of the deals with Chicago or Dallas, but it's fun to look at other possibilities. In the NBA, because salaries are such an important factor, they tend to dictate the deals that can happen. Also, there are a lot of trade restrictions in the NBA, preventing guys like Andres Nocioni, Morris Peterson, Darko Milicic, and Rashard Lewis from being traded until December 15th. My guess is Kobe gets traded between that date and Christmas, when so many guys fall back into the realm of "trade bait."
A) Kobe must be traded to a playoff team.
B) Lakers must receive a starter who can handle the ball.
C) Lakers must receive young talent.
D) Lakers must receive expiring contracts/unload undesireable contracts.
I decided to reword aspect D to take into account the value of moving a bad contract. Now, let's look at a couple less trite trade ideas, ones that don't involve the front-running Bulls or Mavericks.
Trade #3: Hawks trade Joe Johnson, Josh Childress, Lorenzen Wright, Acie Law IV, and Shelden Williams to Lakers for Kobe Bryant and Vladimir Radmanovic.
A) 1 point - While the Hawks were once again a lottery team last year, they keep stockpiling talent, and keep maturing. They've got playoff potential. Plus, Atlanta is very supportive of its athletes; I have to think Kobe can appreciate that.
B) 2 points - Joe Johnson can play either guard or small forward, and is a marquee player. He gets buried in Atlanta right now, but for the Lakers he'd be a big deal.
C) 2 points - Childress, Law, and Williams are all very young and talented.
D) 2 points - Almost $7 million comes off the books next year between Childress and Wright. More than that, however, Radmanovic's $20+ million over the next 4 years gets shipped out of town.
Total - 7 points, it's a little unconventional because of how bad the Hawks have been, but in my heart, I think it would work.
Trade #4: Knicks trade Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry, Nate Robinson, and Fred Jones to Lakers for Kobe Bryant and Vladimir Radmanovic.
A) 1 point - The Knicks seem somewhat improved, and a starting five of Marbury, Bryant, Quentin Richardson, David Lee, and Zach Randolph seems like it could work.
B) 2 points - Both Crawford and Robinson have ball handling skills.
C) 2 points - Curry, while turnover-prone, is talented offensively and still pretty young. Robinson is young as well.
D) 1 point - Again, Radmanovic's contract gets tossed, which is nice. Fred Jones also has $3.3 million expiring this season.
Total - 6 points, again, it's not a playoff team from last season, but a team that could be a 48-50 win team if this trade were to happen.
Trade #5: Celtics trade Paul Pierce, Brian Scalabrine, Glen Davis, and Tony Allen to Lakers for Kobe Bryant and Vladimir Radmanovic.
A) 2 points - Nobody questions that the Celtics are ready to compete.
B) 2 points - While not everyone would be crazy about it, Pierce can handle the ball.
C) 1 points - Davis and Allen figure to not be prominent in Boston's rotation, but they could develop in the Lakers' system.
D) 1 point - Allen's $2 million contract expires, plus they unload Radmanovic (see a trend?). Scalabrine's contract negates about half of Radmanovic's, though.
Total - 6 points, another one that I couldn't realistically see happening, but it gives the Lakers a lot of potential pieces.
Trade #6: Suns trade Shawn Marion and Eric Piatkowski to Lakers; Lakers trade Kobe Bryant to Jazz; Jazz trade Andrei Kirilenko, Gordan Giricek, and Matt Harpring to Suns. ($8M trade exception used to acquire Harpring).
A) 2 points - Jazz? Yes.
B) 1 point - Piatkowski isn't a dream to handle the ball, but Marion is probably the best player they could hope for in any Kobe trade.
C) 1 point - Marion's not really young, but he's so good you have to give another point here.
D) 1 point - Marion's contract is $3M less and a year shorter than Kobe's, and Piatkowski is a free agent after this season.
Total - 5 points, I know, it's not "enough" points, but wouldn't this be the trade that would leave everyone involved pretty happy? The Suns get another defensive force in AK47, plus two flexible hustle guys in Harpring and Giricek. The Lakers get Marion, a perfect guy to build your team around because he can fit into so many roles. And the Jazz get Kobe, the scoring guard they haven't had since Jeff Hornacek.
In the end, the trade that happens will probably be a permutation of one of the deals with Chicago or Dallas, but it's fun to look at other possibilities. In the NBA, because salaries are such an important factor, they tend to dictate the deals that can happen. Also, there are a lot of trade restrictions in the NBA, preventing guys like Andres Nocioni, Morris Peterson, Darko Milicic, and Rashard Lewis from being traded until December 15th. My guess is Kobe gets traded between that date and Christmas, when so many guys fall back into the realm of "trade bait."
Kobe Bryant Trade (2)
When you're trading a superstar, you obviously have pretty high standards for what you want in return. Thus, I established the following criteria that a potential trade that I believe the trade would have to satisfy for it to happen:
A) Kobe must be traded to a playoff team.
B) Lakers must receive a starter who can handle the ball.
C) Lakers must receive young talent.
D) Lakers must receive expiring contracts.
Initially, I thought that only one of the last two would be necessary, but realistically, to equal Kobe's value, the other team would probably need to provide both. However, to take into account the different caliber of players (and contracts), I'm setting a variable of 0, 1, or 2 points per trade aspect. For the Lakers to accept the trade, they would need at least 6 points in return.
The two teams that seem to come up a lot when talking about Kobe Bryant trades are the Bulls and the Mavericks. So I played with it a little, and came up with the following two trades that seem to benefit both teams involved, and match up salary-wise.
Trade #1: Bulls trade Tyrus Thomas, Chris Duhon, Viktor Khryapa, Joakim Noah, and Kirk Hinrich to Lakers for Kobe Bryant.
A) 2 points - The Bulls are still one of the sexy picks in the Eastern Conference.
B) 2 points - Hinrich has his faults, but he's definitely a very solid ball-handler, and is talented enough to command a starting role immediately.
C) 2 points - Thomas was in the mix for the #1 overall pick a year ago, and Noah has got the potential to be a solid contributor.
D) 1 point - Over $5 million in expiring contracts between Khryapa and Duhon. It won't get them under the cap, but it'll get them closer.
Total - 7 points, looks like a decent deal for both parties.
Trade #2: Mavericks trade Josh Howard, DeSagana Diop, Nick Fazekas, and Jason Terry to Lakers for Kobe Bryant.
A) 2 points - As long as Dirk is a Maverick, they're a safe bet to make the playoffs.
B) 2 points - Terry is a fantastic point guard. He's a little seasoned, but can still play with the best of them.
C) 2 points - Howard is highly touted, and last year he really started to shine. Fazekas could be decent.
D) 0 points - Only the $2 million for Diop expires next season, and there's over $50 million committed to Howard and Terry over the next 4 years.
Total - 6 points, and Dallas has to give up a lot of its core, plus Kobe goes to a Western Conference team. I don't see this happening.
So the trade with the Bulls is the one that will probably happen, right? Well, hold on there. You should know by now that, once I get started talking about trades, I don't stop until everyone else is bored to tears. I'm going to make a third post, using the same evaluating factors, but looking at trades between the Lakers and teams besides the Mavs and Bulls. Get ready for that.
A) Kobe must be traded to a playoff team.
B) Lakers must receive a starter who can handle the ball.
C) Lakers must receive young talent.
D) Lakers must receive expiring contracts.
Initially, I thought that only one of the last two would be necessary, but realistically, to equal Kobe's value, the other team would probably need to provide both. However, to take into account the different caliber of players (and contracts), I'm setting a variable of 0, 1, or 2 points per trade aspect. For the Lakers to accept the trade, they would need at least 6 points in return.
The two teams that seem to come up a lot when talking about Kobe Bryant trades are the Bulls and the Mavericks. So I played with it a little, and came up with the following two trades that seem to benefit both teams involved, and match up salary-wise.
Trade #1: Bulls trade Tyrus Thomas, Chris Duhon, Viktor Khryapa, Joakim Noah, and Kirk Hinrich to Lakers for Kobe Bryant.
A) 2 points - The Bulls are still one of the sexy picks in the Eastern Conference.
B) 2 points - Hinrich has his faults, but he's definitely a very solid ball-handler, and is talented enough to command a starting role immediately.
C) 2 points - Thomas was in the mix for the #1 overall pick a year ago, and Noah has got the potential to be a solid contributor.
D) 1 point - Over $5 million in expiring contracts between Khryapa and Duhon. It won't get them under the cap, but it'll get them closer.
Total - 7 points, looks like a decent deal for both parties.
Trade #2: Mavericks trade Josh Howard, DeSagana Diop, Nick Fazekas, and Jason Terry to Lakers for Kobe Bryant.
A) 2 points - As long as Dirk is a Maverick, they're a safe bet to make the playoffs.
B) 2 points - Terry is a fantastic point guard. He's a little seasoned, but can still play with the best of them.
C) 2 points - Howard is highly touted, and last year he really started to shine. Fazekas could be decent.
D) 0 points - Only the $2 million for Diop expires next season, and there's over $50 million committed to Howard and Terry over the next 4 years.
Total - 6 points, and Dallas has to give up a lot of its core, plus Kobe goes to a Western Conference team. I don't see this happening.
So the trade with the Bulls is the one that will probably happen, right? Well, hold on there. You should know by now that, once I get started talking about trades, I don't stop until everyone else is bored to tears. I'm going to make a third post, using the same evaluating factors, but looking at trades between the Lakers and teams besides the Mavs and Bulls. Get ready for that.
Kobe Bryant Trade (1)
So what did we learn about the NBA trade climate over the summer? Well, we learned that, if all parties want to make a trade happen, a trade will happen. The NBA salary cap is such that there are a wide variety of ways to make things work, and when you're talking about elite players like Kevin Garnett, there's no shortage of buyers.
Your next question is, "What about Shawn Marion and Andrei Kirilenko? They wanted to be traded, but they're still on their respective teams." Right you are, but in those instances, only one party wants to make a trade happen (though the Suns seem willing to move Marion if the situation is right). The Suns and Jazz both had very nice seasons last year, and aren't hankering to break up their cores. The Timberwolves and Celtics were both sub par teams last year, so shaking things up was appealing to both sides.
Now, let's look at the current situation with Kobe Bryant. Unless we've been deceived, it certainly seems like Bryant wants to be traded. Now to the harder question: do the Lakers want to trade him? They've postured themselves recently to suggest that they do, but Bryant is a transcendent player who's still in his prime. It's never easy to toss that kind of talent aside, and it's even harder when your team is coming off of a playoff appearance, regardless of getting bounced in the first round.
But it's no fun to say that a trade won't happen, so we'll take the comments of Jerry Buss at face value, and start looking at potential trades. Also of note: In the NBA, matching salaries is just as important as matching talent. Luckily, ESPN.com has what they call the NBA Trade Machine, which evaluates trades on a salary basis to determine whether or not a particular trade works out. I'm currently working on another post that will have a few trades I've examined. I'll post it as soon as it's done.
Your next question is, "What about Shawn Marion and Andrei Kirilenko? They wanted to be traded, but they're still on their respective teams." Right you are, but in those instances, only one party wants to make a trade happen (though the Suns seem willing to move Marion if the situation is right). The Suns and Jazz both had very nice seasons last year, and aren't hankering to break up their cores. The Timberwolves and Celtics were both sub par teams last year, so shaking things up was appealing to both sides.
Now, let's look at the current situation with Kobe Bryant. Unless we've been deceived, it certainly seems like Bryant wants to be traded. Now to the harder question: do the Lakers want to trade him? They've postured themselves recently to suggest that they do, but Bryant is a transcendent player who's still in his prime. It's never easy to toss that kind of talent aside, and it's even harder when your team is coming off of a playoff appearance, regardless of getting bounced in the first round.
But it's no fun to say that a trade won't happen, so we'll take the comments of Jerry Buss at face value, and start looking at potential trades. Also of note: In the NBA, matching salaries is just as important as matching talent. Luckily, ESPN.com has what they call the NBA Trade Machine, which evaluates trades on a salary basis to determine whether or not a particular trade works out. I'm currently working on another post that will have a few trades I've examined. I'll post it as soon as it's done.
Friday, October 19, 2007
"Inappropriate" Video Games
If you're in the loop as far as video game news goes, you're already aware that Soldier of Fortune: Pay Back has been banned from being sold in Australia. If you haven't heard, there's a brief article about it on Gamespot that you'll want to read before continuing with this blog entry.
Being someone who disagrees with censorship at just about every level, my opinion on this is pretty predictable. Refusing to give people the option to experience a work of art is wrong. And there's no question that, on all relevant levels, and to anyone who appreciates them, video games are as much works of art as novels, songs, poems, paintings, or movies. The amount of creative energy that goes into creating a video game is tremendous, and, if any of you care to differ, I'll be happy to toss in another blog in the future outlining all of the different ways a video game qualifies as art. In fact, I'll probably do it anyways, regardless of your level of interest.
Back to the matter at hand, however, what kind of place has Australia become? Isn't that where the UK sent all their criminals? Are government officials afraid that, if the citizenry is exposed to these violent images, they'll revert to their murderous, criminal ways? I mean, the United States government does a decent job of trampling free speech rights from time to time, but just about anything that doesn't involve child pron is fair game (I intentionally use a misspelling there, "pron," to avoid the kind of Google searches I'm not looking for).
Check out this list of games that were "refused classification" in Australia, which means they cannot be sold in the country:
Grand Theft Auto isn't just a game in the U.S.; it's a whole phenomenon. It's spawned countless mimics, like Saints' Row (really fun game, by the way) and Tony Hawk's Underground 2. To think that the people of Australia are playing a different, toned down version of the game is troubling. As Americans, we think all the time about how many countries in the Middle East have oppressive laws, forcing the rules of their religion on the general populace. But it's a fair bet that most people in those countries are Muslims, and take their religion seriously, so the government is implementing laws that reflect the desires of its constituency.
It seems to actually be a little bit worse in a place like Australia, where most video games are okay. It's okay to be sort of violent, or sort of sexual, but there's a point (and an arbitrary one at that) beyond which you're not allowed to venture.
As an aside, the clips I saw of the game looked really interesting, and knowing now that it's considered particularly graphically violent, I'm going add it to my list of games to wait for to drop to $20-$30 and purchase. (I never buy anything new; I'm a cheapskate, remember?)
Being someone who disagrees with censorship at just about every level, my opinion on this is pretty predictable. Refusing to give people the option to experience a work of art is wrong. And there's no question that, on all relevant levels, and to anyone who appreciates them, video games are as much works of art as novels, songs, poems, paintings, or movies. The amount of creative energy that goes into creating a video game is tremendous, and, if any of you care to differ, I'll be happy to toss in another blog in the future outlining all of the different ways a video game qualifies as art. In fact, I'll probably do it anyways, regardless of your level of interest.
Back to the matter at hand, however, what kind of place has Australia become? Isn't that where the UK sent all their criminals? Are government officials afraid that, if the citizenry is exposed to these violent images, they'll revert to their murderous, criminal ways? I mean, the United States government does a decent job of trampling free speech rights from time to time, but just about anything that doesn't involve child pron is fair game (I intentionally use a misspelling there, "pron," to avoid the kind of Google searches I'm not looking for).
Check out this list of games that were "refused classification" in Australia, which means they cannot be sold in the country:
- Manhunt
- Grand Theft Auto III
- Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
- Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude
- and apparently various others...
Grand Theft Auto isn't just a game in the U.S.; it's a whole phenomenon. It's spawned countless mimics, like Saints' Row (really fun game, by the way) and Tony Hawk's Underground 2. To think that the people of Australia are playing a different, toned down version of the game is troubling. As Americans, we think all the time about how many countries in the Middle East have oppressive laws, forcing the rules of their religion on the general populace. But it's a fair bet that most people in those countries are Muslims, and take their religion seriously, so the government is implementing laws that reflect the desires of its constituency.
It seems to actually be a little bit worse in a place like Australia, where most video games are okay. It's okay to be sort of violent, or sort of sexual, but there's a point (and an arbitrary one at that) beyond which you're not allowed to venture.
As an aside, the clips I saw of the game looked really interesting, and knowing now that it's considered particularly graphically violent, I'm going add it to my list of games to wait for to drop to $20-$30 and purchase. (I never buy anything new; I'm a cheapskate, remember?)
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Oh Dear, the BCS Again.
What if.
Those two words are scaring the pants off of people who back the BCS system in college football. People who've resisted a playoff for one reason or another may have some reckoning coming their way this season, and if so, it's about time.
What if USF runs the table, and we're stuck putting them in the national championship game? What if more than 2 teams finish undefeated...again?
The BCS has always been purported as being the way to "finally" determine who the #1 team in the country is, and crown a national champion. The group that put together the BCS system acknowledged that the previous system was flawed. They realized that the system works better when fans, sportswriters, and players could feel confident that the team declared as "champion" deserved the moniker. Declaring a true national champion was (and still is) in the interest of the perpetuation of the sport.
But somewhere along the way, someone messed up. The current system still has bowl-style flaws. At the end of the year, only 2 teams get a shot at the national title. The path to the national title game passes through Columbus and Pasadena, but also passes through the evaluative minds of coaches, computers, and the American media machine. What sort of strange world do we live in where the championship decisions of a sport (even an "amateur" sport) are decided by people making guesses as opposed to playing head-to-head games, and getting your winners from their actions on the field?
"But Joe, the NCAA tournament uses a selection committee to determine who's eligible to play for the national championship." Right you are. In the end, even professional leagues have to make concessions; in the NFL, tie-breakers are used to determine playoff teams occasionally, and the tie-breakers are probably equally effective in choosing a playoff team when compared to a voting body of experts. But we're not talking about a field of two here. We're talking about a field of 12 in the NFL, or 65 in college basketball. We've acknowledged that it's inappropriate to have every team play every other team and hold a 300-team tournament at the end of the season. But we've also acknowledged that more than two teams are worthy of a chance.
Here's the kicker, a la Tim Cowlishaw on Around The Horn (and various others): "The college football regular season is essentially a playoff system. For the most part, it's 'win or go home' all year long." For the most part, yes, it's win or go home.
Except, Boise State went undefeated last year and never got a shot to get into the title game. So they defied logic, by winning and going home.
Except that Michigan's only loss last year was to #1 Ohio State by 3 points, but got squeezed out of the title game. (Don't talk to me about Michigan ending up losing in their bowl game and Florida winning the title; ask any poker player if the results justify the tactic, and they'll tell you the right move is always right, and the wrong move is always wrong, regardless of the results).
Except that, in 2004-2005, Auburn, Utah, and Boise State all went undefeated, and none of them were afforded the opportunity to play for the title.
Except...except....except....
Now look at this season. Right now, the following six teams are undefeated: Ohio State, South Florida, Boston College, Arizona State, Kansas, Hawaii. Of those six, five are in BCS conferences. Could we again be looking at a situation where an undefeated team from a top-caliber conference gets left out of a championship game? I wouldn't be surprised. Arizona State has a brutal schedule coming up, and Ohio State has some very loseable games, but there's a very real chance that we'll have 3-4 no-loss teams come bowl bid time.
And that's where the concept of the "year-long playoff" fails. In every other sport, if you never lose a game, you've got a shot at the title. College hoops, if you win every game, you earn an automatic bid, either through your season or your conference tournament. College football is the only sport where you can win every single game you play, and still be considered only the 4th best team at the end of the year. If it's a year-long playoff, then every undefeated team is still alive.
So BCS, I wish for you that Ohio State loses (I wish that for myself as well, just as a selfish Penn State fan), and all five of the other teams run the table. You'll get to enjoy Boston College vs. South Florida as your marquee title game matchup. You'll see Kansas vs. Arizona State in one of the other BCS bowls. Hawaii will take on South Carolina. Your ratings will go in the tube, and you'll keep paying $1.8 million to Notre Dame for the luxury of being able to include them in the BCS system.
Without question, a true playoff system is the answer. It vastly reduces the impact of politics, biases, and television exposure in the determination of who'll play for the title. Grab the top 16 BCS-rated teams, seed them according to ratings, and let 'em go at it. The fact that this is somehow difficult for college chancellors or athletic directors or anyone else to grasp is a testament to the total ignorance of the general American population.
I'll leave you with this. Beano Cook, ESPN analyst, said, "The BCS is college football's equivalent of prayer in school. There's always got to be a debate about it." He forgot to add, "It's something that only idiots think is right."
Those two words are scaring the pants off of people who back the BCS system in college football. People who've resisted a playoff for one reason or another may have some reckoning coming their way this season, and if so, it's about time.
What if USF runs the table, and we're stuck putting them in the national championship game? What if more than 2 teams finish undefeated...again?
The BCS has always been purported as being the way to "finally" determine who the #1 team in the country is, and crown a national champion. The group that put together the BCS system acknowledged that the previous system was flawed. They realized that the system works better when fans, sportswriters, and players could feel confident that the team declared as "champion" deserved the moniker. Declaring a true national champion was (and still is) in the interest of the perpetuation of the sport.
But somewhere along the way, someone messed up. The current system still has bowl-style flaws. At the end of the year, only 2 teams get a shot at the national title. The path to the national title game passes through Columbus and Pasadena, but also passes through the evaluative minds of coaches, computers, and the American media machine. What sort of strange world do we live in where the championship decisions of a sport (even an "amateur" sport) are decided by people making guesses as opposed to playing head-to-head games, and getting your winners from their actions on the field?
"But Joe, the NCAA tournament uses a selection committee to determine who's eligible to play for the national championship." Right you are. In the end, even professional leagues have to make concessions; in the NFL, tie-breakers are used to determine playoff teams occasionally, and the tie-breakers are probably equally effective in choosing a playoff team when compared to a voting body of experts. But we're not talking about a field of two here. We're talking about a field of 12 in the NFL, or 65 in college basketball. We've acknowledged that it's inappropriate to have every team play every other team and hold a 300-team tournament at the end of the season. But we've also acknowledged that more than two teams are worthy of a chance.
Here's the kicker, a la Tim Cowlishaw on Around The Horn (and various others): "The college football regular season is essentially a playoff system. For the most part, it's 'win or go home' all year long." For the most part, yes, it's win or go home.
Except, Boise State went undefeated last year and never got a shot to get into the title game. So they defied logic, by winning and going home.
Except that Michigan's only loss last year was to #1 Ohio State by 3 points, but got squeezed out of the title game. (Don't talk to me about Michigan ending up losing in their bowl game and Florida winning the title; ask any poker player if the results justify the tactic, and they'll tell you the right move is always right, and the wrong move is always wrong, regardless of the results).
Except that, in 2004-2005, Auburn, Utah, and Boise State all went undefeated, and none of them were afforded the opportunity to play for the title.
Except...except....except....
Now look at this season. Right now, the following six teams are undefeated: Ohio State, South Florida, Boston College, Arizona State, Kansas, Hawaii. Of those six, five are in BCS conferences. Could we again be looking at a situation where an undefeated team from a top-caliber conference gets left out of a championship game? I wouldn't be surprised. Arizona State has a brutal schedule coming up, and Ohio State has some very loseable games, but there's a very real chance that we'll have 3-4 no-loss teams come bowl bid time.
And that's where the concept of the "year-long playoff" fails. In every other sport, if you never lose a game, you've got a shot at the title. College hoops, if you win every game, you earn an automatic bid, either through your season or your conference tournament. College football is the only sport where you can win every single game you play, and still be considered only the 4th best team at the end of the year. If it's a year-long playoff, then every undefeated team is still alive.
So BCS, I wish for you that Ohio State loses (I wish that for myself as well, just as a selfish Penn State fan), and all five of the other teams run the table. You'll get to enjoy Boston College vs. South Florida as your marquee title game matchup. You'll see Kansas vs. Arizona State in one of the other BCS bowls. Hawaii will take on South Carolina. Your ratings will go in the tube, and you'll keep paying $1.8 million to Notre Dame for the luxury of being able to include them in the BCS system.
Without question, a true playoff system is the answer. It vastly reduces the impact of politics, biases, and television exposure in the determination of who'll play for the title. Grab the top 16 BCS-rated teams, seed them according to ratings, and let 'em go at it. The fact that this is somehow difficult for college chancellors or athletic directors or anyone else to grasp is a testament to the total ignorance of the general American population.
I'll leave you with this. Beano Cook, ESPN analyst, said, "The BCS is college football's equivalent of prayer in school. There's always got to be a debate about it." He forgot to add, "It's something that only idiots think is right."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
When I think about why I'm making this blog post, I'm reminded of a memorable quote from my all-time favorite show, The West Wing : ...
-
Games are a little tougher to judge, because frankly I play a lot of games that I don't finish, but often I don't finish them like, ...
-
We're making progress! I've got kind of a reputation for being way behind on movies and shows, a reputation well-earned. Even with t...
