Biased Football Opinions - 3
Biased Opinion 4/27/07: Hypocritical College Presidents
An article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune about the recently-completed BCS meeting here talks about possible changes in college football's post-season when the current BCS contract with the bowls and Fox expires in 2009. Here are the main points.
In talking about the 'plus-one model," the writer says this:
"...most believe that there should be a two-week gap between the bowl games ... and the championship game. But if the bowls were played on or around January 1, that would push the title game until Jan. 15 or so. That would never fly with the presidents, who are adamant about not spilling football into the spring semester, even if [only] two teams are involved."
Why are the presidents so hung up about the season overflowing to the second semester? An article cited here in January says their objection is players missing too much class time. If that's the case, that is rank hypocrisy on the part of the presidents. These same leaders approved adding a 12th game to every team's regular season which causes half the teams to have another road game and therefore another day of missed classes. They also approved games on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday nights for TV. A Saturday game requires the visiting players to miss Friday classes, but they are back on campus Saturday night or early Sunday morning. Weeknight games force the visitors to miss classes on two different days and possibly a third. For example, a Thursday night game forces a team to leave Wednesday afternoon, be at the game site all day Thursday, and return to their campus early Friday morning – anywhere from 1 to 8 am depending on the distance. What shape will they be in for morning classes? But two teams can't be allowed to play in a championship game in mid-January because the players will miss classes (at the beginning of a new semester).
Biased Opinion 4/19/07: Bielema Attacks a Sacred Cow
This biased opinion is a response to an article about Wisconsin coach Bret Bielema. He questions why Notre Dame played in a BCS bowl instead of his 11-1 (regular season) Badgers. He is particularly upset for his seniors. "They were a BCS-caliber team, and they were denied because of a stupid rule." BCS rules permit at most two teams from a conference to play in BCS bowls in a given year, and Ohio State (#1) and Michigan (#3) finished ahead of the Badgers (#7) in the final BCS standings. The Fighting Irish finished 11th, below Auburn (#10), another team left out of BCS bowls because SEC rivals Florida (#2) and LSU (#4) ranked higher. More from Bielema: "I understand why certain teams get exemptions. I don't understand why Notre Dame does. If they want to play by conference rules, join a conference."
To clarify the situation, Notre Dame did not receive an invitation to the Sugar Bowl automatically. Under BCS rules, the Irish must finish in the top 8 of the final BCS standings to get a guaranteed berth in a BCS bowl. However, the Sugar Bowl could say it chose Notre Dame because it was the highest ranked team available and not (wink wink) because the Golden Domers are a TV draw.
This site congratulates Coach Bielema for speaking out against the biggest sacred cow in college sports, Notre Dame football. We are also in full agreement that Notre Dame should quit getting special consideration because they refuse to join a conference. How many think the Irish would have compiled a 10-2 regular season record in 2006 if they had played in the Big Ten, SEC, or any other BCS conference?
Biased Opinion 4/13/07: Baseball and the NBA
All my life, I considered baseball my favorite sport. However, my attitude changed radically after the 2005 season. Part of the reason for the change could have been post-Katrina blues. However, it was primarily a reaction to what happened to my beloved Cardinals during the 2004 and 2005 seasons. In both instances, the Redbirds led the majors in wins during the regular season. During the 2004 post-season, they had to go seven games to fend off the Astros, whom they had defeated in the Central Division over 162 games. Spent after that grueling series and facing a Red Sox team that had staged the impossible by defeating the Yankees after falling behind 0-3 in the series, the Cards were humiliated in four games by the "team of destiny." Then in 2005 an even worse fate befell them. After trouncing Houston by 11.5 games in the Central Division, they had to play them again in the League Championship Series. I rooted hard against the Astros making the wild card that year because I knew they would be even tougher to beat in the playoffs than in '04. Sure enough, Houston won in six games. My only consolation was that they got swept by the White Sox in the Series.
I decided there and then that the regular season was a waste of time. I adopted my NBA approach: wake me when the playoffs start. I didn't look at a game (not even an at-bat) or any standings or box scores until September 15. And, frankly, I didn't miss baseball. Sure enough, the season proved my decision to be correct when the opposite of 2004 and 2005 occurred. St. Louis limped into the playoffs with the worst record of any team and were given no chance. Instead, they put together their healthiest lineup of the year and, with a team nowhere near as good as the ones in 2004 and 2005, won the World Series.
So I have decided that I made a mistake last year in deciding to wait until September 15 to start following the pennant races. September 15 is too early! This year, I'll wait until the last weekend of the regular season.
Biased Opinion 4/7/07: March Madness vs. the BCS
"OK, everyone happy about their fun little NCAA Tournament? Good, but it's no better than the BCS. In fact, it's worse. ...
"Why are some of these teams even playing Division I basketball? Yet when the biggest event of the season (the national "playoff") rolls around, we've got Eastern Kentucky, Belmont, Wright State ... with a chance to play for it all because, well, they're so darn cute.
"College basketball has become some sick payback for all of college football's misgivings. The little guy gets hosed in college football, so, by God, the big guy is getting his in hoops.
"Let me explain the truth about the basketball tournament: There are 65 teams in the 'playoff' because more teams equals more games, which translates to more television revenues. You don't really think the field was expanded years ago from 48 teams because the NCAA suddenly thought the little guys deserved a shot, do you? ...
"Are you really that hard up to watch Ohio State play Middle Tennessee in the first round of a college football national 'playoff'? Just watch the first two weeks of the season; it's the same thing.
"Look, George Mason was fun last year. Just like Boise State was fun in the Fiesta Bowl. It's a rarity, not reality.
"But somehow, we ridicule college football's postseason yet revel in the glory that is the basketball tournament. They're one in the same, people: inherently awkward systems devised to make money.
"Only one is worse that the other: the one that acts like a 'playoff.'"
I agree with Matt with regard to both basketball and football. As the NCAA President himself admitted, having a 64-team tournament cheapens college basketball's regular season. Of course, so does having conference tournaments the last week. My interest in college basketball as far as actually watching regular season games is limited to the SEC and to certain other teams (FSU and Texas with D. J.). And I really don't get interested until after the BCS Championship Game. Who cares who wins the preseason NIT? On the other hand, I will watch any Division I football game any weekend and even set up two sets every Saturday to watch games simultaneously from 11 am to 11 pm. Matt is correct in his comparison of the first two weeks of the football season with the first round of the basketball tournament.
However, having said all that, I repeat the basic premise of this web site.
4/4/07: College football needs a Final Four!
College football is too exclusionary in its post-season "tournament" by allowing only two teams a chance at the championship. Doubling that to four would (a) give any deserving teams a chance at the title, including teams that lost one game in a tough conference, without (b) cheapening the regular season. Eight teams is too many (as well as an unrealistic goal at the present time) and a 16-team tournament which would include all the conference champions would certainly cheapen the regular season. More extensive discussion of playoffs and "plus one" options in the months to come between now and the 2008 season.
Biased Opinion 3/31/07: College vs. NFL Replay
"The NFL needs to embrace how college football handles reviews – no coaches' challenges, no limits on reviews and a replay official upstairs determining what to look at and making the final decision. I don't believe college games have been significantly lengthened by replay intrusions. But unlike the NFL, colleges have a method to review every iffy call. In the NFL, too many plays that should be reviewed aren't. And that's not good. Plus, let's broaden what is reviewable. It's ludicrous not to include pass interference. This is the most punitive penalty in the books, yet it's off-limits for a second look. Let's stop this nonsense of exempting plays because they are 'judgment' calls. What's wrong with eliminating bad judgments?"
Biased Opinion 3/26/07: Why "Length"?
Who put out the memo to basketball announcers to substitute the word "length" for "height"? Numerous times I've heard an analyst say that a team's or a player's "length" will cause the opponent trouble. Is the change an attempt to emphasize that tall players also have long arms? Did that fact suddenly become apparent to someone at the top of CBS Sports or ESPN? Perhaps rosters should now list "Arm Length" for each player.
Biased Opinion 3/17/07: Pack It In, Billy!
In the latest ESPN The Magazine, Bill Simmons writes his column on Billy Packer. Some excerpts:
"Billy Packer has provided color for every Final Four game and every NCAA championship game since 1975. ... He loves dissecting strategies and he understands the sport as well as anyone. He's always impeccably prepared. He has a knack for pointing out things before they happen. His arguments are usually well-reasoned. And he certainly doesn't sugarcoat his opinions and isn't afraid to take an unpopular stance. ... Every February and March you can count on ... Packer's turning himself into a national story, as if a little alarm goes off to remind him, 'Wait, it's getting close to spring and I haven't ticked anyone off yet.'"
"Packer actually started early this year, making headlines for downplaying the vicious Gerald Henderson elbow that broke Tyler Hansbrough's nose ..., adamantly maintaining that the blow was unintentional even as the replays repeatedly defied him. Like always with Packer, it wasn't the opinion as much as the way he expressed it: He was condescending, stern, inflexible. In Packer's world, he's always right, and everyone else is always wrong. ... Everything backfired last March when he ridiculed them [the NCAA Selection Committee] ... for including too many Missouri Valley teams, and two of them made the Elite Eight."
"Here's the problem: Packer loves basketball a little too much. He doesn't grasp its entertainment value simply because he can't see it. ... When NBC teamed him with Dick Enberg and Al McGuire in the late 1970s, McGuire's sense of humor balanced out Packer ... That's why they're remembered as one of the best TV teams ever."
"And it's not like Packer is Mr. Popularity. ... At the 2005 ACC tournament in DC, Packer was honored for his body of TV work at halftime ... and the arena booed him as if he were a WWE villain."
"Many people (including me) believe he's a humorless know-it-all and a curmudgeon, and we're exhausted by his schtick. ... No offense, Billy, but 32 years is more than enough."
I like basketball, especially college basketball. However, it will never be my favorite sport for any number of reasons I won't go into here. However, one thing that bothers me about college basketball is this: COLLEGE SENIORS SHOOT FROM THE SAME 3-POINT LINE THAT HIGH SCHOOL FRESHMEN GIRLS SHOOT FROM! I favor extending the college arc to the international distance which would provide a natural progression from high school to college to pro. Supposedly, a major reason for putting the three-point arc at its current location (which, I believe, is the way it has been since its introduction in the mid-80s except for some experimentation in some games in a few seasons) is to give teams without a dominant big man a better chance at victory. However, very few teams have dominant big men any more. The recent NBA rules change has resulted in players like Greg Oden playing at least one year of college. However, moving the arc further out would open more room inside the circle for driving and prevent teams from packing a zone quite as much. And it would make room for more of the traditional post play that we see little of any more.
Biased Opinion 3/1/07: What's the Point of These Conference Tournaments?
I am not a fan of conference basketball tournaments. I don't see the point in playing the entire conference season just to end up having the same teams play each other again. In many cases, teams are playing for the third time. Many years ago, the rationale given for the tournaments was that they were a way to get conferences an extra team or two into the NCAA tournament. Conferences didn't want the regular season winner to win the tournament so that both the regular season champ and the tournament champ would make the Big Dance. However, without making a detailed study of tournaments the past ten years, I would say that as many times as not a conference tournament may eliminate a team from the NCAA as easily as qualify a new one. I particularly feel for a team in a small conference that dominates its competition with a 16-0 or 15-1 regular season record only to be upset in the tournament and not make the NCAA at all. The NCAA is trying to ease this situation by guaranteeing the regular season champions of some conferences an NIT bid if they don't make the NCAA. Overall, I'd much rather see an extra week of intersectional play (early in January since the conference season could be pushed back a week) rather than watching the same teams play each other again.