Last week I was out in Oregon, visiting Mom & Dad, and there was an article in the Oregonian about an Oregon State football player being dismissed from the football team. I know, players are kicked off teams every day. But this one was, well, special.
‘Tyler Patrick Thomas, 19, of Kalispell, Mont., was arrested on charges of first-degree criminal trespass, second-degree criminal mischief and resisting arrest. According to information from the Corvallis Police Department, at about 4:51 a.m., police were called to 519 N.W. 14th Street after a 32-year-old woman reported there was a naked man in the upstairs office of her residence. When officers arrived, they ordered him to get on the ground several times, but he refused.Then Thomas, who had reportedly been drinking, got into a "three-point stance" and lunged at the officers, who Tased him.’
I’ll say this, if you’re going to get arrested and kicked off the team, getting Tased while naked in a three point stance is the way to go. Why leave any doubt about your future status at the University? Go big, or go home, right?
That being said, this might not even be the strangest pre-dismissal behavior of football players at Oregon State. From 2005…
'Jimtavis Walker, a transfer from Florida who was expected to be the Beavers' starting tailback in the fall, and Star Paddock, a walk-on deep snapper, were arrested at the apartment of 2 other OSU football players, for what started as a dispute with a taxi driver over a $14 fare. According to the police report, the incident occurred at 2:52 a.m.
The taxi driver, an OSU student who declined to give his name because he said he feared for his safety, said Walker offered him marijuana as payment for the cab ride after the players initially tried to give him food as payment. The cab driver said Walker had what appeared to be "a sandwich bag full of pot."
"It was obvious they had been drinking, and they were quite unruly," the driver said, adding that Walker threw a hamburger at him after the players left the cab. The driver said that after Walker berated him, Walker "lit up a joint."
"Bottom line, these guys didn't pay for a taxi ride and it sort of got out of hand," police captain Jon Sassaman said.' Gee, ya think?
And finally, the greatest arrest in the history of College Football Player arrests…
‘Oregon State player caught drunk with gay sheep’
'Beaver defensive tackle Ben Siegert was arrested this past week for DUI. A starter for the Beavers, Siegert blew a 0.14 blood alcohol level some 90 minutes after being arrested. During the traffic stop, he was found to be in possession of a ram from the university's Sheep Center. A Benton County Sheriff's deputy found the animal in the bed of a pickup after pulling Siegert over for speeding on Southwest Whiteside Drive about 1:34 a.m.... The ram lives at the research facility on 35th Street near Campus Way and is part of a study on homosexuality in sheep, said Sheep Center manager Tom Nichols.'
This, naturally brings up the following question. How can we conclusively prove the sheep was gay? And why should that be a matter of public knowledge? If the Oregon State University administration doesn’t allow the US Army on campus because of their discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, why should this poor, defenseless, farm animal not be afforded the same protections.
Oh, and come to think of it. Is it just me, or is it a little funny that Oregon State has something called a 'Sheep Center'?
Only in Corvallis. Where men are men, and sheep are nervous. REALLY nervous.
Friday, September 3, 2010
The Elephant in the Room
I don't think there is a clear cut favorite this year for the BCS National Championship; too many teams have too many questions.
Boise State? Can they beat VaTech and Oregon State, and if it comes down to it, will the voters vault a one-loss team from a BCS conference over a non-AQ school. Ohio State? A relatively easy road in a down Big 10, yes, but I still have the same questions about Terrelle Pryor. Did he have a good Rose Bowl against my Ducks? Undoubtedly, but until he proves he can do it week in week out he's Million Dollar Talent, with a less valuable head. 'Bama? I think people are underrating the amount of talent they lost. (Man, how much I would love to see JoePa come down to Tuscaloosa and stick it up Nick $atan's a**). Florida? How will they fare post-Tebow? Texas? OU? Garrett Gilbert isn’t Colt McCoy and Landry Jones isn’t Sam Bradford. Also, if you'd asked me on January 10th, I'd have said throw Oregon in the mix. And then they lost Masoli. They still have 18 starters back, but who knows if Darron Thomas can fill Jeremiah's shoes. Chip Kelly is a stinkin' genius, so if anyone can get DT#1 ready he can.
So you’ve got a long list of possibles. Most people also have a ‘sleeper pick’. A longshot, as it were. So do I. It's a sleeper that will have a slew of questions about them, but talent wise, there are few, if any, teams whose starting 22 are more talented than they are.
The University of Southern California.
Yes, I'm serious. And yes, I know they can't play in a bowl game. Or win the Pac-10 conference title. But if you look at that team, the talent is there. And it’s there in droves. In the backfield Allen Bradford and Mark Tyler are solid RB's. Dillon Baxter is a special talent, CJ Gable started for a #1 team as a freshman, and Stanley Havili is among the best FB in the country. Matt Barkley, was the #1 QB recruit in the country, and will be a first round NFL pick, possibly the #1 overall. Their WR are big, fast, and, finally, healthy. They've got experience and talent on the defensive side, and their d-line may be the best in College Football.
Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn't mention the Greatest Marching Band in the History of the Universe and the World Famous USC Song Girls (they may not play, but they DEFINITELY have talent.)
Are there questions? Huge ones, obviously. What kind of backup talent will they have remaining with the transfers? While many of those who left wouldn’t have played much, Seantrel Henderson would have been HUGE for this team, and it will hurt them depth-wise. How will they stay motivated with no conference title, Rose Bowl, or BCS game to play for? It will be up to Lane Kiffin, his staff, and the players on the team to keep themselves focused on the fact that, regardless of NCAA sanctions, they are still USC, and they still can do what USC does. Win. Questions aside, the schedule shapes up well for them; they don't play their usual non-conference schedule of death, and the Notre Dame game is in the Coliseum this year. Cal, UDub, and Oregon also all come to LA this year. Yes, the Trojans have to go to Reser to take on Oregon State in November, but it's not beyond the pale that they could be 10-0 at the time. And maybe the thought of an undefeated season will be able to get them over the Corvallis bugaboo.
And now the final question. Lane Kiffin. I know its all the rage to bash Kiff. (Memo to Tennessee: He left. He took a better job. SC is a better gig than Rocky Top. Always has been. Always will be. Get over it.) But some football people much smarter than me and the rest of us who post here think this guy can coach. He sure as hell can recruit. And based on his track record, we know he can run an offense. And I'm pretty sure Dad Kiffin can do a fair job of coaching up the defense. When it comes down to it, Lane Kiffin will have as big a chip on his shoulder as the players at SC do. They want to prove that they’re still SC. Lane wants to prove that he’s not an arrogant, spoiled punk, and an idiot. I think both will.
Am I saying USC is going to run the table? No, I’m not. I think there's a chance, though, that they do just that. There’s too much talent on that sideline not to consider that possibility. I also think there's a chance that this team stumbles, gets unmotivated fast, and goes 7-6. But if Kiff can get them to play with a chip on their shoulder (which he's doing), if he can make them remember that they ARE SC, and if they can stay healthy, this team is the elephant in the room. They'll be the most talented team on the field every game they play this season. And if they go 13-0, there's your AP national champs right there.
Fight On.
Boise State? Can they beat VaTech and Oregon State, and if it comes down to it, will the voters vault a one-loss team from a BCS conference over a non-AQ school. Ohio State? A relatively easy road in a down Big 10, yes, but I still have the same questions about Terrelle Pryor. Did he have a good Rose Bowl against my Ducks? Undoubtedly, but until he proves he can do it week in week out he's Million Dollar Talent, with a less valuable head. 'Bama? I think people are underrating the amount of talent they lost. (Man, how much I would love to see JoePa come down to Tuscaloosa and stick it up Nick $atan's a**). Florida? How will they fare post-Tebow? Texas? OU? Garrett Gilbert isn’t Colt McCoy and Landry Jones isn’t Sam Bradford. Also, if you'd asked me on January 10th, I'd have said throw Oregon in the mix. And then they lost Masoli. They still have 18 starters back, but who knows if Darron Thomas can fill Jeremiah's shoes. Chip Kelly is a stinkin' genius, so if anyone can get DT#1 ready he can.
So you’ve got a long list of possibles. Most people also have a ‘sleeper pick’. A longshot, as it were. So do I. It's a sleeper that will have a slew of questions about them, but talent wise, there are few, if any, teams whose starting 22 are more talented than they are.
The University of Southern California.
Yes, I'm serious. And yes, I know they can't play in a bowl game. Or win the Pac-10 conference title. But if you look at that team, the talent is there. And it’s there in droves. In the backfield Allen Bradford and Mark Tyler are solid RB's. Dillon Baxter is a special talent, CJ Gable started for a #1 team as a freshman, and Stanley Havili is among the best FB in the country. Matt Barkley, was the #1 QB recruit in the country, and will be a first round NFL pick, possibly the #1 overall. Their WR are big, fast, and, finally, healthy. They've got experience and talent on the defensive side, and their d-line may be the best in College Football.
Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn't mention the Greatest Marching Band in the History of the Universe and the World Famous USC Song Girls (they may not play, but they DEFINITELY have talent.)
Are there questions? Huge ones, obviously. What kind of backup talent will they have remaining with the transfers? While many of those who left wouldn’t have played much, Seantrel Henderson would have been HUGE for this team, and it will hurt them depth-wise. How will they stay motivated with no conference title, Rose Bowl, or BCS game to play for? It will be up to Lane Kiffin, his staff, and the players on the team to keep themselves focused on the fact that, regardless of NCAA sanctions, they are still USC, and they still can do what USC does. Win. Questions aside, the schedule shapes up well for them; they don't play their usual non-conference schedule of death, and the Notre Dame game is in the Coliseum this year. Cal, UDub, and Oregon also all come to LA this year. Yes, the Trojans have to go to Reser to take on Oregon State in November, but it's not beyond the pale that they could be 10-0 at the time. And maybe the thought of an undefeated season will be able to get them over the Corvallis bugaboo.
And now the final question. Lane Kiffin. I know its all the rage to bash Kiff. (Memo to Tennessee: He left. He took a better job. SC is a better gig than Rocky Top. Always has been. Always will be. Get over it.) But some football people much smarter than me and the rest of us who post here think this guy can coach. He sure as hell can recruit. And based on his track record, we know he can run an offense. And I'm pretty sure Dad Kiffin can do a fair job of coaching up the defense. When it comes down to it, Lane Kiffin will have as big a chip on his shoulder as the players at SC do. They want to prove that they’re still SC. Lane wants to prove that he’s not an arrogant, spoiled punk, and an idiot. I think both will.
Am I saying USC is going to run the table? No, I’m not. I think there's a chance, though, that they do just that. There’s too much talent on that sideline not to consider that possibility. I also think there's a chance that this team stumbles, gets unmotivated fast, and goes 7-6. But if Kiff can get them to play with a chip on their shoulder (which he's doing), if he can make them remember that they ARE SC, and if they can stay healthy, this team is the elephant in the room. They'll be the most talented team on the field every game they play this season. And if they go 13-0, there's your AP national champs right there.
Fight On.
Thoughts on Boise State
Someone asked me the other day whether I really thought Boise State was better than Florida, Texas or Ohio State.
I can't say for certain whether they are or not.
I do know that they return 21 starters from a team that went 13-0 last year. On a true neutral field, first game of the season (by the way, don’t kid yourselves, this is a VT home game; the Hokies will have more fans in FedEx Field than they would if the game were in Blacksburg) ? Yeah, I'd pick them to beat Texas. And Florida. And possibly Ohio State. And, despite the hostile environment, they could very likely go in and beat VT.
But here, as they say, lies the rub. Despite the fact they're playing on the road, against a top 10 team, it likely still won't get them to the BCS championship game, and could likely hurt them in the long run, in terms of scheduling quality opponents. They are, in essence, a victim of their own success. Thay can't prove that they deserve respect as a good/great team without playing quality OOC games; but when they play (and win) quality OOC games, the BCS schools run for cover. Every time they beat an Oklahoma, or an Oregon, or a Virginia Tech, other BCS schools look at them, pause, and then start looking real hard at Louisiana Monroe. At some point the excuses used by BCS schools as to why they won't play the Broncs a home and home are going to come down to this: We're scared.
Predictably, the person I was talking with came back with the usual suspects list of excuses. ‘Only one or two hard games a year’, ‘subpar conference’, ‘hard to get excited about a team like that.’ Then he suggested the ‘Well, maybe they should try and get into a BCS conference.’ Blah Blah Blah.
Funny, I feel the same way about teams from BCS conferences that schedule 1-AA schools and use the excuse that 'Our conference schedule is too difficult'. Your conference is what your conference is; you can't hold Boise State accountable for the failings of the rest of the WAC.
'Maybe they should try to get into a BCS conference'? Ideally, they'd love to; unfortunately they bring little in the form of academics or TV market share that would interest a BCS conference. And like it or not, that’s what gets you into a BCS conference, simply playing well won’t cut it. The Broncs are, however, at least moving up to the Mountain West, which you can make a case (or you could, before Utah left), is as solid a conference as the ACC or the Big East.
As for their schedule, they should be past the days when they should have to play major schools only on the road. Likely they scheduled Wyoming and Toledo (and Oregon State), because those schools agreed to play a home and home. Boise State isn’t going to schedule 4 OOC games on the road, just to prove they're really as good as some people think they care; 2 BCS bowl wins should have proved that already. And by the way, I wouldn’t rip Boise State’s non-conference schedule; SEC teams will play Tennessee Tech, Tennessee Martin, Arkansas State, and Jacksonville State. This week.
Finally, he came back with the ‘Do you really want Boise State to make it to the championship game? Alabama would kill them. Ingram and Richardson would run for 200 yards each, and they couldn’t handle a Nick Saban defense.’ (Ah. I love Tide fans when they get riled up; their myopia is staggering).
Yes, I do. I DO hope Boise makes it to the championship game as well. Or if they don’t TCU does. Or Utah. Perhaps then we'll finally hear the end of the argument 'oh, the only reason the non-Automatic Qualifier's win major bowl games is because the BCS schools don't care'. As Jim Rome would say, child please. If Alabama came into the 2009 Sugar Bowl not taking Utah seriously, just because they’d lost the SEC Championship game, then that's a black mark on Nick Saban. And if Alabama didn't wake up and start playing after Utah came out and stuck it up their a** in the first quarter, then that's a black mark on them. Same with Bob Stoops at OU in the 2006 Fiesta Bowl. A game is a game, and an excuse is an excuse. And the 'we didn't care' line is old, tired, and frankly, crap.
Boise State wins BCS games because they are a good football team, and because Chris Peterson is a hell of a football coach. Does he use trick plays? Occasionally, yes. At the right place, the right time, and they work. That's not a fluke, that's good coaching. As for the 'predictions' of the success of Mark Ingram, Trent Richardson, and the rest of the 'Bama offense running roughshod over the Broncs? Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't think you're right about the 400 yards rushing part, but I'll leave you to your delusions. I've watched a Nick Saban defense play. Often. Against a slew of predictable, boring SEC offenses. And I've watched a Chris Peterson offense play. And I can guarantee you, it won't be what Saban and the Tide see every week. Chris Peterson got his offense ready for a great OU defense in the Fiesta Bowl. He got them ready for a TCU defense last year. And if BSU plays the Tide, or anyone, in the BCS championship game, he'll have the Broncs offense ready to go.
Of course there is a perfect way to settle this debate. Call the AD. Tell Malfunction J. Moore that you, as a Tide fan, want to see them prove that the Tide are superior to some bunch of backwoods potato farmers. Tell him you, and all Bama fans, want to take Georgia Southern, or Western Kentucky, or Louisana Monroe, or Georgia State, off the schedule, and play a home and home starting up on the Smurf Turf. And you know what will happen? He won't have the stones. You could call Jeremy Foley, or Joe Alleva, or Jay Jacobs, or Damon Evans before he got canned, and they'd all tell you the same thing. 'Maximize home games', 'increase revenue', 'high travel costs', 'already a difficult schedule' blah, blah, blah. And they're all the same thing. Excuses. Major schools don’t want to play Boise in Boise because they might lose. And if that isn’t synonomous with ‘We’re Scared’, then someone needs to call Roget.
Let’s go Broncs.
I can't say for certain whether they are or not.
I do know that they return 21 starters from a team that went 13-0 last year. On a true neutral field, first game of the season (by the way, don’t kid yourselves, this is a VT home game; the Hokies will have more fans in FedEx Field than they would if the game were in Blacksburg) ? Yeah, I'd pick them to beat Texas. And Florida. And possibly Ohio State. And, despite the hostile environment, they could very likely go in and beat VT.
But here, as they say, lies the rub. Despite the fact they're playing on the road, against a top 10 team, it likely still won't get them to the BCS championship game, and could likely hurt them in the long run, in terms of scheduling quality opponents. They are, in essence, a victim of their own success. Thay can't prove that they deserve respect as a good/great team without playing quality OOC games; but when they play (and win) quality OOC games, the BCS schools run for cover. Every time they beat an Oklahoma, or an Oregon, or a Virginia Tech, other BCS schools look at them, pause, and then start looking real hard at Louisiana Monroe. At some point the excuses used by BCS schools as to why they won't play the Broncs a home and home are going to come down to this: We're scared.
Predictably, the person I was talking with came back with the usual suspects list of excuses. ‘Only one or two hard games a year’, ‘subpar conference’, ‘hard to get excited about a team like that.’ Then he suggested the ‘Well, maybe they should try and get into a BCS conference.’ Blah Blah Blah.
Funny, I feel the same way about teams from BCS conferences that schedule 1-AA schools and use the excuse that 'Our conference schedule is too difficult'. Your conference is what your conference is; you can't hold Boise State accountable for the failings of the rest of the WAC.
'Maybe they should try to get into a BCS conference'? Ideally, they'd love to; unfortunately they bring little in the form of academics or TV market share that would interest a BCS conference. And like it or not, that’s what gets you into a BCS conference, simply playing well won’t cut it. The Broncs are, however, at least moving up to the Mountain West, which you can make a case (or you could, before Utah left), is as solid a conference as the ACC or the Big East.
As for their schedule, they should be past the days when they should have to play major schools only on the road. Likely they scheduled Wyoming and Toledo (and Oregon State), because those schools agreed to play a home and home. Boise State isn’t going to schedule 4 OOC games on the road, just to prove they're really as good as some people think they care; 2 BCS bowl wins should have proved that already. And by the way, I wouldn’t rip Boise State’s non-conference schedule; SEC teams will play Tennessee Tech, Tennessee Martin, Arkansas State, and Jacksonville State. This week.
Finally, he came back with the ‘Do you really want Boise State to make it to the championship game? Alabama would kill them. Ingram and Richardson would run for 200 yards each, and they couldn’t handle a Nick Saban defense.’ (Ah. I love Tide fans when they get riled up; their myopia is staggering).
Yes, I do. I DO hope Boise makes it to the championship game as well. Or if they don’t TCU does. Or Utah. Perhaps then we'll finally hear the end of the argument 'oh, the only reason the non-Automatic Qualifier's win major bowl games is because the BCS schools don't care'. As Jim Rome would say, child please. If Alabama came into the 2009 Sugar Bowl not taking Utah seriously, just because they’d lost the SEC Championship game, then that's a black mark on Nick Saban. And if Alabama didn't wake up and start playing after Utah came out and stuck it up their a** in the first quarter, then that's a black mark on them. Same with Bob Stoops at OU in the 2006 Fiesta Bowl. A game is a game, and an excuse is an excuse. And the 'we didn't care' line is old, tired, and frankly, crap.
Boise State wins BCS games because they are a good football team, and because Chris Peterson is a hell of a football coach. Does he use trick plays? Occasionally, yes. At the right place, the right time, and they work. That's not a fluke, that's good coaching. As for the 'predictions' of the success of Mark Ingram, Trent Richardson, and the rest of the 'Bama offense running roughshod over the Broncs? Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't think you're right about the 400 yards rushing part, but I'll leave you to your delusions. I've watched a Nick Saban defense play. Often. Against a slew of predictable, boring SEC offenses. And I've watched a Chris Peterson offense play. And I can guarantee you, it won't be what Saban and the Tide see every week. Chris Peterson got his offense ready for a great OU defense in the Fiesta Bowl. He got them ready for a TCU defense last year. And if BSU plays the Tide, or anyone, in the BCS championship game, he'll have the Broncs offense ready to go.
Of course there is a perfect way to settle this debate. Call the AD. Tell Malfunction J. Moore that you, as a Tide fan, want to see them prove that the Tide are superior to some bunch of backwoods potato farmers. Tell him you, and all Bama fans, want to take Georgia Southern, or Western Kentucky, or Louisana Monroe, or Georgia State, off the schedule, and play a home and home starting up on the Smurf Turf. And you know what will happen? He won't have the stones. You could call Jeremy Foley, or Joe Alleva, or Jay Jacobs, or Damon Evans before he got canned, and they'd all tell you the same thing. 'Maximize home games', 'increase revenue', 'high travel costs', 'already a difficult schedule' blah, blah, blah. And they're all the same thing. Excuses. Major schools don’t want to play Boise in Boise because they might lose. And if that isn’t synonomous with ‘We’re Scared’, then someone needs to call Roget.
Let’s go Broncs.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Yet Another Rant on Indy Car Racing
As Indy Car counts down the days until Randy Bernard announces the new engine/chassis suppliers for next season and beyond, I took the opportunity to vent my frustrations with the series in a letter to Robin Miller's mailbag at SpeedTV.com.
To preface this, I love open wheel racing. At least I used to. Before Tony George instigated the split with CART. Before it became a spec series that, well, pretty much sucks. But I still hold out hope for the future... Here's the Q&A...
Q: My birthday this year fell on Indy 500 weekend. My wife wanted to surprise me. She got her hands on some tickets, had plane flights booked, and a place to stay found. And then she asked me if I wanted my birthday present to be a trip to the Indy 500.
And I told her thanks, but I'll pass.
And we went to Seaworld.
And I didn't regret it.
And it made me sad.
So, that being said, I just read Marshall Pruett's column on what he wants 2012 Indycar to be, and a lot of it jibes with what I and, I hope, most fans, want too. Let me preface this by saying, I'm not an engineer. I don't know an inline engine from an online chat. But I think I hear what Pruett is saying. Translating Pruett-speak into English, mostly what we what is want we don't have now. I don't want ugly-ass spec cars, driven solely by Euros, playing follow the leader flat out around a cookie cutter oval.
What do I want? I want Indy to bring sexy back.
I want sexy cars, not the ugly pig on wheels we have now. I want cars that make you turn your head, drop your jaw, and say 'DAMN'...even when they're sitting still. And I don't want just one. I want the vehicular equivalent of blondes, brunettes, and redheads. And they all better look good, too. I want sexy engines. I want turbo whine, and whoosh, and something that I will never expect to see 'Powered by Briggs and Stratton' on the side. I want sexy horsepower. Not 500. Not 600. Enough so that 'LOTS' will be an excellent description. I want drivers with balls...or the female equivalent. Because no fear is sexy. I want drivers to have to make the tradeoff between lifting and winning....or possibly crashing. I want Milka as a grid girl with a bikini on her body, a bag on her head, and her right foot nowhere near a gas pedal. Ever again. I want 'hanging it out on the edge' to be heard on qualifying runs. I want, just once more in my lifetime, to hear the phrase 'it's a neeeeewwww traaaaaccccckkk recccccorrrrrd' to be heard at the Speedway. And I want Tom Carnegie to say it. I want REAL push to pass. I want Chad Boat and JR Hildebrand in the Indy 500, not the Daytona 500. I want Indy to be filled with the 21st century AJ, and Big and Little Al, and Lone Star JR, and Rick Mears. Nothing against Brazilians and Euros. They're fine people; in this case, though, less is more. I want drivers to get rides based on talent, not checkbook balance. I don't want 'my crew got me good track position' to EVER be heard on victory lane. And I want the Indy 500 to be the biggest, fastest, sexiest race on the planet. Again. And if it takes $20 million and moving the race to Saturday or Monday, do it. And I want Randy Bernard to say, 'NASCAR? Here's the cash, here's the schedule. No more excuses. Grow a set and come race, or go back to your little taxi cabs, and forever know that when push came to shove, you didn't have the stones.'
What do I want? I want to forget the last 15 years ever happened. I want my Indy back. And I want it sexy.
Steve Kornya, Orlando, FL
RM: Belated birthday wishes Steve and thanks for the well written rant.
To preface this, I love open wheel racing. At least I used to. Before Tony George instigated the split with CART. Before it became a spec series that, well, pretty much sucks. But I still hold out hope for the future... Here's the Q&A...
Q: My birthday this year fell on Indy 500 weekend. My wife wanted to surprise me. She got her hands on some tickets, had plane flights booked, and a place to stay found. And then she asked me if I wanted my birthday present to be a trip to the Indy 500.
And I told her thanks, but I'll pass.
And we went to Seaworld.
And I didn't regret it.
And it made me sad.
So, that being said, I just read Marshall Pruett's column on what he wants 2012 Indycar to be, and a lot of it jibes with what I and, I hope, most fans, want too. Let me preface this by saying, I'm not an engineer. I don't know an inline engine from an online chat. But I think I hear what Pruett is saying. Translating Pruett-speak into English, mostly what we what is want we don't have now. I don't want ugly-ass spec cars, driven solely by Euros, playing follow the leader flat out around a cookie cutter oval.
What do I want? I want Indy to bring sexy back.
I want sexy cars, not the ugly pig on wheels we have now. I want cars that make you turn your head, drop your jaw, and say 'DAMN'...even when they're sitting still. And I don't want just one. I want the vehicular equivalent of blondes, brunettes, and redheads. And they all better look good, too. I want sexy engines. I want turbo whine, and whoosh, and something that I will never expect to see 'Powered by Briggs and Stratton' on the side. I want sexy horsepower. Not 500. Not 600. Enough so that 'LOTS' will be an excellent description. I want drivers with balls...or the female equivalent. Because no fear is sexy. I want drivers to have to make the tradeoff between lifting and winning....or possibly crashing. I want Milka as a grid girl with a bikini on her body, a bag on her head, and her right foot nowhere near a gas pedal. Ever again. I want 'hanging it out on the edge' to be heard on qualifying runs. I want, just once more in my lifetime, to hear the phrase 'it's a neeeeewwww traaaaaccccckkk recccccorrrrrd' to be heard at the Speedway. And I want Tom Carnegie to say it. I want REAL push to pass. I want Chad Boat and JR Hildebrand in the Indy 500, not the Daytona 500. I want Indy to be filled with the 21st century AJ, and Big and Little Al, and Lone Star JR, and Rick Mears. Nothing against Brazilians and Euros. They're fine people; in this case, though, less is more. I want drivers to get rides based on talent, not checkbook balance. I don't want 'my crew got me good track position' to EVER be heard on victory lane. And I want the Indy 500 to be the biggest, fastest, sexiest race on the planet. Again. And if it takes $20 million and moving the race to Saturday or Monday, do it. And I want Randy Bernard to say, 'NASCAR? Here's the cash, here's the schedule. No more excuses. Grow a set and come race, or go back to your little taxi cabs, and forever know that when push came to shove, you didn't have the stones.'
What do I want? I want to forget the last 15 years ever happened. I want my Indy back. And I want it sexy.
Steve Kornya, Orlando, FL
RM: Belated birthday wishes Steve and thanks for the well written rant.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
BCS Humor.
I wish I could take credit for coming up with this bit of genius, but, alas, I can't. I won't, however, refrain from posting it here. To give it context, it came out last season, shortly after the Big 12 conference used the BCS rankings to break a 3-way tie for the Big 12 South championship, and give Oklahoma a spot in the conference title game despite the fact that the Sooners had lost to Texas (a team they were tied with).
BCS Declares Germany Winner of World War II
by Contributor
US Ranked 4th
After determining the Big-12 championship game participants, the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.
"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."
Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories--Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."
German Chancellor Adolf Hitler said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."
The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented " France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."
Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.
Thoughts on the Heisman
I think it's clear by now that, right or wrong, the likely invitees to NYC for the presentation will be Tim Tebow, Colt McCoy, Mark Ingram and Toby Gerhart. And if the voters take team accomplishments, career accomplishments, and what they may or may not do on Sunday next season out of the equation, there is only one player who can be named the 'Most Outstanding Player in College Football'. Stanford running back Toby Gerhart.
I'll say it again. If the voters actually vote for the 'Most Outstanding Player in College Football' it should go to Toby Gerhart.
McCoy and Tebow are there because they play on the #3 and #1 teams in the polls.That's it. Has McCoy put up big numbers? Yes, he has. Has he done it against a weak schedule in what this year is essentially a 1-team league? Damn straight. Face it, against the few quality opponents he's played, he's been largely mediocre. Let's face it, the Horns won the Big-12 championship Saturday IN SPITE of McCoy, not because of him.
Tebow has put up the worst numbers of his three years as the UF starter. And when it came down to it, in the biggest game of the year for the Gators, he laid a big one. (Oh, and by the way, this 'Tim Tebow is the best QB in college football history thing'? Two words. Matt Leinart. 37-2 as a starter. SC played for 3 National titles the three years he started. 35 straight wins as QB. 10,000 yards passing. But I digress) .If anyone else put up these numbers and DIDN'T play on a team that was (as of yesterday) 12-0 and had won 2 National Titles in the last 3 years, they'd get an 'oh well, nice season', followed by hearty laughter if anyone suggested a trip to New York.
Face it, McCoy and Tebow are getting Heisman pub not because they are the 2 best quarterbacks in CFB, but because their teams are (or in Tebow's case, were) unbeaten. If pressed, I think anyone could name several QBs who fit the 'more outstanding tag' than either of these two. Kellen Moore. Case Keenum. Max Hall. Jimmy Clausen..and even Tony Pike if he hadn't gotten hurt. Hell, Andy Dalton at TCU had better numbers than Tebow and his team IS undefeated. But he'll likely be in Fort Worth this weekend eating a burger, fries, and slushy at the Sonic, while Timmy is getting feted in the Big Apple.
If one of the QB's wins it this year you can go ahead and add them to the distingiuished list of Eric Crouch, Charles Woodson, and Geno Torretta as years (among many) when the Heisman Voters bought into the hype, and ignored the reality.
To the running backs now. Has Mark Ingram had a fine season? Yes he has. But the most outstanding player in college football? Hell, he's not even the best running back. Or the 2nd (That'd be Dion Lewis). Or the 3rd (That'd be LaMichael James). Or probably the 4th (I'd say 'Quizz Rodgers. But I'm biased.) It's easy to make the case that there are multiple backs who have had better seasons, and are better backs than Ingram. While they may not win the debate, you can easily make the case that James, Rodgers, Lewis, (and Ryan Matthews for that matter) had seasons that were equally as good. And if you bring the 'value to team' argument into the case, were just as valuable as Ingram to their team.
So that leaves Gerhart. And all the arguments go out the window. Rushing yards? Leads the nation with 1736. TD's? 26 rushing, leads the nation. Performance in big games? 178 and 3 against SC. 223 and 3 against Oregon. 136 and 4 in the Big Game against Cal. Team performance? Toby Gerhart picked a team picked to finish 7th in the conference, put them on his back, and 1700 yards and 26 TD's later the Cardinal are in their first bowl game in 8 years
And if that isn't the 'Most Outstanding Player in College Football', I don't know what the hell is.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
More Thoughts on Notre Dame
This is getting a little away from the Charlie Weis on the hot seat post...so I'll reiterate my position on that again for those of you who might have missed it. Burn his ass. Get him gone, the sooner the better.
On to other thoughts...
Let me preface this by saying I DON'T LIKE THE NOTRE DAME FIGHTING IRISH. I don't like Fat Charlie. I don't like Jimmy Clausen. Going back, I didn't like Brady Quinn. Or Rick Mirer. Or the Bus. I couldn't stand Michael Stonebreaker, or the Rocket. I didn't care for Joe Theisman. And I never liked Paul Hornung. And Lou Holtz? Hate is not strong enough a word.
But I will argue this. Like them or hate them, Notre Dame is the most popular team in college football, both pro and con. No team, not Florida, not Texas, not USC, not Bama, inspires the feelings Notre Dame does. You ask people in, for example, OKC what they think of Texas, and you might get an 'I hate the Horns. Pokes Rule.' response. Ask them what they think about Penn State, and you probably will get some equivalent of 'I really don't give a rats ass'. Ask someone in State College what they think of Texas and you'll likely get, again, the who gives a rats ass response, followed by a 'JoePa RULES!'. But in both places, you ask someone, what they think of Notre Dame, and you'll get a definite response, either positive or negative. And the same is likely true all across the country.
People will have many reasons why they hate Notre Dame, from their allegedly weak schedule, to their special treatment by the BCS, from their independent status to the Saturday afternoon telecast on N(otredame)BC. Do they have their own television contract? Yes. Why? Because people watch. And NBC makes money off them. They can pull ratings nationwide like no other school can week in week out. Sure, Texas can pull ratings for the Red River Shootout. But no one outside of Texas wants to see them play Baylor. As for their schedule, they played 10 games this season against BCS opponents. Few teams do that. Bama doesn't. Florida doesn't. Texas doesn't. SC did this year. Neither did Oklahoma or OK State did. They also played Nevada who have gone to bowls four years in a row. And Navy. Who they will play because the Mids scheduling games against the Irish during the War kept the school from going under. It's tradition.
As for the difficulty of their schedule, Jeff Sagarin rates them having the 20th toughest schedule in the country, tougher than every team in the top 12 of the BCS other than Georgia Tech and Oregon. They've also NEVER scheduled a 1-AA or D-2 opponent. Ever. It's them, SC, and UCLA. That's it.
And yes, they are given special consideration for BCS bowl bids. Because the bowls are about selling tickets. And Notre Dame puts asses in the seats, pure and simple. In the stadium or in front of the TV, Notre Dame puts asses down to watch better than anyone. You want an example? 60,000 people came to see Notre Dame vs. Washington State. In a regular season game. IN SAN ANTONIO.
Finally, yes, the Irish are an independent. But why should Notre Dame WANT to join a conference? What's in it for the Irish? If they win 9 games and finish in the top 8 of the BCS they go to a game automatically. They go to a conference, they lose that exception. Of course the Big East and the Big 10 would want them. So would any conference in their right mind. They'd bring media, fans, tv ratings, sponsors, and MONEY. So if they get all this on their own, why bother joining a conference and having to share?
So why should we care if the Irish are good? Because it's tough to hate a team thats mediocre. Ask Gator fans if the games against Free Shoes U have lost some of their lustre now that the 'Noles stink. Ask a Duck fan (like me) if the Civil War means more now that Moo U. doesn't suck. (Hell yeah, it does). Even if you hate the team, its tough to hate a team that loses 7 games a year. And one more reason...Notre Dame is about tradition. It's about the Golden Dome. And Touchdown Jesus. And the Rock. And 'Win One for the Gipper'. It's about the Green Jerseys against USC, and Montana in the Ice in the Cotton Bowl. It's about 7 heisman winners, and 11 national championships. It's about the fight song, and it's about 'Outlined against a blue-gray October sky, the Four Horsemen rode again. In dramatic lore their names are Death, Destruction, Pestilence, and Famine. But those are aliases. Their real names are: Stuhldreher, Crowley, Miller and Layden.' Notre Dame is everyone's rival. Seeing them on your schedule is special because of the tradition and the history. Beating them should be too. And I want Notre Dame to be as good as they can be. If only so that kicking the crap out of them will mean something again.
And they should fire Charlie. Because they'll suck until they do.
On to other thoughts...
Let me preface this by saying I DON'T LIKE THE NOTRE DAME FIGHTING IRISH. I don't like Fat Charlie. I don't like Jimmy Clausen. Going back, I didn't like Brady Quinn. Or Rick Mirer. Or the Bus. I couldn't stand Michael Stonebreaker, or the Rocket. I didn't care for Joe Theisman. And I never liked Paul Hornung. And Lou Holtz? Hate is not strong enough a word.
But I will argue this. Like them or hate them, Notre Dame is the most popular team in college football, both pro and con. No team, not Florida, not Texas, not USC, not Bama, inspires the feelings Notre Dame does. You ask people in, for example, OKC what they think of Texas, and you might get an 'I hate the Horns. Pokes Rule.' response. Ask them what they think about Penn State, and you probably will get some equivalent of 'I really don't give a rats ass'. Ask someone in State College what they think of Texas and you'll likely get, again, the who gives a rats ass response, followed by a 'JoePa RULES!'. But in both places, you ask someone, what they think of Notre Dame, and you'll get a definite response, either positive or negative. And the same is likely true all across the country.
People will have many reasons why they hate Notre Dame, from their allegedly weak schedule, to their special treatment by the BCS, from their independent status to the Saturday afternoon telecast on N(otredame)BC. Do they have their own television contract? Yes. Why? Because people watch. And NBC makes money off them. They can pull ratings nationwide like no other school can week in week out. Sure, Texas can pull ratings for the Red River Shootout. But no one outside of Texas wants to see them play Baylor. As for their schedule, they played 10 games this season against BCS opponents. Few teams do that. Bama doesn't. Florida doesn't. Texas doesn't. SC did this year. Neither did Oklahoma or OK State did. They also played Nevada who have gone to bowls four years in a row. And Navy. Who they will play because the Mids scheduling games against the Irish during the War kept the school from going under. It's tradition.
As for the difficulty of their schedule, Jeff Sagarin rates them having the 20th toughest schedule in the country, tougher than every team in the top 12 of the BCS other than Georgia Tech and Oregon. They've also NEVER scheduled a 1-AA or D-2 opponent. Ever. It's them, SC, and UCLA. That's it.
And yes, they are given special consideration for BCS bowl bids. Because the bowls are about selling tickets. And Notre Dame puts asses in the seats, pure and simple. In the stadium or in front of the TV, Notre Dame puts asses down to watch better than anyone. You want an example? 60,000 people came to see Notre Dame vs. Washington State. In a regular season game. IN SAN ANTONIO.
Finally, yes, the Irish are an independent. But why should Notre Dame WANT to join a conference? What's in it for the Irish? If they win 9 games and finish in the top 8 of the BCS they go to a game automatically. They go to a conference, they lose that exception. Of course the Big East and the Big 10 would want them. So would any conference in their right mind. They'd bring media, fans, tv ratings, sponsors, and MONEY. So if they get all this on their own, why bother joining a conference and having to share?
So why should we care if the Irish are good? Because it's tough to hate a team thats mediocre. Ask Gator fans if the games against Free Shoes U have lost some of their lustre now that the 'Noles stink. Ask a Duck fan (like me) if the Civil War means more now that Moo U. doesn't suck. (Hell yeah, it does). Even if you hate the team, its tough to hate a team that loses 7 games a year. And one more reason...Notre Dame is about tradition. It's about the Golden Dome. And Touchdown Jesus. And the Rock. And 'Win One for the Gipper'. It's about the Green Jerseys against USC, and Montana in the Ice in the Cotton Bowl. It's about 7 heisman winners, and 11 national championships. It's about the fight song, and it's about 'Outlined against a blue-gray October sky, the Four Horsemen rode again. In dramatic lore their names are Death, Destruction, Pestilence, and Famine. But those are aliases. Their real names are: Stuhldreher, Crowley, Miller and Layden.' Notre Dame is everyone's rival. Seeing them on your schedule is special because of the tradition and the history. Beating them should be too. And I want Notre Dame to be as good as they can be. If only so that kicking the crap out of them will mean something again.
And they should fire Charlie. Because they'll suck until they do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
