Saturday, January 01, 2011

Simple College Football Idea

It's been a good year for the bowl games. I enjoyed the great Tennessee - UNC game, and it's only one of many great (or at least interesting) story lines in the bowls. But, like nearly everybody, I hate that we can't be sure of a true national champion. Isn't there a simple way of keeping everything together? The idea I've heard most often is making the playoffs the bowl games, but I don't think that could ever happen.

Here's my idea. Take a close look at the schedule. There is nothing going on on the 11th and 18th of December for this year except the Army-Navy game, and three lesser bowl games. Couldn't we have the quarterfinals and semifinals of an eight team playoff in those weeks? Have the championship be the last game like we have it now? And then have the bowls run as usual? No playoff is going to affect the early bowls, such as the New Mexico Bowl, because those teams won't be in the top eight. And the six losing teams would just slot into the other early January bowl games.

The one complaint would be the playing of a couple of extra games, and right near exams. Of course, nobody cares about this in I-AA, Div. II, or Div. III football, so that's just something the bowls say to protect their position. That isn't a problem here, I think, because the bowls remain intact. On the plus side, the networks love it, and we get Saturday football in December again since the NFL has largely abandoned it.

Just for fun, this is how the Dec. 11 games would have gone this year (this leaves out Arkansas and Ohio State of the ten BCS teams):

1. Auburn hosts 8. Connecticut
2. Oregon hosts 7. Virginia Tech
3. TCU hosts 6. Oklahoma
4. Stanford hosts 5. Wisconsin

I'd be in. Would you not be? What would you not like?

Labels: , ,

1 Comments:

At 1/13/2011 09:06:00 PM, Blogger Jonathan said...

I think just about anything would be better than the way they have it set up now. But even with playoffs there would be arugments as to who is ranked where. That will always be up for debate. I still can't stand the lose early not late philosophy. It's kind of ridiculous.

I think an 8 team playoff would make the most sense, and the way you set it up would seem logical. And I still don't understand how they think this would take away from any of the other bowls or lose them money? The idea that fans wouldn't travel to more than one game is ludicrous, and plus it would give more fans a chance to see their team live as long as they advanced.

I like it. Mike, you are hereby appointed king of college football, now get to your duties.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

The NFL Playoffs are Full of Randomness

There are "scripts" we've all seen before in sports, where we get to expect certain outcomes to happen. These ideas can come about fairly quickly, or can slowly form for decades. In the NFL, we see patterns emerge, and we expect them to continue... but this year they haven't. The Cowboys were not bad in December, actually winning a few games and making the playoffs. The Jets made it into the playoffs with luck actually treating their fans decently for once. Heck, the Saints won their first ten games or so, reversing a trend that goes back decades, even though it's not quite so surprising anymore. I think that more than once in the playoffs, we're going to have our minds blown by a result that we didn't see coming.

Along those line, I'm starting to think that, now that we all believe it's a bad idea to rest starters in the final few weeks, suddenly that doesn't mean anything. Think of quantum physics, that by observing a particle it changes the particle. Now that we've observed the phenomenon, it will no longer exist. As Chris pointed out, seven teams rested there starters, and we can't ignore them all. The "football gods" no longer care about this.

Stick with me for a second with a soccer comparison? Nations come to have a certain identity on the pitch, and in the World Cup and other such competitions, you start to have a general idea of what's going to happen. Everybody, including myself, felt that Germany would beat Spain in the finals of the Euro 2008 tournament. As they say, "football" is a game that's played for 90 minutes, and then the Germans win on penalties. This held true for decades, basically since Germany reemerged in the 50's. And Spain always underachieves, always, in every major tournament, again going back decades. Almost no one predicted Spain to win, based on historical precedent alone. So what happened in the final? Spain won, and convincingly. It felt, and still feels, that a new era is upon us, one in which I expect the scripts to be flipped... but I expect as soon as we figure out the new script, it will change.

Before the season ended, I assumed the Vikings and Saints would lose quickly, because they always do. I thought the hot team would continue to win, and the teams that rested their starters would struggle. But now that I'm thinking some of the scripts will change, I'm rethinking that, and beginning to believe that about anything could happen. The Saints could suddenly turn it around, the Eagles could catch fire, anything could happen, much like the Cards last year. We could even be headed for one weird Super Bowl. Let's just hope that that doesn't mean a Cardinals-Ravens Super Bowl, but I wouldn't be shocked.

As far as official picks go, I just don't know, there's way too much in the air this year. I do feel a Colts/Pats rematch could be in the cards, and I feel strongly that we'll be looking at a Vikings/Packers rematch as well. THAT would be a great championship Sunday, don't you think? But it's too much of a crapshoot, and I don't trust any team.

Except for one. For the Super Bowl, I think Manning will want to prove this whole not playing at the end of the season stuff isn't going to keep them from the title, and he has the mindset to do it. We all think they are one of the best three or four teams in the league, but I think they are the most mentally strong, starting with the QB, the real leader of this team. That'll put them over the top to win it all. If I have to choose an NFC team I'll choose the Pack, but I think that conference is wide open.

Or maybe I'm totally full of crap. Their lifeless coach could bomb them. We'll see.




One more thing, off subject: all Week 17 games need to be played at the same time, say 2:00 Eastern Time. I know this would cost the NFL a few bucks, but it would decrease the number of games where a team simply roles over, like the Bengals did. The World Cup does this in the final game of each group so that games like this don't happen again, with a scoreline agreed upon before the game.

Labels: , , ,

7 Comments:

At 1/05/2010 06:37:00 PM, Blogger Chris said...

To clarify, only 5 teams rested their starters. The 7 listed all in one sentence played them.

However, to comment on the "observing the phenomenon changes the phenomenon," ahem, phenomenon...I'm not sure it works this way in this case. We've observed it, sure, but we are not interacting with these teams. This is just raw data found on the internet.

And despite this easily researched data, teams, the media, general people off the street, still think it's a good idea to rest your starters in Week 17. Since I believe I'm the only person in the world to actually research this in detail, and I'm not exactly famous, I'm not sure my observation, and subsequent followers of said observation (roughly the people who read this blog) changes much.

I'm sure there are those who will say the "resting of starters" argument is actually a coincidence, that other, more invisible reasons contributed to the 20 for 20 streak of Super Bowl contenders who played their starters. Yet, there it is. That Steelers team that went 15-1 and nearly lost to the Jets, got waxed by the Pats at home, is the prime and not only example.

And I agree about randomness often reigns, but perhaps this little factor contributes to the randomness. This is why, should the Pats or Jets emerge as the Chargers' round 1 opponent, I would not be surprised to see them lose.

 
At 1/06/2010 04:04:00 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Along these lines, I'm officially worried about Alabama tomorrow. Everybody assumes, at least in this part of the country, that the SEC is the premier force, and must win the national title. They've had some rough games this year, and I hope they don't get over-confident.

And I know there are a lot of examples about resting your starters. I just think now's the time for it to reverse with all the attention paid to it.

 
At 1/06/2010 04:55:00 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Oh, and there's the Wes Welker thing.

After these playoffs, we will know who is the greater man, Chris. This is the final showdown between us...

 
At 1/07/2010 01:32:00 PM, Blogger Chris said...

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute...what has to happen for this final showdown to be won? Do one of the 5 teams who rested their starters have to go to the Super Bowl? If San Diego goes to the Super Bowl, does this disprove the point, in light of the weak AFC this year?

Actually, I'll say this: If this ends up being Colts/Saints, like everyone was rooting for early on when both teams were undefeated, I'll continue to stick to my guns on this until the evidence sways dramatically. This year would be what is known as a "small sample size." The ten years beforehand? Large sample size.

 
At 1/08/2010 11:30:00 AM, Blogger Mike said...

I'd still say 20 is a small sample size. There's only one football league that matters, so we can't really build enough evidence. For the final showdown... actually, I figure it will be a mixed bag and nothing determined. Some of the five teams will do well, others not. I bet at least one of them will be conference champions.

And I'm going to say that I was right about Alabama (not that other opinions were voiced); they should have lost that game, and would have if Colt hadn't been injured. They came out way over-confident, as evidenced by the horrible fake punt early on. And, after thinking they'd already won at halftime, they came out flat in the third quarter and let Texas back in. By far the better team, but their head was in the wrong place. If they were totally involved in the game, that rushing tandem would have scored 40 points.

But damn, the SEC is just that much better than everybody! Makes me happy.

 
At 1/08/2010 02:23:00 PM, Blogger Chris said...

I had to go back all the way to 1991, the Bills, to find the team that last went to the Super Bowl after resting their starters.

Look all up and down the 90s, you see teams that should have made a better run in the playoffs, especially:

The 1996 Denver Broncos, 13-3, rested their starters, lost to a 9-7 Jacksonville team at home. The next two years, played their starters, won the next two Super Bowls.

 
At 1/10/2010 10:10:00 PM, Blogger Mike said...

0-4 on my picks this weekend! After a while I was rooting for it. But I am right that Manning - at least this year - is better than Brady in the big games, the post-season. That was horrible. I'm so glad I'm not a Pats fan today.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

AFC Playoff Scenarios... How Can the Titans Get In?

Since I can't find anywhere that's listing the playoff scenarios for the AFC teams, and since there are few things in life I love more than running through them, let's do this thing.

Here are the remaining games that matter, and my best guess on who wins in bold:

Week 15
SD @ TEN LP Field 7:30 PM SD
KC @ CIN Paul Brown Stadium 1:00 PM CIN
BAL @ PIT Heinz Field 1:00 PM PIT
HOU @ MIA Land Shark Stadium 1:00 PM MIA
JAC @ NE Gillette Stadium 1:00 PM NE
DEN @ PHI Lincoln Financial Field 4:15 PM DEN
NYJ @ IND Lucas Oil Stadium 4:15 PM IND

Week 16
JAC @ CLE Cleveland Browns Stadium 1:00 PM JAC
NE @ HOU Reliant Stadium 1:00 PM NE
PIT @ MIA Land Shark Stadium 1:00 PM PIT
CIN @ NYJ Giants Stadium 1:00 PM CIN
KC @ DEN Invesco Field at Mile High 4:15 PM DEN
BAL @ OAK Oakland Coliseum 4:15 PM BAL
TEN @ SEA Qwest Field 4:15 PM TEN


That leaves these record:
NE 11-5
CIN 11-5
DEN 10-6
PIT 9-7 (PIT win head to head tiebreaker over BAL)

BAL 9-7
JAC 8-8
MIA 8-8
TEN 8-8
HOU 7-9
NYJ 7-9

For the Titans to get in, they'd have to win the Chargers game to get to 9-7. A tall order, I think. Then, if the Steelers beat the Ravens next week, and then both teams lose their final game, then the Titans are in. If either of those teams win their last game, but the Broncos lose both of their games, then the Titans are in. All that assumes that the other teams not mentioned don't make a run of their own.

If the Ravens beat the Steelers, then we need Denver to lose twice. And have no one else win nine games. That's the big if in these scenarios; we don't need Dolphins, Jags, or Jets winning out, because that would likely spell doom.

Labels: , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Monday, November 16, 2009

Belichick's Call

I'm going to put my opinion in the comments, but here's a great analysis by the cold numbers. Run your own numbers here.

Labels: , , , ,

10 Comments:

At 11/16/2009 01:16:00 PM, Blogger Mike said...

When I run my own numbers, it comes out pretty even, so I think, in theory, it's not a bad call either way. If you feel confident in Brady, do it. But, this isn't theory, and you're going to get killed if it doesn't work out. Most people aren't reading Football Outsiders, and aren't thinking of these percentages; they're just remembering how it's always been done. Going against Orthodoxy and failing is a good way to get killed, if only metaphorically in this case.

So, if you're playing this on Madden, or if it's a meaningless game, I think it's likely the right call. But, not here, not with these emotions.

 
At 11/16/2009 01:28:00 PM, Blogger Mike said...

And yes, as with any emotion, a more informed public could lead to more informed emotions, and this call being more accepted in ten years. It would take that long at least for anything like that to be accepted.

And maybe in time we can stop seeing punts on 4th and 1 at the opponents 32. Statistically horrible. I HATE those.

 
At 11/16/2009 02:06:00 PM, Blogger Kennelworthy said...

Well... I have always wondered why some brave NFL coach doesn't essentially eschew punting altogether, like I've read a couple high school coaches have done to some success.

I just feel like if you think going for it in the Pats/Colts instance was a good idea, then you should maybe consider firing your punter altogether.

Bring up the dreaded "momentum" argument if you want... but the Pats defense had routinely stopped the Colts offense all game long. There were several three and outs and the Colts punted more than any game in recent memory. Why would you not take a shot at stopping them again... I guess it's because the Colts had scored the last two drives and looked hot. But something tells me a guy like Belichick is more of a numbers/odds guy than a "emotion" or "momentum" guy.

I'm willing to listen to the argument that the math isn't so bad on his decision... but I swear to you it was not about math... it was a large-scale pissing contest. "I'm going to get it here and stomp on you."

If they had converted, everyone would be praising them--that alone should tell you it's not as bad a decision as you're being made to think it was.

But it was completely against conventional wisdom. I have to believe that if there was solid math to back up the idea of punting less or not at all... then someone would be doing it.

It doesn't make Belichick's decision outright bad, but it's not exactly smart either.

 
At 11/16/2009 03:02:00 PM, Blogger Chris said...

It's conceivable Belichick was going for the win in a pissing contest. Hell, he thought it was a good idea for Brady to play in the 2nd Half of a 45-0 game earlier this year. He's an asshole.

However, the dynamics of a game are different in the present time of a game versus every other moment in the game. Just because the Pats defense had two gift INTs and shut the Colts down on three-and-outs previously doesn't really mean anything. Conversely, I can't say just because Manning had orchestrated some very quick scores in the 4th Quarter that he was definitely going to do it again.

I can say, it's obvious, that the teams with great offenses and awesome QBs (that might be redundant to say) are more likely to plow serious yardage in the final 2 minutes than not. We always stand in amazement when a terrific QB orchestrates yet another comeback when it seemed the offense was lying dormant the entire game. I think it has a lot to do with how defenses are allowed to prepare in those moments.

How many times do we see the no-huddle rip defenses apart? Especially when you have Manning (and Wayne, Clark, et al). The only reason you don't see it all the time is that your offense would be a tired mess if they did it the whole game.

I say if the Pats punted, the Colts would have been back at the Pats' 30 within one minute and that would have left a minute to charge down the field. The Colts may not have had the luxury of running, but I think that was an effort to kill clock anyway.

 
At 11/16/2009 04:57:00 PM, Blogger Mike said...

First of all, I made my notes without realizing anyone else had written anything. Just so you know.

Just to make a point, there is solid math to say that punting should be more rare, but should still be used in many situations. Like that 4th and 1 should be attempted far more often, but that going against the CW isn't worth it for the hit on a coach's career. So I basically disagree that if something is correct, everybody would be doing it. I mean, there was a New Kids on the Block reunion last year. Logic prevents that.

I really love commentary that assumed if he'd punted they would have won. Like he couldn't have driven them 70 yards. He likely would have. No huddle is awesome and should be used more often by great teams.

And Belichick likely was somewhat in a pissing contest. He's a touch autistic to the point of genius, but which also means he can be vendictive, arrogant, and over-reliant on math over emotion, as Chris says. I think he needed more balance here.

So, it's often takes being an asshole to be brilliant. I don't like humans much.

 
At 11/16/2009 05:14:00 PM, Blogger Kennelworthy said...

The new kids on the block line was pretty brilliant.

And yeah, I'm not suggesting no one should ever punt again. I'm just saying that if you buy the logic of Belichick's move in that circumstance... then there are a hell of a lot of circumstances when you should also believe punting is not correct.

And I hate humans too. We can at least agree on that.

 
At 11/16/2009 06:02:00 PM, Blogger Chris said...

I still think there might be a fallacy in thinking that the situation was mere Belichick Dickery (Dock?).

In other words, if he does it here, and not anywhere else in the game, then it's pure ego and trying to stick it to the other guy. Note: I think Belichick does this regularly, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

But I think it's far more likely he does this to be a dick in a game that he's leading 51-6 than in a game that could be lost if he gambles incorrectly. It would be far more dickish to go for it on 4th down in a game like that than in this last one.

And the game situation dictates a tough decision there. Earlier in the game, you could trust your defense to make stops, and your offense to put more points on the board. Not so in the last 5 minutes of this game, when the no-huddle was tearing the Pats apart.

If the argument is that the Pats defense has been "making stops all game" then they should be able to make stops at any moment. The Colts still need to score a touchdown, and with the back of the end zone working as an extremely huge 12th man, it's as good a spot to be in as any other.

Does anyone agree with me that if the Colts started at their own 30, they would have been back at the Pats 30 within at least a minute? The argument then would be that well, it cuts the time in half that they did have, but I still say 30 yards in one minute is nothing for this offense, and therefore 70 yards in two minutes is definitely manageable.

I guess the chance for error is increased, but we're also talking about a highly efficient offense not likely to make mistakes when the blitz can't even get to the guy in the speed of a no-huddle operation.

 
At 11/16/2009 08:03:00 PM, Blogger Kennelworthy said...

It's just hard for me to take a position that defends Belichick. He's a cheater and a jerk and he keeps getting away with both because his team wins a lot (by cheating, apparently).

So while I think you may be right that there wasn't a bad decision... while I think you may be right that he was banking on a Colts score and wanted more time left for his team... I can only say that I'm exceedlingly glad that he's being criticized for this and that his team lost to my team after this decision. After years of everything going the Pats way in this rivalry (they were 7 of 8 in the beginning), my team is finally holding their own (5 of the last 6).

To sum up: yay colts. boo belichick. yay bud adams flipping the bird like a horny old man, and boo to belichick. yay to the Titans win and the play of Chris Johnson, boo to belichick. The end.

 
At 11/20/2009 01:42:00 PM, Blogger Mike said...

After reading the latest Simmons column, I'm glad he went for it. And I'm glad the Yankees won. In Boston, it's like the late 90's all over again. Their despair keeps growing, and soon it will bring down their teams on the field. Feels like putting on a comfortable pair of pants you hadn't seen in years. Comfy...

 
At 11/20/2009 03:23:00 PM, Blogger Chris said...

Yeah, the Simmons article is like "the way you lose" matters more than losing itself.

It sounded like he would have been totally OK with losing that game if Belichick punted.

Boston just won 6 championships this decade. I guess it's not enough to erase all the big losses of the decade.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Friday, October 30, 2009

The Decline of Sports

Sports aren't going anywhere, it's just that they're not immune to the pressures that every business faces, although generally facing them well off the front pages. Money drives everything, and the game is often played on the outskirts of legality to make more of it. The NBA tries to exploit their refs in quasi-legal ways to maximise profits, and it surprises no one.

The NBA has approached this in the dumbest way possible, the one that everybody can see. And MLB isn't much better by allowing steroids for so long. Issues that all can see will eventually be found out. Best to let players take uppers or something to increase their energy (no, I'm not endorsing that). The NFL is okay for now because steroid bodies can be hidden by the uniforms, but if it weren't for that we'd have the same issues we have elsewhere.

As an aside, I continue to believe that the much maligned Tour de France is the cleanest pro sport in the world because they take drug use seriously and don't just sweep away their issues. Good for them.

But no, the end of sports will never come, as there will always be people like me suiting up to play in adult leagues every weekend. Professional sports are in trouble, real trouble, and they need to face up to this, but something will be around. In what form?

Even if one of the major sports leagues fail, another league will take its place because there is too much money to be made. But, is there a chance that some element of professional "wrestling" will come into sports? Has that already happened in the NBA? I believe it has. I hate to say it, but everything in the book I linked to rang true. We've entered an age of sports as entertainment, and not fully sports.

Labels: , , , , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Thursday, January 01, 2009

Bored...

I miss the old New Year's Day format. There were a ton of games, and at least one of them would be good at any given hour. There wouldn't be time for any hockey game, great idea as playing at Wrigley is. Right now the Rose Bowl is a bore, and there's nothing else to watch! It's New Year's Day, and I'm thinking about leaving the house to buy some stuff. That would have been sacrilege once! But no more.

Labels: ,

2 Comments:

At 1/01/2009 10:24:00 PM, Blogger Chris said...

Yeah, I can't remember how long ago it was, but Jan. 1 was always a day you woke up and there was constant football on from noon to late evening, and the whole national championship picture was either clear-cut or there would be three teams with a chance and we'd wait to hear the AP results.

The bowls were all "pure," too, no wordy sponsor + classic name of bowl bowls. And there were no watered down teams playing, either.

The only thing the BCS has been good for is no more automatic bids, keeping those #1 vs. #11 bowls off the board. Those were ridiculous.

 
At 1/04/2009 11:41:00 AM, Blogger George said...

I remember my dad and I bringing the other tv into the living room because we needed it to watch all of the friggin' bowl games. The new format really sucks.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Saturday, September 13, 2008

You know the best way for a guy to get over some emotional problems? To have it blasted all over the national news! These type of stories should never get anywhere.

Labels: ,

2 Comments:

At 9/13/2008 06:52:00 PM, Blogger John B said...

I agree. This has been blown out of proportion so bad by the media. He was bummed about his knee. He's having a hard time. Let it go! We all go through the same shit.

Everyone needs to change the channel when this pitiful excuse for news comes on.

 
At 9/14/2008 08:13:00 PM, Blogger Chris said...

Yeah, classic media outstandingness here.

I heard the "story" when it "broke," and ESPN gives us this big "Police are searching for Young," and then without any change in the seriousness of voice, they add, "And he was found...and he's OK, and he just happened to leave his cell phone behind, and just a misunderstanding."

And therefore, not a story anymore. And yeah, let's make things all better by uncovering info concerning his private psych sessions. Well, supposed to be, anyway.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Monday, January 21, 2008

SB XLII

I've got a bad feeling about this one. Watched the game with George yesterday, and I'm not thinking this is gonna be pretty. The New York media will talk themselves into it, but, man, it could get real ugly real quick. Watching the first game, even with a lifeless Pats team that seemed to be going through the motions, they still found a way to stop the Chargers every time in the red zone. They HAD to score a TD to win that game, they knew they had to, and they couldn't.

The second game seemed like just mistake after mistake, with the least worst team winning. How can that Giants team I watched yesterday put it together, especially with a Pats team that I fele will be motivated again, with two weeks of game planning and rest behind them? I feel a late 80's SB thrashing coming on again, and a sorry way to end our football for the year. Oh well.

Labels: , , , ,

1 Comments:

At 1/21/2008 04:38:00 PM, Blogger Chris said...

Yeah, but both these teams played a 38-35 game just four weeks ago, one that the Giants were ahead for most of the game. And there's got to be something said (concerning Packers-Giants) about playing in negative-degree temperature the whole game. I mean, it was a whole lot prettier than you might imagine. It wasn't a 6-3 game.

Unfortunately, the Super Bowl spectacle often ruins true competition--that two week layoff, no one has home field advantage, the crowd is a bunch of just-happy-to-be-here spectators. Seriously, it's time to see a Super Bowl at the team with the best record's home field. Which will never happen.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

How an NCAA Playoff System Could Work

Alright, here's my proposal. I think you take the top four teams in the BCS and give them home games. Take the next three teams and put them on the road, and throw in the top mid-major as a reward for the little guy (and a nice opening game for the top seed as well). Here would be your seeds this year:

(8)Hawaii at (1)Ohio State
(7)USC at (2)LSU
(6)Missouri at (3)Virginia Tech
(5)Georgia at (4)Oklahoma

What's not to like? You play the next rounds seeded just like March Madness, and they can be at a bowl site if you like, and would be heavily attended. Play the quarterfinals on weeknights, the semi-finals the next week, and the final at the top BCS bowl. Really, would this be so bad?

I know there are several reasons for avoiding this playoff that the teams give, but none of them seem to hold water for me; they're just excuses to avoid change. I can't help but think that this would be a great money maker. And it would keep Ohio State out of the finals, as they'd be trounced by somebody in the semis!

Labels: , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Saturday, January 05, 2008

AFC Playoff Thoughts

-Pretty straight forward first half, with the Jags simply being a better team. And Roth-whatever not having great decision making at all.

-The pictures of Pittsburgh in HD were so great, I wanted them to just keep it there. Fantastic pictures at night, certainly looked better than that field, even if it was having a "good night".

-The Steelers had no answer for the rushing game, and did you hear the boos. Was anyone else as disturbed as I was at all the booing the fans did? I thought the Steelers fans would get behind their team, but I guess they played just that badly.

-Maybe the Jags hype is for real, huh? The Steelers looked pretty good in the second half, but they weren't the best team today.

-I was thinking the same thing as Al Michaels, that the Steelers should have kicked the extra point in their next-to-last touchdown. They were backed up to the 12 and should have kicked it though. We'd be playing overtime now.

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

At 1/06/2008 09:16:00 AM, Blogger TaraB said...

Exactly my thoughts. Had the baby not been sleeping, my screaming could have been heard in Steel City.

I am so disappointed that the #1 ranked defense in the NFL, and the storied Steelers, no less, had no answer for the running attack. The O-line was disappointing allowing the rush through to Ben and for the holding call (which was suspect) on the two point conversion.

Very sad to see the end of the season, but more troubled at the complete downward spiral the Steelers have taken in the last 5 games.

Maybe Ben and Joe Montana can do another commercial singing "Tomorrow".

 
At 1/06/2008 10:04:00 AM, Blogger Mike said...

Yeah, I was a bit surprised that the Steelers played so poorly, but in hindsight I shouldn't have been. They haven't played that well for a few weeks. Which makes me wonder again how the Cowboys will play next week, as bad as they finished the season.

Here's something I forgot to mention. Yesterday was my cousin's first wedding anniversary. He's a Steelers fan, and she's a Redskins fan. Ouch.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Some NFC Playoff Thoughts

-I forget how good the Seattle crowds are for the NFL, and I guess for other sports. Do you ever really think of Seattle as a great sports town? But they delivered today, even if the team didn't. I think so much of it has to do with that stadium, which I think is fantastic, not only in appearance, but in keeping the crowd noise in.

-Why don't we study that more, how much a stadium affects a crowd? How many teams have you heard of that lost a large part of their character when they changed venues?

-Before the game I thought that there was no way Todd Collins was going to lead this team to victory. Then, it was the rest of the offense that let them down for most of the game, with several drops and no pocket protection. This really wasn't his fault.

-DVR is fantastic. I started the NFC game an hour and a half late and almost finished at the same time the game is, and early enough to pick up the AFC game live. No commercials!

-Man, did Seattle try to throw that game away or what? And then the Redskins threw it right back to them. I hate when a game is decided by bad plays. At times it seemed neither team was ready to step up and win the game. I think it points to how weak the NFC is. If the Redskins were in the AFC South, they would have won six games.

-After Santana Moss gave up on that ball that was returned for a touchdown, I wouldn't have played him in another play. Why do we put up with this from WRs? And that pretty much ended the game.

Labels: , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Saturday, June 02, 2007

In Praise

Well, it's the fashion of the day to tear men down, especially those who are very high, but I'm not here to do this. I'm hear to praise the immaculately-coiffured one himself, David Beckham. He lost his place in the England line-up last year, and was benched at his club team, Real Madrid. Now, approaching the summer break, he's starting every game for the royal club of Madrid, being a massive reason why they are in first place with just two games left in the league, and has, as of yesterday, earned his place back on the English side. And it's been through guts and determination, and a bloody-minded desire to make every free kick as perfect as possible.

This is what he did yesterday, against Brazil, in London, at the new Wembley, the new spiritual home of football:



You just can't kick a ball any more true than that. Many are clamouring to make him Sir David, and I can't say I disagree. Queen, make it be!

Labels: , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home