What a couple of weeks it's been for coaches of major college programs. Here's my takes on all the big comings and goings:
-Brian Kelly (left Cincinnati for Notre Dame): I don't really have a problem with Kelly leaving Cincinatti for Notre Dame. ND, as much as I dislike it (Overrated U, in my book), is still one of the premiere coaching jobs in the game. With Kelly's background, it must have been especially appealing. My issue is with the timing. He really left his players at Cincinnati hanging for the Sugar Bowl, which was not right. I don't fault them at all for rallying against him (really, Coach, announcing you're leaving at the season victory banquet wasn't a good choice). He should have waited. I understand there is a lot of work to do in South Bend to move on from the Weis years, but you can't tell me it couldn't have waited until the second week in January. He built Cincinnati into a big football program, and I don't understand why he wouldn't want to coach his last game there against Urban Meyer, Tim Tebow, and one hell of a Florida team.
-Mike Leach (fired from Texas Tech)/Mark Mangino (resigned amidst pressure from Kansas)/Jim Leavitt (fired from USF): I have some mixed feelings on these firings. If what they're accused of doing is true, then it is fair that they're gone from their coaching jobs. There's no place in football for sadism in punishment, especially at an age when a coach is still supposed to be a mentor to his players. That being said, football is a violent, draining sport that does require some harsh drills and practice methods. There needs to be a quality middle ground between playing through pain and going too far.
-Pete Carroll (left USC for the Seattle Seahawks): I actually have no problem with Carroll leaving USC. I question why he would want to leave USC for the NFL, especially when LA has no pro team, but he is leaving USC in better shape than he found it. My only concern is that he's bailing right before the hammer comes down on the athletic program because of the Reggie Bush/OJ Mayo/other player mishaps. My feelings on this one may be changed once the NCAA speaks on the matter.
-Lane Kiffin (left Tennessee for USC): I understand that Kiffin has connections to USC that preceded his attachment to Tennessee, but Kiffin has proven to be a tool with this move. Bolting after one season isn't cool, especially with the way he sold himself to UT last year. This jams his recruited players, and may jam the whole school if any sanctions come down from Kiffin's numerous recruiting violations. Kiffin also leaves with UT's defensive coordinator and their head of recruiting. With signing day only a few weeks away, Tennessee is going to be in a huge jam in the ultra competitive SEC. The news that they've been trying to get some Tennessee players to follow them to USC doesn't help either. Can someone explain to me what Lane Kiffin has done to be this desirable by so many football programs?
Showing posts with label sports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sports. Show all posts
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
And In Other Shocking News, This Morning the Sun Rose in the East...
January 11th, 2010 will now be known in the sports world as the day that Mark McGwire finally discussed the past and admitted his past steroid use. McGwire now joins the list of seemingly every MLB superstar in the last 20 or so years to end up admitting using illegal substances (regardless of the MLB and MLBPA's policy at the time, one cannot argue that these drugs were being used for a lawful purpose), or at the least be implicated in doing so. Although the NFL is by far my favorite sport (and this fact in and of itself will put an air of hypocrisy over the next few paragraphs), I still do hold a spot in my sports heart for baseball, which is why, although I was not in the least surprised, it still made me a little sad to hear the confession today.
The two most important issues related to PEDs and baseball in my opinion is the validity of records set while using them, as well as whether Cooperstown should be closed down for PED users. While the popular opinion seems to be to asterisk every record set since the late 1980s, and shut down Cooperstown for players from the Steroid era (or at the least mention that they may have been on the juice), I don't think that either option is viable or correct. I'm sure that we will never know the true extent of the use of PEDs in baseball. How many pitchers that McGwire faced were juicing? What, exactly, constitutes a PED? Big leaguers were notorious users of amphetamines, and many still pop Ritalin because of their "ADD." Steroids clearly make one stronger, and do help the body recover from injury quicker than one would otherwise, but baseball at the professional level still requires an ungodly degree of hand-eye coordination. Steroids can help, but the raw skill needs to be there.
Baseball at the very least dragged its feet (and at the worst allowed this to go on knowingly); now it's time to sleep in that bed. Barry Bonds owns the single season home run record, which is set at 73. Not McGwire's 70. Not Maris' 61. Not Ruth's 60. Bonds also owns the career record, not Aaron. Like it or not, this is fact.
In regards to Cooperstown, my argument is closely aligned with the above. We can't play judge and jury of the past. Steroids are a blight on the game, and do cheapen numbers, but then again, many white players from the years pre-Robinson never had to face the best of the Negro Leagues, which cheapens their numbers as well. The above mentioned point about amphetamines is valid here as well. I'm not sure that speed isn't a more effective PED than many of the steroids on the market available to players today (HGH especially). Cooperstown should remember the best players and moments from the game of baseball (including the all time hits leader, Pete Rose, but that's another rant for later on down the road). Like it or not, both the best moments and players indisputably will involve steroids at some point in time. It's as clear to me as the "flaxseed oil" that Bonds used that he belongs in the Hall of Fame. Roger Clemens does as well. McGwire, Sosa, and Palmeiro don't, but that has nothing to do with their use of performance enhancing drugs.
My final thought on this is that we, the fans, deserve some of the blame. I can legitimately claim ignorance on the home run race of '98, because I was 13 at the time, but we as a collective whole should have known. Men don't increase in strength and muscle mass (especially the shredded look that the sluggers gained) naturally as they age into their late thirties. Heads don't grow past puberty. Neither do feet. All time power numbers shouldn't be set by players nearing twenty years in the big leagues. Shame on us, the fans, for putting our heads in the sand in the name of the long ball. Even more, shame on us now for acting self righteous about it when it was our almighty dollar that created the market for it in the first place. We chide baseball for allowing drugs in the game, while at the same time we clap our hands every fall Sunday as men get bigger and bigger, yet faster and faster.
I just hope that Albert Pujols really is as real as he claims to be, but don't judge me for being skeptical.
The two most important issues related to PEDs and baseball in my opinion is the validity of records set while using them, as well as whether Cooperstown should be closed down for PED users. While the popular opinion seems to be to asterisk every record set since the late 1980s, and shut down Cooperstown for players from the Steroid era (or at the least mention that they may have been on the juice), I don't think that either option is viable or correct. I'm sure that we will never know the true extent of the use of PEDs in baseball. How many pitchers that McGwire faced were juicing? What, exactly, constitutes a PED? Big leaguers were notorious users of amphetamines, and many still pop Ritalin because of their "ADD." Steroids clearly make one stronger, and do help the body recover from injury quicker than one would otherwise, but baseball at the professional level still requires an ungodly degree of hand-eye coordination. Steroids can help, but the raw skill needs to be there.
Baseball at the very least dragged its feet (and at the worst allowed this to go on knowingly); now it's time to sleep in that bed. Barry Bonds owns the single season home run record, which is set at 73. Not McGwire's 70. Not Maris' 61. Not Ruth's 60. Bonds also owns the career record, not Aaron. Like it or not, this is fact.
In regards to Cooperstown, my argument is closely aligned with the above. We can't play judge and jury of the past. Steroids are a blight on the game, and do cheapen numbers, but then again, many white players from the years pre-Robinson never had to face the best of the Negro Leagues, which cheapens their numbers as well. The above mentioned point about amphetamines is valid here as well. I'm not sure that speed isn't a more effective PED than many of the steroids on the market available to players today (HGH especially). Cooperstown should remember the best players and moments from the game of baseball (including the all time hits leader, Pete Rose, but that's another rant for later on down the road). Like it or not, both the best moments and players indisputably will involve steroids at some point in time. It's as clear to me as the "flaxseed oil" that Bonds used that he belongs in the Hall of Fame. Roger Clemens does as well. McGwire, Sosa, and Palmeiro don't, but that has nothing to do with their use of performance enhancing drugs.
My final thought on this is that we, the fans, deserve some of the blame. I can legitimately claim ignorance on the home run race of '98, because I was 13 at the time, but we as a collective whole should have known. Men don't increase in strength and muscle mass (especially the shredded look that the sluggers gained) naturally as they age into their late thirties. Heads don't grow past puberty. Neither do feet. All time power numbers shouldn't be set by players nearing twenty years in the big leagues. Shame on us, the fans, for putting our heads in the sand in the name of the long ball. Even more, shame on us now for acting self righteous about it when it was our almighty dollar that created the market for it in the first place. We chide baseball for allowing drugs in the game, while at the same time we clap our hands every fall Sunday as men get bigger and bigger, yet faster and faster.
I just hope that Albert Pujols really is as real as he claims to be, but don't judge me for being skeptical.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
My Fantasy Team Doesn't Have Anyone Named Manning or Brees (But There Certainly Are Some Tight Ends)
When someone asks me who I've got starting on my fantasy team, I'm thinking:
or
Not this:
or
Now, before I begin to rant about this, let me say that I have no inherent dislike of fantasy football. At its basis, I like the idea. I play Pigskin Pick'em, and I like to gamble on football (never involving money of course, as sports gambling is illegal in Illinois). Both of the above mentioned methods, as well as fantasy football, are nice ways to care about a game that one otherwise wouldn't. Being the fan of a small market team in the midst of a clear rebuilding phase while living in the third largest media market in the country that I am, I need all the help I can get to care about most of the football games that I see on a normal Sunday. What has been grinding on me the last few years is how fantasy football has integrated itself into the game to such a level that it has seemingly become the focus for far too many people.
My biggest complaint is that people are now cheering for stats and players, not the team. I have literally been sitting at a bar watching the early slate of games (my Chiefs almost always play at noon) and seen people wearing a jersey of one team paying attention to every other game because they had fantasy players in that contest. I've seen other people get mad at the quarterback of the team they came in representing because he didn't throw the TD pass to the receiver on their fantasy team. That borders on insane in my eyes. I don't care how the Chiefs win (and they sure haven't been doing much of that lately), all I want on a Sunday afternoon is the W. I don't care if the touchdown came from a J. Charles run or a Chris Chambers catch. All that matters is the win.
ESPN has gotten in on the game too. Mike & Mike have a brief segment every week discussing if one should start or sit players, and there is a show that airs Sunday that does the same on ESPN2. Really, ESPN, is this necessary? Please stick to reporting on the games based on reality.
Now, I wouldn't fault you if you felt that the above two reasons for my dislike of the "dedicated" fantasy football type were just me whining. The thing that really annoys me is when there is a debate about if something that happened in the real NFL game was fair to the owners of that player/squad in fantasy football. Two examples from this season are Peyton Manning being sat in week 16 (championship week for most fantasy leagues) and Maurice Jones-Drew's intentional knee at the one yard line to burn clock time instead of running in the score. I can remember debate on ESPN about both of these decision's impacts on fantasy football, and MJD even went so far as to apologize to his fantasy owners. This is where is really crosses the line in my book. There are plenty of reasons to be mad about Manning being benched (trust me, I sure am), and I can even understand the logic of wanted MJD to never let up on a run, but to be bad because it kept fantasy points off the board? As Chad Ochocinco would say, "Child, please!"
With all this being said, I'm sure I would enjoy playing fantasy football if I ever gave it a shot. If you're one of the people who runs a fantasy squad and keeps your sports priorities straight, nice work. I'm sure fantasy football is only going to get bigger, and eventually I'll come to at least comprehend how it could supercede rooting for a real football team, but for now, the "dedicated" guilty of the above mentioned complaints are giving me at least one reason to be glad the regular season is over.
or
Not this:
or
Now, before I begin to rant about this, let me say that I have no inherent dislike of fantasy football. At its basis, I like the idea. I play Pigskin Pick'em, and I like to gamble on football (never involving money of course, as sports gambling is illegal in Illinois). Both of the above mentioned methods, as well as fantasy football, are nice ways to care about a game that one otherwise wouldn't. Being the fan of a small market team in the midst of a clear rebuilding phase while living in the third largest media market in the country that I am, I need all the help I can get to care about most of the football games that I see on a normal Sunday. What has been grinding on me the last few years is how fantasy football has integrated itself into the game to such a level that it has seemingly become the focus for far too many people.
My biggest complaint is that people are now cheering for stats and players, not the team. I have literally been sitting at a bar watching the early slate of games (my Chiefs almost always play at noon) and seen people wearing a jersey of one team paying attention to every other game because they had fantasy players in that contest. I've seen other people get mad at the quarterback of the team they came in representing because he didn't throw the TD pass to the receiver on their fantasy team. That borders on insane in my eyes. I don't care how the Chiefs win (and they sure haven't been doing much of that lately), all I want on a Sunday afternoon is the W. I don't care if the touchdown came from a J. Charles run or a Chris Chambers catch. All that matters is the win.
ESPN has gotten in on the game too. Mike & Mike have a brief segment every week discussing if one should start or sit players, and there is a show that airs Sunday that does the same on ESPN2. Really, ESPN, is this necessary? Please stick to reporting on the games based on reality.
Now, I wouldn't fault you if you felt that the above two reasons for my dislike of the "dedicated" fantasy football type were just me whining. The thing that really annoys me is when there is a debate about if something that happened in the real NFL game was fair to the owners of that player/squad in fantasy football. Two examples from this season are Peyton Manning being sat in week 16 (championship week for most fantasy leagues) and Maurice Jones-Drew's intentional knee at the one yard line to burn clock time instead of running in the score. I can remember debate on ESPN about both of these decision's impacts on fantasy football, and MJD even went so far as to apologize to his fantasy owners. This is where is really crosses the line in my book. There are plenty of reasons to be mad about Manning being benched (trust me, I sure am), and I can even understand the logic of wanted MJD to never let up on a run, but to be bad because it kept fantasy points off the board? As Chad Ochocinco would say, "Child, please!"
With all this being said, I'm sure I would enjoy playing fantasy football if I ever gave it a shot. If you're one of the people who runs a fantasy squad and keeps your sports priorities straight, nice work. I'm sure fantasy football is only going to get bigger, and eventually I'll come to at least comprehend how it could supercede rooting for a real football team, but for now, the "dedicated" guilty of the above mentioned complaints are giving me at least one reason to be glad the regular season is over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)