Well folks, it's over. ESPN has already started its over-analysis covering every single play over and over again (that drop by Texas on play #43 was HUGE). Herbstreit has already given out his PRE-pre-preseason top 5 (Bama/Ohio State(ha!)/Oklahoma/Iowa(HAHA!)/Virginia Tech(proof Herbie didn't take this too seriously)). Coaches are being fired (Jim Leavitt from USF), coaches are still fighting being fired (Mike Leach), coaches may or may not be on their paid leave (Urban Meyer OMGHESLEAVINGFORTHENFLGAYTURDSWOOGEAUXTIGERS) and there is even a report of the NFL opening its doors back up for a fallen angel (Pete Carroll).
But let's look at last night's game as it was. A game was about to get out of hand until Texas's backup freshman pants-wetting QB remembered that physics still applied regardless of how good Bama's defense was. That onside kick, frankly, was brilliantly executed and save for that miserable shovel pass and that murderous fumble, Texas made this game an entertaining event. Alabama was almost always one step away from completely shattering the game and at one point was in danger losing it.
The cold black hearts here at PLS feel for Colt McCoy. That really really really sucks for him. He finally had a shot at the national championship and 5 plays in he was done. That was a shame. Interviewing him after the game was terrible journalism, like when Roy Williams was interviewed after losing the national championship game and being asked if he was leaving Kansas. ESPN continued the over-analysis of that by getting Mel Kiper to say that McCoy fell from the second round to the 4th-5th round just because he missed this game. This is more proof that Mel Kiper is now only half draft analysis half talking head devoid of substance. Soon he will be Mark May with better hair.
So congrats to Alabama. Enjoy the target on your back next year.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Why the BCS Game Will Not Stand for "Bama Championship Smackdown"
by Slate Quicksilver
Iroquois did a solid job telling you why Alabama should win the game. I am inclined to agree, as I predict a blasting of Texas into the Stone Age. But allow me to play the devil's advocate and tell you why Texas could win the game.
Reason #1: The Texas Defense
The Longhorns have a defense that is certainly stout. Stout even in normal terms, not just in BigXII terms. BigXII defensive stoutness in 2008 was a synonym for "Jello." This defense doesn't fit that mold (ba-da CHING!) and in fact is pretty damn good. This is thanked largely in part to defensive coordinator Will Muschamp getting a second year with this defense. Although they lost sackmaster Brian Orakpo to the draft, the defense was still fearsome and forced turnover after turnover.
Muschamp getting the D to improve as rapidly as it did is thanks to his intense style of play, intense style of coaching and intense style of everything (full disclosure: only one was not involving Muschamp). He is getting better recruits and better play from the current players and that is a scary thought. The BigXII with actual defenses would be like a nuclear Iran, it is a danger to everyone else in their area. The Texas D will also be helped by the lack of an Alabama offense. All it has become is a series of and passes to Mark Ingram followed by the ever present drag route from Julio Jones and the rare throw deep to X receiver. That's really it.
Oh, and remember that Auburn beat Alabama in 2006 and 2007: the two years Muschamp was the D-Coordinator at Auburn and before that he was Nick Saban's DC at LSU and in the NFL with the Dolphins.
Consider your mind M-F-ing blown.
Reason #2: Texas could totally invade Alabama and win
Notable "historians" and military enthusiasts have always wondered, if all of the states fought each other, who would win? "Always" meaning "since college football started" because let's face it; maybe your rival beat you, but seeing as how they are from Indiana and you are from California, you can always rest assured that if the shit went down between those two states, California would reach Indianapolis in 2 days, tops, and plant the Bear flag on the steps of their Capitol building and have everyone listening to Sublime within a fortnight.
This is not at all about the military, this is about the populations of the states, defensive terrain and the pre-conceived knowledge about the people fighting. It is also important to note that the state with a larger population always invades the less populated state. Example: New Jersey is small and hard to defend, yet those people are all packing and are in fact, not even human at all. Pennsylvania could ostensibly attack New Jersey, but consider that PA only has 4 million more people than NJ and consider the Amish, old people and just general "white as milk" population in the rural areas. It would come down to the Philly reserves and Pittsburgh Steel workers to take Newark and I wouldn't put any money on it.
So we come to Texas vs. Alabama. Texas has a 20 million person advantage in population. Alabama is mostly flat land, but has it's share of rivers and swampland. Alabama's populace cannot be underestimated in a brawl for any number of reasons but the people from Texas are, well, people from Texas.
Texas, if they were to invade Alabama, would send the McCoy flank to take Mobile and the Norris Flank to take Huntsville in a matter of hours. From there a pincer like maneuver would take place sending the McCoy flank sweeping through the southern flat lands and the Norris flank through the northern hills while the bulk of the Texans lead by Mack Brown would charge through Tuscaloosa and Birmingham until it swept south to link up with the McCoy contingent in Montgomery. The Jordan Shipley brigade will split wide north with the McCoy flank to secure the interior lowlands. Montgomery would fight hard, but would fall after 2 days of fighting, maybe. All deserters and enemies would be subjected to the electric chair, seeing as how that's what Texans do for a hot time on weekend evenings during the football off-season.
Pincer like military maneuvers are very effective in flat to slightly hilly terrain, making Alabama a perfect place for Texas to perform one.
More than likely, Talladega would be the last stand for the Alabamians. Most treasured possessions are usually the last things to fall. Estimated time of full victory at Talladega: 3 years. That's because Vince Young will be leading that charge and, as we all know, it takes Vince Young 3 years to finally get "it" right. "It" includes, but is not limited to, College Football, NFL football, life, friendships and dog training.
Only one of these things is actually relevant to the game but I'll leave up to you, the dear reader, to figure that out.
Basically Texas needs a low scoring game.
Nebraska wrote the recipe for knocking Texas on their asses, but you can't completely shut them down. Texas will put up points, but will Alabama? Texas will put up at least 13 points. The question is: "How many points will Alabama score?" A shootout leads to an Alabama victory solely on the Tide's powerful defense which will eventually put the Longhorn defense in snooze mode, so a low scoring defensive puntfest is what Texas wants. Oddly enough, that's what Nick Saban probably wants as well. Texas can win, but they can't let it be a shootout.
So there you have, folks. College football = over. How sad. We will mourn the loss of the season in the coming days with wrapups, eulogies and other types of recognition. We will be reordering the schedule shortly and maybe even adding a new contributor(!) thus giving you more content to scrutinize and yell about. The 2010 college football season won't being until (probably) September 4th... nearly 8 long months away. So enjoy the game tonight!
Iroquois did a solid job telling you why Alabama should win the game. I am inclined to agree, as I predict a blasting of Texas into the Stone Age. But allow me to play the devil's advocate and tell you why Texas could win the game.
Reason #1: The Texas Defense
The Longhorns have a defense that is certainly stout. Stout even in normal terms, not just in BigXII terms. BigXII defensive stoutness in 2008 was a synonym for "Jello." This defense doesn't fit that mold (ba-da CHING!) and in fact is pretty damn good. This is thanked largely in part to defensive coordinator Will Muschamp getting a second year with this defense. Although they lost sackmaster Brian Orakpo to the draft, the defense was still fearsome and forced turnover after turnover.
Muschamp getting the D to improve as rapidly as it did is thanks to his intense style of play, intense style of coaching and intense style of everything (full disclosure: only one was not involving Muschamp). He is getting better recruits and better play from the current players and that is a scary thought. The BigXII with actual defenses would be like a nuclear Iran, it is a danger to everyone else in their area. The Texas D will also be helped by the lack of an Alabama offense. All it has become is a series of and passes to Mark Ingram followed by the ever present drag route from Julio Jones and the rare throw deep to X receiver. That's really it.
Oh, and remember that Auburn beat Alabama in 2006 and 2007: the two years Muschamp was the D-Coordinator at Auburn and before that he was Nick Saban's DC at LSU and in the NFL with the Dolphins.
Consider your mind M-F-ing blown.
Reason #2: Texas could totally invade Alabama and win
Notable "historians" and military enthusiasts have always wondered, if all of the states fought each other, who would win? "Always" meaning "since college football started" because let's face it; maybe your rival beat you, but seeing as how they are from Indiana and you are from California, you can always rest assured that if the shit went down between those two states, California would reach Indianapolis in 2 days, tops, and plant the Bear flag on the steps of their Capitol building and have everyone listening to Sublime within a fortnight.
This is not at all about the military, this is about the populations of the states, defensive terrain and the pre-conceived knowledge about the people fighting. It is also important to note that the state with a larger population always invades the less populated state. Example: New Jersey is small and hard to defend, yet those people are all packing and are in fact, not even human at all. Pennsylvania could ostensibly attack New Jersey, but consider that PA only has 4 million more people than NJ and consider the Amish, old people and just general "white as milk" population in the rural areas. It would come down to the Philly reserves and Pittsburgh Steel workers to take Newark and I wouldn't put any money on it.
So we come to Texas vs. Alabama. Texas has a 20 million person advantage in population. Alabama is mostly flat land, but has it's share of rivers and swampland. Alabama's populace cannot be underestimated in a brawl for any number of reasons but the people from Texas are, well, people from Texas.
Texas, if they were to invade Alabama, would send the McCoy flank to take Mobile and the Norris Flank to take Huntsville in a matter of hours. From there a pincer like maneuver would take place sending the McCoy flank sweeping through the southern flat lands and the Norris flank through the northern hills while the bulk of the Texans lead by Mack Brown would charge through Tuscaloosa and Birmingham until it swept south to link up with the McCoy contingent in Montgomery. The Jordan Shipley brigade will split wide north with the McCoy flank to secure the interior lowlands. Montgomery would fight hard, but would fall after 2 days of fighting, maybe. All deserters and enemies would be subjected to the electric chair, seeing as how that's what Texans do for a hot time on weekend evenings during the football off-season.
Pincer like military maneuvers are very effective in flat to slightly hilly terrain, making Alabama a perfect place for Texas to perform one.
More than likely, Talladega would be the last stand for the Alabamians. Most treasured possessions are usually the last things to fall. Estimated time of full victory at Talladega: 3 years. That's because Vince Young will be leading that charge and, as we all know, it takes Vince Young 3 years to finally get "it" right. "It" includes, but is not limited to, College Football, NFL football, life, friendships and dog training.
Only one of these things is actually relevant to the game but I'll leave up to you, the dear reader, to figure that out.
Basically Texas needs a low scoring game.
Nebraska wrote the recipe for knocking Texas on their asses, but you can't completely shut them down. Texas will put up points, but will Alabama? Texas will put up at least 13 points. The question is: "How many points will Alabama score?" A shootout leads to an Alabama victory solely on the Tide's powerful defense which will eventually put the Longhorn defense in snooze mode, so a low scoring defensive puntfest is what Texas wants. Oddly enough, that's what Nick Saban probably wants as well. Texas can win, but they can't let it be a shootout.
So there you have, folks. College football = over. How sad. We will mourn the loss of the season in the coming days with wrapups, eulogies and other types of recognition. We will be reordering the schedule shortly and maybe even adding a new contributor(!) thus giving you more content to scrutinize and yell about. The 2010 college football season won't being until (probably) September 4th... nearly 8 long months away. So enjoy the game tonight!
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Why the BCS Game Will Stand For "Bama Championship Smackdown"
Posted by Iroquois Plisken
Considering the success of the previous point/counterpoint on the Florida Marlins, we have decided to bring back more intelligent bickering amongst friends. As regular readers will note, this blog is heavily centered on college football and with the pendency of the BCS National Title Game, it is time for us to celebrate and subsequently mourn the end of another season.
This debate is going to be straightforward: who would win in a fight between an elephant and a longhorned steer? The flagship universities of the state of Alabama and the Republic of Texas, respectively, will decide this soon in an orderly fashion governed by a shifting momentum and interpretation of rules. I have been tasked with championing the Crimson Tide, a task consistent with my prediction of the game.
Reason #1 - Bama's O
Alabama found the magic formula for their offense in the SEC Championship game. A heavy dose of the running game, anchored by H---man winner Mark Ingram and freshman Trent Richardson (who may be better than Ingram when it's all said and done), combined with QB Greg McElroy's new-found ability to connect with Julio Jones. But I think the real key for Bama will be the fact that the #2 receiver for Bama (Marquis Maze) is more consistent than any of Texas's #2 receivers (e.g. Malcolm Williams). Something that got exploited against Florida and proved very effective throughout the year is lining up Maze and Jones for a high-low pattern, which will take star S Earl Monroe out of the picture. If Monroe elects to cover TE Colin Peek instead, this will probably leave single coverage on either of the capable Bama receivers, lest we forget Ingram's ability to catch passes in the flat. With the quick out to Peek and/or Ingram, this will serve to offset DE/OLB Sergio Kindle's swath of destruction.
Admittedly, this is a harder argument to make because Texas has an outstanding defense, headed by Iroquois favorite Will Muschamp. But, I'm on Bama's side here.
Reason #2 - Texas's Offense
Texas's offense is mostly propped up by playing against teams with very little defense. Outside of Nebraska and Oklahoma, the next highest rated team in terms of total defense that Texas bested was Oklahoma State, at around 34. After that, the dropoff is something ridiculous down to Louisiana-Monroe, UCF, and Texas Tech, who are all in a row. In the games where Texas played the top defenses, Texas mustered around 270 and barely over 200 yards, respectively, and one of those games they actually won (they did not beat Nebraska without making up a rule about the clock runoff, not to mention reviewing a non-reviewable play).
Further belaboring how good defenses can shut down Texas is the fact Rolando McClain will be available for the game. McClain is an outstanding spy MLB who has enough lateral quickness to contain mobile QBs, as evidenced by his ability to contain Tim Tebow and Tyrod Taylor. Then again, it may have something to do with the alliterative effect of dual Ts. Given the problems that Texas had containing Ndamukong Suh (the definite #1 pick), it could be assumed that, even if they are different kinds of DTs, Terrence "Mount" Cody could cause similar sorts of disruptions for Texas' interior line. Combined with the marquee matchup of Jordan Shipley versus Javier Arenas and we could see Texas's two playmakers held in check. If McCoy can't be mobile or throw the ball to his only consistent target, they'll be forced to run, which they aren't able to do so well.
Reason #3 - Coaching
Nick Saban may be a bastard but he is a master gameplanner. You don't think Saban was studying that Nebraska tape for days at a time, possibly neglecting friends and family during the holiday season? He probably kicked his wife out of the house while playing pocket hockey and viewing Nebraska's 3 man rush getting by Texas's O-Line. Nick Saban just doesn't lose when he has ample time to prepare. He walloped Florida so bad because he probably spent the last year preparing for the game. As if his own hardassness doesn't cause him to prepare for the game, there are several thousand Bama fans with his address and lots of disposable alcohol and firearms and an ill temper when their beloved Tide doesn't win.
To be fair, even if Saban wins, Bear Bryant is gonna get the credit. I wouldn't want to win someone else's championship, either.
In short, Bama will trounce Texas because Bama has figured out how they need to play to beat anyone with their impressive win against Florida, Texas cannot manage to start their offense against a good defense, and Mack Brown only won a championship because Vince Young was...Vince Young. Colt McCoy will leave Texas being closer to Chris Simms than Vince Young, a great but not heroic figure in Texas QB history.
Slate's defense of Texas starts tomorrow.
Considering the success of the previous point/counterpoint on the Florida Marlins, we have decided to bring back more intelligent bickering amongst friends. As regular readers will note, this blog is heavily centered on college football and with the pendency of the BCS National Title Game, it is time for us to celebrate and subsequently mourn the end of another season.
This debate is going to be straightforward: who would win in a fight between an elephant and a longhorned steer? The flagship universities of the state of Alabama and the Republic of Texas, respectively, will decide this soon in an orderly fashion governed by a shifting momentum and interpretation of rules. I have been tasked with championing the Crimson Tide, a task consistent with my prediction of the game.
Reason #1 - Bama's O
Alabama found the magic formula for their offense in the SEC Championship game. A heavy dose of the running game, anchored by H---man winner Mark Ingram and freshman Trent Richardson (who may be better than Ingram when it's all said and done), combined with QB Greg McElroy's new-found ability to connect with Julio Jones. But I think the real key for Bama will be the fact that the #2 receiver for Bama (Marquis Maze) is more consistent than any of Texas's #2 receivers (e.g. Malcolm Williams). Something that got exploited against Florida and proved very effective throughout the year is lining up Maze and Jones for a high-low pattern, which will take star S Earl Monroe out of the picture. If Monroe elects to cover TE Colin Peek instead, this will probably leave single coverage on either of the capable Bama receivers, lest we forget Ingram's ability to catch passes in the flat. With the quick out to Peek and/or Ingram, this will serve to offset DE/OLB Sergio Kindle's swath of destruction.
Admittedly, this is a harder argument to make because Texas has an outstanding defense, headed by Iroquois favorite Will Muschamp. But, I'm on Bama's side here.
Reason #2 - Texas's Offense
Texas's offense is mostly propped up by playing against teams with very little defense. Outside of Nebraska and Oklahoma, the next highest rated team in terms of total defense that Texas bested was Oklahoma State, at around 34. After that, the dropoff is something ridiculous down to Louisiana-Monroe, UCF, and Texas Tech, who are all in a row. In the games where Texas played the top defenses, Texas mustered around 270 and barely over 200 yards, respectively, and one of those games they actually won (they did not beat Nebraska without making up a rule about the clock runoff, not to mention reviewing a non-reviewable play).
Further belaboring how good defenses can shut down Texas is the fact Rolando McClain will be available for the game. McClain is an outstanding spy MLB who has enough lateral quickness to contain mobile QBs, as evidenced by his ability to contain Tim Tebow and Tyrod Taylor. Then again, it may have something to do with the alliterative effect of dual Ts. Given the problems that Texas had containing Ndamukong Suh (the definite #1 pick), it could be assumed that, even if they are different kinds of DTs, Terrence "Mount" Cody could cause similar sorts of disruptions for Texas' interior line. Combined with the marquee matchup of Jordan Shipley versus Javier Arenas and we could see Texas's two playmakers held in check. If McCoy can't be mobile or throw the ball to his only consistent target, they'll be forced to run, which they aren't able to do so well.
Reason #3 - Coaching
Nick Saban may be a bastard but he is a master gameplanner. You don't think Saban was studying that Nebraska tape for days at a time, possibly neglecting friends and family during the holiday season? He probably kicked his wife out of the house while playing pocket hockey and viewing Nebraska's 3 man rush getting by Texas's O-Line. Nick Saban just doesn't lose when he has ample time to prepare. He walloped Florida so bad because he probably spent the last year preparing for the game. As if his own hardassness doesn't cause him to prepare for the game, there are several thousand Bama fans with his address and lots of disposable alcohol and firearms and an ill temper when their beloved Tide doesn't win.
To be fair, even if Saban wins, Bear Bryant is gonna get the credit. I wouldn't want to win someone else's championship, either.
In short, Bama will trounce Texas because Bama has figured out how they need to play to beat anyone with their impressive win against Florida, Texas cannot manage to start their offense against a good defense, and Mack Brown only won a championship because Vince Young was...Vince Young. Colt McCoy will leave Texas being closer to Chris Simms than Vince Young, a great but not heroic figure in Texas QB history.
Slate's defense of Texas starts tomorrow.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
How much the Holidays would suck without sports
By Red Herring
Imagine if you will sitting in a room about 10 minutes before your team is going to play its bowl game. In this room is you, your wife, your sister in law, your brother in law, your father in law, an uncle who smells of scotch and cigarettes and a screaming baby that just happens to belong to said sister and brother in law. Dante left a circle of hell out when he wrote the Inferno.
What would we do without sports during the holidays? How would we get through thanksgiving with our great aunt Mildred who insists that we listen to her stories about the good ole days when “those people” knew their place and you could buy a car with three dollars and thirty-two cents? How important is it that we have sports on a holiday. It’s so important that I find myself eagerly awaiting the start of the Lions game. The LIONS! Simply put, we have to have these escapes. Watching the Lions in their annual turkey day termination has probably gotten me through more thanksgivings then a bottle of Jack and a metric assload of horse tranquilizers ever could have.
If we couldn’t escape into the world of sports during the holidays what would we do? There is only so much of the in-laws that a man can take. But thanks to sports we don’t have to consider what the barrel of your shotgun would taste like. (cold, hard and with a somehow tangy yet zincky taste to it by the way) With sports we can block all of that out, we can yell at the TV and also drink your fill of beers without being “judged.” Sports gives us something to do, something to look forward to other then sleeping in and going to bed early to avoid the most vapid members of your family. Simply put, without sports I feel that the holidays would turn into a bloodbath of anger and frustration that would quite possibly result in the fall of western civilization. Sports gives you an excuse to be anti-social, an excuse to ignore the nagging questions, an excuse to curse in front of your 98 year old great-grandmother.
So, the next time you think to yourself, “who the hell wants to watch the Lions get their asses kicked on thanksgiving?” You have an answer, Red does.
Thoughts on the Orange Bowl
by Slate Quicksilver
First and foremost, let's get down to brass-tacks. TCU or Boise State should have been in this game. That is abundantly clear, however in the BCS Kremlin (situated somewhere in the depths of a cave 4 miles down where even the strongest of communication bands cannot reach them), it would not be allowed for a non-BCS conference powerhouse to up-end a real BCS conference team in a BCS game for the fourth time this decade.
The underground bunker features several offices, a meeting space, a longwave band one-way radio communications room manned by Tim Cowlishaw to promote the most glorious and complete bowl system EVAR and a torture room for those weak enough to turn to the rebel side which is headed up by BigTen commissioner Jim Delaney. Also included are dry supplies and a tap to an aquifer that will last them for the next 50 years. Don't worry about getting in touch with them, they will get in touch with you and it will be with a 1000 volt electrode to a valuable part of your reproductive organs until you repent your seditious words. It's a long way to the surface when you are underground by 4 miles and the only way up is a key to a rope lead elevator held by ACC commish Jim Swofford. That's why we haven't heard from "Tim Brando" in weeks. (Quotation marks are necessary because if the BCS has their way, he will be an "un-person").
That being said in more words than I wanted to use, let us talk again about why TCU and Boise State should be there. It was massively unfair to shaft both teams to play each other. Let's think for a minute about the possible scenario where Michigan State didn't send a 6 blitz on the last play of the game from their own 6 yard line against Iowa. In this hypothetical situation Iowa does not win the game and thus is not in a BCS bowl. So where does the 3rd team come from? It could have been the fightin' Mormons had they not lost in the one game Florida State showed up in this season. More likely is Pittsburgh, if they didn't miss a single extra point against Cincy to close the season. And what if Clemson won the ACC championship? Would Georgia Tech still be in a BCS bowl? The ifs and buts (which are candy and nuts) keep adding up to show just how lucky the BCS Kremlin was because barring each of those scenarios, which are hardly implausible and are in fact likely in terms of probability (remember that flipping a coin and being correct 4 times in a row is a 6.25% chance), they would have had to put TCU or Boise in a different game.
If any of those things happened, TCU and Boise would not have been in the Fiesta Bowl. Those were two evenly matched teams and it was a solid game. TCU wanted a low scoring game, but Boise's defense showed up. Frankly, TCU versus GT's 1930s offense would be worth the price of admission. Boise State would have been a delight in the Sugar Bowl instead of an uninspired and sleepy Cincinnati team (No, losing your coach is not an excuse because Bill Stewart lead West Virginia to a BCS win as the interim coach with a far worse team).
The overarching point is that the Orange Bowl is bad matchup of dubious terms. Not that Georgia Tech isn't a good team. Their offense is fun to watch and their defense is... well... it is present. Present as in there is usually 11 players on the field. GT needs this game to shootout because that defense is less than stellar. Luckily for them, Iowa's offense has been effectively dead all season. They are in the bottom quarter for rushing and in the middle for passing. This helps GT.
Iowa is admittedly decent even though this fine site has been screaming uncontrollably all year that they are extremely overrated. As previously mentioned, their offense is not good. But the defense is something to be proud of. They are in the top of D1 in third down success rates (for defense). Stopping the option on 3rd and short is a goal of any team playing GT, so this could bode well for the Corn.
Thus I like the Corn to win this somehow. They won at least 4 games this year that they should have lost (all to far worse teams). Because Tech is better than them, this one just screams win for Iowa.
First and foremost, let's get down to brass-tacks. TCU or Boise State should have been in this game. That is abundantly clear, however in the BCS Kremlin (situated somewhere in the depths of a cave 4 miles down where even the strongest of communication bands cannot reach them), it would not be allowed for a non-BCS conference powerhouse to up-end a real BCS conference team in a BCS game for the fourth time this decade.
The underground bunker features several offices, a meeting space, a longwave band one-way radio communications room manned by Tim Cowlishaw to promote the most glorious and complete bowl system EVAR and a torture room for those weak enough to turn to the rebel side which is headed up by BigTen commissioner Jim Delaney. Also included are dry supplies and a tap to an aquifer that will last them for the next 50 years. Don't worry about getting in touch with them, they will get in touch with you and it will be with a 1000 volt electrode to a valuable part of your reproductive organs until you repent your seditious words. It's a long way to the surface when you are underground by 4 miles and the only way up is a key to a rope lead elevator held by ACC commish Jim Swofford. That's why we haven't heard from "Tim Brando" in weeks. (Quotation marks are necessary because if the BCS has their way, he will be an "un-person").
That being said in more words than I wanted to use, let us talk again about why TCU and Boise State should be there. It was massively unfair to shaft both teams to play each other. Let's think for a minute about the possible scenario where Michigan State didn't send a 6 blitz on the last play of the game from their own 6 yard line against Iowa. In this hypothetical situation Iowa does not win the game and thus is not in a BCS bowl. So where does the 3rd team come from? It could have been the fightin' Mormons had they not lost in the one game Florida State showed up in this season. More likely is Pittsburgh, if they didn't miss a single extra point against Cincy to close the season. And what if Clemson won the ACC championship? Would Georgia Tech still be in a BCS bowl? The ifs and buts (which are candy and nuts) keep adding up to show just how lucky the BCS Kremlin was because barring each of those scenarios, which are hardly implausible and are in fact likely in terms of probability (remember that flipping a coin and being correct 4 times in a row is a 6.25% chance), they would have had to put TCU or Boise in a different game.
If any of those things happened, TCU and Boise would not have been in the Fiesta Bowl. Those were two evenly matched teams and it was a solid game. TCU wanted a low scoring game, but Boise's defense showed up. Frankly, TCU versus GT's 1930s offense would be worth the price of admission. Boise State would have been a delight in the Sugar Bowl instead of an uninspired and sleepy Cincinnati team (No, losing your coach is not an excuse because Bill Stewart lead West Virginia to a BCS win as the interim coach with a far worse team).
The overarching point is that the Orange Bowl is bad matchup of dubious terms. Not that Georgia Tech isn't a good team. Their offense is fun to watch and their defense is... well... it is present. Present as in there is usually 11 players on the field. GT needs this game to shootout because that defense is less than stellar. Luckily for them, Iowa's offense has been effectively dead all season. They are in the bottom quarter for rushing and in the middle for passing. This helps GT.
Iowa is admittedly decent even though this fine site has been screaming uncontrollably all year that they are extremely overrated. As previously mentioned, their offense is not good. But the defense is something to be proud of. They are in the top of D1 in third down success rates (for defense). Stopping the option on 3rd and short is a goal of any team playing GT, so this could bode well for the Corn.
Thus I like the Corn to win this somehow. They won at least 4 games this year that they should have lost (all to far worse teams). Because Tech is better than them, this one just screams win for Iowa.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Mea Culpa
Greetings friends, enemies and neturalities. Slate here. Just want to apologize for the lack of posting on this fine site. We know that most sports blogs post sporadically (at best) during the holidays, and we took a little bit too much liberty on that front. Understand that we are back full force with posting regularly.
We will be doing full college season wrapups and Stan van Gundy, I'm sure, will find his way back to the internetz. As we move into the non-football part of the year (8 GODDAMN COLD AND BARREN MONTHS) we will move on to baseball, basketball, hockey, the World Cup and maybe even a little bit of hot Olympic action. Annie is alive and communicating from an unknown location deep in enemy territory and Red is off arguing with anyone in a 4 mile radius.
We are back and we are glad some of you went back to look at some of our classic hits. We appreciate your patronage and we ask only one thing of you: comment! The silence of the internet is a dark and boundless and we miss contact with other human beings.
We'll see you on the flip side, folks.
We will be doing full college season wrapups and Stan van Gundy, I'm sure, will find his way back to the internetz. As we move into the non-football part of the year (8 GODDAMN COLD AND BARREN MONTHS) we will move on to baseball, basketball, hockey, the World Cup and maybe even a little bit of hot Olympic action. Annie is alive and communicating from an unknown location deep in enemy territory and Red is off arguing with anyone in a 4 mile radius.
We are back and we are glad some of you went back to look at some of our classic hits. We appreciate your patronage and we ask only one thing of you: comment! The silence of the internet is a dark and boundless and we miss contact with other human beings.
We'll see you on the flip side, folks.
The Joy of Rematches
Posted by Iroquois Plisken
Football (and maybe hockey--I don't really watch it) is funny in that it lends itself to repeating games in consecutive weeks. Yes, I know basketball sometimes finds itself playing the same teams home and away in very short order, but those are regular season games. Of note: we have four rematches this week, so to speak. In the Fiesta Bowl, Boise State and TCU match wits for the second consecutive year, and NFL-wise, we have the NYJets/Cincy, Packers/Buzzsaw That Is the Arizona Cardinals, and Philly/Dallas playing the exact same teams we saw them play not 24 hours ago.
The Fiesta Bowl is easier to explain. The Powers That Be selected those two teams to play in order to throw them a bone in the BCS bowls. If you're a conspiracy nutter, or even a fan with a couple of working neurons, you'll realize that this was done intentionally, probably to keep a strong TCU team from besting an auto-bid conference team, including both members of the Orange Bowl (especially Iowa), and Cincinnati. TCU and Boise might have given a good run to both Florida and Ohio State as well, not to mention that Boise already defeated Oregon, albeit a different Oregon team than what was shown in that game. My overarching question, though, is why they were paired again. We all know the BCS is a lightning rod for controversy, so pairing up two undefeated teams outside of the mythical national championship game ensures that at least two teams (had Cincy won, it could have been three) will remain undefeated at year's end. Not exactly the best way to give your system legitimacy in the public eye when the possibility of multiple undefeated teams isn't foreclosed.
As for the NFL, their rematches likely just have more to do with coincidence than anything. In a format where there are only six teams per conference and two of those teams that do not play in the wild card weekend, there is bound to be overlap. The more interesting thing is how the defeated teams will rise to the occasion given their "second chance" (or in PHI/DAL, third chance). Cincy and Arizona really laid down this previous week in an effort to rest their starters. Cincy appears to be in trouble, even if they really weren't trying this week. Rex Ryan should be pretty familiar with Marvin Lewis' game planning, as both served on the staff of the Ravens for a time. The football world is also well aware of the new buzz term circling the media--the Revis effect--and it seems a foregone conclusion that he will still be able to hold the Cincy passing game in check. I also agree with the topic of that link; Revis should really be the DPoY.
Dallas should have an easy enough time with Philly and it appears this will be the year they get out of the first round for the first time in more than a decade. Of course, that's what we said last year also. At least Tony Romo doesn't have the distraction of which of his blonde paramours will be showing up at the game. Miles Austin has been a revelation for this ballclub and it is really hard not to be optimistic about what the future will hold for the Cowboys.
As for Arizona, it's tough to tell what will go down there. The Pack seem to be peaking similar to the Cowboys and the three big injuries suffered by Arizona (Boldin, Campbell, and Rodgers-Cromartie) are keys to their successes since Warner will need all the help he can get, particularly on the side of the ball he doesn't play on. Without a pass rusher (Campbell) or a emerging, if not already good, CB (R-C), the Cardinals could be, in a word, effed. Still, hard to make judgments based on teams who had nothing to play for in Week 17 finding something to play for the next week against the same team.
Why there are so many rematches during this particular seven-day period is unknown. But, if you're expecting a rerun of the games you saw last year or yesterday, I've got news for you, friend: these episodes, while rehashed a bit, are all new.
Football (and maybe hockey--I don't really watch it) is funny in that it lends itself to repeating games in consecutive weeks. Yes, I know basketball sometimes finds itself playing the same teams home and away in very short order, but those are regular season games. Of note: we have four rematches this week, so to speak. In the Fiesta Bowl, Boise State and TCU match wits for the second consecutive year, and NFL-wise, we have the NYJets/Cincy, Packers/Buzzsaw That Is the Arizona Cardinals, and Philly/Dallas playing the exact same teams we saw them play not 24 hours ago.
The Fiesta Bowl is easier to explain. The Powers That Be selected those two teams to play in order to throw them a bone in the BCS bowls. If you're a conspiracy nutter, or even a fan with a couple of working neurons, you'll realize that this was done intentionally, probably to keep a strong TCU team from besting an auto-bid conference team, including both members of the Orange Bowl (especially Iowa), and Cincinnati. TCU and Boise might have given a good run to both Florida and Ohio State as well, not to mention that Boise already defeated Oregon, albeit a different Oregon team than what was shown in that game. My overarching question, though, is why they were paired again. We all know the BCS is a lightning rod for controversy, so pairing up two undefeated teams outside of the mythical national championship game ensures that at least two teams (had Cincy won, it could have been three) will remain undefeated at year's end. Not exactly the best way to give your system legitimacy in the public eye when the possibility of multiple undefeated teams isn't foreclosed.
As for the NFL, their rematches likely just have more to do with coincidence than anything. In a format where there are only six teams per conference and two of those teams that do not play in the wild card weekend, there is bound to be overlap. The more interesting thing is how the defeated teams will rise to the occasion given their "second chance" (or in PHI/DAL, third chance). Cincy and Arizona really laid down this previous week in an effort to rest their starters. Cincy appears to be in trouble, even if they really weren't trying this week. Rex Ryan should be pretty familiar with Marvin Lewis' game planning, as both served on the staff of the Ravens for a time. The football world is also well aware of the new buzz term circling the media--the Revis effect--and it seems a foregone conclusion that he will still be able to hold the Cincy passing game in check. I also agree with the topic of that link; Revis should really be the DPoY.
Dallas should have an easy enough time with Philly and it appears this will be the year they get out of the first round for the first time in more than a decade. Of course, that's what we said last year also. At least Tony Romo doesn't have the distraction of which of his blonde paramours will be showing up at the game. Miles Austin has been a revelation for this ballclub and it is really hard not to be optimistic about what the future will hold for the Cowboys.
As for Arizona, it's tough to tell what will go down there. The Pack seem to be peaking similar to the Cowboys and the three big injuries suffered by Arizona (Boldin, Campbell, and Rodgers-Cromartie) are keys to their successes since Warner will need all the help he can get, particularly on the side of the ball he doesn't play on. Without a pass rusher (Campbell) or a emerging, if not already good, CB (R-C), the Cardinals could be, in a word, effed. Still, hard to make judgments based on teams who had nothing to play for in Week 17 finding something to play for the next week against the same team.
Why there are so many rematches during this particular seven-day period is unknown. But, if you're expecting a rerun of the games you saw last year or yesterday, I've got news for you, friend: these episodes, while rehashed a bit, are all new.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)