With a new year upon us, it's a good idea to stop and take stock of our Cleveland sports scene. I like to do this with a concept called the Cleveland 19. It's a ranking of the top 19 athletes in our city based on their talent, importance to their team, potential for the future and their loyalty to the city. I throw all of those factors into a blender and determine the top 19. Why 19? In honor of the great Bernie Kosar, of course. To give an idea of how much the landscape has evolved from the last time I did this, check out the 2007 list:
19. Jhonny Peralta/Jake Westbrook
18. Jamal Lewis
17. Asdrubal Cabrera
16. Anderson Varejao
15. Josh Cribbs
14. Boobie Gibson
13. Derek Anderson / Brady Quinn
12. Eric Steinbach
11. Raffy Betancourt
10. Z / Phil Dawson
9. CC Sabathia
8. Travis Hafner
7. Fausto Carmona
6. Kellen Winslow Jr.
5. Grady Sizemore
4. Braylon Edwards
3. Joe Thomas
2. Victor Martinez
1. Lebron James
You'll notice five of those guys are no longer in Cleveland (which doesn't even include Cliff Lee because this was 2007, you know, when he sucked. I listed him in my anti-top 5. Nice, huh?), and another six had to be removed for various levels of sucking (Derek Anderson, anyone?). For sure, the 2010 list isn't as star-studded, but it's got a lot of heart, grit and possibility. It's more fitting of our city in that way. All it's missing is the raw sewage smell that pops up now and then.
The Potentials
19. Carlos Santana — Santana has yet to even see a Tribe uniform, and who knows, he may continue to light up the minors throughout 2010, but he symbolizes the hope that exists for the next generation of Tribe teams. Moves were made in 2009 based on his scheduled developmental process. His spot on this list is due to this potential and the fact that he'll be in our city for at least the next seven years, barring unforeseen tragedies.
18. Matt LaPorta / Michael Brantley — Both arrived in the CC trade and both hope to be building blocks for our Tribe. Brantley had a solid debut at the end of 2009 and looks to make an impact on the top of the order this year. LaPorta was a little more uneven, but I'm sure his place on this list gives him the appropriate motivation to realize his potential and hit bombs.
17. Jerome Harrison — Say it with me now: It's about time! We've all waited and waited for the day when Harrison would get consistent playing time. This finally happened during the historic Four-Game Win Streak of 2009. Harrison may not be the answer at RB, but the guy definitely showed the burst that Lewis lacked, hitting holes that may have been there all along. Harrison may be another Lee Suggs mirage, but for now, Harrison looks like an important part of the Browns latest rebuild. No one can get me down on the Browns since The Four-Game Win Streak, and no one can talk me out of putting this 5-foot-5-inch dude at No. 17.
16. Alex Mack — I know half the city wishes this guy's name was Rey Maualaga and the other half wishes it was Clay Matthews Jr., and the other half wishes it was James Laurainatis, while still another half wishes it was Beanie Wells (is that enough halves?)....um, where was I going with this? Oh yeah. No matter how many guys he could be, Mack had a solid first year playing a very demanding position for a team with little offensive identity or flow for most of 2009. I think he did enough to solidify another piece of an offensive line that remains one of the few decent parts of the Browns.
15. 2010 First Round Pick — Seriously, whoever you are, you better be at least this good.
14. Chris Perez — OK, maybe this is too high, but I felt like rewarding Perez for his dominance late in a lost season. He was virtually untouchable after an initially rocky start. And on a team with so many pitching problems, any sort of dominance is welcome. I also needed to fill the token"Perez" bullpen entry from the Tribe.
The Question Marks
13. Shaun Rogers — A healthy Rogers is the best pass-rushing defensive tackle in the game. His contribution often gets lost amid the depression, misery and ineptitude of the rest of his team, but not on the Cleveland 19. His spot on this list is definitely conditional on his ability to stand up straight and walk, which is maybe 50/50 at this point.
12. Delonte West — Whether you're looking for a lock down defender or an initiator for the offense, West is your guy. Oh, and if you need someone to chase after a foe on a motorcycle and gun them down at high speeds, he's your guy for that too. If we could count on West, he'd probably be higher, but his play is too erratic. I'd like to keep him off the list entirely, but he's just too important to the future success of the Cavs to ignore. He can keep this spot until he becomes more consistent, gets trade or murders a pack of stray dogs.
The Elder Statesmen
11. Phil Dawson — The man has been on the Browns since 1999. That must feel like 1929 to him. He deserves a purple heart. Until then, he will remain entrenched in the middle of the Cleveland 19.
10. Zydrunas Ilgauskas — In terms of loyalty, no one matches Z. His shot, at first rocky this season, has settled into that cozy comfort zone. He accepted a lesser role with class for the good of the team and the city, and he even put the oddest and most inexplicable slight of all time (being benched for the first time ever on the day he would become the all-time games played leader) behind him. I'd take a bullet for Z.
The Glue Guys
9. Andy Varejao — We all know if he was on another team, we'd be rooting for him to tear both his ACLs. But he's on our team, and his tenacity and intangibles on the court are almost as important to the team success as you know who (see No.1). But when he dribbles, I punch the nearest child.
8. Jake Westbrook — I know, I know. The dude had Tommy John and may not even pitch this year. But think about the pitching rotation next year. Are you thinking? OK. Now clean up the vomit. The Tribe needs Jake like Abraham Lincoln needed a door to his balcony. The man signed a deal to stay here, which doesn't happen often with the Tribe and if he comes back as the same guy, he'll play a huge part as the reliable veteran starter on a young team.
7. Asdrubal Cabrera — There's a new wizard at shortstop and he wears a pearl necklace. Cabrera has excited me ever since we shipped Eduardo Perez to Seattle in one of the dumbest trades ever. Even if he doesn't improve anymore, I'll be happy, but I can't help but feel he has one more level to go.
Second Bananas
6. Mo Williams — I labeled him "a chucker" when he came over from Milwaukee, but he has become the second scorer next to you know who (see No.1). His importance to the team was evidenced by the early exit against the Magic. If his shot is off, this team's chances go from pretty good to kind of average. That's not a large gap, but it's the difference between wins and losses in the playoffs, which is how this Cavs team is being measured. I believe he will overcome his choke in 2009. No. 6, Mo! Let's make it happen this year!
5. Shin Soo Choo — Arguably, the best pure baseball player on the team. The Tribe should have him for the next few years, and in that time, he should be consistently averaging .290/.401/.800 with 25 steals. So long as the Korean army stays away, Choo is a lock for the top 7 for awhile.
4. Joe Thomas — There's not much you can say about an offensive lineman. I'll let his three straight Pro Bowls do the talking. And don't give me that he's overrated. Cleveland players don't just make it to All-Star games. They have to earn it. Just ask DA. (Umm, nevermind.)
Faces of the Franchise
3. Grady Sizemore — We've got Grady for probably two more years. Sorry to get all real on you with that statement, but it's true. So, while he's here, let's celebrate. When healthy, Grady is the Indians. No doubt. He's fully taken the Face of t he Franchise reins vacated by Victor. (And no, Grady isn't strategically placing the reins in front of his penis. Don't mock those in the Top 3. Just don't.)
2. Josh Cribbs — From a local college, signed as a walk-on, Cribbs has scratched and clawed for everything he's earned in the NFL. The money, the adoration, the role on the offense, the TV show on Fox Sports Ohio—all of it. And now, he earns the coveted Spot Below LeBron and is the Face of the Franchise for the Browns. In the words of KGB in Rounders, "Pay thet min...pay thet min his maah-knee."
The King
1. LeBron James — You're nervous; I'm nervous; we're all nervous. No need to talk about it. Let's all just pray to whatever gods we like and do what we can to make sure this isn't the last time this guy is perched atop the Cleveland 19. For example, I will be praying to LeBron. Not sure if that will be effective, but he's all I got.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Sunday's symbolic Super Bowl
Sometimes I look too deeply into sports and see symbolic moments that aren't necessarily there. For example, I once wrote an entire column about the 2007 Indians after a sweep at the hands of the Yankees at mid-season, and I wrote about the gloomy day, and the construction in Cleveland at the time that annoyed me, and I tied everything together with an Arctic Monkey's lyric. My conclusion was the Indians just didn't have it that year based on my symbolic analysis.
They almost went to the World Series. So, I misfired on that one. (Well, kind of. I mean, they did ultimately break my heart, which was the point of the column for the most part. Whatever.)
Anyhow, I'm feeling poetic about this Sunday's Browns game. Big time. The symbolism is palpable, but in a good way. Examine these elements with me:
• Mike Holmgren gets hired to save the Browns.
• Brady Quinn gets hurt and is out for the remaining two games.
• This makes Derek Anderson the starter.
• The Browns opponent on Sunday is Oakland.
• Despite their victories this year, Oakland is viewed as perhaps the only other organization more hapless than Cleveland.
• After Jamarcus Russell was benched, Bruce Gradkowski (a ghost from our past) was brought in for the Raiders. He got hurt. Unwilling to go back to their 2007 first round pick, the Raiders turn to Charlie Frye.
• Yes, that Charlie Frye.
• No seriously, the guy from Akron that we drafted in the third round.
• Even though he suffered a concussion in the previous game, he is making the start this Sunday.
• The game this Sunday between the Raiders and the Browns is so bad that it may receive the first blackout locally since the putrid Browns have returned to the league.
So let's put all of the pieces together. Sunday is the most improbable and potentially the most horrendous football game ever played. The game pits the Browns v. the Raiders. It pits Anderson versus Frye, the two QBs that once battled each other in the worst QB competition ever staged, in a game that neither should be playing. Together, the two seem to sum up everything that's been terrible about the Browns for 10 years. And this epic duel will possibly be the first blacked out game in the modern Browns era.
This game Sunday is the culmination of a decade of Browns futility. Frye. Anderson. Injuries. Two bad teams. Bad weather. A blacked out game.
So why does this game give me hope? Because we have Holmgren. That's what started this chain of events to get Anderson v. Frye in a blacked out football game. Holmgren is good and this game is evil. And the game is happening because good is finally vanquishing evil (unless Holmgren is somehow tricked into believeing Anderson is good or the game is so bad that he has a heart attack and dies. Then evil will win.)
This game, as the full representation of everything that sucks about the Browns, will end the misery. After Anderson faces Frye in a game no one will watch, the atrocious Browns era ends with a dramatic whimper. It is dead. Buried. Done. Holmgren will look out over the field when the game mercifully ends as the victor, ready to rebuild. This is the Browns' Civil War of embarrassment, and Holmgren is Reconstruction.
If we don't hire Holmgren, Quinn stays in, he plays against Russell, we watch the game and we maybe win and think we're 5 percent better than the start of the year and get ready to start the Cycle of Shame all over again. Not now. Holmgren symbolizes the end of the cycle. And because of this, we now get the greatest worst game ever played—the grand finale of suck—one last look at how bad we've had it before Holmgren turns it around.
At least, that's how it seems now. Please don't print this post and give it to me in three years. (Actually, go ahead, because if Holmgren sucks too, it won't matter because I'll be dead. Glue it to my grave.)
UPDATE: The game is now televised locally. So, maybe Holmgren will suck afterall. Either way, go Browns.
They almost went to the World Series. So, I misfired on that one. (Well, kind of. I mean, they did ultimately break my heart, which was the point of the column for the most part. Whatever.)
Anyhow, I'm feeling poetic about this Sunday's Browns game. Big time. The symbolism is palpable, but in a good way. Examine these elements with me:
• Mike Holmgren gets hired to save the Browns.
• Brady Quinn gets hurt and is out for the remaining two games.
• This makes Derek Anderson the starter.
• The Browns opponent on Sunday is Oakland.
• Despite their victories this year, Oakland is viewed as perhaps the only other organization more hapless than Cleveland.
• After Jamarcus Russell was benched, Bruce Gradkowski (a ghost from our past) was brought in for the Raiders. He got hurt. Unwilling to go back to their 2007 first round pick, the Raiders turn to Charlie Frye.
• Yes, that Charlie Frye.
• No seriously, the guy from Akron that we drafted in the third round.
• Even though he suffered a concussion in the previous game, he is making the start this Sunday.
• The game this Sunday between the Raiders and the Browns is so bad that it may receive the first blackout locally since the putrid Browns have returned to the league.
So let's put all of the pieces together. Sunday is the most improbable and potentially the most horrendous football game ever played. The game pits the Browns v. the Raiders. It pits Anderson versus Frye, the two QBs that once battled each other in the worst QB competition ever staged, in a game that neither should be playing. Together, the two seem to sum up everything that's been terrible about the Browns for 10 years. And this epic duel will possibly be the first blacked out game in the modern Browns era.
This game Sunday is the culmination of a decade of Browns futility. Frye. Anderson. Injuries. Two bad teams. Bad weather. A blacked out game.
So why does this game give me hope? Because we have Holmgren. That's what started this chain of events to get Anderson v. Frye in a blacked out football game. Holmgren is good and this game is evil. And the game is happening because good is finally vanquishing evil (unless Holmgren is somehow tricked into believeing Anderson is good or the game is so bad that he has a heart attack and dies. Then evil will win.)
This game, as the full representation of everything that sucks about the Browns, will end the misery. After Anderson faces Frye in a game no one will watch, the atrocious Browns era ends with a dramatic whimper. It is dead. Buried. Done. Holmgren will look out over the field when the game mercifully ends as the victor, ready to rebuild. This is the Browns' Civil War of embarrassment, and Holmgren is Reconstruction.
If we don't hire Holmgren, Quinn stays in, he plays against Russell, we watch the game and we maybe win and think we're 5 percent better than the start of the year and get ready to start the Cycle of Shame all over again. Not now. Holmgren symbolizes the end of the cycle. And because of this, we now get the greatest worst game ever played—the grand finale of suck—one last look at how bad we've had it before Holmgren turns it around.
At least, that's how it seems now. Please don't print this post and give it to me in three years. (Actually, go ahead, because if Holmgren sucks too, it won't matter because I'll be dead. Glue it to my grave.)
UPDATE: The game is now televised locally. So, maybe Holmgren will suck afterall. Either way, go Browns.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Cleveland: Bring us your tired, poor and huddled asses
Hannah's gossip sources just informed her that Brady Quinn might be dating famous gymnast Alicia Sacramone. If true, this makes perfect sense.
As you probably don't remember, Sacramone was on the U.S. Olympic team in 2008. In the team portion of the competition, the U.S. was in a dead heat with China. But then, by the grace of god, with two events left one of the Chinese girls fell on her beam routine. We had the momentum, two of the best gymnasts in the world and just needed to not fall to win the gold.
But then this happened...
and then THIS happened. (0:21)
And just like that, Sacramone choked away the gold medal for the U.S.
Of all of the female athletes in all of the world, our hometown hero and the QB of our beloved Browns, chooses to bring the girl that lost the Olympics here to Cleveland—home to athletic losers, sports misery and epic failures. Somewhere, Earnest Byner is nodding with approval. I hope Sacramone and Quinn have a nice long relationship and produce several children with no necks.
As you probably don't remember, Sacramone was on the U.S. Olympic team in 2008. In the team portion of the competition, the U.S. was in a dead heat with China. But then, by the grace of god, with two events left one of the Chinese girls fell on her beam routine. We had the momentum, two of the best gymnasts in the world and just needed to not fall to win the gold.
But then this happened...
and then THIS happened. (0:21)
And just like that, Sacramone choked away the gold medal for the U.S.
Of all of the female athletes in all of the world, our hometown hero and the QB of our beloved Browns, chooses to bring the girl that lost the Olympics here to Cleveland—home to athletic losers, sports misery and epic failures. Somewhere, Earnest Byner is nodding with approval. I hope Sacramone and Quinn have a nice long relationship and produce several children with no necks.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
I just fixed college football
College Football is my favorite sport. I love the traditions. I love the pageantry. I love the crowds. And I especially love the regular season. But each year, the season ends, and it's like an election: everyone picks a side and gets all pumped up, then someone wins and nothing gets solved and the entire country is bummed out.
Honestly, until recently, I loved the BCS. I thought it made college football unique and maintained the intensity of the regular season in a way a playoff would not. My main argument is that in 2006, No.1 Ohio State played No.2 Michigan. Two hated, tradition-rich rivals playing to advance to the BCS championship. I was more hyped for that game than maybe any other sporting event I've ever watched. And if there was a playoff system, more than likely, that game wouldn't have mattered. Both teams would have made it into the playoff. If you can take the importance out of an Ohio State, Michigan game, then you've ruined college football. The rivalries and the traditions matter more than a champion—or so my argument went.
For the most part I still believe that. But I'm adjusting my stance a little bit. What I present represents, what I believe, is the ultimate solution for college football because it keeps traditions intact, removes certain biases that wreck the current system and delivers a true champion.
• No more scheduling Florida International or Youngstown State or Tulane. Kind of. It's better for us fans to watch the big boys play the big boys—but it's unfair to keep Florida International's players from playing in the Swamp, and it's unfair for that school to be shut out of that substantial payday.
What I propose is a play-in system for these non-major conference teams. Win nine or more games a season for three consecutive years and you qualify to play against a major conference team. Major conference teams can only schedule one a year. This will let those teams earn it—and then when the teams do earn it, like Boise St, major teams can't avoid them. I envision it being much more like the NFL. One or two games of the schedule will be determined by previous success and preseason polls by the schedule makers—not administrators and coaches with an agenda of reaching the end of the year unscathed.
• More major interconference regular season matchups. Say what you want about Ohio State, but once a year, they schedule a major team from another conference. No neutral field BS either. Florida, on the other hand, hasn't played an out of conference game out of the state of Florida in almost two decades. Teams shouldn't be allowed to make up their own rules with these games, especially with so much money on the line in the BCS.
Again, taking the NFL's lead, each year conferences are forced to matchup. Kind of like the ACC/Big Ten challenge that happens each year in college basketball. Games will be determined by the previously useless preseason polls in some fashion. And these teams will play two years in a row (I like the home-and-home formula). This will create compelling games, force teams to travel to play out of conference and add to the conference bragging rights.
• No more conference championships. Sometimes they work (Florida v. Alabama) and sometimes they don't (Texas v. Nebraska). I think it's better to just scrap them. The Pac-10 has the best system. It's a round robin regular season. Everyone plays everyone. Don't completely hold me to this statement—but I think it always works out with no messy Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech situations because of the tiebreakers involved.
• Keep the inter conference rivals. With all of the schedule changing, we have to be sure to keep traditional rivalry games like Clemson v South Carolina and Georiga v Georgia Tech.
• Have a TRUE rivalry week. This doesn't help anything, it's just a cosmetic fix I'd like to see. Rivalries are always staggered on different weekends. Lump them all on one Big Ass Rivalry Weekend. OSU v Michigan, Auburn v Alabama, USC v UCLA, Colorado v Nebraska, Notre Dame v Little Sisters of the Poor, Florida v soap, etc, etc.
• Figure out what to do with Notre Dame. Here's the problem. It should be easy to just throw ND in a conference and be done with it, but the program has too much tradition and too many rivalries. My solution is to add ND, Army and Navy— the remaining independent teams—to the Big East. That gives the Big East 11 teams and fills out the conference schedule. Notre Dame can then keep its game with Navy, which is tradition, and it can keep USC as its rival, but not play them during rivalry week because USC will be playing UCLA. Its Michigan game will only happen when the Big East plays the Big Ten, and maybe not then either. Sorry. Some sacrifices must be made.
• Longer regular season. I tried to avoid it, but after all of my changes, a team like Florida would have a minimum of 14 games (11 conference games, one inter-conference game matchup, one out of conference rivalry game, and one other game for a quality mid-major). Is that too long? Maybe. But that's what will help create a fair and balanced regular season. The teams in the Pac-10, the smallest conference, would have the two extra games filled by a complicated formula the schedule makers will determine. Could be a mid-major, could be a decent opponent. This is just a murky part of the plan we all have to live with. The Browns don't complain about their extra games, conferences without 12 teams can't complain about theirs.
• Playoffs. The season will start the first of September. There will be one bye week. This means the season will end in mid-December. At that point, each team will have amassed a much larger, more well-defined body of work. This gives poll voters more data for informed decisions. There is one final poll taken (or we still use the BCS here to keep those people happy). The top four teams will be seeded and put into a playoff. Higher seeds get homefield in round one, which means some of these wuss Southern teams might actually have to play in weather below 60 degrees and not have the regional advantage. The championship game will then be played on New Year's Day on a truly neutral field. If USC and OSU are in the title game, the game will be in the Sugar Bowl. If it's Florida and Texas, the game will be in the Rose Bowl, etc. And to keep the bowl system alive, during the first week of the playoff, all of the lesser, exhibition bowl games can start and continue all the way up to and including New Year's Day.
Why four teams? After expanding the regular season, I felt an eight-team playoff stretched the season a week too long. And after the longer, tougher regular season, I see no reason for a beefed up playoff because teams will have already proven their worth on the field. And seriously, how many years have there been eight teams that really deserved to be in the title hunt? The only real caveat to being in the Top Four is you have to win your conference. This keeps the bias for one conference out of the polling discussion. And keeping the polls will keep the arguments and debates alive—but there is enough settled on the field where a team won't get completely and utterly screwed.
There it is. Fixed. You're welcome.
Honestly, until recently, I loved the BCS. I thought it made college football unique and maintained the intensity of the regular season in a way a playoff would not. My main argument is that in 2006, No.1 Ohio State played No.2 Michigan. Two hated, tradition-rich rivals playing to advance to the BCS championship. I was more hyped for that game than maybe any other sporting event I've ever watched. And if there was a playoff system, more than likely, that game wouldn't have mattered. Both teams would have made it into the playoff. If you can take the importance out of an Ohio State, Michigan game, then you've ruined college football. The rivalries and the traditions matter more than a champion—or so my argument went.
For the most part I still believe that. But I'm adjusting my stance a little bit. What I present represents, what I believe, is the ultimate solution for college football because it keeps traditions intact, removes certain biases that wreck the current system and delivers a true champion.
• No more scheduling Florida International or Youngstown State or Tulane. Kind of. It's better for us fans to watch the big boys play the big boys—but it's unfair to keep Florida International's players from playing in the Swamp, and it's unfair for that school to be shut out of that substantial payday.
What I propose is a play-in system for these non-major conference teams. Win nine or more games a season for three consecutive years and you qualify to play against a major conference team. Major conference teams can only schedule one a year. This will let those teams earn it—and then when the teams do earn it, like Boise St, major teams can't avoid them. I envision it being much more like the NFL. One or two games of the schedule will be determined by previous success and preseason polls by the schedule makers—not administrators and coaches with an agenda of reaching the end of the year unscathed.
• More major interconference regular season matchups. Say what you want about Ohio State, but once a year, they schedule a major team from another conference. No neutral field BS either. Florida, on the other hand, hasn't played an out of conference game out of the state of Florida in almost two decades. Teams shouldn't be allowed to make up their own rules with these games, especially with so much money on the line in the BCS.
Again, taking the NFL's lead, each year conferences are forced to matchup. Kind of like the ACC/Big Ten challenge that happens each year in college basketball. Games will be determined by the previously useless preseason polls in some fashion. And these teams will play two years in a row (I like the home-and-home formula). This will create compelling games, force teams to travel to play out of conference and add to the conference bragging rights.
• No more conference championships. Sometimes they work (Florida v. Alabama) and sometimes they don't (Texas v. Nebraska). I think it's better to just scrap them. The Pac-10 has the best system. It's a round robin regular season. Everyone plays everyone. Don't completely hold me to this statement—but I think it always works out with no messy Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech situations because of the tiebreakers involved.
• Keep the inter conference rivals. With all of the schedule changing, we have to be sure to keep traditional rivalry games like Clemson v South Carolina and Georiga v Georgia Tech.
• Have a TRUE rivalry week. This doesn't help anything, it's just a cosmetic fix I'd like to see. Rivalries are always staggered on different weekends. Lump them all on one Big Ass Rivalry Weekend. OSU v Michigan, Auburn v Alabama, USC v UCLA, Colorado v Nebraska, Notre Dame v Little Sisters of the Poor, Florida v soap, etc, etc.
• Figure out what to do with Notre Dame. Here's the problem. It should be easy to just throw ND in a conference and be done with it, but the program has too much tradition and too many rivalries. My solution is to add ND, Army and Navy— the remaining independent teams—to the Big East. That gives the Big East 11 teams and fills out the conference schedule. Notre Dame can then keep its game with Navy, which is tradition, and it can keep USC as its rival, but not play them during rivalry week because USC will be playing UCLA. Its Michigan game will only happen when the Big East plays the Big Ten, and maybe not then either. Sorry. Some sacrifices must be made.
• Longer regular season. I tried to avoid it, but after all of my changes, a team like Florida would have a minimum of 14 games (11 conference games, one inter-conference game matchup, one out of conference rivalry game, and one other game for a quality mid-major). Is that too long? Maybe. But that's what will help create a fair and balanced regular season. The teams in the Pac-10, the smallest conference, would have the two extra games filled by a complicated formula the schedule makers will determine. Could be a mid-major, could be a decent opponent. This is just a murky part of the plan we all have to live with. The Browns don't complain about their extra games, conferences without 12 teams can't complain about theirs.
• Playoffs. The season will start the first of September. There will be one bye week. This means the season will end in mid-December. At that point, each team will have amassed a much larger, more well-defined body of work. This gives poll voters more data for informed decisions. There is one final poll taken (or we still use the BCS here to keep those people happy). The top four teams will be seeded and put into a playoff. Higher seeds get homefield in round one, which means some of these wuss Southern teams might actually have to play in weather below 60 degrees and not have the regional advantage. The championship game will then be played on New Year's Day on a truly neutral field. If USC and OSU are in the title game, the game will be in the Sugar Bowl. If it's Florida and Texas, the game will be in the Rose Bowl, etc. And to keep the bowl system alive, during the first week of the playoff, all of the lesser, exhibition bowl games can start and continue all the way up to and including New Year's Day.
Why four teams? After expanding the regular season, I felt an eight-team playoff stretched the season a week too long. And after the longer, tougher regular season, I see no reason for a beefed up playoff because teams will have already proven their worth on the field. And seriously, how many years have there been eight teams that really deserved to be in the title hunt? The only real caveat to being in the Top Four is you have to win your conference. This keeps the bias for one conference out of the polling discussion. And keeping the polls will keep the arguments and debates alive—but there is enough settled on the field where a team won't get completely and utterly screwed.
There it is. Fixed. You're welcome.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
We get it, Tiger Woods cheated on his wife
Quick question: Did any of you root for Tiger because he was a moral, upstanding citizen? No. You didn't. He's not a priest. He's a golfer. You know who he is because he is good at golf. And if you root for him, you are rooting for a guy known for throwing his clubs, swearing after bad shots, fist-pumping in celebration and having a "killer instinct" that helps him "rip his opponent's heart out."
Sure, he smiles and wears sweater vests, but if you were under the impression that he was an infallible, great guy, you weren't paying attention (even though he has done a lot of charity work and built schools and so on and so on). And if you rooted for him or liked him based on this assumption, then you really shouldn't be watching sports in the first place.
Half the reason I like Tiger is his Eff You attitude on the course. It's why everyone loved Michael Jordan too. And I'm not sure if you noticed, but he' one of the most bitter, surly, unlikable people alive.
If you like sports, you want to see sports played at the highest level. If someone plays a sport at the highest level, more than likely, that person has a character flaw that helped get them to that level—over competitiveness, selfishness, obsession, envy, a feeling of disrespect.
And if it's not the drive to sports perfection that gets them, it's the power and fame that comes with it. Even though we all are supposed to hate people that have a lot of money and not care if they have problems, money does cause problems, and power and fame will exacerbate flaws and vices that every person has inside of them.
Sports voices like Jim Rome for example, will go to their mic or computer and say that Tiger needs to come out and issue an apology and explain himself because he's such a public figure. And I get that this is the world we live in now—but that doesn't make it right. Why does Tiger owe you an apology? He owes one to his wife and kid—no, not your kid, his kid. I get that he is a public figure, but he's a public figure for playing golf, and the only reason that netted him $1 billion is because people like you and me liked watching him play golf. We didn't watch him because he was faithful to his wife and walked old ladies across the street.
So, am I an ass because I will still root for Tiger and be interested when he plays? If I am, then that's unfair. I watch sports like it's a scripted drama. I don't care about the professionalism and multimillion dollar contracts. I never want to know bad stories about guys (unless I already don't like them), but I do want to read good stories (when I like them). I'm a simpleton when it comes to sports. I hate guys, but I hate them because they get overhyped or they hit a game winning shot against my team, or they took more money to leave Cleveland (Umm, maybe I do hate multimillion dollar contracts.)
I didn't mean to climb on a soapbox, and I don't really mean to defend a man who cheated on his wife. I'm not entirely sure what I mean to do. I thought I was trying to be realistic, by understanding that Tiger is rich golfer who probably has character flaws. But by expecting his indiscretions to stay out of sight and out of mind in this day and age, when legit news sources cite TMZ as a source, I am being unrealistic.
I mainly want to express a general distaste for stories about athletes' personal lives. It's not my place, and I don't want it to be my place. I just want to sit on my couch, drink a beer and watch sports without having to think rationally or view these people as real human beings. Is that so wrong? (Don't answer that.)
So, yes, I turned a bizarre story about the wrecked marriage of the most famous and rich athlete in the world into something about me. (Which, I suppose, is the same thing everyone else is doing with this story.)
I guess I'm being nostalgic for a time like the 1920s, when players could be boozing, womanizing racists, but you didn't know a thing about them except their batting average and spot in the lineup. Man, what a great world that would be.
(You know, except for the women, minorities and families in those guys' REAL life.)
Sure, he smiles and wears sweater vests, but if you were under the impression that he was an infallible, great guy, you weren't paying attention (even though he has done a lot of charity work and built schools and so on and so on). And if you rooted for him or liked him based on this assumption, then you really shouldn't be watching sports in the first place.
Half the reason I like Tiger is his Eff You attitude on the course. It's why everyone loved Michael Jordan too. And I'm not sure if you noticed, but he' one of the most bitter, surly, unlikable people alive.
If you like sports, you want to see sports played at the highest level. If someone plays a sport at the highest level, more than likely, that person has a character flaw that helped get them to that level—over competitiveness, selfishness, obsession, envy, a feeling of disrespect.
And if it's not the drive to sports perfection that gets them, it's the power and fame that comes with it. Even though we all are supposed to hate people that have a lot of money and not care if they have problems, money does cause problems, and power and fame will exacerbate flaws and vices that every person has inside of them.
Sports voices like Jim Rome for example, will go to their mic or computer and say that Tiger needs to come out and issue an apology and explain himself because he's such a public figure. And I get that this is the world we live in now—but that doesn't make it right. Why does Tiger owe you an apology? He owes one to his wife and kid—no, not your kid, his kid. I get that he is a public figure, but he's a public figure for playing golf, and the only reason that netted him $1 billion is because people like you and me liked watching him play golf. We didn't watch him because he was faithful to his wife and walked old ladies across the street.
So, am I an ass because I will still root for Tiger and be interested when he plays? If I am, then that's unfair. I watch sports like it's a scripted drama. I don't care about the professionalism and multimillion dollar contracts. I never want to know bad stories about guys (unless I already don't like them), but I do want to read good stories (when I like them). I'm a simpleton when it comes to sports. I hate guys, but I hate them because they get overhyped or they hit a game winning shot against my team, or they took more money to leave Cleveland (Umm, maybe I do hate multimillion dollar contracts.)
I didn't mean to climb on a soapbox, and I don't really mean to defend a man who cheated on his wife. I'm not entirely sure what I mean to do. I thought I was trying to be realistic, by understanding that Tiger is rich golfer who probably has character flaws. But by expecting his indiscretions to stay out of sight and out of mind in this day and age, when legit news sources cite TMZ as a source, I am being unrealistic.
I mainly want to express a general distaste for stories about athletes' personal lives. It's not my place, and I don't want it to be my place. I just want to sit on my couch, drink a beer and watch sports without having to think rationally or view these people as real human beings. Is that so wrong? (Don't answer that.)
So, yes, I turned a bizarre story about the wrecked marriage of the most famous and rich athlete in the world into something about me. (Which, I suppose, is the same thing everyone else is doing with this story.)
I guess I'm being nostalgic for a time like the 1920s, when players could be boozing, womanizing racists, but you didn't know a thing about them except their batting average and spot in the lineup. Man, what a great world that would be.
(You know, except for the women, minorities and families in those guys' REAL life.)
Monday, November 30, 2009
Browns quarterback assessment, Part 1
Imagine being a kid near Christmas time. You asked for a PS3. You're 10 years old, and you are excited for the opportunity to run over prostitutes and explode the heads of terrorists. Tempted by an unbridled curiosity, you snoop around your house, high and low, from nook to cranny, looking for a stash of presents.
Lo and behold, tucked underneath a pile of blankets in the attic is a PS3 box. Hurray! Just what you wanted! You didn't even really expect to get a PS3, but there it is, plain as day! You wait for two weeks that feel like two years until finally, Christmas morning, you open your PS3! Hurray, again! You waited patiently for a present you knew was coming and now you get to play!!!
Only it doesn't work. And your parents lost the receipt. Every couple of days it comes on for a half hour and you get to murder a pedestrian, but then it shuts off, doesn't save, and for some reason, smells like dried cat turds.
This is the best way for me to describe the Brady Quinn era thus far. Unmatched enthusiasm, little fun, huge let down, nonrefundable.
The question is, will it stay this way? Like an episode of Glee, there is little reason to think it will get any better, but it is important to remember Quinn is only nine starts into his NFL career. It feels like he's been on the team since Charlie Frye was the QB (because he has been), but he's only started what amounts to half of one season. And three of those starts came under a completely different regime. And he's never entered into a season knowing he was going to be the starting QB, worked with decent receivers an entire offseason, or been within a competent offensive system for an extended period of time. Not exactly a recipe for success. But let's take all of those variables from the equation and compare cold hard stats of various QBs in their first nine games with Quinn and see if there is any reason to believe.
I chose most of today's great QBs, some of the good QBs, and some of the most recent—including, in my opinion, the worst starting QB the last two years. I've bolded the worst numbers. The best numbers are in red. The number(s) in parentheses is(are) the season(s) in which these starts came.
PLAYER............... COMP %...YDS....TDs....INTs...RATING
Quinn (2-3)...............53%.......1,430.... ..7........7........66.3
Manning, P (1)...........55%......2,013......12......18.......74
Brady, T (2)...............66% .....1,823..... 16 ......7....... 95
Roethlisberger, B (1)..61%.......1,412.......10......4........90
Brees, D (2)................62%.......1,663......10.....10........80
Manning, E (1-2).......48%......1,380......9......11........69
Rivers, P (3)...............66%.......2,085....13.......3.....102
Orton, K (1)................55%.......1,253......7......10......65
Rodgers, A (4)............63%.......2,124.....13......5........93
Cutler, J (1-2).............63%.......1,927......13.....10.......83
Ryan, M (1).................61%.......1,909......11.....5........99
Russell, J (1-2)...........47%.....1,662.......8......8.........66
AVERAGES...............58%........1,750......11......8.........82
Do these numbers tell us anything? Well, unfortunately, I think Quinn's numbers look the worst for a few reasons. His numbers are low in every category—lower than the average of this unscientific sample—despite avoiding the difficult task of starting his first year. You'll note Rivers and Rodgers have some of the best numbers after waiting a few seasons on the bench. The worst indictment—his numbers aren't too different from JaMarcus Russell, whom we all know is a pathetic lump behind center.
However, these numbers also show several of today's QBs got off to rocky starts. And, knowing where some of these careers go (Brees was considered so bad the Chargers drafted Rivers, Manning becomes a Hall of Famer, Cutler is a bum, Orton is all of a sudden efficient), this small, early sample is obviously an incomplete picture of where one's career will end up.
Then again, in some examples, it is dead on. (JaMarcus Russell)
After part 1 of this QB assessment—after looking at the numbers and thinking about all that could be contributing to Quinn's sad stats in his young career—the prognosis is incomplete but not looking good.
Let's see where part 2 takes us.
Lo and behold, tucked underneath a pile of blankets in the attic is a PS3 box. Hurray! Just what you wanted! You didn't even really expect to get a PS3, but there it is, plain as day! You wait for two weeks that feel like two years until finally, Christmas morning, you open your PS3! Hurray, again! You waited patiently for a present you knew was coming and now you get to play!!!
Only it doesn't work. And your parents lost the receipt. Every couple of days it comes on for a half hour and you get to murder a pedestrian, but then it shuts off, doesn't save, and for some reason, smells like dried cat turds.
This is the best way for me to describe the Brady Quinn era thus far. Unmatched enthusiasm, little fun, huge let down, nonrefundable.
The question is, will it stay this way? Like an episode of Glee, there is little reason to think it will get any better, but it is important to remember Quinn is only nine starts into his NFL career. It feels like he's been on the team since Charlie Frye was the QB (because he has been), but he's only started what amounts to half of one season. And three of those starts came under a completely different regime. And he's never entered into a season knowing he was going to be the starting QB, worked with decent receivers an entire offseason, or been within a competent offensive system for an extended period of time. Not exactly a recipe for success. But let's take all of those variables from the equation and compare cold hard stats of various QBs in their first nine games with Quinn and see if there is any reason to believe.
I chose most of today's great QBs, some of the good QBs, and some of the most recent—including, in my opinion, the worst starting QB the last two years. I've bolded the worst numbers. The best numbers are in red. The number(s) in parentheses is(are) the season(s) in which these starts came.
PLAYER............... COMP %...YDS....TDs....INTs...RATING
Quinn (2-3)...............53%.......1,430.... ..7........7........66.3
Manning, P (1)...........55%......2,013......12......18.......74
Brady, T (2)...............66% .....1,823..... 16 ......7....... 95
Roethlisberger, B (1)..61%.......1,412.......10......4........90
Brees, D (2)................62%.......1,663......10.....10........80
Manning, E (1-2).......48%......1,380......9......11........69
Rivers, P (3)...............66%.......2,085....13.......3.....102
Orton, K (1)................55%.......1,253......7......10......65
Rodgers, A (4)............63%.......2,124.....13......5........93
Cutler, J (1-2).............63%.......1,927......13.....10.......83
Ryan, M (1).................61%.......1,909......11.....5........99
Russell, J (1-2)...........47%.....1,662.......8......8.........66
AVERAGES...............58%........1,750......11......8.........82
Do these numbers tell us anything? Well, unfortunately, I think Quinn's numbers look the worst for a few reasons. His numbers are low in every category—lower than the average of this unscientific sample—despite avoiding the difficult task of starting his first year. You'll note Rivers and Rodgers have some of the best numbers after waiting a few seasons on the bench. The worst indictment—his numbers aren't too different from JaMarcus Russell, whom we all know is a pathetic lump behind center.
However, these numbers also show several of today's QBs got off to rocky starts. And, knowing where some of these careers go (Brees was considered so bad the Chargers drafted Rivers, Manning becomes a Hall of Famer, Cutler is a bum, Orton is all of a sudden efficient), this small, early sample is obviously an incomplete picture of where one's career will end up.
Then again, in some examples, it is dead on. (JaMarcus Russell)
After part 1 of this QB assessment—after looking at the numbers and thinking about all that could be contributing to Quinn's sad stats in his young career—the prognosis is incomplete but not looking good.
Let's see where part 2 takes us.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Ideas for the Browns vs Lions
Some ideas for the Browns in their big game vs the Lions:
• Take advantage of a fellow 1-8 team by scoring a touchdown, preferably with a WR or a RB, which hasn't been done all year.
• Ask the Lions if they have any other players like Shaun Rogers they'd like to trade us before the game starts.
• Play Bernie Kosar at QB and Jim Brown at RB.
• At halftime, ask Lions if they will "go halvesies on a tie."
• Seriously, even if every lineman has to hold or Quinn has to throw several illegal chop blocks that get the play called back, just cross the goal line and see how it feels.
• Switch uniforms with the Lions before the game and see if anyone notices.
• Get wasted. That's how I get through the games, might help you too.
• In the event of a Browns win, the team should jubilantly carry Mangini off the field on its shoulders ... and then keep carrying him out of the stadium, to an overpass and throw over the fence into oncoming traffic.
• In the event of a Browns loss, see previous bullet point.
• After the game, conduct a ceremony at midfield where the Lions owner symbolically hands over control the 2010 No. 1 pick. This could be done in a variety of ways, but I think I'd go with the Lions owner pooping directly into Lerner's mouth.
• Screw Michigan, Go Bucks!
• Seal the stadium up and fill it with a toxic gas so everybody dies. Then every Sunday thereafter, Browns and Lions fans would celebrate the day their misery ended.
Enjoy the game, everybody!
• Take advantage of a fellow 1-8 team by scoring a touchdown, preferably with a WR or a RB, which hasn't been done all year.
• Ask the Lions if they have any other players like Shaun Rogers they'd like to trade us before the game starts.
• Play Bernie Kosar at QB and Jim Brown at RB.
• At halftime, ask Lions if they will "go halvesies on a tie."
• Seriously, even if every lineman has to hold or Quinn has to throw several illegal chop blocks that get the play called back, just cross the goal line and see how it feels.
• Switch uniforms with the Lions before the game and see if anyone notices.
• Get wasted. That's how I get through the games, might help you too.
• In the event of a Browns win, the team should jubilantly carry Mangini off the field on its shoulders ... and then keep carrying him out of the stadium, to an overpass and throw over the fence into oncoming traffic.
• In the event of a Browns loss, see previous bullet point.
• After the game, conduct a ceremony at midfield where the Lions owner symbolically hands over control the 2010 No. 1 pick. This could be done in a variety of ways, but I think I'd go with the Lions owner pooping directly into Lerner's mouth.
• Screw Michigan, Go Bucks!
• Seal the stadium up and fill it with a toxic gas so everybody dies. Then every Sunday thereafter, Browns and Lions fans would celebrate the day their misery ended.
Enjoy the game, everybody!
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Beating Michigan makes a man believe
Mr. Tressel is 8-1 vs Michigan. And if Maurice Clarret hadn't ruined the 2003 season, he could very well be undefeated. Regardless, Ohio State fans, whether they want to realize it or not, are experiencing a truly special period in the history of their football team.
I know that after the Purdue loss this year I was unhappy. Partly due to the entitlement I now have for the Big Ten title, and partly due to how bad the team played that day, I reacted irrationally to that loss. I threw Pryor under the bus; I openly questioned the leadership of Mr. Tressel. The anger at Tressel slowly boiled after each big game loss the last few years and especially after the USC game this year. Losing to a downtrodden Purdue made me snap.
But since then, the team improved. Well, not on defense, where the team has excelled all year, but rather on offense where the team greatly improved in two key areas: running the ball, protecting the ball.
Both of those improvements undoubtedly arouse Mr. Tressel. And if the Buckeyes can do these things, and combine them with a stout defense, that's a recipe for success, as evidenced by the entire Tressel era. And as I sit here in the wake of the sixth consecutive victory over Michigan, I realize I was being petty and short-sighted after the Purdue loss. I was like a girl crying on "My Super Sweet Sixteen" when her fleet of ponies is late to her yacht party. Spoiled.
But I've settled down (winning has that effect) and I think I'm seeing things clearly. Mr. Tressel has a plan and this team will be headed for big things if it just stays on this path, and much of it has to do with Pryor—he's the key to finding real separation from the college football world. It's not much of a limb to go out on saying Pryor's development will determine OSU's success, but it's true nonetheless. I've been mad at him, you've been mad at him, but we need him because the Tressel formula has proven successful in the Big Ten but not so outside the Big Ten.
All of the "move him to wide receiver" talk after the Purdue loss was misguided. He's only a sophomore, and he's shown improvement in a year where we were young at several key positions and not likely to win a national title. Where is the improvement, you ask? In one of the key areas mentioned before—he's not turning the ball over. And as annoying as it may be for those that hate the conservative OSU ways, that's all he has to do when we are running the ball effectively and playing stifling defense. Pryor adds an extra dimension, and as long as he does the little things and protects the ball while implementing his x-factor capabilities, not many teams will beat us.
Now think about the national competition next year. No Tebow. No McCoy. No Bradford. The power is going to shift, and because of the solid fundamentals of this year, mixed in with the dash of flavor Pryor provides at the QB position, OSU is poised to be in the Top 3. No question. Only Alabama and USC stand in the way of a preseason No.1.
2010: Another year older, another year to gel, another offseason to improve on a year where we won the Big Ten and went the Rose Bowl. And a year where the other national powers lose their leaders.
I know we still have the Rose Bowl this year, and I believe we NEED this victory in Pasadena, but at the moment, I want to express the pride I feel watching this team come together after everyone, including their ardent supporters, hung them out to dry. I'm sorry for my insubordination after the Purdue loss, Mr. Tressel. You know what you are doing; we need Pryor to win a national title; 2010 is going to be a year of high expectations; but most importantly, Michigan is our bitch.
I know that after the Purdue loss this year I was unhappy. Partly due to the entitlement I now have for the Big Ten title, and partly due to how bad the team played that day, I reacted irrationally to that loss. I threw Pryor under the bus; I openly questioned the leadership of Mr. Tressel. The anger at Tressel slowly boiled after each big game loss the last few years and especially after the USC game this year. Losing to a downtrodden Purdue made me snap.
But since then, the team improved. Well, not on defense, where the team has excelled all year, but rather on offense where the team greatly improved in two key areas: running the ball, protecting the ball.
Both of those improvements undoubtedly arouse Mr. Tressel. And if the Buckeyes can do these things, and combine them with a stout defense, that's a recipe for success, as evidenced by the entire Tressel era. And as I sit here in the wake of the sixth consecutive victory over Michigan, I realize I was being petty and short-sighted after the Purdue loss. I was like a girl crying on "My Super Sweet Sixteen" when her fleet of ponies is late to her yacht party. Spoiled.
But I've settled down (winning has that effect) and I think I'm seeing things clearly. Mr. Tressel has a plan and this team will be headed for big things if it just stays on this path, and much of it has to do with Pryor—he's the key to finding real separation from the college football world. It's not much of a limb to go out on saying Pryor's development will determine OSU's success, but it's true nonetheless. I've been mad at him, you've been mad at him, but we need him because the Tressel formula has proven successful in the Big Ten but not so outside the Big Ten.
All of the "move him to wide receiver" talk after the Purdue loss was misguided. He's only a sophomore, and he's shown improvement in a year where we were young at several key positions and not likely to win a national title. Where is the improvement, you ask? In one of the key areas mentioned before—he's not turning the ball over. And as annoying as it may be for those that hate the conservative OSU ways, that's all he has to do when we are running the ball effectively and playing stifling defense. Pryor adds an extra dimension, and as long as he does the little things and protects the ball while implementing his x-factor capabilities, not many teams will beat us.
Now think about the national competition next year. No Tebow. No McCoy. No Bradford. The power is going to shift, and because of the solid fundamentals of this year, mixed in with the dash of flavor Pryor provides at the QB position, OSU is poised to be in the Top 3. No question. Only Alabama and USC stand in the way of a preseason No.1.
2010: Another year older, another year to gel, another offseason to improve on a year where we won the Big Ten and went the Rose Bowl. And a year where the other national powers lose their leaders.
I know we still have the Rose Bowl this year, and I believe we NEED this victory in Pasadena, but at the moment, I want to express the pride I feel watching this team come together after everyone, including their ardent supporters, hung them out to dry. I'm sorry for my insubordination after the Purdue loss, Mr. Tressel. You know what you are doing; we need Pryor to win a national title; 2010 is going to be a year of high expectations; but most importantly, Michigan is our bitch.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
First Kosar, then Alomar ... bring everyone back!
On the heels of Bernie Kosar being brought back into the mix in some made-up way with the Browns, new Indians manager Manny Acta seems to be entertaining the idea of adding Sandy Alomar to his coaching staff (based on pure speculation from Paul Hoynes, but for the purposes of this post, just go with it).
I have no idea if either of these hires will pan out. Kosar may get hopped up on Oxycontin and trade Joe Thomas to the Saskatchewan Rough Riders for all I know. But it doesn't matter because both of these hires are awesome. I'd also like to request Mark Price and Brad Daugherty being brought back to coach the Cavs. And I truly believe Acta shouldn't stop with Sandy and reach out to Orel Hershiser and Carlos Baerga in some capacity too. Hell, scrape together some bail money and let's go get Albert Belle.
You see, here in Cleveland, we don't win championships. Our teams usually have losing seasons, and if they do have a winning season, they find some way to tragically fail, which ends up turning the winning experience bitter. So why keep doing it? Why even follow in the first place?
One big reason is tradition. Our sports teams are embedded into our cultural and personal identities. Year in and year out, from one season to the next, we cheer, root, bitch, moan, get jacked up for no reason and then start bitching again. Because of this, the players that wear our city's name become intertwined into these traditions and this personal identity—for better or worse. We take it personal when players like Jim Thome or Carlos Boozer leave for more money, and we adore long-hated rival players like Jamal Lewis when they stupidly come here. Along the way, some players transcend the laundry they wear. Jim Brown, Bob Feller, Austin Carr. They cease to be people or athletes and become symbols of our past. If you want to get real deep, you could say they embody part of personality—that Cleveland-tradition-loving part of us.
Bernie and Sandy are two of those guys. In my mind, they represent our city and our collective sports history for a particular place and time. So when they get hired back, however minimal the role and however terrible they may end up being, they are back! For good or bad, they are one of us. They are a part of that tradition.
Our teams will lose and they will not win championships. So, knowing that, let's lose with the one's we love—the one's that represent who we are as a city.
A city full of losers!
(Wait...on second thought...)
I have no idea if either of these hires will pan out. Kosar may get hopped up on Oxycontin and trade Joe Thomas to the Saskatchewan Rough Riders for all I know. But it doesn't matter because both of these hires are awesome. I'd also like to request Mark Price and Brad Daugherty being brought back to coach the Cavs. And I truly believe Acta shouldn't stop with Sandy and reach out to Orel Hershiser and Carlos Baerga in some capacity too. Hell, scrape together some bail money and let's go get Albert Belle.
You see, here in Cleveland, we don't win championships. Our teams usually have losing seasons, and if they do have a winning season, they find some way to tragically fail, which ends up turning the winning experience bitter. So why keep doing it? Why even follow in the first place?
One big reason is tradition. Our sports teams are embedded into our cultural and personal identities. Year in and year out, from one season to the next, we cheer, root, bitch, moan, get jacked up for no reason and then start bitching again. Because of this, the players that wear our city's name become intertwined into these traditions and this personal identity—for better or worse. We take it personal when players like Jim Thome or Carlos Boozer leave for more money, and we adore long-hated rival players like Jamal Lewis when they stupidly come here. Along the way, some players transcend the laundry they wear. Jim Brown, Bob Feller, Austin Carr. They cease to be people or athletes and become symbols of our past. If you want to get real deep, you could say they embody part of personality—that Cleveland-tradition-loving part of us.
Bernie and Sandy are two of those guys. In my mind, they represent our city and our collective sports history for a particular place and time. So when they get hired back, however minimal the role and however terrible they may end up being, they are back! For good or bad, they are one of us. They are a part of that tradition.
Our teams will lose and they will not win championships. So, knowing that, let's lose with the one's we love—the one's that represent who we are as a city.
A city full of losers!
(Wait...on second thought...)
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
List of candidates to replace George Kokinis
George Kokinis sure has some big shoes to fill, but I think I've devised a list of general manager replacements that are just as good as, if not better than the legendary Kokinis:
(Ranked in order from adequate replacement to sure-fire fix)
A bucket of mud
Qualifications: Sits there; says nothing.
Sideways move. If you like what Kokinis brought to the table, but you want just a little more personality, a bucket of mud is your choice.
Pat Sajack
Qualifications: Hosts Wheel of Fortune.
I'm looking for stability with our next GM hire. Who provides stability more than Pat Sajack? Bob Barker has retired for good. Dick Clark's face reminds me too much of the Browns' offense. Alex Trebek is too stiff. Regis Philbin? I can't trust Notre Dame people. Sajack has been hosting the Wheel for ages, is extremely personable and adapts to all sorts of new gimmicks. Definite upgrade.
Mel Kiper Jr.
Qualifications: NFL Draft guru.
Why not? Let's give the most knowledgeable football-talent analyst on the planet a shot at building a team and picking players. He can't be much worse than the dart board all previous regimes have used.
Me
Qualifications: Watches sports on TV; owns several bocce trophies
Seriously, how f***ing hard could this be? Watch college football, pick the best players available, hire people who aren't half-retarded. Done. I'm good for at least 2 more wins than Kokinis. Easy.
Bill Cowher
Qualifications: Coached the Steelers; played for the Browns; can understand Shannon Sharpe
Growing up, I wanted to punch this man in his face more than anyone. And I'm conflicted as to how much I really want to root for this guy, but if he came to Cleveland in a Bill Parcells-in-Miami type of role and put a stamp on this team—any stamp at all—I would probably be on board. I begrudgingly accepted Kellen Winslow Jr., Braylon Edwards and Jamal Lewis into my life (and look how well all of them worked out!) so, I would find room in my heart for the Chin. It would be like that prodigal son parable.
Bernie Kosar
Qualifications: Once played football for the Browns; hand-picked the quarterback for the Cleveland Gladiators.
Bernie knows football. Do you really need to work up through the ranks to watch film and judge football players? I know there are other tasks a GM must do, like work out contracts and other such details, but it doesn't matter. Bernie's presence calms me down. We've been cursed since Belichick got rid of him, maybe hiring him back in a prominent role would end it.
LeBron James
Qualifications: Best basketball player on the planet; savior of the world.
If anyone knows how to resurrect a dead, depressing sports franchise, it is LeBron James. Also, it gives him yet another reason to stay in Cleveland.
(Ranked in order from adequate replacement to sure-fire fix)
A bucket of mud
Qualifications: Sits there; says nothing.
Sideways move. If you like what Kokinis brought to the table, but you want just a little more personality, a bucket of mud is your choice.
Pat Sajack
Qualifications: Hosts Wheel of Fortune.
I'm looking for stability with our next GM hire. Who provides stability more than Pat Sajack? Bob Barker has retired for good. Dick Clark's face reminds me too much of the Browns' offense. Alex Trebek is too stiff. Regis Philbin? I can't trust Notre Dame people. Sajack has been hosting the Wheel for ages, is extremely personable and adapts to all sorts of new gimmicks. Definite upgrade.
Mel Kiper Jr.
Qualifications: NFL Draft guru.
Why not? Let's give the most knowledgeable football-talent analyst on the planet a shot at building a team and picking players. He can't be much worse than the dart board all previous regimes have used.
Me
Qualifications: Watches sports on TV; owns several bocce trophies
Seriously, how f***ing hard could this be? Watch college football, pick the best players available, hire people who aren't half-retarded. Done. I'm good for at least 2 more wins than Kokinis. Easy.
Bill Cowher
Qualifications: Coached the Steelers; played for the Browns; can understand Shannon Sharpe
Growing up, I wanted to punch this man in his face more than anyone. And I'm conflicted as to how much I really want to root for this guy, but if he came to Cleveland in a Bill Parcells-in-Miami type of role and put a stamp on this team—any stamp at all—I would probably be on board. I begrudgingly accepted Kellen Winslow Jr., Braylon Edwards and Jamal Lewis into my life (and look how well all of them worked out!) so, I would find room in my heart for the Chin. It would be like that prodigal son parable.
Bernie Kosar
Qualifications: Once played football for the Browns; hand-picked the quarterback for the Cleveland Gladiators.
Bernie knows football. Do you really need to work up through the ranks to watch film and judge football players? I know there are other tasks a GM must do, like work out contracts and other such details, but it doesn't matter. Bernie's presence calms me down. We've been cursed since Belichick got rid of him, maybe hiring him back in a prominent role would end it.
LeBron James
Qualifications: Best basketball player on the planet; savior of the world.
If anyone knows how to resurrect a dead, depressing sports franchise, it is LeBron James. Also, it gives him yet another reason to stay in Cleveland.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
One-step solution for fixing the Browns
I opened my Internet browser thinking, "I'm going to write about the Browns." The Browns fed me another turd sandwich today, and it's topical, so it makes sense to write about it. But I sat here for about five minutes just thinking of an angle. I wanted to pick on someone or something. I wanted to write an opinion on what needs to be done to fix this mess or something that looks positive. Here's the only angle I could come up with:
If you're a Browns fan, kill yourself.
That's all I've got. I watched the game, and I formed a hateful opinion of pretty much anyone on our sideline. I listened to talk radio and heard all of the various gripes. The Browns problems are this. The Browns problems are that.
What everyone needs to fully realize is there's no objective way to measure the failures of this team or how to correct them. And that is the most depressing realization of them all.
For example, why did the Indians have a losing season? Well, the bullpen wasn't good. Important players regressed or got hurt. And the economic inequities in baseball prevented certain baseball decisions.
You can point to specific areas. Improve the bullpen, replace Fausto and Jhonny or get them on track, and suddenly the team is improved.
Maybe that's only my perspective, or too simplistic an explanation. But the Indians have places to hang your hat. They have a lot of good position players, and they have a shrewd front office. The front office might misfire here or there, but they have a plan that they back up with reason and logic.
With the Browns, everyone has a different angry perspective. Are you the guy that says it's the quarterbacks? The lack of offensive personnel around them? Are you the guy that blames the porous defense that never seems to go away? Are you the guy that blames the coordinators for the awful gameplans and execution? Are you the guy that blames Eric Mangini? These are his guys, his plan and he needs to be fired for making a terrible team even worse? Are you the guy that blames Randy Lerner for consistently hiring the wrong guys?
Here's my point: That's a lot of guys. Those are a lot of failures. And all of them could be valid. None of them can be refuted, not with any real evidence.
I wish this was a science experiment in a lab. That way, we could change out different variables to see how it affected the whole. One week we drop in a new QB. Then next week we leave in that QB and add in different receivers. The week after we leave the receivers and change the QB again. The week after we go back to the Week 2 offense and try a new offensive scheme. And so on and so on. Pretty soon, after all the mixing and matching, we'd have concrete answers for what's truly detrimental to the team are and how these problems need to be fixed.
Unfortunately, even this ideal scientific solution to the problem would take roughly 673 weeks before it had an answer and a way to implement it.
In real life, we're just walking into a dark bathroom and pissing everywhere until we hear water. Blind stabs. Confusion. One big mess.
Some problems may be the root of the bigger problem and some could be the result of the other problems. But we don't know; we can't know; and we all need to realize this and kill ourselves.
It's the only sure way out of this mess.
If you're a Browns fan, kill yourself.
That's all I've got. I watched the game, and I formed a hateful opinion of pretty much anyone on our sideline. I listened to talk radio and heard all of the various gripes. The Browns problems are this. The Browns problems are that.
What everyone needs to fully realize is there's no objective way to measure the failures of this team or how to correct them. And that is the most depressing realization of them all.
For example, why did the Indians have a losing season? Well, the bullpen wasn't good. Important players regressed or got hurt. And the economic inequities in baseball prevented certain baseball decisions.
You can point to specific areas. Improve the bullpen, replace Fausto and Jhonny or get them on track, and suddenly the team is improved.
Maybe that's only my perspective, or too simplistic an explanation. But the Indians have places to hang your hat. They have a lot of good position players, and they have a shrewd front office. The front office might misfire here or there, but they have a plan that they back up with reason and logic.
With the Browns, everyone has a different angry perspective. Are you the guy that says it's the quarterbacks? The lack of offensive personnel around them? Are you the guy that blames the porous defense that never seems to go away? Are you the guy that blames the coordinators for the awful gameplans and execution? Are you the guy that blames Eric Mangini? These are his guys, his plan and he needs to be fired for making a terrible team even worse? Are you the guy that blames Randy Lerner for consistently hiring the wrong guys?
Here's my point: That's a lot of guys. Those are a lot of failures. And all of them could be valid. None of them can be refuted, not with any real evidence.
I wish this was a science experiment in a lab. That way, we could change out different variables to see how it affected the whole. One week we drop in a new QB. Then next week we leave in that QB and add in different receivers. The week after we leave the receivers and change the QB again. The week after we go back to the Week 2 offense and try a new offensive scheme. And so on and so on. Pretty soon, after all the mixing and matching, we'd have concrete answers for what's truly detrimental to the team are and how these problems need to be fixed.
Unfortunately, even this ideal scientific solution to the problem would take roughly 673 weeks before it had an answer and a way to implement it.
In real life, we're just walking into a dark bathroom and pissing everywhere until we hear water. Blind stabs. Confusion. One big mess.
Some problems may be the root of the bigger problem and some could be the result of the other problems. But we don't know; we can't know; and we all need to realize this and kill ourselves.
It's the only sure way out of this mess.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Early Cavs analysis
I was watching a rerun of one of my all-time favorite shows, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, today. It was the episode where Will joins the Bel Air prep basketball team for the first time. Previously, Bel Air prep was the worst in the league. It's just a bunch of shrimpy rich white boys and Carlton Banks. But now they have Will, who is awesome. Anyway, in one scene, the coach is diagramming the plays and it goes like this:
Coach: "OK, the guard passes it to the center, the center passes it to the forward, who passes it to the guard. What does he do?"
Player: "Pass it to Will?"
Coach: "Yes! Ok, next play. The center in-bounds the ball to the guard who passes it to the forward who passes it back to the guard who...."
Player: "Passes it to Will!"
Coach: "Excellent!"
As a Cavs fan, this might sound like a familiar strategy. It's the same gameplan the Cavs have had for....how long has Lebron been in the league again? That long. And Tuesday night gave me no indication that this year will be any different.
I know, that's definitely a bit of an overreaction to an opening loss to possibly the best team in basketball this season, but it's also level-headed realism.
Two things: 1) It's definitely early. I get this. The team needs much more time to gel and feel each other out. 2) Having everyone pass it to LeBron isn't a terrible strategy—especially since it has gotten the Cavs deep into the playoffs multiple times.
Having said that, I'm worried this team, gelling or no gelling, is going to be exactly like all of these other teams we've watched. Again, don't get me wrong. This Cavs team is really really good, and I appreciate that they are really really good. The addition of Shaq and Jamario Moon and Anthony Parker does give this team certain role players it needed. But I can't get past the term I used in that sentence: role players. This team, in this early, early stage, looks to me like it always does—LeBron and a bunch of role players.
LeBron and a bunch of role players definitely makes for a really really good team. However, Cleveland fans need this team to be great. There's a difference between really really good and great, and I don't think these new additions necessarily make up that difference.
Once again I will say, yes, I know it is early. The team played one game. I don't need to be reminded of this all of the time. I know we started 1-2 last year and finished with the one seed. And I know the Celtics are a great team, and their defense gives everyone trouble. But, some of us are forgetting that all of these things are reasons why the Cavs didn't go to the Finals last year, and before I'm going to really believe this team is the best in the league, they have to show me they are different than last year. And it's hard to convince me that the team is different than last year when, basically, the roster is once again LeBron and a bunch of stiffs. Talk about Shaq all you want, but he's a fat 38-year-old. Talk all you want about Mo Williams, but I don't think I've seen him since the regular season last year. Is he still alive? And the crazy thing is, he might not be alive because one of teammates is riding around on motorcycles with more firepower than the Unabomber.
In the end, this team is capable of doing all of this. There's no need for I-told-you-so's if they do win it all—mostly because I'll be incoherently drunk for three months. But the point is, that's the barometer. Championship. The grading and analysis of how this team is playing is beyond an average team or even a really really good team. I'm grading them against great teams. And they played one Tuesday night, at home. And they failed.
So all of the it's-early-they-are-gelling-we-got-better-in-the-offseason-Delonte-will-be-OK talk is fine, and I get it. But I need to see it.
Coach: "OK, the guard passes it to the center, the center passes it to the forward, who passes it to the guard. What does he do?"
Player: "Pass it to Will?"
Coach: "Yes! Ok, next play. The center in-bounds the ball to the guard who passes it to the forward who passes it back to the guard who...."
Player: "Passes it to Will!"
Coach: "Excellent!"
As a Cavs fan, this might sound like a familiar strategy. It's the same gameplan the Cavs have had for....how long has Lebron been in the league again? That long. And Tuesday night gave me no indication that this year will be any different.
I know, that's definitely a bit of an overreaction to an opening loss to possibly the best team in basketball this season, but it's also level-headed realism.
Two things: 1) It's definitely early. I get this. The team needs much more time to gel and feel each other out. 2) Having everyone pass it to LeBron isn't a terrible strategy—especially since it has gotten the Cavs deep into the playoffs multiple times.
Having said that, I'm worried this team, gelling or no gelling, is going to be exactly like all of these other teams we've watched. Again, don't get me wrong. This Cavs team is really really good, and I appreciate that they are really really good. The addition of Shaq and Jamario Moon and Anthony Parker does give this team certain role players it needed. But I can't get past the term I used in that sentence: role players. This team, in this early, early stage, looks to me like it always does—LeBron and a bunch of role players.
LeBron and a bunch of role players definitely makes for a really really good team. However, Cleveland fans need this team to be great. There's a difference between really really good and great, and I don't think these new additions necessarily make up that difference.
Once again I will say, yes, I know it is early. The team played one game. I don't need to be reminded of this all of the time. I know we started 1-2 last year and finished with the one seed. And I know the Celtics are a great team, and their defense gives everyone trouble. But, some of us are forgetting that all of these things are reasons why the Cavs didn't go to the Finals last year, and before I'm going to really believe this team is the best in the league, they have to show me they are different than last year. And it's hard to convince me that the team is different than last year when, basically, the roster is once again LeBron and a bunch of stiffs. Talk about Shaq all you want, but he's a fat 38-year-old. Talk all you want about Mo Williams, but I don't think I've seen him since the regular season last year. Is he still alive? And the crazy thing is, he might not be alive because one of teammates is riding around on motorcycles with more firepower than the Unabomber.
In the end, this team is capable of doing all of this. There's no need for I-told-you-so's if they do win it all—mostly because I'll be incoherently drunk for three months. But the point is, that's the barometer. Championship. The grading and analysis of how this team is playing is beyond an average team or even a really really good team. I'm grading them against great teams. And they played one Tuesday night, at home. And they failed.
So all of the it's-early-they-are-gelling-we-got-better-in-the-offseason-Delonte-will-be-OK talk is fine, and I get it. But I need to see it.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The only reason to watch the Browns this year
Here's a scenario:
You turn on a game to watch a team play a sport. The game is uninteresting and lopsided. One team is especially terrible. You turn game off.
That scene sounded reasonable, right? Why watch a bad game? That's not really the point of being a sports observer. The point is to be captivated, interested or entertained in some way.
But now, make that scenario more familiar. Add in your favorite team. For example:
I woke up Sunday morning, put on my Josh Cribbs jersey and went around town for some early morning errands. I had this feeling of "It's Sunday, the sun is shining, people are outside, I've got my Browns jersey on, let's drink beer and watch the game." I arrived home, turned the Browns game on and was immediately crestfallen. We suck. It's highly probable that the team I am watching the worst team in the NFL, and the worst Browns team I've ever watched play. It's not competitive at the half....
Now, working off our original scenario, the correct way to end this story would be to turn off the game and do something more entertaining, useful, fun, productive—basically anything that doesn't involve the Browns. Most of society, my dad included, would wholeheartedly agree—especially with THIS Browns team. It has been the same sad story for the last decade. If there's a time to put your family dog to sleep, there's a time to just let your favorite team fade into the background until it gets its shit together and at least makes games watchable, right?
Wrong.
What's that, I say? Wrong? Yes. Wrong. Now be careful, we're going to drift into a strange world of fanaticism devoid of all logic and reason.
As a true fan of a team, you enter into a binding social contract. This contract stipulates that no matter what, you will follow this team. There's no rules against obsessive bitching. There are no stipulations against blind optimism. There are no penalties for cheering on a guy that has murdered innocent children. The only real rule is: If you see your team's uniform playing a game, you will watch it and root for it. Period.
Obviously, there are exceptions when it comes to baskteball and baseball in order to lead a sociable, normal life, but the main instinct remains: complete devotion to following that team. Even football games can be missed here or there—but you can never willingly decide to not watch a game when you are perfectly able to do so. Intent is key.
Do I turn games off? Sure. For a minute or two to cool down, gather my thoughts and perhaps lower my expectations. I might even turn the game off and then take a drive and put it on the radio. But in the scenario I've built, I can never fully shun a game, no matter how pathetic it is.
That's what I signed up for. If I don't do that—if I just say "Man, they suck today, guess I'll turn it off and read a book," that makes me a bandwagon fan. Even if it happens only once in awhile and in the middle of a 15 -year drought where not one competitive game is played, it doesn't matter. Who's to say it won't happen again? Front runner! Bandwagon fan!
Disagree if you like, but if I consciously tune this Browns season out and just quit paying attention, next year, if they turn it around (just go with me on this), and I make sure to watch all of the games again, I would feel like a douchebag. And so should you.
For example, from 2002-2007, the Indians didn't make the playoffs. Not a big drought, not by any means, but it was coming off the '90s where a Central Division crown felt like a given. And during the drought, the team even had a competitive moment or two. But during that stretch, Indians fans dropped like flies. They all bitched about new ownership, sobbed into their Omar Vizquel jerseys and tuned the team out. I saw it happen to people I knew—people in my own family.
And there stood me and my brother. Bitter. Reading up on this new wave of guys. Pleading to people to keep watching and then growing more bitter. We made mental lists of everyone. Then, in 2007, when the team got hot, fans started coming back and getting excited again.
"Hey, this team isn't so bad! This is fun again!"
And there we were with our mental list.
"Oh, really? Now that the team is contending again you're going to watch? Screw you. Do you even know who these guys are? Name me 10 players! Sorry. Too bad. You're out. Find another team."
That's insanity, right? Yes. It is. Fanaticism is insanity. So, if you are going to actually call yourself a fan, this is what you do. You take alllllll of the good with allllllllll of the bad. All with all. No qualifiers.
So there you have it, Eric Mangini. The only reason anyone would watch your pathetic football team is out of devotion to a fictional sense of duty too disturbing to call goofy, but not disturbing enough to cause a holy war.
Feel free to use that as next year's marketing slogan.
You turn on a game to watch a team play a sport. The game is uninteresting and lopsided. One team is especially terrible. You turn game off.
That scene sounded reasonable, right? Why watch a bad game? That's not really the point of being a sports observer. The point is to be captivated, interested or entertained in some way.
But now, make that scenario more familiar. Add in your favorite team. For example:
I woke up Sunday morning, put on my Josh Cribbs jersey and went around town for some early morning errands. I had this feeling of "It's Sunday, the sun is shining, people are outside, I've got my Browns jersey on, let's drink beer and watch the game." I arrived home, turned the Browns game on and was immediately crestfallen. We suck. It's highly probable that the team I am watching the worst team in the NFL, and the worst Browns team I've ever watched play. It's not competitive at the half....
Now, working off our original scenario, the correct way to end this story would be to turn off the game and do something more entertaining, useful, fun, productive—basically anything that doesn't involve the Browns. Most of society, my dad included, would wholeheartedly agree—especially with THIS Browns team. It has been the same sad story for the last decade. If there's a time to put your family dog to sleep, there's a time to just let your favorite team fade into the background until it gets its shit together and at least makes games watchable, right?
Wrong.
What's that, I say? Wrong? Yes. Wrong. Now be careful, we're going to drift into a strange world of fanaticism devoid of all logic and reason.
As a true fan of a team, you enter into a binding social contract. This contract stipulates that no matter what, you will follow this team. There's no rules against obsessive bitching. There are no stipulations against blind optimism. There are no penalties for cheering on a guy that has murdered innocent children. The only real rule is: If you see your team's uniform playing a game, you will watch it and root for it. Period.
Obviously, there are exceptions when it comes to baskteball and baseball in order to lead a sociable, normal life, but the main instinct remains: complete devotion to following that team. Even football games can be missed here or there—but you can never willingly decide to not watch a game when you are perfectly able to do so. Intent is key.
Do I turn games off? Sure. For a minute or two to cool down, gather my thoughts and perhaps lower my expectations. I might even turn the game off and then take a drive and put it on the radio. But in the scenario I've built, I can never fully shun a game, no matter how pathetic it is.
That's what I signed up for. If I don't do that—if I just say "Man, they suck today, guess I'll turn it off and read a book," that makes me a bandwagon fan. Even if it happens only once in awhile and in the middle of a 15 -year drought where not one competitive game is played, it doesn't matter. Who's to say it won't happen again? Front runner! Bandwagon fan!
Disagree if you like, but if I consciously tune this Browns season out and just quit paying attention, next year, if they turn it around (just go with me on this), and I make sure to watch all of the games again, I would feel like a douchebag. And so should you.
For example, from 2002-2007, the Indians didn't make the playoffs. Not a big drought, not by any means, but it was coming off the '90s where a Central Division crown felt like a given. And during the drought, the team even had a competitive moment or two. But during that stretch, Indians fans dropped like flies. They all bitched about new ownership, sobbed into their Omar Vizquel jerseys and tuned the team out. I saw it happen to people I knew—people in my own family.
And there stood me and my brother. Bitter. Reading up on this new wave of guys. Pleading to people to keep watching and then growing more bitter. We made mental lists of everyone. Then, in 2007, when the team got hot, fans started coming back and getting excited again.
"Hey, this team isn't so bad! This is fun again!"
And there we were with our mental list.
"Oh, really? Now that the team is contending again you're going to watch? Screw you. Do you even know who these guys are? Name me 10 players! Sorry. Too bad. You're out. Find another team."
That's insanity, right? Yes. It is. Fanaticism is insanity. So, if you are going to actually call yourself a fan, this is what you do. You take alllllll of the good with allllllllll of the bad. All with all. No qualifiers.
So there you have it, Eric Mangini. The only reason anyone would watch your pathetic football team is out of devotion to a fictional sense of duty too disturbing to call goofy, but not disturbing enough to cause a holy war.
Feel free to use that as next year's marketing slogan.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Week 8 college football poll
CC's Top 15
Why 15? Because that's all that's necessary. These are all of the teams with true BCS importance.
The top 7 are fairly interchangeable. For the most part, all have beaten a big name or highly ranked team, and all have done it on the road. All have beefed up against lesser opponents. If Florida wasn't the defending champ, the Bearcats would be No.1.
1. Florida - I hate them, but defending champs stay No. 1 until they lose. Fair is fair.
2. Cincinnati - No HUGE wins, but lots of quality road wins. Dominated with No. 2 QB.
3. TCU - Quality road wins, including this latest pasting of BYU. Top mid-major thus far.
4. Alabama - Beat Va. Tech, have big time D, but dominance has faded. Nearly lost this week.
5. Iowa - Beat PSU at Happy Valley. Wins ugly Big Ten games. Great D. Love them.
6. Texas- Only big win versus Oklahoma—minus Bradford.
7. Boise St. - Beat Oregon when Oregon stunk and then beat a variety of patsies.
The one-loss teams are confusing. They've all looked impressive for stretches, but their losses were all epic failures for one reason or another. Some of them are playing better than some unbeatens right now (For example, pretty sure USC would beat six of the seven teams listed above.). But, college football demands perfection. If you lose, you no longer determine your destiny.
8. USC - Typical season. F this team.
9. Georgia Tech - One of the most fun teams to watch. Best team in ACC.
10. Oregon - After the Week 1 disaster, they are rolling. Some decent PAC 10 wins, if that exists.
11. Oklahoma State - Only loss is to a sneaky Houston team.
12. LSU - Haven't really proved anything yet.
13. Penn St. - Ditto.
14. Pittsburgh- Have beat nobody, but they have a great QB. Looked great lately.
15. Houston- Once you start putting teams like Houston on here. It's time to end the list.
Go Buckeyes, Go Browns.
Why 15? Because that's all that's necessary. These are all of the teams with true BCS importance.
The top 7 are fairly interchangeable. For the most part, all have beaten a big name or highly ranked team, and all have done it on the road. All have beefed up against lesser opponents. If Florida wasn't the defending champ, the Bearcats would be No.1.
1. Florida - I hate them, but defending champs stay No. 1 until they lose. Fair is fair.
2. Cincinnati - No HUGE wins, but lots of quality road wins. Dominated with No. 2 QB.
3. TCU - Quality road wins, including this latest pasting of BYU. Top mid-major thus far.
4. Alabama - Beat Va. Tech, have big time D, but dominance has faded. Nearly lost this week.
5. Iowa - Beat PSU at Happy Valley. Wins ugly Big Ten games. Great D. Love them.
6. Texas- Only big win versus Oklahoma—minus Bradford.
7. Boise St. - Beat Oregon when Oregon stunk and then beat a variety of patsies.
The one-loss teams are confusing. They've all looked impressive for stretches, but their losses were all epic failures for one reason or another. Some of them are playing better than some unbeatens right now (For example, pretty sure USC would beat six of the seven teams listed above.). But, college football demands perfection. If you lose, you no longer determine your destiny.
8. USC - Typical season. F this team.
9. Georgia Tech - One of the most fun teams to watch. Best team in ACC.
10. Oregon - After the Week 1 disaster, they are rolling. Some decent PAC 10 wins, if that exists.
11. Oklahoma State - Only loss is to a sneaky Houston team.
12. LSU - Haven't really proved anything yet.
13. Penn St. - Ditto.
14. Pittsburgh- Have beat nobody, but they have a great QB. Looked great lately.
15. Houston- Once you start putting teams like Houston on here. It's time to end the list.
Go Buckeyes, Go Browns.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Fall weekend stuff
Quick hits for the weekend:
• A really well-done column about being a Browns fan. Couldn't have said it better myself.
• Bill Simmons can be looked at as a joke sports writer because he sits on his couch and writes like a fan—but he KNOWS the NBA. He's one of the reasons I got back into the NBA, and I put more behind his basketball knowledge than anyone else. Having said that, here is what he said about Shaq in his NBA preview. Needless to say, I remain dubious about the Shaq era:
• A really well-done column about being a Browns fan. Couldn't have said it better myself.
• Bill Simmons can be looked at as a joke sports writer because he sits on his couch and writes like a fan—but he KNOWS the NBA. He's one of the reasons I got back into the NBA, and I put more behind his basketball knowledge than anyone else. Having said that, here is what he said about Shaq in his NBA preview. Needless to say, I remain dubious about the Shaq era:
"8. Shaquille O'Neal
Red flag No. 1: He's 835 pounds. Red flag No. 2: He has never successfully pulled off the whole "sidekick" thing; even to the bitter end, he was playing the big brother/little brother routine with Dwyane Wade. Red flag No. 3: He's splitting time with Zydrunas Ilgauskas, who might be a better fit for this particular team because of his outside shooting. Red flag No. 4: He has never, ever, ever, not in his entire life, played for a coach as offensively challenged as Mike Brown. Red flag No. 5: He doesn't have the luxury of Phoenix's training staff anymore. Red flag No. 6: He's so fat that it's like looking at one of those TVs where the HD is screwed up so it makes everyone seem wider. Red flag No. 7: The Suns traded him for two guys who they immediately bought out for a combined $14 million. Red flag No. 8: The Cavs are better off if he's playing 15-20 minutes a game and that's it. Red flag No. 9: He's so fat that it's possible Delonte West was packing three guns because he got confused and thought Shaq wanted to eat him. Red flag No. 10: He's awfully close to some records, which will make it awkward if Cleveland tries to reduce his playing time.
That's 10 red flags. Ten. (To be fair, Shaq doesn't look THAT fat. He just looks a little, um, heavy. Maybe it's the uniform that makes him look doughy for some reason. I just know that, when I saw the cover of Sports Illustrated this week, I couldn't figure out why Aretha Franklin shaved her head. Then I realized it was Shaq.) And that's before we get into the whole, "Shaq seems like a great guy, but if he's a great guy, then why did he leave four teams on really bad terms" thing. Be prepared for him to do more harm than good in Cleveland. One difference: If he crosses LeBron like he crossed Nash, he'll be getting the Braylon Edwards 48-hour ticket out of town."
• Here's a piece few will enjoy reading, but I liked it. A statistical analysis of centerfielders in the Indians' farm system. Proceed only if ye enjoy following Indians minor leaguers or statistical analysis.
• A good read about new Cavs swingman Jamario Moon. I know a guy that fired this writer in college.
My takes:
• Minnesota has a good QB in Adam Weber and another Pryor-type athlete freshman QB they are starting to mix in—the type of QB that has given Buckeyes defenses trouble in the past. Pryor just needs to not turn the ball over and the Buckeyes will win because of their defense, but Minnesota is very sneaky. If Pryor plays like he played last week, the Buckeyes will lose again. That's not saying much, but what I am saying is: each week it is increasingly important to note the play of Pryor. I don't feel like getting into it now, but Pryor needs to stay at QB, even though I curse his life when he turns the ball over. We all need to really pay attention to what he does this week. He needs to protect the ball at the very least. That's how Tressel teams win games, and as a sophomore, that's all I really want you to do. Hopefully his LeBron pep talk paid off. I know I feel better after it happened.
(And Mr. Tressel, please run the ball with Brandon Saine. Please. This is Ohio State. Establish the run. That's all that I ask.)
• The Browns are going to win. Mark it down. I have no real reasons to say why this will happen, but I just have this weird premonition. This sentence may be deleted come Sunday night.
• I'm going to drink a whole bunch of fall beers this weekend. Definitely mark that one down.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
We get it, no one likes Mangini
I understand the Browns look like a dried turd on the field this year. I understand the D.A. v Quinn battle is less exciting than a conversation on The Hills, and I understand that much of these debacles can somewhat be attributed to Eric Mangini—the dictator coach that fines players for taking water bottles, makes players run into each other at full speed without pads on, ships off star players, chews gum on the sidelines and looks a little too pudgy.
I get all of that. The Browns make me sad, and Mangini makes me mad. But get this—none of that is news. The Browns are always pathetic. We never have a QB that can play. We never have competent leadership. Moreover, it seems like half the league sucks this year. Look at this list of teams:
Buffalo
St. Louis
Oakland
Tennessee
Tampa Bay
Washington
Carolina
Seattle
Jacksonville
Kansas City
Detroit
Seriously, look at that list. It's conceivable the Browns are better than half of those teams. Well, maybe not, but possibly a few. We beat Buffalo, so definitely one. Point being, in the 2009 NFL season, either you are a really good team or a fairly incompetent team. And the Browns, a team that normally sucks, is once again among the dregs.
I mention all of this because it seems every day there is a new article or column that comes out that bashes Eric Mangini. One of my favorite sports writers, Joe Posnanski, calls him out as the worst hire ever. Rolling Stone—the music magazine—compares him to one of the deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history. Non-descript WWE wrestler The Miz says he wants to kick the shit out of him.
What's next? Martha Stewart designs Eric Mangini doormats to walk over? The Ringling Bros clowns in town for the circus mockingly boycott outside the stadium because Mangini is making their shtick look less foolish?
Why are all of these non-football people taking shots at him? What is so incredibly different about Mangini's bad football team in comparison to previous or current terrible football teams? This is what I don't get.
And again, I understand the Mangini era is sadder than Old Yeller thus far, but is he really so bad that he warrants all of this "I HATE THIS GUY!!!" attention? Tom Cable, the Raider's head coach, was literally about to go to jail for punching an assistant coach, and I feel like Mangini has garnered more attention for just generally being unlikable.
The last few years, the New York media treated him in a similar way, and the few Jets fans I've spoken to said they hated him. So, knowing that, why wasn't there this crazy anti-Mangini national sentiment then? It was New York for godsakes. If The Miz is calling him out for being a terrible coach in Cleveland, shouldn't The Rock or Ric Flair be calling him out for sucking ass in New York? Since when do people give a shit if Cleveland has a terrible coach? Should I actually be flattered in some way that so many people are trying to call attention to our plight?
In the end, I think I'm mostly frustrated because this overkill coverage has kicked in my Cleveland Defense Mechanism and made me feel obligated to defend Mangini. I'm saying things like, "He's got nothing to work with!" and "You turn around a four-win team in one year with two crappy QBs!" and "He's instilling discipline! They are committing fewer penalties!" and "No one has staph infection this year!" (credit Rob Fulop).
All I'm trying to say is there are bad coaches in the NFL. There are failed systems in the NFL. There are bad trades in sports. And, as always, there is a bad football team in Cleveland.
We get it.
Go Browns.
I get all of that. The Browns make me sad, and Mangini makes me mad. But get this—none of that is news. The Browns are always pathetic. We never have a QB that can play. We never have competent leadership. Moreover, it seems like half the league sucks this year. Look at this list of teams:
Buffalo
St. Louis
Oakland
Tennessee
Tampa Bay
Washington
Carolina
Seattle
Jacksonville
Kansas City
Detroit
Seriously, look at that list. It's conceivable the Browns are better than half of those teams. Well, maybe not, but possibly a few. We beat Buffalo, so definitely one. Point being, in the 2009 NFL season, either you are a really good team or a fairly incompetent team. And the Browns, a team that normally sucks, is once again among the dregs.
I mention all of this because it seems every day there is a new article or column that comes out that bashes Eric Mangini. One of my favorite sports writers, Joe Posnanski, calls him out as the worst hire ever. Rolling Stone—the music magazine—compares him to one of the deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history. Non-descript WWE wrestler The Miz says he wants to kick the shit out of him.
What's next? Martha Stewart designs Eric Mangini doormats to walk over? The Ringling Bros clowns in town for the circus mockingly boycott outside the stadium because Mangini is making their shtick look less foolish?
Why are all of these non-football people taking shots at him? What is so incredibly different about Mangini's bad football team in comparison to previous or current terrible football teams? This is what I don't get.
And again, I understand the Mangini era is sadder than Old Yeller thus far, but is he really so bad that he warrants all of this "I HATE THIS GUY!!!" attention? Tom Cable, the Raider's head coach, was literally about to go to jail for punching an assistant coach, and I feel like Mangini has garnered more attention for just generally being unlikable.
The last few years, the New York media treated him in a similar way, and the few Jets fans I've spoken to said they hated him. So, knowing that, why wasn't there this crazy anti-Mangini national sentiment then? It was New York for godsakes. If The Miz is calling him out for being a terrible coach in Cleveland, shouldn't The Rock or Ric Flair be calling him out for sucking ass in New York? Since when do people give a shit if Cleveland has a terrible coach? Should I actually be flattered in some way that so many people are trying to call attention to our plight?
In the end, I think I'm mostly frustrated because this overkill coverage has kicked in my Cleveland Defense Mechanism and made me feel obligated to defend Mangini. I'm saying things like, "He's got nothing to work with!" and "You turn around a four-win team in one year with two crappy QBs!" and "He's instilling discipline! They are committing fewer penalties!" and "No one has staph infection this year!" (credit Rob Fulop).
All I'm trying to say is there are bad coaches in the NFL. There are failed systems in the NFL. There are bad trades in sports. And, as always, there is a bad football team in Cleveland.
We get it.
Go Browns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)