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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)