Ian Thomsen of SI makes a strange case for Brandon Roy to receive more love.
Of the league's young wing players, the 6-6 Roy is among the least impressive athletically.
[I'm not really sure if this is actually true, and Thomsen certainly provides no evidence to prove the statement's accuracy. If nothing else, at 6'-6" and 211 lbs, he has good size for a wing player.]
Roy is the most valuable piece of the league's most promising young team not because of his athletic instincts, but because he has spent his short career taking the time to think things through.
[With the assumption being that more athletically-gifted players don't think things through? If so, I'm not sure that's accurate either.]
"He's the complete package.... He's like Walt Frazier: He's just a guard. He can shoot, he can drive, he defends, he's got size, he's got strength, he's got quickness." [Said Wizards coach Ed Tapscott]
[NBA coaches seem to think Roy is an OK athlete. And the Frazier comp seems to fit.]
Like Kobe and Wade, he is crucial to the Blazers' ultimate ambitions.
[I'm almost positive that Kobe and Wade are NOT crucial to the BLAZER'S ultimate ambitions.]
I don't understand the problem with saying that Roy isn't as good as LBJ/Wade/Kobe/Paul, but that he is still a REALLY good player. It's not a knock on Roy. Why force him into that discussion based on things like his "wisdom" of the game? Consider the 2008 lines:
B. Roy: 21.1 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 5.3 apg, 46.5 fg%, 83.5 ft%, 1.05 stl
L. James: 27.4 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 6.3 apg, 49.1 fg%, 78.7 ft%, 2.11 stl
D. Wade: 28.4 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 7.7 apg, 49.1 fg%, 76.3 ft%, 2.42 stl
K. Bryant: 25.1 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 4.1 apg, 47.7 fg%, 85.6 ft%, 1.65 stl
C. Paul: 20.6 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 11.8 apg, 51.6 fg%, 86.8 ft%, 2.81 stl
Roy is 16th in the league in PER (and he is actually 5-months older than LeBron and 10-months older than Paul). So Portland fans should be happy that they have a REALLY good player and stop complaining that people don't consider him to be on par with the game's elite players (primarily because, you know, he isn't).
Friday, December 5, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
BCS Problems? Solved!
Chris Dufresne of the Los Angeles Times thinks that we are all overlooking an obvious title-contender.
What if Alabama hands Florida a second loss in Saturday's SEC title game and three-loss Missouri shocks Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game?
[Take a closer look at the BCS bylaws, Dufresne. In this situation, the National Title game is cancelled and Notre Dame is crowned as the National Champion.]
Everyone assumes Alabama would play Texas. Not so fast. Texas didn't even win its conference.
[True. But I'm pretty sure that you don't have to win your conference to play in the title game, right?]
[C]ommissioners considered a rule change that would have required title-game participants to be league champions. The commissioners decided against it, but many still think it's a good idea. Sorry, Texas, for the purposes of this argument you're out.
[Good sequence there. Assume X. See if there is a rule to support X. Admit that there is not a rule to support X. Announce that it'd be awesome if there was, in fact, a rule to support X. Proceed with analysis as if there was a rule to support X. QED.]
Meaning: the school that deserves to play Alabama in this scenario would be the University of . . . Utah. All this talk-radio and Internet chatter about USC somehow slipping in the BCS title-game back door is being done with complete disregard for Utah.
[So you believe that Utah is the better team? OK, I'm listening.]
USC is the better team, OK, we all know that.
[Gotcha. Good talk. Actually, the strange thing is that Dufresne goes on to put forth a host of objective or semi-objective arguments as to why Utah actually IS better than USC.... even though "we all know" that they aren't.]
What if Alabama hands Florida a second loss in Saturday's SEC title game and three-loss Missouri shocks Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game?
[Take a closer look at the BCS bylaws, Dufresne. In this situation, the National Title game is cancelled and Notre Dame is crowned as the National Champion.]
Everyone assumes Alabama would play Texas. Not so fast. Texas didn't even win its conference.
[True. But I'm pretty sure that you don't have to win your conference to play in the title game, right?]
[C]ommissioners considered a rule change that would have required title-game participants to be league champions. The commissioners decided against it, but many still think it's a good idea. Sorry, Texas, for the purposes of this argument you're out.
[Good sequence there. Assume X. See if there is a rule to support X. Admit that there is not a rule to support X. Announce that it'd be awesome if there was, in fact, a rule to support X. Proceed with analysis as if there was a rule to support X. QED.]
Meaning: the school that deserves to play Alabama in this scenario would be the University of . . . Utah. All this talk-radio and Internet chatter about USC somehow slipping in the BCS title-game back door is being done with complete disregard for Utah.
[So you believe that Utah is the better team? OK, I'm listening.]
USC is the better team, OK, we all know that.
[Gotcha. Good talk. Actually, the strange thing is that Dufresne goes on to put forth a host of objective or semi-objective arguments as to why Utah actually IS better than USC.... even though "we all know" that they aren't.]
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Pete Fiutak and Jason Whitlock Might Throw Down
Even as an admitted ND-apologist, I found Pete Fiutak's take on Weis' retention to be a bit much-- but I also enjoyed it because I spent most of the time picturing Jason Whitlock reading it.
Charlie Weis just isn't all that bad a head coach.
[The only thing that would have made this thesis statement better would have been if Fiutak somehow managed to zing Ball State as well.]
Don't let anyone try to tell you that a coach can't win big at Notre Dame anymore. It's the opposite. It's hard for a coach not to win at Notre Dame.
[Did I forget to mention that this article was written in 1966?]
Weis has built the program to this point, and while the performance against USC might have been a nightmare, the season is a few plays away from not being all that bad.
[The "but if X hadn't happened..." argument is always a winner.]
Veteran teams win the close games like the 29-21 loss at North Carolina, and next year, Notre Dame will be a veteran team.
[Oh, "experience."]
Charlie Weis just isn't all that bad a head coach.
[The only thing that would have made this thesis statement better would have been if Fiutak somehow managed to zing Ball State as well.]
Don't let anyone try to tell you that a coach can't win big at Notre Dame anymore. It's the opposite. It's hard for a coach not to win at Notre Dame.
[Did I forget to mention that this article was written in 1966?]
Weis has built the program to this point, and while the performance against USC might have been a nightmare, the season is a few plays away from not being all that bad.
[The "but if X hadn't happened..." argument is always a winner.]
Veteran teams win the close games like the 29-21 loss at North Carolina, and next year, Notre Dame will be a veteran team.
[Oh, "experience."]
Quick Plaxico link
We will get back to the satire momentarily, but SI's sports law guy had a decent overview of the Plaxico situation.
Also, I'm seeing lots of "athletes and celebrities should be treated like every other defendant" articles (and sound bites from Mayor Bloomberg). I don't think that anyone would disagree with that sentiment. The law is the law.
Michael Schmidt of the New York Times, however, points out the following:
John M. Caher, a spokesman for the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, said that fewer than 10 percent of the people in New York City who were charged with criminal possession of a weapon — the charge Burress is facing — were convicted of that charge and that many ended up being convicted of a lesser charge.
Also, I'm seeing lots of "athletes and celebrities should be treated like every other defendant" articles (and sound bites from Mayor Bloomberg). I don't think that anyone would disagree with that sentiment. The law is the law.
Michael Schmidt of the New York Times, however, points out the following:
John M. Caher, a spokesman for the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, said that fewer than 10 percent of the people in New York City who were charged with criminal possession of a weapon — the charge Burress is facing — were convicted of that charge and that many ended up being convicted of a lesser charge.
More Iron-Clad Tebow-for-Heisman Arguments
To be perfectly honest, if I had a Heisman vote, I would have a difficult time deciding on a selection. You can make a case for the three Big 12 QBs, Crabtree and Tebow (sorry, Whitlock). Of course, "make a case" would be the operative phrase there. Jeremy Fowler of the Orlando Sentinel uses some of our favorite approaches to make his case for Tebow.
If Tebow wins the Heisman, it might be because of his intangibles and leadership, not his statistics.
[It seems like it is always the guys with inferior statistics that are chock-full of "intangibles," doesn't it?]
Tebow has a respectable 37 touchdowns through 12 games this season, but his current 2,299 passing yards would be the lowest for a pass-heavy Heisman winner since Auburn's Pat Sullivan in 1971.
[Still waiting for why I should vote for Tebow....]
Numbers might prevail in the Heisman voting, but winning can't be ignored.
[OK, so let's not ignore it: Bradford (OU): 11-1; McCoy (Texas): 11-1; Harrell/Crabtree (TT): 11-1; Tebow (Fla): 11-1. Next argument.]
Despite Tebow's season paling statistically in comparison to last year's, some of his intangibles are surpassing the previous mark.
[Intangible- Incapable of being perceived by the senses; incapable of being realized or defined.]
Whether or not Tebow wins the Heisman, he might be guaranteed plenty of YouTube clips for years to come for his "you will never see any player in the entire country play as hard as I will play" speech to the media after losing 31-30 to Ole Miss on Sept. 27.
[Non sequitur much?]
I don't know about you, but I'm convinced!
If Tebow wins the Heisman, it might be because of his intangibles and leadership, not his statistics.
[It seems like it is always the guys with inferior statistics that are chock-full of "intangibles," doesn't it?]
Tebow has a respectable 37 touchdowns through 12 games this season, but his current 2,299 passing yards would be the lowest for a pass-heavy Heisman winner since Auburn's Pat Sullivan in 1971.
[Still waiting for why I should vote for Tebow....]
Numbers might prevail in the Heisman voting, but winning can't be ignored.
[OK, so let's not ignore it: Bradford (OU): 11-1; McCoy (Texas): 11-1; Harrell/Crabtree (TT): 11-1; Tebow (Fla): 11-1. Next argument.]
Despite Tebow's season paling statistically in comparison to last year's, some of his intangibles are surpassing the previous mark.
[Intangible- Incapable of being perceived by the senses; incapable of being realized or defined.]
Whether or not Tebow wins the Heisman, he might be guaranteed plenty of YouTube clips for years to come for his "you will never see any player in the entire country play as hard as I will play" speech to the media after losing 31-30 to Ole Miss on Sept. 27.
[Non sequitur much?]
I don't know about you, but I'm convinced!
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
More Plaxico insanity!
Mark Kriegel of Fox Sports takes the high road.
The real question is this: if a guy can't be counted on to attend team meetings or practice, can he be entrusted with a gun?
[Exactly. It's like when I was younger, I had perfect attendance in junior high. Seriously, I did not miss a single day. And you know what the principal told me upon giving me my "perfect attendance" certificate? He said, "I would totally trust you with an assault rifle."]
I understand what generates the paranoia: the cases of Sean Taylor, Darrent Williams and Richard Collier, just to name a few.
[Seems kind of like a legitimate concern, right?]
It's worth noting that Sean Taylor forgot to turn on his home alarm system the night he was murdered.
[Wow. Did Mark Kriegler just imply that Sean Taylor was......... asking for it???]
Nice dialogue, America.
The real question is this: if a guy can't be counted on to attend team meetings or practice, can he be entrusted with a gun?
[Exactly. It's like when I was younger, I had perfect attendance in junior high. Seriously, I did not miss a single day. And you know what the principal told me upon giving me my "perfect attendance" certificate? He said, "I would totally trust you with an assault rifle."]
I understand what generates the paranoia: the cases of Sean Taylor, Darrent Williams and Richard Collier, just to name a few.
[Seems kind of like a legitimate concern, right?]
It's worth noting that Sean Taylor forgot to turn on his home alarm system the night he was murdered.
[Wow. Did Mark Kriegler just imply that Sean Taylor was......... asking for it???]
Nice dialogue, America.
Plaxico madness!
I saw Mike Lupica almost have a seizure on "The Sports Reporters" over the weekend talking about the Plaxico-shooting-himself fiasco, and I kept my eyes peeled for a corresponding angry and uber-judgmental column. Voila!
Either the Giants have to tell Plaxico Burress he doesn't just get to come back to work as if nothing happened, or NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has to tell Burress that.
[Easy, Lupica. The league (and undoubtedly the teams therein) have player conduct rules that govern these kinds of situations. I'm pretty sure both the Giants and Goodell might glance at them with respect to Plaxico. In other news, I will be seriously impressed if you can write the rest of this column from up on your cross.]
Burress hasn't earned the right to be exempt, from anything. He thought he needed a gun to "protect" himself.
[Air quotes? Really?? Look, maybe Lupica is making a correct assumption that Plaxico carries around a gun to amass street cred. Or maybe Plaxico carries a gun because he doesn't want to get murdered like Sean Taylor did. The point is that I have no idea why Plax carries a gun! And I'm willing to assume that Lupica has no idea either. We do, in our society, have a reasonably effective way of determining such things; it's called the legal system! The angry judgment of sportswriters works too, though.]
In the end, Burress didn't even know how to work the safety, and nobody is talking about a free safety here.
[Totally appropriate time for a pun. Stay classy, Lupica!]
When was the last time you heard of somebody like Plaxico Burress being a crimefighter?
[Isn't the argument of famous people in these situations that they carry a gun to PREVENT a crime? I'm pretty sure there are "No vigilante crime-fighting" clauses in most professional sports contracts nowadays, anyway.]
More often than not, they become the crime.
[Kind of why they claim to carry the gun, right?]
Just knowing what we know now, you wonder how even a smart lawyer like Brafman, who has known his share of actual bad guys, can plead out on this one, at least in Bloomberg's New York anyway.
[Exactly. Why even permit Plaxico the opportunity to present a defense?! Or, hell, a trial even!? Just ship him straight to Gitmo before Obama shuts it down. (listening to the "America, F*ck yeah!" song from Team America on full blast)]
What happened with Burress happened in the real world. And in the real world, there are consequences when you act like this much of a dope. One is this: Your boss is the one who decides if you get your old desk back.
[Right. So why did YOU just spend several hundred words deciding? Who needs to look at acutal laws or league rules that will govern a situation when Mike Lupica's narrowly-focused rage will suffice?!]
Either the Giants have to tell Plaxico Burress he doesn't just get to come back to work as if nothing happened, or NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has to tell Burress that.
[Easy, Lupica. The league (and undoubtedly the teams therein) have player conduct rules that govern these kinds of situations. I'm pretty sure both the Giants and Goodell might glance at them with respect to Plaxico. In other news, I will be seriously impressed if you can write the rest of this column from up on your cross.]
Burress hasn't earned the right to be exempt, from anything. He thought he needed a gun to "protect" himself.
[Air quotes? Really?? Look, maybe Lupica is making a correct assumption that Plaxico carries around a gun to amass street cred. Or maybe Plaxico carries a gun because he doesn't want to get murdered like Sean Taylor did. The point is that I have no idea why Plax carries a gun! And I'm willing to assume that Lupica has no idea either. We do, in our society, have a reasonably effective way of determining such things; it's called the legal system! The angry judgment of sportswriters works too, though.]
In the end, Burress didn't even know how to work the safety, and nobody is talking about a free safety here.
[Totally appropriate time for a pun. Stay classy, Lupica!]
When was the last time you heard of somebody like Plaxico Burress being a crimefighter?
[Isn't the argument of famous people in these situations that they carry a gun to PREVENT a crime? I'm pretty sure there are "No vigilante crime-fighting" clauses in most professional sports contracts nowadays, anyway.]
More often than not, they become the crime.
[Kind of why they claim to carry the gun, right?]
Just knowing what we know now, you wonder how even a smart lawyer like Brafman, who has known his share of actual bad guys, can plead out on this one, at least in Bloomberg's New York anyway.
[Exactly. Why even permit Plaxico the opportunity to present a defense?! Or, hell, a trial even!? Just ship him straight to Gitmo before Obama shuts it down. (listening to the "America, F*ck yeah!" song from Team America on full blast)]
What happened with Burress happened in the real world. And in the real world, there are consequences when you act like this much of a dope. One is this: Your boss is the one who decides if you get your old desk back.
[Right. So why did YOU just spend several hundred words deciding? Who needs to look at acutal laws or league rules that will govern a situation when Mike Lupica's narrowly-focused rage will suffice?!]
Monday, December 1, 2008
Peter King Gets Paid For This: Vol. 8
Let's see what is on Pete's mind this week.
I am not blaming the travel and Thanksgiving night game for the Cardinals' pathetic performance at Philadelphia, but you're deluding yourself if you think the short week didn't play a part in it.
[I love deluding myself! I mean, I read ALL of your articles, Pete. Let's do this.]
I examined the short week of the Cardinals in advance of their game at Philadelphia and found three distinct disadvantages they faced:
[Enumerated list me!?!]
1. They were coming off a very physical game with the New York Giants, likely the best team in football.
[Playing the Giants sounds like a distinct disadvantage for the previous week... when they had to play the Giants...., right? Pretty sure they still weren't playing the Giants (who are awesome) when they played the Eagles (who aren't awesome).]
2. They were unfamiliar with the Eagles.
[Wow, I didn't know that none of the Eagles games were televised or video-taped by anyone. Great find, Pete.]
3. None of the other 2008 Thursday night visitors will have to travel nearly as far as Arizona's four-and-a-half-hour, 2,369-mile trip.
[This is a nit-picky point, but a point nonetheless. Arizona having to travel a great distance to play MIGHT actually be a plausible argument as to why they sucked on Thursday. Stating that none of the other teams that will play on a Thursday this season will have to travel that far is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Other teams' travel plans have NOTHING to do with the AZ-Philly game.]
In similarly impressive and persuasive fashion, Pete makes some strong arguments for his MVP ballot (per usual).
1. Peyton Manning
Manning ascends to the top by default, despite engineering zero touchdown drives for only the fifth time in a 10-year NFL career.
[Your primary contention for your top choice is the "by default" argument? Followed immediately by a "despite" bomb? Really?]
2. Matt Ryan
Falcons were supposed to go 3-13. They are 8-4. They've won at San Diego and Green Bay.
[He should have just stopped after "They are 8-4," right? SD and GB are a combined 9-15. And SD has the 31st ranked pass defense in the league. Just saying....]
3. Drew Brees
In many ways, he's having the best year at the most important position in football, even with a bummer Sunday in Tampa.
[And by "many ways," Pete means "passing yards." As many TDs as Kurt Warner. Fourth best QB Rating. Sixth best completion percentage. Tied with Favre for the most INTs (which is an accomplishment).]
4. Kris Jenkins
Mulligan.
[QED!]
5. James Harrison
I might argue this spot belongs to Troy Polamalu or LaMarr Woodley.
[NO! You wrote "James Harrison." It's right there! I am looking right at it!! My head hurts.]
I am not blaming the travel and Thanksgiving night game for the Cardinals' pathetic performance at Philadelphia, but you're deluding yourself if you think the short week didn't play a part in it.
[I love deluding myself! I mean, I read ALL of your articles, Pete. Let's do this.]
I examined the short week of the Cardinals in advance of their game at Philadelphia and found three distinct disadvantages they faced:
[Enumerated list me!?!]
1. They were coming off a very physical game with the New York Giants, likely the best team in football.
[Playing the Giants sounds like a distinct disadvantage for the previous week... when they had to play the Giants...., right? Pretty sure they still weren't playing the Giants (who are awesome) when they played the Eagles (who aren't awesome).]
2. They were unfamiliar with the Eagles.
[Wow, I didn't know that none of the Eagles games were televised or video-taped by anyone. Great find, Pete.]
3. None of the other 2008 Thursday night visitors will have to travel nearly as far as Arizona's four-and-a-half-hour, 2,369-mile trip.
[This is a nit-picky point, but a point nonetheless. Arizona having to travel a great distance to play MIGHT actually be a plausible argument as to why they sucked on Thursday. Stating that none of the other teams that will play on a Thursday this season will have to travel that far is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Other teams' travel plans have NOTHING to do with the AZ-Philly game.]
In similarly impressive and persuasive fashion, Pete makes some strong arguments for his MVP ballot (per usual).
1. Peyton Manning
Manning ascends to the top by default, despite engineering zero touchdown drives for only the fifth time in a 10-year NFL career.
[Your primary contention for your top choice is the "by default" argument? Followed immediately by a "despite" bomb? Really?]
2. Matt Ryan
Falcons were supposed to go 3-13. They are 8-4. They've won at San Diego and Green Bay.
[He should have just stopped after "They are 8-4," right? SD and GB are a combined 9-15. And SD has the 31st ranked pass defense in the league. Just saying....]
3. Drew Brees
In many ways, he's having the best year at the most important position in football, even with a bummer Sunday in Tampa.
[And by "many ways," Pete means "passing yards." As many TDs as Kurt Warner. Fourth best QB Rating. Sixth best completion percentage. Tied with Favre for the most INTs (which is an accomplishment).]
4. Kris Jenkins
Mulligan.
[QED!]
5. James Harrison
I might argue this spot belongs to Troy Polamalu or LaMarr Woodley.
[NO! You wrote "James Harrison." It's right there! I am looking right at it!! My head hurts.]
Jason Whitlock is an Insane Person: Vol. 4
Whitlock wrote this "article" last week, but I needed the entire holiday weekend to let it fully soak in.
My goal as a journalist/columnist is to be right about issues others don't see coming or don't have the courage/intellect to address.
[Let's remember he started the article with this "goal," shall we?]
Ball State's football season perfectly illustrated my problem with ESPN and why I believe the World Wide Leader is the most evil and destructive force in the sports world.
[Remember when ESPN fired you in September 2006? Yeah, I bet this has nothing to do with that. Not at all.]
ESPN is the enemy of the truth, and all who believe a pursuit of the truth is the lifeblood of a genuinely free society must stand against the Wal-Mart-ization of sports journalism.
[Enemy of truth?? Heavy stuff. Whitlock must have a grave and sober reason for reaching such a critical and stern conclusion....]
I reached this conclusion when trying to figure out why Ball State quarterback Nate Davis isn't one of the top-five Heisman Trophy candidates and Ball State coach Brady Hoke isn't the front-runner for national coach of the year.
[Yep, sounds about right.]
Do not laugh.
[No, sorry. I'm not. I just have a tickle in my throat. Honest.]
I'm cold and rational now when I tell you that Nate Davis is the best player in college football....
[I bet that Whitlock has plenty of relevant and objective evidence to support this claim.]
It's difficult to believe now, but in 1982 the 10 top vote-getters were all actually really, really good college football players: Herschel Walker, John Elway, Eric Dickerson, Anthony Carter, David Rimington, Todd Blackledge, Tom Ramsey, Tony Eason, Dan Marino and Mike Rozier.
[OK??]
Since 2000, here are your Heisman Trophy winners: Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, Carson Palmer, Jason White, Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, Troy Smith and Tim Tebow.
[OK, I get it. Playing QB = sucking at college football. It's a good thing that Whitlock isn't currently touting a Q-- oh.....]
The conversation about the Heisman Trophy and all things in sports has been dumbed down by the World Wide Leader. This year the network pretty much decided you had to play quarterback in the Big 12 to be in consideration for the Heisman Trophy.
[Totally agree. ESPN's conscious decision to promote three random QBs from the midwest (a huge ratings hotbed) actually caused McCoy, Bradford and Harrell to put up monster numbers. It's science.]
Here's what's more frustrating. Not one of the Big 12's quarterbacks is in the same physical ballpark as Ball State's Nate Davis. It's not close.
[Putting aside the fact that that statement is false (Sam Bradford is 6'-4", 220 lbs -- who's the enemy of truth now??), I didn't realize that Heisman voters were supposed to take the oft-overlooked "physical ballpark" trait into consideration when selecting a winner. Shows how much I know.]
They can't match his resume. Getting Ball State to 12-0 under the best circumstances is far more difficult than getting Oklahoma to 11-1. I know Ball State's schedule isn't as difficult as Oklahoma's. I also know Bradford is surrounded by far more talent than Davis.
[LOGIC FAIL.]
Nate Davis has the tools to be better than Tom Brady.
[jnadsuiosdafnjkl;ladfnanjlka;lmkoin
Sorry. I just blacked out and hit my forehead on the keyboard.]
If you watch Nate Davis play, he looks like the second coming of Brett Favre.
[lknmdasbnf nmadnf;lasdfnnl;kadfn
I am going to put on a padded head-band for the duration of this article.
If these comparisons are true, how the hell could ESPN have missed this guy!?!]
Now, ESPN2 has broadcast Ball State's last four games.
[Oh.]
Let me tell you what passes for courage and independent thinking at ESPN. Chris Fowler dropped Ball State out of his AP top-25 ballot last week....
[(shaking fist towards sky) FOWLER!!!]
He has never been a professional journalist a day in his life.
[Exactly. C'mon, Fowler! Act like a freakin' professional for once! Here, watch and learn from a true pro....]
I'm not 100 percent sure, but I'd suspect he hasn't worn a jock since junior high school.
[Jason Whitlock: Professionalism incarnate.]
My goal as a journalist/columnist is to be right about issues others don't see coming or don't have the courage/intellect to address.
[Let's remember he started the article with this "goal," shall we?]
Ball State's football season perfectly illustrated my problem with ESPN and why I believe the World Wide Leader is the most evil and destructive force in the sports world.
[Remember when ESPN fired you in September 2006? Yeah, I bet this has nothing to do with that. Not at all.]
ESPN is the enemy of the truth, and all who believe a pursuit of the truth is the lifeblood of a genuinely free society must stand against the Wal-Mart-ization of sports journalism.
[Enemy of truth?? Heavy stuff. Whitlock must have a grave and sober reason for reaching such a critical and stern conclusion....]
I reached this conclusion when trying to figure out why Ball State quarterback Nate Davis isn't one of the top-five Heisman Trophy candidates and Ball State coach Brady Hoke isn't the front-runner for national coach of the year.
[Yep, sounds about right.]
Do not laugh.
[No, sorry. I'm not. I just have a tickle in my throat. Honest.]
I'm cold and rational now when I tell you that Nate Davis is the best player in college football....
[I bet that Whitlock has plenty of relevant and objective evidence to support this claim.]
It's difficult to believe now, but in 1982 the 10 top vote-getters were all actually really, really good college football players: Herschel Walker, John Elway, Eric Dickerson, Anthony Carter, David Rimington, Todd Blackledge, Tom Ramsey, Tony Eason, Dan Marino and Mike Rozier.
[OK??]
Since 2000, here are your Heisman Trophy winners: Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, Carson Palmer, Jason White, Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, Troy Smith and Tim Tebow.
[OK, I get it. Playing QB = sucking at college football. It's a good thing that Whitlock isn't currently touting a Q-- oh.....]
The conversation about the Heisman Trophy and all things in sports has been dumbed down by the World Wide Leader. This year the network pretty much decided you had to play quarterback in the Big 12 to be in consideration for the Heisman Trophy.
[Totally agree. ESPN's conscious decision to promote three random QBs from the midwest (a huge ratings hotbed) actually caused McCoy, Bradford and Harrell to put up monster numbers. It's science.]
Here's what's more frustrating. Not one of the Big 12's quarterbacks is in the same physical ballpark as Ball State's Nate Davis. It's not close.
[Putting aside the fact that that statement is false (Sam Bradford is 6'-4", 220 lbs -- who's the enemy of truth now??), I didn't realize that Heisman voters were supposed to take the oft-overlooked "physical ballpark" trait into consideration when selecting a winner. Shows how much I know.]
They can't match his resume. Getting Ball State to 12-0 under the best circumstances is far more difficult than getting Oklahoma to 11-1. I know Ball State's schedule isn't as difficult as Oklahoma's. I also know Bradford is surrounded by far more talent than Davis.
[LOGIC FAIL.]
Nate Davis has the tools to be better than Tom Brady.
[jnadsuiosdafnjkl;ladfnanjlka;lmkoin
Sorry. I just blacked out and hit my forehead on the keyboard.]
If you watch Nate Davis play, he looks like the second coming of Brett Favre.
[lknmdasbnf nmadnf;lasdfnnl;kadfn
I am going to put on a padded head-band for the duration of this article.
If these comparisons are true, how the hell could ESPN have missed this guy!?!]
Now, ESPN2 has broadcast Ball State's last four games.
[Oh.]
Let me tell you what passes for courage and independent thinking at ESPN. Chris Fowler dropped Ball State out of his AP top-25 ballot last week....
[(shaking fist towards sky) FOWLER!!!]
He has never been a professional journalist a day in his life.
[Exactly. C'mon, Fowler! Act like a freakin' professional for once! Here, watch and learn from a true pro....]
I'm not 100 percent sure, but I'd suspect he hasn't worn a jock since junior high school.
[Jason Whitlock: Professionalism incarnate.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
