Not a jab at David Jones at all here. I just felt compelled to share some of the quotes he got for his The USA Today piece that are...... well......
When it came time for Urban Meyer, head coach of the defending national champion Florida Gators, to offer some advice to his new quarterbacks coach on how to handle Heisman Trophy winning quarterback Tim Tebow, the message was pretty simple. "Coach Meyer said just don't screw him up," Scot Loeffler said.
[That would imply that Tebow has flaws or even human mortality, which is a ridiculous implication because everyone knows that he does not.]
Loeffler calls it "an honor" to be apart of the UF staff and work with Tebow.
[Hmmm, that's an OK start. But I still think that your adulation for Tebow can be a *lot* more over-the-top, to the point where it borders on creepy.]
"From day one, meeting the kid, he's had 'it.' And he'll always have 'it.' There's not one thing that surprises me about him except how he handles the off-the-field issues. He has a miraculous way of dealing with the public. He's awesome in every sense of the word."
[Boom.]
Friday, March 27, 2009
"Wanting it" > Anything Else
Last night, I found myself watching Villanova completely destroy Duke and wondering aloud "How is 'Nova doing it?" Well, thanks to Bob Ford of the Philadelphia Inquirer, my query has been answered.
It is this simple: They don't want it to end.
[Analysis over!]
From the very start, Villanova played to win, not to avoid a loss.
[Which would also leave "winning" as their only option..... right?]
From the very start, the Wildcats gave No. 2-seeded Duke far more than it wanted.
[Well, that's not surprising because we've already established that Duke wanted "it" less than Nova did, so the amount of "it" that Duke wanted was likely a manageable sum.]
If the game was a test of will, only one team passed.
[In fact, Jay Wright's $2,000 suit was actually made out of "will." Really durable fabric.]
Whatever this postseason will become, however far it will go, it isn't over yet.
[?]
It is this simple: They don't want it to end.
[Analysis over!]
From the very start, Villanova played to win, not to avoid a loss.
[Which would also leave "winning" as their only option..... right?]
From the very start, the Wildcats gave No. 2-seeded Duke far more than it wanted.
[Well, that's not surprising because we've already established that Duke wanted "it" less than Nova did, so the amount of "it" that Duke wanted was likely a manageable sum.]
If the game was a test of will, only one team passed.
[In fact, Jay Wright's $2,000 suit was actually made out of "will." Really durable fabric.]
Whatever this postseason will become, however far it will go, it isn't over yet.
[?]
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Who needs coins anyways?
One area where Peter King and I have always agreed is that the NFL overtime system is stupid. His take on what the appropriate remedy should be, however, leaves me a little... well, let's take a look:
From Bruce Grossberg of Forest Hills, N.Y.: "Overtime: Instead of focusing on each team having a possession, why not focus on the unfairness of the coin flip? Why can't there be a 100-yard dash for possession, or the longest throw, or a "punt-off" for possession? Something quick, but something that would be less arbitrary than a coin flip."
King's response: I actually like that. Eliminate the capricious coin flip in favor of something that would demonstrate one team's superiority over the other.
[Brilliant. What better way to illustrate one *team's* superiority over another *team* than by having one guy from each 53-man roster run a 100-yard dash?
In a totally unrelated story, the Dallas Cowboys reportedly just offered Usain Bolt an $800MM contract.]
The following is the e-mail and King's response that immediately preceded the above exchange. King's advocacy for "something that would demonstrate one team's superiority over the other" got me thinking. What kind of activity could reliably demonstrate this....
From Matt Cafaro of Athens, Ga.: "Fixing overtime is the easiest thing imaginable: Follow the old NHL rules, which were fair. Every regular season game plays a full extra period if it ends in a tie at four quarters. If the game remains tied after this extra period, it's a tie. Deal with it. For playoff games, you do as hockey does in the playoffs. You keep playing full quarters, until there is a winner. You could go to six or seven 'quarters,' but you get a winner without having to compromise to the college solution."
King's response: The problem is that players don't want to add a full quarter to the season, which, as I explained Monday, is likely to be increased by a game or two in the near future. If the league goes to 18 games -- which I think would be a disaster because of the increased injury factor -- and if a team plays two overtime games in that season, the team would be playing 2.5 more games than it's playing now. That's 16 percent more football in a league in which injuries are already at high levels. Not going to fly.
[Adding a "full" quarter to the season = C'mon, don't be an idiot.
Adding a game or two to the season = Yeah, we can do that.
So yeah, that who-can-kick-the-ball-the-farthest idea is definitely better (ignoring that it could still result in a horrifying full quarter being added to a season).]
From Bruce Grossberg of Forest Hills, N.Y.: "Overtime: Instead of focusing on each team having a possession, why not focus on the unfairness of the coin flip? Why can't there be a 100-yard dash for possession, or the longest throw, or a "punt-off" for possession? Something quick, but something that would be less arbitrary than a coin flip."
King's response: I actually like that. Eliminate the capricious coin flip in favor of something that would demonstrate one team's superiority over the other.
[Brilliant. What better way to illustrate one *team's* superiority over another *team* than by having one guy from each 53-man roster run a 100-yard dash?
In a totally unrelated story, the Dallas Cowboys reportedly just offered Usain Bolt an $800MM contract.]
The following is the e-mail and King's response that immediately preceded the above exchange. King's advocacy for "something that would demonstrate one team's superiority over the other" got me thinking. What kind of activity could reliably demonstrate this....
From Matt Cafaro of Athens, Ga.: "Fixing overtime is the easiest thing imaginable: Follow the old NHL rules, which were fair. Every regular season game plays a full extra period if it ends in a tie at four quarters. If the game remains tied after this extra period, it's a tie. Deal with it. For playoff games, you do as hockey does in the playoffs. You keep playing full quarters, until there is a winner. You could go to six or seven 'quarters,' but you get a winner without having to compromise to the college solution."
King's response: The problem is that players don't want to add a full quarter to the season, which, as I explained Monday, is likely to be increased by a game or two in the near future. If the league goes to 18 games -- which I think would be a disaster because of the increased injury factor -- and if a team plays two overtime games in that season, the team would be playing 2.5 more games than it's playing now. That's 16 percent more football in a league in which injuries are already at high levels. Not going to fly.
[Adding a "full" quarter to the season = C'mon, don't be an idiot.
Adding a game or two to the season = Yeah, we can do that.
So yeah, that who-can-kick-the-ball-the-farthest idea is definitely better (ignoring that it could still result in a horrifying full quarter being added to a season).]
Monday, March 23, 2009
Slow stretch, paging Nils, etc.
Apologies for the recent drought. Chalk it up to some recent travels and Nils' propensity to completely vanish for weeks at a time. Which reminds me, several people have asked if Nils and I are, in fact, the same person simply operating this site under two psuedonyms. This is not the case, but now I am also starting to wonder if Nils is a real person....
In other news, March Madness is one of my favorite times of year, but it doesn't seem to lend itself to the usual amount of humorously poor sports journalism. Fortunately, baseball season starts next week.
Nonetheless, here was a quality facts-be-damned piece on the tournament from Jim Litke in the Boston Herald.
The focus for the first weekend of the NCAA tournament may have been on fresh faces, but next weekend it’s back to familiar ones.
[OK.]
The NCAA tournament is miles ahead of the BCS when it comes to crowning a real champion, but they have this in common: Nobody wins it on the cheap. There are 330-odd Division I basketball teams competing for 64 spots and the median program runs a yearly operating loss approaching [the] million figure.
[Did he write this in the cab on his way over to meet his deadline?? 330-odd? You couldn't look up the exact number? And where are we getting these "median program" operating loss numbers from? You couldn't type "number of ncaa division 1 basketball teams" into Google, but you went through the balance sheets of all 330-odd programs? P.S. It's 65 spots now.]
Money is the short answer to the question of why a real mid-major still can’t win the NCAA tournament.
[After the previous paragraph, we were supposed to be expecting the *long* answer?]
The [Siena] Saints still might have been good enough to topple another No. 1 seed most nights, but not Louisville on this night.
[Huh? What?]
It took nearly all 60 minutes for that slight edge to prove decisive, but it usually does.
[Actually, this is a good point. Louisville really showed why they are superior to Siena in those 20 minutes that immediately followed their FORTY MINUTE BASKETBALL GAME.
Solid editing job.]
In other news, March Madness is one of my favorite times of year, but it doesn't seem to lend itself to the usual amount of humorously poor sports journalism. Fortunately, baseball season starts next week.
Nonetheless, here was a quality facts-be-damned piece on the tournament from Jim Litke in the Boston Herald.
The focus for the first weekend of the NCAA tournament may have been on fresh faces, but next weekend it’s back to familiar ones.
[OK.]
The NCAA tournament is miles ahead of the BCS when it comes to crowning a real champion, but they have this in common: Nobody wins it on the cheap. There are 330-odd Division I basketball teams competing for 64 spots and the median program runs a yearly operating loss approaching [the] million figure.
[Did he write this in the cab on his way over to meet his deadline?? 330-odd? You couldn't look up the exact number? And where are we getting these "median program" operating loss numbers from? You couldn't type "number of ncaa division 1 basketball teams" into Google, but you went through the balance sheets of all 330-odd programs? P.S. It's 65 spots now.]
Money is the short answer to the question of why a real mid-major still can’t win the NCAA tournament.
[After the previous paragraph, we were supposed to be expecting the *long* answer?]
The [Siena] Saints still might have been good enough to topple another No. 1 seed most nights, but not Louisville on this night.
[Huh? What?]
It took nearly all 60 minutes for that slight edge to prove decisive, but it usually does.
[Actually, this is a good point. Louisville really showed why they are superior to Siena in those 20 minutes that immediately followed their FORTY MINUTE BASKETBALL GAME.
Solid editing job.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
