Sometimes a headline just jumps out at you, like the Bill Plashke article intriguingly headlined "Is USC ready for the Rose Bowl...or not?"
To go out on a limb here, this will either be another vacillating not-brave-enough-to-take-a-stand puff piece that does nothing more than fulfill the writer's word count or a brilliantly articulated exposition on USC's readiness for the big game. Want another brave professional-sportswriter style prediction from your friend Nils? USC will either win or lose the Rose Bowl. I guarantee it.
Enough of my predictions that aren't really predictions, see what Mr Plashke has written to deserve such a mincing headline:
If media day was any indication -- and it usually is -- there are two ways to look at how USC has handled The Week That Nobody Wanted.
1) The Trojans are loose enough to be dominant.
2) They are bored enough to be ambushed.
He stole my prediction! Dick!
How could he also know that the Trojans will either win or lose?! And, just showing how his professional shaolin sportswriter style easily defeats my blogger in the basement tiger style, he goes on to say that the reason that USC might win or lose is because they are either loose or bored.
It's a double whammy of deep insight.
One thing for certain is, Penn State is neither.
No wonder he gets paid the big bucks. After fearlessly saying that USC will either win or lose because they are either loose or bored, Plashke drop the bomb that Penn State is neither loose nor bored. I can't wait to find out whether this means they they can either win or lose the Rose Bowl or lose or win the Rose Bowl.
This is the type of analysis you can't get from just anybody.
It has been written here several times that USC doesn't want or need this game, so it would be disingenuous to criticize the Trojans' players if they are acting that way.
But if they are, they are setting themselves up to fall into a trap of mistaken identities.
If USC gets upset by Penn State, Plashke totally called it. And if USC wins, Plashke called that, too. And if you are confused as to why everything has a caveat, it's because USC has mistaken identities and it is impossible to tell which team will show up. Like, medically impossible. You shouldn't even joke about it either, it's a real mental disorder, okay. It's not Plashke's fault, it's the team he has to cover. Jeez.
Carroll ... told them to stop celebrating the Ohio State victory and concentrate on Oregon State, and how did that turn out?
Once or twice a year, it seems, this Trojans monster takes on a life of its own.
That's because USC has mistaken identities. In Corvallis, the Trojans thought that they were Cal State Dominguez Hills. It was weird.
No matter what their creator preaches, they hear only an inner voice that reminds them of their incredible skill. They interpret this to mean their immortality. A humbling loss usually follows.
Incredible skill -> living forever -> losing to Oregon State. Epic logic fail.
Could they be tuning out Carroll and hearing that voice now? Considering Carroll was the one who first referred to this repetitive Rose-Bowl-as-consolation-prize-business as "Groundhog Day," maybe they are getting the voices confused?
Incredible skill -> living forever -> losing to Oregon State -> Rose Bowl -> Pete Carroll's voice telling the Trojans they have incredible skill -> Confusion. Relatively logical, actually.
... "We look at Penn State like they're the No. 1 team in the country, like this is a national championship," safety Taylor Mays said.
Say what?
Mays smiled.
"Hey, Coach Carroll could get us pumped up to eat a hot dog," he said.
Better than choking on one.
At last Plashke is able to say something without equivocation. And I can hardly disagree.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
My Favorite Article of The Year
I held out until the final day of 2008. And now I can proudly say that it paid off because Ian Thomsen of SI.com wrote the best persuasive piece of the year.
This might have been the worst official decision I have ever seen at a major sporting event.
[OK.]
[A] new threshold was established here Tuesday when the Portland Trail Blazers accidentally put six men on the court against the Boston Celtics. The sixth man scored a basket. The referees acknowledged that he should not have been allowed on the floor. And then they permitted his basket to stand.
[Alright. Perhaps it is just me. But my first question at this point is "What is the rule regarding a scored basket with more than five players on the court?" Before I get too fired up about an officiating decision, I like to know what the actual RULE is that governs the situation in question. Seems like relevant information.]
This event is the harshest sign yet that NBA referees are frazzled. Not all of them, of course: I believe there are some officials who would have come to their senses and made the right call, regardless of how the particular rule may or may not be written.
[OR we could take this rules-be-damned(!) approach which includes the added convenience of not having to look stuff up.]
I write this in the early morning hours without knowing exactly how the rule is written regarding this particular infraction.
[Professional. Journalism.]
What I do know is that the rule in this case is irrelevant.
[That's pretty much the opposite of true, right?]
This is a black-and-white case of right and wrong, and I wonder if the referees got it so badly wrong because they have been mismanaged for so long a time that they can't begin to tell right from wrong anymore.
[You know what makes a case black-and-white? Rules!]
I wonder if they're so worried about looking over their shoulders that they can't see what is in front of them.
[??!??]
The first rule of basketball is that each team shall play with an equal number of players.
[Actually that is Rule No. 3.]
Anyone can make the mistake of failing to count the players; the issue lies in what these game officials did next while trying to satisfy their supervisors.
[This also assumes that counting that basket in the 2nd quarter somehow satisfied the referee's supervisors... which also seems like a rather unsubstantiated and arbitrary claim.]
Am I making too much of what might have been a simple error in judgment?
[YES. Sidenote: I quickly skimmed the 2008-09 NBA Rules (linked above) and could not find a rule that governs this exact situation. As such, the explanation given by one of the referee's (quoted in Thomsen's article) seems reasonable. The rule (no more than 5 players on the court) is not applied retroactively-- which strikes me as the same approach for nearly every rule (instant replay situations notwithstanding). The point, however, is that it took me all of one 4-second Google search to find the NBA rules, and another 20 or 30 seconds to perform a keyword search. Thomsen? Not so much. And this is his job.]
Or am I right to wonder whether the league has so convoluted its referees that they no longer feel empowered to distinguish right from wrong?
[I give up.]
Have a safe and enjoyable New Year's, all.
This might have been the worst official decision I have ever seen at a major sporting event.
[OK.]
[A] new threshold was established here Tuesday when the Portland Trail Blazers accidentally put six men on the court against the Boston Celtics. The sixth man scored a basket. The referees acknowledged that he should not have been allowed on the floor. And then they permitted his basket to stand.
[Alright. Perhaps it is just me. But my first question at this point is "What is the rule regarding a scored basket with more than five players on the court?" Before I get too fired up about an officiating decision, I like to know what the actual RULE is that governs the situation in question. Seems like relevant information.]
This event is the harshest sign yet that NBA referees are frazzled. Not all of them, of course: I believe there are some officials who would have come to their senses and made the right call, regardless of how the particular rule may or may not be written.
[OR we could take this rules-be-damned(!) approach which includes the added convenience of not having to look stuff up.]
I write this in the early morning hours without knowing exactly how the rule is written regarding this particular infraction.
[Professional. Journalism.]
What I do know is that the rule in this case is irrelevant.
[That's pretty much the opposite of true, right?]
This is a black-and-white case of right and wrong, and I wonder if the referees got it so badly wrong because they have been mismanaged for so long a time that they can't begin to tell right from wrong anymore.
[You know what makes a case black-and-white? Rules!]
I wonder if they're so worried about looking over their shoulders that they can't see what is in front of them.
[??!??]
The first rule of basketball is that each team shall play with an equal number of players.
[Actually that is Rule No. 3.]
Anyone can make the mistake of failing to count the players; the issue lies in what these game officials did next while trying to satisfy their supervisors.
[This also assumes that counting that basket in the 2nd quarter somehow satisfied the referee's supervisors... which also seems like a rather unsubstantiated and arbitrary claim.]
Am I making too much of what might have been a simple error in judgment?
[YES. Sidenote: I quickly skimmed the 2008-09 NBA Rules (linked above) and could not find a rule that governs this exact situation. As such, the explanation given by one of the referee's (quoted in Thomsen's article) seems reasonable. The rule (no more than 5 players on the court) is not applied retroactively-- which strikes me as the same approach for nearly every rule (instant replay situations notwithstanding). The point, however, is that it took me all of one 4-second Google search to find the NBA rules, and another 20 or 30 seconds to perform a keyword search. Thomsen? Not so much. And this is his job.]
Or am I right to wonder whether the league has so convoluted its referees that they no longer feel empowered to distinguish right from wrong?
[I give up.]
Have a safe and enjoyable New Year's, all.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Jason Whitlock: Vol. 7
I know, I know. We just did a Whitlock piece this morning. But for all of the fun we have with Whitlock, we also like to note when he happens to point out something worthwhile, like he did in his most recent article for FoxSports (amidst his usual nonsense).
As you know, I've defended Favre all season. I thought the Packers made a mistake letting him go (and they did). I desperately wanted Favre to have a big season in New York.
[VERY little chatter from prominent Favre-huggers in the sports media (other than the "will he retire?" nonsense). One Schrute Buck for Whitlock for taking his medicine.]
It didn't happen. He tossed 22 TDs and 22 INTs, and with the season on the line against the Dolphins and Chad Pennington, "White T.O." tossed three picks and one TD.
[BRUTAL performance.]
To make matters worse, we learned from Jay Glazer that Favre didn't enjoy playing for Eric Mangini because the Jets coach had the audacity to question Favre's decision-making in front of teammates.
[Bingo. Hardly a mention of this in any of the mainstream coverage. I heard that report after the game and thought, "Wow, prima dona much? Maybe I won't buy that pair of Wranglers after all."]
How dare Mangini hold Favre accountable for throwing stupid interceptions? Glazer's report came on the heels of Favre breaking news (or rationalizing a poor season) that his shoulder was dead.
[Wow. Am I becoming a Jason Whitlock fan??]
Belichick is likely to get a big laugh this offseason when some team overpays for Cassel during the free-agent season. Cassel is all smoke and mirrors. The Patriots won their last four games, beating Seattle, Oakland, Arizona and Buffalo. Cassel isn't very good.
[It's happening!]
The inevitable off-season Cassel "saga" will be my favorite pointless piece of the spring/summer. Would you want franchise tag a guy (paying him well over $10MM for next season to probably sit on the bench) or sign a guy to a big-money long-term deal who (with the privilege of throwing to Moss and Welker) compiled 3,693 yards (8th in the NFL), a 63.4 comp.% (11th in the NFL), 21 TDs (10th in the NFL) and 11 INTs (14th most in the NFL)?? Oh, and did I mention that he compiled those barely-above-league-average stats against the weakest schedule in the entire NFL this season?
As you know, I've defended Favre all season. I thought the Packers made a mistake letting him go (and they did). I desperately wanted Favre to have a big season in New York.
[VERY little chatter from prominent Favre-huggers in the sports media (other than the "will he retire?" nonsense). One Schrute Buck for Whitlock for taking his medicine.]
It didn't happen. He tossed 22 TDs and 22 INTs, and with the season on the line against the Dolphins and Chad Pennington, "White T.O." tossed three picks and one TD.
[BRUTAL performance.]
To make matters worse, we learned from Jay Glazer that Favre didn't enjoy playing for Eric Mangini because the Jets coach had the audacity to question Favre's decision-making in front of teammates.
[Bingo. Hardly a mention of this in any of the mainstream coverage. I heard that report after the game and thought, "Wow, prima dona much? Maybe I won't buy that pair of Wranglers after all."]
How dare Mangini hold Favre accountable for throwing stupid interceptions? Glazer's report came on the heels of Favre breaking news (or rationalizing a poor season) that his shoulder was dead.
[Wow. Am I becoming a Jason Whitlock fan??]
Belichick is likely to get a big laugh this offseason when some team overpays for Cassel during the free-agent season. Cassel is all smoke and mirrors. The Patriots won their last four games, beating Seattle, Oakland, Arizona and Buffalo. Cassel isn't very good.
[It's happening!]
The inevitable off-season Cassel "saga" will be my favorite pointless piece of the spring/summer. Would you want franchise tag a guy (paying him well over $10MM for next season to probably sit on the bench) or sign a guy to a big-money long-term deal who (with the privilege of throwing to Moss and Welker) compiled 3,693 yards (8th in the NFL), a 63.4 comp.% (11th in the NFL), 21 TDs (10th in the NFL) and 11 INTs (14th most in the NFL)?? Oh, and did I mention that he compiled those barely-above-league-average stats against the weakest schedule in the entire NFL this season?
Jason Whitlock: Vol. 6
We haven't checked in on Whitlock in a while. Let's see what he thought about last night's Alamo Bowl, which was won by Missouri.
I’m sorry to rain on the parade scheduled for Columbia today to celebrate the 10-4 Tigers. But I expected more.
[Awww.]
Northwestern proved Missouri is a fraud.
[Ouch.]
The Tigers’ over-the-top celebration let us know that they know they’ve been overrated and overhyped, benefactors of Bill Snyder, cupcake scheduling.
[OK. Disappointed in the season. I get it.]
What should we call the Missouri Tigers?
[Ummm, overrated and overhyped?]
I’m not sure.
[Oh, OK. I just thought that you said....]
On a night when the Tigers should’ve simply thrown the ball to Chase Coffman 20 times, Mizzou’s big tight end caught seven passes for 67 yards.
["Thrown to" and "passes caught" are two different things. Just ask TO.]
We might one day remember Coffman as the Michael Jordan of college football and Christensen as Dean Smith. Christensen might be the only man capable of holding Coffman to fewer than 10 receptions a game.
[I was thinking the exact same thing.]
I’m sorry to rain on the parade scheduled for Columbia today to celebrate the 10-4 Tigers. But I expected more.
[Awww.]
Northwestern proved Missouri is a fraud.
[Ouch.]
The Tigers’ over-the-top celebration let us know that they know they’ve been overrated and overhyped, benefactors of Bill Snyder, cupcake scheduling.
[OK. Disappointed in the season. I get it.]
What should we call the Missouri Tigers?
[Ummm, overrated and overhyped?]
I’m not sure.
[Oh, OK. I just thought that you said....]
On a night when the Tigers should’ve simply thrown the ball to Chase Coffman 20 times, Mizzou’s big tight end caught seven passes for 67 yards.
["Thrown to" and "passes caught" are two different things. Just ask TO.]
We might one day remember Coffman as the Michael Jordan of college football and Christensen as Dean Smith. Christensen might be the only man capable of holding Coffman to fewer than 10 receptions a game.
[I was thinking the exact same thing.]
Monday, December 29, 2008
OK, Yankees. I see your CC/AJ/Teixiera, and I raise you... an Andruw Jones!
I couldn't resist this hot lead from Buster Olney.
Andruw Jones, coming off a disastrous first season with the Los Angeles Dodgers, has been the subject of trade talks between L.A. and the New York Mets, according to sources.
[Awesome. (Unless you are a Met fan.)]
Jones, who turns 32 next spring, hit .158 with 76 strikeouts in 209 at-bats for the Dodgers in 2008 -- just two years after he mashed 41 homers and drove in 129 runs for the Braves.
[That was *only* two years ago?]
There is a perception within the industry that Jones, who played the first 12 years of his career in Atlanta, was just never comfortable with the Dodgers.
[A "perception?" What gave it away? I bet it was the 76 Ks in 209 ABs. Oh, and also, within this context, "comfortable" = "good at baseball."]
The Mets' intention, if they were to conclude a deal for Jones, would be to play the 10-time Gold Glove center fielder in right field, flanking Carlos Beltran.
[Shouldn't the Mets' intention be to run away from this proposed deal? Like, as far away as possible?]
New York also has been trying to move a player who has fallen out of favor -- second baseman Luis Castillo, who is coming off a poor season and is owed $18 million over the next three seasons. But it's unlikely that the Dodgers would have interest in Castillo, because they have a young second baseman in Blake DeWitt, and Castillo does not play a lot of different positions.
[Great scoop. I smell a blockbuster brewing....]
Andruw Jones, coming off a disastrous first season with the Los Angeles Dodgers, has been the subject of trade talks between L.A. and the New York Mets, according to sources.
[Awesome. (Unless you are a Met fan.)]
Jones, who turns 32 next spring, hit .158 with 76 strikeouts in 209 at-bats for the Dodgers in 2008 -- just two years after he mashed 41 homers and drove in 129 runs for the Braves.
[That was *only* two years ago?]
There is a perception within the industry that Jones, who played the first 12 years of his career in Atlanta, was just never comfortable with the Dodgers.
[A "perception?" What gave it away? I bet it was the 76 Ks in 209 ABs. Oh, and also, within this context, "comfortable" = "good at baseball."]
The Mets' intention, if they were to conclude a deal for Jones, would be to play the 10-time Gold Glove center fielder in right field, flanking Carlos Beltran.
[Shouldn't the Mets' intention be to run away from this proposed deal? Like, as far away as possible?]
New York also has been trying to move a player who has fallen out of favor -- second baseman Luis Castillo, who is coming off a poor season and is owed $18 million over the next three seasons. But it's unlikely that the Dodgers would have interest in Castillo, because they have a young second baseman in Blake DeWitt, and Castillo does not play a lot of different positions.
[Great scoop. I smell a blockbuster brewing....]
Peter King: Vol. 14
Week 17. Let's do this, Pete.
But this was a week for the ages. And lucky me -- I got to see it all in NBC's fifth-floor viewing room at 30 Rock, with nine high-def TVs enthralling the cast of our Football Night in America show.
[Wait a second. Is this King or Mack Brown?]
In Minnesota, Giants, up 19-17 with five seconds left, call a timeout to freeze Ryan Longwell ... Uh, it's Minneapolis. Gotta be a hearty lad here. Nineteen degrees outside ... No Vikes kicker will be frozen today.
[Umm, Pete knows that the Vikings play in a dome, right? It was 71 degrees inside the dome yesterday. "Gotta" be hearty, indeed.]
There are few things in this job I take more seriously than my National Football League MVP vote for the Associated Press.
[His League MVP vote is right behind his paragraph about "all things coffee" that he insists on including in his weekly column. Sorry, Peyton! Get in line!]
My criteria have never changed. The inclusion of the word "valuable'' differentiates this from a player of the year award.
[And the fact that they are separate awards.]
If I'm voting for Offensive Player of the Year, for example, I'm likely voting for the individual who had the best season of anyone on offense[.]
[Yep. Go ahead and re-read that one a few times. I'm not even going to include a joke. Classic.]
For MVP, I ask myself this question: Which player, removed from his team, would have the biggest impact on the team's record?
[Because that isn't a completely arbitrary exercise or anything.]
Matt Ryan? I love him, and I love his candidacy. I can't argue with a soul who'd name him MVP.
[I could. 17th in completion %. 13th in passing yards. 16th in TD passes. 14th in INTs. 11th in QB Rating.]
I have been leaning toward Manning for the past four or five weeks, because I've felt the Colts would have been well below .500 without him....
[Wasn't everyone saying the same thing about the Patriots when Brady went down in Week 1?]
The story of Manning's 11th season is a good story, one he hasn't told this season to anyone else in my business -- to the best of my knowledge.
[I like how people (not just King) think that saying "to the best of my knowledge" absolves them from neglecting to actually research the point they are attempting to make. It is akin to starting a sentence with the phrase "With all due respect," and then assuming that you have immunitiy from whatever critical or insulting comment follows subsequently.]
Now onto the MVP issue. My take is Manning was the keystone to this team starting 3-4 instead of being out of it at 1-6.
[Blah.]
In the final nine games, Manning's 9-0 record led all NFL quarterbacks, Manning's 72-percent accuracy led all NFL quarterbacks, and Manning's 17-to-3 touchdown-to-interception (plus-14) differential led all NFL quarterbacks.
[Finally. There is absolutely a case to be made for Peyton. And this is it. The "keystone" bit? Bag it, Pete.]
Sunday was one of the five worst days in the 49-year history of the Dallas Cowboys.... I came to this conclusion: The Cowboys are the Yankees, in so many ways.
[And by "so many ways," Pete means "I don't like either team."]
New York has spent more money than every other team in baseball for the past eight years and not won a World Series. Dallas has acquired the most famous talent in all of football since 1997 and not won a playoff game. Twelve years, and counting.
[Nice "apples and oragnes" logic fail here.
For Dallas: If x then not y (where y = winning a playoff game).
For the Yankees: If x then not z (where z = winning a World Series).
Because, actually, for the Yankees: If x then LOTS of y.
The Yankees have made the playoffs 13 of the past 14 seasons. Winning playoff games in all of those playoff appearances. Also, the temporal element makes the comparison misleading as well. If Pete were to take the Yankees back twelve years as well, he would stumble upon a few World Series Championships. Nice effort.]
I see the Yankees are interested in signing Warren Buffett, then Bill Gates. But that won't be enough for them. Then they're going to ink three Saudi princes to Triple-A contracts.
[Hilarious.]
But this was a week for the ages. And lucky me -- I got to see it all in NBC's fifth-floor viewing room at 30 Rock, with nine high-def TVs enthralling the cast of our Football Night in America show.
[Wait a second. Is this King or Mack Brown?]
In Minnesota, Giants, up 19-17 with five seconds left, call a timeout to freeze Ryan Longwell ... Uh, it's Minneapolis. Gotta be a hearty lad here. Nineteen degrees outside ... No Vikes kicker will be frozen today.
[Umm, Pete knows that the Vikings play in a dome, right? It was 71 degrees inside the dome yesterday. "Gotta" be hearty, indeed.]
There are few things in this job I take more seriously than my National Football League MVP vote for the Associated Press.
[His League MVP vote is right behind his paragraph about "all things coffee" that he insists on including in his weekly column. Sorry, Peyton! Get in line!]
My criteria have never changed. The inclusion of the word "valuable'' differentiates this from a player of the year award.
[And the fact that they are separate awards.]
If I'm voting for Offensive Player of the Year, for example, I'm likely voting for the individual who had the best season of anyone on offense[.]
[Yep. Go ahead and re-read that one a few times. I'm not even going to include a joke. Classic.]
For MVP, I ask myself this question: Which player, removed from his team, would have the biggest impact on the team's record?
[Because that isn't a completely arbitrary exercise or anything.]
Matt Ryan? I love him, and I love his candidacy. I can't argue with a soul who'd name him MVP.
[I could. 17th in completion %. 13th in passing yards. 16th in TD passes. 14th in INTs. 11th in QB Rating.]
I have been leaning toward Manning for the past four or five weeks, because I've felt the Colts would have been well below .500 without him....
[Wasn't everyone saying the same thing about the Patriots when Brady went down in Week 1?]
The story of Manning's 11th season is a good story, one he hasn't told this season to anyone else in my business -- to the best of my knowledge.
[I like how people (not just King) think that saying "to the best of my knowledge" absolves them from neglecting to actually research the point they are attempting to make. It is akin to starting a sentence with the phrase "With all due respect," and then assuming that you have immunitiy from whatever critical or insulting comment follows subsequently.]
Now onto the MVP issue. My take is Manning was the keystone to this team starting 3-4 instead of being out of it at 1-6.
[Blah.]
In the final nine games, Manning's 9-0 record led all NFL quarterbacks, Manning's 72-percent accuracy led all NFL quarterbacks, and Manning's 17-to-3 touchdown-to-interception (plus-14) differential led all NFL quarterbacks.
[Finally. There is absolutely a case to be made for Peyton. And this is it. The "keystone" bit? Bag it, Pete.]
Sunday was one of the five worst days in the 49-year history of the Dallas Cowboys.... I came to this conclusion: The Cowboys are the Yankees, in so many ways.
[And by "so many ways," Pete means "I don't like either team."]
New York has spent more money than every other team in baseball for the past eight years and not won a World Series. Dallas has acquired the most famous talent in all of football since 1997 and not won a playoff game. Twelve years, and counting.
[Nice "apples and oragnes" logic fail here.
For Dallas: If x then not y (where y = winning a playoff game).
For the Yankees: If x then not z (where z = winning a World Series).
Because, actually, for the Yankees: If x then LOTS of y.
The Yankees have made the playoffs 13 of the past 14 seasons. Winning playoff games in all of those playoff appearances. Also, the temporal element makes the comparison misleading as well. If Pete were to take the Yankees back twelve years as well, he would stumble upon a few World Series Championships. Nice effort.]
I see the Yankees are interested in signing Warren Buffett, then Bill Gates. But that won't be enough for them. Then they're going to ink three Saudi princes to Triple-A contracts.
[Hilarious.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
