Thursday Thoughts - Braindroppings

Today, we want to jump all over the landscape and ask a ton of questions, point out a ton of interesting thoughts, and...well, if George Carlin were still around, he'd call these "Braindroppings"! So, here goes!

What makes a team a dynasty? Three titles in a row, like Hawthorn just achieved in the AFL? Does five in fifteen years count, like the NBA's San Antonio Spurs? What about the Patriots, who've won four and been to seven Super Bowls in the Belechick/Brady era (about fourteen years)? Certainly the 1950s-60s Boston Celtics count - they're the very definition of a dynasty! Eight in a row, eleven in thirteen years...but which of those is more important? Is winning over a long period of time, even if you missed a couple in between, "better" than the string over three or four years? What do you think?

Concussion protocols...without question, better than it's been in previous years, when you could convince your coach you were good to go play even when the other team seems to have twice as many players as they legally should have. But please, footy, football, every other kind of real contact sport - don't assume the problem's fixed! The iffy nature of concussions to begin with makes dealing with them nebulous in the best of times, and as we learn more and more about how much time it actually takes to recover from the hit, we have to change how we deal with it. Opinion?

Specials... which is what many coaches call "trick plays". Washington pulled a good one last night, a double pass which scored their first touchdown and led to an upset of USC in LA. SC State had a great one that I first saw the Rams pull on Seattle last year, where you have a punt returner fake like he's getting the punt, when in reality it's the guy on the opposite sideline who's catching the ball and (in last night's game) scoring a touchdown on the runback! (Bethune-Cookman won anyway, however, in a game which may have decided the MEAC.) So, the question that bugs some people is this - are "specials" basically cheating? If you can't win playing "correctly" (or "like men", if you want to really get machismo on this), you have to "resort to trick plays" to try to "cheat" your way to victory! My response - first of all, the plays are legal, so it's not cheating. Second of all, it's the brain versus brawn argument, and football has room for both. If you're okay with a team using the forward pass to win, which many in the early days of the AAFC and NFL weren't for the same reason (c'mon! Be a man and run at me!), you really can't complain about the double pass, or any other "trickeration", as our idol Chris Petersen would say. Petersen, of course, was the one who called the double pass that beat USC last night, and famously brought the house down in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl with a host of trick plays at the end of the game to pull out the Boise State victory over vaunted Oklahoma. What most people forget is that, until a great OU drive and a brainfade interception, Boise had OU soundly beaten (28-10, late in the third) with old-fashioned, hard-nosed, "my linemen are better than yours" football. You've gotta have the guys who can pull it off, too. Your thoughts?

Speaking of Boise v Oklahoma, the perpetual argument over whether a school from outside the Power Five conferences should ever play for a national championship rages, and will continue to until one gets in and then wins the tournament. The CFP folks threw the Group of Five conferences a nice bone by guaranteeing their best team a spot in the high-paying bowl games in the New Year's Six, which is more than they've had. But what if (to choose a team besides Boise, our personal favorite!) Temple or Toledo, both of whom look spectacular this year, goes undefeated in 2015, looks phenomenal in doing so, and two of the power conferences fail to produce any team the committee feels is worthy of a playoff bid? Who's to say that an undefeated Temple isn't a better choice than, say, a three-loss Florida State? What would be wrong with that? Think back to that 2007 Fiesta Bowl, which some say was the best game of all time (as much as I love Boise St, I'd go with USC/Texas in the BCS title game the year Vince Young won it for the Longhorns). Utah had been the first "mid-major" to qualify for a big bowl, but they played a five-loss Pitt team from a pathetic Big East, won, and proved nothing. Boise was the first mid-major to play in the spotlight against a top ten team - and not just any, but 7-time national champion Oklahoma, Big 12 champs, one loss, Adrian Peterson at RB. Somehow the screwed up rankings had BSU #7 and OU #9, but the Sooners were absurd betting favorites - David and Goliath was referenced multiple times in the intro. BSU dominated the game, and if it weren't for a Bronco punt coverage mistake late in the 3rd, Oklahoma was ready to give up. In fact, over the span of games that mid-major teams played in BCS bowl games, their record was 5-2. (And one of those losses was to another mid-major, when they pitted TCU and BSU against each other the year they both qualified. The other was Hawaii's debacle loss to Georgia, proving there's an exception to every rule.) Why can't a Boise St, a Houston, a Memphis, a Toledo, a Temple, a Navy, a Northern Illinois play for the title?

Bodybag games...New Mexico State is getting about a million dollars towards balancing its athletic budget ($4.4 M over, last year) to go to the University of Mississippi and be a forty-three point underdog to a top-notch SEC team. Basically, they're being paid to be the Washington Generals. Remember the Generals? The Globetrotters' perpetual opponents? Name anything about them besides that. Thought so... Ole Miss wants a week off from the gauntlet of the SEC, wants to fill their stadium, give their fans a "guaranteed win" (as LSU will tell you about Jacksonville St, "no such thing"!), and is giving about a one-seventh share of the profits to the opponent for the privilege of being beaten badly. Some teams are notorious for needing these games to stay afloat - Following Football's favorite team, the MEAC's punching bag Savannah State, played Oklahoma St and Florida St in consecutive weeks two years ago, lost the first one 88-0, and would've lost the second to the national champs by worse if they hadn't gone to a running clock in the second half to finish early and avoid a storm coming in. Up here in the Northwest, I always pity the Idaho Vandals, who moved to the big-time because Boise St did, but in little Moscow, Idaho, they don't have the fan base or the resources to afford the lifestyle of an FBS football program. So instead of being the top-notch FCS program they were for decades, rivals with the Montanas of the realm, they're stuck as a bottom-feeder in the lowly Sun Belt conference, taking two payday games a year (this year at USC and Auburn) to financially survive another one-win season. Where's the shame in moving to FCS before your entire program disbands (see UAB)? Why don't schools like NMSU, Idaho, and several others improve both their bottom line AND their competitive results and return to the FCS where their school setting suggests they should be anyway? Your thoughts?