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?
Showing posts with label Thursday Thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thursday Thoughts. Show all posts
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Thursday Thoughts - NCAA D1 football forecasts (revised?)
As promised, here's a renewed look at the ten FBS and thirteen FCS conferences as they enter the meat of their in-conference season, and whether we need to reconsider the title favorites now that September's ended...
ACC) We're still settled on the order we liked in the summer in the Atlantic division: Clemson over Florida St (they host the Seminoles Nov 7), followed by NC St, Louisville, BC, Syracuse, and Wake. In the Coastal, though, we're leaning towards Miami (who hosts both GaTech and VaTech) to win, followed by GT, VT, Duke, and NC, with Pitt and Virginia pulling up the rear. (Clemson takes the championship game.)
B1G) Thanks to home field advantage on the 21st of November, we still like Ohio St over Michigan St in the East, with Michigan a solid third, followed by Indiana for a change, PSU, Maryland and Rutgers. Similarly, we still like Wisconsin to meet them in the title game (and lose again), with the surprise Northwestern Wildcats in second, followed by (gulp) Illinois? Could Nebraska and Minnesota really be battling for 4th and 5th? Iowa and Purdue round out the field.
XII) The Big Twelve looks like it may end up a three-way tie between Baylor, TCU, and Oklahoma, and we don't know what their new system for "One True Champion" will be with a three way tie! (Regardless, it'll keep the league out of the CFP for a second straight year!) We'll see if TCU recovers from its woes - if so, they're our favorites. Fourth will be West Virginia, followed by Texas Tech, K-State, OK State, Texas, Iowa St, and Kansas.
PAC-12) Stanford in the North, UCLA/USC winner in the South. (We'll go with the Bruins, as the freshman QB will get better faster than everyone else.) Oregon's relegated to second, with Cal, Washington, Wazzu, and Oregon St up north; Utah third if they win AT Arizona, Az St and Colorado. (We'll take UCLA for the title.)
S-E-C) If Georgia wins this Saturday, it's easy to imagine them going undefeated; certainly, they'll take the East division. We like Florida, Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Vanderbilt to follow. Ole Miss will take the West, followed by A&M, Alabama, LSU, Mississippi St, Auburn and Arkansas. (Do you believe in the Dawgs? We do!)
American!) Temple v Houston for the title, and it would be easy to flip a coin for the winner. The East will end up Temple, Cincinnati, ECU, USF, UCF, and U Conn; the West as Houston, Memphis, Navy, SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane. Pick a winner? Oh, all right...Houston.
Conference USA) Western Kentucky's the best team in the East, but we're not convinced they'll take the division. Marshall should still be the best of the rest, regardless, and MTSU, Old Dominion, FIU, FAU, and Charlotte follow behind. Louisiana Tech is the only team of note in the West (to be followed by Southern Miss, back from long hiatus, Rice, UTEP, UTSA, and North Texas). Since WKU won earlier, we think WKU wins the title rematch, too.
#MACattack) Ohio seems to be the strongest of the Eastern teams (with Bowling Green, Buffalo, Akron, U Mass, Kent St and Miami behind); and the traditional champion (of late) Northern Illinois should be able to beat the directional schools - so IF they can win at Toledo, they'll take the West AND the title game. At the moment, we'll say they won't - give Toledo the title....Third will be Central, then Western, with Ball St before Eastern.
Mountain West) Boise State. Next question.
(Oh, all right. If Utah St beats Colorado St this weekend, they take second; otherwise, reverse it. Follow with Air Force, New Mexico and Wyoming. The Western winner could be anyone - we'll pick Nevada, followed by San Diego St, San Jose St, Hawaii, Fresno St, and UNLV.)
Sun Belt) Just three teams to consider, and since Appalachian State hosts the other two, we'll take them for the title. Georgia Southern and Arkansas State follow close behind, and then there's a gap to UL-Lafayette, Troy, UL-Monroe, Texas St, South Alabama, and a three-way tussle ending with Georgia State ahead of New Mexico State ahead of poor Idaho.
ACC) We're still settled on the order we liked in the summer in the Atlantic division: Clemson over Florida St (they host the Seminoles Nov 7), followed by NC St, Louisville, BC, Syracuse, and Wake. In the Coastal, though, we're leaning towards Miami (who hosts both GaTech and VaTech) to win, followed by GT, VT, Duke, and NC, with Pitt and Virginia pulling up the rear. (Clemson takes the championship game.)
B1G) Thanks to home field advantage on the 21st of November, we still like Ohio St over Michigan St in the East, with Michigan a solid third, followed by Indiana for a change, PSU, Maryland and Rutgers. Similarly, we still like Wisconsin to meet them in the title game (and lose again), with the surprise Northwestern Wildcats in second, followed by (gulp) Illinois? Could Nebraska and Minnesota really be battling for 4th and 5th? Iowa and Purdue round out the field.
XII) The Big Twelve looks like it may end up a three-way tie between Baylor, TCU, and Oklahoma, and we don't know what their new system for "One True Champion" will be with a three way tie! (Regardless, it'll keep the league out of the CFP for a second straight year!) We'll see if TCU recovers from its woes - if so, they're our favorites. Fourth will be West Virginia, followed by Texas Tech, K-State, OK State, Texas, Iowa St, and Kansas.
PAC-12) Stanford in the North, UCLA/USC winner in the South. (We'll go with the Bruins, as the freshman QB will get better faster than everyone else.) Oregon's relegated to second, with Cal, Washington, Wazzu, and Oregon St up north; Utah third if they win AT Arizona, Az St and Colorado. (We'll take UCLA for the title.)
S-E-C) If Georgia wins this Saturday, it's easy to imagine them going undefeated; certainly, they'll take the East division. We like Florida, Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Vanderbilt to follow. Ole Miss will take the West, followed by A&M, Alabama, LSU, Mississippi St, Auburn and Arkansas. (Do you believe in the Dawgs? We do!)
American!) Temple v Houston for the title, and it would be easy to flip a coin for the winner. The East will end up Temple, Cincinnati, ECU, USF, UCF, and U Conn; the West as Houston, Memphis, Navy, SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane. Pick a winner? Oh, all right...Houston.
Conference USA) Western Kentucky's the best team in the East, but we're not convinced they'll take the division. Marshall should still be the best of the rest, regardless, and MTSU, Old Dominion, FIU, FAU, and Charlotte follow behind. Louisiana Tech is the only team of note in the West (to be followed by Southern Miss, back from long hiatus, Rice, UTEP, UTSA, and North Texas). Since WKU won earlier, we think WKU wins the title rematch, too.
#MACattack) Ohio seems to be the strongest of the Eastern teams (with Bowling Green, Buffalo, Akron, U Mass, Kent St and Miami behind); and the traditional champion (of late) Northern Illinois should be able to beat the directional schools - so IF they can win at Toledo, they'll take the West AND the title game. At the moment, we'll say they won't - give Toledo the title....Third will be Central, then Western, with Ball St before Eastern.
Mountain West) Boise State. Next question.
(Oh, all right. If Utah St beats Colorado St this weekend, they take second; otherwise, reverse it. Follow with Air Force, New Mexico and Wyoming. The Western winner could be anyone - we'll pick Nevada, followed by San Diego St, San Jose St, Hawaii, Fresno St, and UNLV.)
Sun Belt) Just three teams to consider, and since Appalachian State hosts the other two, we'll take them for the title. Georgia Southern and Arkansas State follow close behind, and then there's a gap to UL-Lafayette, Troy, UL-Monroe, Texas St, South Alabama, and a three-way tussle ending with Georgia State ahead of New Mexico State ahead of poor Idaho.
--FF--
Big Sky) Hard to know, but despite two early losses, Eastern Washington is still unbeaten in conference and has the inside track towards the title. Also looking at playoff contention are Montana St, Portland St, Montana, and maybe Cal Poly SLO. Next, we're looking at Southern Utah, Northern Arzona, Weber State, North Dakota, Idaho State, Sacramento State, UC Davis, and Northern Colorado.
Big South) Coastal Carolina may only have Liberty to fend off for the title, but both should make the playoffs. Their followers will be Charleston Southern, Presbyterian, Monmouth, Gardner-Webb, and Kennesaw St.
Colonial) James Madison plays AT William & Mary, so while both will be in the post-season, we think the latter wins the conference title. Maybe New Hampshire makes the playoffs, too; after that, it's hard to see anyone else doing so. Maaaay-be Stony Brook. Towson? Richmond? Villanova? Unlikely. Delaware, Albany, Elon? No. Maine? Rhode Island? HAH!
Missouri Valley) NINE of the ten teams could make the playoffs, but we have a hard time imagining the committee allowing more than six in; a shame, because three more will deserve it. Here's our best guess before the cannibalism sets in: South Dakota St, North Dakota St (winner this weekend wins the league), Northern Iowa, Western Illinois, Southern Illinois, and Illinois State; screwed this year will be South Dakota, Youngstown St, and Indiana St. Missouri State will be tenth.
Northeast) Bryant seems to be the best of the lot, and the only one making the post-season. They'll be followed by Duquesne, Sacred Heart, St. Francis, Robert Morris, Wagner, and Central Connecticut State.
Ohio Valley) The question isn't whether or not Jacksonville State will win and make the post-season; it's whether anyone else will be good enough to join them this fall. Best bet would be Eastern Kentucky, and maybe Eastern Illinois. After that, you'll see SE Missouri State, the three Tennessees (UT-Martin, State, and Tech), Murray State, and woeful Austin Peay.
Southern Conference) Chattanooga should be able to win the division, and Furman and Wofford are the next two teams looking for a chance to make it; Western Carolina and Samford will be right behind them. Pulling up the rear will be Mercer, the Citadel, and VMI. (East Tennessee State isn't eligible for either conference title or playoffs; given how they're playing, that's not a concern.)
Southland Conference) It's hard not to stick with Sam Houston State, especially with their perennial success in the playoffs. Lamar and McNeese State and SE Louisiana all have a shot at the playoffs, and if they show well enough the rest of the season as they've done so far, they may make it. After that, Central Arkansas's going to be fifth, with Abilene Christian and Stephen F Austin right behind. Then, Northwestern State will be trailed by the three Sad Sisters of the Southland: Incarnate Word, Nicholls State, and Houston Baptist.
Pioneer) Out of alphabetical order for a reason - any one who doesn't place the Pioneer Football League last doesn't know their FCS football. This season, there's some success from a few teams like Jacksonville, Drake, and our new favorite Dayton - none of whom would have been even .500 in any of the other eight FCS playoff conferences. Following those three, San Diego's probably fourth. After that, we're already into Incarnate Word territory - Morehead State...Marist...Butler and Campbell...Stetson...and the duel between the two worst teams in division one this weekend: Valparaiso and Davidson. Loser gets the title for the rest of the year.
--FF--
The two "Intramural" conferences in New England --> In the Ivy League, Harvard's miles ahead of the competition, and while Dartmouth and Princeton should be second and third, it's hard to believe Yale won't find a way into contention. The bottom four will be Penn, Brown, Cornell and Columbia. Again. The Patriot League should be won equally easily by Fordham, with Colgate second and Lehigh third; Holy Cross, Bucknell, Lafayette and Georgetown bring up the rear.
The two "Historically Black College" conferences along the southern and eastern regions of the country are less defined at the top, In the MEAC, we're going with Bethune-Cookman over South Carolina State, and then a gap to NC A&T, NC Central and Hampton; Morgan State and Norfolk State in there about sixth, Florida A&M and Howard behind them, and finally Delaware State and lowly Savannah State at the bottom.
In the SWAC, the East is dominated by Alcorn State, the only team to win outside the conference; probably Alabama A&M, Alabama State, Jackson State, and terrible Mississippi Valley State at the bottom. In the West, it'll be Southern and Grambling St again, with the Jaguars earning the right to lose to Alcorn. Prairie View will probably end up ahead of Texas Southern, and Arkansas-Pine Bluff at the bottom.
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Terminal Thursday Thoughts
I've talked about this all week, and this is my last scheduled post of the cycle, so let me start and end with the reminder: if you're reading this blog and want it to continue more or less as I'm doing...
The Eagles And Ravens Are Screwed
COMMENT ON THIS POST THIS WEEK!
The issue, of course, is that as much as I love doing this blog, as much as crunching numbers to quantify and align teams at their supposed performance levels is fun for me to do...the time and effort it takes to do the thorough job for all of the teams I feel need to be covered each week is more than I have available to me, at least when you combine that with my regular (read: "paying") job, caring for my children, and the deteriorating condition of my health (which has zero to do with this blog).
In the past, I've had people from Idaho, California, Nevada, North Carolina and Washington who've contacted me about what they've read, and I've known through that kind of anecdotal evidence that we were reaching people, that what we were doing was valued by someone out there. It's not like we need a thousand regular readers, but if we don't have any, which is what the lack of comment feedback suggests, we're just "spitting into the wind", as they say.
If that's not the case, we need you to tell us so.
CONTACT us through the comment section on this or either of the other two posts over the last two days (our regular UPS and DOWNS column, and our PROPHECIES in PHOOTBALL overview of the weekend's procedings (which starts today with the Giants and "Redskins" - an article on line today suggesting the life expectancy of the latter name is close to becoming a finite, definable number).
Here's a thought we were having ourselves that 538 picked up this morning - there seem to be a bunch of "good teams" in the NFL who have started their season 0-2, usually an indicator that the playoffs are out of reach for most. Consider this list of teams: Seattle, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Houston, Detroit, NJ Giants, and Philadelphia. History suggests that ONLY ONE of those seven teams will make it into the post-season! (I've not "forgotten" New Orleans and Chicago. That was intentional.) The chart below in the 538 article shows that of the 7-8 teams over the last two years to go 0-2, only one made the playoffs each year.To make the postseason, most of the time it'll take at least ten wins - and you only have fourteen games left to do so it. A tall order, given that something's not going well to begin with (or you wouldn't be 0-2!).
(By the way, my thought is that the best bet for a playoff team out of this group is the winner of the Indy/Houston race, as Jax and the Titans are unlikely to reach more than eight wins apiece.)
The Eagles And Ravens Are Screwed
By REUBEN FISCHER-BAUM and CHADWICK MATLIN
We’re two weeks into the NFL season, and nine teams are 0-2. But these winless squads are not created equal: The Seattle Seahawks, last season’s NFC champion, are clearly in better shape than the terrible Chicago Bears. Still, two games is an eighth of the season, and two early losses can wipe out even the best teams’ margin of error for the rest of the season.
So, how bad is it to start 0-2? And which of these nine teams have already screwed up their playoff chances?
Thursday, September 10, 2015
THURSDAY THOUGHTS on social issues and sports
WARNING: this may get deep. Bring your waders.
One of the reasons I enjoy watching Australian and Canadian football (besides the fact that I frankly love those versions in their pure form more than the American brand!) is being able to steep myself in their cultural waters. Australia in particular this season has provided a plethora of scenes worth an essay on each, although I've written some about certain issues already this year. As an American, born and bred, my understanding of our own assumptions is heightened by seeing the differences in other countries, especially those of close relationship to our own.
Within the Aussie Rules Football community this season, we've watched them deal magically with the grief following the death of a beloved up-and-coming head coach, a violent death apparently perpetrated out of the blue by his adult son after an argument. The way the AFL community came together to support not only the family and the team involved, but anyone with a passing connection to a really good man (by all accounts) - Phil Walsh, first year coach at Adelaide, formerly assistant coach at Port Adelaide (which suffered this year when he left, as much as their crosstown rivals blossomed), and West Coast, which happened to be the first opponent Adelaide played following his death - a team which could truly empathize with the death of a man they loved as well. Impromptu circles after the game, pouring emotions side by side with playing the game "the way it should be played, for Phil's sake"...it's all culminated in his team making a surprise run to the finals, sitting seventh and playing for a shot at a fairy tale title this year.
They've also dealt with an uglier issue: the vestiges of racism in their society. Watching the rabble's hatred of a proud and outspoken indigenous man, Adam Goodes of the Sydney Swans, who has not been afraid to stand up for his ethnic class and culture, reminds me of how we've treated our indigenous class, our Native Americans, who more than anything have simply stepped aside and let the "white man's culture" overwhelm them and wipe theirs out. More closely, though, the Australian situation resembles the treatment and hatred of the black man by the "redneck" portion of society, the brute who cannot stand the "uppity nigger who doesn't know his place" in society. In the Goodes case, he was getting booed every time he touched the ball by that certain segment of the audience who thinks buying a ticket is a license for churlish behavior. One Sunday afternoon. in Perth, the West Coast audience had a particularly virulent group of booers, and by the fourth quarter, although Goodes himself didn't show it, his "apprentice" Lewis Jetta had heard enough. After scoring a goal, Jetta took the liberty of aggressively performing an indigenous dance of celebration (as Goodes has done during the actual Indigenous Round) and made a point of calling those "fans" out. It became the talking point of the week, and Goodes had decided he'd had enough. He withdrew from the team for a week, citing mental fatigue, and didn't indicate when or if he'd return. The response from the footy community was immediate and intense: Condemnation after condemnation of the racist behavior, followed by every conceivable show of support for Goodes and the indigenous community imaginable. It brought tears to the eyes of many supporters - for me, the most interesting one happened in Sydney itself. Adam Goodes wears number 37, so in the 3rd quarter, at the 7 minute mark, the audience spontaneously stood and started a standing ovation for Goodes, for the indigenous people of Australia, and for the vast majority of good people in that beautiful country. Play went on unabated, with no obvious reason to cheer, and the players said later how confusing and amazing the experience was. Goodes has not had any more issues since returning the next week...but the Sydney Swans return to the west coast again this weekend, playing Fremantle on Saturday. It will be interesting to see how that crowd reacts to him. Will we ever learn our lesson as a people? Not entirely. But little by little, like cancer, it's being eradicated.
Speaking of "cancer", of insidious diseases, Swans superstar Lance "Buddy" Franklin is out indefinitely after a pair of situations have arisen in his life. He had been out for a rib injury, and he'd battled that for a month or more, playing sporadically when he could. Franklin is the sport's first million-dollar-a-year contract, and it's nicknamed him the Bondi Billionaire - Bondi Beach being the resort part of Sydney where he lives. He's also a handsome, well-spoken, Adonis of a man (and indigenous ethnicity, by the way; except he isn't outspoken about it like his teammate Goodes), and engaged to a supermodel named Jesinta Campbell to boot.
In a shocking revelation, two conditions were revealed which will keep the full forward out indefinitely: he has a mild form of epilepsy (and the story came out today about his having a seizure Friday before playing against Gold Coast on the following day, Saturday, to the shock of many medical experts randomly selected by the media for opinions. He played reasonably well that day, however.), as well as "an undisclosed mental health condition" which most of us assume is a form of depression, anxiety, or some such illness as that. The news, for me as a Yank looking on from afar, is the way the Australian culture has embraced him for the sharing of the news (although in the end it seems as if the club was fairly well forced into explaining why their star still wasn't playing when he seems physically healthy), providing strength and comfort from afar, to the delight if not particular surprise of his teammates and his fiancee. "This is no surprise really, in the end we are one family," said teammate Josh Kennedy. His fiancee added, "Thinking of the many others who also live with this everyday and are not as fortunate to have the support we do. I am incredibly proud of Bud's strength and courage; this has not been an easy journey."
How do we treat people with announced "mental illnesses"? Are we in America nearly as accepting? I would argue we are not. Were I to step down from my current post with a "mental illness", even for a temporary sabbatical, the job may not be there later if I want it back. No real sympathy comes in the US for someone dealing with depression or anxiety. Take this from personal experience from a lifelong sufferer - your friends and family, they're the ones who will stand by you. As a culture we only keep the best, and you defectives need to step aside.
Makes me want to move to Australia, except for the 1279 different species of wild animals that can kill you....
One of the reasons I enjoy watching Australian and Canadian football (besides the fact that I frankly love those versions in their pure form more than the American brand!) is being able to steep myself in their cultural waters. Australia in particular this season has provided a plethora of scenes worth an essay on each, although I've written some about certain issues already this year. As an American, born and bred, my understanding of our own assumptions is heightened by seeing the differences in other countries, especially those of close relationship to our own.
Within the Aussie Rules Football community this season, we've watched them deal magically with the grief following the death of a beloved up-and-coming head coach, a violent death apparently perpetrated out of the blue by his adult son after an argument. The way the AFL community came together to support not only the family and the team involved, but anyone with a passing connection to a really good man (by all accounts) - Phil Walsh, first year coach at Adelaide, formerly assistant coach at Port Adelaide (which suffered this year when he left, as much as their crosstown rivals blossomed), and West Coast, which happened to be the first opponent Adelaide played following his death - a team which could truly empathize with the death of a man they loved as well. Impromptu circles after the game, pouring emotions side by side with playing the game "the way it should be played, for Phil's sake"...it's all culminated in his team making a surprise run to the finals, sitting seventh and playing for a shot at a fairy tale title this year.
They've also dealt with an uglier issue: the vestiges of racism in their society. Watching the rabble's hatred of a proud and outspoken indigenous man, Adam Goodes of the Sydney Swans, who has not been afraid to stand up for his ethnic class and culture, reminds me of how we've treated our indigenous class, our Native Americans, who more than anything have simply stepped aside and let the "white man's culture" overwhelm them and wipe theirs out. More closely, though, the Australian situation resembles the treatment and hatred of the black man by the "redneck" portion of society, the brute who cannot stand the "uppity nigger who doesn't know his place" in society. In the Goodes case, he was getting booed every time he touched the ball by that certain segment of the audience who thinks buying a ticket is a license for churlish behavior. One Sunday afternoon. in Perth, the West Coast audience had a particularly virulent group of booers, and by the fourth quarter, although Goodes himself didn't show it, his "apprentice" Lewis Jetta had heard enough. After scoring a goal, Jetta took the liberty of aggressively performing an indigenous dance of celebration (as Goodes has done during the actual Indigenous Round) and made a point of calling those "fans" out. It became the talking point of the week, and Goodes had decided he'd had enough. He withdrew from the team for a week, citing mental fatigue, and didn't indicate when or if he'd return. The response from the footy community was immediate and intense: Condemnation after condemnation of the racist behavior, followed by every conceivable show of support for Goodes and the indigenous community imaginable. It brought tears to the eyes of many supporters - for me, the most interesting one happened in Sydney itself. Adam Goodes wears number 37, so in the 3rd quarter, at the 7 minute mark, the audience spontaneously stood and started a standing ovation for Goodes, for the indigenous people of Australia, and for the vast majority of good people in that beautiful country. Play went on unabated, with no obvious reason to cheer, and the players said later how confusing and amazing the experience was. Goodes has not had any more issues since returning the next week...but the Sydney Swans return to the west coast again this weekend, playing Fremantle on Saturday. It will be interesting to see how that crowd reacts to him. Will we ever learn our lesson as a people? Not entirely. But little by little, like cancer, it's being eradicated.
Speaking of "cancer", of insidious diseases, Swans superstar Lance "Buddy" Franklin is out indefinitely after a pair of situations have arisen in his life. He had been out for a rib injury, and he'd battled that for a month or more, playing sporadically when he could. Franklin is the sport's first million-dollar-a-year contract, and it's nicknamed him the Bondi Billionaire - Bondi Beach being the resort part of Sydney where he lives. He's also a handsome, well-spoken, Adonis of a man (and indigenous ethnicity, by the way; except he isn't outspoken about it like his teammate Goodes), and engaged to a supermodel named Jesinta Campbell to boot.
In a shocking revelation, two conditions were revealed which will keep the full forward out indefinitely: he has a mild form of epilepsy (and the story came out today about his having a seizure Friday before playing against Gold Coast on the following day, Saturday, to the shock of many medical experts randomly selected by the media for opinions. He played reasonably well that day, however.), as well as "an undisclosed mental health condition" which most of us assume is a form of depression, anxiety, or some such illness as that. The news, for me as a Yank looking on from afar, is the way the Australian culture has embraced him for the sharing of the news (although in the end it seems as if the club was fairly well forced into explaining why their star still wasn't playing when he seems physically healthy), providing strength and comfort from afar, to the delight if not particular surprise of his teammates and his fiancee. "This is no surprise really, in the end we are one family," said teammate Josh Kennedy. His fiancee added, "Thinking of the many others who also live with this everyday and are not as fortunate to have the support we do. I am incredibly proud of Bud's strength and courage; this has not been an easy journey."
How do we treat people with announced "mental illnesses"? Are we in America nearly as accepting? I would argue we are not. Were I to step down from my current post with a "mental illness", even for a temporary sabbatical, the job may not be there later if I want it back. No real sympathy comes in the US for someone dealing with depression or anxiety. Take this from personal experience from a lifelong sufferer - your friends and family, they're the ones who will stand by you. As a culture we only keep the best, and you defectives need to step aside.
Makes me want to move to Australia, except for the 1279 different species of wild animals that can kill you....
Thursday, September 3, 2015
THURSDAY THOUGHTS: Responsibility and Integrity of the Game
What is the responsibility of a team to put out its best players for a regular season game, even when it's not otherwise in their best interest to do so?
It seems to happen in a game or two every year, regardless of sport. End of season, one team with something to play for, the other not so much - either because they've got their playoff spot locked up, or they're just biding their time having already been eliminated. (You see it in the NBA mid-year sometimes, when a coach will rest older stars after a tough stretch of games.) Does the second team have an obligation to put a competitive team out there in such a game - either "for the paying customers" or, more usually, "for the integrity of the game"?
As the last round of the AFL season approaches this weekend, there are a couple of games in which this very question arises. Fremantle, having already locked up home field advantage, has no statistical reason to play its stars, and every motivation to rest them for next week's critical opening playoff game. As many as ten of its best players may sit out Saturday's game against ninth place Port Adelaide; fortunately, this game ended up having no bearing on playoff positions, as Port cannot break into the top eight under any circumstances. It did change the betting line from a fairly even game in Adelaide to the current line of almost fifty points in Port's favor, though. Oddly, where it's going to have an impact is in the WAFL, where Fremantle's "minor league feeder team", the Peel Thunder, plays. Peel is in its opening playoff round this weekend...but needs to supply up to ten players to the Dockers to fill out their roster against Port, leaving it undermanned in a playoff game. Business is business, but that seems terribly unfair to the team you've partnered with!
The more punitive scenario this week happens in Melbourne, where Friday's Richmond/North Melbourne match has been sullied (my words) by North's decision to rest up to ten of ITS players this weekend in anticipation of playing the Tigers again next week in an elimination final. By essentially conceding this game (and foregoing, by the way, the potential possibility of moving up as high as sixth if Western were to lose big, and therefore earning a home game themselves!), North has also prevented the Adelaide Crows from the possibility of passing Richmond and thus earning themselves a home game next week, a fact which has the Crows management understandably incensed. The Kangaroos' defense hinges on the fact that they've had two short weeks of preparation in a row (Sunday to Saturday, Saturday to Friday) and the players have been impacted by that: a defensible argument, admittedly. Broadcaster and retired superstar Wayne Carey sported a frightening thought on afl.com.au's "Pick A Winner" broadcast Thursday:
Another situation that happens along these lines is whether or not bottom of the ladder teams need to play their top line players at the end of the season when competing against sides that have "something to play for" or, as is generally accepted, run some youngsters through the mill after their own elimination from contention to see what the potential is for next year and beyond. Very few people question that use of a roster, and in fact if your first team isn't getting the job done, it's often the case that injecting that fresh blood into the lineup will improve the performance of the team anyway!
But what if you're in a system (like virtually every major professional sport is) where your draft order is determined by the reverse order of finish? Doesn't it behoove teams like Brisbane, Carlton, and Gold Coast in the AFL to lose as many games as they can to secure the highest draft position they can? In America, it's the NBA which has suffered under the strongest perception of this tanking prospect (I can think of 76 situations off the top of my head...). and it's what drove the league into the lottery system thirty years ago - a solution which hasn't solved the problem. To their credit, it's hard to make an argument that any of the three AFL teams named has overtly tanked this last month or so - they're just not very good, to be honest. But how do you draw the line?
It brings to mind the high school basketball tournament where both teams tried to lose a game at the same time to avoid playing the top seeded team...and if you click on the link, you'll see just how comical it got. Justifiably, both teams were suspended and removed from the tournament.
But it goes back to sportsmanship, and how you choose to answer the question, "What do we as a team owe the sport, owe the league, and owe our own integrity?"
It seems everyone has a different answer. Many people feel completely justified in the Al Davis / Oakland Raiders approach, "Just Win, Baby!"...which, ironically, doesn't always include the need to try to win; as long as you're doing what's in YOUR best interest, that's all that matters.
I disagree.
There's a risk any time you take the field, yes, but you cannot "turn it on and off" like a switch - ask the Manning Colts in those years when they ran up those 13-1 records and coasted the last couple of games...and proceeded to lose game one of the playoffs to a team who was still in competition mode. If you have legitimately injured players, by all means, rest them. But NEVER tell your players to give less than their best on the field - that's when injuries occur. If you're charging full price for your tickets, your fans deserve a full price game. (Which brings up the travesty of charging full price for pre-season tickets, but that's a subject you can already tell which side of the fence we'll fall on...)
In the end, morals and good sportsmanship MUST win out. If other teams are depending on you to play a fair and competitive game, you need to do so - despite legislative opinion to the contrary, pro sports leagues are ONE entity, working out of a dozen or three franchises, and anything one does that hurts the entirety of the league is a mistake. If that needs to be "legislated" by a commissioner or governing body, you shouldn't be running a sports team: you haven't learned the basics of "sports-man-ship" yet.
It seems to happen in a game or two every year, regardless of sport. End of season, one team with something to play for, the other not so much - either because they've got their playoff spot locked up, or they're just biding their time having already been eliminated. (You see it in the NBA mid-year sometimes, when a coach will rest older stars after a tough stretch of games.) Does the second team have an obligation to put a competitive team out there in such a game - either "for the paying customers" or, more usually, "for the integrity of the game"?
As the last round of the AFL season approaches this weekend, there are a couple of games in which this very question arises. Fremantle, having already locked up home field advantage, has no statistical reason to play its stars, and every motivation to rest them for next week's critical opening playoff game. As many as ten of its best players may sit out Saturday's game against ninth place Port Adelaide; fortunately, this game ended up having no bearing on playoff positions, as Port cannot break into the top eight under any circumstances. It did change the betting line from a fairly even game in Adelaide to the current line of almost fifty points in Port's favor, though. Oddly, where it's going to have an impact is in the WAFL, where Fremantle's "minor league feeder team", the Peel Thunder, plays. Peel is in its opening playoff round this weekend...but needs to supply up to ten players to the Dockers to fill out their roster against Port, leaving it undermanned in a playoff game. Business is business, but that seems terribly unfair to the team you've partnered with!
The more punitive scenario this week happens in Melbourne, where Friday's Richmond/North Melbourne match has been sullied (my words) by North's decision to rest up to ten of ITS players this weekend in anticipation of playing the Tigers again next week in an elimination final. By essentially conceding this game (and foregoing, by the way, the potential possibility of moving up as high as sixth if Western were to lose big, and therefore earning a home game themselves!), North has also prevented the Adelaide Crows from the possibility of passing Richmond and thus earning themselves a home game next week, a fact which has the Crows management understandably incensed. The Kangaroos' defense hinges on the fact that they've had two short weeks of preparation in a row (Sunday to Saturday, Saturday to Friday) and the players have been impacted by that: a defensible argument, admittedly. Broadcaster and retired superstar Wayne Carey sported a frightening thought on afl.com.au's "Pick A Winner" broadcast Thursday:
"The Kangaroos now can put in 8-10 players that are not going to play finals footy. They can go out and maim Richmond players," Carey said on AFL.com.au's Pick A Winner.
"They can go hard, they can be told by Brad Scott 'Go out there, hit this side as hard as you can, because it looks like we'll be playing them again next week'.
"I think the AFL really opened up a can of worms here and watch this space."
Carey said the Roos resting players was "a completely different situation" to minor premiers Fremantle sparing up to 11 regular players a final round trip to face Port Adelaide, because the Dockers-Power clash won't affect finals positions.
"Whereas I think this does manipulate where the Kangaroos and obviously the Tigers and Adelaide (finish), so it does have some bearing on the finals," Carey said.
"This rule has to change, because now the one game that had something riding on it all of a sudden has been manipulated by resting players."
(By the way, Carey was a North Melbourne player himself, so this isn't about bias...)Another situation that happens along these lines is whether or not bottom of the ladder teams need to play their top line players at the end of the season when competing against sides that have "something to play for" or, as is generally accepted, run some youngsters through the mill after their own elimination from contention to see what the potential is for next year and beyond. Very few people question that use of a roster, and in fact if your first team isn't getting the job done, it's often the case that injecting that fresh blood into the lineup will improve the performance of the team anyway!
But what if you're in a system (like virtually every major professional sport is) where your draft order is determined by the reverse order of finish? Doesn't it behoove teams like Brisbane, Carlton, and Gold Coast in the AFL to lose as many games as they can to secure the highest draft position they can? In America, it's the NBA which has suffered under the strongest perception of this tanking prospect (I can think of 76 situations off the top of my head...). and it's what drove the league into the lottery system thirty years ago - a solution which hasn't solved the problem. To their credit, it's hard to make an argument that any of the three AFL teams named has overtly tanked this last month or so - they're just not very good, to be honest. But how do you draw the line?
It brings to mind the high school basketball tournament where both teams tried to lose a game at the same time to avoid playing the top seeded team...and if you click on the link, you'll see just how comical it got. Justifiably, both teams were suspended and removed from the tournament.
But it goes back to sportsmanship, and how you choose to answer the question, "What do we as a team owe the sport, owe the league, and owe our own integrity?"
It seems everyone has a different answer. Many people feel completely justified in the Al Davis / Oakland Raiders approach, "Just Win, Baby!"...which, ironically, doesn't always include the need to try to win; as long as you're doing what's in YOUR best interest, that's all that matters.
I disagree.
There's a risk any time you take the field, yes, but you cannot "turn it on and off" like a switch - ask the Manning Colts in those years when they ran up those 13-1 records and coasted the last couple of games...and proceeded to lose game one of the playoffs to a team who was still in competition mode. If you have legitimately injured players, by all means, rest them. But NEVER tell your players to give less than their best on the field - that's when injuries occur. If you're charging full price for your tickets, your fans deserve a full price game. (Which brings up the travesty of charging full price for pre-season tickets, but that's a subject you can already tell which side of the fence we'll fall on...)
In the end, morals and good sportsmanship MUST win out. If other teams are depending on you to play a fair and competitive game, you need to do so - despite legislative opinion to the contrary, pro sports leagues are ONE entity, working out of a dozen or three franchises, and anything one does that hurts the entirety of the league is a mistake. If that needs to be "legislated" by a commissioner or governing body, you shouldn't be running a sports team: you haven't learned the basics of "sports-man-ship" yet.
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Thursday Thoughts on the FCS Football landscape!
As our oldest son is now in residence at an FCS university (in Pocatello, Idaho, thank you very much!), plus we have a college degree with a rival school from the same conference (in Sacramento, CA), and family ties with a THIRD school in the same conference (in Missoula, Montana), we have a particular fondness for the Division 1-AA "championship subdivision " level of sports, football in particular, and of course that affection radiates from the northwestern sector of the United States, Big Sky country, home of multiple national champions Montana and Eastern Washington, former home of Boise State University (which has since moved on to conquer larger kettles of fish), and the University of Idaho (well, you can't win them all...).
So, without delving into conference and overall records as we did with the FBS last week - simply because we frankly don't know enough about many of the programs except what we read in the box scores - we're game for doing a little more forecasting this week in the twelve FCS conferences: eight who compete for a national championship in a 24-team playoff (hence the name "FCS"); two conferences of erudite Eastern schools who simply have BETTER things to do on a Saturday afternoon in December than watching sweaty men hurl spheroids down a chalk-lined parkway field; and two conferences of historically black colleges (not MY name - they refer to THEMSELVES as "HBCs"!) who choose to playoff against each other instead.
So, in only a vague sense of order of ranking, strongest down...here we go!
MISSOURI VALLEY CONFERENCE: 1. North Dakota St . 2. Illinois St. 3. Northern Iowa, South Dakota St, and Youngstown St. 6. Indiana St. 7. Southern Illinois and Western Illinois. 9. Missouri St. 10. South Dakota.
BIG SKY CONFERENCE: 1. Eastern Washington. 2. Montana St. 3. Montana. 4. Idaho St. 5. Cal Poly SLO and Northern Arizona. 7. Sacramento St. 8. Southern Utah and Weber St. 10-13. Portland St, North Dakota, UC Davis, and Northern Colorado.
COLONIAL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION: 1. New Hampshire / Villanova. 3. James Madison. 4. Richmond. 5. William and Mary. 6. Stony Brook. 7. Albany. 8. Maine. 9. Delaware. 10. Towson. 11. Elon. 12. Rhode Island.
SOUTHLAND CONFERENCE: 1. Sam Houston St. 2. Stephen F Austin. 3. SE Louisiana. 4. Central Arkansas. 5-8. McNeese St, Northwestern St, Abilene Christian, and Lamar. 9. Incarnate Word. 10. Nicholls St. 11. Houston Baptist.
BIG SOUTH CONFERENCE: 1. Coastal Carolina. 2. Liberty. 3. Charleston Southern. 4. Presbyterian. 5. Monmouth. 6. Gardner-Webb. 7. Kennesaw St (in its first year playing football!).
OHIO VALLEY CONFERENCE: 1. Jacksonville St, 2. Eastern Illinois and Eastern Kentucky. 4. UT-Martin. 5. SE Missouri St. 6. Tennessee St and Tennessee Tech. 8. Murray St. 9. Austin Peay.
SOUTHERN CONFERENCE: 1. Chattanooga. 2. Wofford. 3. Samford. 4. Western Carolina 5. The Citadel. 6. Furman. 7. Mercer. 8. VMI. 9. East Tennessee St. (in its first year playing football!)
NORTHEASTERN CONFERENCE: 1. St. Francis-PA / Bryant (winner gets the playoff bid). 3-5. Wagner, Sacred Heart, and Duquesne. 6. Central Connecticut. 7. Robert Morris.
PIONEER FOOTBALL LEAGUE: 1. Jacksonville. 2. San Diego. 3. Dayton. 4. Drake. 5-8. Marist, Campbell, Morehead St and Stetson. 9. Valparaiso. 10. Butler. 11. Davidson.
The 24 underlined teams are projected to receive bids to the FCS national championship tournament, which has eight teams passing through to the second round with byes. Those eight top-seeded teams are anyone's guess, but here's ours: North Dakota St, Illinois St, Northern Iowa, Eastern Washington, Montana, Sam Houston St, Coastal Carolina, and the winner of the New Hampshire/Villanova clash. The three bottom conferences will get their champions in only, and here's hoping that for the first time in its three year history, the Pioneer League champ will be able to participate without infraction penalties preventing it!
There are also four other conferences in Division 1-AA: two comprised of elite prep universities in the northeast which choose not to spend December playing football during finals, and two comprised of "Historically Black Colleges" (HBCs), which have their own arrangement with NBC and ESPN for the Grambling/Southern game and the new "Celebration Bowl" title game matching the two league champs. Here are projections for these four leagues:
IVY LEAGUE: 1. Harvard (again!). 2. Dartmouth. 3. Yale. 4-6. Brown, Princeton, and Penn. 7. Cornell. 8. Columbia.
PATRIOT LEAGUE: 1. Fordham. 2. Lafayette. 3. Colgate. 4. Bucknell. 5. Holy Cross. 6. Lehigh. 7. Georgetown.
SWAC EAST: 1 Alcorn St. 2. Alabama St. 3. Alabama A&M. 4. Mississippi Valley St. 5. Jackson St.
SWAC WEST: 1. Southern. 2. Grambling St. 3. Prairie View A&M. 4-5. Texas Southern and Arkansas Pine Bluff. (Alcorn St over Southern for the title.)
MEAC: 1. North Carolina A&T / South Carolina St. 3. Morgan St. 4. NC Central. 5. Bethune-Cookman. 6-8. Hampton, Howard, and Norfolk St. 9. Florida A&M, home of the biggest band scandal since Stanford! 10. Delaware St. 11. Our favorite team in the world, good ol' Savannah St, who takes on Florida St and Oklahoma for the paycheck and the 88-0 routs.
So, without delving into conference and overall records as we did with the FBS last week - simply because we frankly don't know enough about many of the programs except what we read in the box scores - we're game for doing a little more forecasting this week in the twelve FCS conferences: eight who compete for a national championship in a 24-team playoff (hence the name "FCS"); two conferences of erudite Eastern schools who simply have BETTER things to do on a Saturday afternoon in December than watching sweaty men hurl spheroids down a chalk-lined parkway field; and two conferences of historically black colleges (not MY name - they refer to THEMSELVES as "HBCs"!) who choose to playoff against each other instead.
So, in only a vague sense of order of ranking, strongest down...here we go!
MISSOURI VALLEY CONFERENCE: 1. North Dakota St . 2. Illinois St. 3. Northern Iowa, South Dakota St, and Youngstown St. 6. Indiana St. 7. Southern Illinois and Western Illinois. 9. Missouri St. 10. South Dakota.
BIG SKY CONFERENCE: 1. Eastern Washington. 2. Montana St. 3. Montana. 4. Idaho St. 5. Cal Poly SLO and Northern Arizona. 7. Sacramento St. 8. Southern Utah and Weber St. 10-13. Portland St, North Dakota, UC Davis, and Northern Colorado.
COLONIAL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION: 1. New Hampshire / Villanova. 3. James Madison. 4. Richmond. 5. William and Mary. 6. Stony Brook. 7. Albany. 8. Maine. 9. Delaware. 10. Towson. 11. Elon. 12. Rhode Island.
SOUTHLAND CONFERENCE: 1. Sam Houston St. 2. Stephen F Austin. 3. SE Louisiana. 4. Central Arkansas. 5-8. McNeese St, Northwestern St, Abilene Christian, and Lamar. 9. Incarnate Word. 10. Nicholls St. 11. Houston Baptist.
BIG SOUTH CONFERENCE: 1. Coastal Carolina. 2. Liberty. 3. Charleston Southern. 4. Presbyterian. 5. Monmouth. 6. Gardner-Webb. 7. Kennesaw St (in its first year playing football!).
OHIO VALLEY CONFERENCE: 1. Jacksonville St, 2. Eastern Illinois and Eastern Kentucky. 4. UT-Martin. 5. SE Missouri St. 6. Tennessee St and Tennessee Tech. 8. Murray St. 9. Austin Peay.
SOUTHERN CONFERENCE: 1. Chattanooga. 2. Wofford. 3. Samford. 4. Western Carolina 5. The Citadel. 6. Furman. 7. Mercer. 8. VMI. 9. East Tennessee St. (in its first year playing football!)
NORTHEASTERN CONFERENCE: 1. St. Francis-PA / Bryant (winner gets the playoff bid). 3-5. Wagner, Sacred Heart, and Duquesne. 6. Central Connecticut. 7. Robert Morris.
PIONEER FOOTBALL LEAGUE: 1. Jacksonville. 2. San Diego. 3. Dayton. 4. Drake. 5-8. Marist, Campbell, Morehead St and Stetson. 9. Valparaiso. 10. Butler. 11. Davidson.
The 24 underlined teams are projected to receive bids to the FCS national championship tournament, which has eight teams passing through to the second round with byes. Those eight top-seeded teams are anyone's guess, but here's ours: North Dakota St, Illinois St, Northern Iowa, Eastern Washington, Montana, Sam Houston St, Coastal Carolina, and the winner of the New Hampshire/Villanova clash. The three bottom conferences will get their champions in only, and here's hoping that for the first time in its three year history, the Pioneer League champ will be able to participate without infraction penalties preventing it!
There are also four other conferences in Division 1-AA: two comprised of elite prep universities in the northeast which choose not to spend December playing football during finals, and two comprised of "Historically Black Colleges" (HBCs), which have their own arrangement with NBC and ESPN for the Grambling/Southern game and the new "Celebration Bowl" title game matching the two league champs. Here are projections for these four leagues:
IVY LEAGUE: 1. Harvard (again!). 2. Dartmouth. 3. Yale. 4-6. Brown, Princeton, and Penn. 7. Cornell. 8. Columbia.
PATRIOT LEAGUE: 1. Fordham. 2. Lafayette. 3. Colgate. 4. Bucknell. 5. Holy Cross. 6. Lehigh. 7. Georgetown.
SWAC EAST: 1 Alcorn St. 2. Alabama St. 3. Alabama A&M. 4. Mississippi Valley St. 5. Jackson St.
SWAC WEST: 1. Southern. 2. Grambling St. 3. Prairie View A&M. 4-5. Texas Southern and Arkansas Pine Bluff. (Alcorn St over Southern for the title.)
MEAC: 1. North Carolina A&T / South Carolina St. 3. Morgan St. 4. NC Central. 5. Bethune-Cookman. 6-8. Hampton, Howard, and Norfolk St. 9. Florida A&M, home of the biggest band scandal since Stanford! 10. Delaware St. 11. Our favorite team in the world, good ol' Savannah St, who takes on Florida St and Oklahoma for the paycheck and the 88-0 routs.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
THURSDAY THOUGHTS - Vegas' thoughts on the NFL and NCAA
Welcome to Thursday Thoughts, and today's thoughts are regarding the outcomes of the American brand of football, currently in pre-production but opening at a stadium near you in the next few weeks!
Ya wanna start with the pros first? Okee-doky!
Here are the combined rankings from six leading prognosticators, including scouting combines, media sources, and casino oddsmakers, on a 4-3-2-1 vote from top to bottom:
A perfect score would be 24 (six groups score a team as most likely to win the division). FOUR teams are considered locks to win their NFL divisions...
Not coincidentally, those are the four teams considered most likely to win the Super Bowl this year! Green Bay was chosen as Super Bowl 50 champion in four of the six surveys; Indy and Seattle won one each.
The other division winners are projected as follows:
Auburn, USC (both 15 to 1)
Oregon (17 to 1)
Baylor and Florida St (19 to 1)
LSU and Michigan State (21 to 1)
Clemson and Oklahoma (26 to 1)
Notre Dame (29 to 1)
UCLA, Georgia, and Ole Miss (all 34 to 1)
Mississippi State and Stanford (both 41 to 1)
From there, it descends into about ten teams at each level, as you get into the "just how unrealistic IS this?" game. These numbers seem very typical of the thinking most pundits have at the moment. [My personal thought reading the rest of the list is that if you were going to put a Group of Five team in that CFP this year, it would have to be Boise State, as they're the only one with a track record long enough that an undefeated season might just get them in. It's strange, then, in a season where they're universal favorites to win the Mountain West (only Ohio State is as big a conference fave), they're sitting BEHIND five Group of Five teams, TWO of which are in the Mountain West - the same teams they're predicted to whup this year. Weird. It's not like it's going to ever happen, but it might be worth plunking a fiver down on the Broncos at 251-1 to win the national championship!]
Ohio State is certainly everyone's favorite at the moment, deservedly so. As mentioned, the Buckeyes and Broncos are the only teams in the realm of get-back-less-than-what-you-bet favorites to win their conferences, both around the "bet three or four to win one" dollar mark. But that's a hard target to wear on your back all season long - you'll have to be able to win when you're not playing well. because everyone will come at you with their best shot this year!
Ya wanna start with the pros first? Okee-doky!
Here are the combined rankings from six leading prognosticators, including scouting combines, media sources, and casino oddsmakers, on a 4-3-2-1 vote from top to bottom:
A perfect score would be 24 (six groups score a team as most likely to win the division). FOUR teams are considered locks to win their NFL divisions...
AFC East: New England
AFC South: Indianapolis
NFC North: Green Bay
NFC West: Seattle
Not coincidentally, those are the four teams considered most likely to win the Super Bowl this year! Green Bay was chosen as Super Bowl 50 champion in four of the six surveys; Indy and Seattle won one each.
The other division winners are projected as follows:
AFC West: Denver (5 of 6 chose the Broncos)
AFC North: Baltimore (4 of 6 chose the Ravens)
NFC East: Dallas (3 out of 6 chose the Cowboys, with one tie)
NFC South: Carolina (3 out of six chose the Panthers, with one tie).
Overall, adding up the general perceptions of these six organizations, we get something like this:
AFC playoff teams NFC playoff teams
1. Indianapolis (#3 overall) 1. Green Bay (#1 overall)
2. New England (#4 overall) 2. Seattle (#2 overall)
[So, the consensus is a new match-up in the Super Bowl this year!]
3. Denver (#5 overall) 3. Dallas (#6 overall)
4. Baltimore (#8 overall) 4. Carolina (#14 overall)
5. Pittsburgh (#9 overall) 5. Philadelphia (#7 overall)
6. Cincinnati (#11 overall) 6. Arizona (#10 overall)
[Not many new teams...and close races in the AFC North and NFC East again!...]
Below those teams...
7. Miami (#12 overall) 7. New Orleans (#17 overall)
[AND the NFC South again, though they maybe not so lousy...and Miami missed by ONE vote!]
8. Kansas City (#13 overall) 8. Minnesota (#18 overall)
9. Buffalo (#15 overall) 9. New Jersey Giants (#19 overall)
10. San Diego (#16 overall) 10. Detroit (#21 overall)
11. Houston (#20 overall) 11. Atlanta (#22 overall)
12. New Jersey Jets (#25 overall) 12. St. Louis (#23 overall)
13. Jacksonville (#28 overall) 13. San Francisco (#24 overall)
14. Cleveland (#30 overall) 14. Chicago (#26 overall)
15. Oakland (#31 overall) 15. Washington (#27 overall)
16. Tennessee (#32 overall) 16. Tampa Bay (#29 overall)
Our meta-analysis is that these folks aren't taking the last-becomes-first-overnight nature of the NFL into account enough...but then, how do you predict unpredictability, anyway?
As for the NCAA crown, well, there's one definitive front-runner there, too...
Here are the odds from the top tier of one of the major worldwide gambling sites as of this week:
Winner of the 2016 NCAA (Division 1A) FBS Championship Game
Ohio State (5 to 1 odds)
Alabama (8.5 to 1)
TCU (9 to 1)Auburn, USC (both 15 to 1)
Oregon (17 to 1)
Baylor and Florida St (19 to 1)
LSU and Michigan State (21 to 1)
Clemson and Oklahoma (26 to 1)
Notre Dame (29 to 1)
UCLA, Georgia, and Ole Miss (all 34 to 1)
Mississippi State and Stanford (both 41 to 1)
From there, it descends into about ten teams at each level, as you get into the "just how unrealistic IS this?" game. These numbers seem very typical of the thinking most pundits have at the moment. [My personal thought reading the rest of the list is that if you were going to put a Group of Five team in that CFP this year, it would have to be Boise State, as they're the only one with a track record long enough that an undefeated season might just get them in. It's strange, then, in a season where they're universal favorites to win the Mountain West (only Ohio State is as big a conference fave), they're sitting BEHIND five Group of Five teams, TWO of which are in the Mountain West - the same teams they're predicted to whup this year. Weird. It's not like it's going to ever happen, but it might be worth plunking a fiver down on the Broncos at 251-1 to win the national championship!]
Ohio State is certainly everyone's favorite at the moment, deservedly so. As mentioned, the Buckeyes and Broncos are the only teams in the realm of get-back-less-than-what-you-bet favorites to win their conferences, both around the "bet three or four to win one" dollar mark. But that's a hard target to wear on your back all season long - you'll have to be able to win when you're not playing well. because everyone will come at you with their best shot this year!
Thursday, August 13, 2015
THURSDAY THOUGHTS - Playoff Structures
Every Thursday, mas o menos, we'll examine any of a wide range of topics that WE think might be of interest to more than just us here at Following Football ACNC. Most of the time, we'll probably look most at topics that put some compare and contrast between the various versions of the obloid ball game we all love, and this week is absolutely along those lines.
Let's take a look at the structure of the playoff tournament each organization uses to determine its champion!
Length and timing of season vs playoffs:
AFL: March through August (23 weeks); September (4 weeks). The Aussies are approaching the END of the winter season down under, so they're four weeks from "finals" already.
CFL: June through October (20 weeks); November (3 weeks). With a more inclimate winter up north, the Canadians smartly finish up before the worst of Winter weather hits starting in December. Week 8 is currently underway, as Edmonton plays in Montreal tonight.
NCAA: September through December (15 weeks - remember when it was just 12?); January (2 weeks, after a month off). Famously, the Bowl Subdivision didn't even HAVE a championship game until 20 years ago; last year, they very successfully switched to a four team playoff tournament for the first time, following the bowl season (hence the delay). The lower divisions have larger tournaments - 16, 24 teams - starting the week after the season ends in November.
NFL: September through January (17 weeks); January into February (5 weeks, including its all-star game the week before the title game). The "Super Bowl", the NFL's title game, is the largest annual TV audience of any game in the world (only the World Cup in futbol every four years outpaces it), so having a two week break before it must be the right move.)
Number of teams involved: season vs playoffs:
AFL: 18 reduces to 8 for finals. 44% make the playoffs. My preference, along with the NFL. Teams at the top fight for home field advantages (and "double chances"; more on that later), while teams in the middle fight just to get in. About 1/3 spend the past several games knowing they won't play in September, but they really SHOULDN'T be. Unwritten rule: if you can't break .500, you shouldn't play for a title. The AFL avoids that just about every year.
CFL: 9 reduces to 6 for playoffs. 67% make the playoffs. BOOOO! You're virtually guaranteeing losing records in the playoffs, three games from a Grey Cup title! They do make one concession which is VERY clever: after the top two teams in each division, they take the next two best records, even if they're the same division, like last year (BC got in over Montreal, adding one more winning record). It also adds one element of suspense...you not only start jockeying for position around .500, but you've gotta look across to the other division at the fourth place team as well! Still, wouldn't four be enough?
NCAA: 128 reduces to 4 for playoffs, 3% make the playoffs, chosen by committee. Ludicrous, on the surface, except when you recall where college football came from. In reality, the committee is choosing four of the five major conference champions, allowing for a wild card if it makes more sense. In reality, it should do a good job in choosing the season's BEST team, probably more so than allowing the CFL's fourth place East team into the playoffs, or letting the second place team in the Mountain West have a bid in a 16 or 24 team tournament.
NFL: 32 reduces to 12 for playoffs, 38% make the playoffs. Perfect - see the AFL comments. Home field's a BIG deal when winter starts hitting hard in January!
Playoff format:
NCAA: single elimination, semis and finals, neutral fields. The simplest, but they've done all the paring down before they got here, anyway.
CFL: division winners get a bye, division places two and three play at higher seed; winner plays at division leader; title game at neutral field. Good system for six teams, no matter what level.
NFL: similar - six teams in each conference use the exact same format (higher seed home field throughout); title game at a neutral site, usually one without weather issues.
AFL: Unusual format, designed to help the top four teams survive - in week one, #1 hosts #4, and #2 hosts #3. The winners get the next week OFF, moved on to the semis. The losers play the WINNERS of the other two games (5 hosts 8 and 6 hosts 7), while the losers of those latter games are out. So, in the third week, the two teams with the week off host the winner of the loser/winner week 2 game, for the right to play in Melbourne in the Grand Final. In theory, then, a 4th place team would probably lose to a #1 seed, play the winner of the #5/#8 game, and if they win, they'd get the chance to play the #2 team for a chance at the title. Meanwhile a #6 team, for example, has to win four straight games for the title.
THE WINNER? A cop out: they all work for thir respective leagues, although I wish the CFL let two fewer teams in the tourney.
Let's take a look at the structure of the playoff tournament each organization uses to determine its champion!
Length and timing of season vs playoffs:
AFL: March through August (23 weeks); September (4 weeks). The Aussies are approaching the END of the winter season down under, so they're four weeks from "finals" already.
CFL: June through October (20 weeks); November (3 weeks). With a more inclimate winter up north, the Canadians smartly finish up before the worst of Winter weather hits starting in December. Week 8 is currently underway, as Edmonton plays in Montreal tonight.
NCAA: September through December (15 weeks - remember when it was just 12?); January (2 weeks, after a month off). Famously, the Bowl Subdivision didn't even HAVE a championship game until 20 years ago; last year, they very successfully switched to a four team playoff tournament for the first time, following the bowl season (hence the delay). The lower divisions have larger tournaments - 16, 24 teams - starting the week after the season ends in November.
NFL: September through January (17 weeks); January into February (5 weeks, including its all-star game the week before the title game). The "Super Bowl", the NFL's title game, is the largest annual TV audience of any game in the world (only the World Cup in futbol every four years outpaces it), so having a two week break before it must be the right move.)
Number of teams involved: season vs playoffs:
AFL: 18 reduces to 8 for finals. 44% make the playoffs. My preference, along with the NFL. Teams at the top fight for home field advantages (and "double chances"; more on that later), while teams in the middle fight just to get in. About 1/3 spend the past several games knowing they won't play in September, but they really SHOULDN'T be. Unwritten rule: if you can't break .500, you shouldn't play for a title. The AFL avoids that just about every year.
CFL: 9 reduces to 6 for playoffs. 67% make the playoffs. BOOOO! You're virtually guaranteeing losing records in the playoffs, three games from a Grey Cup title! They do make one concession which is VERY clever: after the top two teams in each division, they take the next two best records, even if they're the same division, like last year (BC got in over Montreal, adding one more winning record). It also adds one element of suspense...you not only start jockeying for position around .500, but you've gotta look across to the other division at the fourth place team as well! Still, wouldn't four be enough?
NCAA: 128 reduces to 4 for playoffs, 3% make the playoffs, chosen by committee. Ludicrous, on the surface, except when you recall where college football came from. In reality, the committee is choosing four of the five major conference champions, allowing for a wild card if it makes more sense. In reality, it should do a good job in choosing the season's BEST team, probably more so than allowing the CFL's fourth place East team into the playoffs, or letting the second place team in the Mountain West have a bid in a 16 or 24 team tournament.
NFL: 32 reduces to 12 for playoffs, 38% make the playoffs. Perfect - see the AFL comments. Home field's a BIG deal when winter starts hitting hard in January!
Playoff format:
NCAA: single elimination, semis and finals, neutral fields. The simplest, but they've done all the paring down before they got here, anyway.
CFL: division winners get a bye, division places two and three play at higher seed; winner plays at division leader; title game at neutral field. Good system for six teams, no matter what level.
NFL: similar - six teams in each conference use the exact same format (higher seed home field throughout); title game at a neutral site, usually one without weather issues.
AFL: Unusual format, designed to help the top four teams survive - in week one, #1 hosts #4, and #2 hosts #3. The winners get the next week OFF, moved on to the semis. The losers play the WINNERS of the other two games (5 hosts 8 and 6 hosts 7), while the losers of those latter games are out. So, in the third week, the two teams with the week off host the winner of the loser/winner week 2 game, for the right to play in Melbourne in the Grand Final. In theory, then, a 4th place team would probably lose to a #1 seed, play the winner of the #5/#8 game, and if they win, they'd get the chance to play the #2 team for a chance at the title. Meanwhile a #6 team, for example, has to win four straight games for the title.
THE WINNER? A cop out: they all work for thir respective leagues, although I wish the CFL let two fewer teams in the tourney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)