What a week. Oakland police shoot a veteran in the head. Brilliant strategy for mayors and police chiefs everywhere to emulate in showing which side they're on.
European leaders double down on bank bailouts at the expense of reforming the financial system. I'm sure European voters will love that. Plus, the economics of more leverage solving a problem of excess leverage makes obvious sense, and China, one of the poorest countries in the world, clearly should be investing in such a scheme. The classic win-win-win. Maybe the EU's banker-lackeys can hit up Turkmenistan and Algeria next. Or maybe the Dominican Republic and Jamaica. Libya's gold has to be sitting around somewhere.
President Obama's approval ratings have fallen below 50% among Millennials, and a top Democratic fundraiser has openly protested a fundraising event. Representative Cantor is going around cancelling speeches that might be attended by actual Americans. The canon chancellor of St. Paul's cathedral in London has resigned because of pressure by the church and the financial district to use force against protestors. The son of the Vice President, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, has now launched a lawsuit directly against MERS.
But then, of course, there's the St. Louis Cardinals, with one of the most epic finishes in all of sports during one of the most epic finishes in all of sports. Makes the 0-2 Chiefs playing for the division lead on Monday Night Football on Halloween seem downright pedestrian. And what's up with the Big 12? Does it want to be a a major conference or not?
Eh, that can wait til next week.
Showing posts with label sports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sports. Show all posts
10/28/2011
10/11/2011
baseball and wall street
I think the Occupy Wall Street crowd picked impeccable timing. The Yankees and Red Sox are both out of the playoffs. Detroit's the only team left even in the Eastern time zone.
With flyover country carrying the baseball battalion this year, might as well do something else. I'm sure this was an integral part of the planning.
Maybe a Cardinal will do some PR for Veterans for Peace. We could call it learning geography by protest. The corporate media in places like NY and LA might be shocked to learn we Midwesterners despise fraud and inequality and warmongering, too. Red and blue are for sports teams, not the Constitution.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
With flyover country carrying the baseball battalion this year, might as well do something else. I'm sure this was an integral part of the planning.
Maybe a Cardinal will do some PR for Veterans for Peace. We could call it learning geography by protest. The corporate media in places like NY and LA might be shocked to learn we Midwesterners despise fraud and inequality and warmongering, too. Red and blue are for sports teams, not the Constitution.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5/09/2011
beat the streak
Barry Ritholtz has made me think of baseball. He highlighted information from Zillow about housing prices, specifically, an interesting tidbit that prices have fallen for 57 consecutive months.
60 years ago, Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio embarked on two of the greatest feats in modern sports history. Williams finished an entire season with a batting average above .400, while DiMaggio hit safely in 56 straight games.
No hitter has been able to approach 56 since then.
60 years ago, Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio embarked on two of the greatest feats in modern sports history. Williams finished an entire season with a batting average above .400, while DiMaggio hit safely in 56 straight games.
No hitter has been able to approach 56 since then.
12/07/2010
2010 pre-bowl rankings
I continue to find it fascinating when various commentators care more about what they wish had happened during this particular football season than actually analyzing the actual season that was actually played.
To recap:
1. The Pac-10 has had a rough season. Only two teams have fewer than five losses. The third team in the conference is 6-6. Only four teams have winning records. Fully half the conference isn't bowl eligible - counting sanctioned USC among the bowl-eligible. Even in the Big East, three quarters of the conference is bowl-eligible. The WAC and MWC both have half their teams bowl-eligible (9 of the 18 total teams in the two leagues). And obviously, the Pac-10 thinks enough of Utah (and Colorado, for that matter) to beg them to join.
2. The Big Ten, similarly, is Aces and spaces. Only three teams have fewer than five losses. Heck, only three teams have winning records in conference play. Unlike the Pac-10, at least there are three quality programs instead of two and the bulk of the league is headed to a bowl game. But similarly to the Pac-10, those top teams played very few games against quality opponents.
3. Name the best team Stanford has beaten all year. Five loss Notre Dame? Or perhaps you prefer the five loss USC team that lost to Notre Dame? Or five loss Arizona? Similarly,
4. Name the best team Ohio State has beaten all year? The five loss Iowa team that lost to the above-mentioned five loss Arizona team? The five loss Miami team that, in addition to losing to Big East South Florida, lost to fellow ACC teams Florida State and Virginia Tech, teams which were themselves beaten by Oklahoma and Boise State? In contrast,
5. Michigan State, Nevada, and Boise State are one-loss teams that have much better wins than Stanford and Ohio State. Is it even relevant that Michigan State beat Wisconsin, who beat Ohio State?
6. And then there are the two-loss teams. Oklahoma, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and LSU are all teams with more impressive wins than Stanford and Ohio State. Arkansas gets into the BCS because the Sugar Bowl won't pick a slate without an SEC team, and Oklahoma gets to the Fiesta Bowl as Big 12 champs. LSU can't get in because the BCS only allows two teams per conference. This leaves two other slots. No way should Stanford and Ohio State be ranked above all three of the other one loss teams plus the two available two-loss teams. So,
7. Voila. We'll be subjected to another month of hearing about 'big name programs' and 'talent' and 'matchups' and basically anything to distract from those inconvenient 2010 Ws and Ls.
8. Bowl records don't prove anything. The point is who deserves to get there; most any team has a shot at beating most any other team in one game. However, this could be a particularly clear year about the over-ratedness of Ohio State and Stanford and the supremacy of the Big 12. The Big 12 in its finale as a twelve team league stands a very good chance of only losing one or two bowl games.
9. Nebraska hasn't been helping the Big 12. I'll organize some thoughts at some point about the transition of the Big 12. But the short story is that losing to Nebraska hurts those other Big 12 teams a lot, while Nebraska's wins hasn't helped them get ranked highly or helped those teams that beat Nebraska jump up the standings. It's no coincidence that both the Pac-10 and Big Ten are sending at-large teams, while the Big 12, with four ten win teams, gets none. Oregon is getting into the national championship over TCU.
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Michigan State
5. Oklahoma
6. Missouri
7. Arkansas
8. Wisconsin
9. LSU
10. Oklahoma State
11. Nevada
12. Boise State
13. Ohio State
14. Stanford
15. Virginia Tech
16. Texas A&M
17. Nebraska
18. Alabama
19. Utah
20. Florida State
21. South Carolina
22. West Virginia
23. Mississippi State
24. Hawaii
25. San Diego State
To recap:
1. The Pac-10 has had a rough season. Only two teams have fewer than five losses. The third team in the conference is 6-6. Only four teams have winning records. Fully half the conference isn't bowl eligible - counting sanctioned USC among the bowl-eligible. Even in the Big East, three quarters of the conference is bowl-eligible. The WAC and MWC both have half their teams bowl-eligible (9 of the 18 total teams in the two leagues). And obviously, the Pac-10 thinks enough of Utah (and Colorado, for that matter) to beg them to join.
2. The Big Ten, similarly, is Aces and spaces. Only three teams have fewer than five losses. Heck, only three teams have winning records in conference play. Unlike the Pac-10, at least there are three quality programs instead of two and the bulk of the league is headed to a bowl game. But similarly to the Pac-10, those top teams played very few games against quality opponents.
3. Name the best team Stanford has beaten all year. Five loss Notre Dame? Or perhaps you prefer the five loss USC team that lost to Notre Dame? Or five loss Arizona? Similarly,
4. Name the best team Ohio State has beaten all year? The five loss Iowa team that lost to the above-mentioned five loss Arizona team? The five loss Miami team that, in addition to losing to Big East South Florida, lost to fellow ACC teams Florida State and Virginia Tech, teams which were themselves beaten by Oklahoma and Boise State? In contrast,
5. Michigan State, Nevada, and Boise State are one-loss teams that have much better wins than Stanford and Ohio State. Is it even relevant that Michigan State beat Wisconsin, who beat Ohio State?
6. And then there are the two-loss teams. Oklahoma, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and LSU are all teams with more impressive wins than Stanford and Ohio State. Arkansas gets into the BCS because the Sugar Bowl won't pick a slate without an SEC team, and Oklahoma gets to the Fiesta Bowl as Big 12 champs. LSU can't get in because the BCS only allows two teams per conference. This leaves two other slots. No way should Stanford and Ohio State be ranked above all three of the other one loss teams plus the two available two-loss teams. So,
7. Voila. We'll be subjected to another month of hearing about 'big name programs' and 'talent' and 'matchups' and basically anything to distract from those inconvenient 2010 Ws and Ls.
8. Bowl records don't prove anything. The point is who deserves to get there; most any team has a shot at beating most any other team in one game. However, this could be a particularly clear year about the over-ratedness of Ohio State and Stanford and the supremacy of the Big 12. The Big 12 in its finale as a twelve team league stands a very good chance of only losing one or two bowl games.
9. Nebraska hasn't been helping the Big 12. I'll organize some thoughts at some point about the transition of the Big 12. But the short story is that losing to Nebraska hurts those other Big 12 teams a lot, while Nebraska's wins hasn't helped them get ranked highly or helped those teams that beat Nebraska jump up the standings. It's no coincidence that both the Pac-10 and Big Ten are sending at-large teams, while the Big 12, with four ten win teams, gets none. Oregon is getting into the national championship over TCU.
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Michigan State
5. Oklahoma
6. Missouri
7. Arkansas
8. Wisconsin
9. LSU
10. Oklahoma State
11. Nevada
12. Boise State
13. Ohio State
14. Stanford
15. Virginia Tech
16. Texas A&M
17. Nebraska
18. Alabama
19. Utah
20. Florida State
21. South Carolina
22. West Virginia
23. Mississippi State
24. Hawaii
25. San Diego State
11/30/2010
no wonder the pac-10 needs utah
I've decided on a new way of looking at the Pac-10 this year. They're not a weak major conference. They're a good mid-major conference. It looks very much like the Mountain West and WAC, from the disparity between top and bottom right down to recruiting Utah to join the Pac-10. Fully half of the conference will finish the season with a losing record - unless, of course, Arizona picks up its fifth loss and Oregon its first. Stanford and Oregon have only beaten three teams each with a winning record all season. They each face just four bowl-eligible teams - including sanctioned USC.
This perspective helps address what to do with the fact that there are four one loss teams which I just don't think have had as good a season as most of the two loss teams. Specifically: Stanford, Nevada, Boise State, and Ohio State. Of those four, Nevada and Boise State have the best wins, not Stanford and Ohio State.
It's also the problem with the BCS. Not the rankings themselves so much as how the bowls choose their participants. If Stanford is good enough for a bowl, then so is Nevada and Boise. On the other hand, if the Sugar Bowl gets to pick Arkansas because they're in the SEC, that shows the problem with not having a BCS bowl in the Big 12. Over the long term, the easiest solution is adding the Cotton Bowl or creating some bowl with a particular tie-in to the Big 12 that's actually in the Big 12. In the short-term, my solution this year is to have the Sugar Bowl be Arkansas and Missouri.
As for the rest, here's a take a little different than most, but mostly in line now that Auburn is clearly at the top, TCU better than Boise, and Alabama now having the 5th best season in the SEC:
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Michigan State
5. Nebraska
6. Missouri
7. Arkansas
8. Wisconsin
9. Oklahoma
10. LSU
11. Oklahoma State
12. Ohio State
13. Nevada
14. Boise State
15. Stanford
16. Virginia Tech
17. Texas A&M
18. South Carolina
19. Alabama
20. Florida State
21. Utah
22. Mississippi State
23. Arizona
24. West Virginia
25. San Diego State
This perspective helps address what to do with the fact that there are four one loss teams which I just don't think have had as good a season as most of the two loss teams. Specifically: Stanford, Nevada, Boise State, and Ohio State. Of those four, Nevada and Boise State have the best wins, not Stanford and Ohio State.
It's also the problem with the BCS. Not the rankings themselves so much as how the bowls choose their participants. If Stanford is good enough for a bowl, then so is Nevada and Boise. On the other hand, if the Sugar Bowl gets to pick Arkansas because they're in the SEC, that shows the problem with not having a BCS bowl in the Big 12. Over the long term, the easiest solution is adding the Cotton Bowl or creating some bowl with a particular tie-in to the Big 12 that's actually in the Big 12. In the short-term, my solution this year is to have the Sugar Bowl be Arkansas and Missouri.
As for the rest, here's a take a little different than most, but mostly in line now that Auburn is clearly at the top, TCU better than Boise, and Alabama now having the 5th best season in the SEC:
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Michigan State
5. Nebraska
6. Missouri
7. Arkansas
8. Wisconsin
9. Oklahoma
10. LSU
11. Oklahoma State
12. Ohio State
13. Nevada
14. Boise State
15. Stanford
16. Virginia Tech
17. Texas A&M
18. South Carolina
19. Alabama
20. Florida State
21. Utah
22. Mississippi State
23. Arizona
24. West Virginia
25. San Diego State
11/22/2010
finale for the ages
Whatever else there is to say about the season, the Big 12 is going out in style. When you look at the combination of top teams, bowl eligible teams, and race for the champion, no other conference is close. The SEC is having a down year; that happens from time to time. Their conference championship game has already been decided; Auburn and South Carolina can both lose and they'll still face each other. It's really the Pac 10 and Big Ten I would pick on. The Pac 10 is awful. Fully half of the conference has a losing record. Assuming Oregon doesn't embarrass itself at Arizona, the Pac 10 only has two teams with fewer than four losses! Outside of their game against each other, Oregon and Stanford won't have played a single top 20 team all season. That's unbelievable when you think about it.
Meanwhile, in the Big Ten, there are three good teams. Everybody else has at least four losses there, too. And the one that won the head-to-head matchup isn't the one getting the respect. However, because Michigan State and Ohio State didn't play each other this year, that means they also, like Oregon and Stanford, had no other game in the entire season against a top 20 team.
At least the SEC, like the Big 12, has had its top teams playing good competition for more than one game. And the ACC and Big East are having competitive races; their shortfall is a lack of victories by their top teams out of conference.
In contrast, in the Big 12, every top team has played multiple games against other top teams. If Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M had only played one top 20 team, all five of them would have zero or one losses. Think about that. Every top team took care of non-conference games. Even bottom teams, like Colorado and Kansas, have wins against non-conference opponents like Hawaii, Georgia, and Georgia Tech. The championship game won't be determined until the very end of the season. There's a legitimate shot of having either ten bowl eligible teams or four different teams with at least ten wins each.
It seems fitting that part of the story comes down to Big 12 quitters Colorado and Nebraska. Does CU end its Big 12 run with an embarrassing season, or do they send NU packing with a gut-wrenching loss?
Meanwhile, in the Big Ten, there are three good teams. Everybody else has at least four losses there, too. And the one that won the head-to-head matchup isn't the one getting the respect. However, because Michigan State and Ohio State didn't play each other this year, that means they also, like Oregon and Stanford, had no other game in the entire season against a top 20 team.
At least the SEC, like the Big 12, has had its top teams playing good competition for more than one game. And the ACC and Big East are having competitive races; their shortfall is a lack of victories by their top teams out of conference.
In contrast, in the Big 12, every top team has played multiple games against other top teams. If Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M had only played one top 20 team, all five of them would have zero or one losses. Think about that. Every top team took care of non-conference games. Even bottom teams, like Colorado and Kansas, have wins against non-conference opponents like Hawaii, Georgia, and Georgia Tech. The championship game won't be determined until the very end of the season. There's a legitimate shot of having either ten bowl eligible teams or four different teams with at least ten wins each.
It seems fitting that part of the story comes down to Big 12 quitters Colorado and Nebraska. Does CU end its Big 12 run with an embarrassing season, or do they send NU packing with a gut-wrenching loss?
11/15/2010
i am spartacus
The title of this post takes as inspiration the hilarious police-state saga of Robin Hood airport in England. A frustrated airline passenger made a joke. On Twitter. And authorities, naturally, took it in stride.
By fining him for threatening to blow up the airport.
In response, thousands of people started using the hashtag iamspartacus.
Perhaps the Michigan State Spartans need a similar flurry of activity. The human voters seem to think they're not, like, in first place in the Big Ten. You know, having beaten Wisconsin. Like, on the field. During the season. The same Wisconsin team that turned around and beat Ohio State. On the field. During the season.
LSU, Missouri, and Oklahoma State are of course still underrated by the humans, as well, and Boise State remains overrated. This is the week I bump Oregon over TCU, too; a little bit sad, but it looks like Oregon really should be there. Utah, San Diego State, and Baylor are good wins, but the Stanford win for Oregon just seems to outweigh that now.
There is some good news, though. Alabama bias is officially over. And it looks very likely that the national championship will have Auburn, Oregon, and/or TCU. So come on humans, you are making progress. We're almost there.
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Boise State
5. LSU
6. Nebraska
7. Michigan State
8. Oklahoma State
9. Stanford
10. Wisconsin
11. Ohio State
12. Alabama
13. Missouri
14. Oklahoma
15. Arkansas
16. Virginia Tech
17. Texas A&M
18. South Carolina
19. Mississippi State
20. Iowa
21. Arizona
22. NC State
23. Florida State
24. Utah
25. Nevada
By fining him for threatening to blow up the airport.
In response, thousands of people started using the hashtag iamspartacus.
Perhaps the Michigan State Spartans need a similar flurry of activity. The human voters seem to think they're not, like, in first place in the Big Ten. You know, having beaten Wisconsin. Like, on the field. During the season. The same Wisconsin team that turned around and beat Ohio State. On the field. During the season.
LSU, Missouri, and Oklahoma State are of course still underrated by the humans, as well, and Boise State remains overrated. This is the week I bump Oregon over TCU, too; a little bit sad, but it looks like Oregon really should be there. Utah, San Diego State, and Baylor are good wins, but the Stanford win for Oregon just seems to outweigh that now.
There is some good news, though. Alabama bias is officially over. And it looks very likely that the national championship will have Auburn, Oregon, and/or TCU. So come on humans, you are making progress. We're almost there.
1. Auburn
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. Boise State
5. LSU
6. Nebraska
7. Michigan State
8. Oklahoma State
9. Stanford
10. Wisconsin
11. Ohio State
12. Alabama
13. Missouri
14. Oklahoma
15. Arkansas
16. Virginia Tech
17. Texas A&M
18. South Carolina
19. Mississippi State
20. Iowa
21. Arizona
22. NC State
23. Florida State
24. Utah
25. Nevada
11/08/2010
week 11 rankings
This is why they play the games. Alabama is still the third best team in the SEC.
And Michigan State still leads the Big Ten.
And horror of horrors, Nebraska is the best team in the Big 12 the year they are leaving. At least Colorado sucks; that helps, slightly.
The humans have acknowledged their SEC errors, and they now have TCU ahead of Boise State, but they still show silliness up north. Therefore, another ranking is necessary to correct these deficiencies.
1. Auburn
2. TCU
3. Oregon
4. Boise State
5. Nebraska
6. LSU
7. Michigan State
8. Oklahoma State
9. Stanford
10. Wisconsin
11. Ohio State
12. Alabama
13. Missouri
14. Oklahoma
15. Arizona
16. Iowa
17. Arkansas
18. Mississippi State
19. Utah
20. Virginia Tech
21. Baylor
22. Kansas State
23. Texas A&M
24. Florida State
25. Florida
Subject to change with the actual games played next week, of course.
And Michigan State still leads the Big Ten.
And horror of horrors, Nebraska is the best team in the Big 12 the year they are leaving. At least Colorado sucks; that helps, slightly.
The humans have acknowledged their SEC errors, and they now have TCU ahead of Boise State, but they still show silliness up north. Therefore, another ranking is necessary to correct these deficiencies.
1. Auburn
2. TCU
3. Oregon
4. Boise State
5. Nebraska
6. LSU
7. Michigan State
8. Oklahoma State
9. Stanford
10. Wisconsin
11. Ohio State
12. Alabama
13. Missouri
14. Oklahoma
15. Arizona
16. Iowa
17. Arkansas
18. Mississippi State
19. Utah
20. Virginia Tech
21. Baylor
22. Kansas State
23. Texas A&M
24. Florida State
25. Florida
Subject to change with the actual games played next week, of course.
11/07/2010
good thing dc was awesome
The Chiefs and Tigers had very similar road meltdowns this weekend. So sad. At least last weekend was fun.
11/05/2010
fed rally sports trifecta
I'm actually home enough now to a put a few thoughts down! The past couple weeks have been fantastically busy.
DC was absolutely gorgeous this past weekend. Warm for Halloween, brilliantly clear skies, perfect backdrop against the Capitol. We overwhelmed the city; literally. There were people waiting so long for the subway in the morning that they didn't make it to the mall by the time the rally was over. It took Doug over half an hour just to buy a ticket at 9 in the morning. Oh, and Jon, there are bees in DC in October. One was buzzing around our section of the crowd for about half the rally.
The Federal Reserve is even more anxious and insecure than I imagined. They're so afraid now that they openly view the public as the enemy, personified beautifully by how they handle their flagship building, the Eccles building. One of the great structures to come out of the Great Depression, it's built in dignified stone and marble on Constitution Ave overlooking the northwest end of the mall. We just don't build like that anymore. Unlike many other government buildings in the area, this structure is built back from the road, allowing a simple public plaza area between the steps and the street. Fountains and stone benches flank the sides, while stone pathways and open grassy areas comprise the middle.
Bernanke has instructed his security guards to chase off American citizens having the audacity to use this public plaza, far away from the actual entrance to the building. On a Sunday afternoon. With the Marine Corps Marathon running along Constitution Ave. I never knew how powerful a scrawny white dude was to confront our failed and fraudulent financial crooks until I was literally chased away from their HQ. I can't think of anything that would better symbolize what is going on in our country right now.
Except maybe college football voters. Just totally bizarre. Nebraska is ranked 6th by the computers, 10.5 by the humans. LSU tied Nebraska for 6th in the computers, but has an 11.5 by the humans. The machines have Michigan State at 10; it's 15.5 for the humans. Missouri is number 4 in the computers, 14.5 in the human polls. Of course, Alabama and Ohio State work the other way: 15 and 16 in the computer rankings, 5 and 8 in the human polls.
This is getting to the point where it's hysterically funny. Michigan State is number 1 in the Big Ten right now, except the humans think they're number 3. Missouri and LSU both lost to much better teams than Alabama, so of course the humans think Alabama is having a much better season. Forget playoffs. We should just select the BCS participants from the preseason prognostications. Playing the games seems to be an irrelevant waste of time. I can't wait to see how this weekend turns out. And I do wonder if Nebraska is going to get the Missouri treatment. What if Missouri wins out, Nebraska loses in the Big 12 Championship, and then the BCS selects Missouri over Nebraska the way Kansas was chosen over Missouri a couple years ago?
DC was absolutely gorgeous this past weekend. Warm for Halloween, brilliantly clear skies, perfect backdrop against the Capitol. We overwhelmed the city; literally. There were people waiting so long for the subway in the morning that they didn't make it to the mall by the time the rally was over. It took Doug over half an hour just to buy a ticket at 9 in the morning. Oh, and Jon, there are bees in DC in October. One was buzzing around our section of the crowd for about half the rally.
The Federal Reserve is even more anxious and insecure than I imagined. They're so afraid now that they openly view the public as the enemy, personified beautifully by how they handle their flagship building, the Eccles building. One of the great structures to come out of the Great Depression, it's built in dignified stone and marble on Constitution Ave overlooking the northwest end of the mall. We just don't build like that anymore. Unlike many other government buildings in the area, this structure is built back from the road, allowing a simple public plaza area between the steps and the street. Fountains and stone benches flank the sides, while stone pathways and open grassy areas comprise the middle.
Bernanke has instructed his security guards to chase off American citizens having the audacity to use this public plaza, far away from the actual entrance to the building. On a Sunday afternoon. With the Marine Corps Marathon running along Constitution Ave. I never knew how powerful a scrawny white dude was to confront our failed and fraudulent financial crooks until I was literally chased away from their HQ. I can't think of anything that would better symbolize what is going on in our country right now.
Except maybe college football voters. Just totally bizarre. Nebraska is ranked 6th by the computers, 10.5 by the humans. LSU tied Nebraska for 6th in the computers, but has an 11.5 by the humans. The machines have Michigan State at 10; it's 15.5 for the humans. Missouri is number 4 in the computers, 14.5 in the human polls. Of course, Alabama and Ohio State work the other way: 15 and 16 in the computer rankings, 5 and 8 in the human polls.
This is getting to the point where it's hysterically funny. Michigan State is number 1 in the Big Ten right now, except the humans think they're number 3. Missouri and LSU both lost to much better teams than Alabama, so of course the humans think Alabama is having a much better season. Forget playoffs. We should just select the BCS participants from the preseason prognostications. Playing the games seems to be an irrelevant waste of time. I can't wait to see how this weekend turns out. And I do wonder if Nebraska is going to get the Missouri treatment. What if Missouri wins out, Nebraska loses in the Big 12 Championship, and then the BCS selects Missouri over Nebraska the way Kansas was chosen over Missouri a couple years ago?
10/27/2010
(non-election) polls and margins of victory
Earlier this week was a detailed post. Today a specific example of one problem with lazy poll voters in college football: the margin of victory. Quite simply, margin of victory in itself is a relatively useless bit of information. Every game is unique.
Using margin of victory creates hilariously ridiculous constructs.
For example, margin of victory is one of the few things that people who rank a team like Boise State over a team like Missouri or Auburn can point to as evidence for why Boise State is a 'better' team. Well, here's a little fun comparison. Colorado is either the second to worst or worst team in the Big 12 (that will be decided when CU plays KU). This Colorado team beat Hawaii 31-13, an 18 point spread.
That's the same Hawaii that's tied for first in the WAC, Boise State's conference.
Now, Hawaii and Boise State have both played Louisiana Tech, another WAC team. Hawaii won by 20 points, and Boise State by 29. Using margin of victory, that makes Boise State look a little more impressive than Hawaii. How much more impressive does that make them look than Colorado? Then, if you learn that Missouri beat Colorado by 26 points, how would you compare Boise State and Missouri? This sort of exercise wouldn't suggest that Missouri and Boise State are roughly equal teams. It would suggest that Colorado and Boise State are roughly equal teams, with Missouri being notably better.
Now, I don't think Missouri is significantly superior to Boise State; I think they're pretty evenly matched teams, actually. But if you're going to apply concepts other than wins/losses and strength of schedule, then you have to be prepared to accept that sometimes, the additional factors can make things even more bizarre. If you subtract Colorado's 18 point spread from Boise State's points, that makes their margins of victory look a lot less impressive.
Expecting schools like Michigan State, Missouri, or Auburn to post point spreads remotely close to Boise State (or Oregon, for that matter, whose only game against a team with a winning record so far is Stanford) is comical.
Fortunately, the season is long enough that if the Spartans, Tigers, and Tigers continue winning, they will jump Oregon and Boise State. But particularly with Boise State, the question is, why wouldn't they already have jumped them? They've got the same record. They've beaten better opponents. And margin of victory looks pretty similar when the games in question are actually analyzed. All three of the Big 12/SEC/Big Ten undefeateds have shown they can win by over 20 points. They just can't do that regularly against top opponents.
After all, just look at the score from the Boise State - Virginia Tech game. Boise State won by a whopping three points, less than Michigan State's ten point victory over Wisconsin, less than Missouri's nine point victory over Oklahoma, and less than Auburn's seven point victory over LSU. Both the human pollsters and the computers agree that Virginia Tech is not as good as Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and LSU.
I think it's highly unlikely that all three of these teams remain undefeated. But at least one of them might, and it will be really interesting at that juncture to hear why people place Oregon, Boise State, and/or some one-loss team (say, Alabama) ahead of them.
Using margin of victory creates hilariously ridiculous constructs.
For example, margin of victory is one of the few things that people who rank a team like Boise State over a team like Missouri or Auburn can point to as evidence for why Boise State is a 'better' team. Well, here's a little fun comparison. Colorado is either the second to worst or worst team in the Big 12 (that will be decided when CU plays KU). This Colorado team beat Hawaii 31-13, an 18 point spread.
That's the same Hawaii that's tied for first in the WAC, Boise State's conference.
Now, Hawaii and Boise State have both played Louisiana Tech, another WAC team. Hawaii won by 20 points, and Boise State by 29. Using margin of victory, that makes Boise State look a little more impressive than Hawaii. How much more impressive does that make them look than Colorado? Then, if you learn that Missouri beat Colorado by 26 points, how would you compare Boise State and Missouri? This sort of exercise wouldn't suggest that Missouri and Boise State are roughly equal teams. It would suggest that Colorado and Boise State are roughly equal teams, with Missouri being notably better.
Now, I don't think Missouri is significantly superior to Boise State; I think they're pretty evenly matched teams, actually. But if you're going to apply concepts other than wins/losses and strength of schedule, then you have to be prepared to accept that sometimes, the additional factors can make things even more bizarre. If you subtract Colorado's 18 point spread from Boise State's points, that makes their margins of victory look a lot less impressive.
Expecting schools like Michigan State, Missouri, or Auburn to post point spreads remotely close to Boise State (or Oregon, for that matter, whose only game against a team with a winning record so far is Stanford) is comical.
Fortunately, the season is long enough that if the Spartans, Tigers, and Tigers continue winning, they will jump Oregon and Boise State. But particularly with Boise State, the question is, why wouldn't they already have jumped them? They've got the same record. They've beaten better opponents. And margin of victory looks pretty similar when the games in question are actually analyzed. All three of the Big 12/SEC/Big Ten undefeateds have shown they can win by over 20 points. They just can't do that regularly against top opponents.
After all, just look at the score from the Boise State - Virginia Tech game. Boise State won by a whopping three points, less than Michigan State's ten point victory over Wisconsin, less than Missouri's nine point victory over Oklahoma, and less than Auburn's seven point victory over LSU. Both the human pollsters and the computers agree that Virginia Tech is not as good as Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and LSU.
I think it's highly unlikely that all three of these teams remain undefeated. But at least one of them might, and it will be really interesting at that juncture to hear why people place Oregon, Boise State, and/or some one-loss team (say, Alabama) ahead of them.
10/26/2010
machines smarter than humans, again
I was prepared for this to be a slow, sad sports season, really. The Chiefs and Rams are coming off of horrific stretches. The Big 12 is saying farewell to Nebraska, heading east, and Colorado, looking west. And there are More Important Things, from the economy and midterm elections to new phases for family and friends. Not to mention that I'm behind on computer games.
But dang nabbit, something is in the water this fall. After a hot summer, this fall has been fantastic. Missouri's NFL franchises are 7-6. That's a winning record; better seasons for both teams have already been assured and we're less than half way through this season!
The Missouri Tigers have also won 7 games. Without losing any. To top it off, the Spartans are undefeated as well, while the media darlings of Alabama and Ohio State have both lost a game already.
And that's where this all comes to a head. The silly season of incoherent poll voters is in full swing. For all the incessant yacking and yammering about how awful the BCS is, the main problem is that the human polls account for twice as much weighting as the computers. (human) Pollsters that do things like looking at prior years instead of the current year. Or assign present values based upon what they believe will happen in the future instead of what has already happened up to this point. Or apply different criteria to different teams. It's truly bizarre, and this season demonstrates the madness in several ways, particularly looking at the most basic things in sports: the win-loss record and strength of competition.
In years when there is lots of chaos caused by few or no teams with unblemished records, the challenge becomes how do you rank teams that have lost games. But the first half of this season is comprised of something rather straightforward: There's an undefeated team in the Big 12, the SEC, the Big Ten, the Pac 10, the Mountain West (which has two), and the WAC. It's pretty simple. This is the absence of chaos; it's called order. These are the teams you talk about first, before looking at the bigger picture. And when you start actually looking at 2010's undefeated teams, I'd argue it becomes pretty clear that there are four teams that have distanced themselves from the pack. None of them, by the way, have the names of Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, or Boise State. Nope, the top tier of teams for the first half of the 2010 season are, in alphabetical order, Auburn, Michigan State, Missouri, and TCU.
In order to rank a team above those four, some other consideration has to come into play. And in order for that to be legitimate, that consideration has to be applied to all teams. That's the key point: consistency. The computers bring it in spades. The polls, well, sometimes I'm not sure what they're smokin'.
Here's how the BCS computers rank the top four teams:
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
Here's the Harris and USA Today polls:
1. Oregon
2. Boise State
3. Auburn
4. TCU
To demonstrate the overwhelming stranglehold of the humans over the BCS - even though all you'll hear in the media is pundits decrying the horrible choices of the computers - is to look at the combined rankings. Oregon and Boise State remain in the top 4.
And this leads us to the natural question: what consideration is being applied equally to reach this kind of disparity by teh humanz? The computers think the SEC leader should play the Big 12 leader for the national championship, with the Big Ten and Mountain West leaders being the runners up. The human polls don't put either Auburn or Missouri in the top 2, and they don't include Missouri or Michigan State in the top 4 at all!
Poll voters aren't just not biased against Boise State and Oregon. They're rabidly biased in favor of them, to the point of crowding out the real story lines of the first half of the season. In fact, there's such a drop-off after my top four teams, that the computers handle this in an interesting way. They put one-loss Oklahoma at number 5. And one-loss LSU ties Boise State for sixth, then Oregon at number 8.
Then there's the matter of one-loss teams. There's no way around the human stupidity of ranking Alabama so highly. None. When Missouri loses to Nebraska, then you can rank Alabama higher - but that loss hasn't happened yet! It's not just Missouri that's slighted by Alabama bias, though. Every one loss team suffers. You see, not only is Alabama not on some semi-pro uberwonderseason, but they haven't even put together the best first half of the season among one loss teams. Their loss at South Carolina is worse than Oklahoma's loss at Missouri, or Wisconsin's at Michigan State, or Ohio State's at Wisconsin, or Stanford's at Oregon, or Florida State's at Oklahoma, or LSU's at Auburn, or Oklahoma State's loss to Nebraska. In fact, what's remarkable about Alabama's loss compared to other top one-loss teams is how badly they got beat by a lesser team than the victors of all those other one-loss teams.
Oh, but it's the quality wins you say, not the losses? Ah, interesting. What teams have Oregon and Boise State beat again (this year) to warrant placing them ahead of Auburn, Missouri, Michigan State, and TCU? Uh-huh. And then when we look specifically at Alabama, they haven't beaten anybody with fewer than two losses. Wisconsin has beaten Ohio State. Nebraska has beaten Oklahoma State. Oklahoma has beaten Florida State. Heck, even Stanford's win over USC is as high a quality as any victory on Alabama's schedule so far.
The computers recognize this, too, and rank Alabama accordingly: at number 12. Alabama is a great team, one of the best in the country. They just don't belong in the Top Ten until they beat Auburn and LSU - which, as of now, they haven't done - and until Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah, Wisconsin, and Ohio State lose more games - which, as of now, hasn't happened, either.
So if it's not being undefeated, and it's not the quality of wins, and it's not the quality of losses, how are pollsters making decisions? Is it the conference?
Well, TCU is in the only conference with two unbeaten teams, and other schools like Air Force and San Diego State are playing competitively, too. That's all the more reason to rank them ahead of Boise State. The Big 12, meanwhile, is putting on a conference finale for the ages. Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma State are all quality programs. In the Embarrassment of the Season Bowl, Colorado beat Georgia. Heck, Baylor is bowl eligible, Texas is simply middle of the pack, and Kansas managed to beat Georgia Tech. In the Big Ten, meanwhile, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Iowa all look very solid. Oh yeah, Michigan has a guy who can make headlines. It's also interesting that Iowa is ranked so much more highly by humans than machines; why wouldn't the Big Ten love be going to Michigan State, first and foremost? And Illinois beat the same Penn State team Alabama did. In a bizarre twist, the SEC luster isn't rubbing off on the conference's undefeated team, or even the team it beat. Rather, it's the third best SEC performance of the first half, Alabama, hogging all the (human) headlines.
After all, we can't have preseason prognosticators bothered by how the season actually turns out. I mean, imagine if the World Series wasn't the Yanks and Phillies? How could Texas and San Francisco even be worth talking about?
Unfortunately, this post has to be this long, because it's absolutely necessary to point out the inherent contradiction which the humans can't shake: it simply can't be that Boise State and Oregon are having great years while it is also true that Alabama is having a great year. The second half of the season could very well play out differently, particularly with possible losses for Missouri at Nebraska, Michigan State at Iowa, Auburn at Alabama, and TCU/Utah. But as we mark the roughly halfway point through the season, it needs reminding in all the biased pundit hype that so far in the 2010 season, the computers are smarter than the pollsters. The problem with using coaches to rank these things is that coaches have a far more important demand on their time - coaching. There's no evil conspiracy here, just an unfortunate problem with relying so heavily on the human polls. Fortunately, there's a simple solution. Have the computer rankings account for half the score, rather than 1/3.
So, here's where I place things. I will re-arrange accordingly after my higher ranked teams actually lose and the lower ranked teams actually win. And remember, the computers will adjust, too. They have no pre-season prediction egos to feed. That's probably why the media blathers on about how horrible the machines are. Change is scary.
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
5. Oregon
6. Boise State
7. Utah
8. Oklahoma
9. Wisconsin
10. Ohio State
11. LSU
12. Alabama
13. Nebraska
14. Florida State
15. Oklahoma State
16. Stanford
17. Arizona
18. Mississippi State
19. Iowa
20. Baylor
21. South Carolina
22. Arkansas
23. Virginia Tech
24. Miami
25. San Diego State
But dang nabbit, something is in the water this fall. After a hot summer, this fall has been fantastic. Missouri's NFL franchises are 7-6. That's a winning record; better seasons for both teams have already been assured and we're less than half way through this season!
The Missouri Tigers have also won 7 games. Without losing any. To top it off, the Spartans are undefeated as well, while the media darlings of Alabama and Ohio State have both lost a game already.
And that's where this all comes to a head. The silly season of incoherent poll voters is in full swing. For all the incessant yacking and yammering about how awful the BCS is, the main problem is that the human polls account for twice as much weighting as the computers. (human) Pollsters that do things like looking at prior years instead of the current year. Or assign present values based upon what they believe will happen in the future instead of what has already happened up to this point. Or apply different criteria to different teams. It's truly bizarre, and this season demonstrates the madness in several ways, particularly looking at the most basic things in sports: the win-loss record and strength of competition.
In years when there is lots of chaos caused by few or no teams with unblemished records, the challenge becomes how do you rank teams that have lost games. But the first half of this season is comprised of something rather straightforward: There's an undefeated team in the Big 12, the SEC, the Big Ten, the Pac 10, the Mountain West (which has two), and the WAC. It's pretty simple. This is the absence of chaos; it's called order. These are the teams you talk about first, before looking at the bigger picture. And when you start actually looking at 2010's undefeated teams, I'd argue it becomes pretty clear that there are four teams that have distanced themselves from the pack. None of them, by the way, have the names of Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, or Boise State. Nope, the top tier of teams for the first half of the 2010 season are, in alphabetical order, Auburn, Michigan State, Missouri, and TCU.
In order to rank a team above those four, some other consideration has to come into play. And in order for that to be legitimate, that consideration has to be applied to all teams. That's the key point: consistency. The computers bring it in spades. The polls, well, sometimes I'm not sure what they're smokin'.
Here's how the BCS computers rank the top four teams:
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
Here's the Harris and USA Today polls:
1. Oregon
2. Boise State
3. Auburn
4. TCU
To demonstrate the overwhelming stranglehold of the humans over the BCS - even though all you'll hear in the media is pundits decrying the horrible choices of the computers - is to look at the combined rankings. Oregon and Boise State remain in the top 4.
And this leads us to the natural question: what consideration is being applied equally to reach this kind of disparity by teh humanz? The computers think the SEC leader should play the Big 12 leader for the national championship, with the Big Ten and Mountain West leaders being the runners up. The human polls don't put either Auburn or Missouri in the top 2, and they don't include Missouri or Michigan State in the top 4 at all!
Poll voters aren't just not biased against Boise State and Oregon. They're rabidly biased in favor of them, to the point of crowding out the real story lines of the first half of the season. In fact, there's such a drop-off after my top four teams, that the computers handle this in an interesting way. They put one-loss Oklahoma at number 5. And one-loss LSU ties Boise State for sixth, then Oregon at number 8.
Then there's the matter of one-loss teams. There's no way around the human stupidity of ranking Alabama so highly. None. When Missouri loses to Nebraska, then you can rank Alabama higher - but that loss hasn't happened yet! It's not just Missouri that's slighted by Alabama bias, though. Every one loss team suffers. You see, not only is Alabama not on some semi-pro uberwonderseason, but they haven't even put together the best first half of the season among one loss teams. Their loss at South Carolina is worse than Oklahoma's loss at Missouri, or Wisconsin's at Michigan State, or Ohio State's at Wisconsin, or Stanford's at Oregon, or Florida State's at Oklahoma, or LSU's at Auburn, or Oklahoma State's loss to Nebraska. In fact, what's remarkable about Alabama's loss compared to other top one-loss teams is how badly they got beat by a lesser team than the victors of all those other one-loss teams.
Oh, but it's the quality wins you say, not the losses? Ah, interesting. What teams have Oregon and Boise State beat again (this year) to warrant placing them ahead of Auburn, Missouri, Michigan State, and TCU? Uh-huh. And then when we look specifically at Alabama, they haven't beaten anybody with fewer than two losses. Wisconsin has beaten Ohio State. Nebraska has beaten Oklahoma State. Oklahoma has beaten Florida State. Heck, even Stanford's win over USC is as high a quality as any victory on Alabama's schedule so far.
The computers recognize this, too, and rank Alabama accordingly: at number 12. Alabama is a great team, one of the best in the country. They just don't belong in the Top Ten until they beat Auburn and LSU - which, as of now, they haven't done - and until Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah, Wisconsin, and Ohio State lose more games - which, as of now, hasn't happened, either.
So if it's not being undefeated, and it's not the quality of wins, and it's not the quality of losses, how are pollsters making decisions? Is it the conference?
Well, TCU is in the only conference with two unbeaten teams, and other schools like Air Force and San Diego State are playing competitively, too. That's all the more reason to rank them ahead of Boise State. The Big 12, meanwhile, is putting on a conference finale for the ages. Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma State are all quality programs. In the Embarrassment of the Season Bowl, Colorado beat Georgia. Heck, Baylor is bowl eligible, Texas is simply middle of the pack, and Kansas managed to beat Georgia Tech. In the Big Ten, meanwhile, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Iowa all look very solid. Oh yeah, Michigan has a guy who can make headlines. It's also interesting that Iowa is ranked so much more highly by humans than machines; why wouldn't the Big Ten love be going to Michigan State, first and foremost? And Illinois beat the same Penn State team Alabama did. In a bizarre twist, the SEC luster isn't rubbing off on the conference's undefeated team, or even the team it beat. Rather, it's the third best SEC performance of the first half, Alabama, hogging all the (human) headlines.
After all, we can't have preseason prognosticators bothered by how the season actually turns out. I mean, imagine if the World Series wasn't the Yanks and Phillies? How could Texas and San Francisco even be worth talking about?
Unfortunately, this post has to be this long, because it's absolutely necessary to point out the inherent contradiction which the humans can't shake: it simply can't be that Boise State and Oregon are having great years while it is also true that Alabama is having a great year. The second half of the season could very well play out differently, particularly with possible losses for Missouri at Nebraska, Michigan State at Iowa, Auburn at Alabama, and TCU/Utah. But as we mark the roughly halfway point through the season, it needs reminding in all the biased pundit hype that so far in the 2010 season, the computers are smarter than the pollsters. The problem with using coaches to rank these things is that coaches have a far more important demand on their time - coaching. There's no evil conspiracy here, just an unfortunate problem with relying so heavily on the human polls. Fortunately, there's a simple solution. Have the computer rankings account for half the score, rather than 1/3.
So, here's where I place things. I will re-arrange accordingly after my higher ranked teams actually lose and the lower ranked teams actually win. And remember, the computers will adjust, too. They have no pre-season prediction egos to feed. That's probably why the media blathers on about how horrible the machines are. Change is scary.
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
5. Oregon
6. Boise State
7. Utah
8. Oklahoma
9. Wisconsin
10. Ohio State
11. LSU
12. Alabama
13. Nebraska
14. Florida State
15. Oklahoma State
16. Stanford
17. Arizona
18. Mississippi State
19. Iowa
20. Baylor
21. South Carolina
22. Arkansas
23. Virginia Tech
24. Miami
25. San Diego State
10/11/2010
the chiefs are in the playoffs
A couple weeks ago, I said the Chargers' early road sloppiness meant they had to win the games in this stretch against Arizona, Oakland, and St. Louis, while the Chiefs didn't need to beat Indy or Houston.
Well, two games in, the Chargers have already lost.
There are all sorts of things that can go wrong over the course of the season - from horrific injuries to brutal mental collapses - but it is truly amazing how early in the season it appears that such a bad team as the 2009 Chiefs were are now poised in 2010 to win the division. There are 12 games left to play for the Chiefs, and no team appears more in control of their division race than Kansas City. Now, it's quite possible actually San Diego could win a wildcard spot. They get games against New England, Tennessee, Indianapolis, and Houston, which if they win could all be potential tie breakers for a wildcard spot. Of course, those are all potential losses for the Chargers, too, which is part of their problem looking ahead at their schedule.
But at any rate, from the perspective of the AFC West and the Chiefs, wow. They're ahead in the loss column, the division record, and remaining opponents. Either the defense frustrated the dominant offense in the AFC South, or the Colts are in decline similar to the Chargers and the AFC South teams will all be giving each other losses, making it quite possible that the West picks up a wildcard team at the expense of the South. The offense had one of the most impressive strings of failures you can see, and the team was in the game on the road until the final few minutes. Scary. I have now firmly transitioned from being excited for a winning record to wanting to see a division title this year with this team.
Well, two games in, the Chargers have already lost.
There are all sorts of things that can go wrong over the course of the season - from horrific injuries to brutal mental collapses - but it is truly amazing how early in the season it appears that such a bad team as the 2009 Chiefs were are now poised in 2010 to win the division. There are 12 games left to play for the Chiefs, and no team appears more in control of their division race than Kansas City. Now, it's quite possible actually San Diego could win a wildcard spot. They get games against New England, Tennessee, Indianapolis, and Houston, which if they win could all be potential tie breakers for a wildcard spot. Of course, those are all potential losses for the Chargers, too, which is part of their problem looking ahead at their schedule.
But at any rate, from the perspective of the AFC West and the Chiefs, wow. They're ahead in the loss column, the division record, and remaining opponents. Either the defense frustrated the dominant offense in the AFC South, or the Colts are in decline similar to the Chargers and the AFC South teams will all be giving each other losses, making it quite possible that the West picks up a wildcard team at the expense of the South. The offense had one of the most impressive strings of failures you can see, and the team was in the game on the road until the final few minutes. Scary. I have now firmly transitioned from being excited for a winning record to wanting to see a division title this year with this team.
10/03/2010
more good news for the chiefs
And the Rams too, for that matter.
The Chiefs aren't good enough yet to consistently beat dominant teams. So it's great news that this year, there don't appear to be any such teams in the NFL. None. Every team looks beatable at this stage of the game.
In the NFC, we had winless teams at the bottom of the NFC North, NFC South, and NFC West travel to three of the top teams in the conference. All three teams remain winless, but they lost on the road by a collective six points. Not exactly an overwhelming performance by the Packers, Saints, and Falcons. In the AFC, there's not a single (other) undefeated team remaining. Every (other) team has already lost at least one game in the conference and/or at home.
What's going on this year?
The Chiefs aren't good enough yet to consistently beat dominant teams. So it's great news that this year, there don't appear to be any such teams in the NFL. None. Every team looks beatable at this stage of the game.
In the NFC, we had winless teams at the bottom of the NFC North, NFC South, and NFC West travel to three of the top teams in the conference. All three teams remain winless, but they lost on the road by a collective six points. Not exactly an overwhelming performance by the Packers, Saints, and Falcons. In the AFC, there's not a single (other) undefeated team remaining. Every (other) team has already lost at least one game in the conference and/or at home.
What's going on this year?
9/30/2010
stars continue to align
At a superficial level, one would expect the Chiefs to be a below average but not rock bottom team this year. They've got some untested players and coaches, and they are coming off a three year reign of terror, so to speak, wherein they've won all of about 10 games. Out of 48. (Although, interestingly, they only finished last in the division in two of those three seasons). Looking forward, it appears the Chiefs have troughed, and the question is how far to the upswing they might progress this season. And the big question mark about the Chargers is how fast their dominance will fade over the next couple seasons. In fact, San Diego's four consecutive division titles is the longest AFC West streak since the Raiders of the 1970s won five in a row.
So with that context we entered 2010. From the perspective of the Chiefs, it has the potential to be a particularly noteworthy affair, more than just a small improvement over 2009. After some seasons where it seemed like the schedulers were out to get us (one of those fun fan complaints), 2010 is set up nicely for things to potentially get very interesting. Our home/away matchups mimic the Chargers, which gives us a good guidepost (assuming San Diego is still the team to beat this year). With the renovations to Arrowhead complete, there is some additional excitement on that front.
But I say potential, because the stars do have to align for this to be a magical season. Which, of course, is why seasons like this one could be are described as magical.
Consider the stretch before the bye week. In the early part of the Chiefs' schedule, the pressure was on Kansas City to perform. Right out of the gate, we hosted a division rival on Monday night at home. If you're going to be competitive, you have to win divisional home games. Then, the second game of the season is one of the winnable road games, and the third game back at home. Again, these are the kinds of games that need to be won to be competitive. It doesn't have to be pretty; just be ahead when the clock hits zero.
Well, the Chiefs actually performed. It took two ugly wins and better adaption to weather, but this season is already materially different than the previous three. That means the pressure is now on the Chargers. Next up for us is a bye week and two road games we don't need to win. San Diego, though, has to win three times in the next three weeks. Now, it's possible that San Diego still has another year of dominance left, their early difficulties losing two flukey road games don't mean anything, and they finish the season about 13-3 and win the division handily. In that case, the Chiefs improve from last year, celebrate that, and go into 2011 aiming for division champ.
But it's also possible that the Chargers are losing close games on the road because they're not that much better than the rest of the league. In that case, let's go back to the schedule. Due to losing at Arrowhead, the Chargers absolutely have to beat the Chiefs at home later this year. If KC pulls off a victory at either Indianapolis or Houston over the next two weeks, that means San Diego absolutely must do the same thing. With the Chiefs' victory against their AFC North opponent, and upcoming AFC East opponent being the Buffalo Bills, the Chargers are under the gun to beat both the Patriots and Bengals. In short, by coming out of the first six weeks at least 3-2 (which is already done, after week 3), KC, for the whole rest of the season, puts the pressure on San Diego, a team that won three times as many games as the Chiefs last year.
It only takes one more mistake by San Diego, losing a sloppy road game or getting surprised at home, and the Chiefs might have a hard time not looking phenomenal. Of course, the Chiefs could also finish the season about 3-10 after their 3-0 start, too.
If you'd asked me a month ago, I would have been excited for a winning season. Now, I think there is legitimate talk about the Chiefs vying for the division title, this year, based on what has happened so far and then looking out at the scheduling yet to come. It's your move, San Diego. Are you going 12-1 the rest of the season, or not? Were the Seattle and KC losses more September flukes, or are you also going to lose at Indy, Houston, Cincinnati, Denver, and Oakland? Are New England and Tennessee going to come in and beat you at home? Are you even, perhaps, worried about Sam Bradford and the newly resurgent 1-15 St. Louis Rams? Time will tell. I can't wait to see how the universe aligns.
It's been a few years since MO NFL fans were actually excited about seeing how the season unfolds. This is the combined record of the Chiefs and Rams over the past three seasons: 16-80. Ouch.
So with that context we entered 2010. From the perspective of the Chiefs, it has the potential to be a particularly noteworthy affair, more than just a small improvement over 2009. After some seasons where it seemed like the schedulers were out to get us (one of those fun fan complaints), 2010 is set up nicely for things to potentially get very interesting. Our home/away matchups mimic the Chargers, which gives us a good guidepost (assuming San Diego is still the team to beat this year). With the renovations to Arrowhead complete, there is some additional excitement on that front.
But I say potential, because the stars do have to align for this to be a magical season. Which, of course, is why seasons like this one could be are described as magical.
Consider the stretch before the bye week. In the early part of the Chiefs' schedule, the pressure was on Kansas City to perform. Right out of the gate, we hosted a division rival on Monday night at home. If you're going to be competitive, you have to win divisional home games. Then, the second game of the season is one of the winnable road games, and the third game back at home. Again, these are the kinds of games that need to be won to be competitive. It doesn't have to be pretty; just be ahead when the clock hits zero.
Well, the Chiefs actually performed. It took two ugly wins and better adaption to weather, but this season is already materially different than the previous three. That means the pressure is now on the Chargers. Next up for us is a bye week and two road games we don't need to win. San Diego, though, has to win three times in the next three weeks. Now, it's possible that San Diego still has another year of dominance left, their early difficulties losing two flukey road games don't mean anything, and they finish the season about 13-3 and win the division handily. In that case, the Chiefs improve from last year, celebrate that, and go into 2011 aiming for division champ.
But it's also possible that the Chargers are losing close games on the road because they're not that much better than the rest of the league. In that case, let's go back to the schedule. Due to losing at Arrowhead, the Chargers absolutely have to beat the Chiefs at home later this year. If KC pulls off a victory at either Indianapolis or Houston over the next two weeks, that means San Diego absolutely must do the same thing. With the Chiefs' victory against their AFC North opponent, and upcoming AFC East opponent being the Buffalo Bills, the Chargers are under the gun to beat both the Patriots and Bengals. In short, by coming out of the first six weeks at least 3-2 (which is already done, after week 3), KC, for the whole rest of the season, puts the pressure on San Diego, a team that won three times as many games as the Chiefs last year.
It only takes one more mistake by San Diego, losing a sloppy road game or getting surprised at home, and the Chiefs might have a hard time not looking phenomenal. Of course, the Chiefs could also finish the season about 3-10 after their 3-0 start, too.
If you'd asked me a month ago, I would have been excited for a winning season. Now, I think there is legitimate talk about the Chiefs vying for the division title, this year, based on what has happened so far and then looking out at the scheduling yet to come. It's your move, San Diego. Are you going 12-1 the rest of the season, or not? Were the Seattle and KC losses more September flukes, or are you also going to lose at Indy, Houston, Cincinnati, Denver, and Oakland? Are New England and Tennessee going to come in and beat you at home? Are you even, perhaps, worried about Sam Bradford and the newly resurgent 1-15 St. Louis Rams? Time will tell. I can't wait to see how the universe aligns.
It's been a few years since MO NFL fans were actually excited about seeing how the season unfolds. This is the combined record of the Chiefs and Rams over the past three seasons: 16-80. Ouch.
9/27/2010
have a seat, stay for awhile
For the non sports fans, the Rams have had some problems recently. They didn't even win a home game last year.
But this year, the Rams have played competitive games against the Raiders and the Cardinals. Sam Bradford, the rookie from Oklahoma, is making by far the most impact in the NFL this season. By comparison, Florida's Tim Tebow isn't even the Broncos starter.
And here we are playing Washington tough. The Rams take the best Washington can throw at them, regain the lead, and...make the lead even bigger! And what do St. Louis fans do?
That's right. They start leaving.
This is a party. The first home win in four years. The Rams are only a game out of first place in the NFC West. They're not even in last place in the division. Savor this. Either this is the start of something incredible, or a rarity to be relished.
Stick around for awhile. At least, be there when the clock hits zero.
But this year, the Rams have played competitive games against the Raiders and the Cardinals. Sam Bradford, the rookie from Oklahoma, is making by far the most impact in the NFL this season. By comparison, Florida's Tim Tebow isn't even the Broncos starter.
And here we are playing Washington tough. The Rams take the best Washington can throw at them, regain the lead, and...make the lead even bigger! And what do St. Louis fans do?
That's right. They start leaving.
This is a party. The first home win in four years. The Rams are only a game out of first place in the NFC West. They're not even in last place in the division. Savor this. Either this is the start of something incredible, or a rarity to be relished.
Stick around for awhile. At least, be there when the clock hits zero.
6/27/2010
hey, we won a series
It's amazing what happens when you get decent pitching and score runs at the same time.
Now only 12 games under 500...
Now only 12 games under 500...
6/16/2010
strategy and sports
Athletic games themselves involve lots of strategy. But a different kind of case study in decision-making has unfolded for us over the past week or so as we've moved past speculation to action. I think I'm just not a big enough Colorado or Nebraska fan to get why they would see the grass as greener to the west and east. Whatever their ultimate calculus, what's done is done.
So now the most interesting question is viewed from the perspective of the remaining Big 12. What to do?
The safe answer, the likely answer, the easy answer, is to stand pat. Execute on a strategy of making a ten team league successful. That's what I'd recommend as a consultant. I'm about 95% confidant that's what will happen.
But that other one chance in twenty nags at me. I'm a big believer that the flip side of challenge almost always is opportunity. Over the weekend, the Big 12 was in its weakest position as a conference in the history of its existence. Today, however, it's at its strongest point in years, perhaps ever. The Big 12 faced the most direct threats possible to its future from a variety of sources and for whatever mixture of reasons you care to elaborate, ten schools decided to stick together. Furthermore, as the Pac-10 and Big Ten in particular went after Big 12 schools, that gives the Big 12 a window of opportunity to strike in 'self-defense', as a reaction to having lost two universities to the aggressiveness of other conferences. Finally, as the Big 12 lost two teams, but to different conferences, there is a unique opportunity to offer entrance to a pair of schools.
The following options, again, are neither likely nor something the Big 12 can necessarily implement. Rather, they're options that recognize an important part of strategic decision-making: if you never think about the moon, you'll never get there. And you only have a few windows suitable for launch. This is one such window.
I would be quite interested to be able to have a quiet conversation with these schools just to see what they would think.
Scenario 1:
Take the game to the Pac-10. The more I've been thinking about this one, the more it's been nibbling at me. Do you think Arizona and Arizona State might fit better in the big 12? One thing that's always bugged me is how the Big 12 doesn't have its own BCS bowl. The Big Ten and Pac-10 have their 'granddaddy of 'em all' in LA. The SEC has the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans. The Orange Bowl is in Florida. But Big 12 conference champs get sent out to Arizona. It's not that the Fiesta Bowl is a terrible one. It's just that it's nowhere near the (current) Big 12. We can fix that, creating regular conference trips to Arizona in the process. Arizona adds a growing population demographic and a chance to make 'southwest' and 'central' divisions, returning OU and OSU to competing with MU/KU/ISU/KSU. Separately from football, it also allows UA to compete in a stronger basketball conference. Imagine an annual KU/UA conference basketball game. It's also worth noting, for UA/ASU, that the Big 12 has received more national attention and more revenue than the Pac-10. BCS bowl games would get to be played in Arizona.
Scenario 2:
Invite Utah and BYU. The Pac-10 can't do this because they have an odd number. I think we could make the case that coming as a pair to the Big 12 is better than being left in different conferences. And with the loss of Colorado, Utah and BYU maintain a Big 12 presence in the Rockies/interior West. These schools could be added to the Big 12 North and leave the South as is. In addition, don't overlook the Morman connection. BYU gives Baylor a fellow private religious school generally, while specifically a lot of Mormons stuck around Missouri instead of migrating farther west to Utah.
Scenario 3:
Return the favor to the Big Ten. I can't help looking at a map and wondering if it's possible to split the Big Ten in two. Of course it's not really that realistic, but you never know until you ask Illinois and Indiana. A week ago I would have said it would have been impossible for Nebraska to leave the Big 12. But this wouldn't just be to vengefully carve out the mid-section of the conference just below Chicago. Indiana is a basketball program in a football conference. Trading IU basketball would almost make up for NU football on the tradition front. Meanwhile, the most natural rival for Illinois is Missouri. Both IU and IL are essentially the same distance from St. Louis as they are from Chicago. This directly deals with one of the challenges - that some MU fans actually want to move to the Big Ten - by making St. Louis a central city in the Big 12 rather than a border city. The schools would also fit in very nicely with the rest of the Big 12 North, even down to the I-70 corridor running from Topeka to Indianapolis. I would point out ever so subtlely that the state of Indiana owes us a big favor, too, and this is a great time to collect. Do this move and we'll move past your theft of the NCAA headquarters from the city that invested so heavily in making collegiate athletics what we know today.
Scenario 4:
Now I'm getting quite unrealistic. There's an intriguing geographical quirk to the south and east of the Big 12. Northwest Arkansas is actually closely associated with the states of Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. Fayetteville is so remote from the rest of the SEC that Arkansas plays some games in Little Rock. Arkansas has history with the Southwest conference where it was a founding member with schools like OU and UT. Meanwhile, Memphis is down the Mississippi River from St. Louis, on the border with Arkansas, and is not currently in a major conference. Memphis doesn't really have much of a football program at the moment, but by pushing the Big 12 through Arkansas and into Tennessee, I don't think it would be that big of an issue - the point would be to bring recruiting space and geographic range, not replace the tradition lost with Nebraska. It would also allow ISU and Baylor to have a comrade near the bottom of the pecking order. In basketball, Memphis would add a high-win school, which helps as RPI is important in basketball (unlike football). An annual KU/Memphis basketball game would be another great conference schedule addition.
Scenario 5:
Feeling out Kentucky and Louisville is my last 'what if' for the night. They fit nicely in the existing Big 12 North/South division, putting basketball state Kentucky with basketball state Kansas. In fact, you already see these teams together from time to time when St. Louis hosts an NCAA tourney round and fans come in from both directions. This would also get Louisville (Big East) and Kentucky (SEC) into the same conference, and what a basketball conference that would be. Unlike Memphis, Louisville and Kentucky do have competitive football programs they would bring, but not good enough they would threaten OU and UT. Plus, I like the town of Louisville, so I'm sure some arrangements can be made for my sake.
Unlikely, sure.
But somebody had to start the conversation that made Boulder look to the Pacific and Nebraska abandon KC. For a brief moment in time, the Big 12 is both strongly unified and able to make bold moves without being the aggressor. There's certainly a lot to be said for the ten team arrangement for both of the major revenue sports, football and basketball. In football, it allows a round robin format and eliminates a conference championship whose primary consequence recently seems to be giving good teams losses. In basketball, it allows annual home and home series while improving the RPI by shedding the two worst programs in the conference.
Still, the Big 12 as ten teams now has no margin of error. There's a part of me that wants to throw a long pass and see what happens. Otherwise, unless there's some breakdown in another major conference, this is the peak of the Big 12. We get more vulnerable over time to a raid from any direction, and the next one will be fatal.
So now the most interesting question is viewed from the perspective of the remaining Big 12. What to do?
The safe answer, the likely answer, the easy answer, is to stand pat. Execute on a strategy of making a ten team league successful. That's what I'd recommend as a consultant. I'm about 95% confidant that's what will happen.
But that other one chance in twenty nags at me. I'm a big believer that the flip side of challenge almost always is opportunity. Over the weekend, the Big 12 was in its weakest position as a conference in the history of its existence. Today, however, it's at its strongest point in years, perhaps ever. The Big 12 faced the most direct threats possible to its future from a variety of sources and for whatever mixture of reasons you care to elaborate, ten schools decided to stick together. Furthermore, as the Pac-10 and Big Ten in particular went after Big 12 schools, that gives the Big 12 a window of opportunity to strike in 'self-defense', as a reaction to having lost two universities to the aggressiveness of other conferences. Finally, as the Big 12 lost two teams, but to different conferences, there is a unique opportunity to offer entrance to a pair of schools.
The following options, again, are neither likely nor something the Big 12 can necessarily implement. Rather, they're options that recognize an important part of strategic decision-making: if you never think about the moon, you'll never get there. And you only have a few windows suitable for launch. This is one such window.
I would be quite interested to be able to have a quiet conversation with these schools just to see what they would think.
Scenario 1:
Take the game to the Pac-10. The more I've been thinking about this one, the more it's been nibbling at me. Do you think Arizona and Arizona State might fit better in the big 12? One thing that's always bugged me is how the Big 12 doesn't have its own BCS bowl. The Big Ten and Pac-10 have their 'granddaddy of 'em all' in LA. The SEC has the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans. The Orange Bowl is in Florida. But Big 12 conference champs get sent out to Arizona. It's not that the Fiesta Bowl is a terrible one. It's just that it's nowhere near the (current) Big 12. We can fix that, creating regular conference trips to Arizona in the process. Arizona adds a growing population demographic and a chance to make 'southwest' and 'central' divisions, returning OU and OSU to competing with MU/KU/ISU/KSU. Separately from football, it also allows UA to compete in a stronger basketball conference. Imagine an annual KU/UA conference basketball game. It's also worth noting, for UA/ASU, that the Big 12 has received more national attention and more revenue than the Pac-10. BCS bowl games would get to be played in Arizona.
Scenario 2:
Invite Utah and BYU. The Pac-10 can't do this because they have an odd number. I think we could make the case that coming as a pair to the Big 12 is better than being left in different conferences. And with the loss of Colorado, Utah and BYU maintain a Big 12 presence in the Rockies/interior West. These schools could be added to the Big 12 North and leave the South as is. In addition, don't overlook the Morman connection. BYU gives Baylor a fellow private religious school generally, while specifically a lot of Mormons stuck around Missouri instead of migrating farther west to Utah.
Scenario 3:
Return the favor to the Big Ten. I can't help looking at a map and wondering if it's possible to split the Big Ten in two. Of course it's not really that realistic, but you never know until you ask Illinois and Indiana. A week ago I would have said it would have been impossible for Nebraska to leave the Big 12. But this wouldn't just be to vengefully carve out the mid-section of the conference just below Chicago. Indiana is a basketball program in a football conference. Trading IU basketball would almost make up for NU football on the tradition front. Meanwhile, the most natural rival for Illinois is Missouri. Both IU and IL are essentially the same distance from St. Louis as they are from Chicago. This directly deals with one of the challenges - that some MU fans actually want to move to the Big Ten - by making St. Louis a central city in the Big 12 rather than a border city. The schools would also fit in very nicely with the rest of the Big 12 North, even down to the I-70 corridor running from Topeka to Indianapolis. I would point out ever so subtlely that the state of Indiana owes us a big favor, too, and this is a great time to collect. Do this move and we'll move past your theft of the NCAA headquarters from the city that invested so heavily in making collegiate athletics what we know today.
Scenario 4:
Now I'm getting quite unrealistic. There's an intriguing geographical quirk to the south and east of the Big 12. Northwest Arkansas is actually closely associated with the states of Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. Fayetteville is so remote from the rest of the SEC that Arkansas plays some games in Little Rock. Arkansas has history with the Southwest conference where it was a founding member with schools like OU and UT. Meanwhile, Memphis is down the Mississippi River from St. Louis, on the border with Arkansas, and is not currently in a major conference. Memphis doesn't really have much of a football program at the moment, but by pushing the Big 12 through Arkansas and into Tennessee, I don't think it would be that big of an issue - the point would be to bring recruiting space and geographic range, not replace the tradition lost with Nebraska. It would also allow ISU and Baylor to have a comrade near the bottom of the pecking order. In basketball, Memphis would add a high-win school, which helps as RPI is important in basketball (unlike football). An annual KU/Memphis basketball game would be another great conference schedule addition.
Scenario 5:
Feeling out Kentucky and Louisville is my last 'what if' for the night. They fit nicely in the existing Big 12 North/South division, putting basketball state Kentucky with basketball state Kansas. In fact, you already see these teams together from time to time when St. Louis hosts an NCAA tourney round and fans come in from both directions. This would also get Louisville (Big East) and Kentucky (SEC) into the same conference, and what a basketball conference that would be. Unlike Memphis, Louisville and Kentucky do have competitive football programs they would bring, but not good enough they would threaten OU and UT. Plus, I like the town of Louisville, so I'm sure some arrangements can be made for my sake.
Unlikely, sure.
But somebody had to start the conversation that made Boulder look to the Pacific and Nebraska abandon KC. For a brief moment in time, the Big 12 is both strongly unified and able to make bold moves without being the aggressor. There's certainly a lot to be said for the ten team arrangement for both of the major revenue sports, football and basketball. In football, it allows a round robin format and eliminates a conference championship whose primary consequence recently seems to be giving good teams losses. In basketball, it allows annual home and home series while improving the RPI by shedding the two worst programs in the conference.
Still, the Big 12 as ten teams now has no margin of error. There's a part of me that wants to throw a long pass and see what happens. Otherwise, unless there's some breakdown in another major conference, this is the peak of the Big 12. We get more vulnerable over time to a raid from any direction, and the next one will be fatal.
6/14/2010
nebraska mortgages its future
Before going further, I of course admit that this isn't that big a deal In the Scheme of Things. We're not talking about nuclear proliferation or financial fraud or oil spills. Or Brittany, Brangelina, or Beyonce.
But still...
Two major universities decided to leave what is (was) arguably the best collegiate conference in the country for the uncertain future of two separate conferences on opposite sides of the country. Nebraska and Colorado first played a football game against each other in 1898. Kansans, Missourians, Nebraskans, and other vacationers enjoy making the trek to the Rockies, while all good pro football fans of course root against the Broncos while supporting the Chiefs. Colorado I'm really not sure what they're expecting to get out of this move.
What I want to focus on is Nebraska. I use the language of mortgage because I think it captures the uncertainty: there are a range of potential outcomes, and it could be a good move or a bad move. It depends. And like the financial industry of our day, we've destroyed the history and tradition of what came before. Whatever else happens in the future, we have officially severed ties to the past. That's sad. And frustrating. And disappointing. Nebraska football has a history unparalleled in the heartland. You have to travel over 500 miles from Lincoln to get to South Bend or Norman. It's over 600 miles to Ann Arbor. Over 700 to Tuscaloosa, Columbus, or Austin. Even farther to State College. The plains states can't support a high concentration of professional sports teams, but it is large enough for a vibrant collection of universities.
Nebraska, just up I-29 from Kansas City, was the key voice pushing for Arrowhead stadium to remain one of the premier venues boasting both college and professional sports. As I type this, Oklahoma is playing in the College World Series in Omaha. And the Royals' AAA club is in Omaha. That's what makes a lot of this so bitter particularly from a KC-perspective. Instead of sticking around and fighting for a major conference centered around the center of the country, Nebraska jumped ship.
To the Big Ten.
Save it Tom, Nebraska ain't like Minnesota or Illinois or Ohio or Michigan. Lincoln ain't Columbus or Madison. Omaha ain't Chicago or Detroit. And Nebraska didn't leave a broken conference. It broke the conference.
Sort of.
And see, that's the thing. The Big 12 wasn't broken. Yes, Texas is a pain. As a good American, I hate Texas as much as anybody. Yes, there were some political gaffes, like Missouri Governor Nixon acting like he knows something about running an athletic conference or a university system. But Nebraska belongs with Missouri and Kansas and Kansas State and Iowa State and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Dallas is a valuable counterweight to the regional pull of other places, like Chicago, Atlanta, and LA.
Nebraska has now mortgaged its top-tier tradition to get into a new place. There's a part of me that hopes Nebraska cleans the floor of the Big Ten. But there's also a part of me that's sad enough and upset enough to hope Nebraska gets exactly what it deserves: access to the 'stability' of the Big Ten in exchange for permanent loss of its unique prestige.
Dear Nebraska fans/players/Big Red nation:
When you're done playing not just second fiddle but third or fourth in a league whose population center isn't even in a state bordering Nebraska, come back to the Big 12. Stick around and fight to make this part of the MidWest top rate, rather than abandoning us.
In the meantime, expect us to express our, uh, feelings about this in your direction. Let's be clear. You dumped us. Not the other way around. And in the process, you have contributed greatly to the transfer of college from meaning to money.
But still...
Two major universities decided to leave what is (was) arguably the best collegiate conference in the country for the uncertain future of two separate conferences on opposite sides of the country. Nebraska and Colorado first played a football game against each other in 1898. Kansans, Missourians, Nebraskans, and other vacationers enjoy making the trek to the Rockies, while all good pro football fans of course root against the Broncos while supporting the Chiefs. Colorado I'm really not sure what they're expecting to get out of this move.
What I want to focus on is Nebraska. I use the language of mortgage because I think it captures the uncertainty: there are a range of potential outcomes, and it could be a good move or a bad move. It depends. And like the financial industry of our day, we've destroyed the history and tradition of what came before. Whatever else happens in the future, we have officially severed ties to the past. That's sad. And frustrating. And disappointing. Nebraska football has a history unparalleled in the heartland. You have to travel over 500 miles from Lincoln to get to South Bend or Norman. It's over 600 miles to Ann Arbor. Over 700 to Tuscaloosa, Columbus, or Austin. Even farther to State College. The plains states can't support a high concentration of professional sports teams, but it is large enough for a vibrant collection of universities.
Nebraska, just up I-29 from Kansas City, was the key voice pushing for Arrowhead stadium to remain one of the premier venues boasting both college and professional sports. As I type this, Oklahoma is playing in the College World Series in Omaha. And the Royals' AAA club is in Omaha. That's what makes a lot of this so bitter particularly from a KC-perspective. Instead of sticking around and fighting for a major conference centered around the center of the country, Nebraska jumped ship.
To the Big Ten.
Save it Tom, Nebraska ain't like Minnesota or Illinois or Ohio or Michigan. Lincoln ain't Columbus or Madison. Omaha ain't Chicago or Detroit. And Nebraska didn't leave a broken conference. It broke the conference.
Sort of.
And see, that's the thing. The Big 12 wasn't broken. Yes, Texas is a pain. As a good American, I hate Texas as much as anybody. Yes, there were some political gaffes, like Missouri Governor Nixon acting like he knows something about running an athletic conference or a university system. But Nebraska belongs with Missouri and Kansas and Kansas State and Iowa State and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Dallas is a valuable counterweight to the regional pull of other places, like Chicago, Atlanta, and LA.
Nebraska has now mortgaged its top-tier tradition to get into a new place. There's a part of me that hopes Nebraska cleans the floor of the Big Ten. But there's also a part of me that's sad enough and upset enough to hope Nebraska gets exactly what it deserves: access to the 'stability' of the Big Ten in exchange for permanent loss of its unique prestige.
Dear Nebraska fans/players/Big Red nation:
When you're done playing not just second fiddle but third or fourth in a league whose population center isn't even in a state bordering Nebraska, come back to the Big 12. Stick around and fight to make this part of the MidWest top rate, rather than abandoning us.
In the meantime, expect us to express our, uh, feelings about this in your direction. Let's be clear. You dumped us. Not the other way around. And in the process, you have contributed greatly to the transfer of college from meaning to money.
6/10/2010
go lady jays
I keep forgetting to post this. Liberty creamed Pattonville in the MSHSAA girls Class 3 soccer championships on Saturday.
Apparently this was our first Final Four for either the boys or girls soccer teams.
Woohoo!
Apparently this was our first Final Four for either the boys or girls soccer teams.
Woohoo!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)