Money money everywhere and all the leagues did shrink
Money money everywhere and not a drop to drink
Ah, few things take me back quite like the poem based on Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”… anyway, enough nostalgia. At some point, the NFL Players Association and the NFL owners will sign a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. It might be sooner and it might be later (my better half is hoping for later… she tolerates me watching American Football of any kind). Between “The Decision” of LeBron James and “The Manipulation” of Carmelo Anthony, the hard line taken by the NFL owners, and the sounding of Hank Steinbrenner, I think that there is a larger issue that is troubling all of the major professional leagues in North America. In the interest of full disclosure, I did feel the need to say North America instead of the United States because of the 8 teams (out of 122) that reside north of the border.
So what is the larger issue? That millionaires and billionaires can’t agree over who gets the money? I hate to be so blunt about it but if you are under the impression that this problem is a new one to the economic model of this country, you’ve obviously been living under a rock for the past few decades. What is the solution? Nationalize the whole industry? While that might be the answer for some problems, it is not the answer for this one (although it would probably help reduce the deficit significantly).
What I’d like to do is examine each sport and see where they stand with regards to the specific issues which are plaguing them publicly. I don’t delve into the inner workings of professional sporting leagues and it’s entirely possible that the biggest problem facing each league isn’t the one I mention. However, these are the issues that are getting the most play in the press and it’s there that I will focus this post.
Before we get into it, I have to apologize to all of you hockey fans out there. I don’t understand hockey and the only time in my life that I’ve ever watched a hockey game from start to finish was the 2010 gold medal game. Having said that, I don’t know what is plaguing the league other than the fact that it’s getting closer and closer to being replaced as a member of the “Big 4” club by NASCAR. I don’t follow hockey and I still say that would be a sad day.
NBA
Last summer we were bombarded by “The Decision”. Starting last year and going almost all the way up to the trade deadline this year we were treated to “The Manipulation”. The big picture issue is whether or not superstars should team up and form these trios in an attempt to win with three stars and ten role players. Many say that it started with Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett being traded to the Celtics to team up with Paul Pierce and has continued today with the Miami Heat and the New York Knicks (and you could probably throw the Lakers in there… especially if the rumors are true and Dwight Howard ends up there soon). The question is, is this good for the league?
I’ve heard and read about many former players that are condemning these actions, saying that they would rather beat the best than play with the best and I completely understand this mentality. However, how many titles did LeBron James win in Cleveland as the lone superstar? How about Dwayne Wade in Miami? How about Kobe Bryant in LA?
In this day and age, the titles follow the superstars and while that last example may not quite hold water (Kobe) that would depend entirely on your definition of superstar. While I personally would not put Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom into that category, I also don’t think they’re that far off.
Going back further, how many titles did David Robinson win as the dominant inside force he was before Tim Duncan came along? How many did Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett combine for before they teamed up?
As I’m sure you can guess the answer to all those questions is zero. One player can’t take a team all the way in the NBA today and I would argue that the same has been true throughout the history of the NBA. In 1997, a panel consisting of members of the media, former players and coaches, and former and current front office members selected the greatest 50 players from the first fifty years of NBA history. By the logic exhibited by several former players, you would never want to team up with those guys; you would want to beat those guys. Of those 50, only 4 never played with another member of the exclusive club.
George Mikan
Bob Petit
Isaiah Thomas
Patrick Ewing
Another noteworthy factoid from that list; only once has a team has had five players that ended up being named one of the NBA’s 50 greatest players ever playing on the same team. They were:
1973-74 New York Knicks
Willis Reed
Walt Frazier
Dave DeBusschere
Jerry Lucas
Earl Monroe
Considering that Mikan and Petit played in an era where there were so few good players, much less stars, I think we can safely exclude their combined 6 championships from this discussion. Thomas and Ewing combined to play 30 seasons in the NBA and won two titles (both by Thomas). At that time the Lakers and Celtics dynasties of the ‘80’s were winding down and the Bulls weren’t quite ready for the spotlight yet, leaving a perfect void for a very good and tough team led by one great player.
I fully understand that very few of the players on that list manipulated their way from one team to another or staged an hour long primetime special to say nine words but the fact remains that championship teams have always formed around the combination of great players with role players filling in the gaps.
So what is the harm with great young players wanting to team up in an attempt to win a championship? If they don’t care about winning and only want to set records and make money, they can easily go to a team like Cleveland or the Clippers, make $20 million a season and get the lion’s share of the ball. Instead, you have three young superstars in James, Wade, and Bosh who are all willing to take a slightly diminished role in order to play with one another. That, in this day and age of prima donnas, isn’t such a bad trait.
The problem I have is not that they wanted to team up, it’s how they did it; through the media. Carmelo Anthony very publicly wanted out and that drastically reduced Denver’s leverage in the trade negotiations as teams knew they were desperate to get something back for him. On the other hand, LeBron James wrangled a three ring circus and then left the Cavaliers with nothing.
Now you have the formation of an aristocratic class of teams in the NBA, the Heat, Celtics, Knicks, Lakers, and Spurs with the Bulls and Mavericks close behind, while the rest of the league is left high and dry.
Is there a solution? Yes.
Will the owners like it? No.
Why? The almighty dollar.
THE NFL
Whenever it comes to labor renegotiations in professional sports, you have to maintain some semblance of perspective. According to figures researched by Plunkett Research, LTD (a firm that looks into industry trends, statistics, and analysis of top companies) the NFL produced $7.8 billion in total revenue last year. The numbers vary slightly from year to year but the exact numbers aren’t really necessary; ballpark figures will suffice. Under the current collective bargaining agreement (hereafter abbreviated CBA) the owners take $1 billion off the top of that number to distribute amongst themselves. After that, it goes into a pool that is shared by the owners and players. Under the current agreement (if my memory serves me this today) the players cut of that is 60%. If we assume that revenue figure is accurate, that comes out to $4.08 billion that goes to the players, both past and present.
However, the owners are shrewd businessmen and like more zeroes in their bank accounts. They want to take another billion off the top before the revenue sharing kicks in. With these figures, the owners’ share of the pie would go from $3.72 billion to $4.32 billion. If we were to simply spread the remainder of the pie amongst the roughly 1,600 NFL players and we were to ignore things like pension plans, then the average salary in the NFL would drop 14.7% from $2.55 million to $2.18 million.
Again, we have a situation where millionaires are arguing with billionaires over a very large, lucrative pie. I’ll admit that there are certain issues that the owners have (such as a rookie salary wage) that make a lot of sense. However, trimming another 13% of their leagues revenues out for themselves is nothing short of ridiculous. The problem is it’s entirely possible that they’ll get it.
MLB
Is the league’s business model straying towards socialism? Perhaps, a little but I don’t have any problem with that. What I do have a problem with is teams like the Yankees and Red Sox paying vast amounts of money that eventually ends up in the hands of teams that simply deposit it in their bank accounts. The entire point of the revenue sharing agreement was for teams who didn’t play in a market that could justify a $100 million payroll (Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Tampa Bay) to have a $100 million payroll and compete directly with the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox.
First of all, I’m not suggesting that every team should be spending $100 million on its 25 man roster. However, it’s difficult to call the Yankees and Red Sox the problem when the Pirates have spent less money in the last five years (while posting a 321-488 record) than the Yankees did to go 95-67 this past year.
What is the solution? A salary cap? The problem with a cap of any kind is the players don’t want anything to do with it and the player’s union is the strongest of any of the Big 4 sports (in my opinion). What’s another solution?
What are the solutions to these problems?
ARE THERE SOLUTIONS?
All of them center on the almighty dollar. Everyone wants more money and they want to sacrifice less and less to the guys on the other side of the bargaining table. On top of that, none of the parties that are actually doing the bargaining (the player’s rep and the commissioner) want to appear weak by giving too much or else they’ll be out of a job very quickly and you must remember that these are not minimum wage jobs.
All of these problems are easy to solve one of two ways (though really it just ends up as one big problem) as long as you don’t include the players in the decision making process… or the owners for that matter.
In the NBA, eliminate the salary structure that is now in place. How much help will that provide with regards to keeping players in smaller markets? Quite a bit. The difference right now between a max contract in Miami and a max contract in Cleveland is one additional year. The Average Annual Salary (AAS from now on) remains roughly the same. Now imagine that the Cavaliers were able to offer a contract worth an additional $10 million per season… or $20 million. Would that be enough to offset the desire to go to more tourist friendly cities? Absolutely, but here comes the problem… payrolls explode and now, the Cavaliers can’t afford that kind of payroll and neither can the Clippers or the Kings or the Nets. Finally, after much consternation and realizing that all the great players end up in big markets anyway, the NBA eliminates four teams.
In the NFL, the player’s union records some landmark deals in order to secure more of the revenue pie for active players but also much more for retired players and the NFL owners are exposed as the 19th century businessmen that many of them are, putting profits ahead of the well-being of the workers. Salaries continue to escalate to the point that some teams can keep the high priced players and some can’t. In a stunning move by what has been for years the most popular sport in America, Commissioner Roger Goodell announces that he will be contracting four teams.
In Major League Baseball, Hank Steinbrenner wins his argument and in an amazing turn of events, the owners are no longer forced to pay a luxury tax on their high payrolls or share revenues with the less fortunate teams. After a Cinderella run to the ALCS, the Kansas City Royals (who have a nice trim $15 million payroll) lose to the monstrosity that is the Yankees (with their $400 million payroll) and the Yankees go on to win yet another World Series. Admitting that eliminating the luxury tax was a terrible idea, the commissioner of baseball decides to contract four teams in an attempt to level the playing field.
There is one other solution other than contraction and that would be moving the teams to markets that will actually support a professional franchise. However, in this day and age of being able to choose any one of dozens of leisure activities, how many franchises can these major markets support? New York currently has seven teams and they all seem to prosper. Los Angeles has five with a glaring lack of an NFL team and again, they all seem to be well supported. Can other cities support that many teams?
Like I said, the solutions are all tied together but the roots of them all lead back to the same place.
The almighty dollar.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Salary Structure in Major League Baseball
In light of the fact that we might be within a year of having the upper end of the salary scale in Major League Baseball redefined, I wanted to throw out two statements. The point of these statements is to get you in the right frame of mind for the numbers that I’m going to be throwing at you.
The salary structure in Major League Baseball is absurdly out of hand.
A salary cap would go a long ways to helping fix MLB’s salary problem.
THE NUMBERS
In 2001, Major League Baseball teams spent $1.66 billion on payroll and in 2009 the teams spent $2.23 billion, an increase of 34.2%. Considering that this represents an increase in average team payroll from $55.4 million up to $74.4 million, it doesn’t really sound like an extraordinary increase. However, when its compared with the Consumer Price Index, one of the most commonly used tools to measure inflation, that rate of payroll increase is well over the increase in the CPI (20.6%).
Does this mean that MLB salaries are getting too high? Not necessarily. Over the same time period, NFL payrolls have increased by 55.7% while NBA payrolls have gone up 69.8%. The difference between Major League Baseball and those other two leagues is that they have a salary cap while baseball does not. So why then are their payrolls numbers rising faster than the league that has no salary cap?
Is it because revenue streams are better in the NFL and the NBA? Not really. Major League Baseball has had record setting revenues the past few years. Is it because of labor uncertainty that has caused baseball owners to be more reluctant to hand out dollars to players? Nope. In fact, Major League Baseball is the only of these three leagues that is not heading into uncertain waters with regards to labor negotiations between the players and the owners. It is entirely possible that the dramatic rise in payrolls figures in the NBA and NFL are contributing to their current labor situations.
Basically what all of that says is that if the Major League Baseball salaries are rising at alarming rates, then salaries in the NFL and NBA are rising at an even more alarming rate. So then the question becomes whether or not there is any truth to the first statement above and most of that answer depends on what your definition of “absurdly out of hand” is.
In that case, why have salaries been in the news so much in the past few years? Well, a lot of it has to do with the Yankees and other than that, it mostly has to do with the high profile signings of the past few years. Joe Mauer, Ryan Howard, Matt Holliday, Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford, and Troy Tulowitzki are just a few of the players who have signed contracts or contract extensions worth an amount in excess of $100 million. On top of that, three high profile players are going to sign very large contracts within the next year; Adrian Gonzalez, Prince Fielder, and the man who will be resetting the curve when it comes to large contracts, Albert Pujols.
Maybe this is the question we should be asking. Overall payrolls in Major League Baseball have been climbing at a much steadier rate through the past ten years than those of the NBA or the NFL. However, the higher end of MLB contracts has skyrocketed to the point where the highest paid player now makes roughly ten times the league average. Is the payroll situation in baseball getting its reputation because of the aristocratic class of players that are getting paid much more than the league average?
FORMATION OF AN ARISTOCRACY?
In 1997, Albert Belle became the first player to earn $10 million in a single season and he earned exactly that amount. In 2010, 79 different players were paid at least $10 million and Alex Rodriguez was paid more than triple that amount ($33 million). Over that time period, the overall salary figure in MLB has jumped from $969 million to $2.61 billion, an increase of 169.5%.
That’s great and all but the active roster of a Major League Baseball team is 25 players and if we assume that as many as 8 or 9 players get included into the payroll numbers, that still gives us a pool of roughly 1,000 players. If only 8% of players are earning that amount of money, can it really skew the payroll numbers that much? The answer is absolutely.
If we assume that there is a pool of 1,000 players that go into baseball-reference.com’s payroll numbers that means that 999 players earned less than $10 million in 1997 and that number shrunk to 921 by last year. In the past 14 years, the amount of money paid to those players has gone up from $959 million up to $1.46 billion. This represents an increase of just 52.7%, far below the overall increase.
Here’s the amazing part. Last year, the 79 players who earned over $10 million were paid a grand total of $1.15 billion, or 43.9% of the total money paid out in salaries. In 1997, that was just 1.03%.
An aristocracy is a system of government where the power is consolidated amongst a few of the citizens. If the question is whether or not a sort of aristocratic class has developed in Major League Baseball, the answer is an emphatic yes. If there is a problem with the salary structure in baseball, it lies in the fact that the top 8% of wage earners are earning 44% of the money being paid to players.
Is a salary cap a solution to this “problem”? The problem with imposing a salary cap on Major League Baseball is that it provides no disincentive to teams wanting to sign a player to a contract worth $20 million per season. Teams will simply start paying one player that much money and the rest of the roster will be filled with players somewhere on the lower end of the payroll spectrum. If they want to reduce the salaries of the top tier of players, they would need to institute rules in the collective bargaining agreement limiting the maximum size of a contract a player can sign, much like the NBA. Being the highest paid player in the NBA isn’t that big of a deal anymore because the amount of money the top tier of players are getting paid is all the result of an equation based on how long they’ve been in the league.
CONCLUSION
Does the salary structure in baseball need fixing? In my opinion, it does not. Teams that have enormous revenue streams from ticket sales, merchandise sales, advertising, and broadcasting contracts can spend whatever they want on a team. However, if they spend too much too often, they have to pay the luxury tax which goes to teams that do not have the type of revenue streams that the Yankees and Red Sox have.
This system works for baseball and would not work as well for the NBA or the NFL. In the NBA if you have the best player at every position, you’re probably going to win 75 games and win the NBA title. If you have the best player at every position in the NFL, you’ll win 14-15 games every year and play in the Super Bowl more years than not. If you have the best player at every position in baseball, it will give you an excellent shot at the playoffs every year but not necessarily the World Series. From 1996-2001, it can be argued that the Yankees didn’t have one player on their roster that could be considered the best at his position and they won four World Series title in those six years and played in another. Baseball is all about having good players at every position with as few holes as possible. In other words, no matter how much money you spend on putting together the best roster in the history of baseball, it still doesn’t guarantee you a World Series title.
For all of you out there who think the system is broken and a salary cap is necessary, don’t forget that in the last ten years, only one team with the highest payroll in baseball has won the World Series (the 2009 Yankees).
The system isn’t broken, it just might need a tweak or two…
The salary structure in Major League Baseball is absurdly out of hand.
A salary cap would go a long ways to helping fix MLB’s salary problem.
THE NUMBERS
In 2001, Major League Baseball teams spent $1.66 billion on payroll and in 2009 the teams spent $2.23 billion, an increase of 34.2%. Considering that this represents an increase in average team payroll from $55.4 million up to $74.4 million, it doesn’t really sound like an extraordinary increase. However, when its compared with the Consumer Price Index, one of the most commonly used tools to measure inflation, that rate of payroll increase is well over the increase in the CPI (20.6%).
Does this mean that MLB salaries are getting too high? Not necessarily. Over the same time period, NFL payrolls have increased by 55.7% while NBA payrolls have gone up 69.8%. The difference between Major League Baseball and those other two leagues is that they have a salary cap while baseball does not. So why then are their payrolls numbers rising faster than the league that has no salary cap?
Is it because revenue streams are better in the NFL and the NBA? Not really. Major League Baseball has had record setting revenues the past few years. Is it because of labor uncertainty that has caused baseball owners to be more reluctant to hand out dollars to players? Nope. In fact, Major League Baseball is the only of these three leagues that is not heading into uncertain waters with regards to labor negotiations between the players and the owners. It is entirely possible that the dramatic rise in payrolls figures in the NBA and NFL are contributing to their current labor situations.
Basically what all of that says is that if the Major League Baseball salaries are rising at alarming rates, then salaries in the NFL and NBA are rising at an even more alarming rate. So then the question becomes whether or not there is any truth to the first statement above and most of that answer depends on what your definition of “absurdly out of hand” is.
In that case, why have salaries been in the news so much in the past few years? Well, a lot of it has to do with the Yankees and other than that, it mostly has to do with the high profile signings of the past few years. Joe Mauer, Ryan Howard, Matt Holliday, Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford, and Troy Tulowitzki are just a few of the players who have signed contracts or contract extensions worth an amount in excess of $100 million. On top of that, three high profile players are going to sign very large contracts within the next year; Adrian Gonzalez, Prince Fielder, and the man who will be resetting the curve when it comes to large contracts, Albert Pujols.
Maybe this is the question we should be asking. Overall payrolls in Major League Baseball have been climbing at a much steadier rate through the past ten years than those of the NBA or the NFL. However, the higher end of MLB contracts has skyrocketed to the point where the highest paid player now makes roughly ten times the league average. Is the payroll situation in baseball getting its reputation because of the aristocratic class of players that are getting paid much more than the league average?
FORMATION OF AN ARISTOCRACY?
In 1997, Albert Belle became the first player to earn $10 million in a single season and he earned exactly that amount. In 2010, 79 different players were paid at least $10 million and Alex Rodriguez was paid more than triple that amount ($33 million). Over that time period, the overall salary figure in MLB has jumped from $969 million to $2.61 billion, an increase of 169.5%.
That’s great and all but the active roster of a Major League Baseball team is 25 players and if we assume that as many as 8 or 9 players get included into the payroll numbers, that still gives us a pool of roughly 1,000 players. If only 8% of players are earning that amount of money, can it really skew the payroll numbers that much? The answer is absolutely.
If we assume that there is a pool of 1,000 players that go into baseball-reference.com’s payroll numbers that means that 999 players earned less than $10 million in 1997 and that number shrunk to 921 by last year. In the past 14 years, the amount of money paid to those players has gone up from $959 million up to $1.46 billion. This represents an increase of just 52.7%, far below the overall increase.
Here’s the amazing part. Last year, the 79 players who earned over $10 million were paid a grand total of $1.15 billion, or 43.9% of the total money paid out in salaries. In 1997, that was just 1.03%.
An aristocracy is a system of government where the power is consolidated amongst a few of the citizens. If the question is whether or not a sort of aristocratic class has developed in Major League Baseball, the answer is an emphatic yes. If there is a problem with the salary structure in baseball, it lies in the fact that the top 8% of wage earners are earning 44% of the money being paid to players.
Is a salary cap a solution to this “problem”? The problem with imposing a salary cap on Major League Baseball is that it provides no disincentive to teams wanting to sign a player to a contract worth $20 million per season. Teams will simply start paying one player that much money and the rest of the roster will be filled with players somewhere on the lower end of the payroll spectrum. If they want to reduce the salaries of the top tier of players, they would need to institute rules in the collective bargaining agreement limiting the maximum size of a contract a player can sign, much like the NBA. Being the highest paid player in the NBA isn’t that big of a deal anymore because the amount of money the top tier of players are getting paid is all the result of an equation based on how long they’ve been in the league.
CONCLUSION
Does the salary structure in baseball need fixing? In my opinion, it does not. Teams that have enormous revenue streams from ticket sales, merchandise sales, advertising, and broadcasting contracts can spend whatever they want on a team. However, if they spend too much too often, they have to pay the luxury tax which goes to teams that do not have the type of revenue streams that the Yankees and Red Sox have.
This system works for baseball and would not work as well for the NBA or the NFL. In the NBA if you have the best player at every position, you’re probably going to win 75 games and win the NBA title. If you have the best player at every position in the NFL, you’ll win 14-15 games every year and play in the Super Bowl more years than not. If you have the best player at every position in baseball, it will give you an excellent shot at the playoffs every year but not necessarily the World Series. From 1996-2001, it can be argued that the Yankees didn’t have one player on their roster that could be considered the best at his position and they won four World Series title in those six years and played in another. Baseball is all about having good players at every position with as few holes as possible. In other words, no matter how much money you spend on putting together the best roster in the history of baseball, it still doesn’t guarantee you a World Series title.
For all of you out there who think the system is broken and a salary cap is necessary, don’t forget that in the last ten years, only one team with the highest payroll in baseball has won the World Series (the 2009 Yankees).
The system isn’t broken, it just might need a tweak or two…
Friday, February 18, 2011
The Albert Pujols Saga
It's been a while since I've written in this space and the reason is quite simple. Between the Super Bowl and the beginning of the NCAA men's basketball tournament is one of the dullest times of the year when it comes to my sporting interests. I've had many ideas for posts rolling around my head but nothing seemed to stick... until this situation came about and then came to a head in the past week.
As any of you who have been paying attention already know, the deadline has passed. Unless the Albert Pujols camp changes their minds over the course of the next eight and a half months, he will become one of the most coveted free agents in the history of sports. Not just baseball, but all sports. It is very rare for a player of his talent and stature to become a free agent and for the most recent example in all sports; we only have to go back to the Decision. As far as baseball is concerned, Pujols will easily be the most coveted free agent since the winter of 2000 when Alex Rodriguez hit the free agent market with a career slash line of .309/.374/.561 and 189 home runs… at the age of 24.
So the questions on everybody’s mind are obvious.
First, what team will he sign with?
Second, how many zeroes will be on his new contract?
Lastly, will he be worth it to whoever makes history?
THE MONEY
In my opinion the second question is the easiest to answer. The most common numbers being kicked around are 10 years at an AAS (average annual salary) of $30 million, besting Alex Rodriguez’s record deal when he resigned with the Yankees a few winters ago. The thing that nobody knows outside of Pujols, his agent, and perhaps the Cardinals negotiating team, is how much higher Pujols wants to set the bar. Does he want $35 million per season? $40 million? Does he want a contract that will eventually make him a partial owner in a team, potentially worth much more than just the dollar value?
The one thing Pujols can’t do is overplay his hand. Granted, he’s going to have several suitors with extremely deep pockets but if he demands something truly ridiculous, I have a feeling that teams will tell him to take a hike. However, if the Yankees and Red Sox get into a true bidding war, it might be the final straw for the owners to start demanding that Major League Baseball take steps to help get player contracts back under control.
THE TEAM
This is where things get really tricky. He’s played 10 years for the St. Louis Cardinals and has become a hero to the city. In those years, he hasn’t said anything that could be construed as a complaint about the organization. Having said that, if he was willing to give the Cardinals any sort of home-town discount, I think he already would have signed an extension.
What other teams have a chance?
The Yankees and Red Sox certainly do because they both have the resources to offer Pujols anything he wants. Because of the money involved, I believe that those will be the three major players in these negotiations and if anyone else makes a play for Pujols, it’ll be someone unexpected.
So who has the best chance?
Right now my gut tells me that the Cardinals still have the inside track and after them, my money is on the Red Sox. They have a very modest sum of money invested in Adrian Gonzalez this year and then he becomes a free agent next winter. If they want to make a play for Albert Pujols, it would make perfect sense for them to either trade Gonzalez or simply let him play for a year and then let him leave in free agency. Either of those scenarios opens up first base and money for Pujols.
On the other hand, Mark Teixeira is two years into a 8 year, $180 million contract that includes a full no-trade clause. Pujols joining the Yankees would involve a position switch or trading Teixeira with the Yankees picking up a serious amount of the remaining $140 million left on his contract. Will they be willing to do that? If the Red Sox start gearing themselves for a serious run at Pujols and the Yankees fall short of the playoffs for the second time in three years, absolutely anything is possible.
In addition to the usual suspects, there are always teams like the Dodgers, Angels, Mets, and Cubs that could all throw more money at Pujols than anyone else offers. If nothing else, it’ll be entertaining.
THE VALUE
Before we delve too deep into the dollars and cents, I need to say a few words about the difference between Major League Baseball and the NBA and NFL. In those two leagues, players are paid largely based on their potential for the future and in baseball, they are paid for what they’ve done in the past with the high hopes that the players will replicate that success.
For instance, on July 30, 2010, Sam Bradford signed the richest contract for a rookie in NFL history. The contract is worth at least $50 million over 6 years with a maximum value of $86 million. All of this was before he had thrown a single pass in the NFL.
In his first three years with the St. Louis Cardinals, Albert Pujols had a slash line of .334/.412/.613, he hit 114 home runs and drove in 381 runs. He won a batting title and finished in the top four of MVP voting all three seasons. Lastly, Pujols was good for 23.6 WAR. In his first three seasons in a Cardinals’ uniform (2001-2003) 88 different players recorded at least 500 plate appearances in each of those three seasons. Only two bested Pujols’ mark of 23.6 WAR.
In those seasons, Barry Bonds earned $40.8 million.
Alex Rodriguez earned $66 million.
Albert Pujols earned $1.7 million.
So the point of that tangent is that in baseball, big contracts are handed out both for what a player has done as well as what a team hopes he will do.
THE NUMBERS
For the sake of argument, for this section we’re going to assume that Pujols signs for 10 years at $300 million. Will he be worth it? First of all, let’s talk about money that comes in from selling tickets. In 2009, teams drew an average of 2,447,686 people to their 81 home games and according to the Team Marketing Report, the average ticket price was $26.74. That means that in 2009 teams brought home an average of $65.5 million in ticket revenues.
If Albert Pujols were to sign and that was to increase ticket revenue by 10% (hardly an outrageous figure) that means that just with selling tickets, he’ll bring an extra $6.55 million to the average team. That doesn’t take into account the sales of concessions or the sales of merchandise which will spike as well.
There’s one flaw in that logic though; we’re not talking about the average franchise when we talk about the potential suitors for Pujols’ services. Now let’s examine the impact that he could have on the Yankees and Red Sox. Instead of average attendances of 2,447,686 and average prices of $26.74, the Red Sox had values of 3,062,699 and $50.24 while the Yankees had values of 3,719,358 and $72.97. instead of modest ticket revenues of $65.5 million, the Red Sox took in $153.8 million while the Yankees took in a ridiculous $271.4 million. Now imagine Pujols adding a potential 10% to those figures…
As far as the Red Sox and Yankees are concerned, the only real problems I see are a lack of flexibility with regards to their rosters and payroll and that the Yankees already have a high priced first baseman under contract for six more years.
Lastly, there is a very justified worry about giving a 31 year old player a 10 year contract worth this much money, especially given the long line of albatross type contracts that have hung around the necks of Major League franchises in the past… but have they?
There have been a grand total of 27 seasons in which a player earned more than $20 million. On average, they have produced 4.8 WAR (Wins Above Replacement player), a very good mark, but not quite worth that much money. However, there is one interesting trend amongst those players. As a rule, they kept very similar value to what they had before earning such large paydays.
Those 27 seasons were recorded by 9 different players and 6 of them put forth increased production (according to their WAR value) compared to when they were making less than $20 million per season. One of those can very easily be thrown out because in his only season earning more than $20 million, Barry Bonds was injured and limited to only 52 plate appearance. Therefore, 75% of the players in this sample (which Pujols is about to join) increased their Wins Above Replacement after signing their huge paydays.
Considering that Pujols has averaged 8.38 WAR per season in the majors, the thought of him increasing that average is just downright scary.
PREDICTION
He’ll get his 10 year contract; I have no doubts. For money, my guess is $250-300 million in guaranteed money with incentives and potential ownership options worth anywhere from $25 million to $100 million more. I know, way to narrow it down, right?
The tricky question is where he’ll end up. Based on what happened this past offseason, I’m not sure that the Cardinals are looking to give him a record breaking contract and if that’s the case, he won’t be playing in St. Louis next year. If he leaves St. Louis, my best guess is that the Cubs will come up with the money to sign him but only after seriously outbidding the Yankees and Red Sox…
Either that or he takes a serious paycut to join the Mariners…
I can dream, can’t I?
As any of you who have been paying attention already know, the deadline has passed. Unless the Albert Pujols camp changes their minds over the course of the next eight and a half months, he will become one of the most coveted free agents in the history of sports. Not just baseball, but all sports. It is very rare for a player of his talent and stature to become a free agent and for the most recent example in all sports; we only have to go back to the Decision. As far as baseball is concerned, Pujols will easily be the most coveted free agent since the winter of 2000 when Alex Rodriguez hit the free agent market with a career slash line of .309/.374/.561 and 189 home runs… at the age of 24.
So the questions on everybody’s mind are obvious.
First, what team will he sign with?
Second, how many zeroes will be on his new contract?
Lastly, will he be worth it to whoever makes history?
THE MONEY
In my opinion the second question is the easiest to answer. The most common numbers being kicked around are 10 years at an AAS (average annual salary) of $30 million, besting Alex Rodriguez’s record deal when he resigned with the Yankees a few winters ago. The thing that nobody knows outside of Pujols, his agent, and perhaps the Cardinals negotiating team, is how much higher Pujols wants to set the bar. Does he want $35 million per season? $40 million? Does he want a contract that will eventually make him a partial owner in a team, potentially worth much more than just the dollar value?
The one thing Pujols can’t do is overplay his hand. Granted, he’s going to have several suitors with extremely deep pockets but if he demands something truly ridiculous, I have a feeling that teams will tell him to take a hike. However, if the Yankees and Red Sox get into a true bidding war, it might be the final straw for the owners to start demanding that Major League Baseball take steps to help get player contracts back under control.
THE TEAM
This is where things get really tricky. He’s played 10 years for the St. Louis Cardinals and has become a hero to the city. In those years, he hasn’t said anything that could be construed as a complaint about the organization. Having said that, if he was willing to give the Cardinals any sort of home-town discount, I think he already would have signed an extension.
What other teams have a chance?
The Yankees and Red Sox certainly do because they both have the resources to offer Pujols anything he wants. Because of the money involved, I believe that those will be the three major players in these negotiations and if anyone else makes a play for Pujols, it’ll be someone unexpected.
So who has the best chance?
Right now my gut tells me that the Cardinals still have the inside track and after them, my money is on the Red Sox. They have a very modest sum of money invested in Adrian Gonzalez this year and then he becomes a free agent next winter. If they want to make a play for Albert Pujols, it would make perfect sense for them to either trade Gonzalez or simply let him play for a year and then let him leave in free agency. Either of those scenarios opens up first base and money for Pujols.
On the other hand, Mark Teixeira is two years into a 8 year, $180 million contract that includes a full no-trade clause. Pujols joining the Yankees would involve a position switch or trading Teixeira with the Yankees picking up a serious amount of the remaining $140 million left on his contract. Will they be willing to do that? If the Red Sox start gearing themselves for a serious run at Pujols and the Yankees fall short of the playoffs for the second time in three years, absolutely anything is possible.
In addition to the usual suspects, there are always teams like the Dodgers, Angels, Mets, and Cubs that could all throw more money at Pujols than anyone else offers. If nothing else, it’ll be entertaining.
THE VALUE
Before we delve too deep into the dollars and cents, I need to say a few words about the difference between Major League Baseball and the NBA and NFL. In those two leagues, players are paid largely based on their potential for the future and in baseball, they are paid for what they’ve done in the past with the high hopes that the players will replicate that success.
For instance, on July 30, 2010, Sam Bradford signed the richest contract for a rookie in NFL history. The contract is worth at least $50 million over 6 years with a maximum value of $86 million. All of this was before he had thrown a single pass in the NFL.
In his first three years with the St. Louis Cardinals, Albert Pujols had a slash line of .334/.412/.613, he hit 114 home runs and drove in 381 runs. He won a batting title and finished in the top four of MVP voting all three seasons. Lastly, Pujols was good for 23.6 WAR. In his first three seasons in a Cardinals’ uniform (2001-2003) 88 different players recorded at least 500 plate appearances in each of those three seasons. Only two bested Pujols’ mark of 23.6 WAR.
In those seasons, Barry Bonds earned $40.8 million.
Alex Rodriguez earned $66 million.
Albert Pujols earned $1.7 million.
So the point of that tangent is that in baseball, big contracts are handed out both for what a player has done as well as what a team hopes he will do.
THE NUMBERS
For the sake of argument, for this section we’re going to assume that Pujols signs for 10 years at $300 million. Will he be worth it? First of all, let’s talk about money that comes in from selling tickets. In 2009, teams drew an average of 2,447,686 people to their 81 home games and according to the Team Marketing Report, the average ticket price was $26.74. That means that in 2009 teams brought home an average of $65.5 million in ticket revenues.
If Albert Pujols were to sign and that was to increase ticket revenue by 10% (hardly an outrageous figure) that means that just with selling tickets, he’ll bring an extra $6.55 million to the average team. That doesn’t take into account the sales of concessions or the sales of merchandise which will spike as well.
There’s one flaw in that logic though; we’re not talking about the average franchise when we talk about the potential suitors for Pujols’ services. Now let’s examine the impact that he could have on the Yankees and Red Sox. Instead of average attendances of 2,447,686 and average prices of $26.74, the Red Sox had values of 3,062,699 and $50.24 while the Yankees had values of 3,719,358 and $72.97. instead of modest ticket revenues of $65.5 million, the Red Sox took in $153.8 million while the Yankees took in a ridiculous $271.4 million. Now imagine Pujols adding a potential 10% to those figures…
As far as the Red Sox and Yankees are concerned, the only real problems I see are a lack of flexibility with regards to their rosters and payroll and that the Yankees already have a high priced first baseman under contract for six more years.
Lastly, there is a very justified worry about giving a 31 year old player a 10 year contract worth this much money, especially given the long line of albatross type contracts that have hung around the necks of Major League franchises in the past… but have they?
There have been a grand total of 27 seasons in which a player earned more than $20 million. On average, they have produced 4.8 WAR (Wins Above Replacement player), a very good mark, but not quite worth that much money. However, there is one interesting trend amongst those players. As a rule, they kept very similar value to what they had before earning such large paydays.
Those 27 seasons were recorded by 9 different players and 6 of them put forth increased production (according to their WAR value) compared to when they were making less than $20 million per season. One of those can very easily be thrown out because in his only season earning more than $20 million, Barry Bonds was injured and limited to only 52 plate appearance. Therefore, 75% of the players in this sample (which Pujols is about to join) increased their Wins Above Replacement after signing their huge paydays.
Considering that Pujols has averaged 8.38 WAR per season in the majors, the thought of him increasing that average is just downright scary.
PREDICTION
He’ll get his 10 year contract; I have no doubts. For money, my guess is $250-300 million in guaranteed money with incentives and potential ownership options worth anywhere from $25 million to $100 million more. I know, way to narrow it down, right?
The tricky question is where he’ll end up. Based on what happened this past offseason, I’m not sure that the Cardinals are looking to give him a record breaking contract and if that’s the case, he won’t be playing in St. Louis next year. If he leaves St. Louis, my best guess is that the Cubs will come up with the money to sign him but only after seriously outbidding the Yankees and Red Sox…
Either that or he takes a serious paycut to join the Mariners…
I can dream, can’t I?
Saturday, January 15, 2011
BCS Recap 2011
The college football season has been over for several days now and if you’re anything like me, you’re going through some serious FBS withdrawals. So in order to help you (and me) cope, I’m going to go through the winners and losers from this year’s BCS season (while flitting briefly back into the rest of the bowl season).
I was very surprised when I was making these lists how many teams and conferences ended up on both sides. This year I’m going to lump them together into the “Bittersweet” category. Without any further delay, let’s jump right in with the losers of this year’s BCS season.
LOSERS
E. GORDON GEE
The president of The Ohio State University put his foot in his mouth a while ago by saying that, all else being equal, non-AQ schools don’t deserve BCS berths and most of his reasoning was based on relative strength of schedule. As he infamously quipped, “we do not play the Little Sisters of the Poor.”
Ohio State finished the season 12-1 after a Sugar Bowl win against Arkansas. That one loss came to Wisconsin by a score of 31-18. TCU, who clearly made it to the BCS on the backs of weakling opponents, was blown out by Wiscon-…
Wait, they won? They held the Badgers juggernaut offense to 19 points when Ohio State couldn’t hold them under 30?
The same trend that has made the NCAA men’s basketball tournament so much fun is starting to creep into college football as well. The fact of the matter is that there are too many good coaches and too many good players at the FBS level and because of that, it’s no longer inconceivable that the best team in the country comes from the Mountain West or the WAC. Do they play weaker opponents? Yes. Does that necessarily mean that they are not better teams?
Just check the final BCS and AP polls of the season. Nevada was ranked 11th, Boise State 9th, and only one team ended up ranked higher than TCU.
To all of you traditional power people spewing garbage about how the little guys don’t belong on the same field as you, I offer this challenge. Get on the field and prove it. If you want to make them go away, go into their house and dominate. Until then, just shut up.
THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE
Not only did Wisconsin lose in the Rose Bowl to TCU, but Ohio State followed up their brilliant first half with a shoddy at best second half in the Sugar Bowl to eke out a win. The Buckeyes desperately needed an interception after allowing the Razorbacks to block a punt and recover the ball deep in OSU territory with a minute left.
Before the BCS kicked off, Iowa beat Missouri, Illinois beat Baylor, and Kansas State lost a close one to Syracuse on a controversial penalty.
Then Penn State lost to Florida 37-24. That’s not too bad, it was Urban Meyer’s last game so they were obviously jacked up for the game. But then Michigan and BCS contender Michigan State combined to lose by a score of 101-21.
All in all, the Big Ten finished 3-5 in their bowl games but just 1-3 against the mighty SEC and it very well could have been 0-4 were it not for the Buckeyes stout defense. They have a long way to go before being considered one of the best conferences in the country.
WINNERS
PAC-10
Despite losing the BCS National Championship Game, the Pac-10 turned a lot of heads this postseason. People were harping on the conference when they only had 4 teams that were bowl eligible at the end of the season (although USC being ineligible isn’t exactly the conference’s fault; the Trojans did finish 8-5) and it didn’t start well when Oklahoma State put a hurting on Arizona 36-10.
At that point there was a sentiment that the Pac-10 might go 0-4 in those bowls. After all, Oregon was matched up against Auburn of the mighty SEC for the title, Stanford was going up against a tough Virginia Tech team that had won 11 in a row and Washington was playing the same Nebraska team that went up to Seattle and crushed the Huskies 56-21 just a few short weeks ago.
Washington 19, #18 Nebraska 7
#4 Stanford 40, #13 Virginia Tech 12
At this point, I thought that the Pac-10 had done enough to be considered a “winner” in the bowl season. Then Oregon went out and allowed Auburn the second fewest points of their championship season and they never trailed by more than 8 points. Considering that the margins of victory in the SEC’s previous four BCS title games were 27, 14, 10, and 16 (and truth be told, only Florida’s 24-14 win over Oklahoma was as close as the final score would indicate) staying within a touchdown of the best the SEC had to offer was a good accomplishment for the Ducks.
SEC
Five consecutive BCS titles that have gone to four different schools. I may be a big fan of the Pac-10 and not a huge fan of the SEC but I am not deluded enough to say that any conference is anywhere close to as good as the SEC right now. Despite the fact that the conference went 5-5 in their bowl games and couldn’t even sweep their two BCS appearances, they did nothing to dispel the sentiment that they are the best conference.
To everyone else out there, if you want SEC fans, players, coaches, university personnel, and analysts to stop talking about the SEC’s dominance, beat them. Until then, live with it.
BITTERSWEET
I decided to create this category this season because it seemed that there were a large group of people that had ups this bowl season that weren’t without the downs and for our first entrant, we look no farther than our newly anointed national champions.
AUBURN
Enjoy it while it lasts Tiger fans.
Cam Newton has declared for the NFL draft and perhaps more importantly, game-changing defensive tackle Nick Fairley has also decided to go pro. On the strength of those two players and what they did this season, I am almost willing to say right now that next year is looking like an 8 or 9 win season for Auburn. Congratulations on a national championship but I’ll put good money on them not repeating.
NON-AQ
TCU got to the Rose Bowl, played a big time AQ opponent and beat them without resorting to “trick” plays. They played a very straightforward game and they beat the Badgers straight up. With this signature win being exactly what the non-AQ teams have wanted forever, what could possibly land them in this category?
The non-AQ conferences ended the season with 6 teams ranked in the BCS Top 25. They were:
#3 TCU
#10 Boise State
#15 Nevada
#19 Utah
#24 Hawaii
#25 UCF
Unfortunately, Boise State was never considered for an at-large selection to a BCS bowl. Of course, say the detractors, they lost to a conference opponent in the WAC! They lost by a field goal on the road at a ranked team. How many other teams in the country would have dropped from 4th to 11th in one week when losing to a ranked team on the road?
The search for respect continues…
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
They ended their famous drought where they had never beaten an SEC team in a bowl game and played one of the best halves of football in any BCS game (topped, if at all, only by Stanford’s second half against Virginia Tech). In the second half, they almost looked disinterested on offense, scoring just 3 points and allowing the Razorbacks to chip away at their lead slowly but surely.
On top of that, the only reason that the players who sold memorabilia were allowed to play is if they committed to Coach Jim Tressel that they would come back to school next year and serve their suspensions. I personally don’t think they should have been allowed to play in this game but they were nonetheless and as a further ramification, the Buckeyes will need some extraordinary play from the guys replacing these players to compete for another BCS berth next year.
The last thing I want to mention about the 2010-2011 bowl season is the controversy that threatened to derail the magical season of Auburn this year and if Cam Newton knew anything about it, that magical season deserved to be derailed. I’m not going to say that I wish he had been declared ineligible (and more importantly, not reinstated) or that the Oregon Ducks got cheated out of a national championship.
As I have said before in this space specifically in reference to the Reggie Bush situation with USC, history happened, we can’t change it. Did Cam Newton deserve the Heisman this year? Absolutely. Did Auburn deserve to win the national title? Without a doubt; while I still think that Oregon was the slightly better team and would win maybe 53 out of 100 games, on this day, Auburn was hands down the better team… just by a little bit.
All that I don’t want to see is evidence that Cam Newton knew about the “pay-for-play” scheme during his time at Auburn. It cheapens everything Auburn did this year and if that is the case, then yes, Oregon got screwed a bit just like Oklahoma (and one could argue, Auburn) a few years ago by Reggie Bush.
I hope nothing comes out and I hope that he is telling the truth even though I was pulling for the Ducks. I like to see my teams win but above that, I like to see good clean football and this year’s national championship game was exactly that… assuming Newton was eligible.
I hope you enjoyed the FBS season this year as much as I did and I can’t wait to write more about it next year. However, it is that time once again to shift my focus to the NFL, then the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, and eventually Major League Baseball.
Until next time…
I was very surprised when I was making these lists how many teams and conferences ended up on both sides. This year I’m going to lump them together into the “Bittersweet” category. Without any further delay, let’s jump right in with the losers of this year’s BCS season.
LOSERS
E. GORDON GEE
The president of The Ohio State University put his foot in his mouth a while ago by saying that, all else being equal, non-AQ schools don’t deserve BCS berths and most of his reasoning was based on relative strength of schedule. As he infamously quipped, “we do not play the Little Sisters of the Poor.”
Ohio State finished the season 12-1 after a Sugar Bowl win against Arkansas. That one loss came to Wisconsin by a score of 31-18. TCU, who clearly made it to the BCS on the backs of weakling opponents, was blown out by Wiscon-…
Wait, they won? They held the Badgers juggernaut offense to 19 points when Ohio State couldn’t hold them under 30?
The same trend that has made the NCAA men’s basketball tournament so much fun is starting to creep into college football as well. The fact of the matter is that there are too many good coaches and too many good players at the FBS level and because of that, it’s no longer inconceivable that the best team in the country comes from the Mountain West or the WAC. Do they play weaker opponents? Yes. Does that necessarily mean that they are not better teams?
Just check the final BCS and AP polls of the season. Nevada was ranked 11th, Boise State 9th, and only one team ended up ranked higher than TCU.
To all of you traditional power people spewing garbage about how the little guys don’t belong on the same field as you, I offer this challenge. Get on the field and prove it. If you want to make them go away, go into their house and dominate. Until then, just shut up.
THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE
Not only did Wisconsin lose in the Rose Bowl to TCU, but Ohio State followed up their brilliant first half with a shoddy at best second half in the Sugar Bowl to eke out a win. The Buckeyes desperately needed an interception after allowing the Razorbacks to block a punt and recover the ball deep in OSU territory with a minute left.
Before the BCS kicked off, Iowa beat Missouri, Illinois beat Baylor, and Kansas State lost a close one to Syracuse on a controversial penalty.
Then Penn State lost to Florida 37-24. That’s not too bad, it was Urban Meyer’s last game so they were obviously jacked up for the game. But then Michigan and BCS contender Michigan State combined to lose by a score of 101-21.
All in all, the Big Ten finished 3-5 in their bowl games but just 1-3 against the mighty SEC and it very well could have been 0-4 were it not for the Buckeyes stout defense. They have a long way to go before being considered one of the best conferences in the country.
WINNERS
PAC-10
Despite losing the BCS National Championship Game, the Pac-10 turned a lot of heads this postseason. People were harping on the conference when they only had 4 teams that were bowl eligible at the end of the season (although USC being ineligible isn’t exactly the conference’s fault; the Trojans did finish 8-5) and it didn’t start well when Oklahoma State put a hurting on Arizona 36-10.
At that point there was a sentiment that the Pac-10 might go 0-4 in those bowls. After all, Oregon was matched up against Auburn of the mighty SEC for the title, Stanford was going up against a tough Virginia Tech team that had won 11 in a row and Washington was playing the same Nebraska team that went up to Seattle and crushed the Huskies 56-21 just a few short weeks ago.
Washington 19, #18 Nebraska 7
#4 Stanford 40, #13 Virginia Tech 12
At this point, I thought that the Pac-10 had done enough to be considered a “winner” in the bowl season. Then Oregon went out and allowed Auburn the second fewest points of their championship season and they never trailed by more than 8 points. Considering that the margins of victory in the SEC’s previous four BCS title games were 27, 14, 10, and 16 (and truth be told, only Florida’s 24-14 win over Oklahoma was as close as the final score would indicate) staying within a touchdown of the best the SEC had to offer was a good accomplishment for the Ducks.
SEC
Five consecutive BCS titles that have gone to four different schools. I may be a big fan of the Pac-10 and not a huge fan of the SEC but I am not deluded enough to say that any conference is anywhere close to as good as the SEC right now. Despite the fact that the conference went 5-5 in their bowl games and couldn’t even sweep their two BCS appearances, they did nothing to dispel the sentiment that they are the best conference.
To everyone else out there, if you want SEC fans, players, coaches, university personnel, and analysts to stop talking about the SEC’s dominance, beat them. Until then, live with it.
BITTERSWEET
I decided to create this category this season because it seemed that there were a large group of people that had ups this bowl season that weren’t without the downs and for our first entrant, we look no farther than our newly anointed national champions.
AUBURN
Enjoy it while it lasts Tiger fans.
Cam Newton has declared for the NFL draft and perhaps more importantly, game-changing defensive tackle Nick Fairley has also decided to go pro. On the strength of those two players and what they did this season, I am almost willing to say right now that next year is looking like an 8 or 9 win season for Auburn. Congratulations on a national championship but I’ll put good money on them not repeating.
NON-AQ
TCU got to the Rose Bowl, played a big time AQ opponent and beat them without resorting to “trick” plays. They played a very straightforward game and they beat the Badgers straight up. With this signature win being exactly what the non-AQ teams have wanted forever, what could possibly land them in this category?
The non-AQ conferences ended the season with 6 teams ranked in the BCS Top 25. They were:
#3 TCU
#10 Boise State
#15 Nevada
#19 Utah
#24 Hawaii
#25 UCF
Unfortunately, Boise State was never considered for an at-large selection to a BCS bowl. Of course, say the detractors, they lost to a conference opponent in the WAC! They lost by a field goal on the road at a ranked team. How many other teams in the country would have dropped from 4th to 11th in one week when losing to a ranked team on the road?
The search for respect continues…
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
They ended their famous drought where they had never beaten an SEC team in a bowl game and played one of the best halves of football in any BCS game (topped, if at all, only by Stanford’s second half against Virginia Tech). In the second half, they almost looked disinterested on offense, scoring just 3 points and allowing the Razorbacks to chip away at their lead slowly but surely.
On top of that, the only reason that the players who sold memorabilia were allowed to play is if they committed to Coach Jim Tressel that they would come back to school next year and serve their suspensions. I personally don’t think they should have been allowed to play in this game but they were nonetheless and as a further ramification, the Buckeyes will need some extraordinary play from the guys replacing these players to compete for another BCS berth next year.
The last thing I want to mention about the 2010-2011 bowl season is the controversy that threatened to derail the magical season of Auburn this year and if Cam Newton knew anything about it, that magical season deserved to be derailed. I’m not going to say that I wish he had been declared ineligible (and more importantly, not reinstated) or that the Oregon Ducks got cheated out of a national championship.
As I have said before in this space specifically in reference to the Reggie Bush situation with USC, history happened, we can’t change it. Did Cam Newton deserve the Heisman this year? Absolutely. Did Auburn deserve to win the national title? Without a doubt; while I still think that Oregon was the slightly better team and would win maybe 53 out of 100 games, on this day, Auburn was hands down the better team… just by a little bit.
All that I don’t want to see is evidence that Cam Newton knew about the “pay-for-play” scheme during his time at Auburn. It cheapens everything Auburn did this year and if that is the case, then yes, Oregon got screwed a bit just like Oklahoma (and one could argue, Auburn) a few years ago by Reggie Bush.
I hope nothing comes out and I hope that he is telling the truth even though I was pulling for the Ducks. I like to see my teams win but above that, I like to see good clean football and this year’s national championship game was exactly that… assuming Newton was eligible.
I hope you enjoyed the FBS season this year as much as I did and I can’t wait to write more about it next year. However, it is that time once again to shift my focus to the NFL, then the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, and eventually Major League Baseball.
Until next time…
Friday, December 31, 2010
Gone Streaking (Team Edition)
Don’t worry, there is no nudity in the course of this blog post.
Last Tuesday, the 20th ranked Seminoles of Florida State went on the road to battle the top ranked Huskies of Connecticut. Instead of a good game, the crowd was treated to a laugher as the Huskies won going away, 93-62. However, the crowd of 16,294 did see history that night as the UConn women set the record for the longest winning streak in Division 1 basketball history (men’s or women’s), surpassing the 88 game winning streak reeled off by the men of UCLA from 1971-1974.
It seemed like it took mere minutes after the Huskies won their 89th straight game for the comparisons to start coming in. Was UCLA’s streak more impressive than UConn’s? As was noted, in their 90 games, UConn played 16 teams ranked in the top 25 (UCLA played 12) and five times, they played and defeated the #2 team in the country.
At this point I could go deep into the numbers, examining the star players of both teams and how well their offenses and defenses performed and try (somehow) to create a formula to accurately depict the difference between men’s and women’s college basketball. However, I didn’t. Just to be clear, it wasn’t because I looked into it and determined it was too hard. It was because in all my years of following basketball, I have come to the conclusion that while they are playing by basically the same rules, men and women at the same age level (high school, college, or pros) are very nearly playing two different sports.
How many seven footers either played for UCLA or against UCLA during that streak? Now, same question but this time for UConn instead of UCLA?
No, I didn’t just come to the conclusion that men are, on average, taller than women. However, it changes the way that the game is played. Over the last 36 years, several rule changes have come about which again changed the way the game is played. For instance, when UCLA was on their run of dominance, the lane was much narrower than it is today, favoring the first few seven footers the sport saw. Along with making it much wider (due mostly to the contributions of Wilt Chamberlain and UCLA alum Lew Alcindor), in 1986 the NCAA universally incorporated the three point field goal. These differences, along with the most basic difference of gender, make this question a classic case of comparing apples to oranges.
In my opinion, UCLA’s streak of 88 straight wins is incredibly impressive and so is UConn’s streak of 90 straight wins. However, one does not diminish the other and I don’t think that they can be directly compared with one another.
The purpose of this post is not to compare or contrast, but rather to celebrate various streaks performed by both teams and individuals and near the end, if you’re lucky, I might just take a stand and say what I think is the most impressive sporting streak amongst these select few.
It should be noted that I limited myself mostly to sports that I have a knowledge base about. I apologize to all of you hockey fans out there but I have a very difficult time speaking intelligently about hockey. When I list these streaks within their respective headings, please bear in mind that my listing is random and has nothing to do with what I think might be more impressive.
Without further adieu…
BASKETBALL
Connecticut
90 games
11/18/08 to 12/30/10
UCLA
88 games
1/30/71 to 1/19/74
Honestly the only reason that I can possibly say that the Bruins streak is more impressive is that it lasted longer. In the 70’s, the Bruins played 30 games pretty much every year and that included the NCAA tournament. In each of the last two years, UConn has played 33 games in the regular season and then another 6 in the tournament. All this means is that UCLA’s streak lasted a total of 1,085 days over 4 different seasons (against 768 and 3 for UConn). What this means is that in the world of college sports, John Wooden had to turn over a quarter of his roster one more time that Auriemma did in Connecticut.
I know, it’s flimsy. Honestly, at this point that is all that separates these streaks in my mind. Both are outstanding accomplishments although if push came to shove and they were ever able to play each other, I doubt Auriemma’s Huskies would have an answer for the all-time leading scorer in NBA history.
Los Angeles Lakers
33 games
11/5/71 to 1/7/72
What makes this one amazing is where it stands compared to other winning streaks in NBA history. The season before this one, the Milwaukee Bucks had tied the longest ever winning streak by winning 20 in a row. The Lakers won 33 and since then, only the 07-08 Rockets have come close and they still fell 11 short.
To put that in perspective, the Lakers record for wins in a season, set that season (with a 69-13 record) was broken by the 95-96 Chicago Bulls. Those Bulls started the season 41-3, they went 33-8 on the road and 39-2 at home. They also finished a streak of 44 consecutive wins at home and won their first 37 home games of the year.
The Bulls longest winning streak that season? 18 games.
FOOTBALL
New England Patriots
21 games
10/5/03 to 10/31/04
Starting in Week 5 of the 2003 season, the Patriots won each of their final 12 games, then all three games in the playoffs (capturing their second Super Bowl title along the way), and their first 6 games of the 2004 season.
University of Oklahoma
47 games
10/10/53 to 11/16/57
In this day and age of the BCS, this number seems truly ludicrous and that’s mostly because it is. The remarkable part of this streak is guys who played as freshmen when the streak started in 1953 would have graduated by the time the streak ended in 1957. This becomes more impressive when you take into account that most freshmen didn’t play either football or basketball and were thus only three year players. Therefore, if you assume no freshmen played for Bud Wilkinson’s teams, he would have had to turn over his roster entirely. Even if freshmen played for him, they could not possibly have played through the entire streak because it spanned across five seasons.
In the past ten years, we’ve seen two teams with identical 34 game winning streaks, Miami (FL) and USC. Both had a late season run in year number one, an undefeated national title team in year two, and a team that lost in the national championship game in year three. And yet, both of them would have had to go undefeated their next season just to match Oklahoma.
BASEBALL
New York Giants
26 games
9/7/16 to 9/30/16
The thing that is impressive about the Giants streak and indeed about baseball streaks in general that no other sport can match is in Major League Baseball, there are virtually no practice days. Every day is a game day. I understand that physically you have to be much tougher to play in the NFL than to play Major League Baseball but riddle me this: If an NFL quarterback has a really bad day on a Tuesday, what happens? Well, he struggles through practice and goes to bed early instead of going out on the town and by the time he plays his next game, that bad day is a memory. If a big league pitcher has a bad Tuesday, what happens? He gives up seven runs in the first inning and gets sent to the minor leagues and with diminished confidence, never makes it back to the majors. You have to be very physically tough to play professional football but you have to be very mentally tough to play professional baseball.
People probably should have seen the handwriting on the wall with this team because from May 9th to May 29th, the Giants played the first 17 games of a 21 game road trip… and won 17 straight. In the interest of full disclosure it should be mentioned that their winning streak in September was played entirely on their home field but that’s the way things were done in 1916.
The Giants streak encompassed 24 days, only five of which were off days. More remarkable, the Giants swept 8 doubleheaders (including three in a four day stretch) on their way to 26 straight wins.
OTHER
Byron Nelson
11 PGA Tour events
1945
This is one of those streaks that will probably never be broken because there is too much competition on the PGA Tour. Tiger Woods is the best golfer of his generation by a long shot and he couldn’t even come within a month of tying Nelson’s streak.
Cael Sanderson
159 straight matches
1998-2002
I don’t know too much about wrestling but I do know that a record of 159-0 and four national championships speaks for itself.
Edwin Moses
122 straight races won
9/2/77 to 6/4/87
What makes this streak so remarkable is the fact that it spanned nearly 10 years. How many individual athletes can stay at the top of their field for ten years? Also, it wasn’t just that he was the best, he didn’t lose.
LAST BUT NOT LEAST
Every winning streak is impressive in its own way. College streaks are impressive (for team sports) because the personnel and sometimes the coaching staff are changing on an annual basis. Professional streaks are impressive because they are done against the best that sport has to offer, usually worldwide. However, the most impressive winning streak in my humble opinion lasted 132 years.
No, you didn’t misread that; 132 years. Any of you who are familiar with this streak already know what I’m talking about. For the rest of you, I give you; The America’s Cup.
It was actually a common misconception that the sailing race was named after the country that seemed unable to lose this trophy but actually, it was named after the America, the first yacht to win the Cup. Over the subsequent 132 years and 24 defenses, the United States always brought home the Cup until Australia ended the run of dominance in 1983.
Since losing it, the Cup has come back to the US only once before legal wrangling allowed the Golden Gate Yacht Club to challenge for the cup earlier this year, winning it back 2-0.
To give you an idea about how lengthy this run has been, the first skipper ever to lose the Cup for the US (Dennis Connor) was born 91 years after the America first won the Cup.
Am I right? Maybe, maybe not. Part of the fun in sports is the debate and that is one of my favorite parts. Check back later (maybe this weekend) for another edition of Gone Streaking (Player Edition).
Last Tuesday, the 20th ranked Seminoles of Florida State went on the road to battle the top ranked Huskies of Connecticut. Instead of a good game, the crowd was treated to a laugher as the Huskies won going away, 93-62. However, the crowd of 16,294 did see history that night as the UConn women set the record for the longest winning streak in Division 1 basketball history (men’s or women’s), surpassing the 88 game winning streak reeled off by the men of UCLA from 1971-1974.
It seemed like it took mere minutes after the Huskies won their 89th straight game for the comparisons to start coming in. Was UCLA’s streak more impressive than UConn’s? As was noted, in their 90 games, UConn played 16 teams ranked in the top 25 (UCLA played 12) and five times, they played and defeated the #2 team in the country.
At this point I could go deep into the numbers, examining the star players of both teams and how well their offenses and defenses performed and try (somehow) to create a formula to accurately depict the difference between men’s and women’s college basketball. However, I didn’t. Just to be clear, it wasn’t because I looked into it and determined it was too hard. It was because in all my years of following basketball, I have come to the conclusion that while they are playing by basically the same rules, men and women at the same age level (high school, college, or pros) are very nearly playing two different sports.
How many seven footers either played for UCLA or against UCLA during that streak? Now, same question but this time for UConn instead of UCLA?
No, I didn’t just come to the conclusion that men are, on average, taller than women. However, it changes the way that the game is played. Over the last 36 years, several rule changes have come about which again changed the way the game is played. For instance, when UCLA was on their run of dominance, the lane was much narrower than it is today, favoring the first few seven footers the sport saw. Along with making it much wider (due mostly to the contributions of Wilt Chamberlain and UCLA alum Lew Alcindor), in 1986 the NCAA universally incorporated the three point field goal. These differences, along with the most basic difference of gender, make this question a classic case of comparing apples to oranges.
In my opinion, UCLA’s streak of 88 straight wins is incredibly impressive and so is UConn’s streak of 90 straight wins. However, one does not diminish the other and I don’t think that they can be directly compared with one another.
The purpose of this post is not to compare or contrast, but rather to celebrate various streaks performed by both teams and individuals and near the end, if you’re lucky, I might just take a stand and say what I think is the most impressive sporting streak amongst these select few.
It should be noted that I limited myself mostly to sports that I have a knowledge base about. I apologize to all of you hockey fans out there but I have a very difficult time speaking intelligently about hockey. When I list these streaks within their respective headings, please bear in mind that my listing is random and has nothing to do with what I think might be more impressive.
Without further adieu…
BASKETBALL
Connecticut
90 games
11/18/08 to 12/30/10
UCLA
88 games
1/30/71 to 1/19/74
Honestly the only reason that I can possibly say that the Bruins streak is more impressive is that it lasted longer. In the 70’s, the Bruins played 30 games pretty much every year and that included the NCAA tournament. In each of the last two years, UConn has played 33 games in the regular season and then another 6 in the tournament. All this means is that UCLA’s streak lasted a total of 1,085 days over 4 different seasons (against 768 and 3 for UConn). What this means is that in the world of college sports, John Wooden had to turn over a quarter of his roster one more time that Auriemma did in Connecticut.
I know, it’s flimsy. Honestly, at this point that is all that separates these streaks in my mind. Both are outstanding accomplishments although if push came to shove and they were ever able to play each other, I doubt Auriemma’s Huskies would have an answer for the all-time leading scorer in NBA history.
Los Angeles Lakers
33 games
11/5/71 to 1/7/72
What makes this one amazing is where it stands compared to other winning streaks in NBA history. The season before this one, the Milwaukee Bucks had tied the longest ever winning streak by winning 20 in a row. The Lakers won 33 and since then, only the 07-08 Rockets have come close and they still fell 11 short.
To put that in perspective, the Lakers record for wins in a season, set that season (with a 69-13 record) was broken by the 95-96 Chicago Bulls. Those Bulls started the season 41-3, they went 33-8 on the road and 39-2 at home. They also finished a streak of 44 consecutive wins at home and won their first 37 home games of the year.
The Bulls longest winning streak that season? 18 games.
FOOTBALL
New England Patriots
21 games
10/5/03 to 10/31/04
Starting in Week 5 of the 2003 season, the Patriots won each of their final 12 games, then all three games in the playoffs (capturing their second Super Bowl title along the way), and their first 6 games of the 2004 season.
University of Oklahoma
47 games
10/10/53 to 11/16/57
In this day and age of the BCS, this number seems truly ludicrous and that’s mostly because it is. The remarkable part of this streak is guys who played as freshmen when the streak started in 1953 would have graduated by the time the streak ended in 1957. This becomes more impressive when you take into account that most freshmen didn’t play either football or basketball and were thus only three year players. Therefore, if you assume no freshmen played for Bud Wilkinson’s teams, he would have had to turn over his roster entirely. Even if freshmen played for him, they could not possibly have played through the entire streak because it spanned across five seasons.
In the past ten years, we’ve seen two teams with identical 34 game winning streaks, Miami (FL) and USC. Both had a late season run in year number one, an undefeated national title team in year two, and a team that lost in the national championship game in year three. And yet, both of them would have had to go undefeated their next season just to match Oklahoma.
BASEBALL
New York Giants
26 games
9/7/16 to 9/30/16
The thing that is impressive about the Giants streak and indeed about baseball streaks in general that no other sport can match is in Major League Baseball, there are virtually no practice days. Every day is a game day. I understand that physically you have to be much tougher to play in the NFL than to play Major League Baseball but riddle me this: If an NFL quarterback has a really bad day on a Tuesday, what happens? Well, he struggles through practice and goes to bed early instead of going out on the town and by the time he plays his next game, that bad day is a memory. If a big league pitcher has a bad Tuesday, what happens? He gives up seven runs in the first inning and gets sent to the minor leagues and with diminished confidence, never makes it back to the majors. You have to be very physically tough to play professional football but you have to be very mentally tough to play professional baseball.
People probably should have seen the handwriting on the wall with this team because from May 9th to May 29th, the Giants played the first 17 games of a 21 game road trip… and won 17 straight. In the interest of full disclosure it should be mentioned that their winning streak in September was played entirely on their home field but that’s the way things were done in 1916.
The Giants streak encompassed 24 days, only five of which were off days. More remarkable, the Giants swept 8 doubleheaders (including three in a four day stretch) on their way to 26 straight wins.
OTHER
Byron Nelson
11 PGA Tour events
1945
This is one of those streaks that will probably never be broken because there is too much competition on the PGA Tour. Tiger Woods is the best golfer of his generation by a long shot and he couldn’t even come within a month of tying Nelson’s streak.
Cael Sanderson
159 straight matches
1998-2002
I don’t know too much about wrestling but I do know that a record of 159-0 and four national championships speaks for itself.
Edwin Moses
122 straight races won
9/2/77 to 6/4/87
What makes this streak so remarkable is the fact that it spanned nearly 10 years. How many individual athletes can stay at the top of their field for ten years? Also, it wasn’t just that he was the best, he didn’t lose.
LAST BUT NOT LEAST
Every winning streak is impressive in its own way. College streaks are impressive (for team sports) because the personnel and sometimes the coaching staff are changing on an annual basis. Professional streaks are impressive because they are done against the best that sport has to offer, usually worldwide. However, the most impressive winning streak in my humble opinion lasted 132 years.
No, you didn’t misread that; 132 years. Any of you who are familiar with this streak already know what I’m talking about. For the rest of you, I give you; The America’s Cup.
It was actually a common misconception that the sailing race was named after the country that seemed unable to lose this trophy but actually, it was named after the America, the first yacht to win the Cup. Over the subsequent 132 years and 24 defenses, the United States always brought home the Cup until Australia ended the run of dominance in 1983.
Since losing it, the Cup has come back to the US only once before legal wrangling allowed the Golden Gate Yacht Club to challenge for the cup earlier this year, winning it back 2-0.
To give you an idea about how lengthy this run has been, the first skipper ever to lose the Cup for the US (Dennis Connor) was born 91 years after the America first won the Cup.
Am I right? Maybe, maybe not. Part of the fun in sports is the debate and that is one of my favorite parts. Check back later (maybe this weekend) for another edition of Gone Streaking (Player Edition).
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Brett Favre, Donovan McNabb, and (sigh, again) Michael Vick
Once again, I’m directed back to my soapbox by the writing talents of Jemelle Hill, a periodic contributor to espn.com since she joined ESPN in 2006 and once again, Donovan McNabb and Michael Vick featured prominently in her writing and this time she threw in Brett Favre as the (very old) cherry on top.
Before I go any further, I want to throw out a small disclaimer. First of all, I never read a particular writer’s work simply to disagree with them. I’ve listened to Hill on various sports talk shows on ESPN and found her to be a person fully capable of speaking intelligently about sports. I am singling out her articles because they hit very definite nerves with me and for all I know, that might be the point. Lastly (for the disclaimer part, that is) I do believe that sexism and racism exist in the world today and they do exist in the world of sports. I also believe that legitimate claims of both racism and sexism are lost in the uproar of false claims which is nothing short of sad. I have been required to take sexual harassment classes at every job that I have worked, including especially intense classes when I became a supervisor as well as in my current job where I am a government contractor. Nothing I’m about to say should give you the impression that I am “ok” with sexual harassment. I’m not; end of story.
DONOVAN MCNABB
My first issue that I’d like to discuss is related to Hill’s article of December 28th (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=5963154) in which she talks about the situation that Donovan McNabb finds himself in with the Washington Redskins and my issue is very simple. Hill explains very eloquently the pickle that McNabb put himself in by signing a huge (fluffy) contract extension with the Redskins. However, when she talks about why McNabb has been supplanted as the starting quarterback of the Redskins, she never mentions race. She cites what head coach Mike Shanahan and offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan said about McNabb, saying he lacked the “cardiovascular endurance” and “familiarity” to run their two-minute offense.
I only bring this up because Hill dedicated an entire article to talking about black quarterbacks in the NFL and mostly spoke about Donovan McNabb. Granted, Vince Young was mentioned as was Jason Campbell but neither of them have the track record of McNabb and he was the one that Hill focused on.
So, in a nutshell, which is it? Is Donovan McNabb struggling this year because he is playing for a new coach in a new system for a team that isn’t very good? Probably. Did he get benched, not once but twice, because he was black? I will readily admit that it is possible because I don’t know if Mike Shanahan is racist or not; I’ve never met him. However, I find it far more likely that he was benched the first time for his struggles and not his skin color.
Hill very explicitly said that she was not calling anyone out as being racist when she wrote about black quarterbacks a while ago but when it comes to the situation that McNabb is in now, she didn’t even mention that factor. I sincerely hope and believe that his situation has nothing to do with race. He’s been one of the top quarterbacks in the NFL for a decade and he’s having one of his worst seasons as a professional. Is it a coincidence that he went from a team that had a combined winning percentage of .616 (108-67-1) during his time in the NFL to one that has had a winning percentage of .455 (80-96) over that same time span?
BRETT FAVRE
Ah yes, the guy that Roger Goodell wants to see play forever… and at the same time, wants him out the door as soon as possible. There is little question in my mind that Brett Favre is a diva. He is also one of the best quarterbacks ever to pick up a football. The last few years have exemplified his “me-first” mentality and along the way, he has had three different head coaches fired in his last three seasons with three different franchises. Coincidence? Umm, if you think it is, I can get you a really good deal on a brand new…
Never mind.
Last year Favre was fantastic for the NFL at large and specifically the Minnesota Vikings who haven’t had a decent quarterback since Daunte Culpepper’s last season in 2004. Every team stacked the box against Adrian Peterson and before he knew it, Favre was facing man coverage in the secondary with linebackers and linemen intent on hitting Peterson. In short, it was the best possible situation for him to be in and he exploited it like the first ballot Hall-of-Famer he is. He had the best season of his illustrious career.
And then he had to be convinced to come back for this season (this was warning flag number one for me). Secondly, everything went right for the Vikings last year until they ran into the Saints. The odds of replicating that success were slim (warning flag number 2). Lastly, Favre was a year older and it was no secret that he and head coach Brad Childress didn’t really see eye to eye (number 3).
This season has been a train wreck for the Vikings but there is hope for the future. Rookie QB Joe Webb started against the Eagles and played a fantastic game and Brett Favre is retiring. Put those together with a solid defense and running game, and they’ll be competitive again next year (although with a healthy Packers team, the Bears, and the Lions return to respectability, it will be very hard for the Vikings to come out of this division).
Then, to add an ocean full of salt to Brett Favre’s numerous wounds, back in October the NFL began its investigation into the “sexting” allegations leveled against Favre by former Jets employee Jenn Sterger. This investigation came to a head yesterday when the NFL fined Favre $50,000 (or how much he earns for 3 minutes of game time this year) for failing to cooperate with the commissioner’s office in this investigation. This brings me back to Hill and the article she wrote for espn.com today. In a word, Hill was outraged at the insufficient punishment handed down by Commissioner Goodell and said that his credibility in matters of “player conduct” was less than before this ruling.
Here’s the problem; “The league said it couldn't determine whether the inappropriate images originated from Favre during his tenure as Jets quarterback.” That is right from Hill’s article. They couldn’t determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Favre was indeed the one harassing Sterger. Should he be punished if we’re not even sure whether or not he was the one who did it? That doesn’t seem quite right…
I have a cell phone and have had one for several years. In the state of Colorado (where I live) it is illegal to text while driving so there have been numerous occasions where I will receive a text and then hand my phone to my passenger so they can read me the text and then reply. Is it my phone? Yes. Do I pay bills for its monthly usage? Yes. When my passenger has my phone am I in control of what gets sent out? Absolutely not.
According to the NFL (and common sense) we have no way of knowing exactly who it was that sent the picture messages to Sterger unless we have a witness who is willing to come forth. Even then, would that testimony stand up in a court of law? That is dicey…
I am deadest against sexual harassment but I am even more against miscarriages of justice and to punish someone without that evidence is exactly that; a miscarriage of justice. To contrast this case with the highly publicized case of Adam “Pacman” Jones, Jones had several chances to shape up his act and failed to do so, resulting in a huge suspension without ever having been charged with a crime. As far as we know, up until this point, Favre has only been guilty of being a diva and has not been implicated in any other crimes… which brings us to yet another point. Sterger’s case shouldn’t be against Favre, it should be against her employers, the New York Jets and by extension, the NFL.
When sexual harassment cases come about in the business world, the most the harasser can face is termination of employment. If the employer fails to act appropriately, they can be held liable in civil court. In my opinion, Brett Favre was fined for two reasons; one, he wasn’t as forthcoming as Goodell thought he should have been and two, the NFL needed a scapegoat to try and avoid a lawsuit from Sterger.
I have two more points before I sign off and one of them, I will admit, is semantics. The NFL released a statement saying that Favre was being fined for "a failure to cooperate with the investigation in a forthcoming manner" and that Favre was "not candid in several respects during the investigation resulting in a longer review and additional negative public attention for Favre, Sterger and the NFL." Immediately after putting forth that quote, Hill says that this is a “very fancy way of saying that Favre lied”. Really? Where did the NFL say that he lied?
“Not being forthcoming” and “not candid” are not necessarily synonyms of “lying”. I’m not trying to get into a war of words with Hill (which she will certainly win), I’m simply trying to state that acting as if a person is innocent until proven guilty is a good thing and since the NFL has no absolute proof that Favre is guilty of these allegations, what more can they do? Make an example of him when this would be his first run-in with the league? No.
Lastly, Hill compares this duplicity to Michael Vick’s duplicity at the NFL draft several years ago when Goodell asked him if there was any truth to the rumors of his involvement in dogfighting rings. When asked, Vick said no. Goodell then tacked a short suspension onto the tail end of Vick’s prison sentence for that lie. The big difference here is simply that Goodell has no proof that Favre lied. Shortly after Vick said no to the Commissioner, he was indicted, tried, convicted, and incarcerated for the crimes he lied about. NONE of that has happened yet to Favre.
You may or may not believe it but I gave Vick the benefit of the doubt when he said that he had nothing to do with it. Maybe it really was happening on one of his properties without his knowledge. I don’t think it’s too much to ask to give Favre that same benefit of the doubt.
Did Favre simply lie and then get away with it because it’s impossible to verify whether he did or not? Maybe, but until it can be proven, the word “alleged” still belongs in any sentence relating Favre to this harassment. There is nothing “alleged” about what Michael Vick did.
It would be going too far to call Brett Favre a hero of mine but I have enjoyed following his career over the past 15 years or so that I’ve been truly cognizant of the NFL. If there’s one way I can sum up those years, between players getting shot and killed in nightclubs or Vick helping to torture and murder dogs or Favre sending pictures of his endowment to female co-workers without their consent, it’s this:
The NFL’s off-the-field shenanigans are threatening the on-the-field product. I sincerely believe that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is trying and I have one message and challenge for him:
Try harder…
Before I go any further, I want to throw out a small disclaimer. First of all, I never read a particular writer’s work simply to disagree with them. I’ve listened to Hill on various sports talk shows on ESPN and found her to be a person fully capable of speaking intelligently about sports. I am singling out her articles because they hit very definite nerves with me and for all I know, that might be the point. Lastly (for the disclaimer part, that is) I do believe that sexism and racism exist in the world today and they do exist in the world of sports. I also believe that legitimate claims of both racism and sexism are lost in the uproar of false claims which is nothing short of sad. I have been required to take sexual harassment classes at every job that I have worked, including especially intense classes when I became a supervisor as well as in my current job where I am a government contractor. Nothing I’m about to say should give you the impression that I am “ok” with sexual harassment. I’m not; end of story.
DONOVAN MCNABB
My first issue that I’d like to discuss is related to Hill’s article of December 28th (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=5963154) in which she talks about the situation that Donovan McNabb finds himself in with the Washington Redskins and my issue is very simple. Hill explains very eloquently the pickle that McNabb put himself in by signing a huge (fluffy) contract extension with the Redskins. However, when she talks about why McNabb has been supplanted as the starting quarterback of the Redskins, she never mentions race. She cites what head coach Mike Shanahan and offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan said about McNabb, saying he lacked the “cardiovascular endurance” and “familiarity” to run their two-minute offense.
I only bring this up because Hill dedicated an entire article to talking about black quarterbacks in the NFL and mostly spoke about Donovan McNabb. Granted, Vince Young was mentioned as was Jason Campbell but neither of them have the track record of McNabb and he was the one that Hill focused on.
So, in a nutshell, which is it? Is Donovan McNabb struggling this year because he is playing for a new coach in a new system for a team that isn’t very good? Probably. Did he get benched, not once but twice, because he was black? I will readily admit that it is possible because I don’t know if Mike Shanahan is racist or not; I’ve never met him. However, I find it far more likely that he was benched the first time for his struggles and not his skin color.
Hill very explicitly said that she was not calling anyone out as being racist when she wrote about black quarterbacks a while ago but when it comes to the situation that McNabb is in now, she didn’t even mention that factor. I sincerely hope and believe that his situation has nothing to do with race. He’s been one of the top quarterbacks in the NFL for a decade and he’s having one of his worst seasons as a professional. Is it a coincidence that he went from a team that had a combined winning percentage of .616 (108-67-1) during his time in the NFL to one that has had a winning percentage of .455 (80-96) over that same time span?
BRETT FAVRE
Ah yes, the guy that Roger Goodell wants to see play forever… and at the same time, wants him out the door as soon as possible. There is little question in my mind that Brett Favre is a diva. He is also one of the best quarterbacks ever to pick up a football. The last few years have exemplified his “me-first” mentality and along the way, he has had three different head coaches fired in his last three seasons with three different franchises. Coincidence? Umm, if you think it is, I can get you a really good deal on a brand new…
Never mind.
Last year Favre was fantastic for the NFL at large and specifically the Minnesota Vikings who haven’t had a decent quarterback since Daunte Culpepper’s last season in 2004. Every team stacked the box against Adrian Peterson and before he knew it, Favre was facing man coverage in the secondary with linebackers and linemen intent on hitting Peterson. In short, it was the best possible situation for him to be in and he exploited it like the first ballot Hall-of-Famer he is. He had the best season of his illustrious career.
And then he had to be convinced to come back for this season (this was warning flag number one for me). Secondly, everything went right for the Vikings last year until they ran into the Saints. The odds of replicating that success were slim (warning flag number 2). Lastly, Favre was a year older and it was no secret that he and head coach Brad Childress didn’t really see eye to eye (number 3).
This season has been a train wreck for the Vikings but there is hope for the future. Rookie QB Joe Webb started against the Eagles and played a fantastic game and Brett Favre is retiring. Put those together with a solid defense and running game, and they’ll be competitive again next year (although with a healthy Packers team, the Bears, and the Lions return to respectability, it will be very hard for the Vikings to come out of this division).
Then, to add an ocean full of salt to Brett Favre’s numerous wounds, back in October the NFL began its investigation into the “sexting” allegations leveled against Favre by former Jets employee Jenn Sterger. This investigation came to a head yesterday when the NFL fined Favre $50,000 (or how much he earns for 3 minutes of game time this year) for failing to cooperate with the commissioner’s office in this investigation. This brings me back to Hill and the article she wrote for espn.com today. In a word, Hill was outraged at the insufficient punishment handed down by Commissioner Goodell and said that his credibility in matters of “player conduct” was less than before this ruling.
Here’s the problem; “The league said it couldn't determine whether the inappropriate images originated from Favre during his tenure as Jets quarterback.” That is right from Hill’s article. They couldn’t determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Favre was indeed the one harassing Sterger. Should he be punished if we’re not even sure whether or not he was the one who did it? That doesn’t seem quite right…
I have a cell phone and have had one for several years. In the state of Colorado (where I live) it is illegal to text while driving so there have been numerous occasions where I will receive a text and then hand my phone to my passenger so they can read me the text and then reply. Is it my phone? Yes. Do I pay bills for its monthly usage? Yes. When my passenger has my phone am I in control of what gets sent out? Absolutely not.
According to the NFL (and common sense) we have no way of knowing exactly who it was that sent the picture messages to Sterger unless we have a witness who is willing to come forth. Even then, would that testimony stand up in a court of law? That is dicey…
I am deadest against sexual harassment but I am even more against miscarriages of justice and to punish someone without that evidence is exactly that; a miscarriage of justice. To contrast this case with the highly publicized case of Adam “Pacman” Jones, Jones had several chances to shape up his act and failed to do so, resulting in a huge suspension without ever having been charged with a crime. As far as we know, up until this point, Favre has only been guilty of being a diva and has not been implicated in any other crimes… which brings us to yet another point. Sterger’s case shouldn’t be against Favre, it should be against her employers, the New York Jets and by extension, the NFL.
When sexual harassment cases come about in the business world, the most the harasser can face is termination of employment. If the employer fails to act appropriately, they can be held liable in civil court. In my opinion, Brett Favre was fined for two reasons; one, he wasn’t as forthcoming as Goodell thought he should have been and two, the NFL needed a scapegoat to try and avoid a lawsuit from Sterger.
I have two more points before I sign off and one of them, I will admit, is semantics. The NFL released a statement saying that Favre was being fined for "a failure to cooperate with the investigation in a forthcoming manner" and that Favre was "not candid in several respects during the investigation resulting in a longer review and additional negative public attention for Favre, Sterger and the NFL." Immediately after putting forth that quote, Hill says that this is a “very fancy way of saying that Favre lied”. Really? Where did the NFL say that he lied?
“Not being forthcoming” and “not candid” are not necessarily synonyms of “lying”. I’m not trying to get into a war of words with Hill (which she will certainly win), I’m simply trying to state that acting as if a person is innocent until proven guilty is a good thing and since the NFL has no absolute proof that Favre is guilty of these allegations, what more can they do? Make an example of him when this would be his first run-in with the league? No.
Lastly, Hill compares this duplicity to Michael Vick’s duplicity at the NFL draft several years ago when Goodell asked him if there was any truth to the rumors of his involvement in dogfighting rings. When asked, Vick said no. Goodell then tacked a short suspension onto the tail end of Vick’s prison sentence for that lie. The big difference here is simply that Goodell has no proof that Favre lied. Shortly after Vick said no to the Commissioner, he was indicted, tried, convicted, and incarcerated for the crimes he lied about. NONE of that has happened yet to Favre.
You may or may not believe it but I gave Vick the benefit of the doubt when he said that he had nothing to do with it. Maybe it really was happening on one of his properties without his knowledge. I don’t think it’s too much to ask to give Favre that same benefit of the doubt.
Did Favre simply lie and then get away with it because it’s impossible to verify whether he did or not? Maybe, but until it can be proven, the word “alleged” still belongs in any sentence relating Favre to this harassment. There is nothing “alleged” about what Michael Vick did.
It would be going too far to call Brett Favre a hero of mine but I have enjoyed following his career over the past 15 years or so that I’ve been truly cognizant of the NFL. If there’s one way I can sum up those years, between players getting shot and killed in nightclubs or Vick helping to torture and murder dogs or Favre sending pictures of his endowment to female co-workers without their consent, it’s this:
The NFL’s off-the-field shenanigans are threatening the on-the-field product. I sincerely believe that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is trying and I have one message and challenge for him:
Try harder…
Saturday, December 18, 2010
BCS Preview 2011 - Moral Victories
There comes a point in the sporting career of certain people when their primary desire is to win and not to have fun. A good number of those people either play sports at a very high level or quit because they can’t make it to that high level and don’t win enough. For the rest of us mere mortals, we search for the moral victories within sporting events, the silver lining that makes the contest worth participating in despite the gut-wrenching loss.
If you ask the vast majority of quarterbacks in the NFL, would you rather throw for 400 yards and 5 touchdowns in a losing effort or throw for 100 yards and 5 interceptions, I’m willing to bet that they would say they’d rather have the latter. It is that desire to win above all else that makes them as good as they are.
So what is the silver lining for each of the five BCS bowl games? That is the question that I’m going to try to answer with one small addition. I’m going to describe a moral victory for each of the teams playing and then I’m also going to describe what a moral victory would be for college football fans at large. The one thing to remember though is when I’m talking about college football fans, I’m not talking about fans of the individual teams because it’s fairly obvious what a moral victory would be for those people; an actual victory.
For the most part, a moral victory for each individual team also includes actually outscoring their opponents come game day. However, there are some off the field factors at play in several of these match-ups that can lead to increased good feelings whether the outcome is a win or a loss.
ROSE BOWL
WISCONSIN
In a conference that has been dominated by Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State, the Badgers have a chance to take a big step forward on the national stage. Their #5 ranking is the highest ranking they’ve had in the BCS era and their next game is against the #3 team in the country. If they win the Rose Bowl, their postseason ranking will be in the top four, if not third or even second, depending on the outcomes of the other BCS bowls.
Despite an overall record of 90-39 over the last ten years, the Badgers have won ten games only three times before this year and this is their first appearance in the Rose Bowl since January of 2001. Wisconsin has the chance to step to the forefront of the Big Ten by taking the conference title and winning what is arguably the most prestigious bowl game in college football.
TCU
The only match-up that could have been better for the Horned Frogs is either if they were playing in the national championship game or if they had drawn Ohio State in a BCS bowl. They happened to draw the only team this year to beat the Buckeyes and not only did Wisconsin beat the Buckeyes, they did it right after Ohio State had risen to #1 in the polls and they did it in a more humiliating manner than #1 teams are used to (31-18).
This is one of the few teams that doesn’t have to win to claim a moral victory. Wisconsin is playing some of the best football of the season, having outscored their last four opponents 235-84. All TCU has to do is play close to Wisconsin and they can make a logical inference that they played the Badgers just about as tough as the Buckeyes did back in the middle of October. If TCU can beat Wisconsin, it will be one last bit of egg on the face of E. Gorgon Gee, president of The Ohio State University. While the transitive law of sports doesn’t apply (just because A beats B and B beats C doesn’t mean that A is better than C), everyone will have to admit (no matter how begrudgingly) that TCU can play with any team in the country.
THE FANS
The silver lining is evenly divided for the fans. Some people want to see the imposter that is TCU lose and lose badly to prove that the five smaller conferences do not belong on the same stage as the six “automatic qualifier” conferences. Others want to see TCU lay a beat-down on Wisconsin to prove once and for all that teams from the smaller conference can compete with the best from the bigger conferences.
TCU has been one of the best teams from the non-AQ conferences for the last several years so some might say that if they don’t win and finish this season off undefeated, this year would be looked at as a disappointment. I completely disagree. They used this year, on top of the last few years, to get an invitation to join the Big East starting in 2012. Granted, I would have much rather seen them join the Big Used-To-Be-8-Then-12-Now-Is-10 or the Pac Used-To-Be-8-Then-10-Then-Almost-16-But-12-Instead, but now they never have to worry about being on the outside looking in simply because they play in the wrong conference.
This does bring up an interesting question though; is the best way to change a system from the outside looking in bringing the spotlight out onto the unfairness of the situation or is it to join the system and attempt to change it from the inside? Of the four teams that have made it to a BCS bowl from outside the 6 AQ conferences, two of them (TCU and Utah) have jumped ship and are joining the Big East and Pac-12, respectively. Interesting food for thought and perhaps another post in the future…
FIESTA BOWL
CONNECTICUT
The Huskies ranked behind 95 of the 120 FBS teams in total offense and behind 61 of them in scoring offense. A moral victory for them is not getting blown out. I hate to say it that way but considering that they went 8-4 this year and didn’t even have the best record in their own conference (West Virginia went 9-3) and that they are playing a team like Oklahoma, they are going to be huge underdogs and the fact of the matter is if they can keep the game close into the fourth quarter, they will have achieved a moral victory.
OKLAHOMA
There is virtually no way that Oklahoma can achieve a moral victory in this game. They are expected to win and they are expected to win big. The Sooners have nothing to win and everything to lose in this game. Unlike several years ago when they were facing off against Boise State, Connecticut is not going to be mistaken for one of the top ten teams in the country. Boise State was 12-0 going into that game and UConn’s 8-4 record is a far cry from the talent on that Broncos team.
ORANGE BOWL
VIRGINIA TECH
The Hokies came into this season with legitimate aspirations to run the table in the ACC and challenge for the top two spots in the BCS standings. Those hopes weren’t even derailed with their opening night loss to #3 Boise State down the road from their Blacksburg, Virginia, campus. If everything went according to plan, after that game they would have finished the regular season 12-1 and would have been considered one of the best one-loss teams in the country. What really killed their lofty goals was their terrible loss to James Madison the week after losing to Boise State.
To rebound from those two losses and win 11 straight, becoming the first team to go 8-0 in ACC play, is a testament to the character of this team. To finish off this season with a win over a very good Stanford team would certainly help people forget how high their hopes were at the beginning of the season.
STANFORD
This season has already been a resounding success for the Cardinal and they currently have the hottest prospect for future NFL quarterbacks and future head coaches. Their only loss is to #2 Oregon that only lost their #1 ranking to Auburn because they played more ranked teams down the stretch. They will also be playing in just their second BCS bowl along with the 2000 Rose Bowl which they lost after an 8-3, Pac-10 champion season. They have already exceeded their expectations for this season and no matter how they do, this season will be a success.
SUGAR BOWL
OHIO STATE
The Buckeyes will be making their 6th consecutive BCS bowl appearance and their 9th in 13 years which, in and of itself, is a moral victory. They have been there and done that enough that they can’t really gain all that many points by not winning in a stylish manner. Their struggles against the SEC have been very well publicized and they are fresh out of excuses.
ARKANSAS
The fact that they are here is a moral victory. They survived their brutal SEC schedule to go 10-2 and get an at-large bid, their first BCS bowl appearance. This Ohio State team is a very good one so even if they don’t win and play well, it will still be considered a successful season. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by beating Ohio State.
BCS CHAMPIONSHIP GAME
AUBURN
Unfortunately, the biggest moral victory that Auburn can get is for the NCAA to close the investigation into Cam Newton’s pay-for-play controversy. They are ranked #1 in the country, they have the Heisman Trophy winner playing quarterback for them, and they seem to have everything in their favor right now. If we are assuming that they are going to lose the national title game, I would say the biggest thing they can do to achieve a moral victory would be to not get blown out. If their terribly porous pass defense and their stout run defense can put a stop to the Blur, it will be disappoint. If they can stop Oregon, they should win.
OREGON
The biggest consolation for the Ducks right now is with how poorly Auburn has been playing in the first halves and how well Cam Newton has been playing in the second halves, they are actually flying a little under the radar which intrigues me because Oregon is the better all around team and the better all around offense. Auburn goes as Newton goes but Oregon has multiple playmakers on offense to go to if any one of them aren’t having a great game. A month ago, I would have said that the oddsmakers would be favoring Oregon but after the Alabama game and then the SEC title game, I can definitely see them giving the nod to Auburn.
The Ducks have played outstanding offense and underrated defense while running the table in an underrated conference. Arguably the biggest moral victory that they could get would be the respect that the Pac-10 would gain if they and Stanford were able to win their bowl games. Take into account that some of their most prominent playmakers are underclassmen and you have to like where the Ducks are right now.
If you ask the vast majority of quarterbacks in the NFL, would you rather throw for 400 yards and 5 touchdowns in a losing effort or throw for 100 yards and 5 interceptions, I’m willing to bet that they would say they’d rather have the latter. It is that desire to win above all else that makes them as good as they are.
So what is the silver lining for each of the five BCS bowl games? That is the question that I’m going to try to answer with one small addition. I’m going to describe a moral victory for each of the teams playing and then I’m also going to describe what a moral victory would be for college football fans at large. The one thing to remember though is when I’m talking about college football fans, I’m not talking about fans of the individual teams because it’s fairly obvious what a moral victory would be for those people; an actual victory.
For the most part, a moral victory for each individual team also includes actually outscoring their opponents come game day. However, there are some off the field factors at play in several of these match-ups that can lead to increased good feelings whether the outcome is a win or a loss.
ROSE BOWL
WISCONSIN
In a conference that has been dominated by Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State, the Badgers have a chance to take a big step forward on the national stage. Their #5 ranking is the highest ranking they’ve had in the BCS era and their next game is against the #3 team in the country. If they win the Rose Bowl, their postseason ranking will be in the top four, if not third or even second, depending on the outcomes of the other BCS bowls.
Despite an overall record of 90-39 over the last ten years, the Badgers have won ten games only three times before this year and this is their first appearance in the Rose Bowl since January of 2001. Wisconsin has the chance to step to the forefront of the Big Ten by taking the conference title and winning what is arguably the most prestigious bowl game in college football.
TCU
The only match-up that could have been better for the Horned Frogs is either if they were playing in the national championship game or if they had drawn Ohio State in a BCS bowl. They happened to draw the only team this year to beat the Buckeyes and not only did Wisconsin beat the Buckeyes, they did it right after Ohio State had risen to #1 in the polls and they did it in a more humiliating manner than #1 teams are used to (31-18).
This is one of the few teams that doesn’t have to win to claim a moral victory. Wisconsin is playing some of the best football of the season, having outscored their last four opponents 235-84. All TCU has to do is play close to Wisconsin and they can make a logical inference that they played the Badgers just about as tough as the Buckeyes did back in the middle of October. If TCU can beat Wisconsin, it will be one last bit of egg on the face of E. Gorgon Gee, president of The Ohio State University. While the transitive law of sports doesn’t apply (just because A beats B and B beats C doesn’t mean that A is better than C), everyone will have to admit (no matter how begrudgingly) that TCU can play with any team in the country.
THE FANS
The silver lining is evenly divided for the fans. Some people want to see the imposter that is TCU lose and lose badly to prove that the five smaller conferences do not belong on the same stage as the six “automatic qualifier” conferences. Others want to see TCU lay a beat-down on Wisconsin to prove once and for all that teams from the smaller conference can compete with the best from the bigger conferences.
TCU has been one of the best teams from the non-AQ conferences for the last several years so some might say that if they don’t win and finish this season off undefeated, this year would be looked at as a disappointment. I completely disagree. They used this year, on top of the last few years, to get an invitation to join the Big East starting in 2012. Granted, I would have much rather seen them join the Big Used-To-Be-8-Then-12-Now-Is-10 or the Pac Used-To-Be-8-Then-10-Then-Almost-16-But-12-Instead, but now they never have to worry about being on the outside looking in simply because they play in the wrong conference.
This does bring up an interesting question though; is the best way to change a system from the outside looking in bringing the spotlight out onto the unfairness of the situation or is it to join the system and attempt to change it from the inside? Of the four teams that have made it to a BCS bowl from outside the 6 AQ conferences, two of them (TCU and Utah) have jumped ship and are joining the Big East and Pac-12, respectively. Interesting food for thought and perhaps another post in the future…
FIESTA BOWL
CONNECTICUT
The Huskies ranked behind 95 of the 120 FBS teams in total offense and behind 61 of them in scoring offense. A moral victory for them is not getting blown out. I hate to say it that way but considering that they went 8-4 this year and didn’t even have the best record in their own conference (West Virginia went 9-3) and that they are playing a team like Oklahoma, they are going to be huge underdogs and the fact of the matter is if they can keep the game close into the fourth quarter, they will have achieved a moral victory.
OKLAHOMA
There is virtually no way that Oklahoma can achieve a moral victory in this game. They are expected to win and they are expected to win big. The Sooners have nothing to win and everything to lose in this game. Unlike several years ago when they were facing off against Boise State, Connecticut is not going to be mistaken for one of the top ten teams in the country. Boise State was 12-0 going into that game and UConn’s 8-4 record is a far cry from the talent on that Broncos team.
ORANGE BOWL
VIRGINIA TECH
The Hokies came into this season with legitimate aspirations to run the table in the ACC and challenge for the top two spots in the BCS standings. Those hopes weren’t even derailed with their opening night loss to #3 Boise State down the road from their Blacksburg, Virginia, campus. If everything went according to plan, after that game they would have finished the regular season 12-1 and would have been considered one of the best one-loss teams in the country. What really killed their lofty goals was their terrible loss to James Madison the week after losing to Boise State.
To rebound from those two losses and win 11 straight, becoming the first team to go 8-0 in ACC play, is a testament to the character of this team. To finish off this season with a win over a very good Stanford team would certainly help people forget how high their hopes were at the beginning of the season.
STANFORD
This season has already been a resounding success for the Cardinal and they currently have the hottest prospect for future NFL quarterbacks and future head coaches. Their only loss is to #2 Oregon that only lost their #1 ranking to Auburn because they played more ranked teams down the stretch. They will also be playing in just their second BCS bowl along with the 2000 Rose Bowl which they lost after an 8-3, Pac-10 champion season. They have already exceeded their expectations for this season and no matter how they do, this season will be a success.
SUGAR BOWL
OHIO STATE
The Buckeyes will be making their 6th consecutive BCS bowl appearance and their 9th in 13 years which, in and of itself, is a moral victory. They have been there and done that enough that they can’t really gain all that many points by not winning in a stylish manner. Their struggles against the SEC have been very well publicized and they are fresh out of excuses.
ARKANSAS
The fact that they are here is a moral victory. They survived their brutal SEC schedule to go 10-2 and get an at-large bid, their first BCS bowl appearance. This Ohio State team is a very good one so even if they don’t win and play well, it will still be considered a successful season. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by beating Ohio State.
BCS CHAMPIONSHIP GAME
AUBURN
Unfortunately, the biggest moral victory that Auburn can get is for the NCAA to close the investigation into Cam Newton’s pay-for-play controversy. They are ranked #1 in the country, they have the Heisman Trophy winner playing quarterback for them, and they seem to have everything in their favor right now. If we are assuming that they are going to lose the national title game, I would say the biggest thing they can do to achieve a moral victory would be to not get blown out. If their terribly porous pass defense and their stout run defense can put a stop to the Blur, it will be disappoint. If they can stop Oregon, they should win.
OREGON
The biggest consolation for the Ducks right now is with how poorly Auburn has been playing in the first halves and how well Cam Newton has been playing in the second halves, they are actually flying a little under the radar which intrigues me because Oregon is the better all around team and the better all around offense. Auburn goes as Newton goes but Oregon has multiple playmakers on offense to go to if any one of them aren’t having a great game. A month ago, I would have said that the oddsmakers would be favoring Oregon but after the Alabama game and then the SEC title game, I can definitely see them giving the nod to Auburn.
The Ducks have played outstanding offense and underrated defense while running the table in an underrated conference. Arguably the biggest moral victory that they could get would be the respect that the Pac-10 would gain if they and Stanford were able to win their bowl games. Take into account that some of their most prominent playmakers are underclassmen and you have to like where the Ducks are right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
