There are 35 bowl games in college football - meaning 70 teams get a postseason game. I don't need to tell you this is excessive, but I will anyways. Out of these 70 teams, 13 of them don't even have a winning record (12 are 6-6, UCLA is the first 6-7 team to make a bowl based on their appeal to the NCAA). Why should a team be rewarded for being average? If you count the 7-5 teams invited to bowls, that's an additional 15 teams. That means 28 of the 70 teams playing in bowls (40%) are break-even or barely above it.
If you remove these teams and have 8 wins minimum be a requirement, that'd leave us with 42 teams (21 games), which would probably be a more reasonable format.
NCAA can say all they want that these players and teams should be rewarded for a great season. It's clear it's not really about the teams and players being rewarded, but strictly about money. As long as there's 35 willing sponsors to back these bowls, they will keep this system in place.
Enjoy the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl tomorrow, featuring 6-6 Illinois vs 6-7 UCLA! I'm going to fight not stabbing myself watching teams with a combined 12-13 record - and neither featuring the coach that started the year.
Happy Bow(e)l Movement everyone!
The Pro Bowl teams were announced, and like always, there's deserving people that didn't get voted in. I laugh at everyone that gets worked up for a game they don't watch. Should Eli be in over Romo, Stafford or Newton? Probably not. Everyone knows though that all the top players end up bailing from the game anyways - some of them because of their teams making the Super Bowl. At the end of the day, I don't care who makes the Pro Bowl. Sure, I like knowing that the Niners have a lot of guys recognized as the best at their positions in the NFC, but it's not going to make me want to watch it.
As much as I want to root hardcore for the Bulls, going out to bars and hearing all of the idiots that watch them, blaming every loss/foul on the refs, it gets annoying to the point where I can't watch them in public anymore. It's not to that point yet this year, but I'm reminded of it last year during the playoff run. Every loss - referee's fault. Every foul - ref's fault. I know that this is how it goes for fans of every team. But since I'm in the Chicago market, I feel the need to mention them. There's probably people who this doesn't apply to and can watch basketball objectively - so to those people, feel free to ignore this rant (a little late to say, I know).
Perhaps some of it has to do with the announcers as well. Every Bulls fan loves Stacey King, but you'll hardly ever hear him not complain about a call against the Bulls. And when a questionable call goes in their favor, he'll say it was a good call and that the Bulls deserve it.
I understand that most analysts are homers, but his homerism is too excessive for my taste. He has good phrases that sell t-shirts, but like most announcers out there (local and national), I couldn't care less about him. This goes doubly for Hawk Harrelson.
Hmmmm, Reinsdorf connection - coincidence?
Week 17 means the end of the regular season for the NFL...but in reality, the season is juuuuuust beginning. There's still 3 spots to be decided - with Denver (AFC West), Cincy (AFC Wild Card) & the winner of Dallas/NYG (NFC East) who control their fates. Other teams need a combination of a win and other team(s) to lose in order to make it.
I have Denver losing this week and Oakland winning - giving the AFC West to Oakland. Cincy plays Baltimore at home - I say Cincy gets up for that game and pulls out the W. The other spot - I see NYG winning this one by a couple scores - I think Romo's injury will play a factor. Even if it isn't a factor and they lose, Tony Romo will be blamed for it.
An aside - Romo and Lebron could cure cancer and people would critique the technique in which they found the cure. The only reason I'd ever like to see Romo win a Super Bowl is to hear the excuses all his haters would come up with - "it was a team effort, it had nothing to do with him". If they lose a game by 3 and the dude throws for 400 yards and 3 TDs, no interceptions, somehow it'll have to do with Romo choking.
God, I hate ignorant sports fans. Look at what ESPN has created. Heap praise and God-like status on a mediocre QB who can't complete half his passes and is asked to manage a game (Tebow) and detest a guy who is often asked to throw 40-50 times a game (with a 60+% completion rate), 3/1 TD/Interception ratio.
Week 17 Picks - I'll update my record in the next blog - it's not as good as last year.
KC +3.5 (Denver never wins big - only 1 Tebow win was by more than 3), NYG -3 (see above), Chi +1 (Bears will give good effort - Minn is hurting all over), Car +7.5 (If Niners are winning in StL as expected, I see Payton to pull all the starters by the second half - watch Cam shine!)
In case I don't write tomorrow, Happy New Year to all! Hope 2012 treats all of you well.
Showing posts with label pro bowl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pro bowl. Show all posts
12/07/2011
Bye to the Hiatus: Sports Talk about Santo, Marlin$, Te-Pro Bowl
I've had writer's block, haven't really sat down by my computer after work, etc., so I apologize to the 10 of you who read my blog regularly.
And by apologize, I mean I'm not really sorry and you should write for me on my writing hiatuses.
Anywho, lots of sports stuff - might write a few blogs tonight. For now, a bulleted one.
As they always say, you're always more famous when you're dead...Ron Santo in the Hall of Fame, finally.
For years, Santo and his loyal fanbase lobbied for his induction into the Hall of Fame by the Veteran's Committee, which passed him over with each vote. It took the Golden Era Committee (which reviews players from 1947-1972 that have been left out of the Hall) to vote him in. A couple of points from this and the Hall of Fame in general:
Pujols has had 3-4 years in declining stats and is going to be an average to slightly above-average player in about 4-5 years, which means 5-6 years of dead money. Also, we assume he is 31 right now. With how often Dominicans who come to the major leagues have fudged their age, what if he is 33 right now? That would mean he would be 42-43 when this deal ends. Like I said a few weeks ago, the Cards should let the Marlins sign him. The Cardinals do not need him to contend in a weak NL Central now. And with the solid foundation of ownership that they've always had, they won't need him in the near future.
Never thought I'd be saying this, but I'd be surprised if Tebow WASN'T a Pro-Bowler this year. Before you think I've swallowed a couple of crazy pills and smoked a pipe, look at the AFC and look at the talent of the QBs this year by division. And by no means am I a believer in his long-term success, merely looking at this year's QB situations in the AFC. (Note: I've named the starter to be the guy who has started the most game for his team at this point):
AFC North: Big Ben, Flacco, McCoy, Dalton: Only one who will make Pro Bowl (at least initially) will be Big Ben.
AFC South: Schaub, Painter, Hasselbeck, Gabbert: No Pro-Bowlers here. Schaub, who would have made it, is out for year.
AFC East: Brady, Sanchez, Fitzpatrick, Moore: Brady will go. Sanchez is under-rated and gets too much criticism, don't see him getting in. Fitzpatrick is a sleeper for nomination. If Moore could have started the year, he may be more considered (and Miami may be a playoff team).
AFC West: Tebow, Palmer, Rivers, Cassel: Again, no one here deserves nomination. Rivers is having a down year, Palmer is still getting his feet wet.
Will get in: Brady, Big Ben
Could get in: Flacco, Dalton, Fitzpatrick, Tebow
Probably won't: Rivers, Hasselbeck, Sanchez
Won't get in: Everyone else
As you can see by a breakdown, it's not too crazy to think that the Tebow hype gets him in the Pro Bowl, even though his stats don't show it. The fans get a third of the vote, remember. Also remember that Big Ben and Brady will likely bail on the Pro Bowl (playoff status or not) and there will be replacement(s) for them.
Also remember that the Pro Bowl is a useless game that no one really cares about or watches anyways, and the arguments over who doesn't get in are as pointless as the arguments about the fringe teams who don't make the NCAA tourney.
The BCS got the final game right, but there should at least be a +1 scenario in place. Just about everyone who watches college football has something bad to say about the BCS, and most believe there should be some kind of playoff. I know some people who believe a team should win their conference (whether it have a title game or not) in order to be considered. Others don't like the idea of a rematch in the title game - I have no problem with one.
However, I do think that there should be some mini-playoff, like a +1 scenario, which I understand to be a four-team playoff, with winners of semi-final games to play in championship game. In years where there are less than two major conference teams that finish undefeated, the BCS process gets critiqued. Last year, Oregon and Auburn finished undefeated, so no problems there. This year? LSU and then a bunch of 1-loss teams.
I think Bama and OK St should play each other in a couple weeks to play for the right to play LSU in champ game. Either way, I think it'd end up being Bama/LSU for the title.
And by apologize, I mean I'm not really sorry and you should write for me on my writing hiatuses.
Anywho, lots of sports stuff - might write a few blogs tonight. For now, a bulleted one.
As they always say, you're always more famous when you're dead...Ron Santo in the Hall of Fame, finally.
 |
| Welcome to the Hall, Ron. Too bad you weren't around to answer the call. |
For years, Santo and his loyal fanbase lobbied for his induction into the Hall of Fame by the Veteran's Committee, which passed him over with each vote. It took the Golden Era Committee (which reviews players from 1947-1972 that have been left out of the Hall) to vote him in. A couple of points from this and the Hall of Fame in general:
- Good for him, but why did he get voted in a year after he died? Did it take his death to get voted in?
- The Hall of Fame shouldn't be easy to get into. It should be a selective process and reward only the game's best.
- Santo didn't get voted into the Hall by the regular voters mainly because of the influx of guys voted into the hall during his 15 year eligibility span (over half of the time he was eligible, 4+ guys got voted in by regular committee).
- The Hall voters are dumb. Only thing you need to know, no one, not even Babe Ruth or Ted Williams, has ever been voted in unanimously. Voters who leave certain guys off their ballots should have their vote taken away. Next example of this - Greg Maddux.
- How can voters not vote for someone one year, then next year change their ballot to include said player(s)? Player's stats (aside from Hack Wilson's) haven't changed after they retired, so it makes no sense to leave a guy off of a ballot if you think he is a HOF. Either you think he is HOF-worthy or he is not. It shouldn't be a year-to-year thing where as a voter, you change your mind and say, you know what, he is worthy now.
Pujols has had 3-4 years in declining stats and is going to be an average to slightly above-average player in about 4-5 years, which means 5-6 years of dead money. Also, we assume he is 31 right now. With how often Dominicans who come to the major leagues have fudged their age, what if he is 33 right now? That would mean he would be 42-43 when this deal ends. Like I said a few weeks ago, the Cards should let the Marlins sign him. The Cardinals do not need him to contend in a weak NL Central now. And with the solid foundation of ownership that they've always had, they won't need him in the near future.
 |
| Tebow a Pro-Bowler? Not as crazy of a thought as you might think. |
Never thought I'd be saying this, but I'd be surprised if Tebow WASN'T a Pro-Bowler this year. Before you think I've swallowed a couple of crazy pills and smoked a pipe, look at the AFC and look at the talent of the QBs this year by division. And by no means am I a believer in his long-term success, merely looking at this year's QB situations in the AFC. (Note: I've named the starter to be the guy who has started the most game for his team at this point):
AFC North: Big Ben, Flacco, McCoy, Dalton: Only one who will make Pro Bowl (at least initially) will be Big Ben.
AFC South: Schaub, Painter, Hasselbeck, Gabbert: No Pro-Bowlers here. Schaub, who would have made it, is out for year.
AFC East: Brady, Sanchez, Fitzpatrick, Moore: Brady will go. Sanchez is under-rated and gets too much criticism, don't see him getting in. Fitzpatrick is a sleeper for nomination. If Moore could have started the year, he may be more considered (and Miami may be a playoff team).
AFC West: Tebow, Palmer, Rivers, Cassel: Again, no one here deserves nomination. Rivers is having a down year, Palmer is still getting his feet wet.
Will get in: Brady, Big Ben
Could get in: Flacco, Dalton, Fitzpatrick, Tebow
Probably won't: Rivers, Hasselbeck, Sanchez
Won't get in: Everyone else
As you can see by a breakdown, it's not too crazy to think that the Tebow hype gets him in the Pro Bowl, even though his stats don't show it. The fans get a third of the vote, remember. Also remember that Big Ben and Brady will likely bail on the Pro Bowl (playoff status or not) and there will be replacement(s) for them.
Also remember that the Pro Bowl is a useless game that no one really cares about or watches anyways, and the arguments over who doesn't get in are as pointless as the arguments about the fringe teams who don't make the NCAA tourney.
The BCS got the final game right, but there should at least be a +1 scenario in place. Just about everyone who watches college football has something bad to say about the BCS, and most believe there should be some kind of playoff. I know some people who believe a team should win their conference (whether it have a title game or not) in order to be considered. Others don't like the idea of a rematch in the title game - I have no problem with one.
However, I do think that there should be some mini-playoff, like a +1 scenario, which I understand to be a four-team playoff, with winners of semi-final games to play in championship game. In years where there are less than two major conference teams that finish undefeated, the BCS process gets critiqued. Last year, Oregon and Auburn finished undefeated, so no problems there. This year? LSU and then a bunch of 1-loss teams.
I think Bama and OK St should play each other in a couple weeks to play for the right to play LSU in champ game. Either way, I think it'd end up being Bama/LSU for the title.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
