Should the coach stay or go

The end of any football is ripe with rumors and controversy (this is a non-BCS post).
Already begun is the speculation regarding which coach will move to or be fired from.

Today the rumors have started swirling that Mike Stoops is being considered for the Head Coach assignment at 'Bama and Miami.

I'm all for getting your dues when you feel you've earned them. Not saying that Stoops hasn't, but he still hasn't gotten to a bowl game yet as a head coach. Sorry, that's the bitterness talking.

I also appreciate someone who takes a position with the intent to take a job, and move the program to the highest level of success. Not use it as a stepping stone to other venues.

Lute Olsen in my opinion is the epitomy of this example. Having taken the team from subpar to a perrenial title contender. A legacy like that speaks volumes. Otherwise you're just a Phil Jackson who takes the job with the best possibilities to win without actually having to coach.

BCS/BS Merry-Go-Round

How can anyone say the system is “flawed” when the intent isn’t clear?

What is the intent of any exiting playoff system? It certainly isn’t to match up the two best teams and determine THE best team overall… case in point: St Louis winning the 2006 MLB… George Mason in the 2006 Final Four…

Just because a team wins a tournament, doesn’t necessarily “crown them” the best (a la Dennis Green).

In this year’s debate, pretend a playoff pits Michigan against Ohio State in a rematch. If Michigan wins, the headlines the next day would read… “Who’s #1?” since Ohio State won the first match and both teams only have one loss.

Conversely, without a playoff system, if Ohio State wins a rematch with Michigan, the “could have been” contenders cry foul that they weren’t given a chance to win once when Michigan would have been given two chances at a title.

What was the purpose of bowl games prior to 1998? I don’t know the answer… I’m asking.

In the end... any newly implemented playoff system would still be dependant upon a ranking system as it exists today (“flawed”?). Which means instead of the #3 & #4 teams complaining about their end state, the #5 and #6 teams would whine. I use a little creative license in limiting a playoff to only four teams because someone would be hard pressed to make a case that a #8 team should have a chance to play… and nobody else should try to make that case since no one is making a case for Boise State to be in the championship game today. To through more heat on the fire, if you limit to four, then in this years debacle, USC cries fowl as they are the team with the hardest schedule BY FAR.

Additional cons to a playoff system:

- Who would get the higher seed?

- Do you limit BCS playoff to only Conference Champions? If you let Michigan in this year, then a conference tournament/championship means nothing unless you miss out on a playoff otherwise. The regular season would probably lose much of its importance.

- For those that cry foul about the current system benefiting the colleges monetarily, who do you think benefits more with a playoff system? And who SHOULD benefit most? Your answer should be, the colleges, and not the media/networks which would be the result of a playoff system.

- Who would travel to the remaining (leftover) bowl games?

- Team travel/hotel logistics (see State Fans Nation blog here)

“Can 50K people afford to travel 3 different times in a month to exotic locales?”

- It would be more advantageous for BCS schools to schedule cupcakes than they are now

- If you’re not a fan of a football powerhouse, be ready to be excluded - you won’t be invited.

Again, Just say NO to pre rankings.

-----------------------------------------------

The above statements are designed to insite discussion and not violence. I only take pleasure in playing the role of the Devil's Advocate

To Tax or Not to Tax

The NBA will now be in charge of seeking a public/private funding deal for a new stadium in Sacramento.

“The billionaire Maloofs have been roundly criticized by local taxpayers' groups for seeking public funding for a proposed multi-use arena in downtown Sacramento or north of town near Arco Arena, the Kings' aging current home.

…they have requested that we take a leadership role in helping them achieve that goal," Stern said.

I give Stern and all professional sport organizations are resounding Phfffbt!

Granted, professions sport owners, for the majority are not in the business of owning stadiums. I understand that. I understand that the concerts and monster truck pulls that are held in those arenas are not what a professional sport owner wants to have to deal with.

What those same owners lack in perspective, is that they need to prove to the public that if the public puts money up for a stadium, at least an equal or greater portion of the money the owners are looking to increase into their wallets also makes it into the public economy.

The public shouldn’t be expected to be in the practice supporting owners making more money while the public gets stuck with increased taxes and a big thank you for increased ticket prices, parking, hotels, etc.

I can tell from experience, that as an AZ resident, I feel like walking around with a sign which says “Sucker” as it relates to the great deal we just gave the Cardinals. We just gave the Cardinals a brand new stadium, gave them the naming rights, the parking revenue, a sold out season, and a whole lot more… in return:

…A 1-8 team (as of Nov 15^th) which is $10 million UNDER the salary cap BEFORE all the great revenue the team should make this year.

Maybe an amendment should be made to the Fans Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Professional franchise owners should beware that they don’t push their main revenue stream away. While the real money is in the TV contracts, what would that broadcast look like if there were no fans in the room?

Prove It -- Part 2

Listening to the knee-jerk comments from all sides of the isle of last weeks elections, there are plenty more tidbits to call out.
I found it funny listening to comments from both winners and losers from the races.

"We ran a good race" -- said:

-- the challenger for the Republican Wisconsin congressional seat of Paul R. Nelson throughing morality accusations
-- the new Democratic House Representative Chris Carney after running ads slamming the "family values" of Rep. Don Sherwood

What planet were these people on during the campaign? Didn't those guys "approve" of those messages? This was a disgusting campaign year.

As soon as the election is won, everyone likes to pretend they took the high road from the beginning and will continue on that road by saying:

"We need to come together and unite" -- said the DNC chairman (Dean) who also said "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for"

Prove It!

Adding to the mix is the free press. Free press is great and one of the greatest gifts any nation has to offer. Though it can be abused. If nobody else is going to call out the media for being The Media, it will have to happen here. Calling the media suckers for a good smear campaign to lead the next day with seems appropriate enough. But the following quote would be more "PC".

"When the news is bad, the ads tend to be negative," said Shanto Iyengar, a Stanford professor who studies political advertising. "And the more negative the ad, the more likely it is to get free media coverage. So there's a big incentive to go to the extremes."

Prove it

The 2006 campaign season was full of the same promise... change will bring improvement. While no one bothered to mention WHAT changes will bring improvement or HOW things will be improved... none of that matters now because things have changed. Democrats now have the control desired. The promises were said, they are documented nowhere, but every tax paying American is watching, waiting, and saying "prove it."

Will it be too much to hope that U.S. Congress will be able to put aside differences and work together for the common good of the country rather than the exclusive benefit of partisanship?

Democrats have been able to pull a proverbial “fast one” over the Republicans in taking control over both houses. Without any experience in the Senate, I wonder just how much impact a one person majority has outside realigning committee leadership.

I’m leery of the “tit-for-tat” virus which seems to have infected Congress over the last 3 decades.

You said this about me… well you did this to him… well he blocked our vote on… well he didn’t really win the election… and on and on.

As for one lowly tax payer, I’d like to see the score set to zero, and everyone start to play nice.

I would love to through my support around someone who publicly sticks it to the lobbyists and doesn’t play puppet, who doesn’t vote except for what his constituents want.

I’m a tax payer, and I approve this message. I think I just threw up a little bit.

Just Say No to Pre-Rankings

This isn’t intended to make a case for or against the current system, rather to highlight the flaws of both.

The conference and non-conference schedules are not level playing fields. Many argue the East coast bias against West coast teams. While it’s relevant, it’s also overplayed. The SEC will continue to whine that its conference is and always will be the ‘bride’s maid, never a bride.” OK, I admit the reference to the SEC as a dress wearing conference may have gone a bit too far, but it was fun.
The point is that under the current regular season system, non-conference schedules should be made by the NCAA so that teams are not falsely inflating their records by electing to play D-2AA schools if they want to be considered championship contenders. If you want to play on New Year’s Day, your non-conference schedule should include wins against teams that show you would put on a good show on New Year’s Day against another contender.

Additionally, even if a playoff system were put in place today, the teams put into the playoff would still be based on the current BCS ranking system which already gets enough heat for being imperfect as it is. Right now, the #3 & #4 team are the squeaky wheels, if you implement a playoff, the #9 & #10 teams become the squeaky wheel (in an 8 team playoff). And before someone jumps the gun to say; well, those are just the bottom of the barrel team... you might even say ‘wildcard’ teams… the Cardinals would not have been in the playoffs had they been in any other division (rename that conference when referring back to NCAA football).

The Cardinals being crowned the best team but not actually BEING the best team should carry more weight than it has. Just the marathon of being in a place to contend for a title should remove even the possibility of any discussions/comments that the winner “doesn’t deserve the trophy.” Rarely is the subject more apparent than now that most playoff systems are NOT setup to crown someone as The Champion: (NCAA Basketball single elimination, NBA first round seven game series, NFL regular season only serves to identify those teams that should be college teams)

The real tragedy is the 2006 MLB Championship puts to rest the sports catch phrase, “In a seven game series, the best team always wins.”

I just have to respond

Yes it's a tired subject, but some still dont' get it. This is in response to the Sports Law Blog at Why is Steroid Use Considered Cheating?.

This being the "Sports Law Blog" I find it interesting that especially in this article, you neglected (willingly) to mention any references to "precedence".

First and foremost, beyond any sport rule book, IT IS AGAINST THE LAW! IT IS NOT LEGAL! (Doctors notes excluded)


The 'fallback arguement' is less about those from the past (as they too could have used them) as much as it's about those who choose to obey the law and play as the spirit of the sport intends, which is, bring all the you (and only yourself has to bring) - I'll bring mine, and the best man will win. When steroids are introduced, the man cheating brings a bench player while the other meets the challenge head on. The terms coward/Peter Pan syndrome come to mind.

As far as eye-surgery's go... it's not any other improvement that the guy already had wearing glasses in the first place. And Greg DID wear glasses but mostly wore contacts. Get the facts straight.

HGH, Andro, etc are in the same bucket.. the "meaningful difference" isn't justified, rather the (knowingly) strong Baseball Players Union was able to keep that off the negotiating table. You should be asking, "why hasn't the union OFFERED these things to the banned substance list?" -- Simple, the union knows that there are too many guys using this right now which would put them out of the game, not by violation, but because those things keep them from the minors.


Back to precedence, the spirit of sport and competition is about fair play (hence rules). Rules are there for those who don't have the integrity within themselves to play for the competition, the betterment, etc. To those who excuse onfield behavior by coining the phrase "If you're not cheating, you're not trying"... you know who you are, you should be ashamed to think you belong being mentioned in the same breath as Montana, Mayes, West, Robinson...