For sports fans, the teams we cheer for are more than just part of our personality, they are part of the fiber of our being. We schedule our lives around games and events. We link sports memories to moments of our lives (and vice-versa). We instinctively know exactly what will happen at certain points of the season, or at specific moments in the game. We're superstitious. We're irrational in our rationality. We're flat-out crazy sometimes (okay, all the time).
I'm creating this blog post so that arguments, feelings and rants have a reference point. I'll link readers back to this point so they can answer the "what did he mean?" questions.
First, (as of July 27, 2010) I'm 28, married for just over a year, and child-less. I was born and raised in Prairie Village, KS (SW suburb of KC). I have two Bachelors and a Masters from the University of Missouri. I'm 6'3" and 275 lbs. I was a high school athlete, and have logged time in basketball, football, baseball, soccer, and track/cross country.
Who are my teams? First, you must know that growing up in Kansas City in the '80s (and I consider your formidable sports years as 6-18) and '90s, the local teams left much to be desired. Early on, I picked the teams that were a direct rival to my dad's teams, switched once, but I've always leaned towards the KC teams.
Baseball - My father chose the Pittsburgh Pirates as his team when he was a kid. You have to remember, even though the Athletics franchise was in KC from '55 to '67, they NEVER finished above .500 and were constantly laughable (often referred to as the Yankees' farm team). Ironically, they finished 82-80 in their first year out in Oakland. So you can't blame my dad for not adopting the temporary team that wasn't good.
Early on, I cheered for the Royals. I have NO recollection of the '85 season. Since then, they had a better record ONCE, no playoff appearances. The late '80s and early '90s were the beginning of the slide. They were good, but not great. Since the AL and NL were essentially different sports, I felt it was okay to also be a Cincinnati Reds fan. In 1990, they beat the Pirates in the NLCS and cheering against my dad was fun. My love for them has faded, since with the invention of interleague games, it seems wrong to be a baseball bigamist.
Here's the thing about being a Royals fan. There isn't much hype for the baseball season. When you prefer football and college basketball, the summer can be boring. Every year, there is something about the season to get excited about, but you're grasping at straws. This year, they have the defending Cy Young winner (Greinke) and a solid closer (Soria)... meaning, every 5 days they just need to score 3 runs and they win. They picked up some more 5-tool-like players (Ankeil and Posednik) and appeared more capable of producing runs on a regular basis. Almost 100 games later and most of us have given up. 42 - 57, 4th place, 12.5 games out of 1st, Greinke struggling, Ankeil enjoying collecting money on the DL. As you can see, baseball season ends in early June for most Royals fans. Since I have no memories of the '85 Championship, I don't really have much to go on. But, I'm enough of a fan that if I was living in KC and earning a solid paycheck, I'd find some people to go in on season tickets... could be the year, right??
Basketball - Speaking of franchises that stopped over in KC on their way to California... it's the Kings, or as they were know before the move the Royals. Previously in Rochester and Cincinnati, the Royals moved to KC (and Omaha, NE) before the '72-'73 season and were renamed. While we had to share them with Omaha for 3 years, they were an entertaining bunch. Unfortunately, once again, their best years were before my time. In a three season span from '78 to '81, they went 135-121 with 3 playoff appearances (including a conference finals trip in '80-'81). After I was born, they had a solid 45-37 season (no playoffs somehow) in '82-'83, then a playoff appearance the next year (despite finishing 38-44), then a 50+ loss season, then they moved to Sacramento.
They are still the team I like to cheer for, especially with the 8 straight playoff appearances from '99 to '06. The '01-'02 team that went 61-21 got robbed in the conference finals against the Lakers. Before that, like any other kid without a home-town team, I was drawn to Jordan's Bulls. It's the only time I've ever really rooted for a dynasty team. It just didn't feel right after he retired, so I gravitated towards the Kings and also the Pacers... man I loved Reggie Miller. The Pacers were another team with tough breaks (including the Melee in Detroit in '04 that got their best players suspended for a long time).
Currently, with NBA teams I gravitate towards likable players like Wade, LeBron, Durant, etc. I usually don't care about the NBA until the playoffs, unless the Kings or Pacers are doing something special.
Football - A similar situation as with baseball. The Chiefs were not around until '63 and even then they were an AFL team, which garnered them less respect. My father first chose the Detroit Lions, then the Washington Redskins as a kid. So, in my formidable years I chose to root for the Dallas Cowboys, the Redskins rivals.
Now the Chiefs have won a Championship (3 AFL titles and a 1-1 Super Bowl record), but well before I was born. From then until '90, the Chiefs went 109-154-4. Their only playoff appearance in '86 was also their only 10+ win season (10-6) and one the five times they finished above .500 in that stretch. So for the first couple of years of my "fandom," I was a Cowboys fan. Then I latched on to the fun-to-watch Buffalo Bills, and of course during that time ('88 - '94) the Bills were 77-35, they won the AFC East every year; but, of course, they were 10-6 in the playoffs. Most importantly, they lost 4 consecutive Super Bowls (one to the Redskins). I'm pretty sure I cried after Scott Norwood missed the game-winning field goal attempt against the Giants in Super Bowl XXV... but I had just turned 9. (Underrated in that loss was the fact that if the NFL allowed 2-point conversion attempts at that point, the Bills would have gone for two when the scored in the fourth quarter to go up 18-17. A two-pointer makes it 20-17, then the Giants' late field goal only ties it and their is less pressure on Norwood.)
Lucky for me, the Chiefs picked it up in the early '90s. During Marty Schottenheimer's coaching stint, the Chiefs were 101-58-1. They made the playoffs 6 out of 9 seasons, but fell short (losing to the Bills in one AFC Championship). Since Marty left, they've had the 2 playoff appearances (both losses) and have gone 79-97 (including the latest 8-38 stretch).
It's tough to be their fan... of course, I also picked up a casual fan-ship with the Carolina Panthers. Of course, they have had like 3 good years, and sucked otherwise.
Hockey - Since KC doesn't have a hockey team, who cares about hockey?
College - This is the most important part. Growing up in Kansas, it was hard to avoid the Jayhawkers. I made due by becoming a K-State fan. Sure there are pictures of me in kU gear, but it was primarily free. The loathing I have for the Jayhawks started my senior year of high school. I applied to both Mizzou and kU and was accepted to both. My dad is a kU alum, while my mother (and most of the rest of her family) is a Mizzou alum. Mizzou made a good offer: $22,000 scholarship over four years to offset the out-of-state costs, plus I was accepted to one of the top Journalism schools in the country. The offer from kU came almost 3 months later. I was to get $8,000 over four years. Here's what "angered" me. I thought I deserved more of a full-ride. I graduated in the top 10% of my high school class of 456 with about a 4.3 GPA. I had a 1350 on the SAT and a 29 on the ACT. Where's the love?? Once enrolled at Mizzou, I learned how the rivalry worked... especially that the historic football record was in dispute because kU used an ineligible player in one game in the '60s. And so it began...
Sure, I missed the tragic NCAA Tourney game against UCLA (when Tyus Edny went coast-to-coast with 4 seconds for the winning LAY-UP! Not jumper, LAY-UP). I also missed the "5th Down" game against Colorado in '91. Also, the "Kicked Ball" game against Nebraska in '97 (it'd be referred to as "the Nebraska game" if there weren't more memorable Nebraska moments). In my 10 years following the Tigers closely, they've given me some great moments...
- The 4-OT basketball thriller in '01 against Iowa State
- Both Elite Eight runs in '03 and '09.
- The "Christian Moody Game" (Mizzou beat kU in '06 in Columbia when Moody missed two free throws with no time on the clock)
- All three of Zaire "Mr. Big Shot" Taylor's game winners (at Texas in '09, v. kU in '09, and at Iowa State in '10)
- JT Tiller, TJ Soyoye, and DeMarre Carroll... enough said.
- Three National Champion wrestlers
- Beating Nebraska in football for the first time in 27 years in '03... then again in '05... then again in '07... then finally winning for the first time in Lincoln in '08... and we didn't just beat them, we dismantled the "Black-Shirt Defense" by 175-71 in four games.
- The endless parade of entertaining, big-hitting linebackers... James Kinney, Ming "the Merciless", and Spoooooon!
- Beating then #2 kU in Kansas City in '07 to move to #1 after previously #1 LSU had also lost... the safety in the end-zone, the grass stuck in Todd Reesing's helmet, the "We're Number One!" chants.
- That whole 2007 season was awesome: 12-2, witnessed all 6 home games plus both neutral-site games (8-0 in those games), took in that kU game in Arrowhead with K-Wall (just a girlfriend then, but not for long), my dad (in kU gear), and my maternal grandfather (a Mizzou alum), the Tigers scored like 500 points that year, won the North division (outright, dammit), destroyed Arkansas in the Cotton Bowl after being jilted for the Orange Bowl by kU (who they beat). Except for the two losses to Oklahoma, a perfect season.
- Mike Anderson and his defensive wizardry
- Ressel's game winning field goal (and the "Beast Mode" uniforms) against kU in '09. (Don't forget the comeback was aided by another safety of Reesing in the same end zone as '07)
- Oh, and Brad Smith... can't forget the most exciting player in recent history.
Then there are the bad times...
- The women's soccer team missing the NCAA tournament despite winning the conference regular season in '09.
- The BCS selecting kU over Mizzou (ranked #8 and #6, respectively) for the Orange Bowl in '07 despite the ranks and that Mizzou beat them on the field.
- Eric Crouch turning a close (6-3 at halftime) Mizzou v. Nebraska game in '01 into a 36-3 shellacking by breaking a tackle in his own endzone and scrambling 107 yards (97 from scrimmage) for a touchdown in the third quarter.
- Quinn Snyder, Rickey Clemens, Kurt Farmer, Larry Smith, Darius Outlaw, Trevon Bryant, Josh Kroenke
- "The Club Athena Incident" and ensuing fallout (most of the remaining Snyder recruits getting suspended or benched by Mike Anderson in his first year).
- Two words: Paige Lorie
- The baseball team not begin able to get over the hump and make the College World Series despite countless pitchers being drafted into the Majors in the last 5 years.
- Losing to Troy on ESPN2 (while ranked #18) in '04
- The many thumpings the Jayhawks have handed us in Allen Fieldhouse (some really embarrassing losses)
- The '06 Sun Bowl (calling timeout to ice the Oregon St. kicker on his game-tying extra point attempt with no time left, then having the Beavers come out and go for two... and getting it)
- The "gold" jerseys against kU in '08
I could probably go on... but you get the picture. I may not be a fan of Cleveland teams, or the Cubs, or from Seattle... but I'd say I'm a tortured fan.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
College Football Realignment
It's about time!
I know, I've been talking about my plan to fix college football for over a year, and now, with the near-Armageddon in the Big 12, my argument may fall on deaf, or over-loaded, ears.
First, let's go over the problems with the current system..
- The BCS is a flawed system that takes the decision-making, and eventual blame, out of the hands of humans.
- The bowl system is imperfect and discriminatory.
- Pre- and early-season polling relies on judgment calls and assumptions, and weighs on the final standings too much.
- There is hardly ever a TRUE National Champion. No matter how easy your schedule was or how far out of nowhere you came, if you haven't lost you can't be counted out of the National Championship.
Obviously, the most prominent solution/alternative to the current situation is a playoff system. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be have some decent arguments against a playoff.
- The season is long enough. The break between the regular season and the bowls gives the student-athletes time to take finals and finish the semester/quarter strong.
- A playoff gives the "little guy" too much of a chance. One officiating mistake and Ball State could beat USC for the title.
- The bowl games provide thousands of dollars in sponsorship money and ratings.
- Who is more deserving of a playoff spot? A 9-3 third-place team in the SEC, a 10-2 second-place team in the Big East, or an 11-1 MAC Champion???
I have an answer for everything except the money. The money is always a problem. It's like trying to justify dating a girl with a history of cheating... no matter how much she's reformed, no matter how many positive reasons there may be, the fact will always remain... she's done it before, she'll do it again.
First, this requires some conference re-figuring... because the best way to alleviate scheduling issues and conference strength is to make them more comparable. So, if there are 120 teams, the simple solution would be ten 12-team conferences. That way the ones that are already 12, don't have to break-up. Here's how it would look...
ACC (stays the same): BC, Clemson, Duke, Florida St., Ga Tech, Maryland, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Va Tech, Wake.
Big12 (stays the same): Baylor, Colorado, Iowa St., Kansas, K-State, Mizzou, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, A&M, Tech.
SEC (stays the same): Bama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St., South Carolina, Tennessee, Vandy.
MAC (stays the same -Temple): Akron, Ball St., Bowling Green, Buffalo, Cent. Mich., East. Mich., Kent St., Miami OH, No. Illinois, Ohio, Toledo, West. Mich.
Big Ten (+1): Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan St., Northwestern, Ohio St., Penn St., Purdue, Wisconsin, Notre Dame.
Pac-10 (+2): Arizona, Arizona St., Cal, Oregon, Oregon St., Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington St., San Diego St., San Jose St.
Big East (+4): Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, South Florida, Syracuse, West Virginia, Temple, Army, Navy, Marshall.
New West: Boise St., Fresno St., Hawaii, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Air Force, Utah, Utah St., BYU, UNLV, Colorado St.
New South: Houston, Rice, TCU, UTEP, North Texas, SMU, New Mexico, NM St., Tulsa, La-Lafayette, La-Monroe, La Tech.
New Southeast: East Carolina, FAU, FIU, Middle Tennessee St., Arkansas St., Memphis, So. Miss., Troy, Tulane, UAB, UCF, West. Kentucky.
Pretty cool, huh? Sure, you break up the WAC, MWC, C-USA, and Sun Belt, while leaving the MAC intact, but you have to crack a few eggs... yada, yada, yada. Let's look at the benefits...
- Smaller schools can cut back on travel costs (putting the savings towards recruiting and facility upgrades, thereby making them more competitive).
- All the small schools from the same state are together. It's regionally sound.
- No major rivalries were destroyed. In fact, I've brought some back (TCU v. SMU) and opened the door for some new ones (anyone for a yearly Boise St. v. Utah game?).
(My only problem was with which California "State" schools to bring into the Pac-10. Not sure why Frenso (or for that matter Hawaii) got the short end. It's the one regional loop hole... except with South Florida being in the Big East and BC in the ACC already. Can we just switch them? Would anyone else notice?)
Okay, so just moving teams around doesn't solve the problem of determining the true champs. Here are my scheduling changes...
- All teams play all 11 conference games. Each team may, by choice, schedule a "preseason" non-conference game which will count if it's against a FBS school.
- The conference season will start the weekend after and go for 12 weeks (ending on Thanksgiving weekend ideally), with a bye week to be used at any point other than the first or last weekend at the discretion of the conference.
- Teams may play on Thursdays or Fridays at the discretion of the conference.
- There will be no divisions or conference championship games.
- The post-season will consist of a five-round, 16-team tournament, with a round each weekend for the remainder of the season (ideally finishing the first weekend of January... the same time the season finishes now).
Sounds interesting, but how do you get the 16 teams?
- The BCS rankings will still be used, but there will be no official polls/rankings prior to the eighth week of the season to prevent bias from hype, recruiting success, expectations, and previous seasons' results. (For example, most preseason polls would probably have Texas in the Top 10 this year. Let's say they lose 3 games. If they start at #10, they might finish at #18 or something. But if they start unranked (like everyone else) then we know their end of the season ranking will more accurately reflect how they played in the current season.)
- The only change to the BCS will be that no team may be ranked higher than any other team that has fewer losses. So, a 9-3 Texas must be ranked lower than a 10-2 North Texas.
- The 10 conference champions will have an automatic spot in the tournament (if more than two teams are tied for the lead, a la the Big 12 South in 2008, the team with the highest BCS ranking will be awarded the automatic spot).
- The remaining 6 at-large spots will be determined by the 6 highest ranked teams in the BCS that did not win their conference.
- Each team will be seeded by its BCS rank no matter how they finished in their conference.
- The first round will consist of teams seeded 9th - 16th playing each other at neutral sites (#9 v. #16, #10 v. #15, #11 v. #14, #12 v. #13).
- The winner of each first round game will be reseeded to play the #5 - #8 teams at neutral sites in the second round. Then those winners will be reseeded for the quarterfinals against the #1 #4 teams. The tournament continues with reseeding after each round, giving the higher seeds a technical advantage.
- Each game can be referred to as a current bowl with a sponsor. Like the semi-finals could be the Nokia Sugar Bowl and the FedEx Orange Bowl with the championship in the Rose Bowl presented by AT&T.
- Of course, the winner of the final is the National Champion... no questions asked.
- Finally, all teams that win 7 games or more and aren't in the tournament will be invited to the non-tournament bowl games.
Sure, there are problems. What happens if Alabama goes 12-0 is #1 and loses to 9-3 #10 South Florida? Well, too bad, so sad.
First of all, the lack of a non-conference schedule could be viewed as a problem because teams don't have warm-up games to get the kinks out. But, there is no reason why you couldn't schedule the one preseason game against a cupcake. This prevents teams from padding their records with 4 or 5 cupcakes. If you can't beat a majority of your conference opponents, you don't deserve to be in the post-season. Enough of these bowl teams with a 3-5 conference record.
Toss some criticisms at me. I welcome them. Let's work out a more perfect situation.
I know, I've been talking about my plan to fix college football for over a year, and now, with the near-Armageddon in the Big 12, my argument may fall on deaf, or over-loaded, ears.
First, let's go over the problems with the current system..
- The BCS is a flawed system that takes the decision-making, and eventual blame, out of the hands of humans.
- The bowl system is imperfect and discriminatory.
- Pre- and early-season polling relies on judgment calls and assumptions, and weighs on the final standings too much.
- There is hardly ever a TRUE National Champion. No matter how easy your schedule was or how far out of nowhere you came, if you haven't lost you can't be counted out of the National Championship.
Obviously, the most prominent solution/alternative to the current situation is a playoff system. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be have some decent arguments against a playoff.
- The season is long enough. The break between the regular season and the bowls gives the student-athletes time to take finals and finish the semester/quarter strong.
- A playoff gives the "little guy" too much of a chance. One officiating mistake and Ball State could beat USC for the title.
- The bowl games provide thousands of dollars in sponsorship money and ratings.
- Who is more deserving of a playoff spot? A 9-3 third-place team in the SEC, a 10-2 second-place team in the Big East, or an 11-1 MAC Champion???
I have an answer for everything except the money. The money is always a problem. It's like trying to justify dating a girl with a history of cheating... no matter how much she's reformed, no matter how many positive reasons there may be, the fact will always remain... she's done it before, she'll do it again.
First, this requires some conference re-figuring... because the best way to alleviate scheduling issues and conference strength is to make them more comparable. So, if there are 120 teams, the simple solution would be ten 12-team conferences. That way the ones that are already 12, don't have to break-up. Here's how it would look...
ACC (stays the same): BC, Clemson, Duke, Florida St., Ga Tech, Maryland, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Va Tech, Wake.
Big12 (stays the same): Baylor, Colorado, Iowa St., Kansas, K-State, Mizzou, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, A&M, Tech.
SEC (stays the same): Bama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St., South Carolina, Tennessee, Vandy.
MAC (stays the same -Temple): Akron, Ball St., Bowling Green, Buffalo, Cent. Mich., East. Mich., Kent St., Miami OH, No. Illinois, Ohio, Toledo, West. Mich.
Big Ten (+1): Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan St., Northwestern, Ohio St., Penn St., Purdue, Wisconsin, Notre Dame.
Pac-10 (+2): Arizona, Arizona St., Cal, Oregon, Oregon St., Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington St., San Diego St., San Jose St.
Big East (+4): Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Pitt, Rutgers, South Florida, Syracuse, West Virginia, Temple, Army, Navy, Marshall.
New West: Boise St., Fresno St., Hawaii, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Air Force, Utah, Utah St., BYU, UNLV, Colorado St.
New South: Houston, Rice, TCU, UTEP, North Texas, SMU, New Mexico, NM St., Tulsa, La-Lafayette, La-Monroe, La Tech.
New Southeast: East Carolina, FAU, FIU, Middle Tennessee St., Arkansas St., Memphis, So. Miss., Troy, Tulane, UAB, UCF, West. Kentucky.
Pretty cool, huh? Sure, you break up the WAC, MWC, C-USA, and Sun Belt, while leaving the MAC intact, but you have to crack a few eggs... yada, yada, yada. Let's look at the benefits...
- Smaller schools can cut back on travel costs (putting the savings towards recruiting and facility upgrades, thereby making them more competitive).
- All the small schools from the same state are together. It's regionally sound.
- No major rivalries were destroyed. In fact, I've brought some back (TCU v. SMU) and opened the door for some new ones (anyone for a yearly Boise St. v. Utah game?).
(My only problem was with which California "State" schools to bring into the Pac-10. Not sure why Frenso (or for that matter Hawaii) got the short end. It's the one regional loop hole... except with South Florida being in the Big East and BC in the ACC already. Can we just switch them? Would anyone else notice?)
Okay, so just moving teams around doesn't solve the problem of determining the true champs. Here are my scheduling changes...
- All teams play all 11 conference games. Each team may, by choice, schedule a "preseason" non-conference game which will count if it's against a FBS school.
- The conference season will start the weekend after and go for 12 weeks (ending on Thanksgiving weekend ideally), with a bye week to be used at any point other than the first or last weekend at the discretion of the conference.
- Teams may play on Thursdays or Fridays at the discretion of the conference.
- There will be no divisions or conference championship games.
- The post-season will consist of a five-round, 16-team tournament, with a round each weekend for the remainder of the season (ideally finishing the first weekend of January... the same time the season finishes now).
Sounds interesting, but how do you get the 16 teams?
- The BCS rankings will still be used, but there will be no official polls/rankings prior to the eighth week of the season to prevent bias from hype, recruiting success, expectations, and previous seasons' results. (For example, most preseason polls would probably have Texas in the Top 10 this year. Let's say they lose 3 games. If they start at #10, they might finish at #18 or something. But if they start unranked (like everyone else) then we know their end of the season ranking will more accurately reflect how they played in the current season.)
- The only change to the BCS will be that no team may be ranked higher than any other team that has fewer losses. So, a 9-3 Texas must be ranked lower than a 10-2 North Texas.
- The 10 conference champions will have an automatic spot in the tournament (if more than two teams are tied for the lead, a la the Big 12 South in 2008, the team with the highest BCS ranking will be awarded the automatic spot).
- The remaining 6 at-large spots will be determined by the 6 highest ranked teams in the BCS that did not win their conference.
- Each team will be seeded by its BCS rank no matter how they finished in their conference.
- The first round will consist of teams seeded 9th - 16th playing each other at neutral sites (#9 v. #16, #10 v. #15, #11 v. #14, #12 v. #13).
- The winner of each first round game will be reseeded to play the #5 - #8 teams at neutral sites in the second round. Then those winners will be reseeded for the quarterfinals against the #1 #4 teams. The tournament continues with reseeding after each round, giving the higher seeds a technical advantage.
- Each game can be referred to as a current bowl with a sponsor. Like the semi-finals could be the Nokia Sugar Bowl and the FedEx Orange Bowl with the championship in the Rose Bowl presented by AT&T.
- Of course, the winner of the final is the National Champion... no questions asked.
- Finally, all teams that win 7 games or more and aren't in the tournament will be invited to the non-tournament bowl games.
Sure, there are problems. What happens if Alabama goes 12-0 is #1 and loses to 9-3 #10 South Florida? Well, too bad, so sad.
First of all, the lack of a non-conference schedule could be viewed as a problem because teams don't have warm-up games to get the kinks out. But, there is no reason why you couldn't schedule the one preseason game against a cupcake. This prevents teams from padding their records with 4 or 5 cupcakes. If you can't beat a majority of your conference opponents, you don't deserve to be in the post-season. Enough of these bowl teams with a 3-5 conference record.
Toss some criticisms at me. I welcome them. Let's work out a more perfect situation.
Monday, July 19, 2010
The World Watched
Here's the thing about soccer... everybody can play it. The main reason why it's the most popular sport in the world (and why it has a hard time taking off in the US) is because of how easy it is to play. No matter how poor you are, or how bad you neighborhood may be, you can play soccer anytime. Step 1, get a ball (quality of the ball is unimportant). Step 2, get some space (a dirt alley will do). Step 3, kick the ball around. TA DA! You're playing soccer. You don't even NEED shoes. I know it's a stereotypical image, but how many pictures are paraded in front of American viewers during the World Cup of children playing bare-foot soccer in the streets or some poorly maintained field.
American sports (football, basketball, baseball) require more equipment and, in turn, more money. Sure, you can play football without pads, but if that's all the practice you get, you'll never be ready to play the real thing. Children around the world can get more enjoyment from soccer because they have more of a chance of playing it. If you denied your average American youths access to baseball bats and gloves, football helmets, basketball goals, tennis courts and swimming pools, they would eventually embrace soccer as the only game alive.
Yes, soccer games, with their low scores/ties and flopping, irritates the average American viewer because we like seeing multiple home runs, extra innings, 70-yard touchdowns, last-second jumpers, etc. But, soccer, when done fundamentally well, rivals our sports for "beauty." We all "oooh" and "aaah" at a great curve ball to freeze the batter for strike three, a behind-the-back pass for a open slam-dunk, or a guard leveling a linebacker on a pull-block for the breakaway touchdown run. Soccer has just as much, or more, fundamental beauty as our sports. It's just harder to see for the average viewer. Some day, maybe the US will catch on, and I hope it doesn't require the national team winning the WHOLE thing to do it, either.
All the argument about the sport aside, this World Cup was one for the ages. A new Champion got the monkey off their back, a couple traditional powers faltered, some surprises gained respect, and the buzz in South Africa came through (ha ha, get it? The vuvuzellas?)
I'd say my predictions were decent. I was 10-for-16 on teams making the knock-out round (at least one from every group) and predicted the group winner in 5 of the 8 groups. I put a little too much faith in the African teams as Nigeria, Cameroon, and Ivory Coast let me down, and not enough faith in South America (all 5 qualifiers in the knock-out round). No one can fault me for missing on France and Italy. Got to be the first time the defending champs and defending runner-up missed getting out the groups right??
Anyway, here's how I would rank the 32 teams from worst to first:
32: North Korea
31: Cameroon
30: Honduras
29: Algeria
28: France
27: Nigeria
26: Italy
25: New Zealand
24: Greece
23: Denmark
22: Serbia
21: Australia
20: South Africa
19: Switzerland
18: Slovenia
17: Ivory Coast
16: Slovakia
15: South Korea
14: Mexico
13: England
12: USA
11: Chile
10: Japan
9: Portugal
8: Ghana
7: Paraguay
6: Brazil
5: Argentina
4: Uruguay
3: Germany
2: Netherlands
1: Spain
Obviously, the number one problem with the tournament was the officiating. It lacks consistency, efficiency, and accountability; but I won't beat a dead horse. My problem was with the "tanking." By that I mean teams stalling on the leads or ties, specifically in the last group games. This in a major reason why people think soccer is boring. I understand there are some strategies. For example, pulling stars with yellow cards late with the lead to save them for the next game, or not pushing for a third goal when you've already got 6 group points and a five goal differential lead. Take, for example, the way the last games played out in Group C. Every team needed to win to secure a spot in the next round. Slovenia would have been fine with a tie, England and the US could have stomached one, and Algeria was desperate. Let's look at how it was shaking out...
After 2 games:
Slovenia - 4 pts, +1 GD, 3 GS, 2 GA
USA - 2 pts, 0 GD, 3 GS, 3 GA
England - 2 pts, 0 GD, 1 GS, 1 GA
Algeria - 1 pt, -1 GD, 0 GS, 1 GA
Ideally, to win the group, each team needed the win. Obviously, Slovenia wins and they get the group. England, with any size win over Slovenia takes the lead. The US needed the win and to keep pace with or do better than the goals in the other game. Algeria needed a win by 2 and an Slovenia loss. Okay, but let's say you're playing for second place (you never should, but I'll be humored)... Slovenia is happy with a loss as long as the US/Algeria game is a draw. England can't lose, but they'll take a tie if they score 3 more goals than the US, if the US/Algeria game is a draw (a win by either team doesn't work against their tie). The US can't lose, but a tie is fine if England/Slovenia tie and they keep pace with the England goals. Algeria CANNOT lose and need to win to even get second place (this is important), a tie with the US does them NO GOOD. Basically, whom ever scored first in either game was in the drivers seat.
So here's how it shakes out after 23 minutes (Defoe puts England up 1-0 and the US/Algeria tilt is 0-0)...
England 5 pts, +1 GD, 2 GS, 1 GA
Slovenia 4 pts, 0 GD, 3 GS, 3 GA
USA 3 pts, 0 GD, 3 GS, 3 GA
Algeria 2 pts, -1 GD, 0 GS, 1 GA
Okay, if we assume each team is watch the scoreboards from the bench and communicating to the field, I can understand England going into save mode and the other three picking up the pace (although Algeria should have been in top gear the whole time, but after their early shot hit the crossbar, they looked apathetic about winning). What happens next we all know, but there were about 70 minutes (not including half time) of poor strategy on each field.
England - Yes, with the win the English are safe to advance, and they probably were not concerned with their next round match-up. But in my mind, they have to go for another goal, because a second place finish would mean facing either Germany or a confident (after beating Germany) Ghana. Sure, attacking would open up the defense for the possible Slovenian equalizer, but they had given up only one (fluke) goal up to that point, were they really giving up another at that point?
Slovenia - Really? Their man-handling (literally) defense gave up that goal? What the hell? Anyway, they ended up packing it in and playing for the tie, despite the fact that a US goal at any point sends them home. I don't get it. They were basically settling for second place and the same scenario described above... weak sauce.
Algeria - Okay, you hadn't scored all tournament and you start the game knowing a tie gives you nothing, you have a great chance rattle the crossbar early on, but things bog down as the US keeps the pressure up. Now, with the England/Slovenia game at 1-0, you have your chance, score twice and you've advanced. The miracle tie against England and the ousting of American hopes lifts your country to glory. Instead, you are forced into a defensive nutshell. The US can't score, but all of your chances are outnumbered counter attacks that fizzle quickly. You need two goals! What happens as the clock ticks away? You commit too much to weak attacks. The England/Slovenia game is over (1-0) and all of a sudden there are 4 minutes of stoppage time on the clock... the US keeper makes a solid save, he throws it out, and... oh, CRAP! It's a 4-on-3 going the other way... and the rest is history.
USA - I'd criticize the strategy, but we won and it worked out.
Group C wasn't the only place this happened. On the last day in Group A, Mexico took the 1-0 loss to Uruguay to make sure they maintained the goal differential lead on South Africa. Ghana stalled in their 1-0 loss to Germany to avoid letting Australia catch up. And, while the margin was great and they appeared to be trying, Brazil taking the draw with Portugal didn't help Ivory Coast's valiant effort to close 7 goal differential... certainly they were hoping for a few goals from Brazil to even it out. But the biggest tragedy was in Group C were a team needing 2 goals played most of the game for a tie and another went into the locker room satisfied with a loss only to find their world crumbling around them moments later.
Lesson? Always play to win. The game is never over, especially the simultaneously played third group games. Score first, score again, bring home the win. There was too much tentativeness early on and it led to some LONG games in the knock-out rounds. We learned that Africa has a ton of talent and support, Asian teams are dangerous, and South America might be better than Europe. If less teams played for 0-0 or 1-1 ties and 1-0 wins, then soccer would be more exciting.
As for the US, after the crap of 2006, I wouldn't have expected much. But we WON the CONCACAF qualifying, which is huge (Mexico always wins), making us the top seed from our region. We didn't lose to England, giving us reason to laugh in their faces. We actually won our World Cup group (hasn't happened before) while putting together some exciting finishes. And we finished no worse than England and Mexico (our rivals and measuring sticks). I think the US did wonderfully. I can't wait for 2014, and if we get to host either 2018 or 2022, we could be contending for the title.
American sports (football, basketball, baseball) require more equipment and, in turn, more money. Sure, you can play football without pads, but if that's all the practice you get, you'll never be ready to play the real thing. Children around the world can get more enjoyment from soccer because they have more of a chance of playing it. If you denied your average American youths access to baseball bats and gloves, football helmets, basketball goals, tennis courts and swimming pools, they would eventually embrace soccer as the only game alive.
Yes, soccer games, with their low scores/ties and flopping, irritates the average American viewer because we like seeing multiple home runs, extra innings, 70-yard touchdowns, last-second jumpers, etc. But, soccer, when done fundamentally well, rivals our sports for "beauty." We all "oooh" and "aaah" at a great curve ball to freeze the batter for strike three, a behind-the-back pass for a open slam-dunk, or a guard leveling a linebacker on a pull-block for the breakaway touchdown run. Soccer has just as much, or more, fundamental beauty as our sports. It's just harder to see for the average viewer. Some day, maybe the US will catch on, and I hope it doesn't require the national team winning the WHOLE thing to do it, either.
All the argument about the sport aside, this World Cup was one for the ages. A new Champion got the monkey off their back, a couple traditional powers faltered, some surprises gained respect, and the buzz in South Africa came through (ha ha, get it? The vuvuzellas?)
I'd say my predictions were decent. I was 10-for-16 on teams making the knock-out round (at least one from every group) and predicted the group winner in 5 of the 8 groups. I put a little too much faith in the African teams as Nigeria, Cameroon, and Ivory Coast let me down, and not enough faith in South America (all 5 qualifiers in the knock-out round). No one can fault me for missing on France and Italy. Got to be the first time the defending champs and defending runner-up missed getting out the groups right??
Anyway, here's how I would rank the 32 teams from worst to first:
32: North Korea
31: Cameroon
30: Honduras
29: Algeria
28: France
27: Nigeria
26: Italy
25: New Zealand
24: Greece
23: Denmark
22: Serbia
21: Australia
20: South Africa
19: Switzerland
18: Slovenia
17: Ivory Coast
16: Slovakia
15: South Korea
14: Mexico
13: England
12: USA
11: Chile
10: Japan
9: Portugal
8: Ghana
7: Paraguay
6: Brazil
5: Argentina
4: Uruguay
3: Germany
2: Netherlands
1: Spain
Obviously, the number one problem with the tournament was the officiating. It lacks consistency, efficiency, and accountability; but I won't beat a dead horse. My problem was with the "tanking." By that I mean teams stalling on the leads or ties, specifically in the last group games. This in a major reason why people think soccer is boring. I understand there are some strategies. For example, pulling stars with yellow cards late with the lead to save them for the next game, or not pushing for a third goal when you've already got 6 group points and a five goal differential lead. Take, for example, the way the last games played out in Group C. Every team needed to win to secure a spot in the next round. Slovenia would have been fine with a tie, England and the US could have stomached one, and Algeria was desperate. Let's look at how it was shaking out...
After 2 games:
Slovenia - 4 pts, +1 GD, 3 GS, 2 GA
USA - 2 pts, 0 GD, 3 GS, 3 GA
England - 2 pts, 0 GD, 1 GS, 1 GA
Algeria - 1 pt, -1 GD, 0 GS, 1 GA
Ideally, to win the group, each team needed the win. Obviously, Slovenia wins and they get the group. England, with any size win over Slovenia takes the lead. The US needed the win and to keep pace with or do better than the goals in the other game. Algeria needed a win by 2 and an Slovenia loss. Okay, but let's say you're playing for second place (you never should, but I'll be humored)... Slovenia is happy with a loss as long as the US/Algeria game is a draw. England can't lose, but they'll take a tie if they score 3 more goals than the US, if the US/Algeria game is a draw (a win by either team doesn't work against their tie). The US can't lose, but a tie is fine if England/Slovenia tie and they keep pace with the England goals. Algeria CANNOT lose and need to win to even get second place (this is important), a tie with the US does them NO GOOD. Basically, whom ever scored first in either game was in the drivers seat.
So here's how it shakes out after 23 minutes (Defoe puts England up 1-0 and the US/Algeria tilt is 0-0)...
England 5 pts, +1 GD, 2 GS, 1 GA
Slovenia 4 pts, 0 GD, 3 GS, 3 GA
USA 3 pts, 0 GD, 3 GS, 3 GA
Algeria 2 pts, -1 GD, 0 GS, 1 GA
Okay, if we assume each team is watch the scoreboards from the bench and communicating to the field, I can understand England going into save mode and the other three picking up the pace (although Algeria should have been in top gear the whole time, but after their early shot hit the crossbar, they looked apathetic about winning). What happens next we all know, but there were about 70 minutes (not including half time) of poor strategy on each field.
England - Yes, with the win the English are safe to advance, and they probably were not concerned with their next round match-up. But in my mind, they have to go for another goal, because a second place finish would mean facing either Germany or a confident (after beating Germany) Ghana. Sure, attacking would open up the defense for the possible Slovenian equalizer, but they had given up only one (fluke) goal up to that point, were they really giving up another at that point?
Slovenia - Really? Their man-handling (literally) defense gave up that goal? What the hell? Anyway, they ended up packing it in and playing for the tie, despite the fact that a US goal at any point sends them home. I don't get it. They were basically settling for second place and the same scenario described above... weak sauce.
Algeria - Okay, you hadn't scored all tournament and you start the game knowing a tie gives you nothing, you have a great chance rattle the crossbar early on, but things bog down as the US keeps the pressure up. Now, with the England/Slovenia game at 1-0, you have your chance, score twice and you've advanced. The miracle tie against England and the ousting of American hopes lifts your country to glory. Instead, you are forced into a defensive nutshell. The US can't score, but all of your chances are outnumbered counter attacks that fizzle quickly. You need two goals! What happens as the clock ticks away? You commit too much to weak attacks. The England/Slovenia game is over (1-0) and all of a sudden there are 4 minutes of stoppage time on the clock... the US keeper makes a solid save, he throws it out, and... oh, CRAP! It's a 4-on-3 going the other way... and the rest is history.
USA - I'd criticize the strategy, but we won and it worked out.
Group C wasn't the only place this happened. On the last day in Group A, Mexico took the 1-0 loss to Uruguay to make sure they maintained the goal differential lead on South Africa. Ghana stalled in their 1-0 loss to Germany to avoid letting Australia catch up. And, while the margin was great and they appeared to be trying, Brazil taking the draw with Portugal didn't help Ivory Coast's valiant effort to close 7 goal differential... certainly they were hoping for a few goals from Brazil to even it out. But the biggest tragedy was in Group C were a team needing 2 goals played most of the game for a tie and another went into the locker room satisfied with a loss only to find their world crumbling around them moments later.
Lesson? Always play to win. The game is never over, especially the simultaneously played third group games. Score first, score again, bring home the win. There was too much tentativeness early on and it led to some LONG games in the knock-out rounds. We learned that Africa has a ton of talent and support, Asian teams are dangerous, and South America might be better than Europe. If less teams played for 0-0 or 1-1 ties and 1-0 wins, then soccer would be more exciting.
As for the US, after the crap of 2006, I wouldn't have expected much. But we WON the CONCACAF qualifying, which is huge (Mexico always wins), making us the top seed from our region. We didn't lose to England, giving us reason to laugh in their faces. We actually won our World Cup group (hasn't happened before) while putting together some exciting finishes. And we finished no worse than England and Mexico (our rivals and measuring sticks). I think the US did wonderfully. I can't wait for 2014, and if we get to host either 2018 or 2022, we could be contending for the title.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
NBA '09-'10 Wrap
The season is long over, and the main rush of free-agency is concluding... it's time for some afterthoughts. (Second-guessing... it's what I excel at!)
Of course the Lakers won, they were better by two years of working together and the Celtics were older by two years and lacking the ideal support pieces they had in '08. Robinson, Finley and Sheed are not Posey, Powe and House. While on the other side, the Lakers were highly criticized for dropping Ariza for Artest. Look, I loved Artest right up until the night that we'd all love to forget in Detroit... he may not have redeemed himself, but he got the title he rightly deserved. Both teams were buried by officiating that appeared to force the series to seven games in which the Lakers were going to run away with at home.
There have been some comparisons to the Lakers of '00 - '10 to the Bulls of '91 - '97... same coach, 5 titles, Hall-of-Fame scorer, solid supporting cast, and if they Lakers three-peat again, it will be even more creepy (and the odds are good... more on that later). Right down to the addition of a crazy defensive stopper joining the team for the ring he needed, the resemblance is uncanny. The only problem, who is Shaq on the early Bulls team? Horace Grant?!?!?? Either Kobe is the second coming of Jordan or Phil Jackson is a miracle worker. Hey, I wonder if his magic could work in baseball or football??
Plans for next season? Well, in order to assess those, let's look at the free agent shake-ups:
The Miami Merger - Really??? Did this just work? Were all the rumors true? Will Chris Paul be joining them in 2012? Bosh and LeBron in Heat jerseys is scary. Of course they are the team to beat now. Of course it won't happen for them. Anytime you spend $330 million on 3 guys for 6 years something bad will happen... what am I talking about? When was the last time a team spent THAT much on 3 guys. Either someone gets severely hurt, or sometime during a tough Eastern Conference Finals loss in 2014 (still seeking their first title together) Wade will mutter something like "it wasn't this hard in '06" and Bosh will sucker punch him while LeBron kicks him in the nuts.
$100 million of bad knees - Speaking of ridonkulous spending, did the Knicks really pay $100 million for Amare Stoudemire?? Did they have one of those "oh, shit" moments when they learned of LeBron's intentions in Miami? I guess this is what happens when you're spurned by a super star. Like when a nice, kinda-dorky guy asks out the model-type he's had a crush on for years, and she shoots him down with no remorse, and he ends up with the ugly, drunk, psycho girl because he has no backbone. People do dumb crap when they are pissed off.
Bull Run - Of the teams that LeBron punked, the Bulls seem to be reacting the best. With the Heat burning cash, the Celtics staying put, the Magic shaking their heads, and the Wizards patiently waiting for paint to dry on John Wall, the East is still open(ish) and by adding Boozer and Korver they should win the Central and contend.
The Draft - The winners? The Wizards, Heat, Warriors, and Clippers (seriously). The losers? The Pacers and Kings... and basically everyone for not drafting J.T. Tiller.
For next season, I'll be pulling for the Heat, but I'll go out on a limb and say Lakers over Bulls after the Bulls oust the Magic and Heat in consecutive series.
Up next, World Cup analysis...
Of course the Lakers won, they were better by two years of working together and the Celtics were older by two years and lacking the ideal support pieces they had in '08. Robinson, Finley and Sheed are not Posey, Powe and House. While on the other side, the Lakers were highly criticized for dropping Ariza for Artest. Look, I loved Artest right up until the night that we'd all love to forget in Detroit... he may not have redeemed himself, but he got the title he rightly deserved. Both teams were buried by officiating that appeared to force the series to seven games in which the Lakers were going to run away with at home.
There have been some comparisons to the Lakers of '00 - '10 to the Bulls of '91 - '97... same coach, 5 titles, Hall-of-Fame scorer, solid supporting cast, and if they Lakers three-peat again, it will be even more creepy (and the odds are good... more on that later). Right down to the addition of a crazy defensive stopper joining the team for the ring he needed, the resemblance is uncanny. The only problem, who is Shaq on the early Bulls team? Horace Grant?!?!?? Either Kobe is the second coming of Jordan or Phil Jackson is a miracle worker. Hey, I wonder if his magic could work in baseball or football??
Plans for next season? Well, in order to assess those, let's look at the free agent shake-ups:
The Miami Merger - Really??? Did this just work? Were all the rumors true? Will Chris Paul be joining them in 2012? Bosh and LeBron in Heat jerseys is scary. Of course they are the team to beat now. Of course it won't happen for them. Anytime you spend $330 million on 3 guys for 6 years something bad will happen... what am I talking about? When was the last time a team spent THAT much on 3 guys. Either someone gets severely hurt, or sometime during a tough Eastern Conference Finals loss in 2014 (still seeking their first title together) Wade will mutter something like "it wasn't this hard in '06" and Bosh will sucker punch him while LeBron kicks him in the nuts.
$100 million of bad knees - Speaking of ridonkulous spending, did the Knicks really pay $100 million for Amare Stoudemire?? Did they have one of those "oh, shit" moments when they learned of LeBron's intentions in Miami? I guess this is what happens when you're spurned by a super star. Like when a nice, kinda-dorky guy asks out the model-type he's had a crush on for years, and she shoots him down with no remorse, and he ends up with the ugly, drunk, psycho girl because he has no backbone. People do dumb crap when they are pissed off.
Bull Run - Of the teams that LeBron punked, the Bulls seem to be reacting the best. With the Heat burning cash, the Celtics staying put, the Magic shaking their heads, and the Wizards patiently waiting for paint to dry on John Wall, the East is still open(ish) and by adding Boozer and Korver they should win the Central and contend.
The Draft - The winners? The Wizards, Heat, Warriors, and Clippers (seriously). The losers? The Pacers and Kings... and basically everyone for not drafting J.T. Tiller.
For next season, I'll be pulling for the Heat, but I'll go out on a limb and say Lakers over Bulls after the Bulls oust the Magic and Heat in consecutive series.
Up next, World Cup analysis...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)