Jenna took me to lunch today at a pizza joint, and since I no longer have ESPN I was sort of pumped to watch some sports during my break, except the only sport that rivals the WNBA in worthlessness was on - the Senior PGA.
Now I'm not a big golf fan but I still respect the sport. But why does this league exist? When you're broken down and you can't swing the wrenches with the best of 'em, join a rec league or do charity events, but become a Senior Professional? What is that anyway?
I can't think of any other sport that has a Senior league. There's no Senior MLB or NBA, but maybe that's what we need. What could possible be more exciting than a group of 65 year old terds throwing around the pigskin with one Ray Lewis in the group, ie Jack Nicklaus. One man who somehow preserved his youth and just enjoys lighting up the geezers even though he could still hang in the NFL.
But seriously, since that will never happen why not atleast make the sport somewhat relevant and have the Senior PGA strictly play against the LPGA. Wouldn't that be cute, Michelle Wie paired up with the Golden Bear? And she probably still couldn't make the cut.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Fall Practice
Many college football fans are gearing up for the start of the season. Fall practice is just around the corner and the fans are pumped! I however hate fall practice. Nothing could be worse, and from a fans perspective, nothing good comes from it.
I used to be one of those fans, who couldn't wait to read about developments that occurred during the days practice, and to listen to the player's interviews. I understand where the enthusiasm comes from, but let me explain to you why this is the worst time in all of college football.
There are only 3 things that happen during practice-
1) We hear that an individual player is "improved" during the offseason and is better than ever.
My rebuttal to this is, it's all relative. Okay so he is better than he was, but hot much better? or you think he's better because you got worse? or I'm just saying he's better because he's my teammate and I can't say that he didn't get any better or that he is worse?
2) We hear the score of the scrimmages-
As my good friend Matt Bauman (ILB, Jr, BYU) pointed out, "fans only want to hear that the offense is doing well. If the defense shuts out the offense, then the offense has problems." BYU for example is suppose to be stacked on offense, but during spring ball, there were a few occasions where the inexperienced defense, shut the offense down. But for some reason this does not mean that the defense is solid, it just means that the offense isn't as good as advertised. When a team is playing itself there is no winner. Why do we care when the offense kills the defense, or the defense shuts down the offense? How is any of that good news?
3) INJURIES!!!
The worst part of fall practice is that critical players get injured on a regular basis. I brace myself before reading articles that recap the practice for fear of reading that Max Hall broke his foot. Practice never ends with a player healing miraculously, and if miraculous healings were happening they'd be at BYU first! But they're not so don't dream of it.
I used to be one of those fans, who couldn't wait to read about developments that occurred during the days practice, and to listen to the player's interviews. I understand where the enthusiasm comes from, but let me explain to you why this is the worst time in all of college football.
There are only 3 things that happen during practice-
1) We hear that an individual player is "improved" during the offseason and is better than ever.
My rebuttal to this is, it's all relative. Okay so he is better than he was, but hot much better? or you think he's better because you got worse? or I'm just saying he's better because he's my teammate and I can't say that he didn't get any better or that he is worse?
2) We hear the score of the scrimmages-
As my good friend Matt Bauman (ILB, Jr, BYU) pointed out, "fans only want to hear that the offense is doing well. If the defense shuts out the offense, then the offense has problems." BYU for example is suppose to be stacked on offense, but during spring ball, there were a few occasions where the inexperienced defense, shut the offense down. But for some reason this does not mean that the defense is solid, it just means that the offense isn't as good as advertised. When a team is playing itself there is no winner. Why do we care when the offense kills the defense, or the defense shuts down the offense? How is any of that good news?
3) INJURIES!!!
The worst part of fall practice is that critical players get injured on a regular basis. I brace myself before reading articles that recap the practice for fear of reading that Max Hall broke his foot. Practice never ends with a player healing miraculously, and if miraculous healings were happening they'd be at BYU first! But they're not so don't dream of it.
So before you get all pumped for football to start next week. Take a cold shower and realize that the status of your team can only get worse between now and the first game. Follow me and avoid reading the fall camp updates and spare yourself the torment of learning of your team's self destruction on the practice field.
PS. JD was suppose to add a picture of some gruesome injury to this post, but obviously he's slacking.
Real NBA players in Europe
We all know that wannabe-NBA players end up in Europe, but this is very interesting. Josh Childress has decided that he wants to play in Europe and now Ben Gordon (another legit NBA player) is mulling this as well.
Gordon won't rule out move to Europe
Posted: Tuesday July 29, 2008 07:45AM ET
Ben Gordon won't set any artificial deadlines to get a new deal done. A restricted free agent, he could sign a one-year tender offer from the Bulls and then become an unrestricted free agent next summer. Born in England, Gordon doesn't rule out following Josh Childress' lead and signing with an overseas club. "Definitely, it's a possibility with the Euro being so strong. Josh did it. It just depends on what the individual wants or what he can put up with. I'm from London, so it's definitely something that seems like it would be interesting. But ideally I'd like to be here playing in the States for the team that drafted me."
Who knew that an ailing American economy would have such far reaching effects.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Proof Professional Athletes Know More than Sports
So a couple of random points here...
I read the post I'm going to share in the actual ESPN magazine and after a quick search I found it online. Which begs the question (that was for Ben)... if they are going to post the article online why spend all the money on printing? I don't really mind because my subscription to ESPN the magazine came by way of airline miles (I actually have so many magazines some get thrown directly in the trash). Further proof that the magazine industry is having issues I guess.
To explain the title, you know how when election rolls around celebrities (actors probably more so than athletes) are suddenly political experts. Put them in an academic debate and they'd probably be convinced they won. Understanding how to handle money, I bet similarly they know they are aces.
So the article I thought was an interesting quick read is here (I'm not about to do the fancy make it look nice like Josh just did below):
ESPN the Magazine Story
I was shocked by the basis of the article:
I read the post I'm going to share in the actual ESPN magazine and after a quick search I found it online. Which begs the question (that was for Ben)... if they are going to post the article online why spend all the money on printing? I don't really mind because my subscription to ESPN the magazine came by way of airline miles (I actually have so many magazines some get thrown directly in the trash). Further proof that the magazine industry is having issues I guess.
To explain the title, you know how when election rolls around celebrities (actors probably more so than athletes) are suddenly political experts. Put them in an academic debate and they'd probably be convinced they won. Understanding how to handle money, I bet similarly they know they are aces.
So the article I thought was an interesting quick read is here (I'm not about to do the fancy make it look nice like Josh just did below):
ESPN the Magazine Story
I was shocked by the basis of the article:
"Filing for bankruptcy is a long-standing tradition for NBA players, 60% of whom, according to the Toronto Star, are broke five years after they retire. The other 40% deliver the Toronto Star."
Do you think the stars are more likely to end up bankrupt or these are the more pathetic players? I think its probably about the same odds for both. I guess one financial truism I've been thinking about is that its not how much you make but rather how good you are at managing your finances or more your spending. But I don't want to delve into finances much since this is a sports blog...
Sex Determination Test for Olympics
Everything below was taken from the NY Times:
________________________________
July 27, 2008, 2:43 pm
________________________________
July 27, 2008, 2:43 pm
Lab Ready for Sex Tests for Female Athletes
Beijing Olympics organizers have set up a gender determination lab to test female athletes suspected to be males, China’s state media reported Sunday.
Experts at the lab, located at the Peking Union Medical College Hospital, will evaluate cases based on their external appearance and take blood samples to test hormones, genes and chromosomes, said Prof. Tian Qinjie of the college hospital, according to the Xinhua news agency.
Gender verification tests emerged in the 1960s when Communist countries in Eastern Europe were thought to be using male athletes in women’s competitions. The tests were used at the Olympics for the first time at the 1968 Mexico City Games.
The concept has drawn criticism over the years, largely because certain chromosomal abnormalities may cause a woman to fail a test, even though it gives her no competitive advantage. Also, if a female athlete fails a test she must have a physiological examination, which many consider invasive and a privacy violation.
The ethical implications of the test and the notion of reducing female athletes to their sex chromosomes led to the International Olympic Committee’s decision in 1999 to stop requiring chromosome tests for every female Olympian; now the organizing body has the authority to arrange for gender verification if it is called into question.
At the 1996 Atlanta Games, eight athletes failed the tests but were all cleared by subsequent examinations. Santhi Soundarajan, a middle-distance runner from India, was stripped of an Asian Games silver medal in 2006 after failing a gender verification test.
What do you think? Is the possibility of male athletes posing as women in the Olympics great enough to warrant such testing? Or are these tests inappropriate?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Strength of Schedule
I was going to post this as a comment under Hauser's post, but I decided to get my first post out of the way and expound on my thoughts, so JD, start booking that ticket.
While at training in Cleveland, I met a girl who attended the University of Florida. She immediately informed me that Florida had "amazing academics and athletics." I nodded my head, while simultaneously trying to control my gag reflux. After she started throwing out numbers I politely reminded her that not only did BYU's accounting school dominate Florida's, but that BYU's basketball AND football team finished better than Florida did last year. She shut up pretty quick after that. But the next day she had a friend of hers debate me about how Florida is sooooooooooooo sick. After reminding them that I'm don't have a vote on the polls, they just decided to throw out the whole strength of conference bull shiz.
That confrontation coupled with Hauser's post got me to thinking about the legitimacy of that claim. First of all there is a cyclical component to conferences that you just can't ignore. An entire conference can be soft but it can avoid expose by the fact that 2/3 or more of their games are against common opponents. And the other side of the argument is that many teams in the BCS conference schedule play terrible teams for their nonconference games.
Nebraska for example scheduled Western Michigan, San Jose State, and New Mexico State for their nonconference opponents. Last year Nebraska won 5 games. Now are you telling me that if BYU or another good nonBCS team couldn't beat those three teams and win 2 out of 9 games against the Big XII?
Another example: Louisville. Everyone was so high on them. They won 6 games last year, and played Murray State, Middle Tennessee, and Utah (whom they lost to by the way). Now I'm positive that BYU could beat those 3 teams and win 3 more games in 9 chances against the Big East.
How about another: Iowa. They have scheduled Maine, Florida International, and mighty Iowa State.
Okay one more: Indiana. Western Kentucky, Murray State, Ball State, and Central Michigan.
Since I know your enjoying this I'll share my favorite: Kentucky. They finished well with 8 wins. And they play the likes of Norfolk State, Middle Tennessee, and Western Kentucky. Okay, and then they split with the games in the SEC that included Ole' Miss and Vanderbilt.
Ohh, this is a good one, I can't pass this up. Ole Miss, won 3 games last year against Memphis, Louisiana Tech, and Northwestern State. They lost the next 9 games against the rest of the SEC. I only wish that BYU had the chance to play 9 games against BCS opponents each year.
Last one, I promise: Arkansas- They played Troy, North Texas, Florida International, and Chattanooga on their way to winning 8 games. I hardly doubt that if BYU played those 4 bums, then split with 8 SEC teams that they'd get any recognition at all.
I could go on, but I'll spare you.
Now here is my beef with Notre Dame's schedule. Some years their schedule truly is very difficult, but other years this is what it looks like. (The number represents the number of wins that opponent had last year, and keep in mind that for most of those teams, that number includes a win over Notre Dame). The thing about Notre Dame's schedule that is so deceiving is that they play a few a lot of schools with a good name which makes it appear like it's tougher that it really is. By my account, they play 4 good to great teams, and 8 average to below average teams. I see BYU winning at least 9 games against this schedule (my prediction marked with the *)
SDSU 4 *
Michigan 9 * (mainly this year since UM is completely reloading and is probably going to struggle)
Michigan State 7 *
Purdue 8
Stanford 4 *
North Carolina 4 *
Washington 4 *
Pitts 5 *
Boston College 11
Navy 8 *
Syracuse 2 *
Southern Cal 11
TOTAL = 77
BYU's opponents had a combined 74 wins last year, and that number isn't inflated like Notre Dame's schedule due to the fact that we beat all of the teams we played minus 1, which takes a number out of each of their win columns.
So to sum up my rant; the BCS is a worthless. and the strength of schedule garbage doesn't hold water for the BCS schools. All you have to do for the media to treat you like a powerhouse is beat 4 weak nonconference games, win 3 conference games against the weaker teams in the conference, then win a bowl game and BAM! 8 wins, and you are legit. I don't want to hear any more strength of schedule crap. No team would fair well if they had to play, USC, Georgia, Oklahoma, West Virginia, OSU, and Virginia Tech every year. But sure, play two of those teams and then 10 mediocre teams and it's manageable. And my last point - BYU IS SICK. We could compete in any conference. The argument that BYU couldn't "hold it's own in a BCS conference" just doesn't hold water. Not only would we be entitled to play 4 of the weakest teams in all of football, but we'd only have to win 3 or 4 additional games against even the bottom tier BCS teams to "compete". Really doesn't sound all that difficult. Now obviously BYU wouldn't be satisfied with just "competing" so give us 9 chances at BCS teams every year and you'll see we'd be sitting in a similar place.
While at training in Cleveland, I met a girl who attended the University of Florida. She immediately informed me that Florida had "amazing academics and athletics." I nodded my head, while simultaneously trying to control my gag reflux. After she started throwing out numbers I politely reminded her that not only did BYU's accounting school dominate Florida's, but that BYU's basketball AND football team finished better than Florida did last year. She shut up pretty quick after that. But the next day she had a friend of hers debate me about how Florida is sooooooooooooo sick. After reminding them that I'm don't have a vote on the polls, they just decided to throw out the whole strength of conference bull shiz.
That confrontation coupled with Hauser's post got me to thinking about the legitimacy of that claim. First of all there is a cyclical component to conferences that you just can't ignore. An entire conference can be soft but it can avoid expose by the fact that 2/3 or more of their games are against common opponents. And the other side of the argument is that many teams in the BCS conference schedule play terrible teams for their nonconference games.
Nebraska for example scheduled Western Michigan, San Jose State, and New Mexico State for their nonconference opponents. Last year Nebraska won 5 games. Now are you telling me that if BYU or another good nonBCS team couldn't beat those three teams and win 2 out of 9 games against the Big XII?
Another example: Louisville. Everyone was so high on them. They won 6 games last year, and played Murray State, Middle Tennessee, and Utah (whom they lost to by the way). Now I'm positive that BYU could beat those 3 teams and win 3 more games in 9 chances against the Big East.
How about another: Iowa. They have scheduled Maine, Florida International, and mighty Iowa State.
Okay one more: Indiana. Western Kentucky, Murray State, Ball State, and Central Michigan.
Since I know your enjoying this I'll share my favorite: Kentucky. They finished well with 8 wins. And they play the likes of Norfolk State, Middle Tennessee, and Western Kentucky. Okay, and then they split with the games in the SEC that included Ole' Miss and Vanderbilt.
Ohh, this is a good one, I can't pass this up. Ole Miss, won 3 games last year against Memphis, Louisiana Tech, and Northwestern State. They lost the next 9 games against the rest of the SEC. I only wish that BYU had the chance to play 9 games against BCS opponents each year.
Last one, I promise: Arkansas- They played Troy, North Texas, Florida International, and Chattanooga on their way to winning 8 games. I hardly doubt that if BYU played those 4 bums, then split with 8 SEC teams that they'd get any recognition at all.
I could go on, but I'll spare you.
Now here is my beef with Notre Dame's schedule. Some years their schedule truly is very difficult, but other years this is what it looks like. (The number represents the number of wins that opponent had last year, and keep in mind that for most of those teams, that number includes a win over Notre Dame). The thing about Notre Dame's schedule that is so deceiving is that they play a few a lot of schools with a good name which makes it appear like it's tougher that it really is. By my account, they play 4 good to great teams, and 8 average to below average teams. I see BYU winning at least 9 games against this schedule (my prediction marked with the *)
SDSU 4 *
Michigan 9 * (mainly this year since UM is completely reloading and is probably going to struggle)
Michigan State 7 *
Purdue 8
Stanford 4 *
North Carolina 4 *
Washington 4 *
Pitts 5 *
Boston College 11
Navy 8 *
Syracuse 2 *
Southern Cal 11
TOTAL = 77
BYU's opponents had a combined 74 wins last year, and that number isn't inflated like Notre Dame's schedule due to the fact that we beat all of the teams we played minus 1, which takes a number out of each of their win columns.
So to sum up my rant; the BCS is a worthless. and the strength of schedule garbage doesn't hold water for the BCS schools. All you have to do for the media to treat you like a powerhouse is beat 4 weak nonconference games, win 3 conference games against the weaker teams in the conference, then win a bowl game and BAM! 8 wins, and you are legit. I don't want to hear any more strength of schedule crap. No team would fair well if they had to play, USC, Georgia, Oklahoma, West Virginia, OSU, and Virginia Tech every year. But sure, play two of those teams and then 10 mediocre teams and it's manageable. And my last point - BYU IS SICK. We could compete in any conference. The argument that BYU couldn't "hold it's own in a BCS conference" just doesn't hold water. Not only would we be entitled to play 4 of the weakest teams in all of football, but we'd only have to win 3 or 4 additional games against even the bottom tier BCS teams to "compete". Really doesn't sound all that difficult. Now obviously BYU wouldn't be satisfied with just "competing" so give us 9 chances at BCS teams every year and you'll see we'd be sitting in a similar place.
There'll BEANO ten wins
I was listening to sports radio this afternoon as I was driving back to work and Colin Cowherd had Beano Cook on the show. I generally like listening to Beano, but I have to draw the line at this comment and emphatically disagree. He believes that ND will go 2-1 in their first three games and finish the season with 10 wins. I am sorry, but there is no way that is going to happen. The elite athletes do not go to Notre Dame. Charlie Weis is not that great of a Coach, and Notre Dame plays too many games against too many average-to-great teams.
Notre Dame will finish the season over .500, but will not win 10 games...
...There I said it.
Notre Dame will finish the season over .500, but will not win 10 games...
...There I said it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)