The Leaving College Early For The Pros Debate – Go On, Take The Money And Run

November 12, 2009

Read the debate intro and the argument from Loyal Homer that no matter what the circumstances a student-athlete should complete their education.



In respect of the impressive debut from TSD’s newest contributor, Babe Ruthless, I decided to use a classic rock song lyric in my title, too. While my chosen lyric is appropriate, it does boil down a complex issue a little too simply. Encouraging a college player to leave the college environment early is a little bit of a stretch for the Sports Geek (given, ya know… the GEEK part). But, a full analysis of the situation does lead me to believe that a critical point can be reached where an athlete must choose the best use of their time. Sometimes, the best use of time is playing professional sports.

I have incredible respect for former Florida State college football star defensive back Myron Rolle. The New York Times did a substantial story on the scholar athlete and recipient of the Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford across the pond. Rolle intends to become a neurosurgeon after he completes his education (and professional football career, he hopes). He has already started a foundation that is going to build a medical clinic near the Bahamas. Rolle’s scholastic aptitude and ability to juggle the intense lifestyle of a top tier athlete and a top tier academic load is impressive. Still, few athletes approach the type of academic ability that Myron Rolle has.

However, for Rolle, the best use of his time is in scholarship to further his education and prepare for life after football and his ultimate goal of neurosurgery. Rolle is the rarest of rare examples.

Let’s examine two normal, contemporary scenarios (of which Rolle is not) and determine the best course of action.

Scenario 1

You are an unprivileged scholarship athlete in your junior season at a state university. You have worked hard to get good at football in order to create the opportunity for a shot at the professional leagues. Your stats are solid and your grades are not. Is their value in staying in school and completing your education?

No. Take the professional money and develop your career. Many non-athletes do not have college degrees but have gone on to be successful in their chosen career path because of hard work. See Michael Dell and that Bill Gates fella for two examples.

Scenario 2

You are a redshirt junior at a major national university. You are smart, an above average student with an actual major like Finance. You have also completed 69.4 percent of your passes for 2,453 yards and 13 touchdowns. You are the fourteenth most efficient passer in the country, and ranked fourth in completion percentage. Professional scouts are giddy over your potential claiming you are first or second round draft pick material. Do you come back for your final year of eligibility?

No. Despite your college success both on the field and in classroom, Florida State quarterback Christian Ponder, the best use of your time, talents, and resources is to continue to develop your craft at the professional level. While it may not be easy, it is not impossible to suspend a college learning career and come back to it later. It is impossible to suspend an athletic career and come back to it later in hopes of outstanding results.

Most college athletes are not geniuses. For example, Sam Bradford is a football player. He is not the Rhodes Scholar type. Attending another year of class and tip-toeing around strange NCAA rules that dictate who can and cannot purchase you and your roommate dinner is not going to do Bradford any good. The best use of his time is preparing for the draft. Sam Bradford could have received a headline like, “Sam Bradford First Quarterback Taken” or “Sam Bradford Hopes to Rejuvenate the [Team Name]s.” Instead Bradford’s headlines read “Oklahoma’s Bradford Should Have Gone Pro Earlier” or “Sam Bradford Plans to Enter Draft After Surgery.” When a primary job skill is sound decision making, it is fair to query Bradford about his insistence on staying in college. If he has another year of eligibility, but does not have his degree yet, what did this one extra, injury riddled season accomplish for him? Nothing. In fact, the season was a loss. He did not do anything to build his resume for professional teams and he managed to injure his throwing shoulder twice, requiring surgery after the second injury.

Welcome to The Bradford Effect. Any impressive and highly regarded college athlete who chooses to go pro instead of arbitrarily sticking things out in college has learned from The Bradley Effect.

Athletes, what is the best use of your time? Is finishing your education for an advanced post-football career that requires a great deal of training necessary and important? Or, like 99.9% of student athletes, is your education not the primary focus of college, but a hopeful jumping off point to a career in professional sports. The majority of athletes must make the intelligent decision and maximize their potential by aligning their capabilities with their priorities. In other words – Go on, kids… take the money and run.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Leaving College Early For The Pros Debate – An Education Provides Real Value

November 12, 2009

Read the debate intro and Sports Geek’s argument that capable college athletes should forgo their education for a career in the professional leagues.



I know the popular answer is going to be “Take the money and run.” The four writers here at TSD have never been in a situation like those that star college football players face after being in college for three years. We do not know what we would do. And believe me, my heart breaks for guys like Sam Bradford. He really seems to be one of the good guys and I hate that his season has been essentially ruined by injury. He bypassed millions of dollars to come back to try and win a championship in Norman. But LONG TERM, the best thing for the individual is to return to school.

According to the National Football Players Association’s website, the average career length of an NFL player lasts around three and a half years. Basically, that means for every Clay Matthews (19 years), there is a Mr. Irrelevant. If a player leaves school early and the NFL career does not work out, what does he have to fall back on? Even if the player does have a lengthy career, what is he going to do once he retires without a degree? Sure, he could go back to school to finish his degree. Many say they intend to do that. You may say, “Well, he’s wealthy and he doesn’t need to work.” But retired NFL players do not work for the money. They work to stay active. We have all heard our parents preach this and we will preach it to our kids when they get to that age – it is very important to get that degree!

Bleacher Fan mentioned Mike Doss in the intro. Another guy that comes to mind is Matt Leinart. Leinart came back to Southern Cal as a fifth year senior. He wanted the chance to make college football history by winning a third consecutive national championship. He gave up millions for, as he called it, “$950 a month” and a chance to win another championship. It did not quite turn out that way for Leinart, as his Trojans lost in the BCS championship game to Texas in one of the greatest games I have ever had the pleasure of watching. Financially, however, the money was still there when he was drafted the following year by the Arizona Cardinals with the tenth overall pick. Sure, he was not the first overall pick, but he still signed a six-year deal worth a maximum value of $50.8 million, including $14 million guaranteed. I will grant you that he has not exactly panned out yet in the NFL, but at least he is getting a fat check. And, he always has that degree. He will not have to go bagging groceries after his career is over!

What is wrong with being the big man on campus? A senior star college football player probably never has to buy a drink at the local bar. He probably is one of the most popular guys on campus. He probably has all the girls wanting to go out with him (which is a good thing only if he does not have a girlfriend). How many times does one get to experience that in a lifetime? Responsibility and life can wait! Why not enjoy the senior year of college? It only comes along once!

Yes, it is hard to turn down the millions! But it is impossible to put a price tag on what can be experienced as a senior in college. And, you cannot put a price tag on that diploma!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The NBA’s Two Step Traveling Rule Debate – Totally Unnecessary Rule “Change”

November 12, 2009

Read the debate intro, Bleacher Fan’s argument, and Babe Ruthless’ argument.




“Oh won’t you gimme three steps, gimme three steps, Mister, gimme three steps toward the door…”
-Lynyrd Skynyrd

This phrase is part of the chorus from the classic rock song “Gimme Three Steps” by the Southern rock group Lynyrd Skynyrd. The song was released in 1973. Maybe the writers of this song had the2009 NBA season in mind when writing the song! Of course, instead of “door” it should say “gimme three steps toward the basket.”

I must give credit to Babe Ruthless who contributed the first of what we hope will be many articles here on The Sports Debates. I came away very impressed, and it is safe to say Babe Ruthless has passed through the initiation period. Like Babe, the video game NBA Jam was a big part of my life growing up. I would play it first at arcades, and then when it came out on Sega Genesis I was one of the first to buy it! By the way, click on the NBA Jam link above and take a look at the old rosters the game used in its time. That will take you back!

Bleacher Fan wrote that there is no tangible benefit for the NBA in making this rule “change.” You know what? I agree. I am awarding the victory to Bleacher Fan!

I admittedly did not watch a lot of basketball last night due to the CMA Awards, but I did watch bits and pieces of the Cleveland Cavaliers-Orlando Magic game and the Atlanta Hawks New York Knicks game. I saw a couple of instances in both games and from all four teams where players took two steps and no traveling violation was called. The same thing could have happened last season and nothing would have been called. As Bleacher Fan points out, where does it end?

What won the case for Bleacher Fan, however, is the analogy to speeding. Speed limits are set to prohibit speeding, thus the word “limit.” But, most people will still drive 5-10 miles per hour faster than the limit, and chances are they will not get pulled over for it. I drive to work on an interstate every day, as many of you may. The speed limit is 70 MPH, but it is fairly common for Loyal Homer to set my cruise at 80. I have been personally told by a Georgia state trooper that most law enforcement officials will not pull anyone over until hey are 12 MPH or above (some of you do not believe this, I know). I know I can get away with going 80, so I do it. And so do many other drivers. NBA players knew they could get away with two steps before the “rule” change. Perhaps players believe they might be able to get away with three steps. You can bet they will try. We will see how much the NBA enforces it.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The NBA’s Two Step Traveling Rule Debate – Does it Really Matter?

November 11, 2009

Read the arguments by Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless.



Before I begin, let me first welcome our newest colleague and fan persona, Babe Ruthless, to the Sports Debates – a welcome addition to our team. Today will actually be the first article from Babe, so I am looking forward to reading the argument. I also have a feeling that our two personas will have some intense battles over the coming months because they are quite opposite of each other. It should be pretty entertaining!!!

Did you know the NBA had a rule called “traveling?” If you are a fan of the Chicago Bulls of the 1990s or a current fan of the Los Angeles Lakers or the Cleveland Cavaliers, then no, you might not be! But, yes, there is a rule against traveling in the NBA! (Obviously, I am being sarcastic!)

And this season, the wording on “traveling” has been changed. The section of the NBA rulebook dealing with traveling used to allow players to “use a two-count rhythm in coming to a stop.” It has been reworded this season to say players “may take two steps in coming to a stop, passing or shooting the ball.” The NBA has repeatedly stated that the actual rule has not changed. That is another debate in itself.

The NBA season is just two weeks old so it is a little early to tell if this “rewording” of the rule will have a major affect of the game. The Sports Debates is taking it a little further. We are debating: Is the “new” traveling rule good for the NBA?

Bleacher Fan will argue that the new rule adds very little to the game and that it is not good for the league. Meanwhile, Babe Ruthless, will, in a debut article on The Sports Debates, argue that the new two-step rule is good for the league.

I am very curious to hear both sides of this debate. And, I am even more curious to hear what the fans have to say on this topic. Please comment and give us some feedback. I guarantee that at least one of us will respond to your comments! We always do.

The basketball court is yours, and Babe… it is sink or swim time!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The NBA’s Two Step Traveling Rule Debate – Gimme Three Steps

November 11, 2009

Read the debate intro and Bleacher Fan’s argument that the NBA change to the traveling rule is bad for the game.



In the land of basketball, monster dunks and high flying acrobatics reign supreme. Fans do not watch to admire Kevin Garnett’s bounce passes, Dwight Howard’s ability to set a screen, or Shaquille O’Neal’s free throw mechanics. People watch the NBA waiting for one of these giants to soar over the boards and impose their will on a defense via a dunk that results in earthquake quality aftershocks, or for a player to drive the lane with the intensity of a freight train, take flight, and toss up a shot that seems to alter the laws of physics before sinking through the hoop for two points. Basketball fans anticipate these moments with an intense primal ferocity that is akin to a hungry lion watching a parade of gazelles. The slam dunk brings the same excitement to basketball that the long ball brings to baseball, a good fight brings to hockey, and a multi-car pileup brings to NASCAR. These special moments produce a Zen like euphoria for fans that keep them coming back for more. The NBA would be crazy not to encourage it, and the new two step traveling rule is a step in the right direction (pun intended).

This season NBA players will be allowed to take two full steps without dribbling – one more than previously allowed. NBA players – and for that matter players at every level of the game – have been taking this extra step for years. Even some of the elite players, from Earvin “Magic” Johnson to “Pistol” Pete Maravich, have been caught taking this extra step when approaching the basket. Has it tarnished their legacies? No. Instead it has made the game more exciting and allowed for more creative and memorable moments. Fans are thrilled by the mind-blowing shots players like Kobe Bryant and LeBron James seem to pull off every game. I am sure if we scrutinized the highlight reels of todays superstars we would notice an enormous amount of missed traveling calls, but would that make the awesome feats of these legends any less appealing. Again, I say “no.” This rule has given a larger canvas to the hoops artists of the modern era.

This “new” rule is not even “new.” Rather, it recognizes a long standing and informally accepted practice. Even high ranking NBA officials like Joe Borgia the Vice President of Referee Operations have admitted to instructing referees to turn a blind eye to this type of traveling. Officials have a hard enough time imposing the rules of such a fast paced game without having to be martinets enforcing ticky-tack rules. For example, basketball is one of – if not the only sport – where the official must keep a running clock of how long a player is in a certain area of the playing field (e.g. the three second rule), yet they are expected to count player steps, ensure proper dribbling, and watch for fouls all at the same time. It is just too much. Most fans want to see players simply play the game they love. The other option for the NBA is to dehumanize the sport with instant replays and challenges, allowing machines and computers to decide how a GAME is played.

Every sport makes adjustments to accentuate its best aspects. Just as MLB’s decision to lower the pitchers mounds in 1968 resulted in more prolific offensive displays, the decision to formally allow this extra step will open new scoring exhibitions. Some critics of this rule argue that it will allow players to run across the court without dribbling. But, it merely allows one extra step… a final push needed to elevate for more distance, greater height, and new innovative dunks.

Growing up mostly a baseball fan during the 1980s and 1990s, I was indoctrinated into the world of the NBA through video games. In 1993 Midway produced a game that would change my life forever and ignite my passion for both the NBA and the monster dunk – NBA Jam. This video game taught me more than just the phrase “boom-shaka-laka!” It taught me that the most exciting aspects of basketball are massive dunks and backboard breaking slams (á la Shaquille O’Neal). Today, the NBA still needs the slam dunk, but more importantly the league needs it to stay fresh. When the NBA’s Slam Dunk contest turns to costumed theatrics (i.e. Dwight Howard) to stay relevant, then a change needs to be made, and adding this extra step is that change.

Try to imagine this scenario: An epic match up in a pivotal game seven between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Cleveland Cavaliers. With seven seconds left in the game and both teams out of time outs, the Lakers are up by one point. The Cavaliers have the ball and LeBron James brings it, and his team’s fate, across half court. He checks the clock, considers his options, and decides to drive into the lane. LeBron is met by defenders. He jukes, spins, jumps, and releases the ball with mere fractions of a second left. Millions around the world watch in awe. The entire population of the cities of Los Angeles and Cleveland hold their collective breath. As the ball ascends toward the net the crowd crescendos to a deafening level as history rides on this shot…but WAIT, the sound of the final buzzer is figuratively drowned out by the shrill whistle of an official. “Traveling!” is the call.

No fan wants to see a game end with a traveling call. Lakers fans want to see Ron Artest or Kobe Bryant have the opportunity to swat away the ball and the hopes and dreams of Cleveland. Cavaliers’ fans want to revel in that magic moment when King James’ coronation becomes official and they see him rule not with the scepter but with the ring. No one wants a futile, outdated rule to cheapen such a pivotal moment in the sport.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The NBA’s Two Step Traveling Rule Debate – It is Not Broken, What Is Being Fixed?

November 11, 2009

Read the debate intro and Babe Ruthless’ argument that the NBA’s rule of allowing a second step to the travelling rule was a value-adding decision.

I do not consider myself a traditionalist or a purist when it comes to sports. I have no problem with rule changes, innovations, or any other variations that may affect the games that I love. To the contrary, I would actually consider myself an advocate for those changes. The only thing I care about is that the administrators and league officials do everything in their power to make the games as entertaining and competitive as possible. If that means allowing base runners in baseball to carry their bats around the bases with the permission to use them in an effort to disrupt potential double-plays, so be it. Just make sure that the change ADDS VALUE to the game being played.

An example of a rule change that I am completely in favor of was the NFL’s recent decision to remove the “push-out” rule. The change, which now requires that a receiver must catch the ball with both feet in-bounds, REGARDLESS of the post-catch contact from a defender, has improved the game. As a result of this rule change, there are fewer questions about subjectivity in the game, with less opportunity for a referee’s opinion to influence the game. That rule change added value.

On the other hand, changing the wording of the rules in the NBA to officially allow players the freedom to take a second step without dribbling adds NO VALUE to basketball.

What is the PROPOSED value of this update to the rules?

It should be noted that this is not actually a change at all. NBA officials have admittedly allowed players to take two steps without dribbling for many years. Common sense dictates that a rule change is called for when an issue has arisen. For example, rule changes that improve player safety or clarify a discrepancy in the current policies. In this case, however, players were ALREADY taking two steps and officials were ALREADY very public in their allowance of that practice.

This situation is like writing an official rule stating that players should wear athletic shoes, rather than sandals, when playing basketball. The practice is already taking place, which leads me to question what the NBA officials and owners hope to gain by formalizing it. There is not any tangible benefit gained by making this change, so why bother in the first place? The only positive outcome is if nothing changes in how the game is played, thereby making the whole update unnecessary. What is more likely is that players will abuse and push the limits of this “new” rule, just as they did the old one.

Give them an inch, and they will take a mile (or at least three steps)!

On the road, many drivers choose to speed, rather than obey the speed limit. In fact, I would be willing to bet that almost EVERY driver has gotten upset at least once because they were stuck behind someone following the law. The proper way to address the problem of speeding on the roads, though, is NOT to raise the speed limit. It is foolish to assume that an increase in the speed limit results in less speeding. Instead, it will encourage drivers to only push the limit further. It does not matter WHAT the speed limit is, because most people will drive 5-10 miles per hour faster REGARDLESS of where it is set.

Likewise, how long will it be before referees begin allowing ANOTHER step, on top of the additional one that is now permitted by this new rule? Players were by rule permitted only one step, but referees allowed for a second if it was part of a continuous motion to the basket. Now that a full second step is permissible by rule, what is to stop a player from taking those two full steps on top of a third step that is “really just part of the continuous motion to the basket?” The reason this rule is in place is because officials did not enforce the old rule, and players took advantage of it. Why should this new rule be any different? Players will test the limits, and we will soon see the players sprinting to the hoop from the three-point line without ever putting the ball on the ground.

This so-called rule update was a mistake by the NBA. It does not resolve any problems that would have previously existed in the league, and it does not improve the presentation of the game in any way. Instead, it only changes the problem, allowing players to continue to push the limits of the travelling rules. It is foolish to expect that the officials will suddenly enforce this new rule when they had never enforced the previous version. At best, this was a waste of time and energy that will affect no change whatsoever. At worst, this will open the door to increased abuse and further violation of rules that will not be properly enforced.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Eyeballs versus Computers Debate – Objectivity Is In the Eye of the Mouse-Holder

November 11, 2009

Read the debate intro and the arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.



What came first, the sports or the hype? Who knows?! What I do know is that both exist and both need each other to maintain. Hype is perfectly legitimate and necessary to set viewer expectations (pay attention to hype for next Monday’s NFL game on ESPN – is it possible to “sell” the value of Baltimore and Cleveland?) and set the stage for the appearance of drama… even if the whole charade only lasts for half of a quarter. Hype drives sports, and sports rely on hype.

The catchall “sports media” is responsible for creating hype, and therefore value. The Sports Debates is guilty of it as well. Each week the writers here contribute what we believe will be the best game of the coming weekend, and present our arguments backing up that presumption. It is less overt hype, but hype nonetheless.

I have no problem with hype. However, there is value to the comment in the argument from Bleacher Fan that the hype machine tends to overinflate value. That is, rather than excite for a coming reality (the upcoming New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts game will be excellent, for example), hype has been twisted into a warped tool designed to create false value, driven by inherent bias. While Loyal Homer is correct that eyeballs see the details – the eyeball test evaluates teams based on intangibles like hustle and headiness that a computer may never grasp – they also come with bags of unavoidable bias. Therefore the best method for evaluating a college football team involves computers, and a debate win from Bleacher Fan.

In theory the eyeballs seem to be the best method to judge a college football team. The polls seem to get more right than they get wrong, regardless of Bleacher Fan’s astute observations about recent poll missteps. However, it is really not just eyeballs being used to judge a team, who those eyeballs belong to matters as well. A lot. One expert is better at evaluating teams than another. For example, I trust Sports Illustrated writer Stewart Mandel much more than I trust ESPN’s Lou Holtz. Duh. The voting and polling system is fraught with errors from voters who do not deserve the vote (many of the voters on this list of the original voting cast from the 2005 Harris Poll do not deserve a vote because they do not watch and follow college football), do nothing to retain the vote, are not screened for football knowledge to evaluate if they deserve a vote, and in some cases still get a ballot sent to them after they have died, as was the case with the Heisman trophy.

It is not that college football is just wedded to an antiquated approach to things – hence the reason eyeballs are still thought of as a legitimate way to judge the best teams in college football. It is that the entire organization seems immune to criticism when making blatantly obvious mistakes.

Bleacher Fan makes an excellent point, too, about the various types of bias that ultimately obscure the vision of voters. Size matters. Er, rather, MARKET size matters. The more mediums, locations, and distribution channels content can be bought, sold, and distributed, the better for the sports media organizations. Eyeballs exist in this paradigm as well… as in, “how many eyeballs are watching the game, reading the story, or telling their friends to tune in?” And, the more money a sports media organization has, the more biased nimrods they can include on college football hype shows. It is a vicious cycle.

Loyal Homer’s basic argument – that humans are able to be more objective than computers – does not hold water with me. While it is true that eyes can perceive hustle plays that demonstrate why a team goes from good to great, human eyes are never alone. They are unquestionably accompanied by history, bias, geography, allegiance, friendships, appreciation for that coach that always returns your calls or gives you the soundbyte you need, etc. I remember covering a high school baseball team one rainy Spring. After making an in-person visit to practice to grab some quotes and get the low down on the team, my car got stuck in the mud trying to escape the rainy baseball facility. The head coach, coaching staff, and a number of players ran over to push my car out of the mud. I will never forget it. Their kindness was the focus of my next column. While I am not communicating that their kindness bought them long term favor in my eyes, that team got the benefit of the doubt when rumors floated past my ears.

While I do not agree that numbers “cannot be influenced by bias or self-serving interests” as Bleacher Fan stated, computers do offer a certain level of objectivity that lends itself to a better overall product. Sure, people program computers… and computers often reflect the human bias. But, that is why the world has committees!

Weirdly, I personally still believe in the bowl system as being a good thing for college football. I also believe it is a legacy that started small, but has compounded and is – short of an act of Congress – a permanent part of our sports culture. But, when it comes to determining the national championship contenders, perhaps some things ARE better left to machines.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Eyeballs versus Computers Debate – What Is the Best Way to Evaluate a College Football Team

November 10, 2009

Read the arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer about what the best criteria is to judge the ability of a college football team – computer rankings or the “eyeball test.”



History affectionately refers to the team as the 2002 Ohio State “Luckeyes” (it is even in the Urban Dictionary!). Somehow, someway – much like this college football season with the Iowa Hawkeyes… until last week against Northwestern – the team seemed to find exciting and improbabld ways to pull out a win. For the Luckeyes it was a last second pass from Craig Krenzel to the Michael Jenkins against Purdue, or a pass interference call to extend the national championship game and give the Luckeyes the chance to win the game and the season.

The Luckeyes never passed the eyeball test used by fans and savvy members of the media. The method is simple – watch a team and surmise if the team is talented enough to make an impact in the conference or national title race. Does the team do the “little things” well? Does the team play with consistency? Does the team control the line of scrimmage and make key catches to get beyond the stick on third down? The 2002 Luckeyes did… and the computers do not measure that. Until senior quarterback Ricky Stanzi was injured last week, the 2009 Iowa Hawkeyes did as well.

Iowa is a curious case this season. Until the surprising and unfortunate loss at home last week to Northwestern the team was ranked fourth in the country. The computers were very fond of Iowa because of the strength of schedule from its opposing teams. Iowa opponents have tallied a combined 49-35 record this season. While on the surface it may appear as though the Hawkeyes luck through some wins – like many believe the team did in week one versus Northern Iowa – the truth is that the team has played some very talented teams and won more than it lost.

Like the Luckeyes, the Hawkeyes (Lawkeyes??) simply did not pass the eyeball test. But, the computers did love the Luckeyes, and even gave the team a shot against Miami in the title game – eventually. The Luckeyes finished up as national champions. The Hawkeyes’ final chapter from this season is yet to be written, but the team has played excellent opponents and still has the opportunity to make a BCS game with a win over Ohio State – of course – this coming weekend. And, the computers love the strength of schedule.

OR, do the computers have it all wrong? It seems, watching the Hawkeyes play, that the team is just downright lucky against some vastly inferior opponent. Stanzi threw five interceptions against Indiana a week before the Northwestern loss, but the team still managed pull off an incredible come-from-behind victory. The computers just evaluate the wins and losses and strength of schedule. Fans and media can use their eyeballs to determine if a team is able to play with the other elite teams in the country. Many believe teams like the Luckeyes and Iowa are not up to the test.

Therefore, what is the best method for evaluating the quality of a college football team?

Loyal Homer will argue that the best method for evaluating a team’s quality in college football is with the old, tried and true eyeball test. Bleacher Fan will argue that the objective computers more fairly and accurately evaluate the quality of a team.

Perhaps more than any other debate or any other commentary about the BCS, this debate captures true insight into the value of the old way college football functioned and the new way college football now functions.

Fans, media – what is to be trusted more, your eyeballs or the computers? Let the debate commence!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Eyeballs versus Computers Debate – The Numbers Do Not Lie

November 10, 2009

Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s argument about what the best method for evaluating the strength of a college football team is.



If there is one thing in college sports that I hate, it is the ability of the media to influence rankings. Through the bogus power of the hype machine, the media holds more control over determining bowl consideration than do the teams that actually play in the games.

As proof of that statement, look no further than the 2009 Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

After a three-win season in 2007, Notre Dame managed to pull out six wins in 2008. As a result, the media in their obsession with promoting Notre Dame (because the Fighting Irish can draw a crowd and drive viewership on TV) felt they deserved a bowl game invitation with only a 6-6 record. In fairness, the Irish DID win the bowl game, but it came against the fourth place team in the WAC – the Hawaii Warriors.

Following that 2008 finish which I would rate as average at best, Notre Dame entered 2009 facing a schedule that most expected would pose no challenge to the Irish. Slotted to play teams such as Washington (0-12 in 2008), Washington State (2-11), and Michigan (3-9), it was safe to assume that the Irish would manage to win at least six games again this season. Does that make Notre Dame one of the 25 best teams in the country,? Absolutely not!

If we were talking about the Buffalo Bulls of the MAC, nobody would have even thought twice about considering them as being worthy of any national attention in 2009. Even though the Bulls finished 2008 with a better record than Notre Dame (8-5), including a win over #12 ranked Ball State in the MAC Championship (and like Notre Dame entered 2009 against a very weak schedule), Buffalo was given no love coming into the new season. Notre Dame, on the other hand, undeservedly got a preseason ranking as being the 3rd best team in the nation. ESPN analyst Lou Holtz even went so far as projecting Notre Dame to play for the BCS Championship.

Notre Dame, on the heels of receiving that top 25 ranking, went on to lose the second game of the season to a very weak Michigan team. What did the analysts do in response to that loss? Rather than acknowledge that Notre Dame was perhaps not as good as they originally thought, the analysts instead perpetuated the hype machine even further by errantly inflating their opinions of Michigan, bumping them up to the top 25. How has Michigan played since then? After wins against two MAC schools and against Indiana (annual bottom-feeders of the Big Ten), the Wolverines have lost five of the last six games… hardly top 25 play.

The problem boils down to bias. Whether that bias is the result of networks hoping to attract large television audiences for the broadcast, or former coaches blatantly supporting programs they once led, reporting and analysis by sports media must always be taken with a grain of salt. ESPN does not exist to fairly report sporting events from an unbiased perspective. ESPN exists to sell commercials and earn Nielson ratings. It makes good business sense for the NCAA, and sports outlets such as ESPN, USA Today, and the Associated Press to pay the most attention to (and pour the most praise on) those “major-market” teams, regardless of whether or not they are TRULY better than teams in the Mountain West or the MAC.

Just last week, BCS officials openly admitted to bias. A bowl director publicly voiced hope that Notre Dame finishes the 2009 season ranked among the top 14 teams in the BCS, because of the economic benefit of having the Irish play in one of the BCS bowl games. The implication of those comments was that a two-loss Notre Dame (a team that had not been ranked higher than #18 in the nation during the first nine weeks of the season) would STILL be considered a “better” team than either TCU or Boise State, despite the fact that those teams had not yet lost a game. As a side note, Notre Dame decided to repay that unfounded support with a loss against Navy the following weekend. That is HARDLY playing like a BCS-caliber team.

Another example is Utah, the only undefeated school in the country last season, and a team that did not get the opportunity to play for a national championship because people “thought” the team was not as good as Florida or Oklahoma. Why not give them a chance to prove the team’s strength?! Utah was the only unbeaten team in the entire nation, yet it did not even get consideration for the BCS title.

It is the same problem that has USC ranked ahead of Oregon today. Oregon has the exact same record as USC, actually BEAT USC this season, and also crushed California (a team that was also ranked in the top-ten when playing the Ducks), but is still ranked behind them. Why? Because USC is SUPPOSED to be better than Oregon, not because USC IS better than Oregon. The fact that USC lost to Oregon, apparently, has no bearing on the team’s evaluation.

Football standings should be decided ON THE FIELD, not by the opinions of sportswriters and analysts. Analysts can be wrong from time to time, but numbers do not lie, and numbers cannot be influenced by bias or self-serving interests such as trying to attract viewers. The most objective and fair way to evaluate and measure strength in a sport is to use facts and results, not expectations and assumptions.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Eyeballs versus Computers Debate – The Brain Outsmarts the Computer

November 10, 2009

Read the debate intro and Bleacher Fan’s argument that computers are better for evaluating college football teams.



The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) reeks of controversy and has since its inception in 1998. The powers that be have tinkered with the formula almost on an annual basis. It is maddening to most people, me included. If you are looking for a serious headache, go to the BCS page on Wikipedia. The explanation of the role of the computer in the BCS is a head scratcher. I have yet to be convinced that the words “mathematicians” and “algorithms” belong anywhere in any BCS conversation. What does belong in these types of conversations is the voice of humans. Humans actually watch the game. Computers may pull up gamecasts and box scores but they do not “watch” the games like humans. Computers are not able to read the intangibles that a human can see. Therefore, an eyeball test by college football experts is absolutely the best way to determine the nation’s best college football team.

I am not as convinced that the media plays a huge role in getting the teams it wants in certain bowls. Some in SEC corners agree that the conference lets Florida and Alabama, to a lesser extent, get away with more in light of all the officiating errors of late. That is ludicrous, by the way. Let’s take a closer look at the Associated Press poll. A quick look at those who vote in the AP poll shows voters from all over the country. Voters are not just in SEC country. Voters are not just in Big 12 country. Voters are spread out all over this great nation. The same goes for the Harris Poll and the USA Today/Coaches Poll. It is pretty difficult, in my opinion, to come up with some type of voting conspiracy. In addition, all three of these polls are voted on by ACTUAL people. I know we live in the 21st Century and today’s “Internet-age” generation wants a computer to tell them all the answers. But, call me old school if you want, do we not trust what the human eye sees?

As Sports Geek touched on in the intro, we all saw how the Iowa Hawkeyes flirted with disaster much of the season. There was the scare the first week of the season against Northern Iowa. Then there was the come from behind win against Michigan State. Let’s not forget the win over Indiana in which they overcame a big deficit. Yet, for all of these near losses, Iowa was, until losing Saturday, fourth in the BCS. The computer rankings had Iowa as the second best team in the nation, ahead of Texas and Alabama. One component of the computer rankings had Iowa as the number one team in the land. Can that be serious? The humans, on the other hand, were not as quick to support Iowa, as last week Iowa was sixth in the coach’s poll and seventh in the Harris poll. The computers obviously overrated the Hawkeyes, and that was confirmed with the loss this past weekend.

Computers just do not tell the whole story. They take a set of numbers that are drawn in from strength of schedule, quality victories, etc., and spit out a ranking. What a computer cannot read is the circumstances regarding the victory. Humans, as a group (not individually) should be able to look at teams objectively. With that in mind, eyeballs are able to choose the best overall teams.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.