The Winning versus Wealth Debate… Money On The Field, Not In The Pocket

September 9, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

It’s appropriate that we’re doing this debate today because, as I gathered my overall thoughts on the topic, I had the displeasure of watching the majority of a three game series featuring the Braves and Pittsburgh Pirates over past three days. It was unfortunate for two reasons. One reason is the Braves lost two out of three to the lowly and dirt cheap Pirates. Two, it was extremely sad to see such pathetic crowds (a combined 39,513 for the just completed three game series, including a holiday crowd on Monday) on hand at beautiful PNC Park. It surely seemed like there were more people canoeing up and down the Allegheny River than were at the actual park. It’s depressing because, as Sports Geek and I can attest to thanks to a trip to PNC Park in 2006, it really is a beautiful park.

Why the sparse crowd you ask, especially with a good team in town to play the Pirates? Quite frankly, the home team is not any good as anyone can see by taking a look at the team’s 47-92 record. You also don’t have losing seasons for seventeen consecutive seasons by accident. Why is this happening? Because ownership, despite the fact that the city of Pittsburgh has proven in other leagues that it will support a winner, refuses to spend enough money to operate a “successful” franchise in terms of putting a winning product on the field.

Obviously, Bleacher Fan’s question isn’t solely about the Pirates organization (or about Broadway for that matter). But that franchise, more so than perhaps any other franchise in all of sports, is Exhibit A on what is wrong with this situation, and it’s why governing bodies must take some sort of action.

The revenue sharing system currently in place in Major League Baseball allows for teams like the Yankees (ugh, I am giving credit to Babe Ruthless’ favorite team) to pay a luxury tax and a portion of their profits (yes, it really is a profit sharing system) back into a pool set up by the league. It’s not much different than the profit-sharing plan you may have at your place of employment. That money is then sent out to other franchises, with much of it going to small market teams and low payroll teams like the Pirates. It’s essentially free money. It’s set up as a way to promote parity and competitive balance within the sport. It’s not set up as a way to make a team more profitable just for the sake of that money going into the owner’s pocket. That money is supposed to be put to good use. Putting in one’s pocket-sized wallet is not what I would call “good use.”

Most teams, including Pittsburgh, have stadiums like PNC Park that were at least partially funded by taxpayer dollars. As a fan, if my taxes have been spent on building that stadium, I want a quality product out there… within reason of course as it’s unrealistic to expect every team to have a $100M payroll. As a taxpayer in this country I want my tax money put to good use. I don’t want the funds wasted.

The Pirates made close to $30M in 2007 and 2008. That money, which likely indirectly came straight from the Yankees, could have been spent on payroll. But instead the organization hides behind a blanket statement like, “We’re building for the future.” Folks, Pittsburgh has been building for the future for 18 years, ever since Sid Bream slid into home plate in game seven of the 1992 NLCS. Tampa Bay correctly built for the future the past several years and are reaping the benefits now. Pittsburgh, however, continues to face the demons of another 100 game losing season.

The leagues have to do something. Obviously, the bottom line should be to make money. That’s usually what matters to owners. Believe me, I fully understand that, and the average person does too. But it’s possible to make money and still field a quality team. There are examples in every league. A happy medium is within reach. It’s up to the respective leagues to make the owners understand this.

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


The Undeserving NFL Hall of Famer Debate… Great By Association

September 8, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer.

Everybody loves a winner, and in the 1990s no one knew how to win like the Dallas Cowboys. America’s team was led on their run of dominance by a triumvirate of then future Hall of Famers – Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin, and Troy Aikman. The first two, Smith and Irvin, are unquestionably one-of-a-kind players that deserve their status as NFL icons. But Aikman? That’s a different story.

Aikman does not deserve the hallowed status of Hall of Famer because although he won games as a starter, he often wasn’t the best player on the field or even his own team. I am reminded of a scene from the end of Rocky 3 when Apollo Creed tells Rocky Balboa, “You fight great, but I’m a great fighter.” There is indeed a difference. At times Troy Aikman could play football great, but he was not a great football player. His sometimes mediocre stats are evidence of that. Aikman’s completion percentage (61.5 percent) and passer rating (81.6) do not exactly set the world on fire. Add to that the fact that he had a winning percentage just above .500 and his legend is diminished further. If the stats are just so-so, it is fair to be asking the question, “Why is Troy Aikman in the Pro Football Hall of Fame?”

At first glance, Troy Aikman’s career is marked by numerous accomplishments, not the least of which is three Super Bowl wins. He was selected to six consecutive Pro Bowls from 1991 to 1996 and won Super Bowl MVP honors in 1992. These accolades alone would lead one to believe that Aikman deserves his spot in the Hall of Fame, but each and every one of these accolades was dependent on the surrounding cast which made it all possible. Instead of Aikman making the cast better, the cast made Aikman.

It is only logical that a quarterback would be successful provided he is surrounded by great talent. Certainly there was no one more talented in the backfield during the early 1990s than Emmitt Smith. He broke nearly ever rushing record there was in route to his position as the all-time rushing leader in NFL history. It is because of Smith’s overwhelming success that Aikman was also able to succeed. The Cowboys ground game opened up huge opportunities for the passing game. As Emmitt Smith ran wild in Big D, opposing defenses had to game plan for how to deal with a seemingly unstoppable rushing attack, and Aikman reaped the benefits.
<br
Aikman was also assisted by throwing to an elite reliever in Michael Irvin, ”The Playmaker.” Irvin, a five time Pro Bowler himself, helped make Aikman look good. With 750 career receptions for 11,904 yards and 65 receiving scores, Irvin still ranks in the upper echelon of receivers today. In the same way Smith improved Aikman’s effectiveness, Irvin helped Aikman to lead the Cowboys to win after win. But Smith and Irvin have something that Aikman doesn’t have – statistical dominance.

The major knock on Irvin’s legacy is the fact that even surrounded by great players in Dallas he quite frankly failed to post mind blowing stats. Looking back on his career, Aikman’s best years draw comparison to players like Joe Montana, Drew Brees, and Steve McNair, but stopping the comparison there would not tell the whole story. Looking at Aikman’s career as a whole, there are plenty of less flattering comparisons to players like Mark Brunell, Donovan McNabb, and Joe Namath. All talented players, no doubt, but certainly not the greatest QBs of all time (Namath’s case is so shaky that Loyal Homer has chosen to question his Hall credentials).

Simply being on a winning team does not necessarily prove to be a direct representation of greatness. Aikman was a capable signal caller who managed games effectively, but crediting him as the driving force behind the Cowboys’ dynasty of the early 1990s is a bit farfetched. Had Aikman played for another team he probably would not have three Super Bowl rings, without which he might not have entered the Hall of Fame discussion at all. His sometimes pedestrian numbers undermine his Hall of Fame worthiness.

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


The Undeserving NFL Hall of Famer Debate… Guaranteed to Make Jets Fans Mad

September 8, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless.

We’ve long been considering having today’s debate. I believe it was Bleacher Fan who came up with the idea some six months ago, and I loved it from the start (Editor’s Note: The idea was also pushed along by reader Old School. Thanks, Old School.). We finally have found a spot for it today and I think you’ll like it. Which current NFL Hall of Fame player is the least deserving? Now, before dismissing the subject of my article, give the prosecution a chance to present the case! I fully believe that Joe Namath – yes, THAT Joe Namath – is the least deserving player in the NFL Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio.

“Broadway Joe” is arguably one of the NFL’s most recognizable and historic faces. And that was before his flirtation with Suzy Kolber. Growing up a huge NFL fan, I always heard about “Joe Willie,” especially living in the South since he went to college at Alabama. Most of you know how he guaranteed victory over the heavily favored Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III. As much as you’ve probably heard about Namath, you’d probably think he’d have numbers comparable to guys like Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, and Tom Brady. Guess what? You’d be wrong!

In 13 seasons in the AFL/NFL, Namath threw 173 touchdowns and 220 interceptions. Yes, you read that correctly. That’s 47 more interceptions than touchdowns for you math majors out there. That statistic baffles me. His 27,663 passing yards is respectable, but that averages out to a little over 2,100 a season over 13 seasons. Even Mark Brunell threw for more passing yards. Is Mark Brunell a Hall of Famer? Hardly!

His career completion percentage hovers around 50 percent. Wow! Maybe Michael Vick deserves to be in the Hall! Also, any guesses about what his record was as a quarterback was? He had 77 wins, 108 losses, and three ties! Yes, that’s right!

What part of any of that statistical background screams “Hall of Fame quarterback?” The only reason he is in the Hall of Fame is because of one game, and one game only – Super Bowl III. He led the underdog Jets to a huge upset over the Colts. For all of the publicity Namath gets for that victory, it was actually the Jets defense that often gets overlooked in that game and deserves much of the credit. That group caused five turnovers, including four interceptions. Did you know that Namath didn’t even throw a touchdown the entire game? He didn’t even throw a pass the entire fourth quarter! Yet, he was named the MVP of the game! Go figure!

He’s one of the most recognizable names in NFL history. But I still contend that Joe Namath is one of the most overrated players in NFL history, and he doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame.

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


The Undeserving NFL Hall of Famer Debate… Lynn Swann Catches A Lucky Break

September 8, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Loyal Homer.

Without looking at names, who is this Hall of Famer?

Player One has 13,899 receiving yards and 130 receiving TDs. Player One has also been named to eight Pro Bowls.

Player Two has 13,198 receiving yards and 87 receiving TDs. Player Two was named to seven different Pro Bowls.

Then there is Player Three.

Player Three has 5,462 career receiving yards and 51 TDs. Player Three was also named to only three Pro Bowls.

This wouldn’t be a debate about the LEAST deserving Hall of Famer if the answer to the question above was either Player One or Player Two.

So who are these mystery receivers? Player One is Cris Carter, Player Two is Andre Reed, and Player Three is Lynn Swann.

Can someone please explain to me how Lynn Swann is in the NFL Hall of Fame?!

His statistics barely qualify as average. His role on the Steelers was secondary. In a recent poll it was even determined that 60 percent of the people in the state of Pennsylvania, where “his” Steelers play, don’t like him. So I will ask the question again, can someone PLEASE explain to me how Lynn Swann is in the Hall of Fame?!

Statistically, he is an embarrassment to the rest of the legends in the hall. In his so-called Hall of Fame career, he has only 5,462 career receiving yards, and 51 receiving TDs. In terms of career standing those totals place him at 184th and 91st all time, respectively.

Putting that into perspective, there are 25 active players in the NFL today who ALREADY have more receiving yards, and 14 active players with more receiving TDs.

In his eight years in the NFL Lynn Swann was named to only three Pro Bowls. If he wasn’t even perceived as the best in his position compared to his contemporaries around the league, how could he be one of the greatest to ever play the game?

Here is another interesting little nugget of information for you. Lynn Swann wasn’t even the top wide receiver on his own Pittsburgh Steelers teams for half of his career! So forget about comparing him to his contemporaries around the league, how could Lynn Swann be one of the greatest to ever play the game when he wasn’t even the greatest on his own roster?

Of course, the great response in defense of “Swanny’s” Hall of Fame credentials is that “he played big in big games.”

I don’t buy that for a second.

There have been a lot of players who played big in big games, but do not receive any consideration for Hall of Fame candidacy.

For example, where is Dwight Clark? His name has never even been brought up for the Hall of Fame, yet he is responsible for a catch that was so monumental that it has forever been dubbed as THE Catch. *As a side note, in his career, Dwight Clark had 6,750 receiving yards (a full 1288 MORE than Lynn Swann) and 48 receiving TDs (only three LESS than Swann).

And what about Santonio Holmes? Would ANYONE consider Holmes a Hall of Fame worthy receiver at this point in his career? I didn’t think so. Yet, he performed HUGELY in big games for the Steelers. Plus, when you compare the first four years of Holmes’ career to the first four of Swann’s, they are almost identical in terms of statistics.

Sure, Swann had one more Super Bowl ring, but in fairness, Holmes wasn’t playing on a team coached by Hall of Famer Chuck Noll, and surrounded by a host of other Hall of Famers like Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris, Jack Ham, Jack Lambert, and Joe Greene.

In fact, even Hall of Fame voters questioned Swann’s candidacy for the Hall of Fame, as he was denied entry not once, or even twice, but a full 13 times before he was finally granted entry into the Hall.

The REAL reason that Lynn Swann has a bust in Canton is because he rode the coattails of better men. He was a role player on a team that won four championships, and he had a couple of key plays that helped to accomplish that impressive feat.

Those individual plays may have been legendary, but Lynn Swann’s career was far from it.

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


The WAC In The BCS Championship Game Debate Verdict

September 8, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Optimist Prime and Babe Ruthless.

Nowhere is the story of the underdog better displayed than in college athletics. Basketball makes the underdog bit seem almost routine, but in college football there is a mark stark contrast between the haves and the have nots, thanks to the BCS. With the BCS, your favorite program is either in the club, or it isn’t. The benefits of being in the club are many, but the cost of entry is high and the pathway toward inclusion difficult.

The majority of that pathway is now in the review mirror of the Boise State Broncos. With a win on Monday night over a nationally respected and highly ranked team, the Broncos legitimized their presence on the national stage. But a single win does not prove a team belongs in the discussion about the national championship game. Other factors come into play, which is where the debate about including a team from the WAC in the BCS national championship game really picks up steam.

Babe Ruthless is correct that the WAC doesn’t get a lot of national exposure – a vital factor necessary to prove worth. But, six of Boise State’s final regular season games are on one of the ESPN networks, often on Tuesday or Friday nights – days when there are few competing games on television. If a team or a matchup doesn’t automatically draw ESPN’s College Gameday each week, another time and channel must be found. Boise State has been effective at getting enough national exposure with its schedule through creative means. With quarterback Kellen Moore under center also – a legitimate Heisman Trophy contender after the first week of games – the team will draw a lot of eyeballs and intrigue. While Babe Ruthless makes solid points about a seeming lack of exposure, the program has been effective at mitigating those issues that do at times plague the conference. Thus, a team in the WAC has proven its ability to break the mold, therefore others can follow if they so choose.

Babe Ruthless lost his convincing hold on me when talking about the Smurf Turf as a gimmick only, reducing a very talented team that has won major bowl games in recent seasons to a small team with a gimmick begging for attention. The truth is that the Boise State program has been building for the last ten years, and is just now finally beginning to reap national rewards for a whole lot of hard work.

I also believe that while Alabama’s pathway to the title game last season is obviously effective, As Babe Ruthless noted, it is not the only way to skin the national championship game cat. A stroll down memory lane reveals some very good programs – like Florida State, for example – that were not always on the national stage. It took time and talent to build the program, but it happened. And plenty of national title appearances came along that journey. It was a journey that is not dissimilar from Boise State’s recent sojourn.

I completely agree with Babe Ruthless that style points matter. And Boise State is no stranger to style. However, that point alone isn’t enough to convince me that a WAC team does not deserve a shot at the national title game. The basic conditions for BCS title inclusion are known. It is up to a team and program if they choose to meet those conditions.

Optimist Prime’s selection to argue in favor of a WAC team was a challenge, no doubt. The challenge, however, was apparently perfect for our newest contributor.

The best point on either side of this debate, and consequently the victory, is awarded to Optimist Prime for pointing out that television timeslot is no longer a truly important metric for evaluating how well a team can be judged and voted on. DVR, ESPN3, and myriad other online sports media outlets provide voters with a ton of information on demand. Although the voting tallies are due soon after the games are complete, there still is no excuse for not being able to view a team and cast an educated vote.

Despite Babe Ruthless’ entertaining and hilarious points about the WAC’s general incompetence, it was clear to me watching the game on Monday night that talent and great football is not specific to any conference. As Optimist Prime points out, ask Ole Miss.

It is strange that in this age of conference reshuffling and jockeying, conferences seem to matter less and less. It is possible to build a great football program the right way and not be in a major conference. I liken it to beginning a startup business versus managing an existing one. Some entrepreneurs are really good at building companies and poor at managing them, just as some coaches are good at building programs but not managing them. Some coaches, like Boise State’s Chris Peterson, have shown the rare ability to do both. That coaching ability isn’t conference specific, so why should title opportunities be?

Sure, Boise State is in the WAC. But, Boise State deserves to be on the national stage. The program only proves that point every single time it gets an opportunity. Boise State makes the WAC legitimate because of the path the program and its leaders have chosen. Sure the WAC doesn’t have the toughest schedule. But it has one of the best teams. That alone makes the WAC worthwhile.

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


The WAC In The BCS Championship Game Debate

September 7, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Optimist Prime and Babe Ruthless.

Here at The Sports Debate, we truly dislike hype. For us – educated sports fans – hype is just gap filler. It’s a waste of time. And it’s often insulting. Not EVERY game is the best and biggest and mostest important game.

Though the hype machines were in overdrive from ESPN and its affiliates, last night’s Boise State-Virginia Tech matchup really was an important game for Boise State. A win over a top ten team is a huge win for what has been a program mired in BCS championship afterthought. Boise State will have one more non-conference matchup against a nationally regarded opponent on September 25 when the team hosts Oregon State.

BUT, Boise State is in the WAC. While the Mountain West is at least taking strides toward BCS inclusion, the WAC is not even on the radar, despite Boise State’s excellence. Therefore, the question begs: Does a team from the WAC – even though it is a talented team – deserve a shot at the national title?

Optimist Prime will argue in favor of WAC’s worthiness and possible inclusion in the BCS national championship game. Babe Ruthless will argue for the continued supremacy of major conferences in college football.

May the best argument win.

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


The WAC In The BCS Championship Game Debate… Talent Isn’t Program Specific

September 7, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

Despite my generally optimistic outlook, it seems bizarre that I have been tasked with arguing that Boise State deserves a place in the national championship game based off last night’s thrilling 33-30 victory over Virginia Tech at Lane Stadium Part Deux, er, neutral site, er, FedEx Field. Given the fact that the third-ranked team in the country defeated a top 15 opponent on the road last night, you would think their ranking would be beyond debate at this point, even if said ranking puts them on the precipice of competing for a national championship… provided they take care of business the rest of the season. Of course, thanks to the college football pundits, their ranking is not beyond debate. It will be, however, after I finish smoothly winning this debate, just like Kellen Moore smoothly drove Boise State down the field last night for the game-winning touchdown.

Let me don my populist hat for a minute and remind you of the difficult position in which the BCS conferences and their television partners (mainly ESPN and its affiliates) have placed non-traditional, non-BCS conference football teams and how that position feeds into the two most traditional arguments against a non-AQ school playing for the BCS national championship.

First, pundits and fans argue that these teams do not have the exposure that major conference teams do, and that fact provides excuse to rank them lower. The exposure argument doesn’t hold water with me because the television networks (again, mainly of ESPN) have direct control of which teams play in which time slots. Now, I understand the economics of ratings and advertising and know that there are a lot more Michigan fans than TCU fans. And I know that Columbus, Ohio is a heck of a lot bigger than Boise, Idaho. If I were in ESPN’s shoes, I would make many of same broadcast decisions for the good of the company and its bottom line. But don’t pretend that the broadcast time for a team’s football games is any kind of a reliable metric for that team’s relative “competitive value.” The time slot decision is an economic one, pure and simple. Also, in these days of DVR and ESPN3, there is no excuse for a poll voter to rank a team lower because they didn’t get a chance to see the game. If you hold the fate of a team’s season in your hands, take some time to watch each team a couple times throughout the year or pass your vote along to someone with the time to study and vote more carefully.

Second, a popular argument against non-AQ schools playing for the national title is that their strength of schedule simply doesn’t measure up to the “big boys.” While it is an interesting point to consider, this is in large part because the BCS schools do not want to play the powerful non-AQ schools. While VT gets full marks for playing Boise State last night, you have to figure that most of the BCS conference athletic directors watched that game last night and felt vindicated that they had chosen instead to schedule Northeastern Interpretative Dance Polytechnic Institute for their week one tilt.

It seems to me that non-AQ schools such as Utah, TCU, and Boise State have regularly stepped up to defeat major conference teams when the opportunity arises. Is it really fair to judge a football team largely on the conference affiliation patch sewn onto the front of their jersey? If you think conference affiliation and its associated purported schedule strength is so significant, consider one last thought. Ole Miss, a member of the biggest, baddest conference on the block (the SEC), blew a three-touchdown lead and lost to Jacksonville State (an FCS team) this weekend. At home. Down the road, is it really fair that somebody gets a computer bump for beating Ole Miss just because it says SEC on the front of their jerseys?

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


The WAC In The BCS Championship Game Debate… Boise’s Delusions of Grandeur

September 7, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Optimist Prime.

With Boise State’s dramatic last minute come from behind victory over Virginia Tech last night fans of the Western Athletic Conference may be entertaining big dreams of a WAC team playing for a BCS national championship at the end of this season. I’m here to tell them, “Sorry boys, it’s time to wake up and smell the artificial blue Astroturf.” No matter how great Kellen Moore and Boise State may have looked last night, there is no way the team is national title bound.

Life isn’t a fairy tale or a Hollywood movie. In the real world if you kiss a frog you wake up with warts, and when the shy nerdy girl takes off her glasses and lets her hair down all you notice is her astigmatism, bald spots, and unibrow. A magical ending for a standout team in an underdog conference is simply not in the cards and there are plenty of reasons why.

First of all, the biggest knock against any WAC team is that they play in the WAC. The conference is comprised of Fresno State, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana Tech, Nevada, New Mexico State, San Jose State, Utah State, and of course this season’s claim to national relevance, Boise State. That is not exactly a Who’s Who of college football powerhouses, thus undermining the accomplishment of any conference wins. Historically the WAC has proven to be a second tier conference that occasionally boasts a standout team or stud player that contends for a big award or two. But that is about it. The conference simply isn’t a murders’ row lineup of nationally ranked teams. It is because of the WAC’s inherent drawbacks that above average teams, such as Boise State, are held back from being taken seriously as legitimate national contenders.

Another major roadblock for a WAC team on the road to BCS success is the conference’s lack of national recognition and exposure. Outside of the conference’s comprising school’s home markets the WAC is largely marginalized by their lack of notoriety. Probably the two most recognizable schools, Hawaii and Boise State, are recognizable for their novelty aspects as much if not more than their football. Hawaii’s football team has a certain allure and aura, which stems from the rich culture the team represents, but aside from the Hawaiian war dance and Colt Brennan, there is hasn’t been a whole lot to talk about the program on the national stage in recent years. Similarly, until this season, Boise State is probably best known nationally as the school with the crazy blue field. It is time to face the facts, gimmicks just aren’t going to get the job done.

With the rest of the conference playing the role of national afterthought, it will be hard to keep Boise State in the middle of national contention talk for long, especially considering they are only scheduled to play one more ranked team – #25 Oregon State – this season. Last season Alabama beat six ranked programs on their journey to the national title. That type of rigorous schedule and high profile matchups create the exposure a team needs to be taken seriously in the hunt for a championship. While the college football season is young and it may seem like everyone has a chance, they don’t. Boise State fans have to remember it is a long season and continually beating teams like the Toledo Rockets probably isn’t going to get them enough BCS love, no matter how good they look doing it.

For those who think this criticism is unfair, I am willing to give credit where credit is due. Boise State currently fields a strong team which stands on the shoulders of teams that have put together a couple of undefeated season. But even if the team does deserve some BCS respect, they don’t deserve a national title shot. Take Boise State’s Fiesta Bowl win over Oklahoma in 2007. While it proves that they can hang with the big boys, it does not validate the team’s ability to remain dominant over a season of challenging play. Furthermore, the Fiesta Bowl was a crowning achievement for Boise State, and a letdown for Oklahoma. It just goes to show that WAC fans and other BCS conferences are not comparing apples to apples.

I should point out that I am not alone in thinking that Boise State does not belong. Even ESPN post game analysis mentioned that “style points” matter more for Boise State than perhaps any other program in contention for the BCS championship. I interpret this to mean that not only will Boise State have to beat every team it plays this season, it will have to win in dominating fashion. If they have close victories against weak divisional teams it simply won’t compare favorably with other teams losses to more competitive, nationally ranked programs. Obviously beating a team like #10 Virginia Tech is a feather in the cap of Boise State, but they simply cannot afford to squeak out a victory like that in a scenario where they will have limited other opportunities to prove their worth to the BCS. Boise State is the poster child of lesser divisions like the Moutain West and WAC that deserve more national credit, but they clearly aren’t ready for BCS title until they can improve the overall quality of opponents.

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


The Most Interesting 2010 NFL Matchup Debate… Will Donavan Receive a Brotherly Love Welcome?

September 6, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless.

The NFL season starts Thursday night, and I can’t wait! Hopefully, you’ve had your fantasy draft by now and you’re in the mood for an exciting NFL season. There are all kinds of storylines to look at as the season approaches. If you look at the NFL schedule, you’ll see a plethora of “must see” games. However, one game stands out more than all the rest. It is a game that is definitely circled on Loyal Home’s calendar.

On October 3, the Washington Redskins travel to Lincoln Financial Field to take on the Philadelphia Eagles. Obviously this is an important NFC East matchup. But this isn’t just another divisional matchup. This is Donavan McNabb’s initial return to the City of Brotherly Love as a member of the opposing team. Admit it, you’re just a wee bit curious to watch this game!

The big question is how McNabb will be received by those fans who rooted for him (and I use the term “rooted” very loosely) for eleven years. How do you think he will be received? Will he be remembered as the guy who led the Eagles to five NFC championship games, including one Super Bowl appearance? Will he be remembered as a six-time Pro Bowl quarterback? Will he be remembered as the guy who won games despite having guys like Todd Pinkston and James Thrash as wide receivers? Will he be remembered as the guy who made Campbell’s Chunky Soup seem like it would be something worth eating?

Or will Philly fans remember the guy they booed on draft day? Will they remember the guy who possibly threw up in the Super Bowl? Will they remember the guy who couldn’t win the big game? Will they remember the guy who was seemingly hurt quite a bit?

It wasn’t exactly a clean break between McNabb and the Eagles organization. There appears to be a strong connection between McNabb and his former head coach, Andy Reid, but I think that’s where the love ends. The fact that McNabb plays for a division rival only stirs up the passion even more for Eagles fans, even though McNabb has nothing to do with where he was dealt.

Keep in mind Philadelphia is a town that boos Santa Claus and once cheered as a motionless Michael Irvin lying on the ground. I have a feeling that the vast majority of the fans in Philadelphia that October afternoon will be booing #5. In any other town, he would likely get a rousing ovation. But this is Philly. And that’s why I’ll be watching.

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


The Most Interesting 2010 NFL Matchup Debate… Rivalry is Favre From Over

September 6, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer.

He did it to us again. Brett Farve dragged the Vikings, the media, and the world through the emotional ringer as the “will he or won’t he” retirement drama unfolded once more. Just when we were all sure that number four had finally hung up his cleats… for good… he unretired… again. While some people grow tired of Brett’s ability to unretire with the frequency of a professional wrestler, I love it.

Knowing that Favre will be back in Minnesota again means football fans will be treated to one more ”final” season of one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. It means we’ll get to see another season of Favre making big throws, leading fourth quarter comebacks, and playing with the joy and passion of a kid. But it also means something special. Favre’s return means NFL fans will bear witness one of the greatest of all time playing with true purpose against his former team in Week 11 when the Green Bay Packers travel to Minneapolis.

Favre has something to prove to the Packers, to the Vikings, and to himself. He knows that he is one of the best of all time, but his departure from Green Bay must cause him to believe there is doubt about that fact. The fact that he did not get to leave Lambeau Fields on his own terms still motivates him to show the Packers exactly what they let slip away. So when the Packers come to his new home in Minnesota, he’s going to put on a performance for the ages.

Sure, we saw it last season. The Vikings bested the Packers both at home and on the road, but 2010 is different. Aside from the fact that this may be Favre’s swan song (seriously, this has got to be it… right?), the Packers have motivation to march into Mall of America Field and show they won’t be pushed around again. Aaron Rodgers and the Packers were dealt two tough losses at the hands of Favre’s Vikings last season, and that has got to be motivation for them to show they won’t roll over for Favre and company again in 2010.

Although Rodgers is one of the best young quarterbacks in the league he has been – and remains – in Brett’s shadow. No matter how well he plays, until he beats Favre there will be doubts about both his ability and his legacy. Even if his stats are better. If he can’t beat the guy he was promoted to replace, he will always carry the stigma of being a downgrade from Favre. The Packers went through quite an ordeal to put the young quarterback under center and he wants everyone to know it was the right decision. But each year that Favre comes back and excels, he undermines the achievements of the talented new signal caller in Green Bay. The Packers are Rodgers team and his teammates want to prove it to him. They will get potentially a last chance to do that when they go to Minnesota and try to take one from Favre on his new home turf.

No other matchup in the NFL has this kind of drama. Gone are the days when America hung on the Cowboys and Redskins. Similarly, the Colts-Patriots rivalry is not exactly what it used to be since the Pats have struggled lately. A Super Bowl rematch would easily be one of the most exciting matchups of the season, but NFL schedule makers did not see fit to make it happen. There is no substitute for the rivalry and drama of the Farve versus Packers saga, especially since this should be the final chapter. If old number four is healthy, you know he will give it everything he has… which is all a NFL fan can hope for.

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.