The TSD Best of 2010 Debate… Bad Contracts and Great Context

December 29, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

This was an easy year to love here at TSD. Not only do we enjoy providing entertaining and informative analysis of the current world of sports, we love giving historical context to modern events. In fact, it is the history surrounding a given event that provides the context necessary to understand, appreciate, disparage, or lament. Context and history gives fanaticism meaning. That’s our charge here at The Sports Debates, to give fandom meaning, a dose of reality, yet still keep it entertaining.

In the department of entertaining, there are a few people, organizations, and cities that we pick on routinely. We pick on these not because we are out for blood, but because they routinely showcase everything that should not be done in sports.

We pick on guys like Barry Zito who do everything they can to score a huge contract, and then refuse to hold up their end of the bargain (if you can call it a bargain) and play well. We also pick on the Toronto Blue Jays as we are all baffled by how that city still has an MLB team. We also pick on the Chicago Cubs, because few sports organizations in the history of the world do a worse job of getting out of its own way. It’s laughable and comical. I should know, since I’m a lifelong fan.

My favorite debate of the past year is the “The 2010 Worst Contract in Baseball Debate” as it combines these perpetual sports realities, coincidentally all in MLB, into one neat package that really showcases what this website is all about.

The debate revolved around Barry Zito – who still fails to live up to what he was supposed to be when he signed that huge contract with a San Francisco Giants team that managed to win a World Series without him – Vernon Wells, and Alfonso Soriano.

You, our loyal readers, voted for the winner in this debate and scored us a tie between Barry Zito and Alfonso Soriano. Though the debate still remains tied, it was full of some of the best historical context and most entertaining one liners in any debate all year. My personal favorite line is from Babe Ruthless’ article about Barry Zito where he writes:

Barry Zito was brought to the City by the Bay to be a franchise player, the face of the organization. As it turns out he became a face the organization would probably want to put a paper bag over.

Great line, something the Babe has become known for in his career here at TSD, a tenure that just cracked the one year mark.

My favorite breakdown of the year was the one on Soriano’s contract. What is interesting about is that reviewing the history of Soriano’s career before he came to the Cubs, there was really no good reason to sign him to a huge deal. He had never proven that he understood the game very well, or that any of his processes and abilities were repeatable. In fact, all he has done is prove that he’s a one pitch hitter, an below average outfielder, and a selfish guy who never seems willing to work hard enough to actually contribute to making a team better. Further, realizing that Soriano is the ninth highest paid player in all of MLB is staggering. Considering the actual talent that resides at positions 1-8, it is mind-blowing that Soriano has found his way on to this list.

It was a great debate concept, too. This is a debate that we can have annually in every major professional sport. Heck, maybe we will.

I am also thrilled that Optimist Prime joined our ranks this year. His eternal optimism provides some superb context and a reminder that it is easy for fans to get cynical, and when they do they lose touch with reality. Sports teams are forever doomed to failure. Optimist is important because he reminds us of that. He’s the type of fan that walks Bleacher Fan in off the ledge of Browns Stadium.

I hope you have all enjoyed your sports year as much as we’ve enjoyed writing about it for you. It’s been a strange year in many ways, and a routine year in many others. I look forward to 2011. I hope that we have both an NBA season and an NFL season. Regardless, we’ll have plenty of debates for you. Now that 2010 is history, it becomes part of the history we’ll draw on to keep bringing you what you’ve come to expect from TSD.

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


The TSD Best of 2010 Debate… A Win For the Fans

December 29, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

The single most defining sports moment of 2010 happened off the field of play.

There is little doubt that 2010 was the year of LeBron James. He rolled into the year as the favorite son of the NBA, with the stage set for him to take the next step in cementing his legacy among the greatest that ever played the game. He was the game’s brightest young star, and as his contract with the Cleveland Cavaliers was set to expire in the summer, the entire league was forced into a holding pattern until he revealed the team whose uniform he would next don.

Tensions were already high across the NBA as the build-up to 2010 free agency played out, but when James and his partners in LRMR Marketing announced their plans for the decision to be announced in an hour-long television program, events moved to a frenzied pace.

But it was not James’ decision that led to the best debate of the year, it was the fallout.

Immediately following “The Decision” Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert fired off a letter to the fans of the Cavaliers that became a controversy all its own. The emotionally charged letter first ripped James for the manner of his exit from the city of Cleveland, and then offered several lofty promises to the fans of the Cavaliers.

It was a situation where the business of sports was overshadowed by emotion, and I LOVED it!

The culture of sports today is one where the participants are perceived as businessmen and celebrities first, and athletes second. Decisions are made based on dollars and cents, and athletes today have little or no regard for the crowds in front of whom they play. They use the fans to their advantage, getting rich off of their hard-earned money. Sure, when things are going good they get along very nicely with the fans, but as soon as convenience dictates, they sell any sense of loyalty down the river, leaving fans high and dry.

That’s why the debate around Gilbert’s letter to Cavaliers fans was so fascinating to me. In a league like the NBA, which has been completely hijacked by superstar athletes like LeBron James, most people expected Gilbert and the Cavaliers to quietly lick their wounds and move forward. While that road to recovery from the loss of James (both financially, and in terms of on-court success) will be a long and painful one, the anticipated response from the front offices in Cleveland was one of political correctness. Gilbert would address the team and his fans the following morning, offer all the clichéd comments – “We are a team, not one man”, “The team existed for years BEFORE LeBron James, and will exist just as well without him”, etc. – but he would surely NOT burn any bridges by attacking the league’s star attraction.

We were all wrong.

Gilbert did not wait until morning. He didn’t even hold his breath and count to ten. Instead, he let the ‘fan’ in him come through. He felt as though James had slapped him, and so he struck back, which is exactly what the rest of the fans in Cleveland wanted to do. He didn’t care about playing nice with the most powerful athlete in the sport, and he didn’t care about fines that could (and eventually would) be levied against him. All he wanted to do was communicate his own frustration to his brothers and sisters in Cleveland.

Even if only for one night, Gilbert wasn’t the owner, he was the fan.

Outside the city of Cleveland, Gilbert’s actions were called into question. Should he have lashed out so reactively? And more importantly, should he be punished?

I can understand the league’s desire to prevent owners from launching personal vendettas against the players, but as the resident Bleacher Fan here at The Sports Debates, I absolutely respect Gilbert’s reaction. In fact, it endeared him to me in a way that no coach or player has in a very long time. I had no problems at all in defending his actions then, and I would still defend them today.

I want to thank Gilbert, personally, for taking a stand on behalf of the fans. We have been the long-suffering third party in sports transactions, and it was nice to see that someone of power in sports, even if only for the briefest of moments, cared more about the fans than he did coddling a prima donna superstar athlete, or by playing nice politically in the “business of basketball.”

Dan Gilbert wins Bleacher Fan’s Award as the Best of 2010, because he put the fan first.

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


The TSD Best of 2010 Debate… To Fire or Not Fire Tops The List

December 29, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan.

Since our first FULL calendar year of running this website, I think it’s fair to say we have grown tremendously. We added another writer, Optimist Prime, who has brought some wonderful insight to blend in with the other four outspoken minds we have on the site. I think he has made our arguments and debates better. I noticed this as I was looking back over some of our debates from this calendar year. One debate sticks out to this Georgia native, however, and that’s a debate we had back in late September regarding the status of UGA football coach Mark Richt. It also ended up being one of our more popular debates of the year, judging from the hits it received and continues to receive even now!

At the time we had the debate UGA was coming off a road loss to Mississippi State, who actually went on to have a solid season and win eight games. At the time, however, it appeared to be a bad loss, and it was the absolute perfect time to have the debate. The heat had been turned up in Athens and much of that fire was directed at Richt.

Optimist Prime and Bleacher Fan both presented outstanding cases. Bleacher Fan was, and still is, of the opinion that Richt should have been fired. The program had noticeably slipped (this is true) and Bleacher Fan brought on the interesting point that guys like Urban Meyer, Les Miles, and Nick Saban had flown past Richt in terms of winning championships. Optimist Prime believed that it was too soon to panic and that Richt had earned the right to turn things around.

I ultimately sided with Optimist Prime. I felt that Richt had done enough in his tenure to keep his job. There were some circumstances, such as the whole A.J. Green fiasco, that caused the Dawgs problems early.

Looking back, do I think I made the right decision? Granted, the Dawgs finished with a 6-6 overall record, with the outcome of Friday’s Liberty Bowl matchup against Central Florida still pending. Included in those six losses was a terrible loss at Colorado. But, to answer my own question, yes I still think I made the right decision. Richt definitely goes into the 2011 campaign needing a big season out of his team. I think he needs at least eight wins.

Being a Georgia resident, this debate often went on at sports bars, dinner tables, and office break rooms around the state. The Bulldogs bring out a lot of passion in the Peach State. I’ve heard the pros and cons of keeping Richt around ad nausea. But the fact that it was such a high profile coach in a high profile conference made this debate exciting and extremely relevant at the time. I sure hope you enjoyed it!

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


The 2010 Sportsman of the Year Debate… Kobe by Default

December 27, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless, and Optimist Prime.

Well, 2010 was special year for sports fans!

Several very long-standing championship droughts ended, as the New Orleans Saints (43 year drought), Chicago Blackhawks (49 year drought), and the San Francisco Giants (56 year drought) each won championships in their respective leagues.

For those of us with a deep sense of national pride in our sports teams, the Men’s U.S. Hockey and Soccer teams treated us all to some of the most exciting and dramatic athletic performances of the year in the Winter Olympics and World Cup, respectively.

Speaking of soccer, 2010 will always be a special sports year to me as my alma mater, The University of Akron, won their first ever National Championship by claiming the College Cup in very exciting fashion over the Louisville Cardinals.

The year also had its share of goats.

LeBron James’ “Decision” proved to be a PR nightmare, Rex Ryan apparently has a foot “thing,” and we learned about everything from travel destinations to bathroom habits thanks to the incessant media bombardment of “Tiger Watch” and “Favre Watch.”

Like I said, 2010 was a special year.

But even with those spectacular performances and storylines, the task of naming a Sportsman of the Year is tricky. You see, despite the exciting performances that we were all treated to as fans, no one really separated themselves from the pack in terms of individual performances.

Sure, there are some obvious default options to look to. Drew Brees certainly became the face of the NFL in 2010 after leading the Saints to their first ever Super Bowl championship. Here’s the problem – I credit Sean Payton, not Drew Brees, with winning that game. While Brees had a remarkable season leading up to that Super Bowl, it is important to note that performance came in 2009, not 2010. So far this year Brees has played well, but Tom Brady and Michael Vick (along with several others) have been far more impressive.

Being quarterback of the championship NFL team is not enough on its own to earn the “Sportsman of the Year” crown.

Moving on to baseball, several pitchers tried to make cases for themselves. In the post-season, Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, and Tim Lincecum all pitched to historic levels. Halladay’s post-season no-hitter was the greatest individual performance, but Lee’s and Lincecum’s pitching had far more significant value for their teams.

All three pitched exceptionally well, but once again none separated themselves enough from the others to claim the title.

In golf, Phil Mickelson’s emotional victory at the Masters was the perfect start to the 2010 season, but Lefty proved unable to do anything more as the season played out. After winning his third Green Jacket, Mickelson could do no better than taking one more second place finish, and only six top-ten finishes on the year.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge Jimmie Johnson’s accomplishments in NASCAR this year, having won his FIFTH consecutive Sprint Cup Championship. He has become nothing less than a one-man dynasty, and is right now the single most dominant person in sports. The only reason I am hesitant in recognizing Johnson any further is that I am forced to now question the quality of his competition. With all due respect to his accomplishments, are his championships the result of Johnson being that good, or is it that the rest of the field is that bad?

By default, we are forced to look to the NBA to find our Sportsman of the year.

In the NBA, names like LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh, Amar’e Stoudemire, and Carmelo Anthony dominated headlines. Free agency in 2010 was undeniably the biggest sports story of the year, overshadowing even the NBA Finals. But it is Kobe Bryant who should be recognized as the Sportsman of 2010.

This year, Bryant quietly led the Los Angeles Lakers to a second consecutive NBA Championship. I never thought I would use the words “Kobe Bryant” and “quietly” in the same sentence, but in a year where it seemed that LeBron James was the ONLY person being talked about in the NBA, Bryant proved definitively that his Lakers, not LeBron’s Cavaliers (or now the Miami Heat) were the absolute best in the game. He led the Lakers to a Western Conference-leading 57 wins, and unofficially resolved the “Kobe versus LeBron” debate. This year brought Bryant the fifth title in his career, and the 17th in the history of the Lakers’ franchise.

Bryant’s stability and leadership (I really can’t believe I am writing this…) carried the Lakers into the post-season and through the Finals. When all the world was enamored with the courtship of LeBron James, Bryant busied himself with winning a championship.

Through nothing but his phenomenal talent, Kobe Bryant continues to keep the Lakers as the team to beat in the NBA. No matter how great the Miami super-team may hope to be, they are still playing in Kobe’s league.

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


The 2010 Sportsman of the Year Debate… The Once and Future King

December 27, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan, and Optimist Prime.

In 2010 LeBron James not only redefined himself, but perhaps all of professional sports as well. Though he has been thoroughly scrutinized and lambasted for the way he set about this redefinition, it may just be the price one has to pay for experiencing growing pains as one of the most public sports figures in the world.

Critics, fans, and whole cities came to despise LeBron James in the wake of The Decision, but I believe his announcement on national T.V. was ultimately more good than bad, more help than harm, and more hope than heartbreak.

Everyone thought they knew LeBron James best. Cleveland, New York, and Chicago all thought they understood the man and launched campaigns to appeal to what they thought motivated him. In Cleveland, they appealed to his heart, making passionate pleas to his sense of loyalty. Chicago played to his competitive nature adding players – like Carlos Boozer – that most analysts thought would put James in a position to win, given his particular style of play. New York appealed to King James’ ego offering him the treasury and throne in what may very well be the capital of the sports world. But in the end LeBron shocked them all and did what few saw coming before the day The Decision, announcing he would take less money and share the limelight in order to assemble quite possibly the most the most dominant super team the world has ever seen.

LeBron did the what we all believed was unthinkable. As one of if not the most sought after free agents in sports history he chose team victories over individual accolades, he chose championships over salary and sponsorships, and he put the urge to win above self. While this made him a heel in Chicago, a fool in New York, and public enemy number one in Cleveland, it also made him the Sportsman of the Year in my book.

Profound Consequences

I am certain that those loyal to teams spurned by James will be slow to see what he did as a positive (it might take Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan 50 years or so to come around), but that is exactly what it was – a good thing for both professional sports and athletes. LeBron proved it was possible for a player to put competitiveness and team success above self and still make it a profitable proposition.

While it is a crushing blow for sports mega-markets like New York, it opens up a world of possibilities for other franchises throughout the league. Maybe it is a sign that a fat stack of cash doesn’t guarantee players like it used to, and then again maybe its not. But it definitely provides a glimmer of hope for the rest of the league. Likewise, I am certain that franchises like Cleveland will view this as the nail in the coffin on the long term competitiveness of small markets without squads of superstars to attract more, but that is not necessarily the case either. This decision was also about who LeBron wanted to play alongside with as much as it was about the competitiveness.

Before the off-season arrived, James had been making public musings about free agents basically colluding for the betterment of a particular franchise. He suggested that if players like Bosh and James decide together where they thought they could make the biggest impact they could change the NBA’s landscape in a big way, and that’s exactly what they did. While maybe not completely within the rules, it does evolve the empowerment of the modern free agent.

Since James’ epic decision there has already been evidence of trickle down effects in other sports. Major League Baseball recently watched the hot stove pursuit of ace pitcher Cliff Lee take a James-ian turn as he turned down more lucrative contracts with New York and Texas in order to sign with a club he simply wanted to play for more. Just as was the case with King James, Lee’s addition to superstar players like Roy Halladay, Cole Hammels, and Roy Oswalt makes for one of the most dominant pitching staffs in team history, possibly MLB history. This trend could very well spread to the NFL this off-season and reshape the competitive landscape there as well. The fallout from James’ choice is as immense in its magnitude as it is controversial.

King Sized Perks

LeBron made his off-season choice known in a grandiose TV special that exceeded even the wildest of expectations in terms of anticipated hype. While “The Decision” may not have lived up to the anticipation in terms of climactic drama, it no doubt captured the attention of the nation. ESPN’s one hour special on the LeBron’ signing was the highest rated program on television the night it aired, and clearly caught the attention of more than just serious NBA fans. What’s more is a large portion of the profits from the special were donated to the Boys and Girls Club. Critics point to the fact that he could have done more, but in reality he could have done nothing at all. When was the last time you remember an athlete using their free agent leverage for charity? Having trouble? That’s my point exactly. Like a noble monarch, King James let his benefits trickle down to the people and that is a gesture seen far too seldom in sports today.

Admittedly, I am not the biggest fan of the NBA…or at least I wasn’t before this season, but all the craze of this post-season’s free agency carried over to the regular season and now I’m hooked. I’ve purchased six tickets to NBA games this season (one of which is a Miami Heat game), which is 600% more than I have purchased in the last decade. While my personal habits do not make for a scientifically significant study, I do believe there is something to be said for LeBron making the NBA more popular during the off-season.

I realized I may not have made a believer out of anyone, but I feel that LeBron James deserves more credit than he has received. He was the biggest story in all of sports this year and the positive impact of that legacy earns him my vote for Sportsman of The Year.

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


The 2010 Sportsman of the Year Debate… Dustin Johnson is Grace Under Pressure

December 27, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan, and Babe Ruthless.

When I was trying to decide who the subject of this article should be I took an informal poll of the family on the day after Christmas. The first part of the debate turned into a discussion about what the “Sportsman of the Year” title actually means. That’s a difficult definition to derive. Should the title be awarded to the best athlete of the year? Should it be awarded to the athlete who generated the most publicity during the year? Should it be awarded to “the best athlete who isn’t too much of a tool” (as was suggested to me)? What we generally arrived at was an award for an athlete who most exemplified sportsmanship during the last year. There are a lot of worthy candidates, but I’ve arrived at a pretty unconventional nominee. I nominate Dustin Johnson for The Sports Debates 2010 Sportsman of the Year.

While Dustin Johnson had an outstanding 2010 season – winning two tournaments and finishing fifth in the FedEx Cup standings – his 2010 season will be most remembered for a gaffe/misunderstanding/mistake he made at the PGA Championship at Whistling Straits in Kohler, Wisconsin. Johnson entered the 72nd hole of the championship with a one-stroke lead, but knocked his tee shot well off the course to the right. He then took out a six iron, hit a solid shot to the green, and two-putted his way, seemingly, into a three-hole playoff. As he was walking off the 18th green a PGA of America official came up to him and asked him if he had grounded his club in the bunker in which his tee shot landed. That lead to several confused minutes where Johnson and rules officials discussed whether or not the ball was in a bunker and whether or not he did, in fact, ground his club. In the end, Johnson was assessed a two-stroke penalty and his chance to win the PGA Championship was gone.

My nomination, however, was not because of anything Johnson really did on the golf course during the 2010 season. What stuck with me is how he reacted when it was determined that he would not be participating in the playoff. He handled the situation, undoubtedly the most difficult of his golf career, with a matter-of-fact grace that is uncommon in professional athletes. Perhaps, behind closed doors, he did not handle it as well as the television cameras portrayed. But, when the bright lights were on, he was a solid example of how to handle adversity in sports.

As any sports fan knows, it is much too common these days for professional athletes to complain about their situation and pass the blame around when things start to go wrong. Johnson could have upbraided the rules officials or the course designer. He could have slammed his caddy and fired him on the spot for not alerting him to the fact that he was in a bunker and could not ground his club. He could have broken out the “woe is me” routine. Instead, he faced the situation directly and set an example for those watching of how to handle public adversity. For his grace under fire, I nominate Dustin Johnson for TSD’s 2010 Sportsman of the Year. Happy holidays, everybody!

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


The Re-Seeding the NFL Playoffs Debate Verdict

December 24, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Optimist Prime.

Interesting debate. This one comes down to how much a person values the idea of the division in the NFL model. Are divisions important or not?

Truthfully, divisions are extremely important to the NFL. They are part of the apparatus that allows for even play season after season and gives hope to bad teams. If all division winners matter, then teams draft with the idea that they must be able to beat their divisional opponents, and worry far less about the other teams in the league.

Remember the Mario Williams versus Reggie Bush debate? Fans were livid when the Texans took Williams over Bush with the first pick in the draft, but the idea was sound because a strong defensive end is what the team needed when playing against Peyton Manning twice in a season. Divisions are important, and winning them is important, too.

Loyal Homer wins this debate because he is correct that teams that many fans believe underperform in the regular season really show up in a big way in the NFL playoffs – and part of the reason that happens is the pressure cooker of division play. But, a mediocre regular season and a subsequent strong playoff run has been the nature of sports, really, in the past 20 years. Teams that do not play well in the regular season still seem to show up and be impressive in the post-season. Take a look at any major professional sport and it is evident that, year after year, team most think are mediocre to bad actually do quite well in the post-season. After all, didn’t the Florida Marlins win TWO World Series? Didn’t the lowly New York Giants beat the unbeaten New England Patriots? It happens in sports, teams that get hot at the right time deserve to win just as much as any other team. Why change the rule now?

More, truly championship quality teams do not need to lean on the crutch of playing at home. Good team adopt the philosophy that they can win no matter where they play or who they have to face.

Another good point from Loyal Homer is that the alternative of two gigantic 16 team conferences is stupid in the NFL. We already have that in the NBA and NHL, and we all see that division rivalries and heated games between teams that play each other a great deal, on a regular basis, simply do not exist. Sure, it is exciting when Boston plays L.A. in the NBA, but that is only a couple of times a season. Familiarity, plus frequency, makes for compelling sports. That is precisely what the NFL, with its division framework, is design to accomplish. For better or worse.

It is true that the NFC West has been a, “mess of mediocrity,” as Optimist Prime so eloquently states it. But, that does not mean a division winner – complete with the task of facing three teams twice in a season – does not deserve to host a game. Hosting a playoff game is not some archaic, bygone notion from NFL of yesteryear. It is a viable and appropriate way to reward a team for surviving, if not usually thriving, by playing in a tough league with a demanding schedule, complete with intra-division rivalries.

Fair, in this case, should not be applied to what the NFL has set up for how divisions work. To Loyal Homer’s point, why bother with divisions at all if there is no reward? The NFL rightly places a premium of schedule difficulty on the idea that beating – or even playing – a team twice in the same season is very difficult. Therefore, winning a division is an achievement, regardless of how difficult an out of conference schedule is.

Home field advantage is a nice to have, sure. But, it is not a need to have. Great teams win regardless of where their games are played, not because they were able to play a great deal at home. If a team really believes itself to be Super Bowl worthy, the occasional anomaly of a winning Wild Card team playing a mediocre team in the first round of the playoffs should not matter. That should be a winnable game, and home field advantage has nothing to do with it.

Loyal Homer has convinced that playing in –and winning – a division in the NFL is worth getting a first round home game. The NFL believes a home game is a reward (at least in terms of ticket sales), and to keep parity and balance thriving in the league, then divisions – for better or worse – must be a part of it.

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


The Re-Seeding the NFL Playoffs Debate

December 22, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Optimist Prime.

This one is simple. It is true that some NFL teams suck. It is also true that some NFL teams that win divisions suck. Case in point? The leader of the NFC West – the St. Louis Rams, thanks to a tiebreak – lead the division at 6-8 over the 6-8 Seattle Seahawks. But, the 5-9 San Francisco 49ers are still in the hunt. Yea. I know.

So, good or bad, the team in the division that wins the most games will get into the playoffs. That is not the debate today, though. The debate today is: Should a team that wins its division – even if it has a losing record – still be eligible to HOST a playoff game?

By rule, NFL team that win a division get to host a playoff game, even if a Wild Card winning team has a better record. Loyal Homer will argue that division winners – regardless of how terrible they may be – deserve to host a playoff game while Optimist Prime will argue bad division winners with a losing record should not be eligible to host a playoff game.

Write up those articles, fellas. Then I’ll let you know who gets to have a Merry Christmas!

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


The Re-Seeding the NFL Playoffs Debate… A Wild Card Winner Is The First Loser

December 22, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Optimist Prime.

Today’s debate, introduced to us by Sports Geek, has seemingly picked up a lot of steam in the past couple of weeks. Many columnists, such as Sports Illustrated writer Peter King (a favorite of mine), have written about the absurdity of, in essence, guaranteeing a home game to all division winners… no matter what the record is of the division winner or the Wild-Card winners. This has all come to the forefront thanks to the absolutely dreadful NFC West, where it is now quite possible that the division winner (St. Louis, Seattle, or yes, even San Francisco) could win the division title with a 7-9 record and host a first round playoff game. Meanwhile, poor little New Orleans is staring at the likelihood of being a double digit winner and having to go on the road for the first round. Is this right? Why, yes, it is!

It’s really hard to argue anything in regards to the 2010 NFC West, so I won’t even try. It’s bad. Really, really bad. But let’s not rewrite history and change the playoff format due to a bad division in one season. Would we even be having this debate if the Rams or the Seahawks were sitting at 8-6 tight now? Highly doubtful .

Let’s go back to 2008, just two short years ago, when both the Arizona Cardinals and the San Diego Chargers were division winners with records of 9-7 and 8-8, respectively. The Cardinals hosted an 11-5 Atlanta Falcons team in the first round of the playoffs. In a very entertaining game, the Cardinals eventually won 30-24. What did they do the next two weeks? They won… and after a sensational run and catch by Larry Fitzgerald in Super Bowl XLIII, we all thought the Cardinals had won the Super Bowl. But Santonio Holmes, in his pre-substance abuse days, had other ideas and created a Super Bowl memory with his catch in the corner of the end zone. That Cardinals team, despite winning a bad division with a 9-7 record, made it to the Super Bowl and nearly won the thing.

That same season the Chargers won the AFC West by going 8-8 and welcomed the mighty Indianapolis Colts to San Diego. The Colts entered the playoffs with a 12-4 record and were coming in with a nine game winning streak. In theory, the Colts should have hosted, right? Well, Darren Sproles and his legs had other ideas as he helped the Chargers win in overtime 23-17.

The bottom line is that a mediocre record as a division winner doesn’t guarantee a loss in the first round. There’s no guarantee that the Saints will beat the Rams or Seahawks, if that’s the matchup that takes place. If the Saints didn’t want to go on the road the first round, then they should have beaten Atlanta on their home turf. They shouldn’t have lost to Max Hall and his Arizona Cardinals, which is a game that still remains a head scratcher. They shouldn’t have lost to Colt McCoy and the Browns. Meanwhile, one of these teams in the West is going to win the division. They don’t make the schedule. They just go out and play. Seattle actually has a win in Chicago this season.

I see no reason to punish a division winner for achieving its goal of actually winning its division. The Wild Card winner doesn’t get home field in baseball. Why should it get a home game in the NFL? If you aren’t going to reward the division winners, then why even have divisions at all? Why don’t you just go ahead and have two gigantic 16 team conferences and have the six best records in each conference go to the playoffs? Don’t like that idea? Well, just leave it as it is then!

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


The Re-Seeding the NFL Playoffs Debate… Re-Sewing Playoff Seeds

December 22, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

Today’s topic is designed to determine whether or not playoff teams should be re-seeded in the NFL, possibly depriving a division winner of a home game if their record is not as good as a wild card team.

Quite simply, the answer is yes, the teams should be re-seeded so home games would go to the most deserving teams. With all due respect to coach Spagnuolo and the job that he’s done with the St. Louis Rams and a rookie quarterback… if we were more of a multimedia webiste I think my most persuasive argument would be to post footage from NFC West games this season with the Benny Hill music playing in the background.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Benny Hill music, enjoy. Now, tell me that isn’t the perfect soundtrack to the slapfight that the NFC West has been this season. And, if you agree with me that the NFC West has been a mess of mediocrity, isn’t that the perfect argument for reseeding teams for the NFL playoffs.

Bleacherreport.com posted an interesting article this week discussing the very real possibility that a 7-9 team can win the NFC West. Just take a minute and let that soak in. Accepting that a .500 record is the definition of mediocrity, we are taking about a less than mediocre team not only qualifying for the NFL playoffs, but hosting a home playoff game in a season where they could not even win as many games as they lost. Under the current NFL playoff structure, that is exactly what would happen if a 7-9 team won their division.

For example, let’s say Tampa Bay finishes the season with a 9-7 record and makes the playoffs. Bear in mind, of course, that that 9-7 record would have involved four games against 10-plus win divisional opponents in Atlanta and New Orleans. Beyond that, the Buccaneers have had to play Pittsburgh and Baltimore. As you can see, that 9-7 record would have been achieved against a very difficult schedule. After Tampa’s playoff berth euphoria wears off, they discover that they have to travel to St. Louis to be hosted by an under .500 team. On the surface, does that seem fair to Tampa? More importantly, does that seem fair to the fans?

Honestly, beyond making fun of the NFC West, the real point that I’m trying to drive home is that the NFL is foisting something upon its fans that just doesn’t seem right to the fans. Home field advantage is a big deal, especially in post-season football. It is an advantage that should be earned, and the average fan has a gut feeling that the better team in the game should have the honor of hosting the matchup. Should a division winner make the playoffs regardless of record? Absolutely. However, if their record shows them to be the worst team from their conference in the playoffs, they should be seeded accordingly and forced to play the best team from the conference.

It’s generally accepted that the best, most popular post-season tournament in American sports is the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. Imagine the outrage if the NCAA decided that the Sun Belt Conference winner could be seeded no lower than sixth every year. Beyond depriving the fans of properly seeded match-ups, it seems like an arbitrary thing to do, doesn’t it? I believe that’s what the NFL has done by arbitrarily deciding that a division winner should host a playoff game. The NFL playoffs are great, but they can be even greater if they’re seeded properly – and fans get the match-ups they deserve.

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.