Okay, I watch one TV show religiously -- LOST. It's an addiction, but I've come to terms with it. It has gotten really confusing lately, and it's got plenty of juicy twist. I've heard several good ideas: that it's really all about a space/time continuum, that Ben & Widmore are trillionaires playing a high-stakes, real life game (courtesy of my friend Heather's brother). I've had the idea that the island is actually Eden. That's why people get better, because of the Tree of Life. That's also why people who turn dirty are 'eaten up' by the big black smoke monster. Sin finds you out in Eden. Plus, God set an angel to guard the Tree of Life after Adam & Eve ate from the tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil. Maybe the tree of knowledge is how Ben knows so much. Maybe the Dharma Initiative was about starting civilization over in Eden to see if we could get it right somehow. Maybe that explains all the power of the island.
The main thing, though, that I'm realizing is that it's not one thing. It's several things all together, which is what makes it really confusing. What do you think?
First United Methodist Church of Griffin
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
A little mid-May College Football Talk
A couple of college football notes from the spring. Here's something I don't get. Major college programs are scrutinized like crazy (and they should be) for the behavior of their student-athletes. LSU recently kicked QB Ryan Perriloux off the team after multiple run-ins with the law and breaking team rules. The most alarming of these include connections to counterfieting money. Kudos to LSU. But...Perriloux did what so many major program stars who mess up do -- he's transferring to a smaller school (Jacksonville St.). And they will face almost no scrutiny for letting him on the team, despite his legal troubles. Forgiveness is important, but I just can't figure out why it's okay for him to play at Jacksonville St. and not LSU, and nobody seems to care.
Playoffs? Playoffs?
Yes, the BCS powers-that-be shot down a 4-team playoff last week and I thought I'd weigh in on the issue a little bit for anyone that cares to listen. First of all, it's way more complicated than people on all sides of the issue make it out to be. Let me admit that I'm really not a playoff guy. I don't know if I'm happy they way things are, but I'm not sure a playoff is good for college football. And I LOVE COLLEGE FOOTBALL. I do believe that many (not all) of the proponents of a playoff in college football are more sports fans than college football fans, because I'm not sure they understand the ramifications of what a playoff would do to the game I love. However, I understand that there are many who love college football and desperately want a playoff, and there are some good reasons for that, because the post-season isn't always what we want it to be.
I have a hard time even rationally discussing anything more than a 4-team playoff. An 8-team playoff would change the landscape of college football so much that I really can't even consider it a possibility. That's where I'm not sure what most people understand. Any 8-team playoff would include 6 conference champions from the major conferences. That is a given, and probably 2 at-large teams. That would make so much of the regular season moot. This past year, on the last Saturday of the season, the nation was enthralled at watching LSU vs. Tennessee, Oklahoma vs. Missouri, and Pittsburgh vs. West Virginia. I sat stunned in my den as Pittsburgh did then unthinkable. West Virginia was out of the national championship race because of one game. In an 8-team playoff, that game means nothing because WVU had already wrapped up the Big East. In fact, they might have even rested their starters. Could you imagine a world in which UGA, Ga. Tech, FSU, or Florida rest their starters in an end of the year non-conference rivalry game because the conference championship is the next week and they really only care about that coveted playoff spot. If you think that wouldn't happen, take a good look at the end of the NFL season. It happens every year. The Patriots didn't do it and what did that get them? They were just the first loser to cross the finish line and a team with a combined 14-6 record was somehow crowned champion over a team with an 18-1 record. I wish someone could please explain to me why that system is superior to a system that routinely pairs teams with 0,1, or 2 losses against each other for the championship.
The other problem is that it's not all apples and apples. The talent level in the NFL is more even across the board, the NFL schedules are mandated by the league, so you can't schedule patsies. However, this year, Southern Cal will play 12 BCS conference teams, UGA will play 10. Many schools will play only 8 or 9. Therefore, the total schedule is the formula in the NFL. That's a lot trickier in college football because two 10-2 teams don't always equal each other because of conference strength and out-of-conference scheduling. The bottom line is that an 8-team or more playoff would eventually render the regular season "almost" meaningless. If you don't think that's the case, then tell me about TV ratings for college basketball before March. Nobody cares, because the games don't matter. Even the most bitter rivalries (i.e. UNC/Duke) don't mean much but bragging rights because they're both going to the dance.
So, what about a 4-team? Well, I think a 4-team playoff could work, and I think it will probably happen one day, but it's not the end-all, be-all. It still worries me. Let me say why I think that it might be needed first. Namely, just what I mentioned above - scheduling and strength of conference. The past couple years have taught us that records do not equate across conference lines. There are discrepencies in scheduling that have to be addressed that might not can be unless it's played out on the field. I also think that there are usually 2-4 teams that are worthy of national title consideration. Even in the years when there are only two undefeated teams, it's not always that simple. After the last two BCS games, the '02 top three of SEC champ 12-1 UGA, Big 10 champ 13-0 Ohio St., and Big East Champ 12-0 Miami doesn't look as clear cut as it did back then. Obviously, the last few years have been chaos when 3-4 teams have legimate claims to a shot at the title. I think college football has become so regional that a 4-team playoff could help alleviate that.
I do think they will make a grave mistake if they use neutral sites for semi-final games, giving almost no reward for going undefeated. Imagine telling the Patriots they had to play the Chargers in Kansas City for the AFC championship last fall. They'd laugh at you...and deservedly so. So, if they go forward with it, I hope they give home field advantage to the top 2 for the semis. Moreover, few college football fans would be able to afford traveling to Miami one weekend, only to have to go to New Orleans or Pasadena 2 weeks later, especially if they expect to be in the top 4 every year, which USC, Ohio St., and whoever is SEC champion looks to be in the foreseeable future. It might be fun one year, but fans would wait it out to see if they made the championship game. After a few years, semifinal games would be made for TV events played in front of a bunch of empty seats at neutral sites. Look in the stands in the NCAA basketball early rounds and regionals if you don't believe me.
But my greatest fear is still that sanctity of the college season. On Aug. 30, we're all going to watch Bama/Clemson. On Sept. 13, we're all going to watch USC/Ohio St. On Sept. 20, we're all going to watch Arizona St./UGA...because those games mean everything. In a 4-team playoff world, they don't mean much because you could lose a high profile out of conference game and still run the table in your own league and be fine. I'm not sure I want that. Without home-field advantage, those games would mean almost nothing at all, because being ranked #1 would be no different then being ranked #4. I want the best for college football. I'm just not sure that people who are clamoring for a playoff understand what could be lost in the process. And I love the craziest 13-weeks in sports, when anything can happen, and one-game can make all the difference.
Just my 2-cents on a sport I love. Maybe you disagree. I'd love to hear why.
Playoffs? Playoffs?
Yes, the BCS powers-that-be shot down a 4-team playoff last week and I thought I'd weigh in on the issue a little bit for anyone that cares to listen. First of all, it's way more complicated than people on all sides of the issue make it out to be. Let me admit that I'm really not a playoff guy. I don't know if I'm happy they way things are, but I'm not sure a playoff is good for college football. And I LOVE COLLEGE FOOTBALL. I do believe that many (not all) of the proponents of a playoff in college football are more sports fans than college football fans, because I'm not sure they understand the ramifications of what a playoff would do to the game I love. However, I understand that there are many who love college football and desperately want a playoff, and there are some good reasons for that, because the post-season isn't always what we want it to be.
I have a hard time even rationally discussing anything more than a 4-team playoff. An 8-team playoff would change the landscape of college football so much that I really can't even consider it a possibility. That's where I'm not sure what most people understand. Any 8-team playoff would include 6 conference champions from the major conferences. That is a given, and probably 2 at-large teams. That would make so much of the regular season moot. This past year, on the last Saturday of the season, the nation was enthralled at watching LSU vs. Tennessee, Oklahoma vs. Missouri, and Pittsburgh vs. West Virginia. I sat stunned in my den as Pittsburgh did then unthinkable. West Virginia was out of the national championship race because of one game. In an 8-team playoff, that game means nothing because WVU had already wrapped up the Big East. In fact, they might have even rested their starters. Could you imagine a world in which UGA, Ga. Tech, FSU, or Florida rest their starters in an end of the year non-conference rivalry game because the conference championship is the next week and they really only care about that coveted playoff spot. If you think that wouldn't happen, take a good look at the end of the NFL season. It happens every year. The Patriots didn't do it and what did that get them? They were just the first loser to cross the finish line and a team with a combined 14-6 record was somehow crowned champion over a team with an 18-1 record. I wish someone could please explain to me why that system is superior to a system that routinely pairs teams with 0,1, or 2 losses against each other for the championship.
The other problem is that it's not all apples and apples. The talent level in the NFL is more even across the board, the NFL schedules are mandated by the league, so you can't schedule patsies. However, this year, Southern Cal will play 12 BCS conference teams, UGA will play 10. Many schools will play only 8 or 9. Therefore, the total schedule is the formula in the NFL. That's a lot trickier in college football because two 10-2 teams don't always equal each other because of conference strength and out-of-conference scheduling. The bottom line is that an 8-team or more playoff would eventually render the regular season "almost" meaningless. If you don't think that's the case, then tell me about TV ratings for college basketball before March. Nobody cares, because the games don't matter. Even the most bitter rivalries (i.e. UNC/Duke) don't mean much but bragging rights because they're both going to the dance.
So, what about a 4-team? Well, I think a 4-team playoff could work, and I think it will probably happen one day, but it's not the end-all, be-all. It still worries me. Let me say why I think that it might be needed first. Namely, just what I mentioned above - scheduling and strength of conference. The past couple years have taught us that records do not equate across conference lines. There are discrepencies in scheduling that have to be addressed that might not can be unless it's played out on the field. I also think that there are usually 2-4 teams that are worthy of national title consideration. Even in the years when there are only two undefeated teams, it's not always that simple. After the last two BCS games, the '02 top three of SEC champ 12-1 UGA, Big 10 champ 13-0 Ohio St., and Big East Champ 12-0 Miami doesn't look as clear cut as it did back then. Obviously, the last few years have been chaos when 3-4 teams have legimate claims to a shot at the title. I think college football has become so regional that a 4-team playoff could help alleviate that.
I do think they will make a grave mistake if they use neutral sites for semi-final games, giving almost no reward for going undefeated. Imagine telling the Patriots they had to play the Chargers in Kansas City for the AFC championship last fall. They'd laugh at you...and deservedly so. So, if they go forward with it, I hope they give home field advantage to the top 2 for the semis. Moreover, few college football fans would be able to afford traveling to Miami one weekend, only to have to go to New Orleans or Pasadena 2 weeks later, especially if they expect to be in the top 4 every year, which USC, Ohio St., and whoever is SEC champion looks to be in the foreseeable future. It might be fun one year, but fans would wait it out to see if they made the championship game. After a few years, semifinal games would be made for TV events played in front of a bunch of empty seats at neutral sites. Look in the stands in the NCAA basketball early rounds and regionals if you don't believe me.
But my greatest fear is still that sanctity of the college season. On Aug. 30, we're all going to watch Bama/Clemson. On Sept. 13, we're all going to watch USC/Ohio St. On Sept. 20, we're all going to watch Arizona St./UGA...because those games mean everything. In a 4-team playoff world, they don't mean much because you could lose a high profile out of conference game and still run the table in your own league and be fine. I'm not sure I want that. Without home-field advantage, those games would mean almost nothing at all, because being ranked #1 would be no different then being ranked #4. I want the best for college football. I'm just not sure that people who are clamoring for a playoff understand what could be lost in the process. And I love the craziest 13-weeks in sports, when anything can happen, and one-game can make all the difference.
Just my 2-cents on a sport I love. Maybe you disagree. I'd love to hear why.
Bon Jovi still rocks it
OK, so my wife, Emily, and I got to see Bon Jovi rock out last Thursday night. Pretty amazing concert. He still rocked it out at whatever age he is. He sang all the old stuff. Of course, he didn't sing "Love for Sale" which is one of my old favorites that never got released. Check it out if you get a chance. I can't remember if that was on the New Jersey or Slippery When Wet album. I just remember that one cassette was white and the other was clear. Wow, I just said cassette. And he surprisingly left out a lot of the ballads. I was amazed by his energy.
Probably one of the coolest things of the concert, though, was Chris Daughtry. His band, Daughtry, opened for Jovi, and they invited Chris back out to sing "Blaze of Glory." He came out dressed just like Jon Bon Jovi & with a wig on. It was hilarious and showed what a good natured guy he seems to be. He said something that stuck with me during his earlier performance: "Thanks for spending your hard earned money to come hear us tonight." I appreciated that because it was true.
Probably one of the coolest things of the concert, though, was Chris Daughtry. His band, Daughtry, opened for Jovi, and they invited Chris back out to sing "Blaze of Glory." He came out dressed just like Jon Bon Jovi & with a wig on. It was hilarious and showed what a good natured guy he seems to be. He said something that stuck with me during his earlier performance: "Thanks for spending your hard earned money to come hear us tonight." I appreciated that because it was true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)