Not too much changed this week; all projected conference champs are still in place. There was some maneuvering among the at large teams, as South Florida and Virginia Tech both dropped out of the tourney. Their spots were taken by Missouri and Georgia, who came out of nowhere with a win over Florida last week. For previous weeks, see Week Seven and Week Eight.
1) Ohio State (Big Ten) 16) Houston (Conference USA)
8) Kansas (Big 12) 9) Missouri (At large)
4) Arizona State (Pac-10) 13) BYU (Mountain West)
5) Oregon (At large) 12) Hawaii (WAC)
3) LSU (SEC) 14) Troy (Sun Belt)
6) Oklahoma (At large) 11) Connecticut (Big East)
7) West Virginia (At large) 10) Georgia (At large)
2) Boston College (ACC) 15) Central Michigan (MAC)
Missed the cut (BCS rank): Virginia Tech (11) Michigan (12) Texas (15) Auburn (16) Alabama (17)
Alex Rodriguez is not a bad guy. He's never beaten his wife or got caught doing drugs. He's never been arrested for drunk driving or threatened to run over kids with his car. He's never been a clubhouse cancer on the level of TO in Philly. He's never sucker punched a manager or body slammed a teammate over music.
In fact, he takes great pains in being a good guy. In fact, some people will tell you that he is too scripted, too polished. It might be better for him if he would ever do those things. As it is, the worst things he's done off the field are be seen around town with a manly looking woman who was not his wife and play poker in one of the illegal underground poker games that are all over New York. Oh, and he's been completely unable to hit in the post season.
I want to hate A-Rod and blame him for the catastrophe that has been the Rangers since 2000 when they shocked the baseball world with giving A-Rod what is still the largest contract in sports history. He forced his way out, hoping to gravy train to a ring in New York. It never worked out that well in New York as he never accepted as a "real Yankee" (whatever that means). I've said over and over the people I blame for the Ranger debacle are the Rangers' management, Tom Hicks, John Hart, and Buck Showalter.
Despite all this A-Rod isn't a bad guy. But events yesterday prove that he is either really sorry or he listens to terrible advice. First of all, not showing up for a presentation of the Hank Aaron award was sorry. But that could happen anytime. But to follow it up with the announcement that he was going to opt out during what was probably going to be the last game of the World Series is the epitome of sorriness. He had ten days to make that announcement. I'm no fan of the Red Sox and I don't at all feel sorry for the Yankees. In fact, I'm glad he opted out because it saves the Rangers money over the next few years (don't even get me started on that). But did it have to be announced last night? As I've said, I want to hate A-Rod but I can't do it. But he just comes across a total jerk way too often.
PS. Peter Gammons keeps saying that the Rangers are possible landing spot for the A-Rod. Now I thought there was a snowball's chance in hell of that happening in 2000 when they really did sign him. Now? There is no scenario I can see that actually happening. A-Rod has a better chance of signing with the Nippon Ham Fighters than of signing with the Rangers. ADDED on October 31 at 1:24pm. Maybe I'm ahead of the curve on this A-Rod to Japan thing: Celest (The desert): Nate nicely handicapped the A-Rod sweepstakes earlier today. Where do you see A-Rod ending up?
Jim Baker: I like the lonely-guy-by-the-fence thing I described earlier. How about Japan? Wouldn't that be a Criss Angel mindfreak?
Well, Rutgers sure shook things up, didn't they? With their upset of South Florida, Connecticut takes over as the current leader of the Big East. Yes, Connecticut. Maybe a football tourney has ramifications that I hadn't considered: put together a college tourney and UConn thinks you are talking to them. South Florida has hung on to remain in the tournament, although it is much lower than last week's number two seed. It was a good week for the Pac-10 as both Arizona and Oregon both made big leaps in the seeding. The SEC took a beating, though, as South Carolina and Kentucky each fell out of the tournament with disappointing losses to conference opponents. In other news, Houston took over the C-USA lead with East Carolina losing on the weekend.
1) Ohio State (Big Ten) 16) Houston (Conference USA)
8) Virginia Tech (At large) 9) Kansas (Big 12)
4) Arizona State (Pac-10) 13) BYU (Mountain West)
5) Oregon (At large) 12) Connecticut (Big East)
3) LSU (SEC) 14) Troy (Sun Belt)
6) Oklahoma (At large) 11) Hawaii (WAC)
7) West Virginia (At large) 10) South Florida (At large)
2) Boston College (ACC) 15) Central Michigan (MAC)
Missed the cut (BCS rank): Florida (11) USC (12) Missouri (13) Kentucky (14) Virginia (15)
The first BCS poll was released earlier this week and Ohio State and South Florida currently hold the all-important top two spots. And while there is still a lot more football to be played, the current system is too restrictive, even allowing for the plus-one game.
That is why I am in favor of a sixteen team tournament, while most playoff proponents prefer four or eight. What makes my suggestion different from most others I have seen is that mine does not take the top sixteen ranked teams. I propose taking the eleven conference champions and five at large teams, which would be the five highest ranked teams in the BCS poll who did not win their conference. I freely admit this is a completely unoriginal idea; it is basically a scaled down version of the basketball tourney. But I have seen virtually no one else propose such a plan for football.
I believe that this plan answers most of the major concerns with a playoff. The most common complaint is that a playoff would de-emphasize the regular season. If you take the top sixteen, that would be a fair concern. But in my plan, a conference championship guarantees a playoff spot, putting more emphasis on the regular season, not less. And this week, the lowest BCS ranked team to get an at large bid was Oregon at #10. Virginia Tech, Cal, USC and Florida all would miss the cut at this point. Try telling them that the regular season doesn't matter.
The other major complaint is that the season would be too long. Beginning this season, a team playing a twelve game season, a conference championship, and BCS bowl game and a plus-one national championship would play fifteen games. I suggest going back to an eleven game regular season plus conference championships for those conferences with twelve teams. Only eight teams would play beyond the standard regular season and bowl game, and I don't think they would be complaining. And it doesn't need to extend too far into January. There is already a huge gap in between the end of the season and the BCS bowl games. This season, conference championship games will be on Saturday, December 1. The first round of the tourney could be Dec. 8, the second on Dec. 15 and the semifinals on Dec 22. That would allow the National Championship to be played on Tuesday, January 1, because as everyone knows, New Years Day is all about college football. Compare that to this season, when the National Championship is scheduled for January 7.
Yet another complaint about a playoff is that it would make all other bowl games meaningless. The way I see it, they are already meaningless. Under the current BCS system, only one game matters. All the others, even the other BCS games, are little more than exhibition games. With a playoff, fifteen games matter: win or go home. And besides, there is no reason not to play the lesser bowl games. If they can survive under the current system, they can still be played along side a playoff, NIT-style.
One of the greatest benefits of this playoff system is that it finally gives the small conference champ a shot. Boise State knocking off Oklahoma last year was nice, but in a tournament they would have had the opportunity to really prove how good they were. And imagine what a deep playoff run would have done for recruiting.
As for where the games would be played, I am open to suggestions. Personally I would like to see the first round hosted by the higher ranked team. This would further emphasize the regular season: if you finish in the top eight, you get a first round home game. From there, the four second round games could be played at the current BCS affiliates, and the semis and final could be played as repeats at three of those, just as this year's plus-one will be played in New Orleans a week after the Sugar Bowl. Another possibility is to open it up to bidding again, just as they did when the BCS first began. This time, seven bowls could bid for the second round on.
On to the seedings. Please understand that nothing is for certain yet, and the 'conference champions' listed below are based on current standings only. In the case of a tie, I have gone to overall record, then point differential. After conference champs were determined, at large teams were selected according to the top five non-conference winners in the BCS rankings. After the sixteen teams are selected, they are re-seeded according to their BCS rank. I have made my best guess to seed the teams not ranked in the BCS (East Carolina, Central Michigan, BYU and Troy in this week's poll).
I have tracked this playoff system the past three or four years, and there is quite a bit of movement at this point in the season: this week's 'conference champ' could easily be next week's 'missed the cut' and vice versa. I'll publish the newest version each week after the BCS rankings are released, so check back to see how our real national championship could have been.
1) Ohio State (Big Ten) 16) East Carolina (Conference USA)
8) Arizona State (Pac 10) 9) West Virginia (At large)
4) LSU (SEC) 13) BYU (Mountain West)
5) Oklahoma (At large) 12) Hawaii (WAC)
3) Boston College (ACC) 14) Troy (Sun Belt)
6) South Carolina (At large) 11) Kansas (Big 12)
7) Kentucky (At large) 10) Oregon (At large)
2) South Florida (Big East) 15) Central Michigan (MAC)
Missed the cut (BCS rank): Virginia Tech (11) California (12) USC (14) Florida (15) Missouri (16)
So, when two undefeated teams meet and one demolishes the other, what exactly does that mean... especially to the person who considers them his two favorite teams? Here is what I got out of Cowboys-Patriots game on Sunday:
1. I don't care about the records of the teams they have played, the Patriots and the Colts are the best two teams in the league. (And once they play each other in a few weeks, we'll know who is the best - More in a minute). Of course this is only right now. If these two teams (Pats and Cowboys) were to meet in a game... I don't know.. sometime in late January, would the outcome be the same? Hard to say, but right now, there is not a team that is as solid as the Patriots.
2. The Cowboys, despite a couple shaky games, are still one of, if not the best team in the NFC. I'm not sure if that's the same as saying that someone has a really nice personality, but they are a good team if they are playing a team that is not so balanced in run/pass offense. And that is really the problem with them this year. The Bills ran effectly, and the passing game complemented that. The Patriots do both extremely well, and we saw that outcome. So, this Minnesota team (which can run like crazy, but doesn't pass well at all), should be an opportunity to rebound.
3. Patrick Crayton is a moron. Don't get me wrong, I think he is a very serviceable receiver, but when you just get whipped by 21 points (even if the last 7 were just rubbing it in), you cannot talk about how you are not impressed by the opposing defense. Yes, Crayton you did score a touchdown, and your 46 yards were very impressive, but when a team shuts down your top receivers (that would be Owens and Witten - just in case), you should really just be happy with your TD and shut your mouth.
4. Tony Romo had an off week against the Bills. Other than one really ill-advised throw which was picked by Seau, he responded pretty well, and even fought back to get the lead until New England steamrolled.
5. Where is the TO who would talk (and don't mistake it. Writing a note that ends with "Get your popcorn ready" is indeed talking) and then back it up? I'm still waiting for he and Romo to get on the same page and go crazy. And man... I miss having Terry Glenn on the other side. How would that have changed yesterday? SIDE NOTE: Can we stop referring to him as TO Owens? I've heard several people do this now, and it drives me up the wall. What do people think the O in TO if for?
6. I am dying for both the Colts and Patriots to be undefeated when they play each other November 4th. Undefeated teams playing each other is awesome. This was a great game until the fourth quarter implosion. This could easily happen with the major roadblock being the Jaguars to the Colts, and the trap game of Miami to the Pats.
So, what does this all mean to me? Well, I'm happy that the Patriots have proven themselves, and I'm happy that the Cowboys are experiencing these bumps now, rather than later this year. I still have high hopes of this team, and think they can make it far in the playoffs. I think they are still the best in the NFC, and would rather they lose this non-conference game than others in the future.
I was going to post about the Bill's but I couldn't get it right and gave up so I decided to just comment on Chris' post. Then it got so long that I decided to make it into a post. So here it is.
While I agree by and large with you that there really no reason to get down about the game. (It happens, trap game, road out of conference game, bad team playing about their heads for about 3 quarters, etc). There are a couple areas of concern.
1. Did Tony Romo simply have a bad game that every player has every once in a while or is this sign of things to come? Did the Bills "figure out" Romo and give everyone else in the NFL the key to solving him? 2. While the defense did play really well, I don't think you can say that no one played poorly. Terrell Owens dropped a number of passes, including the 2 point conversion. He's been a model citizens so far this year. But I hope that him throwing Romo under the bus about that thrown isn't a harbinger of things to come. Also, the running game never got going. While the offensive line has done a great job of keeping people off Romo in the passing game, the running game has not been gang busters. It is a tribute to the tenacity of the team for them to win that game that seemed to desperately want to give away, but there are plenty of things to be concerned about. I'm not just talking about the Patriots. Remember last year when the Colts came into Texas Stadium undefeated and left with their first loss as the Cowboys held them to 14 points. Even if they do lose, it's just their first loss and an out of division loss as well. It really won't be that big of a deal. However, there are areas that need work for this team to really be what we all think it can be. The NFC East looks strong, with Jason Campbell looking strong for the Redskins, the Giants having recovered from their awful start, and the Eagles are always dangerous. In the past several years, the Cowboys have started strong and then tailed off at the end. They need to be consistent this year to reach the Super Bowl. I still consider them the best team in the NFC, but there is still a long way to go.
Last week I warned the Cowboy fans not to get too carried away and identified my concerns about the team. This week I feel it is my responsibility to keep you from getting too down, so I'm going to point out all the things that went right Monday night in Buffalo.
The defense played great. Despite defending a short field due to Romo's turnovers, the defense only gave up 257 yards and three points--Buffalo's TDs came off of two INTs and a kickoff return. Their offense went nowhere. The defense looked pretty bad in week 1 giving up 35 to the Giants, but they have gotten better each week since. As is, this is a Super Bowl caliber defense.
Romo's last two drives. He absolutely stunk for the majority of the game, but in the end, when the win was there to be taken, he led two scoring drives to get the job done. That answered a lot of my lingering questions about Romo. Most QBs would have folded sometime around half time, and most coaches would have pulled the plug much earlier. Kudos to both Romo and Wade Phillips for not giving up on the game.
Only one player had a bad game. Romo has gotten a lot of attention for a year now, but this game was a pleasant reminder that there is more to the Cowboys than a hot QB. The running backs can play, particularly as a tandem, if they get the carries. The receiving corps can play and the O-line is solid. They've got a kicker. And have I mentioned the defense? Romo's game was awful, but it was not typical of him, and the rest of the team was able to make up the difference.
Team attitude. When Romo was down in the second quarter, offensive players, defensive players and coaches took the time to rally him. Yes, even T.O. Do you think that would have happened last year? This is a team that believes in each other. Don't underestimate that.
Can they afford games like this out of Romo every week? Certainly not: Buffalo might be the only team in the league that might happen against. The fact that they were able to pull off that win against anybody says something. Romo won't be that bad again, and this game showed us what the rest of the team can do.
Those few words have power: the power to send a city, and beyond, into a euphoric tizzy. The power to make millions of fans giddy with excitement. But also the power to make them a little irrational. OK, a lot.
I'm already hearing those other two words being tossed around a little too lightly: Super Bowl. Playoffs? Fine. I expect this team to make the playoffs. I've also heard people openly wonder if Tony Romo is on par with Manning and Brady. I know getting carried away with kneejerk reactions is fun but it's a little early for the Super Bowl talk. My mission, and I do choose to accept it, is to keep the Cowboys fan grounded, even if it is only by the little piggy that went 'wee, wee, wee all the way home.'
They haven't played anybody. Their opponents have a combined three wins. Three. Can we at least wait until after the New England game?
They haven't played a good defense. But what about Chicago? Quite simply, they aren't that good. They are ranked 15th in yards allowed and 21st in points allowed, and they are the best of the bunch the 'Boys have seen so far. The Cowboys offense has looked good, but how much had that had to do with their opponents?
The offense. Don't get me wrong: they have looked great. But they are using the pass to set up the run and they aren't going to be able to do that every week, and certainly not in the playoffs. When the pass is taken away from them, with they be able to consistently run the ball? Maybe, but it is not a given.
Special teams.The special teams unit is losing the field position battles, particularly on punt coverage. So far, the offense and defense has been able to handle it, but again, against a good team, they are putting themselves in a hole.
Injuries. They are starting to get some players back who were injured in the pre-season, but how much longer are they going to be able to plug guys in? The Cowboys were one of the healthiest teams in the league last year, but I fear that streak is due to end.
The schedule is favorable, and the team should finish with a great record. I predicted 13-3 when the schedule was announced last spring and I still expect that to happen. But let's hold off on the Super Bowl talk for a few more weeks. In fact, here is a rallying cry for Cowboys' fans: 'Remember the Mavericks!'
As is all the often the case with my baseball teams, this season ended with a whimper and no playoffs. Actually I probably shouldn't complain. At least I don't root for the long suffering Mets (who have won 2 World Series) or the poor Phillies (who also have two World Series appearances with one win in their fairly recent history). I'm sorry. As a Rangers fan, I just don't feel sorry for these fake heart broken franchises, especially considering both are in the playoffs this year. (Edit: When I was writing this, I had to go back and change the reference from the Cubs to the Mets and I left this sentence in. The Cubs have been bad for a while, although there were in the NLCS a couple of years ago. I wouldn't blame Bartman, I would blame the pitching for losing that.)
Just about the only baseball joy that I have felt over the years have come from the team down I-45, the Houston Astros. For the past ten years they have been one the most consistently good teams in baseball, reaching the post season six times and advancing to the World Series in 2005. I'll always blame the loss on Brad Lidge. If he could have closed out Game 5, Roy Oswalt would have pitched game 1, Clemens game 2, and Pettite game 3. I don't know. Probably doesn't matter. The Stros couldn't buy a clutch hit.
Anyway. Those great Astro teams were led by Jeff Bagwell and Craig Biggio. While Bagwell was felled by bad shoulder and had to leave before he was really ready, Biggio went out the way it should be for a legend, with a home stand that sold out every game even though there was absolutely no playoff implications. Fortunately for me, it was against the Braves and I got to watch parts of each game. In heartfelt appreciation, the Houston fans gave standing ovation after standing ovation. Biggio gave them a good show as well, with 4 hits and 2 doubles, even getting behind the plate for the first time since 1991. His final game was fitting: a double and a run scored in the first inning and ground out to third in which he hustled down the line. He truly is a consummate professional and baseball is less because he has hung up the cleats.
Very few Hall of Fame caliber players get to go out on top carrying a championship trophy like John Elway. Some go out like Troy Aikman, sitting on the sideline sniffing smelling salts after a final concussion. Others try to hold on a little too long, like Emmitt Smith padding his stats for the Arizona Cardinals. Biggio received the honor due a Hall of Famer. He's in the 110 percent hall of fame and should be 5 years away from Cooperstown. I may have to make that trip.
Last spring (Northern Hemisphere for 'autumn'), I pitted Baseball against Cricket to decide once and for all which is the greatest ball and stick game. The coming of the Northern fall brings with it football, rugby and the definitive battle for supremacy among these contact sports.
But first, the ground rules. For the purposes of this comparison, I will be using the NFL, the pinnacle of American football, and Rugby Union, the more popular, and in my opinion, superior form of that game. Ten categories will be considered, worth ten points each, plus a five point bonus category. Let the best game win.
Best Team Football (7) - Cameragate notwithstanding, the New England Patriots have been the team to beat for the past six years. However, due to free agency and the salary cap, the Pats pale in comparison to the great teams of the past. Rugby (9) - According to the IRB World Rankings, New Zealand is the current world's best, and it isn't for a lack of opposition. They dominate on the world scene, despite the best efforts of Australia, South Africa, England and France.
Best Historical Team Football (9) - This is always good for a debate, but I'll go with the Cowboys. They are tied for the most Super Bowl wins, and I'd put the Boys of the early 90's up against anyone. Rugby (9)- This one is a little tougher, but I'll go with the All Blacks again. Their 1925 squad was referred to as 'The Invincibles', and that's good enough for me.
Best Rivalry Football (7)- The best rivalries are in college, but the Cowboys/Redskins rivalry isn't bad, followed closely by Chicago/Green Bay, Denver/Oakland, Denver/Kansas City, and Dallas/Philly. Rugby (9)- There are some good options here, but I've got to go with New Zealand/Australia. Seems to usually come down to these two teams and they are currently the top two teams in the world.
Outcomes Football (9)- Ties are possible but highly unlikely. Overtime rules cost it a point though--I don't like the fact that the losing team might never touch the ball. Rugby (6)- Again, ties are possible but unlikely in league competition, although they do happen more than in the NFL. In tournaments such as the World Cup, overtime rules include two ten minute periods. Better than a tie, but sudden death would be better.
Big Play Potential Football (10)- This is football's moment to shine. You never know when the QB is going to throw a deep pass, a RB is going to break through for a huge gain or even when a safely is going to drop a WR cutting across the middle. Good times. Rugby (8)- You get some big plays, but no forward pass removes lots of opportunity.
Specialization Football (3)- And this is football's weak point. You've got offensive and defensive units, linemen, skill position players, etc. All it takes is the ability to do one thing well. Rugby (8)- Some specialization, but for the most part, every player on the pitch needs to excel as an all-round player.
Sportsmanship Football (5)- Rules have to be written to enforce sportsmanlike behavior. Shameful. Rugby (9)- Tana Umaga, former All Blacks captain, once abandoned a favorable play to check on the Welsh captain who had been knocked unconscious. Pure class. It's a rough game, but the players respect their opponent.
Best Trophy Football (5)- Not really a fan of the Lombardi Trophy. Kinda boring. Rugby (6)- The Webb Ellis Cup. What is there to say? It's a nice enough cup.
Popularity Football (6)- A good deal of the world watches the Super Bowl, but no one else seriously plays football. The American Football World Cup could only attract ten participants, and until this year, when the US first entered the World Cup, Japan had been a two-time champion. Japan! Rugby (7)- It's not yet soccer's equal on the world scene, but rugby enjoys fairly widespread popularity, although it has been dominated by a handful of countries for most of its history.
Toughness Football (9)- I get questions about this all the time from rugby fans, but I still give footballers credit despite the pads. As we learned two weeks ago from Kevin Everett, injuries still happen, even with a helmet and big shoulder pads. Football's hits and collisions are too big to try this game without protection. Rugby (10)- Some players wear padded headgear, but otherwise players play without protection. And the hits are almost on par with the NFL. High speed collisions aren't as common and tackling rules help, but this is still a violent sport.
Bonus: Best Tradition Football (3) - I'll go with the Lambeau Leap. Nice to get the fans involved. Rugby (5) - New Zealand's haka is both a cultural celebration and fierce intimidation. That's Tana Umaga leading the haka in the video below.
Add it all up and rugby takes down American football and it isn't even close: 86-73. Football is a great game, but give rugby a try during the World Cup, shown on Versus.
1. I talked about this in my response to Chris' previous post, but I'm concerned about Texas. Having not gone to a major college football school (I went to Hardin- Simmons in Abilene, which had a really good Division III football team) I picked Texas a few years ago as my preferred team. (Mainly because of Chris Simms and cemented by Vince Young) I think that they are clearly the second best team in the Big 12. Texas A&M was a half away from surpassing them in my mind, but they fell asleep on Fresno St. and would have lost the game if the WR from Fresno St had just gone out of bounds instead of trying to stretch over the goal line. I watched that whole debacle at the end of the A&M game and it was unconscionable missing that call. 2. There is no way Notre Dame should be as bad as they are. My sports interests has as much to do with hate as it does love. You can read my favorites in my profile, but here are my hates: Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Eagles, Redskins, Lakers, Fighting Irish, and anyone else who really good (so, the Patriots and Suns also make the list.) So I'm actually pleased that the Irish are terrible. But I think there may be some poetic justice for Tyrone Willingham. You didn't have alot of success at ND, but he teams were always competitive. I laugh at Charlie Weiss. 3. LSU is the best team I've seen in the NCAA so. They blew an over-rated Virginia Tech away. I'm picking at LSU-USC championship game. I noticed Ryan Perrilloux getting some mop up time for LSU. He de-committed from Texas after Vince Young's sophomore season because he didn't want to sit behind VY for two years. Now he's sitting behind the immortal Matt Flynn. Nice call, Ryan. On my response to Chris, LSU v. USC in the National Championship 4. There is no more exciting player in the NFL than Vince Young. Not Reggie Bush, not any running back, wide receiver, defensive player, not anyone. Because there is a chance on every single Titans offensive play that he is going to do something that will make your jaw drop. But Sunday's game was tough to watch because he was off and most of his throws were not that great. Every game he has a couple of those throws, the ball bounces in or he throws it so far behind the receiver that he gets killed or whatever. He didn't win Sunday's game, but there are going to be several games that VY wins almost by himself. He is freakin' amazing. 5. I think the Cowboys need to sit Terrance Newman and hope that after the next two and hope he can go later in the season. The real meat of their schedule starts Oct. 14 against New England. The next couple of weeks against teams that struggle throwing the ball he should sit. They need him to be better later. Without Newman, the very best they can hope for 9-7. With Newman, they can play in the Super Bowl. 6. I was sure about several things in the Cowboys game. a. That Tony Romo was going to throw an key interception at the worst possible time. b. That the Cowboys would start running the ball midway thru the forth quarter. c. I was also sure that the Boys give that game away. Only one of those things happened. I thought the aggressive play calling by Jason Garrett was awesome. Maybe it was just because he knew as everyone else watching that game that there was no way the Cowboy D was going to stop the Giants. That was an ugly defensive performance. That has to improve. The next couple of weeks should be time to work on those problems before they really start work in the schedule. 7. As tough as it was to watch the Dallas defense for this Cowboy fan, imagine being a Giant fan. Eli Manning plays his best game, and then gets hurt and you don't win? That's gotta suck. At least the Cowboys won.
I made my NFL predictions a few days ago and I'm overdue for my NCAA picks. You can take my word: I didn't have Michigan winning the Big Ten. On to the picks.
ACC: Virginia Tech. I really didn't want to pick them because I don't think they are as good as the hype or their current ranking. But I dare you to find anyone else in the ACC worth picking.
Big 12: Oklahoma. I've got serious questions about Texas's running game and secondary. Maybe next year.
Big East: I'd like to pick Louisville, but it's got to be West Virginia.
Big Ten: Penn State fills the void with Michigan and Ohio State both down.
SEC: I think the SEC is usually overrated, but this conference is good this year. Maybe too good—LSU could easily have a loss or two before bowl season.
PAC 10: USC. I thought we weren't supposed to have dominance like this anymore.
Conference USA: Southern Miss. I won't lie: I flipped a coin and this is what I got.
Mid-American: Kent State. Ditto.
Mountain West: Watch out for TCU. They can quickly replace Hawaii and Appalachian State as the early season media darlings with an upset of the Longhorns in Austin.
Sun Belt: Arkansas State. Any team that can put a scare into Texas can win the Sun Belt, right?
WAC: Don't believe the Hawaii hype: they are not this year's Boise State. That title belongs to...Boise State.
National Champs: LSU over USC. I know this kind of contradicts what I said earlier about LSU and the SEC, but if LSU can get to the title game, they can win it. Think of last year's battle tested Florida team beating previously unchallenged Ohio State.
Heisman: He's not the best QB (that would be Louisville's Brian Brohm), but he will be the QB on the top ranked team in the country. That's enough for Heisman voters to give the award to John David Booty.
I've waited until the last minute to make my picks for the season, but time's up, so here it is:
NFC East: Dallas Cowboys North: Chicago Bears South: New Orleans Saints West: Seattle Seahawks Wild card: Philadelphia Eagles, New York Giants
Yes, with the exception of Dallas taking the NFC East over Philly, this is exactly how the NFC turned out last year. But have you looked at the NFC? Eleven of the sixteen teams finished .500 or less last year; twelve had a negative point differential. I considered San Francisco replacing New York as a wild card, but I just don't see it. My NFC picks may not be original, but they will be correct.
AFC East: New England Patriots North: Cincinnati Bengals South: Indianapolis Colts West: San Diego Chargers Wild card: Denver Broncos, Jacksonville Jaguars
The AFC division champs are all repeats other than Cincy, and I expect they should stay focused enough to leapfrog Baltimore. I did manage to find two new teams in the wild card, though. Denver and Jax will both thrive with their young quarterbacks and solid defenses.
Super Bowl San Diego Chargers over Dallas Cowboys
New England is the trendy pick in the AFC, but I see Norv Turner working some of the old Cowboy Triplets magic with the Chargers own triplets. Plus, they still have a great defense. Some might say Dallas is a homer pick, but I think they have the most balanced team in the NFC. Besides, this matchup has good storylines, with Turner's history in Dallas and Phillip's time in San Diego. It will be a good game, but in the end, LaDainian Tomlinson will not be denied.
The other day I saw that the MLB store has a sale going that you can get an authentic personalized jersey for $99. I forwarded it to my wife as a possible Christmas or birthday gift. She asked me if it should have my name on it or a player's name on it? This caused a bit of consternation in my mind. In the past, I thought that a personalized jersey with your own name on it was stupid. I mean there's no one named "Massey" on the Rangers. According the baseball-reference.com, there have three Masseys in the big leagues in history: Bill Massey played 13 games for the Cincinnati Red in 1894 (apparently the 5-11 168 lb Massey was big enough to be nicknamed "Big Bill"), Mike Massey played 31 games for the 1917 Boston Braves, and Roy "Red" Massey topped them all by playing 66 games the following year for those same Braves. In football, the only Massey I know of was a 90's Defensive back named Robert Massey. He even made the Pro-Bowl one year. Anyway, having a Ranger's jersey with Massey on it seems the ultimate of loser-dom. However, if I get a player's name on it, what if they are traded or starts to really stink or starts fighting dogs or something like that? I mean, what if in Dec 2000 in those heady days after the Rangers stunned the world and signed A-Rod to the most ridiculous contract in history and it looked like he could be playing in Arlington for 10 years, I had run out and bought an A-Rod #3 jersey? I would be even more angry than I am now that they traded him. Perhaps a Michael Young #10 jersey would be a good idea. He signed a big contract in the off season and signed through 2013. Now we can debate the wisdom of that contract, but logic would say that he is here for the long haul right? Maybe he'll become to the Rangers what Craig Biggio is to the Astros, not quite to Hall of Fame level, but fan favorite level. But maybe not. Maybe he declines starting next year and by 2013 he's been released or traded for a spare starting pitcher with the Rangers picking up a lot of that contract. Either one could happen. If I get a jersey with my name on it, I know I'll never get traded. I mean, honestly, if I've stayed with the Rangers this long, bad baseball isn't going to cause me to leave my fandom at the door. So what should I do? Jersey with my own name on it, a player's name, or is there a 3rd way? I need to know what you guys think.
When Appalachian State beat Michigan this past weekend, people started immediately saying that it was the greatest upset of all time. Michigan came into the game ranked number five in the preseason polls and the Mountaineers are in the Football Championship Subdivision (or The Football Division Formerly Known as Div I-AA, iconic symbol pending), although they are two-time defending Football Championship Subdivision Championship Game Champions (no, that is not an error). When Corey Lynch blocked Michigan's field goal attempt to seal the game, history was made: for the first time ever, a Div I-AA team (I'm not going through that again) defeated a Top 25 opponent. But was it truly the greatest upset of all time?
Ever notice that we've had a lot of 'greatest of all time' moments lately? The Heat's Finals comeback over the Mavs was called the greatest ever. The 2004 Red Sox ALCS win over the Yankees after falling behind 0-3 was too. The 2006 NCAA basketball tournament was called the greatest of all time, at least until the later rounds when everyone found out that huge upsets early in the tourney means good, not great, teams in the Final Four. The 2005 USC Trojans were hailed as the greatest team of all time, then lost the Rose Bowl and the National Championship to Vince Young and the Texas Longhorns. Then that game was called the greatest of all time and Vince's performance was called the greatest individual performance of all time.
OK, I won't argue with that last one.
We've even turned it into an ironic acronym: G.O.A.T. Used to be, if someone said, "Who's the goat?" the answer was Bill Buckner. Now it's Alex Rodriguez. Come to think of it, Barry Bonds could arguably be the answer to both questions.
Why do we feel the need to attempt to validate today's sporting events, teams and athletes by naming them the greatest of all time? Is it not good enough to put on a great performance? Why do we need our teams to defeat not only their opponent, but also history? Is it because we live in a world of mass media, the internet and SportsCenter highlights? Is it our arrogance to believe that we live in the greatest era of mankind? Or is it simply a desire to feel as though we are witnessing history at every turn? Whatever the case, we have become a society of statistical outliers, the tapered ends of the bell curve, where the greats of today (and the worst--it works that way as well) will be quickly replaced by tomorrows G.O.A.T.s (or goats, as the case may be).
App State's win over Michigan was not the greatest upset of all time, but it was a great game, and that's good enough for me.
Well, the Summer of Nothing (except the Michael Vick and the NBA gambling scandals) is mercifully almost over. It's been difficult to find anything worth writing about, which is why we haven't been writing. But football season is here, and with it comes more posts and a new 110 Percent contest: NFL Pick 'em.
Current standings will be kept up to date here, but we need players before we worry about that. So if we have any readers left after the Summer of Nothing, head on over, sign up and get you Week 1 picks in this week.
When we did this for the NCAA Basketball tourney, we were totally embarrassed by a reader, and before he can comment on it here, I'll go ahead and say it was my dad. Everyone knows the tourney is a crap shoot anyway. Picking football games is a different story. Let's just say we are each looking for redemption/revenge.
It's been over a month since I posted anything and I think I'm gonna do a Peter King style scattershooting about baseball.
5 Things I Think about baseball. 1. I think the Rangers made three excellent trades at the deadline. I'm sure that doesn't surprise anyone who reads this blog with any regularity (all three of you). Jon Daniels turned a 40 year old outfielder (Kenny Lofton) into a catcher better known as a hitter(Max Ramirez). Eric Gagne netted two solid players and another minor leaguer with big upside in 17 year old Engel Beltre. In the biggest trade, Mark Teixeira and Ron Mahay brought 5 players, each of whom have upside led by catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia. In this trade as well, the Rangers ended up a couple of players several years away. So, including this years draft, the Rangers have added a great deal of young talent. Talents that may not arrive for a couple years, but this sets the Rangers up long term. Before this year, they had a middle of the road farm system with little big time, superstar talent. But now Elvis Andrus is compared to Jose Reyes and Beltre to Barry Bonds (seriously, I've seen this written.) Are all these guys gonna make it for the Rangers? No, injuries and trades and just flat out stinking can happen anytime, but the more good players you have, the more likely you are to have some work out.
2. I think, no, I know Mark Teixeira was not going to resign with Texas, no way, no how and it's not totally his fault (or his agent's). I watched his first game with the Braves and I had rarely seen that kind of happiness when he was with the Rangers. Then he kinda goes scorched earth throwing the Ranger organization under the bus. Ok, Mark, we get it. Your happy to be out of Texas. As a fan, it's frustrating for the one who was your best player so anxious to get out of town. Unfortunately, Texas has been mismanaged for the last 8 years or so and the blame should be laid at owner, Tom Hicks. I've said this before. Only a philosophy change can bring about winning at the Ballpark. Hopefully JD can have the leeway he needs to do it. I think he can. The moves he made over this season in the trades and the draft have set up this team for strong future. I hope he has the chance to see it through.
3. I think 30-3 is what makes baseball so darn interesting. You realize that the same team that scored 30 runs last week, got no hit earlier in the year and the two previous games had struck out 30 times and scored 2 runs. In the five games since that game, the Rangers have scored 25 runs. The craziest stat to me is that in a game where the winning team scored 30 runs, Wes Littleton came in in the 7th inning ahead 14-3 and got the SAVE. In football, you can take a knee. In basketball, you can dribble out the clock. But in baseball, you gotta get the 27th out and until you do, the game isn't over. I'll tell you this though. As fan, and I'm sure as a player, you'd rather be on this side of history instead of the other.
4. I think I'm ready for Barry Bonds to crawl under a rock and go away. I was on vacation in Florida when he broke Hank Aaron's record. I watched it on the hotel television. It was pretty cool to see it live, but I didn't feel a whole lot of emotion. Basically I'm just glad it's over. I missed the McGwire/ Sosa chase in 1998 because I was living in Kazakhstan and I wasn't really that sad. I sorta feel the same way now. Meh.
5. I think the Astros are gonna be bad for a while. They aren't great this year and their farm system makes the Ranger system look awesome and overloaded with talent. They fired their manager and GM yesterday, but I don't think it's really gonna help. It won't be long before the Astros are Roy Oswalt, Lance Berkman, Carlos Lee, and a bunch of spares. They've had a great run with a World Series appearance, but they are in store for a bit of a dry spell.
Shortly after Mark Teixeira was traded to the Atlanta Braves, Tom Hicks let it leak that Teixeira had turned down an eight year, $140 million contract to remain a Ranger. Now Teixeira is under fire in Dallas, specifically from Gil LeBreton of the Fort Worth Star Telegram, for being less than honest when he said Texas ran its business like a small market club.
Why? How does the Rangers offer prove that they are not small market in the way the organization is run? Teixeira thinks he can get more elsewhere. Whether he eventually does is beside the point. In his mind, Hicks low-balled him.
But I don’t think that his specific contract is all he meant with the small market comment. I think he was really talking about expectations and excuses, as in the low expectations for success and the excuses make for it. Dallas is one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country, and yet the Rangers have a very modest payroll. Yeah, they bid for Matsuzaka, but they made a low offer that they knew didn’t have a chance. They have done the same with free agents. When you offer $100 for the Ferrari on the showroom floor, you aren’t really trying.
The day that Rangers fans have been waiting for all season finally arrived. No, not the day they reached .500—we know better than to expect that. No, of course, I am talking about the trade deadline, and the big sayonara to Mark Teixeira. (I keep trying to come up with a clever way to mix ‘toxic’ into his name but haven’t figured out how to do it yet. Guess that is some Braves blogger’s problem now.)
So did the Rangers get a good deal? It appears so, but prospect-laden trades are always difficult to call, particularly if some of the players involved are in Single A. It’ll be years before some of these guys hit the majors, if ever. That makes for nice obscure trivia questions, but doesn’t do much for fans today.
Given Daniels’s record in big time trades, there was cause to worry. While he has done well in picking up rehab cases (see Sosa and Gagne), he has been on the short end of just about every trade he has made. But when he managed to swap Tex for the top three prospects in the Braves system plus a couple others, it doesn’t look too shabby. Hey, the Braves can stock talent—getting their top three prospects is saying something.
And flipping Gagne was a bonus. It appears the returning players aren’t of the same caliber as those acquired in the Tex deal, but getting anything for Gagne is a good deal. He didn’t have a meaningful future in Texas, so getting a few Boston flyers who might have a future here holds potential. The same is true for the Lofton trade. I am disappointed the Sosa is still in town, but I suppose he is the kind of player who could clear waivers and still be involved in a deal further down the road.
Jonboy, I know we’ve had our differences, but it seems you done good with this one—just don’t let it go to your head.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post on Mark Teixiera being a big whiner because he was unhappy with Ron Washington after being one of the main players complaining about Buck Showalter. Well, just after getting off the disabled list, Teixiera is at it again. He basically said that he wants to play for a winner, with five years of non-contending is weighing on him.
Of course, this brought out the old school baseball writers complaining about Teixeira's complaints. Jean Jacques Taylor called him a chronic complainer. Gil Lebreton said it was contemptible.
Let me give a few disclaimers. Teixeira is not ever gonna be my favorite player. He comes across as a guy who is getting ready for his next big payday when he gets to decide where he goes. His being a toady to Scott Boras bully doesn't make things any easier. He just doesn't seem like one of those guys who will tell Boras what to do rather than the other way around. He's a mercenary. If he signs with the Orioles after next year, we'll all know that his "I want to play for a winner" is a bunch of garbage.
However, Mark is not the problem. I honestly don't think I can blame him that much for his complaints. Why because I agree with him. The Rangers have acted like a small market team for too many years. The real problem with this team is Tom Hicks. In 2001, he decided to play with the big boys and signed A-Rod. Seduced into wanting the "win now" he signed and traded for a bunch of spares that turned "win now" into "win never"- Andres Gallaraga, Ken Caminiti, Todd Van Poppel, Randy Velarde, etc. Then he put a ridiculous amount of money on who was possibily the worst free agent ever, Chan Ho Park. After these stupid signings that made Hicks synonmous with idiot owners like Peter Angelos and brought the Rangers three straight last place finishes, he decided that he's had enough, trades A-Rod and gives the Yankees $9 million a year for him to hit homeruns at Yankee stadium. The problem with this team is Tom Hicks. I want to root for winner. I am trying to believe that the future is bright, but trading Mark Tiexiera is a step backwards. At the same time, if he's leaving and I think he is, you gotta get the best deal you can. Good luck, Mark in Atlanta or New York or Boston or where ever you end up.
The MLB All-Star Game has taken a beating the past few years, beginning with the infamous Tie Game. Bud Selig's solution to that problem was to give 'meaning' to the game by putting home field advantage for the World Series up for grabs.
First of all, Bud made a bad call the night of the Tie Game—it should have been played until there was a winner. Not enough pitchers? Tough rocks, you shouldn't have burned them up an inning at a time during the first nine. Besides, if your last pitcher is a little gassed, he'll likely give up the game winner soon enough. I think the game would have ended legitimately soon enough anyway. In the aftermath, Bud could have implemented an All-Star rule allowing for pitchers to be reinserted in the case of extra innings.
Instead, he put home field for the World Series on the line, which was Mistake Number Two. This is absolute nonsense. One event has nothing to do with the other, and does anyone really think that this artificial 'relevance' make a bit of difference in how players play? I doubt Michael Young was thinking about giving HFA to Detroit, Boston or New York when he hit the game winning RBI last year, and I know he wasn't thinking about earning HFA for the Rangers.
If this doesn't work, then how do we bring meaning to the ASG? Allow me refer you to Australia's National Rugby League, and their version of the All-Star Game, State of Origin. This three game series, spread out over the NRL season, pits a team from New South Wales against a Queensland team. Trust me, the players care when they are representing their home state.
Can we take this idea to MLB? Unfortunately, I don't think so. State or Origin works because it is state v state, and that doesn't work with fifty states, plus all the international players. North v South? East v West? No one really identifies with those labels. How about US v World? I wasn't a big fan of this when the NHL did it—seemed a little xenophobic to me. So the matchup that leaves us with is NL v AL. This used to be a matchup that did bring out the competitive nature of the players, but free agency and interleague play have killed that.
Many have suggested paying the winning team, but I don't think this will work. The players, particularly these All-Stars, make enough money. I just don't think that does it here. I'm not opposed to cutting a check to the winner of the Home Run Derby, but I don't think that will improve the competitiveness of the ASG.
If home field advantage failed and if I'm right about money failing, how do we make it competitive? I suggest we go the other way with it and not worry about it being competitive. Just make it fun. More backward helmet switch hitting on the fly, a la Larry Walker 1997. More on the field antics. Mike the players and let them talk. Who wouldn't want to listen to a catcher call a game or the dialogue between a pitcher and hitter with two outs and runners on late in the game?
In addition I love Kevin of All on the Field's idea of making it a three game series. Baseball is a series game, so why not the ASG? This would also fix the way manager's handle pitching staffs. If rugby league can play three games in the midst of their regular season, surely MLB can pull off three games during the All-Star break. When I become baseball's next commissioner, Kevin, you can be my assistant.
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. By this definition the Dallas Mavericks are insane.
When we last saw the little Mavericks, the completing a waste of a 67 win season being run out of the gym by the Golden State Warriors. The Warriors got to every loose ball and rebound, ran the Mavs ragged with their dribble penetration, and hit every single shoot they threw up there, while the Mavs looked old and slow. But the Warriors juggernaut lasted one round and they were booted out by the Utah Jazz. So the Mavs lost to the team that lost to the team that won the Championship. A complete and total waste of a season.
Unfortunately, it looks like we are going to get the exact same team next year. First, in the draft, the Mavs who admittedly had little to work with in only #34, #50, and #60 picks in the draft, picked another slow white guy. They have been trying to get this exact player for decades! Change regimes and leadership and they pick slow white guys. Nick Fazekas carries on the long and glorious tradition of Uwe Blab, Bill Winnington, Cherokee Parks, Loren Meyer, Shawn Bradley, and Keith Van Horn. Every thing I've read about him is that he is slow. Chad Ford of ESPN said he's Dirk without the ATHLETICISM. Oh, he'll fit right in on the matador defense of this team.
After flirting with possibly trading for Kevin Garnett (a pipe dream that I'll get to in a minute), do they make big splash in the free agent market? No, they resign Jerry Stackhouse and Devean George. I don't mind the Stackhouse move so much as he seems to bring something that they lack, but to just bring back the exact same team from last year is not a good start.
Finally, I'm really tired of the Mavs getting caught in pipe dreams while seeming to leave realistic thoughts aside. This year it's Kevin Garnett. But are they gonna trade Devin Harris and Josh Howard for him? No and they probably shouldn't. Are the T-wolves gonna take Jason Terry, et al. for him? No and they shouldn't. It's foolish to focus on that expecting Kevin McCale to go back to being an idiot. If it happens fine, but don't leave other possibilities on the table. A couple of years ago they put all the eggs in the Rashard Lewis basket even though they couldn't more than the mid level exception while the Sonics could give him a great deal more money. Predictably, he took the Sonics offer.
If this is the team the Mavs go to war with next year, you're hoping for improvements from Harris, DaSagana Diop, and Maurice Ager. At this point, I think the team is behind San Antonio, Phoenix and maybe Utah. And with Seattle getting Durant and Portland getting Oden, the window is closing for this team. And the sad part about it is that it won't matter what they do during the regular season. The Mavs season doesn't start until April. Hopefully, they'll be ready.
PJ and Rus have already presented their nominees. Here are mine to complete the list.
Historical player: Roger Staubach (quarterback, Dallas Cowboys 1969-1979) In a word? Winner. Roger was the Cowboys starter for nine seasons, played in six NFC Championships, won four, and won two Super Bowls. Awards include a Heisman, six Pro Bowls and a Super Bowl MVP. The NFL achievements all followed four years of active service in the Navy, including time in Vietnam. He retired with a 83.4 passing rating, highest career average at the time. That day also marked the saddest day of my childhood.
Roger, along with Don Meredith and Troy Aikman, spoiled Cowboys fans, who have only recently learned how difficult it can be to find a franchise quarterback. Over the combined thirty years this trio played the game, the Cowboys fielded a Pro Bowl caliber QB, while other teams are still searching for their first.
And, boy, could he run.
Current player: Vince Young (quarterback, University of Texas 2002-2005, Tennessee Titans 2006-present) Going in to the 2006 Rose Bowl, all the talk was USC. Leinart was considered the best QB in the country, Reggie Bush has just been awarded the Heisman and USC was assumed to be the greatest team of all time. Then Vince took the field.
Football is a team game. More than any other sport, it requires each player to do their job for the team to succeed. But that night, Vince put on the greatest individual performance college football has ever seen, and beat the 'greatest team of all time'.
Then for some reason, everyone doubted him going into the NFL Draft. You'd think they would have learned. The Titans clearly did, drafting him and naming him a starter during his rookie season. The Titans started 0-5 (Kerry Collins started the first three games), but went 8-3 to end the season, missing the playoffs in a last week loss to New England. Eleven playoff bound defensive coordinators breathed a sigh of relief. Vince was not only named Rookie of the Year, but was also named to the Pro Bowl, no small feat in the AFC.
Don't expect anyone to doubt him a third time.
Favorite player: George Teague (safety, Green Bay Packers 1993-1995, Dallas Cowboys 1996, 1998-2001, Miami Dolphins 1997) By most standards, Teague had a perfectly average career in the NFL. But there was nothing average about his heart.
The day was September 4, 2000, and the once proud Cowboys were being embarrassed by the San Francisco 49ers. Terrell Owens scored a touchdown, ran to midfield and danced on the star. Emmitt Smith did the same later, staring down the 49er sideline, but the rest of the team was defeated. When Owens ran to the star to repeat the stunt on his second touchdown, Teague raced after him, leveling him at midfield. The hit earned him an ejection. As a Cowboy fan, I have never been prouder. Seven years later, I hope T.O. still feels that hit.
Putting it simply, Teague did the one thing that fans demand from athletes, but too often don't see: he cared.
I didn't set out to go all football. But PJ covered hockey, Rus took care of baseball (and saved me a Nolan Ryan nomination), so three football nominees it is.
But where's the basketball love? So I bent the rules a little, and am inducting a fourth player, without the express written consent of my co-110 Percenters. This brings our inaugural class to an even ten. Which is fitting, because 'ten' describes his game perfectly.
Tim Duncan (Forward-Center, San Antonio 1997-present) In a league infamous, fairly or not, for thuggery, Duncan is as clean as they come. I'll go ahead and guarantee that you will never see his name in a police blotter, and in today's world, that's saying something. But don't think for a second that the soft spoken Duncan is soft on the court.
I hate the San Antonio Spurs. But I certainly respect them, and that starts at the top, with Pop and Duncan. Duncan is the Spurs. Every adjective used to describe him also describes the Spurs. Some say boring, but I prefer fundamental, efficient, selfless, tough, flexible, relentless, you name it. Just don't forget winner: Duncan and the Spurs have four titles, and counting.
I guess it's time since I have computer access to put my nominations for the 110 Percent Hall of Fame. Since PJ did all hockey, I feel honor bound to do all baseball. The funny thing about a personal hall of fame is that everyone pretty much has to be a personal favorite. A historical baseball hall of fame that brought no notion of personal bias would have to be Babe Ruth or Ted Williams or someone like that. But because it's my hall of fame, these are all guys who I love to follow.
1. Historical- Nolan Ryan- Pitcher, 1966-1993 New York Mets, California Angels, Houston Astros, Texas Rangers. Important Stats: 7 no hitters, 12 1 hitters, 5714 Strikeouts, 324 wins.
He played for the Astros and Rangers in my formative years. I remember listening to no hitter #7 on radio. I also listened to him beat up Robin Ventura as well. Above all those things, he gave legitimacy to a Ranger franchise that had struggled for years and was the first to go into the Hall of Fame with a Ranger hat on. A true Texas legend.
2. Current- Craig Biggio- Catcher, 2nd Base, Center field, 1988-present Houston Astros. Along with Jeff Bagwell proved to be the heart and soul of a highly successful franchise in the late 90 and the aughts, finally winning the first play off series in Astros history and then the first World Series games in the state of Texas in 2005. But he was more than just a cog in the machine, he was the best 2nd baseman in the game for a number of years, capturing 4 Gold Gloves. He'll get to 3000 hits in the next week or so, he is 6th all time in doubles, 1st active in hits, 2nd active in runs scores, and he's a likely Hall of Famer according to baseball-reference.
3. Personal Favorite- Rick Helling- Pitcher, 1994-2006- Texas Rangers, Florida Marlins, Arizona Diamondbacks, Baltimore Orioles, Milwaukee Brewers. In an never ending search for pitching, the Rangers drafted Helling with the 22nd pick in the first round of the 1992 draft. In an ok trade, they traded him to Florida with Ryan Dempster for John Burkett, who helped them win the West in 1996 and has the only Rangers playoff win in franchise history). In a tremendous trade, the Rangers got him back for reliever Ed Vosberg, best known for scalping World Series tickets a few years later. Rick became the back bone of a rotation of a team that won back to back AL West titles in 1998 and 1999. He won 20 games in 1998 and on Sept 22 beat the Angels giving up 1 run in 8 innings to put the Rangers up 2 games with 5 to go. Ahh, the glory days of winning the AL West and getting swept by the Yankees. I always liked Rick and I followed him in the minors and when he came up and got his brain beat in at first. Then he came back and was the guy we were hoping for. He understood how to pitch in the Ballpark and hung in there to lead the team to the highest it's ever been (such that it is). Also, a Kazakh guy saw a picture of him in a baseball preview magazine I had when I lived in Kazakhstan and asked if he and I were brothers. Crazy Kazakhs.
Just last week or so, Chris and I had a small disagreement over Rangers GM Jon Daniels. And can I say something real quick? (Of course, this is my blog) Is it possible to put a moritorium on the young puns on Jon Daniels? I know he's young, but I'm really tired of him being called "Jon-boy" or "little Johnny" or anything like that. He is a general manager of a major league baseball team (yes, the Rangers are still a major league team) and he's not 8. Ok, rant over. Today Rangers owner Tom Hicks came down on my side. He gave Jon Daniels a one year contract extension. I'm obviously on board with this move. Couple of caveats: I don't think that this a major move on Hicks part. There is little financial risk for Hicks. He can still very easily fire Daniels at the end of next year. But the biggest thing the Rangers need right now is stability. I think it would be counter productive to start all over right now. But this gives Daniels more standing in front of other GMs as we approach the trade market. I really think this trade season even more than the next off season is going to determine if Daniels can keep his job. There are at least 5 players that have a strong chance of being traded by the Rangers (Teixeira, Gagne, Aki, Sosa, Lofton, maybe Blalock, Wilkerson, Millwood, Benoit). What he gets for these guys and any others that end up being traded is the proof of what he is doing. Hopefully, simple wins and loses are the only criteria for judging Daniels. I think this also says that Ron Washington will stick around for alittle while. Daniels hired him and I doubt that he would cut him off so quickly. Finally, I really liked Daniels approach in this more recent draft. It had the markings of a GM who either knew he had security or he was more interested in helping the frachise than saving his own skin. He resisted the temptation to go after college players who could possibly give them help much sooner. Instead, he drafted three high ceiling high school pitchers that at the very least 4 years away. The Rangers are in desperate need to high ceiling pitchers. Daniels moved in that direction. In fact, the last two drafts have been very productive. Hopefully, the Rangers are on the right track.
So Chris asked Russ and I to put something together that is good "off-season" talk for me, which is the 110% Hall of Fame inductions. This idea appeals to me a lot in that I like to see stuff like this debated and like to celebrate sports whenever I can. The format we were to follow was to pick a Historical Player, Current Player, and a Personal Fave.
This of course sent my head spinning because I can think of way too many players that fit in here. I thought I'd go off the beaten path a little bit and avoid obvious picks. So, Gretzky, Jordan, Montana, etc... not in my list. Way too obvious. So without further ado, and of course, they will all be Hockey players for me.
Historical Player: I didn't go back too far.. This player began his career with the Vancouver Canucks in 1983 and played for three seasons before being traded to the Boston Bruins where he eventually notched 344 of his 395 goals, and 590 of his 694 total points. He was a pioneer who was a prototype for what would be termed the Power Forward amassing 1241 PIM's to go along with his points. He topped 50 goals three times including the 1993-1994 season when he scored his 50th in his 44th game giving him the unofficial second shortest time to 50 goals (next to Gretzky). Injuries shortened a very bright career that he was making and in the end, even though his numbers were low for forwards inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame, he was inducted in 2005. My first nomination for the 110% Hall of Fame - Historical Player division is Cam Neely.
Current Player: Drafted first overall in 1988, he has played his entire career for one franchise. He has never won a major NHL award, but has finished as a finalist three times. He owns franchise records for games played, goals, assists, and points for both regular season and playoffs. This last season, he passed Joe Mullen to be the American-born goal-scoring leader. Next season, he will most likely pass Phil Housley for american-born points. He is the face of the Dallas Stars franchise and still as enjoyable to watch as ever. My Nomination for 110% Hall of Fame - Current Player division is Mike Modano
Fav Player: So, this last category is so open, it's really hard to decide. I thought about the people I like to see play. I thought about those that did something truly extrodinary, and I came up with with a few ideas, but one name kept jumping to the top of my list. He was originally drafted by the Montreal Canadiens, where he later became the Captain, won three Selke Trophies for best Defensive forward, and two Stanley Cups (including one as the Captain). He made his way to Dallas where his leadership and play helped the Stars win the Stanley Cup in 1999. today, he is currently the head coach of the Montreal Canadiens. My Nomination for 110% Hall of Fame - Fav Player division is Guy Carbonneau
As everyone knows, the NBA Finals were a little anticlimactic. A lot of people think the playoffs need to be fixed and everyone seems to know how to do it. I'm no different: I've got my suggestion, too.
Do nothing.
Look, we've been through this before. In the 90's the Bulls ruled. The 80's had the Celtics and the Lakers. Each time, fans talked about a competitive imbalance and the need to adjust. Each time, the imbalance corrected itself eventually.
The most common suggestion is seeding all sixteen teams in a super bracket, regardless of conference. There are two major problems here. The first is the current imbalanced schedule. If you switch to a super bracket, you have to go to a balanced schedule, which creates many other problems, starting with decreased emphasis on natural rivalries and an increase in travel.
The second major problem with the super bracket is what proponents actually champion: getting the best matchup in the Finals. In an ideal world, that would be great, but how would people have reacted if some combination of San Antonio/Phoenix/Dallas played for the championship? Yeah, it would be a great matchup, but you know everyone would be upset that there wasn't an Eastern team in it. They complain enough about 'late starts' for regular season and early round playoff games. What kind of noise would they make if it was the Finals? This plan has got serious flaws.
Bill Simmons has his own tricked up version of this, in which the last four spots in the super bracket are determined by a double elimination play-in tourney. He attempts to solve the playoff problem and the tanking issue. This plan might even possibly solve both. But it's too ridiculous and mocks any sanctity of sport that exists—it would be like if the BCS changed their formula every year. Oh, wait...
Everyone loved the Warriors first round upset of the Mavericks—this is the price you pay for that upset. When top teams bow out early, you shouldn't be surprised if it affects play in later rounds. The Utah/Golden State and San Antonio/Utah series probably would have never happened if not for that first round upset. Think George Mason 2006—Cinderella teams are fun until clock strikes midnight in a later round.
The only change that I wouldn't mind seeing is reseeding. Even with the first round upset, wouldn't a round two of Spurs/Warriors and Suns/Jazz, likely followed by Spurs/Suns have been better?
As for the hapless East, well, just wait. In a few years, the balance of power will swing back that way, just in time for everyone to deplore the Eastern Conference dominance.
And yet some would have you believe this team is not a dynasty?
I'm not sure what these people want. Consecutive titles, maybe? Yeah, that would be nice, but there is something to be said for consistently getting it done over a larger span of time. Besides, it's not like they stunk the years they didn't win--these past nine years also yielded six division titles.
Maybe they want scoreboard domination. Yeah, the Spurs win a lot of close games. Keyword in that sentence? Win.
I think what people are really looking for is flash. The Suns are NBA darlings because they play exciting, up tempo basketball. Unfortunately, this has produced no titles. Before them, the Mavs were flash. No titles. Go back further to Sactown. No titles.
What is this team's weakness? Do they have one? They play lockdown defense. They are aggressive on offense. They have too many weapons to focus on one player. Duncan is perhaps the best player of the past ten years, Parker has turned into a top five point guard, and the rest of the roster plays their roles to perfection. In addition, they draft smart, despite consistently picking at the end of the first round.
Avery Johnson has attempted to imitate San Antonio's defense in Dallas and done so fairly successfully. But after watching the playoffs, I'm convinced he's copied the wrong aspect of the Spurs game. He should be installing their offense. Every player on this team drives to the basket. They attack. They are relentless, they are strong, and when they get bumped, they don't resort to jump shots. What a concept.
The Texas Rangers need some serious help. Fortunately, they are only five steps away from being a contender.
Step One: Tom Hicks, sell the team. Want to spend more time with your new soccer team, Liverpool? Fine by me. Sell the Rangers—I’d recommend Mark Cuban. Love him or hate him, but the guy wants to win. There is no reason why a team in the sixth largest market should have the 21st ranked payroll. Also, according to Jim Reeves of the Fort Worth Star Telegram, Nolan Ryan is also interested. Instant cred. Either one would be a vast improvement over Hicks, who is killing this team, with a little help from his friends. Which leads us to...
Step Two: Fire the GM. In 2004, the Boston Red Sox broke an 86-year curse by winning the World Series. Theo Epstein was the team’s GM, hired two years earlier as the youngest GM in MLB history. In 2005, Hicks thought that if he hired an even younger GM, the Rangers would win, too. And it might have worked if it wasn’t for those meddling kids...
Jon Daniels is in over his head. If you listen to him speak, he sounds like he is wishing things to get better. He’s counting on breaks to even out and start going their way. Sorry, Jon, ain’t gonna happen. You make your own breaks. In the past two years, Daniels has traded away Chris Young, Coco Cordero and John Danks. You’re telling me those three guys wouldn’t help this staff? Breaks? This team is just broken.
Step Three: Fire the manager. Word was that Ron Washington blew everyone away in his interview. He did the same in the spring, suckering everyone in the DFW area in with his energy in infectious attitude. And then April rolled around.
Like Daniels, Wash is also in over his head. He may have been a great coach with Oakland, but he’s no manager. You know the brilliant coordinator in the NFL who is a total failure as a head coach? That’s Wash. Maybe he and Wade Phillips can be BFF since they have that in common, but I’m hoping he won’t be around that long. I’m telling you, they should have gone with Trey Hillman. Go Nippon Ham Fighters!
Step Four: Trade. Trade Teixeira. Trade Gagne. Trade Sosa, Lofton, Frankie Cat. Trade anyone over 25 for prospects. Doing things halfway has turned the Rangers into the worst team in baseball with no farm system to speak of. Blow it up completely and commit to youth. This naturally leads to...
Step Five: Get a plan and stick with it. The Rangers have changed direction countless times in the past decade. Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News reports that they have had six scouting directors since 1995—continuity has been a foreign concept with this team. They had a great opportunity at the draft, with six of the top 80 picks. Time will tell, but I’m not optimistic. The Rangers are too focused on pitching. I know what you’re thinking: their pitching stinks—they need to focus on it. Not so. They need to draft the best player available every single time, regardless of position. Stock those players in the minors and develop them. If you need a pitcher in a couple years, trade for him then, but no more reaching for pitchers in the draft. So what did the Rangers do? Four of their first five picks were pitchers. Maybe four out of five times the best player was a pitcher, but I have my doubts.
So there you have it. Five easy steps to greatness. Other than that, they’re golden.
So, I'm actually happy that Anaheim won. Even though I picked Ottawa to win in 7, Anaheim took it in 5. I'm happy for Teemu, I'm glad that Alfredsson didn't win (when did he turn into a jerk?), and I think it's funny that a Canadian team has lost to a non-conventional team for three straight cups. (Calgary lost to Tampa Bay, Edmonton lost to Carolina, and now Ottawa has lost to Anaheim). I don't have much more to write. I just want to show that when I'm wrong, I can stand up and say it. I was wrong.
Ever since the Mavs wasted a 67 win regular season, I have been completely disinterested in the playoffs. But now that the Finals are here, well, I'm still completely disinterested.
Lebron is exciting, but he's got no support. And is it just me, or did Cleveland look satisfied with winning the East? The East? Should anyone really be that proud of that?
But I suppose it is my duty to provide a prediction of the Finals, half-hearted as it may be. Spurs win, call it five. Duncan and the Spurs are too good. Maybe next year, Lebron.
It's time to trade Mark Teixeira. He really is the most tradeable player on this team and the one who is going to bring in the most in return. He is on the verge of being a superstar, although he's been on the verge for a couple of years now. Don't get me wrong. He's really really good, but he's not Vlad Guerrero or A-Rod. Mark's numbers last year were down in every category except strikeouts. Despite that, he is a real live middle of the order masher who can carry a team. He's also a gold glove caliber first baseman. But he's a free agent after 2008 and there is almost no chance that's he's gonna resign with the Rangers. His agent is the the baseball anti-Christ and it's becoming clearer and clearer that he doesn't want to be here. Here is where I get the notion that he needs to be traded. Last year, it was well known that the players were unhappy with Buck Showalter and his micromanagement and overbearing personality. When Buck was fired, the players were pretty happy and there was near unanimous happiness with the hiring of players manager, Ron Washington. Well, it didn't take long for Mark to get tired of Washington. He seems to unable to be happy with anything. He sounds alot like those athletes that drives everyone crazy. And I'm not talking about criminals like Pac Man Jones. But athletes who have never been told no and think no one can ever tell them anything. If they were winning, this crying would not be coming out right now. Someone once said that winning cures cancer. This cancer in the clubhouse could be cured if they started winning. I'm tired of losing and I'm tired of players crying about managers and owners whining about losing money and gms making stupid trades and players stinking it up. They need to cut their loses on 2007 and get the best deal they can for Teixeira.
This is our sports page and we intend to give it 110 percent. We're going to bring our 'A' game with every post and we're leaving it all on the field. We're stepping up to the plate and taking it one post at a time. Here's some bulletin board material for you: we guarantee each post will be a winner. This is going to be a total team effort, and as everyone knows, there is no 'I' in 'team' (or in 'post', 'blog' or even 'one hundred and ten percent').
PJ Knightgrew up in Maine and Texas. He prefers Texas and is a fan of the Stars (they're a hockey team, you know hockey - the sport that used to be considered one of the big four?), the Cowboys, and would be a fan of the Mavericks if the 2006 Finals never happened (can't take the NBA seriously anymore). He's also a fan of the Patriots (from before they were expected to win), the Red Sox and may one day again follow the Rangers. Oh yes, and he loves any team that plays against the Yankees.
Rus Massey grew up in Lewisville, TX and is a fan of the Rangers, Astros, Cowboys, Mavericks, and Longhorns. He currently lives in Nashville, TN and is really glad that Vince Young plays for the Titans.
Chris Taylor is from Dallas, Texas and is a fan of the Cowboys, Rangers and Mavericks. He currently lives in Sydney, Australia but still manages to keep up with the American sports scene thanks to the miracle of the internet. He has, however, developed an appreciation of Cricket, Rugby Union and Aussie Rules Football.
Welcome to the 110% Hall of Fame Class of 2008, where all players share one common trait: they each played with a passion and intensity that made them special. Barry Sanders Emmitt Smith
