Category Archives: Sports
Annual BCS Rant
Even though I something of a Longhorn partisan, having spent four years at UT, I was kind of hoping they would lose and throw the BCS into complete turmoil. A loss would have put the voters in the uncomfortable position of having to either move TCU up into the #2 spot or jump Cincinnati over them (or Boise State over both).
As it is now, the BCS defenders will say, “Hey! It worked. Bama and Texas are clearly the two best teams in the country and they’re playing for the title!”. Nevermind that this supposition is anything but clear. I am not convinced that TCU, Boise State or Cincinnati couldn’t pull off a win again Alabama or Texas. Hell, I’m not convinced Georgia Tech, Oregon and Ohio State couldn’t do it. I do know that all eight of the conference champs have earned a shot at the title. They all deserve a chance to show what they can do on the field. The only reason Alabama and Texas are getting a chance and TCU or Ohio State aren’t is because the writers like Alabama and Texas, not because they necessarily showed that they were better teams.
This year will be a big test for the BCS’s integrity. Do they serve the big conferences or do they serve the game? There are two non-major teams that clearly deserve a bid for the BCS. Are they going to honor those deserving teams? Or will they give out an undeserved BCS spot to a second-tier squad like Virginia Tech or Oregon State? My money is on the latter. The BCS can always be relied on to make a dumb decision.
For what it’s worth, here would be my BCS picks, bold indicates decisions that are already pre-made.
National Title Game: Alabama vs. Texas
Rose Bowl: Oregon vs. Ohio State
Sugar Bowl: Florida vs. TCU
Fiesta Bowl: Boise State vs. Iowa
Orange Bowl: Georgia Tech vs. Cincinnati
However, I expect the BCS to tap Virginia Tech instead of Boise State. The rotation in which teams are picked lends itself to dumb decisions. But if I’m holding a BCS bid and I look back the greatest BCS game ever — Boise State’s upset of Oklahoma — I know which team I’d like to take.
Now the playoff system I have long advocated would put eight teams in January 1 bowls with rigid slots for the Big Ten, SEC, Pac Ten and ACC. The two “at large” teams would be mid-major champions. No loser second-place teams would have a shot at the title in my system. In that case you would get:
Rose Bowl: Oregon vs. Ohio State
Sugar Bowl: Alabama vs. Boise State
Fiesta Bowl:Cincinnati vs. TCU
Orange Bowl: Georgia Tech vs. Florida
With the winners playing three more games to determine the title. It doesn’t bow to the great conferences and TV gods, I’ll grant. But it’s fair.
Update: Amazingly, the BCS picked both Boise State and TCU, albeit in the same bowl. I’m very pleased – but not as please as I’d be if they had a crack at the champion.
Midweek Linkorama
The Yanks
Nail. Head. Hit.
Friday Linkorama
It. Begins.
College football is back. Time for the annual BCS complaint. Yes, you, Mr. Easterbrook?
Because college football is commencing, it’s time for TMQ’s annual check of cupcake schedules. The two phoniest aspects of football-factory existence — playing more games at home than on the road, and appearing at home against schools that are perennial losers or from lower divisions — both are on display in 2009.
Notre Dame plays eight games at home, four on the road, and opens at home against Nevada, which last season lost 69-17 at Missouri. (All Division I-A and Division I-AA schedules can be found here.) Auburn has eight games at home and four away, and plays its first four at home. Auburn fearlessly faces, at home, Division I-AA Furman, which last year lost to Elon. Forget conferences; do you even know what state Elon is in? Tennessee has eight games at home and four away, and the home dates include meetings against Western Kentucky (2-10 last season, and the sole team beaten by 1-11 North Texas) and the Ohio Bobcats. Actually, the Bobcats may be a tougher opponent at this point than the Oakland Raiders.
Penn State gets the award for the weakest schedule, of course.
To me, this is a bigger problem than the unfairness of selecting the two best teams for the national championship. At worst, you can argue that the BCS system does not necessarily select the two best of several deserving teams. Or you can argue, as I do, that there is no real way of knowing who among the top ten is the “best” team and a playoff among conference champions (and only conference champions) is the only way that’s really fair.
But the cupcake schedules are a direct attempt to get undeserving teams into the championship game. Because the BCS will almost always go with an undefeated team with a laughable schedule over a 1- or 2-loss team with a real schedule.
College football fans lose because of this. A few years ago, I was living in Austin when the Longhorns made their run for the title. That year, they played Ohio State during the regular season. It was a monster game and the buildup was electric. The excitement and tension were palpable. That’s what the college football season should be like — not “oh yeah” games against cupcakes.
I’m not against cupcake matchups altogether. It please alumni and, more importantly, spreads some big-time university athletic money to smaller schools. But non-conference schedules should not be all cupcakes.
There’s a simple solution. Starting in a few year’s time, you implement a new BCS rule. To be eligible for a BCS bowl, a team’s non-conference schedule has to include:
1) at least one team from another BCS conference AND
2) at least one road game
Now this might mean that Auburn plays Northwestern at home and Akron on the road. But that’s an improvement.
The really real way you would improve this, however, is to restrict the BCS to conference champions — with the Big Six conferences guaranteed entries and the remaining slots distributed among mid-major conferences and independents. That way, there is no advantage in beating the shit out of four wussy non-conference teams and no disadvantage to playing tough non-conference teams. If Penn State loses to Georgia, Notre Dame and Texas A&M, it doesn’t hurt their BCS chances as long as they win their conference.
This will, of course, never happen. Because the people running the BCS don’t care about the integrity of the game or the excitement of regular season monster matchups. They like it when teams schedule cupcakes. It makes it more likely that some team will luck into an undefeated season and they can shout from the rooftops that the system works.
The Greatest Game Evah!
I was there. We used to go every year to celebrate my grandfather’s birthday. Needless to say, we didn’t stay for the whole thing.
The Rocket
I’ll say this for Roger Clemens. Either he really didn’t take steroids or he’s the stupidest man on Earth. (Warning: link automatically starts up ESPN video. What the hell, ESPN?)
Weekend Linkorama
The Steroid Question
A much fairer look from the NYT.
Schilling, Wells, Brown and Smoltz, Oh My!
Those of you not interest in baseball can skip this one.
You Learn Something Every Day
Pud Galvin — a 19th century pitcher — used steroids. When was this pure era of baseball again? It’s only a matter of time until we find out that some big name was juicing back in the 1930’s.
Blast From The Past
I have little to add to my march madness post of last year. Go Louisville.
SciAm on Steroids
Scientific American continues to go down the tubes. Today, they ran an insipid interview on the Alex Rodriguez steroid issue that contain little fact, no analysis and a whole steaming load of bullshit. But it comes from a steroid user!
During Rodriguez’s confessed era of doping, his homerun average jumped to a super-slugging 52 per season, compared with 36 during his first four seasons in the league and about 42 since. His runs-batted-in (RBI) statistics and total games played also peaked. Even so, his batting average has dipped over his career, from .315 to .305 during his steroid days to .303 over the past five seasons.
Those were also his age 25, 26 and 27 seasons — typically the peak of any player’s performance. Those were also the years he was in one of the best hitter’s park in baseball.
His slugging percentage in those years was .615. Since then, his performance has dropped a bit but he did hit 54 homers with a career-high .645 SLG in 2005. There is little statistical evidence that 2001-2003 was anomalous.
The key benefit with anabolic steroids is that they can help you be consistent over an entire baseball season. That’s the reason you’re seeing those higher statistics for Rodriguez from 2001 to 2003. If you take a look at good power hitters in April and May (early in the baseball season that runs from April to September, excluding the playoffs), their numbers are going to be pretty good. But these guys aren’t able to maintain that in August and September. Take the New York Mets: If that team was on anabolic steroids the way they were in 2000, they probably would have made the playoffs the past two years instead of running out of gas late in the season. It makes a big difference when having that little extra.
None of this is true. A-Rod’s stats in 2001-3 were marginally, but not dramatically higher. Power hitters sometimes catch fire late in the season. There’s a selection effect for us to notice guys who start hot and cool off rather than guys who start cold and get hot in the end of the season. Carl Yastrzemski, in 1967, had one of the greatest Septembers of all time. Guess he must have been taking steroids because we all know power hitters fade in September. There is no objective evidence that power hitters, as a group, fade over the season.
And how do we know that last year’s Mets weren’t on steroids? Is he implying that the Phillies were? Would the Phillies of 1964 have won the pennant with steroids? Were the Giants of 1951 juicing? Teams collapse. Teams surge. It happens. It has always happened. It always will happen — steroids or no steroids.
So the big question people may be asking is if Alex is taking something else. His homerun numbers have declined, but they’re still pretty damn good.
So he must still be juicing. ‘Cuz without the juice, this #1 draft pick who tore up the minors and slugged from the very first day he stepped on a diamond would be hitting .220 with 3 HR.
For example, maybe his [lucrative] contract could allow him to buy a designer steroid that’s undetectable
As opposed to his former contract, which had him on a starvation wage.
Scientific American should be ashamed of themselves. This is nothing but someone talking out of their ass. I know he’s a physiologist who took steroids. He’s still talking out of his ass, making wild speculations mixed with post hoc propter hoc logic about who’s using and who isn’t.
What a disgrace.
PS – For a real analysis of whether the stats show A-Rod juiced, try this. At least he’s aware of the limits of the data.