This Bothers Me Immensely

I hate to bury my own post, but this really chafes my ass.


One of Sports Illustrated's "Turkeys of the Year" is Bud Selig. Totally agree. Bud has done some knuckleheaded shit this year, not the least of which claiming that he believes Abner Doubleday invented baseball. His other dumb outbursts include his support of a 10 team MLB playoff, his claims that the MLB labor struggles were the worst in history, and basically everything he's ever said about replay. But none of those are the reason why SI thinks he's a "Turkey of the Year." Let's read:


Umpire Jim Joyce was reduced to tears of remorse, Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga gracefully forgave the painfully obvious blown call at first base that denied him a perfect game against the Indians on June 2, and a nation was inspired by their reconciliation. Yet, the Commissioner of Major League Baseball could not bring himself to get in on the class act by reviewing the play and overturning the ruling. Even the White House weighed in. "I hope that baseball awards a perfect game to that pitcher," said spokesman Robert Gibbs. "We're going to work on an executive order."


This really bothers me. I'm sorry, but Jesus fuck man. He's the turkey of the year for not going back and reversing the outcome of the game? And he should be the first person in MLB history ever to change the fucking outcome of a game not because it impacted a division race or playoff appearance but because a 3rd place team had a pitcher who almost threw a perfect game?


Seriously, this really pisses me off. 2012 can't come fast enough. Here's hoping the Mayans were right.

Jemele Hill Plays the Race Card, Logical Disjunction Ensues

I'm not wealthy with time right now so let me just highlight the grossest offenses in Jemele Hill's latest attempt to play the race card


On Sunday, Titans coach Jeff Fisher demoted Vince Young to benchwarmer after Young threw a tantrum following Tennessee's 19-16 loss to Washington. Although thumb surgery is the official reason Young's season is over, Fisher made it clear before he knew the severity of Young's injury that his 27-year-old quarterback was being removed as the starter...

I'm also not overlooking the facts that Campbell played poorly in the games in which he was benched, that Young's antics in Tennessee are largely to blame for his problems with Fisher, and that Shanahan has had difficult relationships with plenty of white quarterbacks in the past.

But it still seems as if race is playing a role in how some black quarterbacks are treated, managed, perceived and, ultimately, judged.

In other words: These quarterbacks were all benched for reasons that Occam's razor dictates have nothing to do with race. Therefore, it seems as if race is playing a role in how some black quarterbacks are treated, managed, perceived and, ultimately, judged.


The first time Campbell was benched this season was during halftime of the second game of the season.

The impatience the Raiders have shown with Campbell is stunning. They gave up a fourth-round pick to get him, and were convinced he was the answer after things went south with draft bust JaMarcus Russell, another black quarterback.


I would agree that the impatience the Raiders are showing with Campbell stands in contrast to the remarkable patience they showed with their last quarterback, JaMarcus Russell. JaMarcus, as his name suggests, is white. Thus, this is a pretty good point Jemele raises and a perfect example of the imbalance of treatment between black quarterbacks and white. I stand corrected.


Campbell will start on Sunday against Miami, but it's baffling that he's still fighting with Bruce Gradkowski -- whose career record as a starter is 5-11 -- for the No. 1 job.


Campbell's career record is 20-32. That's slightly better than Gradkowski, but Campbell played for slightly better teams than Gradkowski. And no, Gradkowski's not a good quarterback but neither has been Campbell this year.


The Raiders are fighting for a playoff spot this year, and say what you want about Al Davis being insane (Al Davis is insane) but a team with playoff aspirations isn't going to make a switch for any reason but on-field quality. Gradkowski is probably a worse QB than Campbell, which is why Campbell will probably get the start on Sunday. But he hasn't performed significantly worse this season, particularly in the last couple of games.


I know race doesn't completely explain the Raiders' treatment of Campbell or why he didn't work out for the Redskins. But Campbell's shortcomings are rarely clarified with the same perspective as some white quarterbacks


I have no idea what that last sentence means.


You hear about his 25-35 record as a starter, but you don't hear that he's played for a different offensive coordinator in every season since the Redskins drafted him in the first round in 2005.


He's certainly the only QB to have to overcome that hurdle.


Much like Campbell, those QB's were given a lot of opportunities with their original team until those teams finally came to the conclusion that these QB's were not really franchise QB's and moved on. All three quarterbacks have in common the fact that they were either white or black.


Most African-Americans are familiar with the notion that we have to be twice as good just to be considered equal with whites.


I didn't realize this was fait accompli. Perhaps in the white collar world this is true (although the multiplier might be off a little, Jemele) but I don't know how you can argue that black athletes aren't given a fair shake in professional sports.


And considering that there are only six black starting quarterbacks in the NFL, there isn't a lot of room for error.


QED! Clearly black QB's haven't gotten a fair shake throughout the history of the NFL, but I hardly think it's the NFL's fault that talented black QB's don't come around very often. When they do they're given every opportunity to succeed that a white QB with their draft status might expect (Josh Freeman, David Garrard, Byron Leftwich, Vince Young, Quincy Carter, Tavaris Jackson, hell, even Seneca Wallace) unless their team gets a better option. Is anyone really going to argue, for instance, that the Vikings pinning their hopes on Brett Favre was a race thing?


Fisher and Young had completely different accounts of what unfolded after Sunday's loss to the Redskins. Undoubtedly, Young didn't handle himself like a professional; but then again, I don't know of any quarterback who would be happy about being replaced by a third-stringer.

Young wanted to play despite a busted thumb. If Brett Favre had done that, we'd say he was being fiercely competitive.

But this is Vince Young, so he's being a brat.


Perhaps Vince Young's getting the bum's rush here. But I think the way it's generally going to read when an immature player who has quit on his team in the past has a temper tantrum is that the immature player is having a temper tantrum. It's hard to compare media treatment between black QB's and white QB's on this issue though because no one else has ever thrown this public a tantrum, including Brett Favre.


I don't question whether black quarterbacks receive opportunities in the NFL, because it's obvious they do. But how fair are those opportunities? Despite all the progress that's been made by black quarterbacks, why does it still seem as if they are held to a different standard?


Well, it's a fair question. But if your best examples of these QB's being held to different standards are Vince Young and Jason Campbell you're not going to make a compelling argument. Both players got more than a fair shake in the NFL.


"Any franchise Caucasian quarterback will get unlimited opportunities to realize their potential," says Shaun King, an African-American who quarterbacked the Tampa Bay Bucs to the NFC Championship Game in 1999. "If Jay Cutler left Chicago, and even if he played badly, he's always going to be viewed as a franchise QB. For African-Americans, their value is strictly tied to their current performance. It's tough to stick up for Vince Young because his immaturity has been a consistent issue, but a Caucasian QB that has been as successful as Vince Young wouldn't be pulled as much as him."


Ah, anecdotal bullshit! Certainly black QB's get jerked around. I don't deny that. But so do tons of white QB's. Brady Quinn and Derrek Anderson. JP Losman and Trent Edwards. Rex Grossman and Kyle Orton.


Basically, in the NFL, unless you're a top 5 draft pick, you will get jerked around.


I could write the exact same column Jemele did, only with Alex Smith, Brady Quinn, Matt Leinart and Kyle Orton as my examples of how white QB's don't get as many opportunities as Jason Campbell did. Only...that would be stupid. Really stupid.


People are still searching for ways to blame newcomer Terrell Owens for the Bengals' disappointing 2-8 season, even though Palmer has guided the Bengals to only two winning seasons and hasn't won a playoff game during his seven years in Cincinnati.

So why doesn't Palmer get the Jason Campbell treatment? Why isn't he labeled an underachiever like McNabb?


Palmer is getting the Campbell treatment by the media. And by the way, Palmer was once one of the best 5 QB's in the NFL. Certainly he seems to no longer be among the NFL's elite QB, but that might have something to do with the patience he's been shown. Donovan McNabb had a couple disappointing years at the end of his Eagles run and no one was champing at the bit to replace him. And he's black! :-o


Manning has a Hall of Fame résumé and is one of the best quarterbacks to ever play the position. But he isn't facing an avalanche of criticism from the fans and media for the interception against the Patriots on Sunday that ended the Colts' comeback attempt and sealed the game for New England.

Manning accepted responsibility for the mistake, of course. But had that been McNabb, the reaction would have been downright vitriolic...

Palmer and Manning certainly have been criticized, but rarely in their careers have they faced the same microscope or backlash that McNabb, Vick, or most other black starting quarterbacks have.


Why hasn't Peyton Manning faced backlash ever in his career? Never has Manning been called a choker or a postseason failure. It's utterly baffling to me how the reigning MVP hasn't been called out as a loser after a single bad game in an otherwise excellent season!


McNabb, who despite being an 11-year veteran who has been to five NFC title games, had to listen to his coach essentially call him too out of shape and simpleminded to run his offense.

McNabb, by the way, has led 17 fourth-quarter comebacks and 25 game-winning drives in his career.


And he didn't know the rules for overtime in a game he plays professionally. Look, I'm not calling McNabb stupid. He's almost certainly not. I think nearly everyone acknowledges McNabb is an excellent QB. But this is just stupefying--there are hundreds of explanations for why Shannahan doesn't like McNabb--the most obvious probably being that McNabb hasn't been receptive to his son's coaching. That has very little to do with him being black. Or a quarterback--after all Shannahan got on Albert Haynesworth this offseason for being out of shape. Or maybe Shannahan's prejudiced against black DT's as well. Or just all black people ever. You never know! Glad we have Jemele Hill around to make these baseless accusations of racism, otherwise we'd never know who could conceivably be unapologetic racists, maybe, if you squint hard enough.


Her coup de grace:


if most of us agree that racism is still an issue in this country, how can we dismiss its influence in sports?


I don't think most people deny the presence of racialism in professional sports. Clearly the league recognizes the possibility of racial prejudice in coaching hires and everyone knows white superstars tend to be more marketable than black superstars in certain sports at certain positions.


But if you're going to make an argument about racism--unconscious or conscious--you better come with your gun loaded with better bullets than Jason Campbell and Vince Young.

Phil Rogers is the Worst Baseball Writer in America

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/sc-spt-1121-notes-rogers-baseball--20101120,0,3389440.column

That's all. And no, I'm not forgetting Jon Heyman.

It isn't broke, but they're fixing it for the money - Part II

Just last week at the Winter Meetings, baseball commissioner Bud Selig announced that baseball will likely move forward with playoff expansion for 2010. [mlb.com ]. This is not a particularly good decision, and it seems to be motivated almost exclusively by a desire to make more money for people who are already absurdly rich at the cost of deflating a great product.

This is hardly new in sports (I wrote about some NCAA football rule changes back in 2008), but it's reprehensible every time it comes up. This proposal would generate some more gate and television revenue while watering down the playoffs and awarding a fairly outrageous advantage to a division winner.

Bud, ever the master strategist, had this to offer: "Eight is a very fair number, but so is 10."

Wham! The logic train has come through on the track, steaming over all the opposition. If eight teams is fair, so is ten! QED!

Jayson Stark came out with a column back in mid-September that supports it on the grounds that it incentivizes a team playing for first place, because it gives division winners a bigger advantage. In general, Jayson Stark knows what he's talking about and the man obviously has a depth of baseball knowledge. But I don't think he's accurate here: while it could increase September excitement, do we really need to invite a worse team to the playoffs just to get the Wild-Card team to try harder?

And Jayson's article (which came out on September 10), was ostensibly written with the obvious example of the Yankees and Rays, who were both assured of a playoff spot, but were fighting for a division crown. Sure, the new system would've made their run for the division title a little more exciting ... by giving the distant-third-place Red Sox a chance to knock one of them them out?

Not to mention that this proposed system would have completely eliminated the drama in the National League this year, when the Braves, Padres and Giants all entered the last weekend knowing that only two would make the playoffs. That was an exciting last day of the season, one that would've been meaningless under the new system.

Had the system been in place this year, the Red Sox and Padres would have made the playoffs. While these teams are decent teams (unlike, say, the under .500 record which gets you into the NBA playoffs), I don't see a strong argument for these teams on the basis of fairness. In fact, not a single article I've read justifies this move on account of giving a good team the chance to win the World Series.

In fact, there are really no justifications offered for this other than it would "increase playoff drama" and "make division winners count for more", both of which, IMO, are bullshit.

If this is adopted, the division winner who would play the winner of the Wild-Card round would have a rested staff ready to face an opponent who just spent their top two or three pitchers. Although that would incentivize a team's desire to win home-field advantage, that seems wildly unfair to the division winner with the second-best record, who wouldn't get to face the WC team.

The other three major sports all have a playoff system which rewards nearly half the league with a playoff spot. This results in bloated playoffs (which nobody likes) that drag on for months at a time. The other sports have no sense of end-of-season drama, since all the good teams are assured of a playoff spot, and the only teams battling for entry are teams that don't really deserve to be there.

Baseball should be proud of its differences from the other major sports. Adding playoff teams is never going to increase the playoff drama. It's only going to increase the revenues going into the hands of owners.

Snap Cognitive Dissonance With Don Banks

From this week's Snap Judgments column:

If you've seen one Jets game this season, you've seen them all. Not to repeat myself from last Sunday's Snaps, but the resilient Jets are going to find a way to win, no matter how long the game lasts...It must be torture for New York fans to sit through these three-hour high-wire acts every Sunday, but I don't know how you can possibly take exception with the results.

Bah, whatever. The Football Outsiders say that the Jets luck unit leads the league in wins, which I tend to agree with. But I also agree with Don Banks that a win's a win and all that. However, a few paragraphs later, Banks has this to say:

The Ravens wound up making it look like a comfortable win, but if you watched Baltimore's 37-13 conquest of out-manned Carolina, you know better. The Panthers, with the very lightly experienced Brian St. Pierre at quarterback, were within seven points (at 20-13) until late in the third quarter. Baltimore really doesn't close the deal very well this season...

So let's recap:

The Jets, who have needed the last few minutes of regulation or overtime to put away the sub-.500 Dolphins, Vikings, Broncos, Lions, Browns, and Texans, are a thrilling team whose results you can't argue with.

Conversely, the Ravens, who blew out the Dolphins and Broncos, don't close games out very well and therefore, their wins can be easily discounted.

Note: Yes, I'm a Ravens fan. No, I don't think the Ravens are objectively better than the Jets. In fact, I think the Jets would probably win a rematch if they played tomorrow. I just think it's a little ridiculous that Banks and a lot of other media folk are falling over themselves to congratulate the Jets for racking up come from behind wins against teams with losing records.

Hey, You Know, It's OK, Not Like They Need the Money for Anything Else.

While I was typing that title, the anchor on CSN just mentioned that Brad Abromaitis played pretty good for Notre Dame against Chicago State tonight.

Anyway, on to the crap. Steve Kornacki is probably the only human being on the planet who isn't laughing at the Detroit Tigers right now, other than Rafael Soriano, who probably just purchased a dozen yachts or something. He's here to tell us why Joaquin Benoit is worth $16.5M.

DETROIT -- The Detroit Tigers on Wednesday reached a three-year deal with super setup man Joaquin Benoit that could end up being as important a transaction as the club makes in what promises to be a busy offseason.

..

It’s just a shade over the $15 million for three years reliever Brandon Lyon got last year from the Houston Astros in leaving Detroit. Lyon widely was viewed as getting much more than he was worth but never has had a dominating season like Benoit did.

Oh, but Lyon was about 4 years younger, had a better track record, and didn't have rotator cuff surgery within the past two years.

Rays manager Joe Maddon said a case could be made that Benoit was the most valuable player on his very talented team.

Rays manager Joe Maddon once claimed that Jason Bartlett was the team MVP after OPSing .674. Let's hold off on putting much stock on managers making fluffy comments to compliment his own players, yeah?

The Tigers were set with Jose Valverde closing, but how would they get the game to him?

I don't know, the same way teams with an average bullpen get to their closer? Use one or two pretty decent pitchers?

Reliable reliever Phil Coke took care of plenty of eighth innings but was moved into the starting rotation. And once reliever Joel Zumaya was injured last season, the Tigers began their free fall to third place. He took care of seventh innings and might be able to again in 2011 if healthy. But who knows?

Perhaps, Ryan Perry or Daniel Schlereth will be ready for reliable late-inning work this season. Brad Thomas and Robbie Weinhardt could factor into important innings, too.

But now, there is less pressure on everybody with Benoit in the fold.

Fine, Benoit's 60 innings will help take the pressure off. There were cheaper options. It won't put a bat in RF or at DH (assuming Guillen is back at 2B). Just saying.

However, his signing is not without risk. This is not a pitcher who consistently has rattled off eye-popping numbers. He was 30-26 with a 4.47 ERA and 1.35 WHIP in eight seasons with the Texas Rangers before having one break-out year with Tampa Bay.

Uh oh Steve. That isn't good. There's a sample size to go with those numbers.

Benoit was pretty good in 2007, going 7-4 with a 2.85 ERA and 1.17 WHIP. But he walked 35 in 45 innings for the Rangers in 2008 and hasn't had the control he displayed last year.

He had right rotator cuff surgery at the end of 2008, sat out all of 2009 and signed for $800,000 in 2010.

Good. Bad. Injured. Awesome. Middle Relievers. Mike MacDougal.

Benoit began the year with Triple-A Durham and ended it by retiring all 11 Rangers he faced in the playoffs and picking up one win.

Irrelevant.

His agents, Sam and Seth Levinson, also represented Tigers third baseman Brandon Inge and shortstop Jhonny Peralta in their negotiations to re-sign with the club.

Dombrowski must have these guys on his friends and family calling list.

Argument #57 why Joaquin Benoit was a good signing: His agents also represent a mediocre left side of an infield.

And that's it. Convinced? I sure am.

WMTMQR: From a TMQ Column That's Hot Off the Presses

Yeah so I skipped the TMQ from two weeks ago. It wasn't anything special anyways. Certainly not as pathetic as this week's, which in addition to Gregg's regular dosage of mindless bullshit, irrational reasoning, and WRONG included not one but three photos of NFL cheerleaders. Look, I like T and A as much as the next guy. Specifically I am an A man. But Jesus Criminy on a pogo stick, Gregg. Tone it down. You're a fucking weirdo.

McNabb celebrated his deal by throwing three interceptions, one a pick-six, and posting a wretched 69.4 passer rating.

Considering the Redskins were down 14-0 before the opening kickoff and 70-0 at the end of the first quarter, it's not surprising that the Eagles were ready for McNabb to throw a shit ton of passes. He actually was on the verge of getting them back in the game a couple times with big plays. I'm not saying he's not washed up or that he deserved the money, but he didn't really have that horrible of a game when you consider the circumstances.

The situation was so messed up that even though the Redskins' cheerleaders danced throughout the first half in two-piece summer outfits -- despite a cool night and light rain -- 36 gorgeous scantily attired women dancing in the rain could not improve the home team's fortunes.

Yeah, see this is what I'm talking about. Is he a closeted homosexual and overcompensating for it? Is he trying to piss his wife off? Is he just a nerd who can't keep his excitement about good looking broads to himself? Your guess is as good as mine.

And Shanahan's game management! Trailing 42-14 in the second quarter, he had Washington punt on fourth-and-1. Punting on fourth-and-1 when down by four touchdowns!

FOR SHAME! PUNTING IS ALWAYS WRONG ALWAYS AND FOREVER EVEN WHEN IT'S THE FIRST HALF AND YOU'RE DOWN 28 AND IT'S FAR FROM TIME TO PANIC. There will be time for that later! (More on that later)

Hakeem Nicks started to run a slant, then inexplicably stopped in his tracks; Eli Manning threw the slant, Dallas corner Bryan McCann cut in front and returned the pick 101 yards for a touchdown, turning a close contest into what would become a Boys rout. The botched play was sour. So was the call -- can't anybody just run at the goal line in the NFL anymore?

If you watch any amount of football on any given weekend, you'd know the answer to that is "sometimes." I'm a Broncos fan, and at the end of last season I saw a stat that they were stopped for no gain or a loss of yardage when running the ball from the opponents' 1 yard line like 40 times last year. It was something like 2.5 times per game, pretty sad considering how rare it is to have a possession on the 1. For a single anecdote from this season, check out the Bears' possession at 10:37 here.

Scoring to pull within 23-17 with 2:10, Cincinnati onside kicked. Last month yours truly decried "an officiating problem that has been driving TMQ crazy for years. In a scramble for a loose ball, if any player takes possession for even an instant, with a knee down and in contact with an opponent, the play should end. But zebras don't officiate mad scrambles this way. They let the players fight for the ball, then award possession to whoever wins the Darwinian struggle. Often the fighting continues although all players involved have their knees down."

Who quotes themselves directly like that? And it should be so easy for the refs to know exactly when the play ends and blow their whistle right then as 10 players all converge on a loose ball at top speed! Why haven't they started doing that, since there's certainly no way it would ever lead to them fucking up the call and completely changing the course of a game.

That's exactly what happened on the Cincinnati onside kick.

I was watching this game. It's not what happened.

Pierre Garçon of Indianapolis fielded the kick, had control and went to both knees.

He never had control.

The whistle should have sounded -- down over. Instead, the zebras allowed players to fight and pull for the ball for a solid 15 seconds.

Because before the pile formed, no one had possession while down by contact.

Someone ripped the ball away from Garçon -- remember, he was down!

Without control.

-- and possession was awarded to Cincinnati.

Class Gregg- revisionist history used to prove an impractically stupid point. See also: EVERY BLITZ IN THE HISTORY OF ORGANIZED FOOTBALL HAS FAILED- HERE ARE TWO EXAMPLES.

Having the quarterback march around holding the ball, defense not realizing the ball has been snapped, is a longstanding youth league trick. In another variation of this action, the quarterback says loudly, "There's something wrong with the ball." The center hands the quarterback the ball, thus snapping; the offensive line goes Stonehenge; the quarterback walks toward the sideline as if to show the ball to an official, then sprints up the field for a touchdown. Though the snap and the Stonehenge line were kosher, TMQ thinks the middle-school play could be flagged. "No player shall act in an unsportsmanlike manner," says the National Federation of High Schools football rulebook which governs most high school and middle-school play. The NCAA and NFL have similar rules. Trying to trick the defense into allowing an uncontested touchdown doesn't sound particularly sporting, especially if it involves pretending to speak to the officials, since players are supposed to become passive when the officials are involved.

Ludicrous. Given that perspective, here are some other things Gregg might find unsporting:
-End arounds
-HB passes
-The triple option (too deceptive!)
-Passing to a WR who is taller than the DB covering him
-Running away from a player who is slower than you while you are in possession of the ball
-Blocking

Instead Chiefs coaches called a pass; Matt Cassel ran backward all the way to the 19, where he was hit and fumbled; Denver's Jason Hunter took the fumble the length of the field for a touchdown and a 35-0 Denver lead that effectively ended the contest. Never panic in the first half; there will be plenty of time for that later!

Unless you're the Redskins on Monday Night Football and it's 42-14. When you're facing THAT particular 28 point deficit, you definitely panic and go for it on 4th down in your own territory.

TMQ in the News: Wednesday, I will be moderator for the Washington launch of the United Nations Human Development Report, one of the world's key documents.

I'M A GOOD PERSON! NOTICE THIS!

This year's report has a hopeful tone -- it shows that in most cases, poor nations are making decent progress. The report summary is here and the event announcement is here. I became interested in developing world advancement rates when researching

I'M SMART!

my 2003 book, "The Progress Paradox,"

BUY MY BOOK!

and have since done what I can to draw attention to the subject, including, in most recent years, helping the report launch.

I AM SUCH A GOOD PERSON! AND NOT AT ALL SELF-RIGHTEOUS!

Steelers, Patriots Meet in Arena League Action: New England got steamrolled in Cleveland, then went to Pittsburgh and steamrolled the Steelers. This must prove that on any given Sunday --

Any team can win in the NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE. Jaworski'd. You know, last year I watched MNF almost every week and of course it pretty much drove me batty. Listening to Jaws, Chuckie, and that dumbfuck Tirico will do that to you. Because of my schedule this fall, I've probably only seen a grand total of 30 minutes of MNF. And I gotta say I feel just fine about that.

But a Steelers-Patriots contest in which both teams opened in the shotgun spread, and stayed shotgun spread for most of the game, was a little too postmodern for my taste.

For all your high mindedness and pretension, I'm 95% sure you're not using "postmodern" correctly there.

Trailing 10-0, the Steelers reached third-and-goal at the New England 4, threw an incompletion and kicked a field goal. Wouldn't a couple rushes have yield six points?

Maybe. Maybe not. Wouldn't a pass from an all-pro QB to a talented receiving corps have yielded six points? Wouldn't kicking on third down have been the smarter move, in case the snap got botched? Wouldn't it be great if no one started Christmas shopping until December 22nd?

Then, New England leading 29-18 with four minutes remaining and facing third-and-5, Pittsburgh blitzed seven men, and I don't even need to tell you who won the game.

Shockingly, despite trailing by 11 and not having the ball with 5 minutes left, the Steelers went on to lose. That could have been avoided, however, if they hadn't blitzed on that play. Blitzing fails every time and is a bad idea no matter what. Just ask the 2005 and 2008 Steelers.

Phillips has a low-key coaching style -- he draws up game plans but relies on players to be professionals and prepare themselves physically and psychologically. This approach worked when he was head coach of the Broncos and Bills,

To the tune of two playoff appearances and zero playoff wins in five seasons.

Was the final score poor sportsmanship? Normally the gauge of sportsmanship in football is whether a team with a big lead stops passing in the second half. Wisconsin runs the ball so well that to hold down the score, the Badgers should switch to passing. Wisconsin starters left the game early, and Wisconsin tactics in the second half were bland. The missing sportsmanship touch was that, leading 62-13 at the start of the final stanza, Wisconsin kicked extra points on its three fourth-quarter touchdowns. The Badgers should have knelt on the PATs.

Nothing screams "we care!" like forgoing that extra point. A true indication of class. Why be penny wise and pound foolish? If you're going to kneel on PAT attempts, might as well spend your possessions kneeling three times and punting.

In San Francisco, They Know About Sweet-n-Sour: San Francisco looked finished with Les Mouflons leading 17-13 with 2:30 remaining and the Forty-Niners facing third-and-32 in their territory. Troy Smith threw to Frank Gore in the left flat for 14 yards, then on fourth-and-18 threw the same play again in the left flat to Gore for 23 yards, then threw to Michael Crabtree for the touchdown.

BEWARE THE CRABTREE CURSE! Adding talented players to your team makes it worse, not better!

[Referring to the Raiders and their patchwork roster] This is a team after TMQ's heart -- castoffs and who-dats.

Remember that time he suggested that NBA teams stop using their first round picks because every year, some of them don't work out? Yes, I agree with you, that is one of the dumbest things ever written about sports.

Jacksonville Becomes the Dillon Panthers of the NFL: Jacksonville has now won games on a final-snap 59-yard field goal and a final-snap 50-yard Hail Mary. You have to feel for Texans defender Glover Quin, who tried to knock the pass to the ground -- exactly what defenders should do to a Hail Mary -- only to see it carom to Jax's Mike Thomas for the winning six.

Hat tip to Jack M: if only Quin had selfishly gone for a stat-padding interception, the game might have headed to OT.

BCS note: Can sportscasters and sportswriters please stop referring to the USA Today and Harris polls as the "human" polls? No other species gets a vote -- the BCS is obviously worried the Klingons would like TCU more than Auburn.

Does he know how the BCS works? He knows that there are computer rankings (admittedly not really true "polls," but still) involved, right?

Stop Me Before I Blitz Again!: City of Tampa leading Carolina 24-16 with 4:40 remaining, the Bucs faced third-and-15 in their own territory. Play straight defense here and a stop is statistically likely ... It's a mega-blitz! Tampa converts and scores the game-icing touchdown on the possession.

Shame on Carolina for anticipating a long-developing pass play and trying to force a sack or turnover. There's got to be some kind of weird childhood incident behind his hatred of blitzing. I don't want to speculate any further than that.

Bonus Obscure College Score of the Week: Bowdoin 26, Colby 21. OK, these schools are not obscure,

Snob alert. I am barely aware of Bowdoin's existence and couldn't begin to tell you where it is- and I had no fucking idea Colby was a school or where it is.

but I make an exception because this was the final college football game for my son Grant, Bowdoin's left tackle. Plus you gotta love a contest that pits the Polar Bears against the Mules. Leading 26-21, Bowdoin took possession on its 1-yard line with 9:17 remaining and staged a 14-play clock-killer drive, closing out the game. Twelve of the snaps were rushes, allowing Grant and his fellow offensive linemen a moment in the sun as the season concluded. Grant's best two college games were

Too long; didn't read. It's funny- Gregg and Simmons hate each other and are usually polar opposites in terms of writing content and style, yet they both hold the incorrect assumption that I give one quarter of one percent of a shit about their kids. Just write about the NFL, jackass. No one cares about your family. Or your book.

GAH. Please Don't Do That

Jaguars QB David Garrard, on his game-winning 50 yard TD pass to Mike Thomas (fast forward to about 7:15 on this video):

I couldn't tell if he caught it... if there was even a play on the ball... and then I saw him running into the end zone. I didn't know what to do. I thought I was gonna just- literally explode right there.

Imagine that literally happened. Literally grosser than that time Joe Theisman's leg literally snapped in two back in the day? I literally believe so.

Adding some much-need clarity to his comment, Garrard continues:

On impact. Right there.

On impact? I'm literally befuddled.

Spot the Straw Man

In memory of Guy Fawkes (remember remember! The 5th of November) let's play a game called "Spot the straw man argument! This week's straw man argument comes from one of the biggest prigs ever to write about baseball, Jon Heyman, responding to the backlash against Jeter winning his 5th Gold Glove and his 4th utterly undeserved Gold Glove

Woo-fucking-hoo!

So apparently there's this blog out there called Fire Joe Morgan that stole our idea for how to criticize the sports media. Kudos to them, though, because this just happened. I guess it would be even better if their blog was called Don't Retain Joe Morgan. But still. That's pretty awesome.

Now watch ESPN replace Morgan with some diptard like McCarver.