Did Your Favorite College Football Team Suck In 2007? Bruce Feldman Is Here To Help

First, some housecleaning stuff.

Please disregard that BallHype ranking meter in the left toolbar. It's a lying piece of shit. It should say "1," or maybe "-0" if that counts as being even more awesome. Yesterday was our biggest direct traffic day ever. Welcome, new people. Take a look around in the archives and waste an hour or two of your life. (Assuming you really are new people, and not old people using multiple computers during the same day just to fuck with me. What a prank that would be! Hoo hoo!)

Also, feel free to email shitty articles you guys find to the address above. We definitely welcome tips. Lazy as I am, sometimes I don't see these things on my own. I could use an assist every now and then. That email account is depressing to check. Pretty much all it gets right now is 1) very rarely, a complimentary email that is probably just some wiseass being sarcastic 2) slightly less rarely, some legitimate hate mail, which I enjoy because at least it's honest and 3) invitations from the king of Sierra Leone/Uganda/Nigeria to help him move money into the USA. I'd very much like for the account to be more useful than that. So please, drop us a line and tell us if you saw something that insulted your intelligence or sense of humor.

Moving on.

ESPN the Magazine's Bruce Feldman is a positive-thinking kind of guy. He's the kind of guy you'd hate to be caught in a collapsed mine tunnel with. He'd annoy the shit out of you with his optimism. How do I know? Because I just read what he has to say about the 2008 chances for several college football teams who ended 2007 somewhere between "they were a disappointment" bad and "alums are burning their diplomas in response to this performance" awful.

Pittsburgh

I think the Panthers' patience with Dave Wannstedt will pay off with a return to the Top 25 next season and maybe even a Big East title.

This is so blindly optimistic, I don't even know how to address it. Let's briefly review Wanny's coaching career W-L numbers.

1993-1998, Chicago Bears: 41-57
2000-2004, Miami Dolphins: 44-27 (good), 1 playoff win (bad)
NFL total: 86-84

2005, Pitt: 5-6
2006, Pitt: 6-6, no bowl
2007, Pitt: 5-7
Total so far with Pitt: 16-19

Career total: 102-103

It's especially worth noting that the Pitt team he inherited was fresh off a 2004 Big East championship and subsequent BCS appearance. It's not like he was trying to pick up the pieces of a shattered program. So someone please clarify for me- which part, exactly, of that career record (not to mention recent record) indicates this is a guy that's going to suddenly lead a 5-7 team past West Virginia, an improving South Florida team, an improving UConn team, a slightly above mediocre Rutgers team, a not half bad Cincinnati team, and a decent Louisville team? Really? Wanny is going to suddenly leapfrog all six of them next year? Man, I know the purpose of the column was to inspire hope in fans of some downtrodden programs, but that line really stands out as an unmitigated disaster. Here's a realistic goal for Pitt: go 7-5, don't get blown out at home, and get to a bowl. If no one gets injured and all their recruits pan out extremely well, I think they can do it. Let's leave a conference title to 2010 and a different coach.

Ole Miss

The schedule also sets up nicely since the toughest of the first four games -- and the lone road trip -- is to Wake Forest.

This is obviously not as ridiculous as the Pitt comment, but it's still worth noting. First of all, Wake will probably crush them. Second, two of these other "easy" first four games are against Memphis and Vandy, neither of which are even close to sure things. They squeaked past Memphis by two in 2007, and Vandy topped them by 14. So it's entirely possible the Rebels could open 1-3, and then have a full slate of SEC games left on the schedule including trips to Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, and LSU. Being Ole Miss and saying "Hey, three of our first four games are winnable, probably!" is like being way out of shape and saying "Hey, miles one through six of this marathon follow a gentle downhill slope! Maybe I can finish in under four hours!" In other words: don't hold your breath for a bowl berth. Maybe you'll improve on your 3-9 record from 2007... maybe not. On the positive side, if conventional wisdom among guys who went to college in the Midwest holds true, your campus is crawling with incredibly hot girls. So you've got that going for you. Cherish it.

Washington

The Huskies won't have any established targets, but Willingham is bringing in an impressive class of receivers. He's even snatched blue-chipper Chris Polk away from USC.

That's great. Good for him. But much as I love him (see any of my comments on any of FireJay's Notre Dame-related posts... it's pretty obvious I hate Charlie Weis and am still an adamant Ty supporter) here's the thing about Willingham. Just like Wannstedt, it's pretty clear at this point that he doesn't know his asshole from his elbow when it comes to coaching.

Stanford, 1995-2001: 44-36
Notre Dame, 2002-2004: 21-15 (but oh, what a 2002!)
Washington, 2005-2007: 11-25
Total: 76-76

I take it back; he knows his asshole from his elbow... but barely. He can point to where each of them are on his own body, maybe, but I wouldn't trust him to pick them out of an imaginary police lineup that consists entirely of giant body parts. He's 6-20 in the Pac-10 in three years with UW. The odds of him bucking this trend and winning more than a handful conference games in 2008? Probably about the same as the odds of me moving out of my parents' basement in the next five years. Don't hold your breath. And bring me some Sun Chips next time you come down here. The sour cream and onion kind if you can find them.

Louisiana Tech

Derek Dooley has really upgraded the talent level quite a bit. Not only did Dooley land one of the nation's top juco pass-rushers in Kwame Jordan, but he also has a batch of former SEC talent set to take the field. Former Auburn QB Steve Ensminger will battle Michael Moseley for the vacant quarterback job. On defense, Jordan will be joined by one-time Tennessee recruit Rolando Melancon, a cat-quick 270-pound defensive tackle, and Zach Schreiber, a hard-hitting former Alabama linebacker. The secondary returns safety Antonio Baker, the team's best defender.

Pretty vanilla review there. So apparently they've got a couple transfers coming in, and a good safety coming back! Great. They also don't seem to have a QB. Last year they scored victories over Central Arkansas, New Mexico State, Utah State, Idaho, and San Jose State. They also lost by a combined 167 points to their other seven opponents. To be fair, that's a list that includes six teams that played in a bowl... oh, and also Ole Miss! Oops. LT got dumptrucked by the Rebels, 24-0. Based on that alone I'm going to go ahead and say they have a loooooong way to go to respectability. Like, the kind looooooong way that isn't covered by adding a few transfers and a juco guy. But I guess anything can happen in the "wacky" WAC!

Give me a pound for that joke. Blow it up. Someone. Anyone?

Nebraska

Pelini's expertise is defense, and he has his work cut out for him with a unit that surrendered 40 or more points six times in 2007. Four years ago, when Pelini worked as Nebraska's defensive coordinator, the Cornhuskers tied a school record by forcing 47 turnovers and ranked second nationally in takeaways. That was 36 more turnovers than the team generated this fall.

Pelini's obviously a smart guy. I'm sure there are some schematic changes he can make that will instantly help the Huskers in 2008. But when you're giving up 40 to Ball State, 76 to Kansas, and 65 to Colorado, it's pretty obvious there's a talent problem that's not going to be fixed in one year. Nebraska was 5-7 in 2007. Their 2008 schedule is a joke (they avoid Texas and Oklahoma in the conference, and are really pulling out all the stops by scheduling Western Michigan, San Jose State, and New Mexico State out of conference) so I wouldn't be surprised if they get back to 6 or 7 wins in 2008. But that's kind of like going from writing like Jemele Hill to writing like Bill Simmons and wanting a cookie and a sticker for showing such significant improvement. Whoop-de-shit. You're still a disaster. SMACK.

Minnesota

The Gophers weren't that far from winning a few more games, considering they lost six games by a total of 23 points.

Here are those six:

Wisconsin, by 7 (a respectable loss)
Iowa by 5 (presentable)
Florida Atlantic by 3 (well, FAU did go to a bowl)
Bowling Green by 1 (they did too)
Northwestern by 1 (oh God)
North Dakota State by 6 (THAT'S NOT A DIVISION I-A TEAM)

So yeah, there's nowhere to go but up from here. Maybe in 2008 Minny can get its shit together and not lose to Northwestern and a I-AA team. Reverse two of those other four close losses, add in their one win from 2007, and suddenly they're at 5 wins. Strike up the band! Play the fight song! Quick, impromptu pep rally! It's almost hockey season! Go Gophers! Sigh. Where have you gone, Lawrence Maroney and Marion Barber III? Being the worst team in the Big 10 is like being the crappiest show on CBS. Not only do you suck, but so does the organization you belong to. (Any of you Big 10 defenders out there who are offended by that, please justify your 3-5 bowl record. The Big 12 went 5-3. The Big East was 3-2. The Pac 10 was 4-2. And the SEC was 7-2. The ACC, who's hyped by no one, was 2-6. So, congratulations, you weren't the worst power six conference in the bowl season. I'm still making fun of you.) Being the worst character on that show? That's like being Minnesota kicker Jason Giannini, who missed 3 of his 4 FG attempts last year.

Now, let me clarify- this is not to say that none of these teams mentioned by Feldman (plus Notre Dame, Miami, North Carolina, and Marshall) will have an unexpectedly great 2008. Odds are at least a couple of them will right the ship and turn in a season that comes close to expectations. But Feldman's reasoning in most of their cases is shoddy at best. It's almost puff piece-esque.

I think the better move for fans of these teams (as I happen to be) is to assume 2008 will be even worse than 2007. That way, in order to be a pleasant surprise, your team only has to match last year's victory total. Lower expectations equals better results; it's the way I live my life. Ahhhhhhhhh, mediocrity. How I hope to achieve you one day.

Which Writer Deserves to Have His Vote Revoked:

The one who voted for a guy with an 89 career OPS+?

The one who voted for a guy with a 100 career ERA+?

In other news, Jeff Pearlman's prediction of last June proved correct. Also, Jim Rice will probably make it next year, since Ricky Henderson is the only lock on the ballot and he won't lose any votes to this guy.

If Homer Simpson is S-M-R-T, Then I'm L-C-K-Y

Pop culture reference! Maybe if I bring up a popular TV show, people will like my blog just as much as they like it!

I know this has nothing to do with bad sports journalism, other than the fact that I'm less ignorant than Stewart Mandel (which isn't saying much), but I'm writing about it anyways. Consider it a sad celebration of the end of college football for the next 8 months or so. Just because I'm feeling like the cock of the walk after re-reading these, and because Ohio State and LSU square off tonight in the last game of the season, let's review my BCS bowl predictions from about a month ago. Obviously I would not be doing this if they had all turned out flagrantly wrong, but they didn't, so I am. Hooray. Holy shit, I am one lucky guessing bastard. Let's get the barely right/mostly wrong one out of the way first.

Georgia/Hawaii: This is exciting on the surface because just like last year's Fiesta Bowl, it's a high scoring WAC team matching up against a traditional powerhouse. So I'm excited about that (as anyone should be, at least on some minimal level) no matter how imbalanced the matchups on the field look. In any case, Georgia is probably going to win, but I'm not sold at all on Mathew Stafford. He misses a lot of open guys. Colt Brennan is the shit and he showed it against Boise State. Knowshon Moreno and Thomas Brown should rack up big yards, but the game will be played indoors and on fieldturf so the Warriors will be moving the ball as well. If Brennan has time to throw Hawaii's going to put up at least 35. Can Georgia match?

Obviously I was way off in thinking that Hawaii had a chance. But at least I was correct in guessing that if Hawaii was going to get killed, it would be because Brennan had no time to throw. That Georgia pass rush was vicious. Anyways, my thoughts about the other three games were more or less correct.

USC/Illinois: Yawn. Stanford over USC gets more ridiculous every time I think about it. Illinois beat Ohio State because no one could tackle Juice Williams. USC won't have the same problem.

Yawn. Williams and the rest of the Illini offense looked like a bunch of Canadians against the Trojan defense. The only thing that kept the game from turning into a total travesty was John David Booty's awfulness. I bet Missouri or Florida could have at least kept the final margin under three touchdowns. But why have a game like that, when you can have tradition? Heavens to Betsy, thank goodness a Big 10 team faced off with a PAC 10 team in the Rose Bowl! What would we have done otherwise?

West Virginia/Oklahoma: Since they seem to be on national TV every single weekend, I've seen WV absolutely embarrass several teams this year. Sure, they haven't played a team like Oklahoma, but as long as Pat White is healthy their offense can move the ball on anyone. Oklahoma is, of course, dangerously good in their own right. Stupid Bob Stoops. Stop looking so smug already. I can't explain WV's meltdown against Pitt other than to say it was a rivalry game, Pitt got up for it, and Westy choked. But like I already mentioned, I also watched Oklahoma absolutely shit the bed against Colorado in October. Bad games happen. If Westy doesn't have a hangover from the Pitt disaster (which is likely given that they have a month to forget about it) they're more than capable of beating the Sooners. Will they? Probably not. But it's going to be a good game as long as White doesn't get knocked out.

West Virginia's bed-shitting against Pitt was an aberration. Turns out, they can play with anyone when White is healthy. Just like I said. Nah nah nah nah nah. OK, maybe I said they "probably" wouldn't win and then they won by 20. At least I gave them a fighting chance, unlike Mandel. (See his article, linked in my original post.)

Kansas/Virigina Tech: Obviously, Kansas is really going to struggle to score much. Fortunately they have a very underrated defense that's going to hold VaTech's offense in check as well. Kansas CB Aqib Talib is a bad man and future NFL starter. I've seen four Hokie games this year and they don't seem to have much at the offensive skill positions. Tyrod Taylor gets a lot of snaps considering he sucks. Brandon Ore crumples as soon as he gets touched half the time. If Kansas makes too many mistakes early, it could get out of hand, but I think Todd Reesing is capable enough of not coughing up the ball that it should be interesting well into the second half.

Obviously this is my favorite of the four. Talib had a pick-6, KU's defense beat the crap out of VaTech's offense pretty much all night, and I came out smelling like a pile of roses covered in daisies and freshly baked cookies. The only thing I was really wrong about was the fact that Ore had a good game. Yayyyyyyyyyy me. Mandel made some kind of crack about the fact that Kansas was only the second best team in the Big 12 North. That may be true, but I guess the second best team in the Big 12 North is still more than a match for the ACC champ.

In conclusion, if there's anything we've learned in the end from this year's slate of BCS bowls, it's that a playoff system would be completely unnecessary and unsatisfactory. (I'm not implying that it will ever happen, just implying that anyone who says it shouldn't happen has a tiny brain. And if they're male, a tiny penis.)

Go Tigers! I don't really give a shit about them, but I do hate Ohio State, and a two loss national champion would be just another log on the fire that's hopefully about to engulf the BCS.

Hopefully.

Probably not.

Definitely not.

Fuck.

Oh well.

When Your Job Consists of Talking About Sports, Maybe You Should Learn the Rules

NBC has a very dynamic duo calling the Redskins/Seahawks game right now. Chris Collinsworth (more like Collinsworthless! LOL!) is the color guy, which is enough by itself to make me wish FOX or CBS had the rights to the game. But with Tom Hammond accompanying him and doing play-by-play, it's a perfect storm of idiocy in the booth.

Just a minute ago, the Seahawks screwed up a kickoff return. The kick was very high and short. It bounced at about the 30, rolled past the two deep return men, and was grabbed by a Redskin on the run at about the 15. The player then ran into the end zone, as his momentum was carrying him that way. Hammond:

Touchdown, Redskins!

Now, if you didn't know that an onside kick can't be advanced, that's fine. I'm not making fun of you for that. It's a bit of an obscure rule. There are probably plenty of big football fans out there who didn't immediate realize the play wasn't a TD. But here's the thing about those fans: they're not being paid to tell millions of viewers what's going on during the game. They're probably employed in capacities other than "TV Sports Analyst," so they don't have time to learn the rules of the game. Hammond doesn't have that excuse. He's being paid a lot of money to learn those rules. Therefore: for saying this, he's a big time dipshit.

Phase 1: White Sox Make Trade. Phase 2: ?

Phase 3: Jay Mariotti gets made fun of here.

Acknowledged, people are writing about far more interesting and mainstream things around now. But "journalists" just can't write these things and get away with them! I'm sorry! Jaybird, tell us, using as much anti-Sox spin as possible, why they got burned by Billy Beane in the Swisher deal?

Did Beane snooker Williams again?

Hot damn, Hawkeroo. We'd better rush down to beautiful U.S. Cellular Field before all the 2008 tickets are gobbled up. The White Sox just traded for a .262 hitter with shrinking power numbers who no longer was deemed necessary by Oakland's esteemed Billy Beane, never a good sign.

Obligatory immature reference to an increasingly senile broadcaster aside, Jay's one-track mind and ignorance pervades this paragraph. Let's just see how.....

The first, and most offensive thing is that Jay sums up Swisher as a ".262 hitter". Swisher drew 100 walks last year, dumbass. Who cares if he's hitting .262 when he on-bases (yes, that's a verb) .381?

"Shrinking power numbers" implies that there is some sort of a multi-year trend. Swisher has none. Here are 2B/HR/SLG stats for the past 3 years.

2005: 32/21/.446
2006: 24/35/.493
2007: 36/22/.455

So Swisher had a bit of a power outage in 2007. That isn't evidence of "shrinking power numbers". He's going to be 27 next year and playing in a hitter's park.

And thirdly, Jay, perhaps Swisher was no longer deemed necessary to Billy Beane because the A's are rebuilding! Dan Haren was traded away too....is he "unnecessary" to Beane as well? By the time the A's have a chance to be good again, Swisher will be fairly expensive, as his contract is back-loaded and the A's don't have shovels full of cash to hand out. There was little chance he was going to play out his contract on that team one way or the other.

But....you already thought about these things, right? Is it even the slightest bit unfair for me to claim that you couldn't have analyzed this worse?

Hate to be cynical about Ken Williams' belated offseason attempt to redeem himself, but acquiring Nick Swisher only assures the Sox of one thing: They're a little better than the Kansas City Royals.

It also assures them that Jerry Owens, one of the sorriest excuses for a major league player to luck into playing 90 games in a season, will not be starting.

As an auxiliary addition, the shaggy-haired outfielder might be a clever idea. But as a centerpiece of a disappointing winter, he's the booby prize after Williams lost big targets Torii Hunter and Miguel Cabrera to real American League contenders in Anaheim and Detroit.

Stop. The. Fucking. Presses.

Jay Mariotti has just suggested that Nick Swisher is somehow worse than Torii Hunter.

Jay Mariotti has just suggested that Nick Swisher is somehow worse than Torii Hunter.

Jay Mariotti has just suggested that Nick Swisher is somehow worse than Torii Hunter.

I didn't even copy and paste that. I had to type it 3 times. Jay has endowed me with the right to go statistical apeshit.

Swisher put up his best offensive season last year, with an EqA of .291. He's 27 this year. He's an OBP machine.

Torii Hunter has never had higher than a .282 EqA. He has never OBPed above the league average. He's 32 this year. He's an overrated defensive talent, as he was 7th/10 in the AL in zone rating for CFs last year, while his FRAAs are unimpressive on the whole.

Plus, look at the contracts. Nick Swisher is owed $3.5M, $5.3M, $6.75M, and $9M over the next four years respectively, with a 10.25M option for 2012. Hunter's proposed deal from the Sox was for $15M a season for those 5 years.

Damn, Kenny Williams sure whiffed on this one, huh?

When the Sox have three potential craters in their starting rotation, why trade the supposedly coveted lefty Gio Gonzalez -- for the second time, by the way -- for a player whose home-run production dropped from 35 to 22?

Because for some reason, Kenny Williams thinks he's in win-now mode, and Gio was not in the plans to fill one of those craters in 2008.

I absolutely love the 35-22 homerun cherrypick stat. Doubles went up from 24 to 36! OBP went up from .372 to .381! Batting average up from .254 to .262! Strikeouts down from 152 to 131! EqA slightly increased!

Sure, Swisher gets on base, but he's much more a complimentary cog than a difference-maker.

I love the "Swisher gets on base, but" clause. Like getting on base isn't the single most important thing for a hitter to do. It's like Jay's dismissing it as meaningless. And seriously, what's the cutoff between "complimentary cog" and "difference maker" in your world Jay? How does Torii Hunter fit into the latter while Swisher fits into the former? Can you explain that? Or is that more generic dumbass sportswriter speak?

In a murderous division, the Sox have no right to even think about competing against Cleveland and Detroit when they've done little more than get Swisher and shortstop Orlando Cabrera.

I agree here. The White Sox have a question mark and two losers making 60% of their starts. Therefore, they will not be a threat to win the division this year. However, their offense will be very good, and the bullpen is likely to rebound. Swisher is a good, relatively young, relatively cheap long-term solution for the outfield, so is the lack of likely 2008 success really a reason to damn Williams for making this move?

Williams, delusional as ever, is talking about a World Series title.

He has to. It's his job to, even if he doesn't believe it.

I'd never suggest the Sox, firmly the distant No. 2 baseball team again in the nation's third-largest market, slip back into the old Kids Can Play mode. But it's odd to give up three prospects to a shark like Beane, who knows a good young pitcher when he sees one.

That's a gross oversimplification of Beane. Beane is among the best judges of such talent, but there's nothing to say he's infallible or something. He's made his mistakes, and he's taking an educated chance on these prospects. He doesn't know for sure they'll pan out.

If Gonzalez and/or righthander Fautino De Los Santos pan out, along with outfielder Ryan Sweeney, Williams never will hear the end of it.

Ryan Sweeney has about a 2% chance of ever being as good as Nick Swisher. The pitchers will have to be damn good for anyone informed to criticize Williams heavily for this trade. Note I said "informed". I still expect you to criticize, Jay.

Anyone who read the best-seller, "Moneyball," knows how Beane has snookered Williams in the past. And that embarrassment vaguely involved Swisher, making me wonder if Williams is trying to exact revenge on Beane six years later.

What the fuck are you talking about? That embarrassment involved things like Chad Bradford, Ray Durham, Joe Blanton, and Royce Ring. It had nothing to do with Nick Swisher, except that Beane drafted him in the same year as the events of the book. I am staring directly at the book and quoting, pages 107-108.

"Billy's phone rings. It's Kenny Williams again. Williams is of no current interest to Billy. Nothing the White Sox will do will alter Billy's chances of getting Swisher."

The rest of Mariotti's article is just a bunch of Moneyball quotes and a basic plot summary. If I had to guess, I'd say this was the first time he's opened the book.

It's official, the White Sox cannot make a move that Mariotti won't slam. At a certain point, writing becomes so spun by personal grudges and established personalities that truth completely fades out of it. Jay is one such writer. Anyone who still takes anything he says to be true would do well to be reminded of this article.

Presenting: Scoop Jackson Finishes Embarrassing Himself

Let's pick up where we left off on Wednesday. Scoop was trying to come to the right conclusion (Randy Moss won't win the NFL MVP this year) by citing all the wrong reasons (such as: Barry Bonds has shown us that jerks can't win MVPs).

Moss won't win the MVP award because as well as he's played -- and in some minds (including this one) he outplayed Brady this year -- MVPs are like NCAA teams trying to win the BCS: If you begin the season too far off the elite list or not ranked in the top 25, it's impossible (even if you go undefeated, like Hawaii this year or Boise State last year) to play for the national championship. In Moss' case, while there is no preseason "ranking" on this topic, he began the season too far off of everyone's list to be the MVP in the end.

Interesting. The "you can't win if no one expects anything from you when the season starts" theory. Yet earlier in this same article, Scoop wrote that:

His teammate, Tom Brady, will win that award and at least one other player, probably Brett Favre, will get more votes of recognition than Moss.

Is that the same Brett Favre who had a 1:1 TD/INT ratio in 2006? And a QB rating in the low 70s? Yeah, so given that Favre will probably get significant MVP consideration, we're going to go ahead and ditch that idea.

Moss won't win the MVP award because he's not a quarterback. Or a running back. The last non-QB/RB to win the AP MVP award was Lawrence Taylor in 1986. And no wide receiver has ever won it -- not even Jerry Rice in 1987, when he won the Pro Football Writers' award.

Remember this; it's actually the real reason why Moss won't win. Good for Scoop for stumbling into it. Bad for Scoop for failing to realizing that this is the case is because WR performance is so incredibly dependent on QB and OL performance. Was Moss ineffective in Oakland simply because he didn't care? Really? He looked pretty deflated at times, but he obviously still had his physical tools. You think he was being that lethargic, every down, every game? Or could it maybe be the case that with shitty QBs behind a shitty OL throwing to him during 2005 and 2006, he was simply unable to rack up any decent numbers? It was probably a combination of apathy and supporting cast, but the second is far more significant than the first. I'm not saying WRs are 110% dependant on their QBs/OLs, and can't do anything to affect the outcome of a game on their own. But QBs/OLs help WRs look good a whole lot more often than the other way around.

Small sample size alert, but I'm going to make my point anyways. On Moss's 60 yard-plus TD against the Giants in the 4th quarter last Saturday, he simply ran a fly route. The corner on his side of the field let him go after 10 yards, presumably expecting safety help. That help came extremely late (almost as if the coverage was blown), and Moss caught the ball ran untouched for the TD. I know he's fast, but lots of guys are fast. At least 40 or 50 other wideouts in the league could have scored that TD. The reason that play and many other Brady to Moss plays this season worked like it/they did was because Brady had his usual 15 seconds in the pocket to allow things to develop, and he throws a good deep ball. The end.

Even though breaking Rice's season record for TD catches is just as impressive and significant as Brady breaking Manning's mark for TD passes, Moss won't get the MVP because he won't get the same recognition. In any other season, what he accomplished would have been more recognized and honored, but with Brady having his best statistical season, we didn't necessarily realize Moss' domination. That's not wrong, that's just human nature.

This doesn't carry much water. And by doesn't carry much water, I mean is complete nonsense. Pundits have been tripping over themselves to ass pat both players pretty equally this year. Brady might have an edge, but if he does it's pretty slight. I don't think Moss's hype would suffer much had he only finished with 20 TDs, nor would he eclipse Brady if Brady had only thrown 45 TDs. People don't care all that much about football records. Shouldn't all time passing TDs represent the rough equivalent of baseball's all time home run record? Compare the buildup and reaction Favre and Bonds each got during the past year. It's not much of a contest. Therefore- football records aren't that big of a deal.

Moss won't win the MVP award because he's been too perfect. For most players this would be a gift not a curse, but for him it's too distant from the picture that has been painted of him since he was drafted in 1998. The sullenness, the sulking, the walking off of the field with time left on the clock, playing only on certain downs, the Raiders experience -- all of this represents how the public sees Moss, defines who he is in our minds. But this year he's almost been angelic. And instead of giving him sole credit for changing and maturing, we will say it was the Patriots organization that changed him. Even though he had more of an effect on them than they did on him.

Moss won't win the MVP award because we don't want to honor that truth. The truth that the main reason the Patriots were able to go undefeated is because of the attitude change the team inherited from him. We see Spygate as the reason for the anger or "chippiness," as Tom Jackson calls it. But it was Moss who helped the Patriots get hard.

That's a load of anecdotal bullshit so massive, I surprised my computer didn't "poop out" trying to put it on the screen! (See, I said I was going to use more bad jokes and exclamation points this year.) Seriously though, wow. Where did this come from? How can a guy who gets paid to write about his opinions gets away with something like this?

See if you can follow Scoop's logic here. Moss has been a total dick and bad teammate several times during his career. It's fair to say he has a reputation for assholism. He also put up relatively poor numbers on the field during the two years before he came to New England. Bill Belichick also has an assholish rep, but he's got three Super Bowl rings. He clearly knows how to be angry and remain effective as a coach. Moss goes to New England and stops being a dick. He also starts putting up great numbers. Belichick continues to be a dick. The team continues to enjoy success. Clearly, this is all due to... Moss? I got myself lost somewhere in there, but that's Scoop's fault. How exactly the fuck we're supposed to buy into what he just wrote is anyone's guess.

It reminds me of a half-assed English paper, the likes of which I would have written in high school. I would just state conclusions left and right without justifying them and hope the teacher didn't bother to think while reading the essay. Replace "I would" with "Scoop is", "teacher" with "reader", change the verb tenses, and that's pretty much what seems to have happened here.

Moss won't win the MVP award because of his braids,

Pretty unlikely.

because he publicly admitted that he smokes weed,

That was like four years ago. I don't think the media cares that much any more. And again, when it comes to drugged up athletes and MVPs, see Bonds comma Barry.

because he's unapologetic about his West Virginia roots and doesn't mask who he really is,

The key to Peyton Manning's MVP awards: being very apologetic about his Louisiana roots, and constantly masking who he really is. Doesn't the guy just seem like a great big fake? I'll bet he doesn't even like most of those products he endorses. Same for Brett Favre and Steve McNair with Mississippi. And Shaun Alexander with Kentucky.

and because he's never been ashamed of how the world sees him.

Lawrence Taylor was clearly very ashamed of how the world saw him. That's how he was able to drag an award home.

Moss won't win the MVP award because of that beard. (Anyone who can make Ricky Williams' old facial hair look groomed doesn't stand a chance.)

I know I'm taking this too seriously. That's what we do here at FireJay. But Kurt Warner won an MVP with a trashy-ass beard and a wife that looks like an alien.

I'm just saying is all.

Moss won't win the MVP award because all of those unbelievable catches he made this season (remember the one-handed grab against the Colts or the one-handed, double-covered, over-the-shoulder catch in the corner of the end zone against the Dolphins in Week 7?) tend to have people thinking that Brady's accuracy is what is making Moss look good, when actually Moss has made bad passes by Brady look like genius decisions.

More anecdotal bullshit. Also, for every bad Brady pass Moss has turned into a catch, there are probably like 15 good, accurate passes that were served up on a platter for Moss. When Brady has all damn day to throw in the pocket (easily the most frustrating part of watching Patriots games when you hate them), most passes are going to end up right on target. Thanks, offensive line!

Which brings us back to the beginning. The reason Randy Moss will not win the MVP award is because of this: He's Randy Moss. And a lot of people simply can't get past that.

I am past it. I was never hindered by it in the first place. I think most MVP voters can probably honestly say the same. Here's the deal: WRs just aren't that valuable in an offense relative to QBs, RBs, and OLs (not that the latter is in the voting discussion). It's not that WRs don't matter, or that they're all interchangeable with each other, but they simply don't matter to the same extent everyone else on the offense does. That's why Moss looked so bad in Oakland; he didn't have anyone helping him out, and simply couldn't amass good numbers or make a significant difference on the field all by himself. That's also the reason Brady was effective for years while throwing to unheralded WRs; a good QB can put up good numbers and make a significant difference on the field all by himself. Scoop himself touched on this earlier in the article so I give him credit for that. It's just sad he couldn't take the idea all the way to completion, and instead wrote the rest of the crap in this article.

In summary-

Actual reasons Moss will not win:
WRs almost never do, because they almost never realistically deserve to

Not actual reasons Moss will not win:
Voters don't notice players who had low expectations placed upon them coming into the season
Moss is a jerk and jerks never win MVPs
No one noticed his WR TD record because of Brady's QB TD record
Moss's attitude is totally the reason the Patriots played well this year
He has braids
He is from West Virginia
He once admitted he smokes weed
He's not ashamed of the way the world sees him
He is Randy Moss, and people just can't deal with that

Give Scoop credit for this: he didn't play the race card.

That's how far my standards have fallen for ESPN's writers. I now applaud them simply for not saying things that are horribly and flagrantly wrong.

A Banner Day For Anecdotal Bullshit

I wanted to write something substantial tonight, but between trying to finish off Scoop Jackson's hilarious Randy Moss column that I started yesterday and working on a fantastic Dennis Dodd puff piece about Les Miles, I didn't have anything really solid to give you. Until I checked over at ESPN.com and saw Bill Simmons has a new article up. It's basically 14 or so paragraphs of fellatio for the Celtics, which isn't really a surprise or worth my time to complain about. But two of those 14 paragraphs stuck out from the rest. I'm pretty sure that between them we have some kind of record for consecutive sentences filled with anecdotal bullshit. Take a look and tell me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like this. First, the setup.

Much has been made of Boston's team slogan -- "Ubuntu," an African word meaning unity -- but you need to attend a Celtics game to understand why they're on pace for 139 wins this season.

Either I've missed the coverage (unlikely), or this is false and no one actually gives a fuck what their team slogan is. Has anyone heard anything about this on a national level? If anyone out there is from the Boston area (Google Analytics says there's at least a few of you... come on, speak up), can you let me know if this is even a story on the local level? All I do all day is consume sports media from a wide variety of sources, predominantly the Celtic-loving ESPN, and I've heard just as many stories about the Celtics and their "ubuntu" since the NBA season started as I have about that version of basketball they show on the Spike channel with all the trampolines and ridiculous dunks. Which is too bad, because I really like that trampoline basketball game. I just haven't heard anything about it in a while.

Anyways let's get to Bill's amazing consecutive sentence streak of AB.

In the layup lines, everyone is high-fiving and joshing.

Every single team in the NBA does this. Go to a meaningless November game between the Sonics and Timberwolves. It's happening, I promise.

Before the opening tip, Posey greets each starter with a prolonged man-hug and inspirational words. The nightly sequence might hark back uncomfortably to Rocky and Apollo's beach snuggle, but it works.

Before he throws every pass, Peyton Manning thinks about pudding. Is that why the Colts won the Super Bowl last year?

During games, bench players stand and cheer as if they're being coached by Mark Madsen.

Also a practice of every team in the league.

In garbage time, the starters root just as passionately for the scrubs.

Again.

These guys eat dinner, hang out, work out and play video games together.

No way. NBA teammates doing stuff like that? Why isn't this a bigger story? I bet they even sometimes go to parties together! Maybe the Knicks should try that kind of thing.

They don't care about stats, acclaim, shots or minutes.

Wow. None of them? Not even the bench guys, many of whom are probably hoping to crack a starting five somewhere else in the next couple of years? That's so refreshing. I'm tired of all the selfish athletes out there who only care about stats, like Fish Fillet-Rod. Or Buffet-Rod, if you like that better. I can't decide.

It's a team in every sense.

A fitting conclusion to this sequence. So let's tally it up- that's eight straight sentences which are meant to prove a point, yet fail completely to do so because they contain no real information which is relevant to the attempt in question. Instead they're filled with vague descriptions of things that are completely non-unique to the team/individuals in question, or things that almost definitely have little or nothing to do with how well a team plays. That's the wordiest definition I can think of to describe anecdotal bullshit, and Bill is a master of it. I'm very impressed with his work here. I don't think this streak will be matched for a while.

The sad part is, I can tell you why the Celtics actually are winning a lot of games: they have a lot of good players whose styles of play work well together. Weird, right? If I hid that answer amid like fifty other wrong possibilities like "They all like the same breakfast cereal" and "The whole team went to see a movie together, and they all liked it equally," how long would it have taken you to find it? Hopefully not very long, or you're too stupid to be using the internet.

Now, I'm not saying team chemistry doesn't matter. It most definitely exists and affects the makeup of teams. But ultimately, winning is a function of talent. A lack of chemistry can sometimes slow teams down, but there are countless examples of times bad chemistry didn't affect a championship caliber team at all. And sometimes team can play over their heads and use chemistry or some other intangible to have success in the short term. But in the end, teams that have talented players whose on-court styles mix well is 95% of winning.

Of course, this kind of explanation is boring for people like Bill. He wants to believe that there is some other kind of mystical force driving his favorite teams. It's not good enough for him to just acknowledge that they're really good. He needs more. I can't say I blame him for that, although I do find it a little strange. When my favorite baseball team went on an absurd hot streak and won the NL pennant last fall, I wasn't thinking that maybe they had started a book club together and that was the reason they won all those games. I just figured they had some talented guys and were lucky enough to win a bunch of close games in a row. Is that crazy? Is it boring? Does it really matter? At least I wasn't grasping at magical straws and suggesting that their success happened because they cheer for each other from the dugout and give hugs during the pregame stretching routine.

The point is, the Celtics have three of the top 40 or so players in the NBA on their roster. One is a big man, one is a guard, and the other is a tweener. It just so happens that Garnett draws a lot of double teams, which leaves the other two guys open for kickouts. Allen is a lights-out shooter and Pierce is a great slasher, but Allen can also slash and Pierce can also shoot. Add in a bench full of guys that don't suck, a not overly difficult schedule, a little luck, and boom, there's your 27-3 record. The real factor is that their three best players' styles perfectly compliment one another. Is their relationship off the court part of that complimentary nature? A little bit. Maybe.

If you want to write an article full of speculative crap like Bill has here, you have to approach it from the vantage point of "Wow, I can't believe how good my favorite team is, so I'm going to offer some alternative theories as to why they win all the time! I'm not saying these are true, I'm just kind of talking out of my ass!" At least that way you look like someone who's just really giddy about the team's success and wants to write something about it, instead of someone stupid who thinks no other team in the league does stuff like hang out together or cheer for each other from the bench. And yes, before you leave your snarky comment, I know Simmons mentions that talent is a part of the equation in his article. But really, look at it- where do you think his heart really lies when it comes to the question of what leads to wins?

Conventional Wisdom vs. Colin Cowherd vs. Reality

Happy New Year!

There have been a lot of boring games this bowl season. So, if you've been watching the bowls, you've been only too glad to watch the scrolling numbers on the bottom of the screen. ESPN thoughtfully provided a set of numbers on America Voting - showing us the percentage of net-users who picked each team to win in their Bowl Mania. Thoughtfully, Colin Cowherd listed his predictions with a short one-sentence blurb about each game right next to SportsNation's readers (different from the Bowl Mania numbers). Which is amusing, because reading Colin's one-sentence blurbs just makes me snicker - though he's actually been quite successful - 22-5 so far. Impressive, Colin. Here's a few of the more interesting breakdowns:

Bowl #1: San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl
Colin says: Paul Johnson's built a solid defensive-first football team that'll carry with them in the bowl game."

What, Colin? In three of its last five games, Navy gave up 59, 44, and 62 points- but managed to win two of those games because their offense wasn't stoppable. In the North Texas game, they gave up over SIX HUNDRED YARDS of total offense!

Both Colin and the SportsNation readers are wrong on this one - Utah takes Navy by a nose.

Papajohns.com Bowl: Southern Miss vs. Cincinnati
Colin says: Cincinnati is the most underrated team in the country with double-digit wins.

Well, seeing as they didn't get double-digit wins until they *won* this game, that seems like a stupid thing to say, Colin. Since no team with double-digit wins is outside the top 12, it's hard to contest this stupid claim.

Colin and the SN readers take an easy win when they can get it. Bearcats roll.

Sheraton Hawaii: Boise State vs. East Carolina
Colin says: Could East Carolina travel any further?

Dan-bob says: Could you select a more irrelevant factor in predicting the outcome of the game?

Conventional wisdom and Cowherd wisdom get thrown for a loop - ECU pulls it out. Over 90% of people picked BSU - probably because they didn't know anything about the game but figured the karma from the statue-of-liberty-and-cheerleader proposal was enough to carry BSU through this year. Actually, that's about as useful as Colin's theory about travel.

Pacific Life Holiday : Arizona State vs. Texas
Colin says: I'll go with the better QB and the better big-game coach. (he picked ASU).

Dan-bob says: Why have the other 21 players even play the game? Let's just have a punt-pass-and-kick game between the two coaches and the quarterbacks! Also, two years ago, Mack Brown won the biggest game - the national title game over a pretty good USC team. I guess Dennis Erickson has won some big games too, but this seems like a draw to me. The actual difference in the game was Texas outrushing ASU to the sweet tune of 300-24. Maybe Colin should've considered that.

This is the first time the Bowl Mania crowd picked differently - they and Colin lost out on ASU's throttling. SportsNation readers were right this time, but only by a small margin.

Champs Sports : Boston College vs. Michigan State
Colin says: Boston College was once the second-best team in the country. Matt Ryan is this difference in the game.

I like how Colin says that since BC was ranked #2 at one point, they were *actually* the second-best team in the country. It's almost as though Colin believes that the rankings create reality - by virtue of ascending to #2, the Eagles actually became the second-best team! Unfortunately, Colin, the rankings actually reflect a distorted reality - and BC was never the second best team around.

Ryan had an average game and the Eagles barely beat the overmatched Spartans.

PetroSun Independence : Alabama vs. Colorado
Colin says: The desperate Tide just need this baby more.

Colin was right. Too bad you didn't need it more, Colorado. I don't know what you could've done to win this game, but Colin was pretty sure your lack of need doomed you. Bama 30 - Rough-Em-Up-Buffs 24.

Roady's Humanitarian : Georgia Tech vs. Fresno State
Colin says: This is a tough, physical matchup. Georgia Tech's defense is the difference.

Fresno State piles up 571 yard of offense and the lack of a GT defense is indeed the difference. Good thing GT hired "defense first" Paul Johnson to bring his "defense first" mode to Atlanta. Everyone has egg on their face here: GT gets smoked.

Brut Sun : South Florida vs. Oregon
Colin says: Oregon's running game will pound away at the Bulls.

Colin beats SportsNation/Bowl Mania pickers - who inexplicably picked USF by a pretty big margin - perhaps remembering USF's one-time #2 ranking. Colin is actually right on - the Ducks' Jonathan Stewart ran for 253 and Oregon rolled 56-21. Though it's worth noting that Oregon's fifth-string qb also threw five TDs.

But Colin, wasn't South Florida once the second-best team in the country too?

Cotton Bowl: Missouri vs. Arkansas
Colin says: A couple of Heisman hopefuls shine.

McFadden had a solid 105 yards and Daniel completed only 12 of 29 passes for 136 yards and no touchdowns and had one interception. Actually, neither of them shined. I think Colin just wanted to mention the only two players in this game that he'd actually heard of. The actual differece in this game was Missouri's Tony Temple, who ran for 281. But everyone was right about the winner: Missouri in a rout.

Capital One: Michigan vs. Florida
Colin says: Tim Tebow will give the Wolverines' defense headaches.The Lloyd Carr era is finally over.

Actually, the UM defense held Tebow pretty much in check - particularly on the last drive, where UF's offense pretty much handed him the ball and told him to go win it, and he threw six straight incompletes. The real difference in this game was the incredible Chad Henne - who utterly outplayed the Heisman winner.

I never thought I'd write that sentence.

The Lloyd Carr era is over, and so is the conventional wisdom of Florida being a great team. Unranked Michigan takes down the Gators - Colin and both sets of pickers are proven wrong. An amazing 91% of people picked Florida - this, along with the BSU whiff, makes me think that people assume that a bowl win one year means a bowl win the next year. It certainly shouldn't have to do with the teams actually playing!
___________________________________________________________________

Needless to say, conventional wisdom and Cowherd wisdom proved accurate on the first two BCS games. Overall, Colin and the mass of interwebbers were accurate - though with some hilarious whiffs like the UM-Florida game. Stay tuned for the rest of the bowl breakdowns!

Presenting: Scoop Jackson Embarrasses Himself, Again

I was going to cover this article in its entirety, but this one particular snippet is so flagrantly awful, it's worth a whole post all by itself. I'll do the rest of it tomorrow. For now, just try to soak this up. Tell me why Randy Moss won't be taking home the NFL's MVP this year.

Moss won't win the MVP award because of his past. It hasn't caught up with him in this respect, but it's too deep for too many people to forgive so soon. If anything has been learned from Barry Bonds, it's you can't be an ass and expect the media to think you are a king, even when you play like one.

Scoop Jackson. Thinks Barry Bonds. Is an example. Demonstrating why someone can't win MVPs. I'm telling you, you can't make this kind of stuff up.

Barry Bonds has seven MVPs. Seven. All of which were given to him by the media. That's more than twice as many as any other player in baseball's hundred whatever year history. Six more than Hank Aaron. Five more than Ted Williams. Four more than Mickey Mantle. Four more than Stan Musial. Seven more than David Eckstein and Darin Erstad combined. Not only has Bonds won the most MVPs ever, no one else is even close. Unless Alex Rodriguez starts popping steroids (or more steroids, depending on your opinion) and reels off four in the next six or seven years, there's no chance Bonds' mark gets touched for the foreseeable future. It might not ever be touched. Bonds is the absolute worst possible example Scoop could have chosen to try and justify his point. Bar none.

This is like saying "Rudy Guliani will definitely not win the Republican presidential primary. If anything has been learned from Ronald Reagan, it's that you can't be a white male and be appreciated by conservative voters."

Or less politically, "There's just no way U2 will be remembered as a popular band. If anything has been learned from the Beatles, it's that you can't be a bunch of goofy European guys wearing ugly sunglasses and expect fans to love your rock music."

How about, "I predict cell phones are a passing fad. If anything has been learned from standard home telephones, it's that people don't like to talk to each other unless it's in person."

Let's get pop-culturally creative! "There's no way Lindsay Lohan will continue to be a gossip magazine regular in the near future. If anything has been learned from the long succession of vapid, drug abusing, airheaded whores that have preceded her in that sector of the public eye, it's that people just don't like to read about vapid, drug abusing, airheaded whores."

Something else from the world of sports! "I can't imagine LeBron James selling a lot of shoes via endorsement during his career. If anything has been learned from Michael Jordan, it's that people don't really care about what shoe a great basketball player's name is on."

How about movies? "The Godfather will never be looked upon as a great film. If anything has learned from Dude, Where's My Car?, it's that film scholars strongly favor serious and sophisticated works of art which can only be enjoyed when you're wasted."

I could go on and on. But I won't. Because I've gone about six jokes too far already. Come on, Scoop. Why don't you just play the race card like usual and be done with it.

Back To The Grind

Enough of this vacation nonsense. Starting today, I'm back to my usual at least one post per weekday routine. That's good news for both of you out there who are still checking the blog after our week-plus hiatus. Thanks for sticking with us, and if you see any of the other ten people that used to read us, tell them we're back.

Let's get things started with two quick new years resolutions-

1) By popular demand, I'm going to try to be less angry and more light-hearted/carefree/happy/comedically inclined. Basically I'm going to spend less time talking about how how furious bad sportswriting makes me and instead spend more time coming up with unwitty jokes. I'm going to end more sentences with exclamation marks! Because that implies excitement! Which makes everything seem more energetic, and high-energy people are always funny! See what I mean?! I feel like Dane Cook already! In order to get my mind in the right place for this transition, I'll probably visit funny sites like this more often. Or this. Or this. These make me laugh. I like laughing.

2) I will start getting in shape, eating healthy, reading books, volunteering for charities, and generally putting the shattered pieces of my life back together.

See what I mean about writing more unfunny jokes? It's gonna be a great year.