Scoop Jackson gets into the Olympic spirit by writing a horrendous Olympic themed article

There's this theory I learned about in college called "The Banality of Evil," that essentially says that that most people in the world who do evil things (ethnic cleansing, drug cartels, Matthew McConaughey/Kate Hudson movies) are completely oblivious to the lack of morality in their actions.

Therefore, I present to you Scoop Jackson as proof of my thesis: "The Banality of Stupidity."

USA basketball is missing something ... or someone

They looked good, didn't they? Flashes of '92, right? Like we 'bout to get that ol' thing back.

I would never phrase it that way, but yes.

But something still doesn't feel right, right? There's still something wrong, isn't there? It's like something is missing, but you just … can't … put … your … finger on it.

Perhaps it's the fact that the '92 team had 10 of the top 50 NBA players of all time, along with the fact that basketball wasn't the international sport it is today. A wild guess; I know.

Let me help. There was a point in the third quarter of USA's final pre-Beijing tune-up against Australia (which was playing without Andrew Bogut, mind you) when Chris Bosh took over. The U.S. lead had fallen to single digits. But, off a pass from Dwyane Wade, Bosh came down the lane doing his best David Robinson impersonation and threw one down.

David Robinson: previously the only American to take a pass and dunk it in Olympic competition.

But after that, the Australians scored with ease. And often. They never flinched; they acted as if Bosh's dunk was nothing more than two points.

When in reality the dunk had been worth 7 points because Bosh had taken off from an NBA JAM Hot Spot.

Another national team, scared by us in a basketball game? Not anymore. Not even facing the best team the U.S. has been able to assemble in eight years.

Not like in '92 when it was routine for the US's opponents to sneak out of bathroom windows during halftime.

But Chris Bosh is not the issue here. He just exposed the void that might just hinder the Redeem Team's quest for gold. What's missing on this team is an intangible that, on his best day, Bosh (or Dwight Howard, or Carlos Boozer, or anyone else on the team) can't provide -- the intangible that would make this feeling that's gnawing at the bottom of our stomachs like leftover ceviche go away.

Please note that he says that the team is missing an intangible.

On the eve of the opening ceremony, it's too late to do anything about it. This team has other concerns too -- like occasional apathetic defense, intensity lapses and not having anyone besides Michael Redd to drop needles from 30 feet or anyone besides Tayshaun Prince to lock down a player like Spain's Juan Carlos Navarro if he gets warm. But what's missing is …

Amare Stoudemire.

So apparently Amare Stoudemire is now a phantasm because he can be listed as an intangible. What other wisdom can you impart upon us, oh brilliant basketball sage?

Even though Chris Anstey of Australia believes the fear factor is still there ("I think a lot of teams get intimidated by that [U.S.] team"), the truth is, if the intimidation factor was there, none of us would have that feeling in our stomach.

Even though there's evidence to prove the intimidation factor is still there, it actually isn't because I get nervous (and therefore, assume everyone else does) while watching the games.

Nothing against anyone on this squad, but Stoudemire -- who elected not to participate, concerned about the health of his surgically-repaired knees -- is the only player who was available to the United States who could have taken that feeling inside of us away. His presence, his demeanor, his anger, his power, his meanness, the messages he sends when he plays … that's what is missing.

How could he be so selfish? He led the NBA in MORP (Meaness Over Replacement Player) and Messages Sent During Games, but he didn't come to Beijing. Benedict Stoudemire if you ask me.

The U.S. team is made up of great players, but none are mean. They're all too nice. No one is going to elbow an Angolan in the chest for no reason.

Nor should they have to.

There's no one who makes other teams think twice about whether they really want to win; that player who can knock the will and ambition out of a team without throwing a punch;

Like Stoudemire did to his own team in the '07 playoffs when he got suspended for leaving the bench during a fight.

that player who can do something on offense that is so intimidating to the opposing squad, the U.S. doesn't have to play defense for two or three trips down the floor because its opponent is so shook up.

Not even Professor Xavier has that sort of mental dominance over people, so please shut the fuck up already.

Had that been Stoudemire instead of Bosh on the other end of that pass from D-Wade against Australia, flying down the lane for a flush, that game is over. Shrinkage sets in on the other side. Their shots stop falling. Confidence exits their souls as if someone yelled, "Fire!"

No one in the world believes that would've happened, and for you to insininuate that it would is both negligent and insulting.

But after watching the U.S. get past Turkey and Lithuania like they were AAU squads, and then be challenged by Russia and Australia, it is glass-cubicle clear that once the games begin in Beijing, no one is going to be afraid of the U.S. team. Or anyone on it.

Except for the guys who already said that they were intimidated.

True, LBJ can go nuts. Kobe can lose his mind offensively. And those things may reduce an opponent's chances of winning.

Sure, the Redeem Team can score all the points they like, but will that intimidate the other team into losing? No, no, no, and more no.

But they won't crush an international team's spirit the way they do in the NBA. The Wizards and Spurs may be scared, but the world ain't.

Ready yourselves for this week's "Jack's Lesson on Logical Fallacies:"

IF Kobe can intimidate the Spurs and beat them in the Western Conference Finals
AND One of the Spurs best players is on Argentina (one of the better teams in the world)
THEN Kobe's intimidation factor is useless in the Olympics

BUT

IF Amare Stoudemire is so unintimidating that his team lost to the Spurs in the playoffs 2 years in a row
AND One of the Spurs best players is on Argentina (one of the better teams in the world)
THEN The US is considerably worse off without Stoudemire's intimidation factor

QED

Stoudemire's ability to do things by sheer force -- force no other international player, or any other player in the NBA for that matter, possesses -- could have been the difference between this team simply winning the gold medal and this team winning the gold medal while never having less than a 25-point lead after halftime. The difference between destiny and dominance. Redemption and resurrection.

The difference between tomatoes and the French Revolution. Ferarris and cell phone towers.

So as you watch this team go for the gold, pay close attention to what is missing. Visualize the difference Amare Stoudemire would've made. Not that we are looking for perfection, but we are in search of something damn close. And if we're looking for this team to re-establish our true place in the game, by having other nations straight scared of us when they have to go against us, then we may have to wait until 2012 -- when Team USA might be able to convince Stoudemire just how necessary he is.

Or the US could just play defense and unselfish offense, and let Stoudemire stay at home every year.

Because in this sport we call basketball,

Atencion! Si hables espanol, El Scoopo Jackon-o dice "Baloncesto."

in which we are trying to redeem ourselves, why just go for the gold when instilling fear is a much greater reward?

Because the gold medal means we won, and we're better than every other country at basketball. Amare Stoudemire didn't come, so we have no shot at the fear award anyway.

Please clear out your desk and remove all personal effects from your office as soon as possible.

Blind Dayn Perry Discovers Proverbial Nut

Dayn Perry? Dayn Perry? The FoxSports.com Dayn Perry? Surely you jest. Did he actually write a decent article that comes to a very sensible and logical conclusion? Next thing you know, Mike Celzic will reveal his fondness for VORP and FRAA.

Re: the shoving match that took place in the Brewers' dugout between Prince Fielder and Manny Parra last week:

As sure as the smog in Beijing, there's going to be someone who attributes whatever happens to the Brewers in the coming days to the near brawl in the dugout. If they fritter away their lead in the NL Wild Card race and fall hopelessly behind the Chicago Cubs in the Central, then it'll be because there's too much infighting. If they hawk down the Cubs for the division lead or pull away in the Wild Card, then it'll be because Fielder's tantrum "lit a fire" under the Brewers or some such. The underlying assumption — that the shoving match has any bearing on what will happen on the field — is a faulty one.

So here's the thing: if there's any correlation between clubhouse chemistry and winning, then it's either A) so weak as to be unidentifiable, or B) so weak as to be meaningless. Winning baseball is about scoring runs, pitching well, playing defense, staying healthy, and strategizing properly.

I'm as shocked as you are.

Chinese Democracy

While spinning through some Olympics coverage today, I found a worthwhile soundbite. Apparently Jim Caple is riding around on a bike to see how polluted Beijing really is. Folks, this is the kind of investigative journalism you can only get from the World Wide Leader in Sports. Jim helps prove the adage that all ordinary people look ridiculous when equipped and dressed up in professional cycling gear.

Unfortunately, because of all this "credit crunch" and "gas prices" nonsense, there's a lot of belt-tightening going on here at FJM HQ. Thanks to expense cuts, I think Larry B will be the only FJM reporter on the ground at Beijing:2008 and he's staying at the Econo Lodge in Changxindian, chosen for its relatively inexpensive donuts, its relative difficulty to pronounce and its distance from all major airports and events. Even the Stansted Express doesn't serve it. Last time I checked, he could only score tickets to men's handball, the preliminary heats of the 200m breaststroke and both men's and women's luge. Still, stay tuned for his incisive coverage of the Games' political and cultural significance. Doubtless he'll have a lot to say.

Anyways. On to the best part of Caple's article: an interview with a guy who is apparently the jokester prince of American cycling:

"There's definitely something in the air," David Zabriskie said after his ride. "It's like that Lynyrd Skynyrd song. 'Oooh that smell. Can't you smell that smell? Oooh that smell.'"

Yes. Yes it is. David. In fact, I think you're more accurate than you realize. I'd forgotten how amazing/ridiculous/alarming/intruiguing those lyrics were.

Actually, Zabriskie might be on to something. Considering that the top sponsors - like Coca-Cola- have had to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars for that title, and the air quality particulate readings that exceed even targets for developing nations ... I'm sure the citizens of the 13th most polluted city in the world understand what Ronnie Van Zant meant when he originally sang:

There's too much coke and too much smoke
Look what's going on inside you.

It's almost like Ronnie was delivering a prophetic apostrophe to a city in need of a candid diagnosis of its diseased state.

Intrepid readers, the facts are all in. The 2008 Beijing Olympics theme song: Lynyrd Skynyrd's "That Smell".

The Dreaded Return of Hockey or Terry Frei, Depending on How You See Things

It's tough to believe that in just seven short weeks, preseason hockey will be attracting 4,000 people with nothing better to do to arenas all across North America. So to get back in the swing of things, let's stop off at Terry Frei's latest article to see what's not funny.

If the New York Islanders get around to hiring Ted Nolan's successor by opening night, nine NHL head-coaching jobs will have turned over since the end of last season.

Haha! You see - because they haven't... they haven't filled the position yet! And they might not before the season starts! That would be awfully silly of them! And perhaps the Islanders can all wear different styles of goofy hats! That would be uproarious!

Barring a long-shot choice on Long Island, such as Providence Bruins coach Scott Gordon, three men will be getting their first chance running an NHL bench: Atlanta's John Anderson, Florida's Peter DeBoer, and San Jose's Todd McLellan.

In the past few days, ESPN.com has offered up Power Rankings -- the Kings and the Thrashers being at the bottom of their conferences helps explain why their next coaches have formidable tasks ahead of them -- and on the mind-games front, the Top 75 Fantasy Players.

Mind you neither of these are linked in his article so that you can see them, you have to go to ESPN.com's NHL Portal your own self. I can top Terry's laziness by just not nitpicking all of his article, which is exactly my plan, but give it a little effort. There's not an awful lot to do during the hot days of the Denver summer - besides Rockpile tickets or Elitch's - and that doesn't embiggen Mr. Frei to give us links.

Here's the third period, so to speak: Coaching rankings.

On the premise that it would be excessively presumptuous to rank them 1 through 30 -- after all, we're not talking about uniforms -- the rankings are done in groups. They are also purely subjective.

Because the Power Rankings aren't purely subjective?

He follows with exactly what he said, a long and boring list of every coach broken into three boring groups. I'll be taking a tasting from each menu.

The Elite ...
... or the men who get the most out of their rosters, regardless of how good (or otherwise) those rosters are.

Barry Trotz, Nashville
The only coach the Dallas Cowb ... er, the Nashville Predators have ever had has done a remarkable job under changing circumstances. He, along with general manager David Poile and associate coach Brent Petersen, is a testament to the positives of stability. Under less-stable leadership and in less-capable hands, this franchise would be a joke on the ice.

Man, if there's something that I hate more than Terry Frei it's the Predators. But I do not understand what joke he's trying to make with the Dallas Cowboys. Other than fans of both teams are glaring idiots. Just how elite are the Nashville Predators under Barry Trotz? In 738 games, 324 wins, 308 losses, 60 ties (remember ties?) and 46 Overtime Losses. A very elite .500 team.

The Proven ...
... or the guys you know can pull it off until their voices get stale, it's time for a change, or the general manager needs to save his job by making someone a scapegoat.

Andy Murray, St. Louis
If you don't believe he's one of the best coaches in the league after his work in Los Angeles and then with the Blues, just ask him.

Andy Murray isn't egotistical. He may not be the best coach in the league, but he never has said anything along those lines. His work in St. Louis has been stellar if you count half of each season as a whole. The NHL does not, and he could be axed if the Blues miss the playoffs... again.

The jury's still out ...
... or the first-time NHL head coaches who still have to show they can be productive in what passes in this sport for the long run.

Bruce Boudreau, Washington
What a story. Finally gets his chance after years of coaching in the minors and wins the Jack Adams Award. But after the newness wears off, can he prove it was indicative of a difference-making touch?

The Jack Adams Award is "Coach of the Year." Lumping him into the same category as Wayne Gretzky's head coaching abilities? Not such a great idea.

The Suspect ...
... or they'll have to prove some people wrong to be considered (back) among the elite.

Mike Keenan, Calgary. We all know the man is a quirky genius on many levels, and he stayed relatively low-profile last season, so he might have learned some lessons. But given his recent track record and volatility, he's still in this category ... for now.

Mike Keenan has proven what a glaring prick he is. Which should lump him into "The Proven" category. It's also a much easier joke. The difference being that I'm on Blogger getting paid nothing and he's sitting on top of a bed made of money with many beautiful women posting on ESPN.com, which doesn't let you use the work "prick." Advantage: Firejay. Prick prick prick.

Barry Melrose, Tampa Bay
This is in no way, shape or form a knock on our former ESPN colleague.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmullet.

How the heck can we know yet? ...
... or the first-time NHL head coaches.

Todd McLellan, San Jose
McLellan is in a decent situation; the other two aren't.

To call San Jose a decent situation is to call Fire Jay Mariotti is just a sports blog. Clearly, both are more than just that.

And what sort of audience posts comments on ESPN.com? nhldude11 let's Terry Frei have it with this barb: nhldude11: way to go terry frei... you forgot the islanders and the flames idiot.


In the first 12 words of this article, it is established that the Islanders have no head coach. And I had no problem finding the Flames. To be put in the position to defend Terry Frei is hard, but if you're that stupid to log into your account and leave THAT as a comment... just stop watching the sport, please. Arena football needs you, nhldude11.

Monday Night Reader Extra Participation: A Life or Death Situation

I halfway mentioned this in the comments section of an earlier post, but since it's kind of a slow sports night, I felt compelled to turn it into a full post. Here's the situation: you're on a plane that's minutes away from crashing. The pilots and other passengers have already parachuted to safety. The only two other beings on said plane besides yourself are none other than Brett Fav-ruh and Barbaro. (Pretend he's alive; after all, he'll live forever in our hearts.) It's the three of you... and only two parachutes. You're in control. What do you do? Are you selfish enough to deprive America of one of its true heroes? Are you crazy enough to deprive it of both? Will you try to wear a chute while holding onto Barbaro in order to save all three of you? Please, let me know. I'm curious.

(Hint: unless you want to get really creative, this basically boils down to who sucks more between the two celebrities.)

Dayn Perry Sits Down, Writes Meaningless Article, Cashes Paycheck, Laughs Maniacally

Someone, anyone, tell me why this article needed to be written. I'll give you zero guesses, because there is no right answer and I don't want to waste either of our time(s).

This year, wild card is hurting, not helping

For the most part, the wild card has been a good thing for Major League Baseball.

Correct. In fact, if I had to quantify it, I'd say the wild card has been good for MLB at a 99% rate of success.

Since the expanded playoff format was introduced prior to the 1995 season, we've seen more teams in contention, more teams making headline-grabbing trades at the deadline, and, in a related matter, increased fan interest.

Mmmmmmm-hmmmmmm.

After all, without the wild card, the 2004 Red Sox, 2002 Angels, and 2003 and 1997 Marlins wouldn't have been able to win the World Series in the first place.

I like the use of "after all" here, as if people really needed convincing that the wild card is good. It's like he's trying to justify something controversial like tax increases or immigration reform.

The wild card also means that intra-divisional rivals can meet in the LCS (as did the Rockies and Diamondbacks in 2007; Astros and Cardinals in 2004 and 2005; Red Sox and Yankees in 1999, 2003 and 2004; Braves and Mets in 1999; Braves and Marlins in 1997, and Yankees and Orioles in 1996), which lends some high-stakes tensions to the respective blood feuds.

As a Rockies fan, I have to say that they don't exactly have a "blood feud" with the Diamondbacks. But whatever. Even a big market team hater like me has to admit the 2003 and 2004 ALCSes were amazing.

So it's all good, right?

Right. Aaaaaaaaaaand... the article should end here.

Sure, the wild card has added drama to the regular season and engaged more fans in more cities.

You're dawdling. Get to your dumbassery.

However, let's not forget that the wild card comes with a cost. That cost is the division race between two or more truly great teams.

Wow. Since I'm a hyperorganized person (that is a lie, but whatever), let's parse this with a list.

1) This is not necessarily true. This isn't exactly college-level math, but if each league has 3 (three) divisions and only grants 1 (one) wild card, that leaves 2 (two) divisions that will only have one team (their champion) making the playoffs. I'm not sure what Dayn's definition of "truly great" is, but if the AL East has two 100 win teams that both make the playoffs, and the AL Central has a 96 win team that makes the playoffs and a 95 win team that misses out on the last day of the season, isn't that pretty dramatic?

2) I'm pretty sure a wild card race that could include as many as four or five teams well into September is cooler than a two or three team division race. Which, like I already said, isn't even necessarily precluded by the wild card.

3) If you asked 100 baseball fans what the "cost" of the wild card is, maybe 10 of them would say what Dayn said. The other 90 would stare at you blankly.

Think about it: In the wild-card era, when two division rivals are among the best teams in the game there's often less at stake because the second-place team has the wild card berth to fall back on.

I guess. The degree to which this is a bad thing, however, is dramatically overshadowed by the degree to which this is a bad thing:

Remember the classic NL West race of '93, when the 104-win Braves won the division and the 103-win Giants failed to make the postseason?

Yeah. I was pretty young, but I remember that. And you know what? It sucked. What a shitty situation for that Giants team. And for the fans, consider this: which is cooler- the Braves clinching the division on the last day of the season by beating the Rockies while the Giants lost to the Dodgers, or the prospect of a compelling Braves/Giants NLCS?

Those days are mostly over, thanks to the "hedge effect" of the wild card.

And not a year too soon.

It so happens that the 2008 season may provide us with two more examples. Courtesy of the Playoff Odds Report over at Baseball Prospectus, let's have a look at which teams have the highest odds of winning the Wild Card in each league:

Red Sox: 42.8%
Rays: 28.1%
Yankees: 15.8%
Twins: 5.2%
White Sox: 3.1%

Brewers: 48.5%
Cardinals: 16.8%
Cubs: 13.7%
Phillies: 9.4%
Mets: 7.9%

Here's what I see in both leagues: an exciting race in one division, which will award two spots to three teams, and a great secondary race in another division in which two teams (possibly "great" teams, depending on your definition) will fight for one playoff spot. Pretty cool. What does Dayn see?

As you can see, in the AL the top three wild-card contenders, according to the system, are in the East. Over in the NL, the top three wild card contenders are in the Central. In fact, the system predicts that the Rays will take the East with 95 wins, and the Red Sox will win the wild card with 92 wins. In the senior circuit, the Cubs are tabbed to take the Central with 96 wins, and the Brewers are in line for the wild card with 90 wins.

This is in the article just so Dayn can meet his pre-determined minimum word count.

Therein lies the problem.

Certainly, in these kinds of situations you'd prefer to win the division (that's especially the case this season, when so many contenders can't seem to win on the road and thus badly need home-field advantage in the playoffs), but for the Red Sox, Rays, Cubs and Brewers (and perhaps the Yankees and Cardinals) it's likely not going to be a matter of life and death.

Read that again, and see if it gets less stupid. If you're like me, it won't. So we're saying... that because the Yankees are Cardinals are both likely to finish with good records but miss the playoffs... that's somehow undesirable? Because there aren't more teams missing the playoffs despite good records? Here's what I think is too bad: when a team like the 1993 Giants wins 103 games and misses the playoffs. (A roughly similar situation happened in 1987 in the AL, when the 96 win Blue Jays lost the East by 2 games while the 85 win Twins won the West. I didn't look any further back than that, but I assume it was a semi-regular occurrence during the pre-WC days.)

That's too bad.

You're not just stretching- you're stretching to get to the point where you could be construed as stretching. Ridiculous.

Imagine, if you will, the all-in scenario: two — maybe even three — teams from the AL East battling down the stretch for a single playoff spot, and now imagine the same scenario in the NL Central.

OK. It's kind of cool. But not as cool as the wild card.

Brewers-Cubs, separated by fewer than 100 miles? Cubs-Cardinals and their long-standing rivalry? Sox-Rays with all their recent bad blood? Sox-Yankees with all their historical bad blood? Each of those hypotheticals is a compelling one because of the histories and — in most cases — proximities involved.

And here's the key- each of them could easily still end up being a significant and compelling race. It's not that hard to imagine: take the two teams you want to match up, and now simply pretend that the third team in the division wins it. Pretty cool.

As for the scheduling possibilities, the Brewers end the regular season with a three-game home set against the Cubs, and the Red Sox, in customary fashion, end the season against the Yankees. Potentially, that would be two "all or nothing" series on the final weekend, each pairing up regional and divisional rivals. Obviously, such a turn of events is almost impossible now, thanks to the wild card.

Almost impossible, unless of course the Cardinals/Rays win their respective divisions. Pretty unlikely but still possible for the Cards; reasonably likely for the Rays. So... not that impossible.

To be fair, the wild card on occasion provides drama of a similar nature — the 1998, 1999 and 2007 seasons all provided us with one-game playoffs to determine the NL wild card.

Obviously.

However, most often those match-ups are going to lack the hostilities native to intra-divisional match-ups (last year's wild card playoff between the Rockies and Padres is an obvious exception),

Again, as a Rockies fan, let me confirm for you (in case you couldn't figure it out for yourself) that the Padres and them have no bad blood or hostility whatsoever. Didn't really make the game any less exciting, did it? I know that 9-8, 13 inning walkoffs are pretty unlikely. The next one game wild card playoff will probably be a 10-2 snoozefest. But still... yeah.

and they generally aren't going to involve genuinely great teams (after all, it is the wild card — most often a signifier of goodness rather than greatness).

Thank you for that completely arbitrary and meaningless distinction.

As mentioned, the institution of the wild card has been on balance a positive for baseball.

This is like saying that on balance, having a job will help you support a family.

But let's not pretend it's without costs.

I'm OK with pretending that. Or, If you really don't want me to, I won't. I'll go ahead and acknowledge that it has one tiny and pretty much insignificant cost. I'm comfortable with either option.

If the possibilities detailed above come to pass, then the wild card this season will deprive NL Central and AL East fans of something truly special.

Yes, it has the potential of depriving them of a winner-take-all divisional race. Any disappointment they feel in the aftermath of this, however, will probably be abated by the realization that two awesome teams just made the playoffs instead of just one. Not mentioned here: the fact that AL Central, AL West, NL East, and NL West fans will be unaffected. Also not mentioned here: Dayn Perry stinks.

Jim Baker Explains it All

This was probably written by an editor and may come off as nitpicky, but I care not for such things. What follows is a blurb hyping a Jim Baker article that appeared on Friday's Page 2:

The object isn't just to steal the most bases, it's also to avoid getting caught. Here's a look at baseball's all-time best.

Preview for Jim Baker's next column: "The object isn't just to score runs, it's also to win the game. Here's a look at the teams with the best winning percentages."

P.S. Yes, I am aware that the article is about guys who have had good Steal/Attempts percentages. Obviously a guy who goes 40/42 in a season is more valuable than a guy who goes 45/60, but the blurb is a really really dumb way of saying it.

At the End of My Rope

Sorry, Dan-Bob. I don't mean to bury your excellent NCAA-related post. I just have a complaint to register. I know there's a 0% chance it reaches its intended audience, but I'm going to make it anyways.

HEY ESPN- STOP IT WITH THE BRETT FAVRE CRAP. PLEASE. JUST STOP. IT'S FUCKING INTOLERABLE.

That is all. For a real post, read below. (And I promise I'll do something substantial tomorrow afternoon/evening.)

NCAA Football: It Isn't Broke, But They're Fixing It for the Money

Obviously, this happened several months ago, so it's shame on me for not mentioning it sooner. But, without further ado, the NCAA's rule changes for this upcoming season of college football include the following, with my ostensible reasoning for the rule change in brackets:

• Elimination of the 5-yard facemask [player safety]
• Coaches get an extra replay if their first challenge is upheld [common sense]
• When a kickoff goes out of bounds, the receiving team can take it on the 40 [encouraging KO returns].
• Horse collar tackles are a 15-yard penalty [player safety]
• No more sideline warnings - 5 yard penalties [game control]
• The adoption of the 40-second play clock - NFL style. [TV/money]
  
• After a player runs out of bounds, the game clock starts upon the spotting of the ball, not the snap. [TV/money]

My problem is with the last two, and the reasoning behind them.

If you're a college football fan, you'll remember the rule changes that occurred in 2005, which were designed to speed the game up. After a great deal of fan outcry, the changes were reversed in 2006, and game times returned to pre-2005 levels. The rule changes lowered the average time of an NCAA game from 3:21 to 3:07, but drove fans nuts - the fans were used to their traditional college game pace, and they felt it had been abused. Seems to me the same thing is happening again.

Here's what anyone should ask themselves when these rule changes come out: why is it necessary to mess with what's already working? Obviously, rule changes that promote player safety are great ideas, as well as basic common-sense ideas for emerging rules issues like the challenge/replay system. But the other rules changes ask us to consider the motives involved.

Who wants the time changes? Fans: heck no - they want more football! Coaches: maybe - they want to play, ostensibly, the most football, but I suppose shorter games makes their work days shorter. Players: no - I can't imagine they want to shorten the games. Individual colleges - I don't think so, as longer games make more concessions money and such, and they keep the fans happy and in the seats.

The people behind the time changes are the TV corporations, pure and simple. They want the games to be more evenly paced [for their commercials] and fit into their three-hour timeslots [for their programming decisions]. I call bullshit. The execs are the only ones who want the games to be shorter and more predictable; the fans, players, and coaches who enjoy the college game enjoy the length/unpredictable nature of the college game.

What's even more hilarious are the comments of the coaches involved in the changes:

"Hopefully this time we got it right," said Michael Clark, the chairman of the rules committee and head coach at Bridgewater (Va.) College.

Why the hell is the head coach at Bridgewater (Va.) College in charge of the NCAA rules committee?

Also, Michael, you didn't get it right. The timing system wasn't broke, and you fixed it worse.

"We think this will give us some consistency when it comes to pace of play," said Connecticut coach Randy Edsall, who is a member of the rules committee.

Again, maybe it's easier on Randy Edsall's playcalling if the game is more predictable, but nobody WANTS that consistency... except the TV networks.

And the most damning comment of them all comes from the ol' ballcoach:

"If the NFL boys are doing it we seem to want to do it, too," South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier said.

Game, set, match. Until recently, the college game didn't want to be the NFL, and it gained a serious fanbase because of it. Now, when people realize just exactly how much you can make - 3.375 *10^9 dollars per year for the NFL, which is more than willing to capitulate to the networks for that princely sum. College football is starting to realize that it can make that kind of jack for football-obsessed fans everywhere in America who need their fix on both Saturday and Sunday.

If college football fans really value the quality of their traditional college game, they'll stand up and make noise and get the changes reversed like they did in 2006. If not, another slice of the traditional/pure/aesthetic/"atmosphere" pie of American sports will be gobbled up to feed the TV networks' ratings.

The meaning of the term "Meta"

So, I'm far from a raving fan of the Griffey-to-White Sox trade that, if not for a 2-hours-later deal involving a (OMG) Red Sox player, would probably be burning up the News Tickers and News Wires and Telegraph Machines.

That said, Ken Tremendous of our "site-name-that-we-ripped-off" namesake Fire Joe Morgan seems to have a hard-on for the White Sox to (at times) ridiculous ends. Chalk it up to whatever you want (the run of "feel good/gritty gamer" stories that surrounded the 2005 WS champion White Sox and their prototypical "gamer grinder gritty gutser" Scott Podsednik [he of the Playmate wife and the constantly injured groin] seems like the most likely reason) but it's clear: KT hates the fucking White Sox.

Accordingly, KT decides to turn his ire on Mike Downey, a Chicago columnist who is not quite a stranger to this website, but who nevertheless is not to be taken nearly as seriously as KT does here.

This is the definition of meta--sports-hate-blog website dissects a dissection of its namesake, prototype sports-hate-blog website. Wowee. Somewhere Chuck Klosterman is spuzzing all over a thrift store chair.

You're a ChiSox fan. Against all odds, your team is +76 in run differential and leading the AL Central. Your GM, who can be a dunderhead sometimes, made excellent moves last off-season, and got you Carlos Quentin and Nick Swisher, and even though Swish is underperforming a bit, somehow Jermaine Dye is having his best year, and Jim Thome is putting up an .890 OPS, and you're getting some great innings out of John Danks and Gavin Floyd, and Scott Linebrink is making bloggers everywhere look stupid since we all thought getting him was a terrible move.

Wait--I thought it was against all odds when your team is +76 in differential and DOESN'T lead the AL Central. Or when your team is -76 in differential and leading the AL Central. Isn't it actually IN LINE WITH ALL ODDS when a team who is outscoring their opponents leads their division?

Also--dunderhead is an epithet that will be frequently applied to Kenny Williams in this article. Whether calling KW a sporadi moron is ridiculous or not, it seems unlikely that Ken "I write for a show about a company named Dunder-Mifflin" Tremendous ramming this term down our throat is any sort of coincidence. Curse you MSNBC and your synergetic cross-promotioning!

In short, things are going really well.

Then, at the trade deadline, your GM goes out and gets: Ken Griffey, Jr.

Who's good. Who might make your team better. But who is 38. And gets hurt a lot.

And then Ken Williams says: We're going to play him in CF, and maybe move Swisher to first, and (presumably) bench Paul Konerko (?). Or something?

Huh.

Not so sure what's confusing about this, Mose. The White Sox gave up absolutely nothing for Griffey. The sent Cincy a 2B prospect who played his way off this team and a MRP who can't get anyone out. Richar and Masset could work out for the Reds or they couldn't. But they certainly weren't part of the White Sox's long range plans and they had very little (as you can probably tell from this trade) trade value.

Meanwhile, though Griffey is not the CFer he once was by any stretch of the imagination, he can't possibly be significantly worse than Swisher--who has said repeatedly he is uncomfortable in the field AND at the plate when he's playing CF and who, during a stretch at 1B while Konerko was on the DL OPSed 830.

Meanwhile, Ozzie Guillen has a preternatural fear of using Brian Anderson in CF and has been quoted in the press as saying the only reason Paul Konerko was still in the everyday lineup is because he has no one else he's willing to play in CF.

So Konerko is in the everyday lineup with a 600 OPS. Well, at least, he was. Until this trade.

But yeah, it's a really confusing trade there KT.

Needless to say, if you're you, you're a little confused by this. At least you're wary. Junior hasn't played CF since like 1965, and is Konerko going to DH against lefties or something? And how would Konerko take it if he's benched since he makes $12m a year through 2010, because, again, your GM can be a dunderhead sometimes? And what in the world is a defensive OF of Dye, Griffey, and Quentin going to look like?

Hilarious hyperbole there, Mike Celizic. Yeah, hasn't played CF since 1965. Either that or 2005. One of the two.

And Kenny's a dunderhead again, this time for signing a 28 year old to a 5 year contract, during which he put up two of the best years of his career.

I fucking hate Konerko like a werewolf hates whatever a werewolf hates, but even I would say that a 5/60 deal for a 29 year old was a fine deal, and certainly, Konerko's complete cliff-drop at age 31 wasn't anything that should have realistically been expected. That said I fucking hate Konerko like a fat kid does-not-hate cake.

In times like these, you, a ChiSox fan, have only one place to turn for analysis. There is only one place you go to get the real insider "here's what this means" and "here's what we can expect" breakdown.

You turn to the Trib. You turn...to Mike Downey.

Actually, no you don't. Downey's a comedian-esque writer for the Trib. If you want real analysis you turn to Mark Gonzales. If you want what the Tribune deems real analysis but is in fact borderline retarded, you turn to Steve Rosenbloom. But no one expects reasonable analysis from Downey.

But at least you know what you're talking about, Dwight Schrute's cousin.

(writer's note: from this point on, Downey quotes are in bold, Schrute-quotes in plain-text

Ken Griffey Jr. in a Sox Uniform? I'm Stoked

He's stoked, you guys. He and his boys are psyched. Dude. Bro. Seriously? I'm fucking stoked about this. Griffbones is going to crush it.

Maybe that title should have been a hint that Downey's not exactly serious. Or you could just ignore it and make tired jokes.

I zipped over to the Web sites as fast as my fingers could type Thursday to find out if it was fiction or fact.

I forgot I am a journalist and don't have to get information the way everyone else does, so instead of talking to my colleagues or calling someone in the Reds' FO or something, I "zipped" over to the "Web sites" as fast as "my fingers could type." Because I have never used a computer, and don't know how to, and had to ask my 5 year-old nephew what someone who used a computer would say if they wanted to tell people they had used a computer.

Is he seriously going to nitpick every turn of phrase the guy uses. Why would he expect an opinion-writer for the newspaper without any insider contacts to be able to phone up a Cincinnati GM?

But why let facts get in the way of nitpicking a guy's diction?

Cincinnati Enquirer, 9:47 a.m.: "Reds trade Griffey."

Not might trade. No "trade Griffey?" with a question mark. Did trade.
And to the White Sox yet!

And to the White Sox yet! Say boys, didja hear? Junior Griffey is to be a Chicagoan! Well slap my thigh and call me a dirigible! Roosevelt has a plan for the Krauts, by Joe! Extree, extree! Say, what news from the coast? Harvard defeats Cal in the Rose Bowl! The Maine is lost! Thousands gather to see new "Talking Pictures" -- the marvels of science never cease!

Seriously, is this the state of FireJoeMorgan? Making fun of writers' diction and syntax?

The Tribune, 9:36 a.m.: "Griffey headed to Sox."

Sorry. Just want to make sure I have the timeline correct.

8:?? or 9:?? AM: The Sports- and Editorial Departments of the Chicago Tribune, where Mike Downey works, learn of the impending trade of Ken Griffey, Jr. to the White Sox.

9:?? AM: Someone at Mike Downey's own paper begins to write up an article about how Ken Griffey Jr. has been traded to the White Sox. Downey, presumably, naps at his desk.

9:36 AM: Mike Downey's own paper, the Chicago Tribune, then posts the article, on its Web sites, about the Griffey trade. Downey: still napping.

9:47 AM: The Cincinnati Enquirer posts an article about the Griffey trade on its Web sites.

Somewhere around 10:?? AM: Downey awakens, wipes drool from face. Is informed somehow that Ken Griffey, Jr. has been traded to the White Sox, a team that plays in the town where he works as a journalist.

10:02 AM: At a complete loss as to how to pursue this information, so as to ascertain its validity, Downey turns on his computer for the first time ever. Has to go through a series of steps to create a Tribune user name and password. Sees confusing screen about software updates ready for download. Calls IT.

10:28 AM: Tribune IT guy Derek Greenhorn finishes installing Windows update on Downey's computer, tells Downey that he can now access the internet. Downey stares at him blankly.

11:56 AM: Greenhorn finishes an accelerated tutorial on "surfing the web." Downey is pretty sure he has a handle on it.

11:57: Downey tries to, in his own words, "smurf the World Wide Weird," ends up erasing his own hard drive and those of the 6 people closest to him. Tribune server crashes. Smoke pours out of Downey's computer. Downey realizes he is hungry and heads down to get himself a personal pan pizza and a tall glass of beer from a neighborhood restaurant while Greenhorn rushes to save the Tribune computer system.

2:18 PM: Downey smurfs the Weird under close supervision from Greenhorn and two Chicago-based FBI agents whose domestic terror-alert system has mis-identified Downey's computer's IP address as the possible epicenter of an internet-based terror attack.

2:19 PM: Downey does a Google-brand World Wide Weird seach protocol for "Cincinnati red baseball player Ken Griffey Jr was he traded? please help me internet I've never done this before am I doing this right? oh God, well, here goes nuttin'!", hits "shift," then "delete," then -- sure that he's figured out the right move here -- "help," then finally "return," and gazes blankly at his results. He then subsequently zips over to the Enquirer sports page, and sees that at 9:47, they published an article about the Griffey trade.

2:55 PM: After another brief nap, Downey wonders aloud whether his paper, the Chicago Tribune, has posted anything about the Griffey trade. So after a quick refresher course with Derek Greenhorn over in IT, who is now actively posting his resume on Monster.com because, in his own words, "I can't work with these boneheads for one more second or I'll kill myself," Downey figures out how to zip over to the Trib Web sites, and sees that at 9:36 AM -- several minutes earlier than the Enquirer posted their story, the Trib had posted a newsflash about Griffey being traded to the White Sox.

"Hot dog!" says Downey, to no one, as he munches on his now-cold personal pan pizza. "I'm going to write an article about this amazing day I'm having!"

Yeah. Or, you know, Downey's not the Sportswriter responsible for breaking fucking sports news. Because he's an opinion columnist. So to rag on him for writing an article about a trade after the fact is a little...well...retarded don't you think?

Excellent news. I was stoked.

Oh, that Ken Williams, always something up his sleeve. If not an ace, then a king.

Or a 38.7 year-old oft-injured corner OF with a 103 OPS+. So, like, maybe the 9 of clubs.

Yeah, actually, Schrute, I think that's what Downey was hinting at. That Junior's not quite an ace.

And yet he's a guy who's actually above the "average" line of OPS+ as opposed to Konerko, the guy he's replacing in the lineup, has an OPS+ of, I shit you not: 74.

That is to say, PK is 3/4's as good as a real baseball player. Griffey is marginally better than a real baseball player.

Oh but he might get injured

:(

Then we (we meaning, the White Sox, an organization I have absolutely no affiliation with but I still call "we" because I'm, like all sports fans, a huge douchebag) would be: "no worse off than we were before we made the trade."

Oh, AND Griffey is one of the all-time greats ever to play the game and it will be pretty exciting for White Sox fans who have never had the chance to truly root for, maybe, the 4th best CFer ever to play the game, to see in him home team colors.

But he's 38!!!!! And he has an OPS+ of 103!!!!! How dare Mike Downey be excited about this tradE!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?

Ken Griffey Jr., in center field at the Cell?

Yeah. Scary, right?

A cause to rejoice—set off the fireworks.

Oh. You went that way with it.

Oh yeah. It's totally frightening. Because we gave up Casey Kotchman, a 27 year old 1B with a huge upside, to get him for half a season. That means if he gets injured, not only have we lost the totally adequate player he's replacing, we also lose out on a player locked up cheaply for the future!

Oh wait, that's not the Griffey Jr. trade. The Griffey Jr. trade sent away two young players with no future in the organization (and probably not future in Cincinnati either) in order to replace a totally INadequate player who will still remain on the team and can fill in if Griffey gets hurt.

So, you know, it's not exactly frightening.

If you can get a guy who has more home runs than Frank Robinson, Mark McGwire, Harmon Killebrew, Reggie Jackson, Mike Schmidt, Mickey Mantle, Ernie Banks and Lou Gehrig, hallelujah and amen.

Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds: also available. Omar Vizquel has more hits than Reggie Jackson, Joe Morgan, Mickey Mantle, and Enos Slaughter. Maybe they should pick him up, too.

Straw men are fun to play with.

I began to picture it.

Ball after ball dropping in front of Jr. Line drives that Swisher would've caught easily splitting the gap for run-scoring doubles. Griffey running back and to his right, then pulling up lame as Nick Punto rounds second and thinks about trying to score...

I'm not sure where he gets the idea that Nick Swisher is an adequate CF, but he probably should cancel his subscription to it.

And seriously--did he hire up Mike Celizic to purple up his prose? This is just sad, how the mighty have fallen.

Hey--it's kind of like Griffey!!!

Griffey in between Carlos Quentin and Jermaine Dye in the outfield?

OK, so maybe it wouldn't be the defensive equivalent of Reed Johnson in left, Jim Edmonds in center and Kosuke Fukudome in right, but it'll do. (Dye has been playing a mean right field, in fact.)

Griffey in CF won't be the equivalent of Tribune IT guy Derek Greenhorn in CF.

HEH! You can tell this guy's a professional comedy writer!

Ah, but Griffey right behind Quentin and Dye in the batting order? I like the sound of that.

Well, he'll definitely be better offensively than Brian Anderson. You've got that going for you. But to reiterate: 103 OPS+. Oft-injured. Center Field.

Keep repeating yourself. It won't make you right.

Let's try this:

103 OPS+. Hitting 7th in the lineup. Behind guys who are also OPS+ing over 100. Replacing a guy with a 74 OPS+ in the lineup.

Awesome! I can write like Bill Plaschke too!!!!!!!!!!!!! Only the things I write like Bill Plaschke. Aren't. Patently. Wrong.

Followed by Jim Thome sixth, Paul Konerko or Nick Swisher seventh and Joe Crede (as soon as he comes back) eighth? Pitchers will swallow their seeds and gum.

The line-up is better. But this is not Manny Ramirez. It's 38.7 year-old Junior Griffey. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

No one's saying he is. Except for you when you put words in Downey's mouth.


This goes on for about twice as long as this. I'd write about it, but what's the point. This is just a sad, pathetic post on Schrute's part.

Look: I don't love the trade. It's a temporary fix for a problem the White Sox never should have had. People are getting "stoked" because it's a big name future HOFer many people grew up idolizing. That's cool. But most people also realize that Griffey's no longer "GRIFFEY". They've had about 7 seasons to come to terms with the fact that Griffey's not a perennial MVP candidate anymore.

And you know what? I don't like Downey either. I spent an epic (HUMBLE!) post ripping him to shit a while back (for a more viable reason than Mose's). But he's just writing an opinion column here expressing excitement about a trade that, in many ways, does kind of raise the excitement level for a slumping team.

Is that so goddamn ridiculous?


Oh one more thing--I know I come off as a total ChiSox homer here, and maybe I am (after all, I kind of think Kenny Williams is a genius). However, I think I'm being pretty fair about this trade to say it's

a.) not a world beater

b.) nowhere near as bad as Ken Mediocre is making it out to be.


For the record I hate Ozzie and Konerko with a passion and have my doubts about that Joe Crede guy. Also, I think the White Sox never should have fired Joey Cora as 3B coach and think Santo should be in the HOF and Harold Baines should not.

Just in case you were curious about my homerism.