<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Friday, January 30, 2004

Roll Tide

For some reason the Patriots' 14-game winning streak isn't being given much due. Sure, most prognosticators are calling the game for New England by, oh, three points or so. But clearly the Panthers are the media darlings.

Much has been made about how the Patriots were in the same position two years ago, but in terms of public perception that isn't so. In 2002 the Rams got most of the attention because they were heavy favorites who featured an offense that ran up the score (except in the playoffs, where they squeaked by Philly at home in the NFC Championship). They were the glamor team, and the Patriots were their Ed McMahon, a mere sounding board for the Rams' greatness.

Now the Patriots are coming in at 16-2, having won every game since a week after the fall equinox. As the Sports Guy points out, the last time the Patriots lost the baseball REGULAR SEASON was winding down, and we are weeks away from pitchers and catchers reporting. The Panthers, meanwhile, came out of nowhere to the Super Bowl, having gone 11-5 and even lost three straight in November.

Yet, mind bogglingly, the Panthers are the story. Look, I'm not saying they can't hold off the Patriots for a while, and whenever an underdog gets a sniff of glory, it's fun to contemplate ahead of time. But why on Earth was the story in 2002 that the Rams will kill these nobodies, and now it's the Panthers will give these guys a run for their money? How many two-loss teams even worked up a sweat in the Super Bowl? What is it about the Patriots that no matter what they do in the regular season, they can't scare anybody?

I'll tell you what it is: their brand of football cannot be comprehended by the average media-ape. A team that wins all the freakin time with relative no-name players is simply outside of the norm, and anything that is outside the norm is incomprehensible.

So, ignore these idiots. My call is Patriots 24-3. Coupla turnovers, and a relatively easy time shutting down a one-dimensional offense. The Patriots played three teams in the second half who have no passing game: miami, Buffalo and Dallas. All three merited 0 points. Since the game is at a neutral site, I'll concede a field goal. That's it.

Tuesday, January 27, 2004

Honor Roll

I've been feeling very nostalgic for all the years of my Patriot fanhood, now that they finally have paid off. While those old teams were a mixed bag, there was a bit of fun here and there, and in the case of a fair number of players, they can't be faulted for not trying. Hence, I propose to start a Patriots honor roll. Add names as you see fit. Names NOT listed in order of merit, or any other traceable method. Not even sure they deserve honors. I just feel like mentioning them.

Clayton Weishuhn. Don Blackmon. Julius Adams. Hart Lee Dykes. Dr. Bill Lenkaitis. Pete Brock. The Hog. Mosi Tatupu. Horace Ivory. Sam Bam. Don Calhoun. Stanley Morgan. Harold Jackson. Chris Slade. Andre Tippett. Ronnie Lippett. Tim Fox. Craig James. Vagas Ferguson. Andy Johnson. John Smith. Ken Sims. Russ Francis. Jerome Wiggins. Sugar Bear Hamilton.

Add some more, y'all...

Sunday, January 25, 2004

Why Not Carolina?

No, don't misread that header; this is an answer to the question "how did the Panthers win the NFC?" Oh, I suppose it theoretically could also be a response to the question, "can they win it all?" They can win it all, in the same sense as, say, I could beat Ty Law on a go route... but I probably won't.

Still, that Carolina came out on top of the steaming heap known as the NFC shouldn't be that shocking. After all, if not the Panthers, then who? Philadelphia, you say? While rush limpbaugh was pretty far off in his particular analysis, it's nonetheless a researchable fact that the Eagles are way overrated. They have won more games in the last three years than any NFC team... but everything's relative, and cleaning up a division that has included three of the worst Cowboy, Redskin and Giant teams in recent memory is no great shakes. Philly has waltzed into the playoffs, with byes the last two years, on the strength of a creampuff schedule and very few quality wins. This season they beat Green Bay twice, Dallas once, and Carolina once. And got crushed by the Patriots' practice squad. Last year they beat Tampa in week 7 and the Niners two weeks later, but lost to Indy and Tennessee. In both seasons they beat the conference foe who would eventually repay them in the NFC title game, but played few other tough conference games and won at a modest clip. Six of their 16 games have been against utterly mediocre division rivals, against whom the Eagles went 11-1 over the last two seasons. They're sort of the mirror image of the Chiefs: gaudy numbers that are softer than they appear, and some serious problems on one side of the ball. Or more than one -- both the offensive and defensive units ranked 10th in the NFC.

Carolina is at least a bit more balanced, posting some reasonably serious defense and at least an offense that knows how to play within its limits. Their schedule was slightly tougher than Philly's, having included Tennessee (loss) and Indy (win) in addition to divisional rivals Tampa (two wins), New Orleans, and Atlanta. In fact, given that the pundits were so high on the Colt offense, it should be noted that Carolina held Indy to 20 points, in Indy, better than the Patriots' D did in their first go-round. Simply on the basis of that similarity of accomplishment, the Panthers look about as much like an NFC champion as anyone else over there.

The gross imbalance between the AFC and NFC is not in the Panthers' favor, however. Who is more battle-tested, the Panthers and their one regular season win over a playoff team, or the Patriots with their five such wins? IMHO, Tennessee was the second-best team in football, being balanced, smart, and tough. Carolina lost to the Titans at home; the Patriots took care of the homeland defense both times.

Monday, January 19, 2004

Superb!

But enough about baseball... for the next two weeks this site is all Patriots. Unless the A-Rod talks heat up again....

Since events of this magnitude are over-reported, I have little in the way of analysis to add, so let's get down to the dump-talk straight away.

1. Football media folk are pretty ridiculous. Oh, some of them had the sense to call a Patriot victory yesterday, though on CBS it was 2-1 Colts. And in the week leading up to the game, all anyone reported were the exploits of Peyton Manning, having just abused two crap defenses in two big, if predictable, victories. Lip service was paid to the Patriots' defense, and a complement of writers found the courage to say that despite Manning's heroics, nobody had overcome the Patriots at home since 2002, so maybe the norm would hold. There was talk about the weather being inhospitable, and the fans making the situation worse for the visitors, and Belichick being a clever chap. And also Tom Brady was something of a golden boy with a knack for victory.

And yet, the Patriot defense, which consists of not just Belichick but the 20-some-odd players who actually get on the field, won the game, again. Today's newspapers are chockablock with stories of how in the end, good defense beats good offense. Now, I'm not just harping on this because I said so last week, but because it's so blatantly obvious that even a blind pig could have sniffed out this story line in advance. This has been the story of the NFL postseason as long as I have watched the game, which sorta coincides with the modern era. Tampa last year, the Pats before them, Baltimore before that, extreme examples like the '86 Bears or the Parcells Giants teams, and so on. KC had homefield and a weak defense? One and out. Teams with good defense do lose, of course, but almost always to teams who also play good defense.

2. Which brings us to the immediate future. Pats-Panthers sounds like an easy game to pick, and I for one don't expect any surprises. But the one reason not to get too carried away about the Patriots' chances just yet is that Carolina made it here on the strength of their defense. Don't write them off.

3. Having said that, today's trivia challenge is to name one reason why the Panthers could/should beat the Patriots. Coaching? Nope. Defense? They're tough, but we're tougher. Offense? Quarterback? Experience? The Patriots have been installed at 7 point favorites, a hefty spread, but on the other hand, is there any aspect to them that makes them vulnerable to upset? If there is, I don't see it.

Saturday, January 17, 2004

Our Manny

Interesting article in Saturday's Globe to the effect that Manny Ramirez is juiced for the upcoming season with the Sox, and doesn't want to go anywhere else to play. His only concern is that fans won't welcome him with open arms, to the point where he bought a ticket to tomorrow's AFC Championship game (apparently he's a big Pats fan, but then who isn't?), but decided against attending because he figured he'd get booed. And he's probably right.

I for one think this is a minor tragedy, and symptomatic of the negativity surrounding the Sox. Yeah, I am aware of his shortcomings, as a fielder, baserunner and leader in the clubhouse. But I find those shortcomings a bit exaggerated and over-reported -- Manny is to the Boston media what tragic C-list celebrities like Heidi Fleiss or Joey Buttafuoco are to the paparazzi: easy targets. Which is why they are in the news every time they get a parking ticket. Eliminate the coverage and they look pretty average. For what it's worth, I personally think Manny's fielding has improved to some almost acceptable level, presumably through hard work, something he's generally known for.

Oh, and he's a Hall of Fame hitter! Mother of creeping Jesus, how many of these do we see in Boston? And of those, how many compare to Manny? There was Yaz, whose numbers were nothing special and underlined his persona, that of a durable overachiever. Perhaps Boggs will get voted in some day, but anyone watching closely could observe how many meaningless hits he got, compared to how rarely he rose to a real occasion. Lynn and Rice, the Gold Dust Twins, were spectacular stars who burned brightly but faded quickly too -- in Rice's case, about five years before he stopped playing. Do we have to go back to Williams?

I was for the Manny-for-A-Rod deal, marginally, because A-Rod is better all around, but at the plate Manny is his equal. In three years with the Sox he has won one batting title and missed a second last year by a point, led the league in on-base percentage the past two seasons, increased his walks, decreased his strikeouts, and averaged an OPS of 1.011. In 2003 he was second in average, first in OBP, fourth in slugging, second in OPS, 7th in homers, fifth in runs, 11th in RBIs, fifth in walks.... At age 32 he could hit his 400th homer (347 so far) and will almost certainly get his 1200th RBI (1140) and score his 1000th run (959) by the all-star break.

What's more, he is an absolute marvel to watch. That same goofy personality that gets him in trouble off the field apparently is one of his greatest assets at bat. He is the same top-10 player in virtually every situation, regardless of where the game is, what you throw at him, what the situation is, etc. Check out his 2003 splits: his OPS almost never varies more than 100 points off his average -- he is somewhere between a .900 and 1.100 hitter just about every time you see him. He hit .982 against righties, 1.100 versus lefties; and at least .900 versus power pitchers, finesse pitchers, flyball pitchers, groundball pitchers, etc. With the bases empty, it's a devastating 1.001; with runners on it climbs a blip to 1.022; with runners in scoring position it's 1.115; with runners on and two out it's 1.052. [Oddly, he did NOTHING in 8 at-bats with the bases loaded, knocking in only one runner, but had an OPS of 2.000 (you read that right) in 8 at-bats with men on second and third. Too small a sample, I suppose.] He was down in only one area of note, slipping to mere all-star-like .827 at the end of close games -- but considering he was generally facing teams' closers, that number doesn't look so terrible either.

So, not only does he contribute to the Sox' greatest strength of the past season, their devastating offense [to say nothing of the ripple effect he has on the lineup], he is also a phenomenal hitter to watch, a study in consistency and efficiency. The cat-and-mouse game that goes on between pitchers and hitters, the single most entertaining aspect of the game, almost doesn't apply to Manny, because very few pitchers have a pitch they can reliably retire him with. He rarely chases balls outside the strike zone, so the only way to beat him is to challenge him. Only the best pitchers do this with some success, and everyone else is lunchmeat.

If we can't turn him into A-Rod, I want him firmly back in the heart of the Sox' order for the rest of his contract. Give him a taste of winning, some teammates and a manager who know how to hone his focus, and watch him anchor baseball's best lineup for the forseeable future.

Friday, January 16, 2004

Prediction Time

OK, let's see those cards... Here are mine:

NFC: Who cares? OK, Panthers. WTF?

AFC: Patriots 23, Colts 17. Killa defense beats killa offense. Yeah, Manning's recent performances are a bit scary, but isn't that the iron rule of football? And isn't Indy's already mediocre defense suddenly depleted down the middle? Hardly the ideal conditions for an upset. Manning can beat our D, but I seriously doubt the Colts' D can beat our O.

Boyz?

Monday, January 12, 2004

Horse Shoes

Next up for the Patriots, the '67 Packers. I mean, the '72 Dolphins. No, wait, that's the '75 Cowboys, with Roger Staubach at the helm.

OK, enough, the Colts are a good team, clearly no worse than second-best in the AFC, whether you're talking regular season or playoffs. Yeah, I took the Chiefs based on the similarities in the teams and the Chiefs' longer preparation period, but whatever. The Colts are simply better, right now.

But with any luck the football universe will spend the next five days salivating over Payton Manning, the golden boy with the golden arm, stupendous wit, virtuous heart and picture of his wife and high school sweetheart tucked under his hotel pillow on the eve of away games. If the outside world makes the Patriots the underdogs at home in the AFC title game, advantage New England. At present the Patriots are favored by 3, but the Manning hype machine is just warming up in the barn.

Manning is hot right now, but everything in football is relative to who was on the other side of the line, and Manning just got through toasting two miserable pass defenses. In two December losses the Chiefs allowed 45 points each to Denver and Minnesota, giving up 500 and 469 yards respectively in the process. In that sense, holding the Colts to a mere 38 points was an achievement for the KC defense, and places the Colts behind two marginal teams in their abuse of Vermeil's overrated lot. Denver, meanwhile, ranked respectably in defensive statistics, but were prone to some horrible lapses and went to sleep in Indy. Patriots fans remember our team's trip to Mile High, where the intentional safety had less to do with a stunning New England victory than the Broncos' inability to cover anybody on the Patriots' final drive. So while the Colts are unmistakeably a powerful team, the Chiefs and Broncos are not exactly the Patriots or Titans in the defensive department.

Neither, for that matter, are the Colts. Their 336 points allowed this season was twelfth in the 16-team AFC, one place behind the Chiefs and eleven places behind the Patriots. Much of the damage was done on the ground -- not a Patriot specialty but something within their power, under the right conditions. The Colts' worst defensive performance of the year was November 30, at home, against the Patriots (31-38).

Still, anyone watching that game saw Manning put the Patriots' defense back on its heels, at least in the open field. Clearly a primary factor Sunday will be the Patriots' ability to slow down Manning and his arsenal. One way to do that is through an offense which controls the ball and the clock, grinding out drives and keeping Manning on the shelf. This is how the Broncos demolished Indy in their other worst loss of the season, and while the Patriots' running game doesn't resemble the Broncos', the dink and dunk passes sorta fill the same role. Don't be surprised if the Patriots look to Tom Brady to stop Peyton Manning in this manner. And don't be surprised if the Patriots throw deep first to loosen up the Colt defense before trying to grind it out.

Sunday, January 11, 2004

Keep Moving

The adage that seventy percent of life is just showing up describes much of what the Patriots do, and did in Saturday's narrow win over the Titans. Not that they rely on spectacular play and overwhelming statistical accomplishment, but that they show up for every play, at every position. The result is very few mistakes -- one, actually, and thanks to McGinest blowing up the double pass to Wychek it cost nothing. The Patriots leave themselves in a position to win in every game by giving nothing away. So with just an occasional inspired play, a.k.a. Bethel Johnson touches, they can win.

It'll be interesting to see if Zach Piller, the Titans OL who dissed the Pats afterwards, shows any contrition for his comments in an otherwise respectful affaire. He said stuff that sounds awfully familiar to anyone who was around this team two years ago, better team lost, they aren't any good, blah blah blah. Would you like a side of cheese grits with your crow Zach? Teams that lose are often secretly the best teams, as we all know. Moreover, Tennessee almost gained as many yards as New England, with the same number of turnovers. See? The Patriots are now 8-0 against winning teams this season, including 2-0 against Tennessee, and the Titans are now on vacation.

I'll go on record picking the Chiefs over Indy today; spectacular performances at home in the first round usually get followed by a dose of reality in the second. But win or lose, the Colts will be the better team, right? Just like they were better than the Patriots in Indy a month ago, except the field was too long.

Saturday, January 10, 2004

Crime and Punishment

Ok, first, a disclaimer: I don't do criminal law; my last in-depth look at the subject generally was in law school ten years ago. I don't recall doing very well, and have gone to occasional lengths to avoid reliving the experience. So when asked my thoughts about Pete Rose, I decided I have nothing to add except hackneyed legal musings hastily assembled. And they go like this...

Pete Rose has confessed to committing a crime against baseball (he also attempted to defraud the U.S. Treasury, twice, without success, but that's a separate matter). He bet on baseball while wearing a baseball uniform, the punishment for which is a statutorily mandated lifetime ban. In baseball terms, he was tried and convicted despite his denials, and was sentenced appropriately. Now he wants leniency.

1. It is not clear whether Baseball has any mechanism for leniency here: a lifetime ban is a lifetime ban. There are no gradations of punishment to consider and apply given the circumstances of the case. There is no wiggle room in this sentence, unless you think it means he can be elected to the hall of fame once he is dead. But against all odds he is still alive, so that means he is banned. End of story.

Compare this to criminal laws outside baseball. When, for example, Congress and state legislatures enact mandatory minimum sentences, and the trial has established that the crime occurred, there is nothing left for a judge to do but apply the mandated sentence. That appears to be the case here.

When the accused is hit with a mandatorily imposed sentence, I suppose the best he can argue is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and the legislature should amend it accordingly and retroactively. This is a policy argument, and policy argments work occasionally when the law is stupid enough. But they are usually hopeless; nowadays legislatures enact things as head-scratching as three strikes laws because they simply don't want to hear from you any more.

In Baseball's case, a policy argument is a dead end. There is little impetus to reduce the lifetime ban on gamblers: they almost destroyed the sport in its infancy, and even today it wouldn't take much acquiescence on Baseball's part for gambling to turn the sport into Jai Alai. Fay Vincent commented that when Rose bet on the Reds to win, he wondered to what extent did Rose place his bets after talking casually with opposing players or managers coming to town? Pretty gross. The policy for this is zero tolerance, because gambling is bad for baseball and the slope gets slippery right quickly.

2. Another avenue criminal defendants try is the plea bargain -- but in Rose's case that ship sailed 14 years ago. The purpose of plea bargains is to spare the prosecution the expense (and perhaps uncertainty) of a trial. Not something you do fourteen years after winning the case, which went all the way to trial because Rose stonewalled the entire time. Children of politicians don't even get breaks like that.

3. Next, he can argue time served, good behavior and parole. I'm not aware of any written rule that Baseball can consider this, but let's assume they can find a way to reduce the sentence if they wanted. In fact, this is where this case now stands: Rose is running around the country telling anyone who will listen that he bet on baseball and he is vaguely remorseful. Thursday night on TV he took the opportunity to make his case for leneicy by claiming he committed the crime, and he should be let off because he now understands the crime. Understands it. That's it.

Well, Baseball can do what they want, but if this were a parole board, I would say he and his case are equally hopeless. He "understands" his crime. This is several degrees of separation from "I'm sorry." Punishment under the law can serve several purposes, including retribution ("don't say revenge, don't say revenge"), rehabilitation, preventing further occurrences, and maybe some other reasons. The fact that after 14 years of lying he now has confessed to the ultimate crime against the sport, and although he can't apologize he can still point out how he "understands" the problem, is f(*&king pathetic. He has done nothing to appeal to people's good nature, thus nothing to lessen the need for retribution. By contrast, there are several circumstances which make it look like he released the book and the confession at a time when it would sell most. This is acutally all a publicity stunt. Feeling lenient yet?

Next, there is the error of his ways. Perhaps Rose's claim that he understands his crime is a ham-handed way of saying he is rehabilitated. But he still spends a considerable amount of time at the track and in Vegas, making public appearances. If he is rehabilitated in his soul, he has an odd way of proving it. Perhaps he is not a threat to Baseball in terms of repeat offenses, but to me he nonetheless sounds not like a man who has learned his lesson or feels sorry for the damage he's done, but rather like one who is mad about getting caught. Also, he repeated his crime of tax evasion even after getting caught, so there is little hard assurance beyond the word of a confessed liar that he won't do it again.

In short, there is little about this case that argues for leniency within the American system of justice, assuming Baseball can be held to such a standard. There is nothing special about Rose's reflections on his crime that argue for deviation from the set policy; in fact, the aggravating factors outnumber the mitigating ones. From his continued Vegas appearances he remains a gambling icon; he cannot bring himself to apologize in any way that suggests even a grain of sincerity; he feels no sense of shame for his behavior; all he's got is his admission after 14 years of lies that he did the deed, and that he doesn't wish to be punished anymore. When on national TV he looked into the camera and talked about how "I understand what I did," he showed how little he really understands about what he did. He shamed and degraded Baseball, then vehemently lied about it for 14 years in the face of damning evidence, and the best he can say is that someone has explained his crime to him. Nothing less than a tearful plea for mercy and an iron-clad insanity plea can save him now.

[Incidentally, this may seem like a bizarre tangent, but what exactly is the appropriate time to forgive someone? Should you forgive a person like Pete Rose who acted knowingly and 14 years later seems more inconvenienced than sorry over the whole affair? Not to pick on religions, but I personally disagree with any dogma that hands out forgiveness lollipops to anyone who bothers to drop by for a visit. Not that charitable gestures are without merit, but how do you prevent irresponsible behavior if you never hold people accountable for their actions? Casual forgiveness leads to repeat offenses and thwarts rehabilitation, and if you don't believe me, spend a few months trying domestic violence cases.

[My friend Sam and I hashed out a basic framework for forgiving someone: the person seeking forgiveness must either have a valid excuse (lack of capacity, e.g. kids) or come to a higher moral position as a result of their reflection on the crime and/or punishment, even if the improvement is slight. The latter case could include a person who knew what they were doing and knew it hurt the victim, but maybe only now do they fully appreciate how hurtful it was and upon reflection they wish they hadn't done it. Something useful is learned, so maybe forgiveness isn't a total waste.

[Why am I saying this here? As I said, it's a bit of a tangent, but I know there are systems of belief out there in mainstream America that would grant Pete Rose forgiveness. Rose wants to be forgiven for doing something he knew clearly was wrong and harmful, even though it appears he is as indifferent to the harms as ever. He should be forgiven because he's bored with his punishment, or something like that. In my book, he is not even close to worthy.]

Thursday, January 08, 2004

Two Words

Joe Gibbs. That's all anyone down here is talking about, and they scarcely have to elaborate beyond those two words. According to the local wags, his coaching career came, died, and is now risen from the dead. It's that big. The only Boston equivalent I could think of is having a somehow young-enough Red Auerbach taking over from the disastrous reign of Pitino terror. Only transplant the situation to a team people REALLY care about, i.e. the Red Sox.

I have lived here since 1995 and have failed to establish ties to any local sports teams -- not out of spite or refusal, so much as out of boredom with the Skins, Wiz and Caps teams that have done very little to ignite their diehard base in the last 8 years. These teams have sucked, they haven't merely been mediocre. Think Patriots circa 1990. A set of walking punchlines. Plus, Redskins fans are a bit like Sox fans with a larger sense of entitlement and annually outsized expectations. They will only be more insufferable next season... but it won't be Sage's problem. So, for now, let them have their day, let them ring the church bells the way they did when Fisk's homer clanged off the pole. It's kind of sweet, even to an outsider.

The underlying point though is that Gibbs may be able to make them good again. But can he? Two major things have changed since he quit in 1991: salary caps and free agency. Gibbs built powerhouse teams along both lines, and substituted in skill players more freely. It's not as easy to retain top lineman as it used to be... but it's far from impossible too, if you're smart. People say players have changed, but whatever that means, it's true across the league, so whatever Gibbs knows about the game will give him the same relative strength over the Wannstedts and Coughlins of the league. He will figure out what is different and probably get a handle on it. Gibbs is smart, and also a hard worker who demands the same intensity from his peeeps. In short, he is a slightly older, out of touch Belichick in the organizational sense -- and supposedly a great game planner too. My prediction: give him a year at 9-7 to figure things out and weed out all the cancer that flows freely through the veins of the organization, and he will make them strong again.

Sunday, January 04, 2004

Oh No You

Well, Oklahoma settled at least part of the argument, and proved that its thrashing at the hands of K-State was not a total fluke. It was a pretty decent game, but I for one think Oklahoma's coaches blew it. I'm not sure what they were doing defensively in the K-State game and first three quarters last night, before they finally started getting aggressive up front and dominating. But much worse, the offensive play calling was pitiful. How many home run shots did they take? One in particular, in the second half, backed up near their end zone, on first down, was beyond stupid. Thanks to an incredibly low percentage play and one which LSU was especially loaded up on, they then faced second and ten from deep in the hole. I am for throwing downfield, but as anyone who has studied Sun Tzu will tell you, there is a big difference between being aggressive but still under control, and blindly flinging the ball down the sideline.
Draft Pat!

Every New England sports fan knows Pat Patriot, the original logo of a grinning, surly looking guy in colonial garb hiking the ball to nobody in particular. It's not clear who modeled for this logo -- I always thought it was Dr. Bill Lenkaitis. It is clear, however, that this old logo knocks the crap out of the vapid, oddly triangular throwaway new logo. I have no qualms about the current uni's and understand the Parcells movement away from the old Patriot franchise, when the Sullivan family ran it with the evenhandedness of a Bangkok cab company. But that logo was extremely cool, not to mention original, and I would venture a guess from its appearance on hats and car bumpers that many people in New England see it as a representation of the soul of the franchise. However bizarre those days were, Pat Patriot is inseparable from the team's identity.

Bring back Pat! Here's my idea: before the first playoff game, the team could cover a large square at midfield where the current logo is, assuming it's logistically OK to keep teams away during warmups. Then timed with the player intros, pull back the tarp to reveal Pat, with that hard-edged glint in his eye staring at fans and a national TV audience. The place would go insane. Why? Because now that the Patriots have evolved into the franchise that all us longtime fans were waiting for, we can look back more fondly on those old days. And we can say with pride that we stuck with them all of that time, except maybe in the early 90s. And we can distance ourselves from that silly Elvis profile logo they use now!

Saturday, January 03, 2004

Cowboy Up?

Has anyone purchased the new DVD of the Sox' 2003 season yet? I am tempted -- there were some moments of joy, but I wonder, how does it end? These homer videos inevitably airbrush out the unpleasant facts. I remember my record of the 1975 Sox, strictly a vinyl affair back then. It covered the 6th game of the world series, then sort of mumbled into its figurative shirt about how things didn't quite work out in the end. Also, just a thought, but to us non-cowboys, does the phrase cowboy up sound like a euphamism for vomiting? Do we have to live with this forever? Should we aspire to the culture of Texas? "Howdy neighbor! How're you coming along with that Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? Yeeeeehaw!"
Belichick Best in Show

This just in... Patriots coach Bill Belichick is the NFL's coach of the year, in a runaway decision (35 votes versus seven for second-place Marvin Lewis). This award is voted by the media, the same people Belichick dismisses and frustrates with his bland and/or misleading statements all season long. So if they voted him the best, it speaks volumes...

Friday, January 02, 2004

Going Forward, We Hope

If you haven't heard yet, this site will be publishing from Seattle after February 1. If you're keeping score at home, the baby is now three weeks old. So, yeah, if I don't publish much in January, don't take it the wrong way. I'll try to keep on top of the Pats' progress, which hopefully will go until next month, and any major Sox developments, but otherwise will publish sporadically until we get resettled. Stay tuned...
BCS Mess?

Having watched USC take care of bidness, and awaiting the so-called championship game, Peter van P writes: USC is clearly deserving of the national championship, but the fact that they need to split it with OU or LSU is a joke. Wasn't the BCS supposed to avoid this kind of outcome? The way I see it, OU with their trouncing at the hands of K-State should have been knocked out of contention.

He's got two points: 1) that Oklahoma is less deserving as a one-loss team than one-loss USC; and 2) why can't the BCS clear up this mess? I'm not sure I agree with the first point. OU did get killed and played very poorly, so much so that no explanation about the players knowing the game meant nothing is much of an excuse. But USC lost to Cal, a team that went 8-6; K-State was 11-3 heading into its showdown with Ohio State. [LSU, incidentally, lost to Florida, the Minnesota Vikings of the Sunshine State.] So how do you determine which team's one loss is worse than another's? By point differential? By quality of opponent? By hunch?

The BCS form is intended to neutralize such considerations and basically say, a loss is a loss. I personally agree with this, and anyway it's far preferable to the AP method, which is to punish teams for losing later in the season, which is the sole reason USC is #1. Rather, the BCS separates teams by record and strength of schedule, the only two things that can be measured objectively. Factor number one: what's your record? Factor number two: who did you play?

The problem with the BCS isn't that it miscalculates anything; the problem is that the BCS is not designed to settle a three way tie; it is only meant to settle a situation where there are only two top teams. With three (or more) teams having qualifying records, it leaves it to strength of schedule, and the public doesn't really care about strength of schedule. All they care about is records, and if the #2 and #3 teams have the same number of losses, there isn't much the BCS can do to stop people from arguing about who is really #2, or this year, with a three-way tie, who is #1.

So, I agree with the BCS as an objective means for picking two teams to play for the title, but I also agree that if three teams have the same record, there is no fair way to discard one of the teams without allowing them to settle the score on the field. Playoff, anyone?
Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?