In a recent issue of Sports Illustrated, writer Jeff Pearlman came up with what yours truly considers some very interesting sports trivia. Pearlman attended the Univ of Delaware from 1990 to 1994, so it only figures he'd have some major loyalty to the Blue Hens.
That would be the same university and football team the current MVP of the Super Bowl, one Joe Flacco, attended. Though Delaware is a rather small state geographically, it was, after all, the FIRST state.
And Delaware can boast a second quarterback to have made it to the Super Bowl. Back in 2003, former Blue Hens QB Rich Gannon got there with the Oakland Raiders. No, he didn't play so well in that game, throwing multiple interceptions, as the black and silver Raider nation watched their team get stormed by the Tampa Bay Bucs for the Lombardi trophy.
But as Pearlman pointed out -- that's 2 Delaware QBs that have played in the Super Bowl. For such a small school, that's rather impressive.
Further referring to Pearlman's article -- what get's REALLY interesting is how many big time college football powerhouses have never had a single QB make it to the Super Bowl. That includes the likes of Ohio State, Wisconsin, Texas, and even USC. They may have won some major bowl games and even national championships here and there, but no QB from any of those schools ever made it to the "big dance" in the NFL.
There have been 47 Super Bowls played. That's 94 starting QBs. Sure, many of them have been there on multiple occasions. Win or lose, the names Bradshaw, Montana, Elway, Kelly and Tarkenton come to mind. Yet nary a Buckeye, Badger, Longhorn or Trojan along the way.
And now former Delware Blue Hen Joe Flacco, or at least his agent, is making a case that Flacco should be the highest paid QB in the NFL. Outrageous, you say, given the likes of Aaron Rogers, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and the Mannings? Maybe, but maybe not.
To be sure, there are those that put up gaudier statistics. The Detroit Lions' Matthew Stafford falls into that category. Stafford racked up over 5000 passing yards two years ago, but has yet to win a single playoff game. Last year, he had a receiver (Calvin Johnson) break the all-time record for most receiving yards in a season. The Lions went 4-12. It seems they find a way to lose.
Conversely, Flacco seems to fly under the radar, but he finds a way to win. It's not just the Ravens' magical run to the Lombardi trophy this year -- check out Flacco's record, particularly in the playoffs, over the last several years. It's impressive.
Arguments can certainly be made about the talent Flacco had around him on the Ravens, but most would agree the QB is the leader of the team. What's more important? A QB throwing for 5000 yards while his team continues to lose, or another guy putting up more modest stats, that manages the game well, doesn't make mistakes, and keeps leading his team to big wins, particularly on the road during the crunch time of the NFL playoffs?
So here's to the state of Delaware, Flacco and the Blue Hens. But contrary to Pearlman, I still think they swiped those winged helmets from Michigan. And all those pesky credit card companies based in Wilmington can be a pain sometimes too.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Michigan/Ohio State. Maize and...more maize?
That was an odd game. Most expected #1 Michigan to bounce back in a big way after losing in Indiana -- especially going back home to avenge their narrow defeat at Ohio State not long ago. But a blowout it most certainly was not.
The Buckeyes more than held their own, actually leading for the majority of the game, until the Wolverines finally regrouped and managed to send it into overtime. Stranger yet, during the entire overtime period, both teams only managed to score one basket apiece. Luckily for Michigan, there's was of the 3-point variety while OSU's was only a deuce. Throw in one extra made free throw by UM as time was running out, and that pretty well sums it up. Michigan managed to win by their chinny-chin-chins and will likely remain #1 for a while longer, particuarly in lieu of the fact #2 Florida crashed and burned at Arkansas earlier in the evening.
But what was REALLY weird were the uniforms. Not so much Ohio State. They wore their traditional scarlet and gray, but with a bit of a twist. Instead of the players' individual names being stitched across their shoulder blades, all their uniforms just said "Buckeyes". Nothing wrong with that. Actually, in this day and age, where so many athletes want to be show-offs, it should be applauded in the spirit of team unity. But at least we could see the "Buckeyes" thing, along with their numbers.
Not so Michigan. Their uniforms were an eye-popping bright yellow. Along with their socks, and their shoes. They looked like a flock of neon canaries flyng around out there on the hardwood. The Wolverines have always been known as the maize and blue -- so where was the blue?
Certainly not their numbers. They were yellow too, and hard to make out. Not sure, but I think they had their surnames stitched across their shoulder blades. Hi-def TV or not, it was hard to tell because they were yellow as well. So who came up with the bright idea of yellow on yellow on yellow on yellow, etc? Further, despite being annoying, what's the point? Including the Grade-A athletic shoes they no doubt wear, the only thing it accomplished was spending a few thousand unnecessary bucks for new outfits they didn't need.
It's no big secret that the reason it's so expensive to attend a pro game these days is because of the outrageous salaries that are involved with the players' contracts, but that doesn't apply to college games. However, something else might be worth considering.
Some big-time universities like UM continue to lavish their teams with different outfits for different games like it's some kind of fashion show. Yet, aren't these the same universities whose administrators keep telling us how tight money is, and therefore have to keep upping tuition for the students?
Sure, big time football, and to a lesser extent basketball, bring in big time bucks. No doubt they finance lesser sports. Some would even argue the athletic department is not connected to the "general fund" of the university. Education and athletic budgets are separate entities, they say.
That may be so to a degree, but one has to realize it's all the same university. They have assets and liabilities. Revenues and expenditures. Regardless of the paper pushers guarding their fiefdoms, it's eventually all tied into the same pot.
Overall, if they take in more than they spend, they're doing well. If the opposite, they should probably look for another job -- like running for Congress.
Like many Congresspeople, some of these athletic departments seem to think they're entitled to -- well -- entitlements. All this while the average John and Jane Doe are struggling trying to merely survive in today's economy.
If everybody else is cutting corners to make ends meet, then what should be the big problem with these collegiate athletic teams doing the same?
As far as I'm concerned basketball teams need only two sets of uniforms. One for home, and one for away games. When they wear out, get them new ones. Same with tennis shoes. Start them off with two pair. Like tires, when the tread gets a little thin, replace them. And forget the designer socks. Who cares? They don't need a whole 20 foot deep walk-in closet full of this stuff.
And for crying out loud, whether it's maize and blue, green and white, scarlet and gray -- whatever -- every school out there has 2 colors. Whatever color the uniforms are for any particular game -- the names and numbers should be the opposite. Is that asking too much?
It's like some of these prima donnas have gotten to point where they've forgotten some of life's most basic valuable lessons that their moms probably told them once upon a time.
I can remember some of those pearls of wisdom I once heard as a child. Like, "If you don't have something nice to say -- then shut up, stupid".
Or, "Just because Billy ran away from home doesn't mean you have to stay here".
And my favorite -- "You're not leaving this table until you eat your vegetables. Don't you know there's sober people in China?"
I'm telling ya -- the guys these days don't know how easy they have it.....
The Buckeyes more than held their own, actually leading for the majority of the game, until the Wolverines finally regrouped and managed to send it into overtime. Stranger yet, during the entire overtime period, both teams only managed to score one basket apiece. Luckily for Michigan, there's was of the 3-point variety while OSU's was only a deuce. Throw in one extra made free throw by UM as time was running out, and that pretty well sums it up. Michigan managed to win by their chinny-chin-chins and will likely remain #1 for a while longer, particuarly in lieu of the fact #2 Florida crashed and burned at Arkansas earlier in the evening.
But what was REALLY weird were the uniforms. Not so much Ohio State. They wore their traditional scarlet and gray, but with a bit of a twist. Instead of the players' individual names being stitched across their shoulder blades, all their uniforms just said "Buckeyes". Nothing wrong with that. Actually, in this day and age, where so many athletes want to be show-offs, it should be applauded in the spirit of team unity. But at least we could see the "Buckeyes" thing, along with their numbers.
Not so Michigan. Their uniforms were an eye-popping bright yellow. Along with their socks, and their shoes. They looked like a flock of neon canaries flyng around out there on the hardwood. The Wolverines have always been known as the maize and blue -- so where was the blue?
Certainly not their numbers. They were yellow too, and hard to make out. Not sure, but I think they had their surnames stitched across their shoulder blades. Hi-def TV or not, it was hard to tell because they were yellow as well. So who came up with the bright idea of yellow on yellow on yellow on yellow, etc? Further, despite being annoying, what's the point? Including the Grade-A athletic shoes they no doubt wear, the only thing it accomplished was spending a few thousand unnecessary bucks for new outfits they didn't need.
It's no big secret that the reason it's so expensive to attend a pro game these days is because of the outrageous salaries that are involved with the players' contracts, but that doesn't apply to college games. However, something else might be worth considering.
Some big-time universities like UM continue to lavish their teams with different outfits for different games like it's some kind of fashion show. Yet, aren't these the same universities whose administrators keep telling us how tight money is, and therefore have to keep upping tuition for the students?
Sure, big time football, and to a lesser extent basketball, bring in big time bucks. No doubt they finance lesser sports. Some would even argue the athletic department is not connected to the "general fund" of the university. Education and athletic budgets are separate entities, they say.
That may be so to a degree, but one has to realize it's all the same university. They have assets and liabilities. Revenues and expenditures. Regardless of the paper pushers guarding their fiefdoms, it's eventually all tied into the same pot.
Overall, if they take in more than they spend, they're doing well. If the opposite, they should probably look for another job -- like running for Congress.
Like many Congresspeople, some of these athletic departments seem to think they're entitled to -- well -- entitlements. All this while the average John and Jane Doe are struggling trying to merely survive in today's economy.
If everybody else is cutting corners to make ends meet, then what should be the big problem with these collegiate athletic teams doing the same?
As far as I'm concerned basketball teams need only two sets of uniforms. One for home, and one for away games. When they wear out, get them new ones. Same with tennis shoes. Start them off with two pair. Like tires, when the tread gets a little thin, replace them. And forget the designer socks. Who cares? They don't need a whole 20 foot deep walk-in closet full of this stuff.
And for crying out loud, whether it's maize and blue, green and white, scarlet and gray -- whatever -- every school out there has 2 colors. Whatever color the uniforms are for any particular game -- the names and numbers should be the opposite. Is that asking too much?
It's like some of these prima donnas have gotten to point where they've forgotten some of life's most basic valuable lessons that their moms probably told them once upon a time.
I can remember some of those pearls of wisdom I once heard as a child. Like, "If you don't have something nice to say -- then shut up, stupid".
Or, "Just because Billy ran away from home doesn't mean you have to stay here".
And my favorite -- "You're not leaving this table until you eat your vegetables. Don't you know there's sober people in China?"
I'm telling ya -- the guys these days don't know how easy they have it.....
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
The Super Bowl blackout
Anybody that watched the Super Bowl, in the Super dome in New Orleans, knows it suffered a power failure of some sort that lasted about half an hour. The problem is, nobody wants to step up and take responsibility for what happened. The finger pointing has begun.
Now call me naive, if you will, but yours truly firmly believes somebody somewhere knows EXACTLY what happened. Perhaps like so many other things these days, the people that could explain this are hoping the story gradually fades away. Unless an event is totally outrageous, which this was not, people in a position of authority learned a long time ago that deflecting questions and "waiting it out" until the next big story comes along to divert the public's attention, works out more times than not. Once the heat is off, they can go back to business as usual. Certainly the politicians have mastered this art. Stall long enough, and the story goes away anyway, to be replaced with whatever captures the public's attention next.
Yet in this case, it wouldn't seem to be asking too much for somebody to explain what happened. It's not like anybody's going to be facing massive law suits looking for millions of dollars. No real harm was done, other than possibly giving New Orleans, the Superdome, the electrical company (Entergy) or even the NFL a bit of a black eye.
Therefore, that's exactly why yours truly suspects when all is said and done -- the reasons behind that pesky little blackout will boil down to a derivative of Murphy's Law.
"When more than one person is responsible for a miscalculation, ultimately no one will be at fault".
And so it goes.....
Now call me naive, if you will, but yours truly firmly believes somebody somewhere knows EXACTLY what happened. Perhaps like so many other things these days, the people that could explain this are hoping the story gradually fades away. Unless an event is totally outrageous, which this was not, people in a position of authority learned a long time ago that deflecting questions and "waiting it out" until the next big story comes along to divert the public's attention, works out more times than not. Once the heat is off, they can go back to business as usual. Certainly the politicians have mastered this art. Stall long enough, and the story goes away anyway, to be replaced with whatever captures the public's attention next.
Yet in this case, it wouldn't seem to be asking too much for somebody to explain what happened. It's not like anybody's going to be facing massive law suits looking for millions of dollars. No real harm was done, other than possibly giving New Orleans, the Superdome, the electrical company (Entergy) or even the NFL a bit of a black eye.
Therefore, that's exactly why yours truly suspects when all is said and done -- the reasons behind that pesky little blackout will boil down to a derivative of Murphy's Law.
"When more than one person is responsible for a miscalculation, ultimately no one will be at fault".
And so it goes.....
Monday, February 4, 2013
Roger Goodell. Walking a fine line
From on high, the NFL commissioner gave his "state of the league" address. Either he's terribly naive or else thinks we are.
Roger spoke of trying to eliminate "low" tackles. Well gee, flags now fly for helmet to helmet contact, "horse-collar" tackles draw a personal foul, and on occasion, it appears that just hitting a guy too hard to will result in "unnecessary roughness". So if the Commish has his way and low tackles are outlawed, just where is it that defenders are supposed to tackle a ball carrier anyway?
Maybe it will become something like major league baseball's "strike zone". Once upon a time they used to say the strike zone was from the shoulders to the knees. That was never true. Then they said it was from the armpits to the knees. It was never that either. These days, any pitched ball crossing the plate even at the waistline of a batter is usually called "high" by the home plate umpire. In actuality, the current strike zone is maybe a foot in height, that extends from roughly the lower pelvic area to the knees. Maybe that will be the only place tacklers are allowed to hit in the near future, though I'm not at all sure every tackle being mandated to happen in the groin area is such a good idea either.
Idle thought. Want to cut down on all the concussions? Cut off the top of the helmets and leave their scalps exposed. Guys will think twice before leading with their heads. Ya think?
Sure, in recent years much more attention is being paid to the safety of NFL players during games, and in theory that's a noble idea. Yet the question begins to become -- where exactly is the line to be drawn when it comes to the very nature of what the NFL has always been about and player safety?
Few would doubt that the NFL became the most popular sport in America by a wide margin because of how the game itself has developed. It features highly conditioned athletes that are willing to partake in violent bodily collisions. Over the years, they've become bigger, stronger, and certainly faster. Even with the wonders of modern medical technology, a career can end on any given play.
But that's the thing. Though most of the players are "drafted", it's not like how the US military used to draft soldiers. The future GIs were pretty much obligated to go and serve their country, whether they wanted to or not. Countless thousands of them would eventually experience unimaginable hardships, and even death, because they were conscripted to do so at the will of others.
In the NFL, it's quite the opposite. Young men dream from childhood about someday having the opportunity to play in the NFL. The competition along the way from high school, through college, has a way of culling the herd, and only the best of the best even get a chance to eventually go out there and throw their bodies around in the NFL. It could fairly be said the last guy on the practice squad of the worst team in the entire NFL is an extremely talented football player. And what does he want the most in the whole world? The chance to experience "game action". There's lot of guys few people ever hear of that play on NFL "special teams". Sometimes their job is to basically be a kamikaze running down the field and sacrifice his body to "blow up" a play. Some such high-speed collisions are unbelievably violent, yet these young men not only do it willingly, but know there's hundreds of other guys out there somewhere that would gladly take their job if only they had a chance to do the same thing.
Roger Goodell is certainly aware of that. As player safety continues to be a concern, there's probably a few things he could do about that. One would be eliminating kickoffs altogether. After one team scores, the other gets the ball on their own 20 yard line. But what's to be done about punts? The same type high speed collisions often occur there as well with the coverage team running down the field full bore trying to blast the guy that will catch the ball. I suppose it could be mandated that in lieu of punts and the bodily harm that may occur, they could just move the ball 40 yards or so and give it to the other team. That would cut down on injuries, and also eliminate the need for punters. But it would also eliminate some of the most potentially exciting plays that can oftentimes change the outcome of a game.
Let's face it. The NFL consists of gladiator type contests. It never would have risen to be the gorilla in the room of professional sports without the violence that is inherent in the game. Fans wouldn't go to see, or even tune in, to watch the games if the contests themselves became too "civilized". There's a reason why the fans can work themselves up into a frenzy, and I highly doubt it has anything to do with the precision receivers run their pass routes, the footwork of offensive linemen, or the colors of the uniforms.
So the good Mr. Goodell would appear to be faced with a dilemma. Throw in the owners of the franchises that make big bucks, the concerns of the players' union that would likely have to ratify any major changes in the game through collective bargaining, add the fans, and tweaking the game in the name of safety becomes a very volatile mix.
Further, consider the players themselves. Many have come right out and said they knew what they were getting into when they signed up for the NFL. They went into this with their eyes wide open and are fully aware of the dangers that lurk. Further yet, some players make obscene amounts of money -- upwards of $20 million a year. That's over a million a game. For that matter, even the MINIMUM salary for a rookie is $285,000. Is it any wonder the competition to make an NFL team is so great? Let's get real. Some of those guys likely couldn't pass a fairly administered high school equivalency exam. Where else would they find a job that pays so much? It's high risk and high reward, and they damn well know it going in.
At that, many players have also come out and voiced their objections to some of the recent rule changes in the name of safety. They seem to think the game is becoming too "sissified". Sure, they might well have a whole different outlook when their playing days are done, and realize their bodies have been irreparably harmed, but in the meantime, who better to speak for the game than the players themselves? If the actual participants wish it to remain a ferocious contest, then who is anybody else to step in and start changing all the rules?
So add it all up. The players relish the challenge. The fans cheer big hits and apparently love the brutality of the sport. The owners likely don't care, as long as the TV megabucks keep flowing and their stadiums sell out. Satellite businesses from sports bars to those that sell NFL paraphernalia rely heavily on the game maintaining it's popularity. If the NFL gravitates too far towards the "No Fun League" that has been mentioned by many, it just might be they'd start to lose some of their popularity. And once it begins to slip, it's no easy task getting it back. Ask the Indy car people, and even NASCAR about that.
Roger Goodell would be well advised to proceed with caution.
Roger spoke of trying to eliminate "low" tackles. Well gee, flags now fly for helmet to helmet contact, "horse-collar" tackles draw a personal foul, and on occasion, it appears that just hitting a guy too hard to will result in "unnecessary roughness". So if the Commish has his way and low tackles are outlawed, just where is it that defenders are supposed to tackle a ball carrier anyway?
Maybe it will become something like major league baseball's "strike zone". Once upon a time they used to say the strike zone was from the shoulders to the knees. That was never true. Then they said it was from the armpits to the knees. It was never that either. These days, any pitched ball crossing the plate even at the waistline of a batter is usually called "high" by the home plate umpire. In actuality, the current strike zone is maybe a foot in height, that extends from roughly the lower pelvic area to the knees. Maybe that will be the only place tacklers are allowed to hit in the near future, though I'm not at all sure every tackle being mandated to happen in the groin area is such a good idea either.
Idle thought. Want to cut down on all the concussions? Cut off the top of the helmets and leave their scalps exposed. Guys will think twice before leading with their heads. Ya think?
Sure, in recent years much more attention is being paid to the safety of NFL players during games, and in theory that's a noble idea. Yet the question begins to become -- where exactly is the line to be drawn when it comes to the very nature of what the NFL has always been about and player safety?
Few would doubt that the NFL became the most popular sport in America by a wide margin because of how the game itself has developed. It features highly conditioned athletes that are willing to partake in violent bodily collisions. Over the years, they've become bigger, stronger, and certainly faster. Even with the wonders of modern medical technology, a career can end on any given play.
But that's the thing. Though most of the players are "drafted", it's not like how the US military used to draft soldiers. The future GIs were pretty much obligated to go and serve their country, whether they wanted to or not. Countless thousands of them would eventually experience unimaginable hardships, and even death, because they were conscripted to do so at the will of others.
In the NFL, it's quite the opposite. Young men dream from childhood about someday having the opportunity to play in the NFL. The competition along the way from high school, through college, has a way of culling the herd, and only the best of the best even get a chance to eventually go out there and throw their bodies around in the NFL. It could fairly be said the last guy on the practice squad of the worst team in the entire NFL is an extremely talented football player. And what does he want the most in the whole world? The chance to experience "game action". There's lot of guys few people ever hear of that play on NFL "special teams". Sometimes their job is to basically be a kamikaze running down the field and sacrifice his body to "blow up" a play. Some such high-speed collisions are unbelievably violent, yet these young men not only do it willingly, but know there's hundreds of other guys out there somewhere that would gladly take their job if only they had a chance to do the same thing.
Roger Goodell is certainly aware of that. As player safety continues to be a concern, there's probably a few things he could do about that. One would be eliminating kickoffs altogether. After one team scores, the other gets the ball on their own 20 yard line. But what's to be done about punts? The same type high speed collisions often occur there as well with the coverage team running down the field full bore trying to blast the guy that will catch the ball. I suppose it could be mandated that in lieu of punts and the bodily harm that may occur, they could just move the ball 40 yards or so and give it to the other team. That would cut down on injuries, and also eliminate the need for punters. But it would also eliminate some of the most potentially exciting plays that can oftentimes change the outcome of a game.
Let's face it. The NFL consists of gladiator type contests. It never would have risen to be the gorilla in the room of professional sports without the violence that is inherent in the game. Fans wouldn't go to see, or even tune in, to watch the games if the contests themselves became too "civilized". There's a reason why the fans can work themselves up into a frenzy, and I highly doubt it has anything to do with the precision receivers run their pass routes, the footwork of offensive linemen, or the colors of the uniforms.
So the good Mr. Goodell would appear to be faced with a dilemma. Throw in the owners of the franchises that make big bucks, the concerns of the players' union that would likely have to ratify any major changes in the game through collective bargaining, add the fans, and tweaking the game in the name of safety becomes a very volatile mix.
Further, consider the players themselves. Many have come right out and said they knew what they were getting into when they signed up for the NFL. They went into this with their eyes wide open and are fully aware of the dangers that lurk. Further yet, some players make obscene amounts of money -- upwards of $20 million a year. That's over a million a game. For that matter, even the MINIMUM salary for a rookie is $285,000. Is it any wonder the competition to make an NFL team is so great? Let's get real. Some of those guys likely couldn't pass a fairly administered high school equivalency exam. Where else would they find a job that pays so much? It's high risk and high reward, and they damn well know it going in.
At that, many players have also come out and voiced their objections to some of the recent rule changes in the name of safety. They seem to think the game is becoming too "sissified". Sure, they might well have a whole different outlook when their playing days are done, and realize their bodies have been irreparably harmed, but in the meantime, who better to speak for the game than the players themselves? If the actual participants wish it to remain a ferocious contest, then who is anybody else to step in and start changing all the rules?
So add it all up. The players relish the challenge. The fans cheer big hits and apparently love the brutality of the sport. The owners likely don't care, as long as the TV megabucks keep flowing and their stadiums sell out. Satellite businesses from sports bars to those that sell NFL paraphernalia rely heavily on the game maintaining it's popularity. If the NFL gravitates too far towards the "No Fun League" that has been mentioned by many, it just might be they'd start to lose some of their popularity. And once it begins to slip, it's no easy task getting it back. Ask the Indy car people, and even NASCAR about that.
Roger Goodell would be well advised to proceed with caution.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
A weird Super Bowl
Somewhere I suspect Dandy Don Meredith is smiling. If there was ever a time when his services were needed to sing "turn out the lights", it was at this Super Bowl.
Indeed, mysteriously the Superdome was plunged into darkness during the middle of the game. Then half the lights came back on. It wasn't until about 30 minutes later that somebody finally figured out how to turn the other half back on.
Yours truly has no idea how the Superdome's electrical system works, but one would think in this day and age that it just shoudn't be that difficult to turn the lights back on, especially when it was reported the power company had stated the outage appeared to be within the stadium itself. No surrounding areas were affected. Given the Super Bowl was being watched by hundreds of millions of viewers world-wide, that was an embarrassment to the NFL. Somewhere I also suspect commissioner Roger Goodell was not exactly a happy camper to see his showcase so rudely interrupted. Though we may never know, odds are pretty good somebody somewhere got fired over what happened, or at the very least has some serious 'splainin to do.
Regardless, what a game. Baltimore came out in the first half and were having their way with San Francisco. After the lights came back on in the second half, the tables turned and the 49ers got on a roll. Though at one point trailing by over 3 touchdowns, at the very end of the game San Fran had a chance to pull it out, being inside the Baltimore 10 yard line, trailing by only 5 points, with several cracks at the end zone to win it as time all but expired. But they just couldn't quite get it done. It appeared as if on San Fran's last chance one of the Baltimore cornerbacks was guilty of holding a 49er receiver, but it wasn't called, and those things happen.
So Ray Lewis indeed got to go out on top, and Baltimore will have a parade in a few days. Head coach John Harbaugh will be the toast of the town. Good for them. On the other hand, head coach Jim Harbaugh and his 49ers have to make the long trek back to San Fran and wonder what might have been. But hey, let's not forget the San Francisco Giants won the World Series last year by sweeping the Detroit Tigers, so that city has enough glory for a while. It's been a long time since Baltimore got to celebrate a championship of any sort, so why not?
Besides, the 49ers aren't exactly going to self-destruct. They're a relatively young team and could well compete for several more Super Bowls in the near future. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see them back in the big game next year.
And yeah, I went with the odds-makers and predicted the 49ers to win. I was wrong, but actually I can't remember the last time I got one right. At least I'm consistent.
On a related note -- there's no doubt that Baltimore's last offensive play of the game involved a lot of money changing hands. By that I mean all those football pools out there, where people buy "squares", and whichever numbers (scores) pop up after each quarter, plus the final score, pay out a certain amount of money, depending on how much the squares cost in the first place. For example, if 100 squares were going for $50 bucks apiece and it paid out quarterly, that would be $1250 each to 4 lucky winners. When the Baltimore punter ran out of his own end zone for a safety, rather than risk having his kick blocked, those numbers changed on all those football pools. All those people sitting on the lucky numbers before that play probably figured it was "in the bag". When the 2 points for a self-inflicted safety went up on the scoreboard, those same people watched their potential winnings go poof. Yet at the same time, an equal amount of people were likely thrilled with their last second stroke of luck.
Guess that's why they call it gambling. As they say -- Ya pays yer nickel, and ya takes yer chances.
A Super Bowl prediction
Funny thing about the Super Bowl. The odds-makers continue to insist the San Francisco 49ers are 4 point favorites over the Baltimore Ravens. Yet it seems like every sports scribe, TV talking head, or any man/woman about town, when asked their opinion, think the Ravens are going to win. Certainly, one could presume the people that handicap sporting contests for a living do a lot more in-depth analysis and number crunching than your average co-worker or person on a bar stool next to you.
Further, once it was determined these two teams would be the contestants, the opening line was 3 1/2 points. If so many people were jumping all over Baltimore while taking the 3.5, it would stand to reason the spread would shrink -- not get a little bigger. But that's what happened. Very strange.
There's likely a few reasons for public sentiment going Baltimore's way. Not long ago, their "leader", Ray Lewis, announced his retirement after this season. While that no doubt juiced his Ravens teammates to want to sent him out on top -- there can also be little doubt that opinions of Mr. Lewis amongst the public vary wildly. There are those that deem him one of the best, if not THE best linebacker of all time, and a spiritual leader, to those that think he literally got away with murder in a nightclub incident over a decade ago. Whether or not he's the best linebacker to ever play the game is highly debatable, but few can dispute he's been the face of the Ravens during his 17 year career, and will almost certainly be voted into the NFL Hall of Fame as soon as he becomes eligible.
On an ironic note, or maybe not, Lewis was going to be presented with some kind of gospel award during the Super Bowl festivities. Personally, I've never heard the man sing. Then again, maybe it has something to do with him being willing to sing like a canary on his two co-defendants way back when those murders happened in Atlanta, to save his own skin. Beats me. The only thing I know about that is the record says two guys got stabbed to death and nobody ever got convicted of doing the horrible crime. What smelled a little fishy was Lewis paying out big bucks to the families of the deceased in an "out of court" settlement. If he had nothing to do with their demise, then why would he....... Well, enough said.
Football-wise, the Ravens seem reminiscent of last year's eventual Super Bowl champion New York Giants. The Giants squeaked into the playoffs at the end of the season, and who thought they could go into Green Bay and defeat the Packers, then into San Francisco to dispatch the 49ers, and further defeat Tom Brady and Co. in the Super Bowl? They were underdogs in every one of those games, but somehow they won.
Much the same can be said of Baltimore this year. They weren't supposed to go into Denver and beat Peyton Manning and the Broncos, much less follow it up by clobbering the same New England Patriots in their own back yard. But they did. Much like the Giants last year, it appears the Ravens got hot at the right time and are on a roll.
Still, the "experts" aren't buying it. Neither am I.
With apologies to Neil Diamond, I predict the Ray Lewis "brother love travelling salvation show" doesn't go out in a blaze of glory in New Orleans.
Top to bottom, San Fran is too good, and after being within a whiff of the Super Bowl last year, they're on a mission of their own this time around.
Getting back to the odds-makers, they set the over/under of total points scored between both teams at 47.5. Doing a little math, while keeping the 4 point spread in mind, it seems the wise guys think San Fran is going to score 25.75 points, and Baltimore 21.75 to make everything come out perfect. Of course, those scores can't happen, but far be it from me to underestimate the wisdom of those guys in the back rooms in Vegas. I think they're pretty close.
Though both teams are known for their stout defenses, and it should be a hard-hitting affair indeed, yours truly is of the opinion that after a slow start, the offenses will eventually start clicking, particularly in the second half.
Give me the over on the 47.5, while San Fran covers the 4 point spread.
SF. 31. Baltimore 24.
Of course, as I stated in a post not long ago (see How To Pick Football Games, Jan. 28) I've been wrong on about 98.5% of all the predictions I've ever made. Like Hank Jr. once sang -- it's a family tradition.
But you never know. There's always the blind squirrel and the acorn thing -- right?
On with the game.
Further, once it was determined these two teams would be the contestants, the opening line was 3 1/2 points. If so many people were jumping all over Baltimore while taking the 3.5, it would stand to reason the spread would shrink -- not get a little bigger. But that's what happened. Very strange.
There's likely a few reasons for public sentiment going Baltimore's way. Not long ago, their "leader", Ray Lewis, announced his retirement after this season. While that no doubt juiced his Ravens teammates to want to sent him out on top -- there can also be little doubt that opinions of Mr. Lewis amongst the public vary wildly. There are those that deem him one of the best, if not THE best linebacker of all time, and a spiritual leader, to those that think he literally got away with murder in a nightclub incident over a decade ago. Whether or not he's the best linebacker to ever play the game is highly debatable, but few can dispute he's been the face of the Ravens during his 17 year career, and will almost certainly be voted into the NFL Hall of Fame as soon as he becomes eligible.
On an ironic note, or maybe not, Lewis was going to be presented with some kind of gospel award during the Super Bowl festivities. Personally, I've never heard the man sing. Then again, maybe it has something to do with him being willing to sing like a canary on his two co-defendants way back when those murders happened in Atlanta, to save his own skin. Beats me. The only thing I know about that is the record says two guys got stabbed to death and nobody ever got convicted of doing the horrible crime. What smelled a little fishy was Lewis paying out big bucks to the families of the deceased in an "out of court" settlement. If he had nothing to do with their demise, then why would he....... Well, enough said.
Football-wise, the Ravens seem reminiscent of last year's eventual Super Bowl champion New York Giants. The Giants squeaked into the playoffs at the end of the season, and who thought they could go into Green Bay and defeat the Packers, then into San Francisco to dispatch the 49ers, and further defeat Tom Brady and Co. in the Super Bowl? They were underdogs in every one of those games, but somehow they won.
Much the same can be said of Baltimore this year. They weren't supposed to go into Denver and beat Peyton Manning and the Broncos, much less follow it up by clobbering the same New England Patriots in their own back yard. But they did. Much like the Giants last year, it appears the Ravens got hot at the right time and are on a roll.
Still, the "experts" aren't buying it. Neither am I.
With apologies to Neil Diamond, I predict the Ray Lewis "brother love travelling salvation show" doesn't go out in a blaze of glory in New Orleans.
Top to bottom, San Fran is too good, and after being within a whiff of the Super Bowl last year, they're on a mission of their own this time around.
Getting back to the odds-makers, they set the over/under of total points scored between both teams at 47.5. Doing a little math, while keeping the 4 point spread in mind, it seems the wise guys think San Fran is going to score 25.75 points, and Baltimore 21.75 to make everything come out perfect. Of course, those scores can't happen, but far be it from me to underestimate the wisdom of those guys in the back rooms in Vegas. I think they're pretty close.
Though both teams are known for their stout defenses, and it should be a hard-hitting affair indeed, yours truly is of the opinion that after a slow start, the offenses will eventually start clicking, particularly in the second half.
Give me the over on the 47.5, while San Fran covers the 4 point spread.
SF. 31. Baltimore 24.
Of course, as I stated in a post not long ago (see How To Pick Football Games, Jan. 28) I've been wrong on about 98.5% of all the predictions I've ever made. Like Hank Jr. once sang -- it's a family tradition.
But you never know. There's always the blind squirrel and the acorn thing -- right?
On with the game.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Michigan @ Indiana
This should be a heck of a basketball game. Michigan's #1 in the country, and Indiana used to be, but after a couple close losses, they slipped just a tad down to #3.
The Wolverines are undefeated at home, with their lone loss coming in a nail-biting loss at Ohio State. But playing at Indiana is no picnic either.
Besides obviously wanting his team to beat any other that comes along, let alone the #1 team in the country, Hoosiers head coach Tom Crean would seem to have conflicting interests when it comes to the two major college football powers in the state of Michigan. Namely Michigan, and Michigan State.
Crean spent two stints at MSU, the first being as a graduate assistant under then head-coach Judd Heathcote, at then assistant coach Tom Izzo's bequest, then years later as a top assistant to Izzo himself after he became head coach. For that matter, Izzo was an usher at Crean's wedding, so it might fairly be said Crean has an MSU connection -- the better to knock off those pesky Wolverines.
But wait a minute. The woman he married was named Joani Harbaugh. Does that name sound familiar? Yep, she's the sister of those two guys that will be head coaching in the Super Bowl on Sunday. Of course, one of them is Jim Harbaugh, who was a star QB at Michigan. Big brother John went to Miami of Ohio. So "sis" has a family tie to Michigan, another in Ohio, and is married to a guy coaching at Indiana, who just happens to have former strong ties to Michigan State. Wow, that poor girl probably doesn't know who to root for. Then again, it could be worse. I'm glad coach Crean's first name is Tom and not Chachi. On top of the rest of the loyalty merry-go-round she has to deal with, I doubt Mrs. Crean would need the aggravation that would come with a "Joani loves Chachi" scenario.
Oh yeah. The game. Right. Michigan has one of best guards in the country in Trey Burke. He can bring the ball up the court, pass, and shoot with the best of them. But Indiana has a way of playing team defense that might stifle Burke a bit, especially at home. Burke might very well be successful, but he's going to have to earn every bit of it, because Indiana will rotate their defenses to make things as difficult as possible for him. Like they say, cut off the head, and the monster dies, or something like that.
Look for these teams to get after each other all over the court -- all game long. In other words, I highly doubt it's going to be a day at the races, with the teams running up and down the court, much less a dunk-a-thon. The defenses will clamp down hard, and every possession will be highly contested. It should be a relatively low-scoring affair.
Prediction? Michigan's been #1 for a week. Everybody else that's managed to climb to the top hasn't stayed there long. Nor will the Wolverines.
Indiana by 6.
The Wolverines are undefeated at home, with their lone loss coming in a nail-biting loss at Ohio State. But playing at Indiana is no picnic either.
Besides obviously wanting his team to beat any other that comes along, let alone the #1 team in the country, Hoosiers head coach Tom Crean would seem to have conflicting interests when it comes to the two major college football powers in the state of Michigan. Namely Michigan, and Michigan State.
Crean spent two stints at MSU, the first being as a graduate assistant under then head-coach Judd Heathcote, at then assistant coach Tom Izzo's bequest, then years later as a top assistant to Izzo himself after he became head coach. For that matter, Izzo was an usher at Crean's wedding, so it might fairly be said Crean has an MSU connection -- the better to knock off those pesky Wolverines.
But wait a minute. The woman he married was named Joani Harbaugh. Does that name sound familiar? Yep, she's the sister of those two guys that will be head coaching in the Super Bowl on Sunday. Of course, one of them is Jim Harbaugh, who was a star QB at Michigan. Big brother John went to Miami of Ohio. So "sis" has a family tie to Michigan, another in Ohio, and is married to a guy coaching at Indiana, who just happens to have former strong ties to Michigan State. Wow, that poor girl probably doesn't know who to root for. Then again, it could be worse. I'm glad coach Crean's first name is Tom and not Chachi. On top of the rest of the loyalty merry-go-round she has to deal with, I doubt Mrs. Crean would need the aggravation that would come with a "Joani loves Chachi" scenario.
Oh yeah. The game. Right. Michigan has one of best guards in the country in Trey Burke. He can bring the ball up the court, pass, and shoot with the best of them. But Indiana has a way of playing team defense that might stifle Burke a bit, especially at home. Burke might very well be successful, but he's going to have to earn every bit of it, because Indiana will rotate their defenses to make things as difficult as possible for him. Like they say, cut off the head, and the monster dies, or something like that.
Look for these teams to get after each other all over the court -- all game long. In other words, I highly doubt it's going to be a day at the races, with the teams running up and down the court, much less a dunk-a-thon. The defenses will clamp down hard, and every possession will be highly contested. It should be a relatively low-scoring affair.
Prediction? Michigan's been #1 for a week. Everybody else that's managed to climb to the top hasn't stayed there long. Nor will the Wolverines.
Indiana by 6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)