Holiday Bowl proves nothing

The press is jumping all over Texas Tech's 45-31 thumping of Cal in last night's Holiday Bowl as proof that somehow the convoluted BCS system "works." Even Cal coach Jeff Tedford essentially threw in the towel, as Wayne Drehs reports:

Did Texas -- not Cal -- deserve the BCS spot in the Rose Bowl?

Before the reporter even finished, running back J.J. Arrington shook his head in disgust. Quarterback Aaron Rodgers mumbled something about the query being "stupid." And Tedford answered, as only he knew how.

"What do you want me to say?" the California coach said. "They're right? They got it right. Then they're right. There. I don't know what you want me to say."

But they're not right. Once again, the collective pea-sized brain of the media establishment fails to comprehend that it is not the particular outcome that matters, but it is the selection process that matters. Aaron Rodgers is right: the question is stupid.

This is what matters: Mack Brown was able to successfully lobby a few voters into changing their non-disclosed ballots enough to get Texas into the BCS in favor of Cal. There was absolutely no on-the-field evidence to support the change. If these voters were privy to some underlying weakness in Cal that somehow manifest itself to them and them only the last week of the college football regular season, then I'd like to see how much money they made off betting against Cal in the Holiday Bowl, where the Bears were 10-point favorites.

Of course, we all know that the voters didn't have any such information; they simply did it as a personal favor to Coach Mack and thereby sent millions of dollars to Austin instead of to Berkeley. That's corruption. Period. How does the fact that Cal happened to lose their next game change that? It doesn't. Are you trying to tell me that a coach convincing his buddies to vote for his team and then getting lucky on a coin-flip of a bowl game a month later is proof that the system works?

Similarly with Utah. Lots of people point to their getting to the Fiesta Bowl as proof that the system works for the non-BCS conferences, too. Hogwash. One team getting in out of five years of playing the game does not constitute a fair system. Everyone knows that the margin of error for non-BCS conference schools is so razor-thin as to be ludicrous. That Utah was able to miraculously successfully navigate themselves into the money bowls does not change the fact that the system is fundamentally unfair to these schools (see also Boise State, and also Urban Meyer, who knows that he can get back to the BCS from Florida a lot easier than he can from Utah). And yet the NCAA and the media establishment, which has itself been bought by the money bowls, continue to ignore this.

Now, if Pittsburgh beats Utah in the Fiesta Bowl, the media will undoubtedly jump all over that as more "proof" that the system works. But in reality, the outcome of that game doesn't matter, either. For one thing, as I've pointed out above, bowl games are essentially a crapshoot anyway. To me, the fact that Utah is currently favored going into the game is more important than the actual outcome of the game. Because remember that what we're doing here is trying to determine the best matchups for the bowl games, and so naturally we necessarily have to do this before the games! The spread going into a game represents a market-based assessment of that matchup before the game and is ergo in this case a confirmation that Utah belongs in the game.

Of course, this whole discussion is itself merely a confirmation that the whole system is as corrupt and screwed up as it can be.

Simmons keeps swimming

With every new accomplishment by Peyton Manning, Bill Simmons concedes a little bit more while at the same time grasps at a new straw to keep some semblance of dignity for his idiotic remarks over the course of the season. In today's mailbag, the Sports Guy finally admits that "Manning is having one of the greatest regular seasons in the history of the sport" (emphasis his (man, I always wanted to say that)). But then he goes on with a dig-disguised-as-praise that really amounts to a CYA:

And yes, in my book, what Manning did in the last few minutes of that game was infinitely more important than anything else he did all season. Ten years from now, that TD record will hold about as much weight as McGwire's 70 homers. We're entering an era of 70-point over/unders and 500-yard passing days, a decade where no-names like Billy Volek and Drew Bennett can look like Montana and Rice on any given Sunday. But Manning waving the punter off the field on fourth-and-4, then delivering that bee-bee to Wayne for a first down ... now THAT was a moment.

Let's take the second point first (also always wanted to say that!). Are you saying that you're finally willing to concede that Manning is a big-game QB? Because, you know, most people would say that this was a pretty big game. Two teams on serious rolls, vying for the #3 seed for the playoffs, etc.

So let's remember this major, major concession by Simmons: Manning came up big in a really big situation. Particularly when Simmons is celebrating "another choke" by Manning after his team does what it was expected to do: lose on the road in the playoffs.

(Just for the record, I personally didn't consider this a big game. Because it really doesn't matter that much if the Colts get the #3 seed or the #4 seed. One way, they have to win at New England and then at Pittsburgh, and the other way, they have to win at Pittsburgh and at New England. Either way, it's just about impossible. But on the other hand, I'm not the one trying to peddle some "Manning chokes in big games" theory.)

And now to the "new era" point. One reason it's so easy to critique Simmons is that he, like most sports reporters, can consistently be relied upon to not check the numbers. But I did. And the numbers are quite interesting. Since the main beef has to do with Manning's breaking the touchdown passes record, let's look at the total number of touchdown passes in the NFL over each of the last 3 years (in all cases, the 2004 number is projected through Week 17--not a big leap):

2004: 735
2003: 654
2002: 694

That's a pretty significant difference between 2003 and 2004, of course, but the difference between 2002 and 2004 is not nearly as big (about 5.5%). If Manning had merely raised his numbers by 5.5% between last year and this year, Marino's record would still be looking pretty safe.

Not only that, but the overall 2004 numbers are obviously themselves helped by Manning's amazing season. So if we replace Manning's TD numbers by those of the average QB in the league for each year, we get numbers like this:

2004: 704
2003: 645
2002: 688

The difference between 2002 and 2004 is now only about 2.2%. Meanwhile, I will also take this opportunity to point out that Simmons' boy Tom Brady's 26 TD passes this year (through 15 games) is not his career high; that came in 2002 when he threw 28. Funny how Brady can't seem to take advantage of this "new era" like Manning has. Prediction: Manning's TD pass record will last at least 10 years.

Since Simmons also posited a "500-yard games" theory as part of his "new era" (by the way, number of 500-yard passing games in 2004: 0), let's look at the total passing yardage in the NFL for each of the last 3 years, too (2004 is projected through 17 weeks):

2004: 115,474
2003: 109,467
2002: 116,201

Hmm. That sure is interesting, isn't it? Not sure if I need to add much to that.

Some pot-shots

While reading through some more of my new discovery, The Sports Economist, yesterday, I followed a link to a NY Times article describing the "sabermetrics" of football. Apparently Aaron Schatz, whom, by the way, I have quoted approvingly in this blog, despite his association with Snap Judgment, is one of the leaders of these efforts.

The article is woefully short and limits itself to reporting 3 conclusions of the football sabermetricians:

1 - Football teams punt too much
2 - Football teams go for two too much
3 - Football teams pass on 3rd and short too much

Worthwhile observations, I suppose, although I first heard #1 four years ago when Crowton was having Doman pitch to Staley on just about every 4th down BYU faced that year.

But the point of my bringing it up, unsurprisingly, is to use it as ammunition against the Sports Guy. Because the article makes a special point to mention that one Bill Belichick is a particularly zealous disciple of these tenets. Interesting that Simmons' hero is a sabermetrics devotee when the SG has expended so much breath this year condemning "robo-journalists" who compute the MVP based on statistics alone without actually watching the games. Because, you see, when you watch the games, you get so many things that you miss in the box score--like sideline shots of Tom Brady's charismatic profile, I suppose.

Moving on, we have the following line from Simmons' NFL picks column today:

...[N]ow the 11-3 Chargers are getting 7 points in Indy a week later, even though they've won eight straight and 10 of their last 11 (with the one loss coming by a point in Atlanta), and even though they match up perfectly with this Colts team. And you wonder why the Bolts are 11-1-2 against the spread right now. Apparently, they will have to be playing into late January before anyone believes in them.

Actually, Bill, I believe you meant to write, "Congratulations, Chargers, on winning 10 of your last 11 games against suspect competition. Now all you have to do is beat the Steelers and Patriots on the road in January." Or is that kind of bitterness just reserved for the Colts?

The Sports Economist

I was perusing through Rob Neyer's latest offerings today when I noticed down at the bottom a link to the Sports Economist blog. Rob particularly recommended the Dec. 2nd entry "Who's the idiot?" so I went to the archives and found it. It deals with the D.C. stadium financing mess, which I haven't personally found all that compelling, but I was certainly interested in the following two paragraphs:

Columnist Thom Loverro looks at the scene a different way. The vote allows Selig to arrive in town without having to declare that he's "an idiot." The mayor and the council chair don't have to walk around town wearing "idiot signs." But for having the courage to state the facts in this political maelstrom, economist Brad Humphreys gets Loverro's idiot award. Humphreys knows as much about the economic impact of stadiums as anyone in the country. But to Loverro he's a "clown," a "pencil necked geek" with "no clue" about "the economic benefits" of sports stadiums. And in the ultimate put-down, he works at the University of Illinois.

I don't know what to make of newspaper columnists. Their craft may appeal to the masses, but ignorance is a poor trait to put on display. For those of us who have bothered to think through the stadium subsidy issue, Loverro has declared himself to be a major league idiot.

Welcome to the party, Sports Economist! Glad to have you aboard this general train of thought.

And by way of reviews, let me add that I found the Sports Economist blog in general to be interesting and commensensical.

Mr. Clutch

The Patriots are battling for the crucial home-field advantage down the stretch of the NFL season. Good thing they have Mr. Clutch at the helm, eh? Mr. Tom Brady, that is: all he does is win. Maybe his stats aren't as gaudy as some other QBs we can name, but that just proves how meaningless statistics are. Brady may be 11th in the league in QB rating, but there's no one you'd rather have in the last two minutes, right, Snap Judgment?

And let's not forget the old "Until Manning beats Brady, you have to go with Brady." Something tells me that had Peyton been taking the snaps for the Patriots last night, he wouldn't have thrown 2 interceptions in--yes, the last two minutes. Who was playing with both hands wrapped around his neck last night, Simmons? I mean, this was kind of an important game, wasn't it? Home-field advantage for the playoffs? Good thing they were playing such a weak team, given how crucial the game was. And was that a Tom Brady Face I detected after that last interception? Simmons will have to help me out on that one, since he's the one with the magical powers to read athletes' thoughts based on blank facial expressions.

Amazing how many Tom Brady myths were exploded in a single game. "But it's a single game!" you say. Well of course, all people with common sense realize that. But sports reporters, on the other hand, make a living generalizing from a small, select sample size.

The Daily Bandwagon, meanwhile, resorts to the old "losing is good" cliche:

If anything, the humiliation forces them to re-commit to their goal of repeating. I think it makes them more dangerous.The Steelers may have all but locked up home-field advantage, but the team on a collision course with them for the title game is suddenly even tougher to beat.

All part of Belichick's master plan, no doubt. Why, the man is as wily as Karl Rove!

Shanoff also has a great read on the Terrell Owens situation:

Maybe the team is hedging, to allow for the inspiring Willis Reed-like comeback for the NFC title game or Super Bowl.

Man, can't anybody get injured these days without someone bringing up "Watchu Talkin' About" Willis Reed? The man scored like 4 points in that game! Here's the most likely scenario: if the Eagles make the Super Bowl, TO will come out and play the first couple of series, get a couple of passes thrown his way, maybe one for a key first down. Then he'll sit for the rest of the game. If the Eagles win, they'll talk ad nauseum about how inspired they were by TO's courage. Most likely, though, they will not win, because, of course, they're missing their best receiver.

Something Shanoff and something Simmons

Today's Daily Bandwagon opens with the following hilarious observation concerning the stadium deal that the D.C. city council just handed down:

It's arguably the biggest humiliation in sports-franchise relocation history.

"Arguably!" "History!" Stop it man, you're killing me! Oh, there's no doubt that this will be topic #1 the next time my friends and I sit down for our weekly sports-franchise relocation debate.

I also enjoyed his little riff on the surprising Sonics:

Fun with stats! Seattle is near the tops in the league in two newfangled efficiency metrics: "Points Per Shot" (PTS/FGA) and "Adjusted FG Pct" [(PTS-FTM)/FGA]/2. If you hate math, just gaze open-mouth at the shooting.

Oh man, trying to comprehend those bafflingly complex formulas is making my brain hurt! PTS? FGM? Beats me! But seriously folks, since when are these stats "newfangled"? I happen to know that one of my secret sources for the incisive numerical analysis that is a hallmark of this blog--we'll call him Stats Chump--was looking at Points Per Shot ages ago, and Adjusted FG Pct is simply a no-brainer. And even if you're not explicitly using those types of formulas, why, everyone who ever looked at a boxscore has made mental adjustments to the figures they see. I mean, has anyone ever been stupid enough to think something to the effect of, "Man! Shaq is near the top of the league in field goal percentage again! You wouldn't expect a guy that big to be such a great pure shooter!"

On the other hand, I did think that Shanoff made some reasonably good observations about our friends the Sox fans:

What's more overblown: Red Sox Nation's nonsense fixation on Pedro leaving, or their nonsense fixation on Curt Schilling too injured to start Opening Day? Wow, it only took six weeks for RSN to find something to be (a) bitter about and (b) worried about. (The over/under -- set at "end of winter meetings" -- was right on!)

Which leads me to Simmons' hysterical (but not "ha ha" hysterical) and incoherent column from yesterday on Pedro's move to the Mets. The man is completely out of his mind. First he is utterly inconsolable:

I can't emphasize this point strongly enough: Pedro's shocking departure was the worst possible thing that could have happened. Losing the most exciting pitcher in the history of the franchise was bad enough. Losing him because he leveraged the good will of the championship season into a far-too-generous offer from the Red Sox, then leveraged that offer into a suicidal contract from the Mets -- four years and $54 million for a six-inning pitcher with a history of shoulder problems -- I mean, how are we supposed to feel about this guy now?

Did he care about those seven years in Boston at all? Was he another hired gun like Clemens? Were all the stories about him true, that he was a prima donna who only looked out for himself?

Okay, thanks, Bill, you've stated your feelings pretty clearly. But by the end of the column, he's suddenly Mr. High Road:

He's going to get skewered in Boston over these next few days, weeks and months. I'm going to do my best to refrain from piling on with everyone else, if only because he brought me so much enjoyment over the years.

And he proceeds to pay tribute to the Pedro Years for the next few paragraphs. Boy, with friends like these, who needs enemies, eh? Stuff like this makes you wonder if Simmons ever goes back and reads his columns all the way through himself before he publishes them.

In between these massive mood swings, the guy is already ripping on the Red Sox front office for essentially breaking up the defending champs (even though he had previously stated that even the Sox's three-year offer to Pedro was too much) and implying more than a little bit that the brass just stumbled into this World Series title by pure luck. Luck! Eighty-six years without a championship, and the people who finally bring the trophy home are suddenly just lucky. How's that for gratitude? And what happened to the Gammons Genius Theory of Pitching that supposedly won it for them? Look, I loathe Roger Clemens as much as the next guy, and so I really hate to say this, but it looks like he might have been right when he said, shortly after the Sox won it all, that the Nation will "find something to complain about within a few weeks."

Naturally, the Sports Guy insists that it was a different story with the Patriots:

When this happened with the Patriots three years ago, they made it easy. The defending champs struggled to a 9-7 season, then bounced back with another championship, even rolling off a 27-1 stretch over the past 15 months. With the best coach in football and a memorable collection of big-game players, there hasn't been much to complain about. We trust the people running the team. We trust their judgment. End of story.

Oh you trust their judgment, do you? But unfortunately for you (and to your credit, actually), the Sports Guy's archives are a little too easy to find and browse through. And finding a quote that contradicts the preceding from the tough times of 2002 is like shooting fish in a barrel. Does this sound familiar?

To Patriots fans everywhere ... none of us knew quite how to act this season. Were the Pats underachieving? And if they were underacheiving, could we even really complain about it? Did last season even happen? Were they ever even good in the first place? Why did everyone forget about the five-year grace period that you're supposed to give your team after they win a championship? Why did so many of the local reporters, columnists and radio announcers relish playing the "Wet Blanket-Chicken Little" role for four straight months? Why wasn't any of this fun? Shouldn't it have been fun?

December 30, 2002, at the conclusion of the Pats' 9-7 season. Certainly sounds like a guy who trusts the front office's judgment, doesn't it? Just replace every "Pats" reference with "Red Sox," and there you go. Yesterday's column.

The other Manning

As big a fan as I am of Peyton is also approximately how much I dislike his brother Eli. Refusing to play for a certain team coming out of college, before you've even taken a professional snap, does not sit well with yours truly. And then even going so far as to say which team you will play for, and in particular making such an obviously self-glorifying choice as New York, thereby anointing yourself as the future media king of the league, and all this, let us reiterate, before you've even played a down in the NFL--well, that pretty well assures you a permanent place on my bad list.

(You know, I can't help but wonder if the fact that Peyton would have ended up with the Jets had he gone pro after his junior year at Tennessee played a factor in Eli's petulance. Perhaps Eli saw that as a missed opportunity and was determined that a Manning would get to New York and get the exposure he deserved. Or something.)

Needless to say, no one has been more delighted than I at the utterly abysmal performance of Eli thus far. A quarterback rating of 0.0 yesterday? Are you serious? I can't help but get a little choked up. A buddy of mine at BullySports wrote a pretty hilarious article as a letter from Drew Brees to Eli Manning, with the former asking the latter how life was up in New York right now when he could have been in sunny San Diego. (Not that the Chargers would be 10-3 with Eli at the helm, of course.)

All this being said, the coverage of the Eli debacle has me just a wee bit confused. After two disastrous outings, I was thinking about coming out and saying, "Look, Eli doesn't just stink now. Maybe he just stinks period! Maybe he'll never be any good!" But I didn't write it, and after four disasters, I thought I'd missed the boat on that, and everybody would be saying it. But no! On everywhere from PTI to SportsCenter with Mikes Irvin (genius, by the way--more later) and Ditka, to our old friends at Snap Judgment (natch), the entire debate is centered around whether Coughlin started Eli too early, or if he should bench him now to er, prevent emotional scars or something. Underlying everything is this seemingly unquestionable assumption that Eli is the Anointed, that he will come around sooner or later, and he is the Quarterback of the Future for the next decade or so for the Giants.

Hello, people! The man has a QB rating of 33.6! 516 yards in 4 games! 6 Ints to 1 TD! Etc.! Shouldn't we be starting to wonder at this point? It's like Darko Milicic. He sucked last year. But again, nobody wanted to just come out and say, "The guy sucks!" because hey, he was the #2 overall pick. He's gotta be good, right? Just needs some development time. Well, actually, no, the guy just sucks. I suppose most people are going to try to argue that the jury's still out on Darko, but man, you've just got to develop faster than this. So far in this his second year he's gotten into 11 of the Pistons' 20 games and is averaging a whooping 1.3 points per game. It's not happening, folks! The first time I saw Darko in a game, about a year ago, he was in during garbage time (of course), and somehow he got the ball wide open under the basket for an easy dunk. I mean, trust me, he could not have been more wide open. But he missed it! He missed the dunk! If you're 7 feet tall and missing wide-open dunks, folks, it's time to try out for your local church ball team.

Now, I have to admit that I haven't actually seen Eli play outside of the SportsCenter "highlights." And I'm no talent scout anyway, so who knows if that would even make a difference. And, to add one more disclaimer, I'm sure that Eli will get better. But I'd bet some pretty serious cash that the Giants' front office is feeling pretty nervous right now that their Anointed may not ever come around to lead the franchise to glory. And I'm somewhat perplexed that the media is continuing to give Eli the white-glove treatment this far into the experiment.

Michael Irvin: Genius

I wasn't much of a fan of Irvin's when he was a player, but man, now that he's with the media, I love the guy! The latest example of the man's brilliance came this afternoon during the aforementioned rehash with Dan Patrick and Ditka. They were discussing Moss' terrible pass from yesterday. Patrick asked Irvin if he ever threw a pass for the Cowboys. (By the way, it really helps if you can do Irvin's priceless voice/accent while reading this.)

Irvin: No, I never threw a pass. What would I want to throw a pass for? That doesn't help my stats, doesn't help my negotiations.

Hruby watch

I know there are some readers out there who are still questioning Hruby's legitimacy as a member of the Hall, so I thought I'd keep an eye on him. I'm telling you, the guy never disappoints. Today's Snap Judgment features the following throw-away line from Sir Patrick:

Dumb or a darn fool ... hmmm, that's really a question of semantics, isn't it? Too bad I'm not William Safire.

Hey, way to work that Safire reference in there, Pat! Not just another dumb jock-carrier, you! Unlike the rest of these oafs, you read the whole darned New York Times--and the Arts section on weekends!

And by the way, I think we can add "semantics" to the list of terms the inclusion of which automatically qualifies a sentence for pretentiousness.

Some thoughts on Peyton

It's kind of funny how this blog has evolved into a defense of Peyton Manning sheet over the last few weeks. There was never any intent to steer in that direction; it just did. But there is a reason why it did, if that makes any sense. It seems that whenever somebody has a historic year like this, there are a certain number of people in denial about it. I know all about this--I've been there. The year that Mark McGwire hit 70 home runs, I was rooting against him the whole time, and I never could be persuaded that he was really that terrific. The year Bonds hit 73, the whole media was like that.

(Maybe, by the way, we were both right to be skeptical in that case. And I'm not talking about steroids, just the external evidence of the times. After all, Sammy Sosa was hitting over 60 three years in a row, home runs were flying out of the park in general--it was a new era. Like the Nasdaq hitting 5,000 in 2000. You didn't know what to think. Not that any of that justifies this idiotic article.)

Anyway, once you find yourself in this adversarial position, you start saying some pretty stupid things (and generally complete non-sequiters) to justify your skepticism in the face of overwhelming, hard statistical evidence. And when sports reporters say stupid things, SRAM has to rise to the occasion.

In the case of Manning, the numero uno fallback is the old "can't win a big game" shtick, ignoring the fact that there are, of course, two sides of the ball in football. Exhibit A is the AFC Championship Game last year, but as I recall, the Colts weren't even supposed to have gotten that far anyway--they had to beat KC on the road first. Taking your team farther into the playoffs than they were supposed to go doesn't qualify as choking in my book. But somehow reporters seem to think that this one game (along with, I suppose, a whole host of others that Manning's team was supposed to lose anyway) takes away from what he's doing right now. Plus, everyone knows that the Colts aren't getting through both Pittsburgh and New England in the playoffs, so they want to assume the "I told you so" position as early as possible. But "I told you so" what? I told you that the Colts would lose to a team that they were supposed to lose to anyway? But no matter when they lose, it will go down as another "choke."

There are also naysayers claiming that the rules changes, or the quality of the defenses, or what-have-you have made things easier for Peyton to have his incredible year. Interestingly, Aaron Schatz has just run an article on Page 2 which purports to project all historical data onto a 2004 norm to see what were the 10 truly "best" years for any quarterback. This is hardly a definitive study, but my goodness, it sure is interesting to see who's #1: Peyton Manning. Even after adjusting all other quarterbacks up, Manning's 2004 season still emerges as the greatest ever (through 12 games, of course). Schatz also includes the following comment under Manning's heading, which happens to lend credence to SRAM's Peyton Persecution complex:

A lot of people just don't like Peyton Manning for some unexplained reason. If you are one of those people, put aside your grievances for the next four weeks and enjoy history. Even taking into account the rise in offense across the league, Manning is on his way to the greatest passing season of all time, not just in TD passes but in terms of overall performance.

Well spoken, Aaron. He also makes the excellent point that Manning will be going up against one of the league's stingiest pass defenses in Baltimore in Week 15. Maybe we should all keep at least some rhetoric in reserve until after that game.

Patrick Hruby makes The Leap

If it's Monday morning, it must be time for SRAM to find something stupid being said on espn.com's Snap Judgment. You knew it was coming in today's column when the moderator asked, "Which would be more impressive: Manning breaking Marino's TD record or Vick breaking the rushing yards record?"

A question this obvious is bound to fool only the very dumbest of our Snap Judgment panelists. Which was, in fact, literally the case, as Patrick Hruby (who else!) came up with the following genius response:

At least as impressive? Think more impressive. As my esteemed colleagues have mentioned on more than one occasion, Manning's gaudy passing numbers are aided and abetted by a first-rate supporting cast. Moreover, they happen when everyone does their jobs, and does them well. Line blocks, Harrison runs route, Manning makes throw. Paydirt. As for Vick? His yards mostly come when everything breaks down. He's yanking rabbits from musty top hats, turning lemons into cool, refreshing cocktails. He's doing it to opponents who are keying on him (no disrespect to the immortal Warrick Dunn and Peerless Price). And keep this in mind: While NFL rules continually are tweaked to promote passing -- as Cameron Diaz so eloquently put it in "Any Given Sunday," "people want passes, Tony, they want touchdowns!" -- they're never changed to boost scrambling. Literally and figuratively, the Vicks of the league are on their own.

Unbelievable! Does Hruby own a TV? How about a computer? Maybe he gets the newspaper? Because somebody has got to get ahold of the man and show him the results from yesterday. According to my sources (and I'm not sure how reliable they are, since it's so hard to verify this data), Manning's team scored 51 points yesterday. Fourth straight week over 40, by the way. Ties a record (so which is more impressive...never mind). On pace to break the NFL team season scoring mark. Meanwhile, how many touchdowns did Vick's team score, while he was rushing for 81 yards? Three? Two? Maybe a field goal or two? Zero. Zero points for the game. 22nd in the league in scoring, by the way.

I realize, of course, that Hruby is taking advantage of the intentional vagueness of the term "impressive" in his response. I also realize that he does it just to be a contrarian and maybe get a rise out of people like me. The latter is no excuse, and it's my job to point out stupidity. As for the former, all I'm saying is that zero points is just not that impressive. Seems like the two--points scored and impressiveness--should dovetail a wee bit better than that.

I must admit that I got a little teary-eyed when I first read Hruby's response. I mean, the guy has shown promise all along this year, but would he be consistent? Could he keep it up over the long haul? Could he, for example, enter that I'm-a-Contrarian zone where he focuses so much on saying the opposite of everyone else that he becomes completely oblivious to the events of reality? Could he, as Bill Simmons would say, make The Leap and become canonized in the SRAM Hall of Elite Morons?

In a word, YES! That's why I am proud today to enshrine Patrick Hruby in the official SRAM Hall, taking his rightful place alongside (though, it must be admitted, slightly below) Dan Shanoff as the second member of this honored class. Some people may argue that this is too soon. That the man has only been at it for a couple of months, and who knows, maybe he'll run out of stupid things to say. But I'm not worried. SRAM recognizes in Hruby that rare mix of arrogance, contrarian "thinking," and just enough knowledge to be dangerous--without the slightest tendency to ever resort to actual numbers--that made Shanoff great.

Now, you'll notice that we induct these guys before they retire. So it is possible for a reporter to lose his spot in this Hall through an extended series of sensible comments and lack of stupidity. And that would, frankly, be a teensy bit embarrassing for SRAM. But I'm not worried. Patrick, welcome to the Hall.

And now I suppose you're wondering who is on the Watch List for potential future inductees. Not as many as you might think. Len Paquarelli is just a matter of time, of course. The man is as consistent as a plow horse. I just have to get around to reading enough of his columns. Bill Simmons should never have even been in position to be on the Watch List, but this infatuation with Tom Brady has got him saying some unbelievably stupid things these days. If the Pats win the Super Bowl again, watch out. Dick Harmon will be there if our local sports scene ever gets tolerable enough to even pay attention to again. Peter Gammons just might get there on ego alone, but he does such a great job of fence-straddling that it would require some slippage. I would love to get Rob Dibble a lot more time in the blog, but the man doesn't write. (I'm not saying that literally. I think.)

The Bill Simmons Face

The steroid situation is blowing up and espn.com couldn't be happier. So naturally we will ignore them to address what's really important: Bill Simmons' continued arrogance in the face of a stunningly mediocre record picking against the spread: 86-85-5 through Week 12. ("Stunningly mediocre." Ya like that?)

Yep, .503. A whooping three thousandths of a point above the waterline. And yet the man is still brazen enough to run a column today wherein he devotes the first thousand words or disclosing his spending plans for all the cash he's going to win betting on the two NFC games the first week of the playoffs.

In fact, there's a decent chance that one or more of the following QBs -- Joey Harrington, Shaun King, Vinny Testaverde, Eli Manning, Chad Hutchinson, John Navarre, Brian Griese, Aaron Brooks -- could be making an appearance as a starter in Round 1. If this happens, you might never hear from me again after that week -- I'll be parking my new yacht in Greece next to the Onassis family.

What, are you betting a million bucks a game or something, Bill? 'Cause that's how much you'd have to be wagering to be at the yacht point so far in the regular season, what with that +1 total and all. Because here's the thing, SG. Those playoff games are also against the spread. And believe it or not, you are not the only person in the world who knows about the bad QBs. Nor about this whole home-field-advantage thing. Which is why, of course, you're down to one nostril sucking oxygen after 12 weeks of making picks.

I will give Simmons props for taking national media members to task for being up in arms about an 8-8 or even 7-9 team making the playoffs. "Revamp the whole playoff system!" What? Who cares? If they make the playoffs, they make the playoffs. Then they lose. That's how it works. And I can't wait to see someone make the argument that the games end up being blow-outs. Because in that case, shouldn't we just shut down the Super Bowl?

("Shut down the Super Bowl": the ultimate reductio ad absurdum argument!)

But the column really gets good (as it always does) when he starts talking about Manning. It's been a couple of weeks, because he's needed time to cook up a new why-Peyton-sucks theory in the face of his record-setting year:

Here's why Belichick would never allow Peyton Manning's pursuit of Marino's record to dominate his team: Every time Manning goes back to pass, that's another play for someone to study on film, which Belichick strives to avoid. In fact, some believe that he plays possum from time to time, like during the Arizona-Buffalo-Miami stretch earlier in the season -- when the team did juuuuuuuuuuust enough to win in all three games, saving itself (and any trick plays, blitz packages and the like) for the Seahawks and Jets in Weeks 6 and 7. Or like the stretch they're entering now -- at Cleveland, home for Cincy, at Miami -- before the big Jets game in Week 16.

That's right. Those mediocre outings? Allll part of the master plan. Then later:

Indianapolis 49, Tennessee 21. Congrats, guys -- you did it again. You still have to win consecutive games in New England and Pittsburgh next month.

(Seriously, does it help the Colts for Manning to throw another TD when they're already winning by 25? That's all about ego at that point. And if he's slumping off the field in January again -- the chin strap dangling from his helmet, making the Peyton Manning Face because Pittsburgh or New England "miraculously" forced him into four killer turnovers -- maybe he'll realize that you can't win the Super Bowl in November, and you certainly can't win it by scoring 131 points in three games against Houston, Chicago and Detroit. None of this crap matters. January is the only month that matters. End of story.)

Quick! Somebody call up Peyton and tell him to stop giving away all their plays!

(This is just between you and me, because I actually like the Colts, and I want them to continue doing well, so this can't leave these four walls, but after studying film for several hours I have discovered that the Colts' bread-and-butter play is the play-action pass over the middle. SHHHHHH!!!! Shut UP! Belichick might hear!)

The Sports Guy is great, but these days never funnier than when he starts talking about Peyton Manning. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Bill Simmons Face.

Your daily dose of idiocy

The Daily Bandwagon seems to have a slightly higher-than-usual idiocy content rating today. First on the docket is the Urban Meyer-to-Notre Dame speculation. Shanoff seems to feel a strange urgency that Meyer should not stick around Utah to coach in their BCS bowl:

If Meyer wants to be at ND more than he wants to be at Utah, he owes it to Notre Dame to get there ASAP (literally, this weekend) to start recruiting and rebuilding. He should not stay in Utah to coach the Utes in their BCS bowl.

Utah's gate-crashing destiny? He'd be coaching it for his own ego gratification -- reward for past accomplishments (and ultimately meaningless; it's not like they're playing for a national title).

He's popular with players and fans, but they should wake up and smell the Irish coffee -- he wants to be elsewhere. So let him go.

Yeah, that's right Dan. That's the only reason Meyer would want to coach the Utes in their bowl game. Pure ego. Personal relationships with players, the hard work they've endured all year since the beginning of spring practice leading up to the accomplishment of this goal, the experience of being in a big venue--all meaningless.

And that goes double for the game itself, which, as you point out, isn't even for the national championship. Because that's the sole purpose for the entire existence of college football--to anoint one team champion. Since there's no playoff, and a team is de facto eliminated from national championship contention after two losses, maybe we should start encouraging teams to just fold their tent once they lose twice. And while we're at it, since Utah has proven that a non-BCS conference team has no shot at the national championship even if they go undefeated, why don't we just terminate all programs in non-BCS conferences? (Hmm, actually, these are pretty good arguments. For something else, that is.)

And why are you wasting so much breath on why he should go to South Bend immediately if "he wants to be elsewhere"? Well, uh, maybe it's because Meyer himself has stated that he wants to coach the bowl game. So explain to me who's letting who go? I'm a little confused.

Moving on:

I'd rather have Norm Chow as my head coach than Urban Meyer, not that Notre Dame is listening to me ...

(Gee, I can't imagine why ND wouldn't listen to a guy whose wisdom rarely extends beyond 24 hours.)

This is a valid opinion, I suppose, but I doubt that many share it. I point it out because we just might get a chance to see who is the better coach, if Chow gets the job at Stanford. Another opportunity for a failed Quickie prediction (yawn).

I for one don't think Chow would be a great head coach. But maybe Shanoff is all proud of himself for backing Chow because in yesterday's column he labeled Chow "minority coaching's next star." Funny, I don't remember Chow being referred to as a minority the entire time he was at BYU (what, 18 years?). I don't think most people in Utah even knew he was a minority (I mean, c'mon, since when are Hawaiians minorities?). Who's more color-blind, Dan? The sophisticated espn.com columnist with his finger on the pulse, or those Utah yokels?

Speaking of which, Shanoff's next great line is in the Quickie section which really is labeled "The Bandwagon":

Who's got the momentum:
Ty Willingham: Accepts blame, makes ND look even worse

Yeah, Dan. Once again, that's what it's all about. Who looks good, who looks bad. And completely Willingham's intentions, too--to make Nostrodamus look as bad as possible. This is a slap in the face to Willingham. Sometimes class is just class.

I'll close with one more idiocy from the column, but I won't respond to it because it's essentially the same argument I made above:

Final tally: ACC 9, Big 10 2. Not much of a "Challenge." But while the ACC may have unprecedented league quality, the only depth that really matters is who's No. 1; right now, the Big Ten has the team to beat in Illinois.

Who's the first to the race card?

It's espn.com, naturally, as they trot out Richard Lapchick to bemoan the firing of Willingham as coach of Notre Dame. Lapchick has the laughable title of "Director of the University of Central Florida's Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport," and he writes an occasional column for espn.com so that the latter can stay in the good graces of Jesse Jackson Inc. The arguments he sets forth in his column for why "this might be the saddest day in the history of college football" are too old and tired for a point-by-point rebuttal. Although I would like to respond to his suggestion that "the chances of African-American football coaches getting Division I-A jobs have been all but shut down now" with an exceedingly pedestrian prediction: Ty Willingham will be offered a Division I-A job some time in the next year.

I am a fan of Ty Willingham. Big time. Love the guy. I think that he should have been given at least another year. And Notre Dame's schedule, year in and year out, is absolutely ridiculous. One of the reasons I like Ty so much is that he stands for the pursuit of excellence, no excuses. Where does race enter into that? Nowhere. I suspect that Willingham himself would be disgusted by Lapchick's article and its insinuation that Willingham should have been left in because he is black. No, Willingham should have been left in because he is a great coach, and oftentimes great coaches need time to succeed. But I search Lapchick's article in vain for any praise of Willingham as a person or a coach.

Lapchick also says, "In 2002, White made the courageous decision to hire the best available coach for America's most prestigious football program. It was courageous because his choice was Willingham, who happens to be an African-American."

(I like that "happens to be" clause. The entire article is about the hiring of black coaches, and the man has the audacity to throw in a "happens to be".)

How was this decision courageous? As I recall, the whole world was falling all over themselves in their praise of Notre Dame for hiring a black coach. A 4-0 start that year was enough to land the Irish on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Did the KKK congregate outside White's home? Who, Mr. Lapchick, was opposed to this decision? I'd like to hear some names.

In reality, White's decision was, in fact, courageous, because he knew that he would catch the race-baiting heat that he is getting today if he ever had to make a difficult decision to fire the guy.

Wait a minute--Simmons watches TV?!

The Sports Guy has one of his non-sports-related-and-proud-of-it columns today (not that there's anything wrong with that), which he starts out with the following absolutely hilarious quote:

The bad news: Two days before Thanksgiving, I threw out my back again.

The good news: Any time this happens, I always end up watching a ton of TV.

Man, that guy must have the weakest back in the world!

(Naturally, he goes on and spends the next 4,000 words praising the sewage that is today's network television.)