The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: No football this week.  Where are you going to go for your stat?

Short Answer: How about tennis?

Reasoning: I can honestly say that I have yet to watch a single point during the Australian Open.  It is the first major of the year in the great sport of tennis, and, I can honestly say, I don't care.  Tennis is fine.  I don't mind it.  I have watched a match or two in my life.  I even enjoy watching Wimbledon - something about playing tennis on grass.  I don't know.  Maybe I don't care so much about tennis because I stink at it.  Sure, I am competent - I can hit the ball over the net, and I bet I could beat most people that are reading this - but, if I played against someone who was good, I would be made a fool of.  Let me tell you how I know this.

Allow me to take you back to the year 1999.  I was a 20 year old sophomore at Georgia Tech.  A good buddy and teammate of mine, Derek, was dating a girl who played on the tennis team.  I too happened to be "seeing" a girl on the tennis team (I'm not going to mention her name, but she is married to someone famous now.  Kinda weird.).  Somehow a conversation came up of which the result was this: sure, Derek and I will play you guys in tennis, and I bet we can hold our own.  Hell, I bet we can win.  We are dudes, and dudes don't lose to chicks at anything.  Obviously Derek and I weren't THAT sure of ourselves.  And, after a short warm-up period, any confidence we did have, was shattered.  Our damage control systems kicked in, and we agreed with the girls that maybe we needed a little head start.  We wanted 2 games.  They gave us 5.    A 5-0 lead in each set.  We could actually win this thing now.  Right?  Not quite.  Final tally?  7-5, 7-5.  I think we won 3 points the whole time.  I really never expected to win, but I didn't expect to be humiliated.  Lesson learned.  If you can't even serve over-handed, you probably aren't going to beat division-one tennis players.  Even if they are chicks.

Anyway.  This upcoming men's Australian Open final will be only the third major final since 2004 to not feature either Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer (or most likely, both of them).  The 2008 Australian Open final featured Novak Djokovic defeating Jo-Wilfried Tsonga.  The 2005 Australian Open featured Marat Safin defeating Lleyton Hewitt.  That's right, every single French Open final, every single Wimbledon final, and every single U.S. Open final has featured either Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal, since 2004.  25 total grand slam finals (counting the 2011 Australian).  22 have had Nadal or Federer.  7 ('06, '07, '08 Wimbledon, '06, '07, '08 French, and '09 Australian) have actually had both at the same time (Nadal is 5-2, but 3-0 at the French Open).  Federer has 18 grand slam finals appearances.  Nadal has 11 appearances.  These. Dudes. Are. Beasts.  Pretty sure either of them could handle me and Derek.

Runner-up for odd stat of the week: Roger Federer's career record, at a major, when winning the first two sets - 166-0.

The Return of Tiger Woods

Issue: Tiger finally tees it up this week at the Farmer's Insurance Open.  Any thoughts?

Short Answer: I can't wait.

Reasoning: Golf is a sport in which dominance is nonexistent.  The (arguably) greatest player of all time (to this point), Jack Nicklaus, still lost way more tournaments than he won.  His 18 majors sit in the record books alongside 511 wins (Cy Young), 755 home runs (Barry Bonds is not the record holder, I don't care what anyone says), 61 home runs (ibid), 1,549 receptions and 22,895 receiving yards (Jerry Rice), and 5,714 strikeouts (Nolan Ryan) as records that may never be broken.  18 certainly does not seem like a lot in a sport where players compete for 20+ years, and each year four different majors are contested.  But, when you take a look at how hard it is to win a major, or multiple majors for that fact, 18 becomes a hallowed number.  In the history of major tournaments, did you know, that only 76 men have won more than one major?  Did you also know that the list of men who have won 10 or more majors is exactly four people long?  Walter Hagen (11), Bobby Jones (13 - if you count the old majors, i.e., the British Amateur and the U.S. Amateur), Tiger Woods (14), and Jack Nicklaus (18).

I mention the above facts because if Tiger Woods never wins another tournament, he has already positioned himself as one of the top three golfers of all time.  In a sport that dates back longer than most, this is a fairly impressive accomplishment.  And the fact that I am alive to watch Tiger play, means that I can't wait to see him play again, even if it is in the Farmer's Insurance Open.  Many people have written Tiger Woods off, saying that he will never again be his old self.  So what?  Isn't what he gave us from 1999-2008 good enough?  The answer is a resounding, yes.  That being said, why would anyone write this guy off?  Is it because he FINALLY went an entire year without winning a tournament?  I would list all the PGA golfers who have never won a tournament in their entire career, but I'm not sure I have enough room.  Tiger Woods is only 35 years old.  He has won 71 times on the PGA Tour (3rd all time behind Jack Nicklaus (73) and Sam Snead (82)).  So, the guy has some marital problems (his biggest mistake was getting married in the first place - dude, you are one of the most famous athletes on the planet, maybe you should ride that one out for awhile - just a thought) and one substandard year, and it is time to start looking for who's next?  Bubba Watson, Ricky Fowler, Dustin Johnson, Martin Kaymer, Ryo Ishikawa, and Graham McDowell are all fine players and may have fantastic careers on the PGA Tour.  I will give you any of them, plus 2 shots a side, against Tiger, and I will bet you whatever amount of money you want.  One bad year does not a career make, and we should be willing to give that benefit to Tiger.

Tiger's problem is not his game.  It is his head.  Before the media circus surrounding his accident a year and a half ago, Tiger was all about golf all the time.  Now, you can see him attempting to be someone he isn't.  He says hello to fans, grants interviews whenever, and doesn't have that killer look in his eyes anymore.  If he can get that back, watch out.  Jack Nicklaus won his 18th major, at the Masters in 1986, at the age of 46.  Give me one reason Tiger can't still be winning majors at 46?  He is in better shape, has better equipment, and (I think) still has the desire to be the best. 

I have written a couple posts here at uncommonly sports about athletes who I believe have gotten a raw deal.  Cam Newton and Michael Vick come to mind.  Now, Tiger Woods has brought a lot of scrutiny on himself, so it is hard to say he has gotten a raw deal.  But the amount of doubters out there lead me to believe that Tiger, like Lou Brown (manager of the Major League Cleveland Indians) once said, can't wait to give the media a great big s**tburger.  I hope when he wins his first tournament of 2011 he stands up at the podium, holding his giant trophy and oversized check (yes, I realize they don't do this anymore) and gives everyone in the media tent the finger, says "I'm Tiger Woods b**ches," and walks out.  Don't doubt Tiger - he has already proven how good he is, and I feel sorry for the field if he decides he has to do it again.

Carson "The Traitor" Palmer

Issue: What do you think of Carson Palmer demanding a trade from the Bengals?

Short Answer: I don't blame him, but the title of this post should explain it fairly well.

Reasoning: I guess this should be a two part question - 1) why don't I blame him, and 2) why is he a traitor?  I don't blame Carson Palmer for demanding a trade because, well, these are the Cincinnati Bengals.  Mike Brown (the owner/GM/scout/idiot) has successfully run a once proud franchise into the ground, and I couldn't imagine anyone, ever, wanting to play for the Bengals.  I'm not sure why anyone would want to root for the Bengals either, but I do, and that's my life, and I deal with it.  Therapy sometimes helps.  The Bengals stink, and that's all there is to it.  At least we aren't the Lions (who are getting better) or the Bills (who beat us handily this year) or the Panthers (who at least get the first pick in the draft).  So, I understand where Carson is coming from.

So, why do I think he is a traitor?  Plain and simply - he has done nothing to improve the Bengals.  It's not like he is putting up MVP numbers every year only to finish 4-12.  That's right, a quarterback who just posted a 4-12 record, on a team with numerous offensive weapons (Ochostinko, T.O. the cancer, Cedric Benson, Jermaine Gresham), is demanding to be traded.  Hey, Carson - good riddance.  And can you take Chad and T.O. with you when you leave?  If there is one thing that makes Bengals fans, Bengals fans, it is the fact that we wallow in the sorrows of our crappy team TOGETHER.  Cincinnatians are bonded by the fact that we stink, we know we stink, but, THIS IS THE YEAR!  After about week 7 we realize this again is not the year, but there is still a team to be cheered on, and Cincinnatians do so every Sunday.  Carson, we thought you were one of us, but you are no Bengal.  I hope you enjoy Carolina, or Seattle, or San Francisco, and I hope they continue to be mediocre teams with you at quarterback.

Let's go to the stats - http://www.pro-football-reference.com/ is the best site I have seen when attempting to dissect stats.  One of the best features they have is called "similar players" in which they list players who have similar stats and production.  Here is a list of similar players to Carson Palmer: Tony Romo, Eli Manning (only Super Bowl winner on the list, and we all know how fortuitous that was), Aaron Brooks, Michael Vick (I am assuming they mean passing and not rushing similarities), David Garrard, Jake Delhomme, Scott Mitchell, Mark Rypien (I lied, he won a Super Bowl too - no, I'm not kidding), Philip Rivers (I only assume he is on this list for his playoff failures too), and Chad Pennington.  Whoa.  Who on this list could demand a trade and be taken seriously?  Not many.  Carson Palmer has a career record of 46-51.  He has posted a winning record only twice - 2005 (11-5) and 2009 (10-6).  Both times the Bengals made the playoffs.  Both times the Bengals lost in the 1st round (sidenote: I realize that had Kimo Von Oelhoffen not rolled up Carson's knee 2 minutes into the game in 2005, not only could we have won that game, but the next 5 years of Bengals "lore" may have been different, and I may not even be writing about this right now.  The Steelers are dirty and I hate them greatly.  They cheat and they knew if Carson was out of the game, we were in trouble.  Typical Steelers.  Go Packers!).

Carson Palmer's most impressive stat - in the 2005 playoff game he was 1 for 1 for 66 yards before the Steelers decided it would be easier to win without Palmer on the field.  That stat is not enough for Bengals fans to take this trade demand seriously.  See ya Carson.  Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.  Or do.  I, and Cincinnatians, shouldn't care either way.  It's time to rebuild.  Again.

Parody at its Finest

Issue: Did you know there is a "fair use" doctrine protecting people from copyright infringement if they use someone else's copyright for purposes of parody?

Short Answer: Yes I do.  And I am thankful.

Reasoning: I am not an internet junkie.  I use the internet for information, gambling, and, well, you know.  Viral videos rarely make appearances on my computer screen, because if everyone else thinks they are funny, then I usually don't.  On top of that, even if a viral video is funny, I don't want to think it's funny, because I don't want to be part of the crowd.  Yes, I know I have problems.

Funny thing is, viral videos are kind of like fraternity guys.  As a whole, viral videos are annoying and stupid.  But, if you carefully choose which videos to watch, they are actually quite funny.  Just like fraternities as a whole are annoying and stupid, but, if you have the opportunity to talk to a fraternity guy solo (you know, without 20+ drunk idiots attached to his ass), he is usually a pretty decent fella.  Usually.

Thanks to my brother Casey (Sigma Phi Epsilon, Indiana University) for sending me this video.  It is a parody of the LeBron James "What Should I Do?" commercial, starring a Brett Favre look-alike.  It is hilarious and it is not copyright infringement (hopefully).  It is also probably not 100% safe for work as a certain part of the male anatomy is discussed quite a bit.  So, maybe just turn the volume down a bit.  Even though everyone in the office will be able to hear you laugh out loud.  Here is the video:

I have watched it six times, and I am still laughing.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: NFL Conference Championships are this weekend - what makes these games different?

Short Answer: I have an interesting little tidbit.

Reasoning: To draft a quarterback in the first round is to do so at your own peril.  Trust me, I'm a Bengals fan.  David Klingler?  Akili Smith?  Alright, maybe this is more about the Bengals front office (or lack thereof) than anything, but you catch my drift.  History is full of quarterbacks drafted in the first round who never amount to much.  Aside from the two I just mentioned, Rick Mirer, Heath Schuler, Jim Drunkenmiller, Ryan Leaf (you knew that one was coming), Tim Couch, Cade McNown, Joey Harrington, David Carr, Byron Leftwich, Rex Grossman (he did go to a Super Bowl!), Brady Quinn, Patrick Ramsey, J.P. Losman, JaMarcus Russell, and Alex Smith were all first round selections in the NFL draft.  Obviously there is no science to these picks and a team might as well play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey when picking a quarterback in the first round.

This weekend's Conference Championship games will mark the first time since the NFL-AFL merger in 1970 that all four quarterbacks playing were former first round picks.  This stat lends credence to the fact that a first round quarterback is a shot-in-the-dark.  Mark Sanchez of the New York Jets (5th overall in 2009) was the highest draft pick of the four, a fact that is laughable at best.  But, he is in the AFC Championship game and I am writing about him in an average-at-best blog, so I think he gets the last laugh.  His opponent, Ben Roethlisberger, was the 11th pick in 2004, a quarterback draft that may one day compete with those quarterbacks taken in 1983.  Roethlisberger was drafted after Philip Rivers and Eli Manning but before J.P. Losman.  Whoops.  Maybe 1983 will continue to reign.  Jay Cutler of the Chicago Bears was the 11th pick in the 2006 draft by the Denver Broncos, behind Vince Young and Matt Leinart.  Even though Cutler is no longer with the Broncos, at least they didn't draft Vince Young or Matt Leinart.  His opponent, Aaron Rodgers, was the 24th pick in 2005.  The lowest draft position of the 4, but perhaps the biggest upside of the 4.  He has shined this postseason, and it wouldn't shock me to see him hoist the Vince Lombardi Trophy this year as a Super Bowl Champ.

Remember folks, defense wins championships, and all four of these teams have top 10 defenses this year, so we know what is going to win these games.  But these four guys should make it plenty more interesting to watch.  Happy football watching.

Mock Drafts

Issue: Can you do an NFL mock draft?

Short Answer: Hell no.

Reasoning: Mock drafts are just another reason that I can't stand ESPN.  I was watching SportsCenter this afternoon and watched ESPN waste a good portion of the show going over Mel Kiper, Jr.'s (who most people despise, but I actually like - Todd McShay is still a d-bag though) mock draft.  That's right, ESPN is doing mock drafts before the season is even over!  Picks 29-32 have yet to be decided (although Kiper had the Steelers picking at 32, so it is obvious who he has his money on to win the Super Bowl), and ESPN is telling us who each team is going to draft at the end of April.  Dumb.  ESPN is the new MTV.  What do I mean by that?  Well, remember way back when MTV used to play music videos?  I do (I hope I'm not dating myself).  I also remember when ESPN used to play sports highlights.  Now, all ESPN does is tell me who is going to draft who in 4 months, who is going to win each game before it's played, and tell general managers how to do their jobs.  Dumb.

So, why do I hate mock drafts so much?  Because they are always wrong.  And they mean nothing.  And Todd McShay is a d-bag (did I already say that?).  Let's check out the mock drafts of Kiper*, McShay*, and what really happened last year**:

          Kiper/McShay/Actual Pick

1. Sam Bradford/Sam Bradford/Sam Bradford
2. Ndamukong Suh/Ndamukong Suh/Ndamukong Suh
3. Gerald McCoy/Gerald McCoy/Gerald McCoy
4. Russell Okung/Russell Okung/Trent Williams
5. Eric Berry/Bryan Bulaga/Eric Berry
6. Trent Williams/Eric Berry/Russell Okung
7. Dez Bryant/Dan Williams/Joe Haden
8. Jimmy Clausen/Trent Williams/Rolando McClain
9. Bryan Bulaga/Anthony Davis/C.J. Spiller
10. C.J. Spiller/Earl Thomas/Tyson Alualu
11. Earl Thomas/Rolando McClain/Anthony Davis
12. Dan Williams/Derrick Morgan/Ryan Matthews
13. Joe Haden/Sergio Kindle/Brandon Graham
14. Derrick Morgan/C.J. Spiller/Earl Thomas
15. Rolando McClain/Mike Iupati/Jason Pierre-Paul
16. Jason Pierre-Paul/Jason Pierre-Paul/Derrick Morgan
17. Anthony Davis/Jimmy Clausen/Mike Iupati
18. Maurkice Pouncey/Maurkice Pouncey/Maurkice Pouncey
19. Brandon Graham/Brandon Graham/Sean Witherspoon
20. Kyle Wilson/Joe Haden/Kareem Jackson
21. Jermaine Gresham/Dez Bryant/Jermaine Gresham
22. Sergio Kindle/Everson Griffen/Demaryius Thomas
23. Mike Iupati/Charles Brown/Bryan Bulaga
24. Kareem Jackson/Kyle Wilson/Dez Bryant
25. Damaryius Thomas/Damaryius Thomas/Tim Tebow
26. Sean Witherspoon/Jermaine Gresham/Dan Williams
27. Charles Brown/Taylor Mays/Devin McCourty
28. Ryan Matthews/Terrence Cody/Jared Odrick
29. Everson Griffen/Jared Odrick/Kyle Wilson
30. Taylor Mays/Kareem Jackson/Jahvid Best
31. Jared Odrick/Jerry Hughes/Jerry Hughes
32. Jerry Hughes/Sean Witherspoon/Patrick Robinson

So, let's recap: Kiper correctly picked (guessed?) six draft choices correctly, out of 32 (18.75%), and McShay correctly picked (blind squirrel finds a nut) five draft choices correctly, out of 32 (15.625%).  Let us not forget that each of them had the top 3 picks correct (and who didn't?).  So, out of the next 29 picks, Kiper got three and McShay got two correct.  Are we seeing why this is so dumb yet?  Plus, Kiper and McShay can never correctly contemplate which teams will make trades on draft day (it happens quite a bit every year), which makes mock drafts even that much more stupid.  However, it does make for entertaining television when Kiper (who clearly views McShay as moving in on his territory) and McShay argue over how stupid the other person is because of where they have a player going in their mock draft.  Hey, idiots, neither of you are right, so stop making yourselves look even more stupid.

It's ESPN's money, so they can pay these guys if they want.  Who am I to say different?  But, things like mock drafts and predicting the winners of games only leave those that do it out there on a limb to be laughed at (did you see how many of the 7 people picking games on ESPN Countdown picked the Jets last week - zero).  I wish I could take over ESPN - I would get rid of all the talking heads, and go back to showing sports highlights.  Too bad.  Looks like we will have Kiper and McDouche on our screens for the next four months.

*Taken from this website, via ESPN.com

**Thanks to NFL.com.

These Guys Are Good

Issue: Any cool videos that people may want to see?

Short Answer: These are unreal.

Reasoning: I'm not sure how many people have seen these, but even if you have, they are worth another look.  These two videos contain European PGA Tour professionals attempting what most of us average golfers (i.e., hacks) believe to be impossible shots.  It's crazy to think how good these guys are to even come close to pulling either of these shots off.  Take a look:

Amazing.  As is this one:

For those of you that don't play golf, take it from me, what you just saw is impossible.  The only people on the planet who could fathom pulling either shot off are professional golfers.  And you saw how many times they missed before one of them got lucky.  Awesome videos.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: Anything odd happen during Wild Card weekend?

Short Answer: It most certainly did.

Reasoning: The Baltimore Ravens have long been known for their defense.  Let us remember that the Ravens victory in Super Bowl XXXV was with Trent Dilfer as their quarterback.  Yes, Trent Dilfer has done something that Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Ken Anderson, and Boomer Esiason have not, and that is win a Super Bowl.  Although most people who know the game know that the Ravens would not have won that Super Bowl if it wasn't for their defense.

Times are no different in 2010-11, as the Ravens are once again in the playoffs, due largely to their defense.  But something happened in the openning round of the playoffs against the Kansas City Chiefs, that doesn't often happen against the Ravens.  Midway through the first quarter, with the Ravens holding a 3-0 lead, Jamaal Charles, Kansas City's best running back, busted through the defensive front and outran the Baltimore secondary to score a 41-yard touchdown.  That doesn't seem like THAT big of a deal.  But it was.  Ladies and gentleman, this was the first rushing touchdown allowed by the Baltimore Ravens defense, of 30+ yards since....2005.  Wow.

The last time the Ravens had given up a 30+ yards rush for a touchdown was October 9 of 2005 when Detroit Lions running back Shawn Bryson (who?) took his only carry of the game 77 yards to the house.  Since that day, the Ravens had gone 2,484 straight rushing attempts against without giving up another 30+ yard touchdown scamper.  Jamaal Charles ended that streak on Sunday, but let us not forget - it was the only points Baltimore would reliquish the entire game.  The final score was 30-7, as the Ravens move on to face the Steelers.  I think it is a fairly safe bet that Rashad Mendenhall will not break a 30+ yard touchdown.  But, football is a crazy game.

Runner-up for odd stat of the week (and it's related!): the score in the last 17 meetings between the Baltimore Ravens and the Pittsburgh Steelers is 302-302.  Should be a good game this weekend.

My New Hero

Issue: Who is your new hero?

Short Answer: Wes Welker.

Reasoning: For those of you who don't know, the New England Patriots and the New York Jets face off this weekend in the NFL playoffs...and they don't like each other much.  The Jets talk a lot of trash.  Rex Ryan does it.  Antonio Cromartie does it.  But, the Patriots don't do it.  A Bill Belichick coached team allows the other team to talk all they want.  His team goes out and does their talking on the field.  However, there may be a dissenter amongst the bunch of Patriots.  At a news conference yesterday, Wes Welker may have done some trash talking.  I think.

Back in December TMZ.com posted videos which (allegedly) star the wife of Rex Ryan.  Well, the stars of the video happen to be the feet, of the wife, of Rex Ryan.  Yeah, I chose not to watch either.  Wes Welker, my new hero, did some "trash" talking at his press conference, the way only a Patriot could.  Check out the video:

Whether he did this on purpose or not (I believe it had to be), it is hilarious.  Who knew Wes Welker had it in him?  Hilarity at its finest.

2011: A Sport Odyssey

Issue: It is the start of a new year, so, are there any changes you would like to see in sports?

Short Answer: Abso-freakin'-lutely.

Reasoning: I love sports.  Almost all of them (I'm not much of a swimmer).  However, as our times change, maybe, so should some of our sports rules (sidenote: I know ESPN the Magazine did an article on this.  I watch enough sports to have heard announcers talking about it.  However, I did not read it.  I hate ESPN and everything it stands for, save televising sports.  If some of my ideas are similar to theirs (I really hope they aren't), it is by coincidence, chance, or the fact that they have stuck in my head due to hearing said announcers talk about them so damn much).  So, without further ado, here are some of my ideas:

1. The "timeout right before a field goal attempt" rule should continue to be allowed.  I realize this is not a rule change at all.  However, this is one of the ESPN rule changes I mentioned I have heard from announcers over and over (and over and over) again.  ESPN wants to outlaw the timeout right before a field goal attempt.  Why?  I have no idea, I told you I didn't read the article.  I can see no reason why a rule should ever be put in place to tell you when you are allowed to take a timeout.  If I am coaching, I have 2 timeouts left, and I want to use one to ice your kicker right before you snap the ball, then I am allowed.  Deal with it.  Does the 30-second timeout take too long?  Or do we not like it because it sometimes works?  If you can't call a timeout when you want, then what is the point of having timeouts in the first place?  If you don't like it, learn to deal with it.
2. End the Gatorade shower.  Permanently.  If you have ever wondered how this stupid tradition started, well, here's how.  All I am wondering is how we are going to stop it.  "Hey, Coach, we just won a game, so we are going to pour sugar water on you so it makes you sticky as hell for all the interviews you have to go do.  Oh, did we mention it's freezing cold?"  Seriously?  If I was a college coach you would be suspended for the next game (yes, I realize players could get seniors to do it, so I would have a random draw to see who gets suspended), and if I were a pro coach, I would have a fine structure in place depending on liquid used, outside temperature, how cold the liquid used was, etc.  Stop the Gatorade shower, please.
3. Pay college football players.  Most people who are against compensation say it compromises an athlete's "amateur" status.  Actually, amateur statuses (statusi?) became compromised when the NCAA decided to make millions and millions of dollars off of teenage kids.  The sport of football supports entire universities sports programs, and then some.  Some of that money should go directly back to the athlete who is making that money.  Not in the form of scholarship, but as stipend, or wage earnings.  They have earned it.  As Coach Winters (played by James Caan) said in The Program, "when's the last time 80,000 people showed up to watch a [gosh darn] chemistry experiment?!?!"
4. Lose the designated hitter.  Does anyone know why we still do this?  What's next, a designated free-throw shooter for people who aren't adept at shooting free-throws (re: Shaq)?  A designated putter for those golfers who don't like 5-footers?  The designated hitter was a dumb idea when it was implemented, and it is still a dumb idea today.
5. Create a college football playoff.  No explanation needed.  You all should know how I feel about the NCAA by now.
6. No kickoffs after field goals.  Finally one that hasn't been discussed before.  I watch a lot of football, and in doing so have heard that 1) kickoffs are quite dangerous (the NFL outlawed the wedge a year or so ago because of this), and 2) the field goal is overvalued.  My solution solves both problems.  If a team wants to attempt a 50-yard field goal (which would be kicked from the 40-yard line), make or miss, the other team takes over on the 40.  I believe it would add another level of coaching to the mix.  Late in the game with a 1 point lead on the 40-yard line - maybe it's better to punt, or to even go for it, rather than give up the ball in good field position.  How about this: if the team makes the field goal then the team getting the ball will be backed up 10 yards (to the 30), if the team misses the field goal then the team getting the ball will gain 10 yards (to the 50).  I'm starting to like this idea.  If a field goal is kicked from inside the 20, the ball will then be placed on the 20.  Or maybe the other team can choose a kickoff instead.  I have obviously not thought about this enough, but I like it.
7. Penalty strokes for golfers and their bad celebrations.  Golfers are not athletes (I can say this because I love golf).  It shows every time one of them makes a great shot or wins a tournament.  From now on, I propose that golfers be penalized one shot for every bad celebration.  So, if you win a tournament by one you better have a coordinated celebration, or, just calmly shake hands with your opponent, your opponent's caddy, your caddy, and then move on.  Collect your check and get the hell out.  Remember that chip-shot Tiger Woods made at the Masters a few years ago?  The one that rolled down the hill, stopped on the lip for a full second, then fell in?  What do you remember most about that shot?  That it helped him win the Masters again?  Vern Lundquist with another great call at Augusta ("Maybe...Yes sir!")?  Nope.  What I remember the most is the absolutely retched celebration between Tiger and Steve Williams, his caddy.  It may have been the single most awkward moment, not related to sex, in the history of the world.  Could you attempt a high five and miss by a larger margin than they did?  In front of the whole world?  I think not.  Penalty shot for Tiger.  We are heading to a playoff.

I'm sure some of these are dumb, and I'm even more sure none of these "rules" will ever be implemented.  But, I am going to the governing bodies of these sports to present my ideas.  I will.  Just wait.

The NCAA strikes again

Issue: That was a great National Championship game between Auburn and Oregon, right?

Short Answer: It could have been better.

Reasoning: Last night, I, and I'm sure most of you, watched the BCS National Championship game.  And for three quarters (the last three quarters, that is), the game was phenomenal.  The problem being that we had to sit through that first quarter, where it seemed as if two junior varsity high school teams were playing against each other.  Check out how the first quarter went:

• Oregon - 3 plays, 7 yards = punt;
• Auburn - 4 plays, 8 yards = punt;
• Oregon - 5 plays, 22 yards = interception;
• Auburn - 2 plays, 2 yards = interception;
• Oregon - 8 plays, 33 yards = interception;
• Auburn - 5 plays, 12 yards = punt;
• Oregon - 8 plays, 63 yards = end of quarter (Oregon would kick a field goal shortly after the start of the 2nd quarter)
• Final tally - 35 plays, 147 yards, 3 punts, 3 interceptions, 0 points.  Sick.

So, why is this the fault of the NCAA (other than the simple fact that I hate the NCAA and I'm sure global warming is somehow their fault too?)?  How about this: Auburn's last game played before National Championship - December 4, 2010; Oregon's last game played before National Championship - December 4, 2010.  And, just in case you drank too much last night, the National Championship (presented by TOSTITOS (sponsor?)) was played on January 10, 2011.  That's right, more than a full month after each team's last game.  Hence, we get to watch the two best teams in the nation play like a bunch of chumps, all thanks to the money-grubbing NCAA.

The speed of the game is something that no team can reproduce in practice.  It just doesn't happen.  Guys don't go 100% in practice because that isn't what practice is about.  Practice is about making sure of your routes, reads, blocks, protections, and, most of all, not getting yourself, or anyone else, hurt.  After over a month off, the speed of the game still surprises those who play it every day.  Imagine a baseball player, for an entire month, taking only batting practice (basically hitting off pitches travelling no faster than 50 miles per hour) and then stepping into the batter's box against Stephen Strasburg's 100 mile per hour heater.  The hitter would fear for his life and stand no chance of even putting the ball in play.  A 90+ mile per hour fastball is something that a hitter has to get used to (trust me, 70+ scares the hell out of me these days), just like the speed of the two best college football teams in the country (arguably) is something that the players must get used to, all over again.  And, it was obvious that it took the players a full quarter to reacclimate themselves to that speed.

So, why did the NCAA make these two teams wait 37 days to play the National Championship game?  My guess is money, but another, equally possible scenario, is that the NCAA, as an entity, is what we would call a bunch of assh%$#s.  All in all it was a great game and I'm sure the NCAA made themselves quite a bit of money.  It just would have been nice to see a great game for four quarters instead of three.  When they decide to play the National Championship game the week before the Super Bowl next year, we may only get to see one half of a good game.  Too bad.

The Odd Stat of the Week, Part II

Issue: It's playoff time in the NFL, so, where are the San Diego Chargers?

Short Answer: They are playing golf, but I'm not sure how it happened either.

Reasoning: With a week 16 loss at Cincinnati (WHO DEY!), the San Diego Chargers missed out on the playoffs for the first time since 2003.  That alone makes it strange enough not to see San Diego playing in January.  However, the Odd Stat of the Week makes it even stranger.  See, it turns out that San Diego was way better than its 9-7 record indicated at the end of the year.  NFL.com tells us that the San Diego Chargers were #1 in total offense (measured in yards per game, they averaged 395.6 YPG) and #1 in total defense (measured in yards per game allowed, they averaged 271.6 YPG), and yes, the Chargers failed to make the playoffs.

The question then becomes: how rare is it that a team be #1 in total offense and #1 in total defense and fail to make the playoffs?  This is the first time it has ever happened.  Not surprising.  The question really should be: how in the world does it happen in the first place?  Some things that jumped out to me:

1. They lost 16 fumbles on offense, tied for third worst in the NFL;
2. They had a -6 turnover margin (meaning (for all my female readers) they had 6 more turnovers on offense than turnovers caused on defense).  Playoff teams this year with a worse turnover margin - Seattle -9.  Let's not forget that they won the putrid NFC West with a 7-9 record;
3. While they lead the league in YPG allowed on defense, they allowed 322 points (20.1 per game), which was only good for 10th in the league;
4. The Chargers special teams allowed 5 touchdowns, including a punt return for a touchdown, a blocked punt for a touchdown, and 3 (yes, 3) kickoff returns for touchdowns;
5. The defense had only 16 interceptions (tied for 14th in the league) and recovered only 6 fumbles (30th out of 32 teams);
6. Their kickers (Nate Kaeding, their best kicker, did get hurt for part of the year) were 27 for 33 on field goals (82%) which was only good enough for 19th in the league.

Not sure any of that answers the question how a team in #1 in total offense and #1 in total defense finishes 7-9 and misses the playoffs, but maybe it helps.  It seems virtually impossible to me that a team can gain more yards per game, and give up less yards per game, than any team in the league, and be an average team.  But the Chargers proved it was possible this year.  Crazy sport (Seattle over New Orleans, anyone??).

Ada, Ohio

Issue: Why should any sports fan care about Ada, Ohio?

Short Answer: Every single play, in NFL history, began in Ada, Ohio.

Reasoning: Just so you know, I am from Ohio, I would even say that I love Ohio, and I have never heard of Ada either (even though it turns out I lived not to far from there during the summer I played for the Lima Locos of the Great Lakes Collegiate League).  Google maps tells me Ada is here:

View Larger Map

(I did have to hit the "zoom out" button about 5 times to bring a recognizable city into view, if, you know, Lima is considered a recognizable city.)  Basically, Ada is in the boonies.  Yet, Ada may be the most important town to the NFL in the entire country.  Why?  Ada is home to the factory that has hand made every single football that has been used in an NFL game since the NFL has been around.  Every pass, every run, every touchdown, every field goal, every interception, every fumble has occurred with a football that originated in Ohio.  You gotta love that.

NFL footballs are the only product they make at the factory in Ada.  They also define what it means to have "job security."  Take a look at how it's done (it's amazing):

Pretty cool stuff.

Andrew Luck...what the _____?

Issue: Can you fill in the blank with a word that rhymes with Andrew's last name and describes your feelings on his decision to stay in school?

Short Answer: I can.

Reasoning: First, I would like to go on record as saying that I am all for staying in school.  I come from a sport (baseball) in which hundreds of high school seniors, every year, sign professional contracts.  Not only do I hate this because it remains quite a long shot to make the big leagues, but also because the kid will miss out on the college experience, which I believe greatly facilitates the journey into being a productive adult.  I think kids (and parents) should always err on the side of going, or staying in school, rather than chasing a professional career.  With one exception.  When a kid has the opportunity to be a first round pick, the financial security that comes with that draft position cannot be ignored.  Millions of dollars goes a long way in life.

Andrew luck, starting quarterback for the Stanford Cardinal (still), has passed up the opportunity to be the number one pick in next years NFL draft.  For context purposes, Sam Bradford, the number one pick in last years draft, was given $50 million in guaranteed money.  That means if Bradford were to have blown out his knee in the first game of his career, never to play again, he would still have $50 million in the bank (for the most part).  The pundits on ESPN have been saying that Luck would not have been guaranteed that much money, but his potential contract would have guaranteed him upward of $40 million.  But, Luck has decided that he wants to stay in school, so he can get his degree.  I am so confused.

Let's say Luck goes back to school and he blows out his knee in the first game.  He will be left with nothing but a degree in architectural design (granted, it will be a degree from Stanford, so obviously this kid is smart and will probably have a successful career anyway), which carries with it $0 in guaranteed money.  Did I miss something here?  Is Stanford going to close the college of architectural design soon?  No?  Well then, Mr. Luck, WHAT ARE YOU DOING?  You have heard the old adage "strike while the iron is hot," and it doesn't get any hotter than being the consensus, unanimous, and obvious number one pick in the draft.  The best Andrew Luck can hope for is to have a fabulous redshirt junior year and again be considered the number one pick next year.  That is the best.  I don't even want to get into all the bad things that can happen.  Declare for the draft.  Be the number one pick.  Get paid millions of dollars just for that.  Then, when you are through playing, go back to school and get your degree.  Stanford will still be there.  I think.

Barry Larkin

Issue: Two part issue - 1) Why does no one outside of Cincinnati believe Barry Larkin is a Hall of Famer; and 2) Why does Barry Larkin not make most people's list of the top shortstops of all time?

Short Answer: I don't have an answer to either.

Reasoning: It is obvious to me why everyone in Cincinnati knows, not thinks, that Barry Larkin in a Hall of Famer.  He is perhaps the most beloved Cincinnati Red ever.  He was a hell of a player on the field and a gentleman off the field.  If you have ever heard the roars Pete Rose generates when he shows up at a Reds game, you know how much Cincinnatians love their Reds (regardless of how much others may hate them).  Barry Larkin represented the re-birth of the Reds when he lead them to the World Series Championship in 1990, and still played his tail off when the Reds became what we who grew up in this city (post 1976 and sans 1990) always expect the Reds to be, i.e., a small-market team that refuses to spend money, pay draft picks, and loses games.  But, we always had Barry.  He was never the flashiest, but he always did his job, and did it well.

Why Barry Larkin is not considered one of the greatest shortstops of all time is beyond me.  Let us take a look at the ENTIRE LIST of Hall of Fame Shortstops and a list of statistics that each has which represents the best among shortstops ever*:

• Luis Aparicio
• Luke Appling
• Dave Bancroft
• Ernie Banks (.500 slugging %, 512 home runs)
• Lou Boudreau
• Joe Cronin
• George Davis
• Travis Jackson
• Hughie Jennings
• Rabbit Maranville
• Pee Wee Reese
• Cal Ripken, Jr.
• Phil Rizzuto
• Joe Sewell
• Ozzie Smith
• Joe Tinker
• Arky Vaughn (.406 on-base %)
• Honus Wagner (.327 batting average, 3,415 hits, 1,732 RBI, 1,736 runs, 722 stolen bases)
• Bobby Wallace
• John Ward
• Robin Yount

Uhhhhhhhh, what?  How many of these guys have you heard of?  And, how many would you take over Barry Larkin?  I would take Honus Wagner (obviously, he seems to be the benchmark) and Ernie Banks.  That's it.  Sure, Cal Ripken was way more durable (Larkin was hurt a lot, but let us not forget that he played on the old artificial turf in Riverfront Stadium, which was more like concrete), but he was not better.  Ozzie Smith was a defensive wizard (although Larkin did win 3 gold gloves playing at the same time as Smith), but not a better all around player than Larkin.  Larkin is the third best shortstop on this list, period.

Let's take a look at Larkin's stats** and where he ranks among Hall of Fame shortstops: .295 batting average (T-7th), .371 on-base % (8th), .444 slugging % (6th), 2,340 hits (10th), 198 home runs (4th), 960 RBI (10th), 1329 runs (8th), 379 stolen bases (6th).  No higher than 4th in any category, no lower than 10th.  Remember, this is among those already in the Hall of Fame - the place Barry should be soon.  Oh, by the way, Larkin was a 12-time All-Star, won the Roberto Clemente Award in 1993, the Lou Gehrig Award in 1994, the NL MVP in 1995, a 9-time Silver Slugger Award winner, and was top-5 in fielding % in the NL 9 different times.  By his stats alone, one may not think Barry Larkin is a Hall of Famer, but when compared to other shortstops who are in the Hall of Fame, Barry Larkin is an easy Hall of Famer.  Hopefully the "sportswriters" who vote, will get their acts together and put Mr. Larkin in the Hall next year.  While they're at it, Pete should be in there too.

*Thanks to Baseball Almanac.

**Thanks to Baseball Reference.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: In honor of the PGA Tour's official start tomorrow, could you do the "Odd Stat of the Week" a bit early this week, and make it golf related?

Short Answer: Ask and you shall receive...

Reasoning: The golf season basically has no offseason, as it is warm enough somewhere in the world, at all times, to play golf.  However, the PGA Tour officially kicks off its season this week with the Hyundai Tournament of Champions at Kapalua (Hawaii).  In order to play in this tournament, one must have actually won a PGA Tour event last year, so, there will be no Tiger Woods.  Also, there are a host of those who did win, who have chosen not to play (yeah, I don't get it either, but maybe Hawaii gets old after you have been there a few times?  Really?  What better does a professional golfer have to do than go to Hawaii and play for a million or so dollars?  REALLY?).  Anyway, the list of those not coming to Kapalua include Phil Mickelson, Louis Oosthuizen, Martin Kaymer, Lee Westwood, and Rory McIlroy.  For those of you that only recognize Phil - Oosthuizen won the British Open in 2010 and Kaymer the PGA Championship; Westwood is the #1 player in the world and McIlroy is the brightest young star out there.  But, the tournament is in Hawaii, and when one (me, in particular) lives in a cold weather climate, tuning in to watch golf in Hawaii, golf stars or not, sounds pretty good.

With that said comes the odd stat of the week, which deals directly with the Tournament of Champions.  Here is a list of the last 10 champions of the event, and the number of Tour wins they had THE REST OF THE YEAR*:

• 2010 - Geoff Ogilvy - 0
• 2009 - Geoff Ogilvy - 1
• 2008 - Daniel Chopra - 0
• 2007 - Vijay Singh - 1
• 2006 - Stuart Appleby - 1
• 2005 - Stuart Appleby - 0
• 2004 - Stuart Appleby - 0
• 2003 - Ernie Els - 1
• 2002 - Sergio Garcia - 0
• 2001 - Jim Furyk - 0

The lesson to be learned here is that maybe some of these golfers should think about dropping a few strokes around the course on Sunday, as winning this tournament seems to be a curse.  Unless, of course, your name is Tiger Woods, who won this tournament in 2000 (which is now 11 years ago!) and then won 8, yes 8, more times that year.  Since he won't be there this year, someone else is about to curse their season.  If, you know, winning $1,120,000 for four days of work can be considered a curse.

*Thanks to Jason Sobel at espn.com.

I Hate the NCAA

Issue: Really?

Short Answer: Yes.  Really.

Reasoning: In case you don't watch football, in which case I would ask, "what do you do?", the NCAA struck again over the weekend.  Let me set up the situation: with one minute and thirteen seconds left in the game and with Kansas State down 36-28, Kansas State wide receiver Adrian Hilburn caught pass, made a move, and scored a touchdown to make the score 36-34.  What he did after he scored garnered his team a 15-yard penalty, which was enforced on the subsequent 2-point conversion, which made a basic Hail Mary the only option to tie the game.  It failed and Kansas State lost by two.  Take a look at what Hilburn did:

In the rules of NCAA football, an unsportsmanlike penalty should be called for "[a]ny delayed, excessive, prolonged or choreographed act by which a player attempts to focus attention on himself (or themselves)."   And here is the lame explanation from head referee Todd Geerlings as to why the flag was thrown: "[i]t was the salute, which was the judgment of the calling officials, which were the head linesman and the back judge. Two officials threw the flag, both judged it to be drawing attention to themselves, and that's what the flag was for."  This was not unsportsmanlike.  I do not believe that Hilburn was intending to salute the fine soldiers of the United States of America, but this was not unsportsmanlike.  Up to this point in my life, I could not think of a single situation in which a salute can be a negative thing.  Thanks to the Big Ten crew doing the New Era Pinstripe bowl, that situation, apparently, now exists - after you score a touchdown, to potentially tie the game, in one of the biggest games of your life.  Nice bowl season by the Big Ten in general, huh?

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: What is the weirdest stat you have heard this week?

Short Answer: Well, it actually involves the Oakland Raiders...

Reasoning: My brother Casey (if you read this blog, you may feel as if you know him personally by now) was telling me how much he liked odd stats.  You know, the one's that make you raise your eyebrows a bit?  So, I have decided to make a weekly post involving such stats (I hope I remember I said that next Sunday).  This week's odd stat involves the newly improved (not that they could have gotten much worse) Oakland Raiders.

Did you know, that Oakland's win today over the Chiefs (31-10) put them at 6-0 in the AFC West?  Yes, they finished 8-8 on the season, which means they were 2-8 versus the rest of the NFL.  They beat San Diego twice (week 5, 35-27; week 13, 28-13), Denver twice (real tough, I know; week 7, 59-14; week 15, 39-23), and Kansas City twice (week 9, 23-20; week 17, 31-10).  They lost to Tennesse, Arizona, Houston, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Miami, Jacksonville, and Indianapolis.  Their only two wins outside the AFC West?  Seattle and St. Louis (two teams who are competing for a playoff spot, but neither of which have a winning record).

So, just how odd is it that a team go undefeated in their own division, and still miss the playoffs?  This is the first time it has ever happened since the AFL/NFL merger in 1970.  What does it tell us going forward?  The Raiders might be a team to watch in the upcoming years.  Oh, and I am going to attempt to draft Darren McFadden in my fantasy leagues next year.

Runner-up for odd stat of the week: Miami Dolphins road record this year, 6-2; Miami Dolphins home record this year, 1-7.

*Stats taken from Da Raiders.