Happy Thanksgiving!

Issue: So, what are you thankful for this holiday season?

Short Answer: I'm thankful that the University of Cincinnati still stinks...

Reasoning: I have written about my hatred for the University of Cincinnati many times.  I can't stand them.  It used to be all about the basketball team, but now I pretty much hate everything about them.  Their fans are obnoxious as can be.  This year, since their football team sucks (like they have every year in their existence, except one, in which they were embarrassed by Florida in the Sugar Bowl - but UC fans will tell you that not only would they have beaten Ohio State that year, they had then taken over as the best college football team in Ohio - like, forever) all the chatter is about their basketball team.  Now, I am the first to give credit where credit is due, and the UC basketball team is pretty good this year.  You won't catch me rooting for them anytime soon, but at least it makes their fans sound a little less moronic when they are actually talking smack about a team that has some talent.  Just don't forget, UC fans, that your team is led by a guy named Cashmere.  His brothers Nylon and Polyester weren't good enough for UC, so they had to settle for Division II schools.  Seriously, his name is Cashmere.  But, again, dude has some talent.  Just an awful name.

Alright, now that I got that off my chest, on to the real reason for this Bearcat bashing post.  I take you back a couple weeks ago to when Michael Vick suffered a concussion and was knocked from the game.  Coming on to replace him in that game was rookie QB Nick Fowles.  This was not news in and of itself, but when Vick couldn't return the next week, Fowles started the game for the Eagles.  (I realize you may be confused at this point, but bear with me.)  This is significant because Fowles became only the second QB from the University of Arizona to start a game in the NFL.  Shocking because Arizona has good football teams almost every year and has alumni such as Rob Gronkowski, Teddy Bruschi, Chris McAlister, Lance Briggs, Mike Bell, Antoine Cason, Chuck Cecil, Dennis Northcutt, and Antonio Pierce all who play or have played in the NFL.  The only other Arizona Wildcat to start at QB in the NFL was Bill Demory who started 3 games for the New York Jets in 1973.  Crazy stuff.  So, what does this have to do with UC?  I'm glad you asked (or, I'm glad I just asked myself).

The Wall Street Journal grabbed onto this story and published a list of colleges and how many starts QB's from those colleges have made in NFL history.  At the top of the list is Purdue.  Drew Brees, Jim Everett, and Bob Griese all help put the Boilermakers there.  Surprising, but not overly surprising.  The rest of the top 10 is also surprising, but nothing really blows your mind.  Washington (Warren Moon, Chris Chandler), Miami (Vinny Testaverde, Jim Kelly), USC (Carson Palmer, Rodney Peete), Notre Dame (Joe Montana, Joe Theismann), Stanford (John Elway, Jim Plunkett), Michigan (Tom Brady, Jim Harbaugh), UCLA (Troy Aikman, Jim Schroeder), Oregon (Dan Fouts, Chris Miller), and Maryland (Boomer Esiason, Neil O'Donnell) round out the top 10.  The surprises are the one's that fall further down the list.  T.J. Yates is the only North Carolina Tarheel to ever start a game in the NFL, and he's only started 5.  My beloved Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets have had only one former player start at QB in the NFL.  His name was Mike Kelley, and he started one game for the San Diego Chargers in 1987. And then there is the University of Cincinnati.  The storied program who can't even sell out a 35,000 seat stadium.  The historic program that has exactly 7 bowl wins in their entire history (with wins over Utah State (1997), Marshall (2004), Western Michigan (2006), Southern Miss (2007) and Vanderbilt (2011).  How have these guys been overlooked for National Championship consideration?!?!).  So, how many games have former Bearcat QB's started in the NFL?  You guessed it - ZERO.  Not one.  Shocking, I know.  I'm a little worried about how happy that stat makes me.  And here I thought Tony Pike was going to lead the Panthers to a Super Bowl.  Or not.

For the entire list, click here.  Just make sure you scroll ALL THE WAY DOWN to see where the Bearcats sit.

A Lesson in College Athletics

Issue: Do college athletes pay attention to outside influences, i.e., point spreads?

Short Answer: Yes.  They.  Do.

Reasoning: First off, I played baseball in college, and there are no point spreads or people betting on the games, so I have no personal stories about this.  I was, however, friends with plenty of basketball and football players in college, and I know point spreads were talked about: "You believe we are a 2 touchdown favorite Saturday??  We should be favored by 3 touchdowns!  Haha!"  I am not saying, for one second, that players pay attention to point spreads in order to fix games, or win bets, or keep from getting their legs broken.  But, if you are a person who thinks this kind of thing NEVER happens, well, you're wrong.  This post is not about implementing anyone in any kind of scandal.  I'm not going to tell you anything provocative.  This post won't be quoted by ESPN in some sort of groundbreaking news story. All I'm saying is, the players know exactly what is going on in the outside world.  They know how many points they are favored by or how many points they are getting.  Perhaps some coaches use it as motivation.  Perhaps Idaho was paying attention to the point spread on Saturday night...

For those that don't know, I like to place an occasional wager on a sporting event, if, for no other reason than to make an otherwise uninteresting game, interesting.  And, there may have been no less interesting game last Saturday than BYU vs. Idaho.  Seriously, I'd rather watch bowling.  Since the game started around 11 p.m. EST and I can't go to sleep before 2 a.m. EST, I decided I would make the game "interesting" and take BYU -40.5.  Yes, that's right, I took the Cougars giving up almost 6 touchdowns.  This would surely be interesting.  As the game moved along, it actually started looking good for me.  But, late in the game, BYU decided not to kick field goals, as to not run up the score, and got stopped on the goal line not once, but twice.  I was in agony.  After a late Idaho turnover, BYU drove down near the goal line again.  At this point they were winning 49-10.  A field goal and I cover, but they weren't going to kick, right?  Wrong.  Field goal good with less than 2 minutes to go.  Fantastic way to end a pretty ugly Saturday in my college football world.  Some of you may think the story ends there.  BYU knew the spread and wanted to cover it.  You would be wrong.

What happened next defies everything I have ever been a part of in sports.  It's beyond comprehension. Idaho fields the kickoff and gets a decent return.  They get a first down, and then their offense stalls (according to the score, their offense had pretty much stalled the whole game, but that's not the point).  There are about 10 seconds left on the clock, and Idaho decides to punt, and why not?  Let's get this game over with.  Let's get into the locker room.  It's freakin' cold out here.  As the punt was in the air, I remember saying to myself "just don't muff this thing".  So, guess what happens?  That's right, he muffed it.  Idaho recovers.  Still, I thought, no big deal.  They still have to chuck one into the end zone, in freezing temperatures, with 8 seconds left on the clock, in order for me not to cover the spread.  Or...THEY COULD BRING ON THEIR FIELD GOAL TEAM AND KICK A FREAKIN' FIELD GOAL!?!?  And, mother f#@ker, that's exactly what they did.  Field goal good.  Final score: BYU: 52, Idaho: 13.  I lose.

What you didn't see, and what I can't show you (seriously, there is only one video out there, and it doesn't show you what I want you to see) is the way the kicker reacted when the kick went through the uprights.  His arms were extended overhead.  He was looking over at his bench like he had just won the Super Bowl.  He was excited.  I could even picture him screaming: "We covered the spread!  We covered the spread!"  I could also picture the whole Idaho team getting hammered drunk that night (the BYU team wasn't getting drunk, that's for sure) yelling across the room to each other: "YOU SHOULD HAVE BET ON THE VANDALS BABY!!!!"  Even more likely is the head coach patting the kicker on the butt when he sent him out there to kick a field goal down 42 points, saying: "At least go out there and cover the spread."  There is absolutely no other reason on this planet to kick a field goal down 42 points.  None.  Don't tell me they didn't know.

I saw one website who did a writeup on the game, and at the end of the story describing the massacre, stated: "Idaho kicked a field goal as time ran out to end the game on a positive note."  Yeah, positive note my ass.  They covered the spread, and that's what that field goal was about, plain and simple.  I now hate Idaho as much as I hate UC and UGA.

The Oddest Stat, Ever?

Issue: Judging by the title, this better be good.

Short Answer: It is unreal...

Reasoning: Sports are polarizing.  There are teams we all love (Buckeyes, Bengals, Reds, Yellow Jackets, etc.), and teams we all hate (Wolverines, Bulldogs (Georgia, just in case you may have forgotten), Bearcats, Fighting Irish, Hurricanes, Seminoles, Ravens, Steelers, Browns, Yankees, Red Sox, all of the NBA, etc.).  If you don't love or hate the teams I just listed, then, well, you're crazy.  Deal with it.  People usually hate teams because they're good.  Seriously, no one hates the Pittsburgh Pirates because why would you waste your time and effort hating a team that is basically irrelevant?  Alright, I do hate the Browns, who are obviously irrelevant, but they reside in the same state as my Bengals, so it's not a waste of time to hate them.  So, geography can play a part in the hating of teams.  It's the same reason I hate the irrelevant Indians too.

Some of the teams listed above are what I would consider "polarizing" teams.  Let's take the New York Yankees, for example.  You either love them or hate them.  There is no in-between.  If you love them, I don't like you.  If you hate them, you are an intelligent, rational person, who obviously has a vast knowledge of sports.  The Pittsburgh Steelers are the same way.  If you like them, you were probably born short a few (or millions) of brain cells, and the one's you were born with have been killed off by malted hops and bong resin.  If you hate them, you are a productive member of society and you should be rewarded for your level-headedness.  Perhaps one of the most polarizing teams in the history of college football is the Miami Hurricanes.  If you haven't seen the ESPN 30 for 30 entitled "The U" do yourself a favor and watch it.  It will either reaffirm your love for that crooked University or reaffirm your hate for it.  For me, it reaffirmed my hate.  Actually, it probably made me hate them more.  But, if there is one thing you have to admit, love or hate Miami, is they have produced more great football players than any University, anywhere.

Now comes the paragraph (probably the last of this post) where I tell you how good the University of Miami has been at putting players in the NFL:

• They hold the record for
• Most players drafted in the 1st round of a single NFL draft - 6 in 2004;
• Most players drafted in the 1st round of consecutive NFL drafts - 11 in 2003, 2004;
• Most players drafted in the 1st round of three consecutive drafts - 15 from 2002-2004;
• Most players drafted in the 1st round of four consecutive drafts - 19 from 2001-2004
• In a 14-year period (1994-2008), they had at least one player drafted in the 1st round;
• Since 1999, they have had 67 players drafted into the NFL, 2nd in the nation behind THE Ohio State University (What?  You know I wasn't going to leave that out.);
• Of those 67 players, 33 were drafted in the 1st round - the most of any school (yes, even more than the Buckeyes);
• The 2001 Hurricanes team had 17 players go on to play in the NFL.

So, basically, The U is a factory which produces NFL players.  Ex-Hurricanes are everywhere on NFL teams.  I say this only because the stat I am about to give you is RIDICULOUS and UNBELIEVABLE.  Here it is: Week 11 of the NFL (this past week) saw a streak end, that will never be matched again - a player from the University of Miami had scored a touchdown, in the NFL, every single week, since Week 15 of the 2002 season.  Seriously.  I'm not joking.  That is 149 consecutive weeks.  Almost 10 years.  You know what the longest current streak now is?  The University of Pittsburgh, at 13 (thanks LeSean McCoy!).  They only need 136 more weeks, and they will equal Miami.  I have no words for how impressive this streak is.  It truly is unbelievable.  Too bad I hate them so much, or I might actually care.

College Football Hodgepodge

Issue: You've missed a lot of big stories in College Football over the last couple of days, what gives?

Short Answer: I've been busy, sheesh...

Reasoning: I have actually had two requests for posts over the last couple of days.  One was a serious request (thanks Kristin!), the other was my buddy Dickie asking me to write a post that didn't mention Cincinnati.  There will be nothing about the Queen City in this post (because it's about College Football, and you can see how I feel about Cincinnati's College Football team here), but, I may slip Ohio in here somehow.  I have three different stories I'd like to address, so, forgive me if this becomes the longest post ever.  Without further ado:

ROLL TIDE/WAR EAGLE.  For those of you who think I have pulled a Benedict Arnold and am now rooting for the SEC, well, you're wrong.  "Roll Tide/War Eagle" was the title of the 30 for 30 documentary on ESPN last night.  Every 30 for 30 I have seen has been great, and this one was no different.  The documentary was compelling, interesting, tear-jerking at times, funny, and made extremely well.  The problem I have with the whole thing is the documentary claims Alabama vs. Auburn is the greatest rivalry in College Football.  I scoff.  Hang on, I am still scoffing.  Alabama/Auburn has been the greatest rivalry in College Football for exactly 3 FREAKING YEARS!  See, in order to have a "rivalry" you must have good teams.  Auburn had some good teams when Bo Jackson was there in the early '80's, and they had a good team when Cam Newton was there.  That's it.  In order to have a "rivalry" you must have coaches that add character to the rivalry.  Alabama had Bear Bryant and Gene Stallings.  Auburn had, uh, well, no one.  Tommy Tuberville?  Gene Chizik?  Pat Dye?  Yeah right.  Those of us from the Midwest know that Ohio State vs. Michigan is the greatest rivalry in College Football.  It goes back well over 100 years.  It has been a relevant game to the National Championship picture more times than not.  It had coaches like Woody Hayes, Fielding Yost, Bo Schembechler, and Jim Tressel.  But, not even I would claim that the rivalry is relevant this year.  Ohio State is not good.  Michigan is good, but not great.  The game will be compelling to fans in the Midwest, but not so much to fans outside the heartland.  Alabama vs. Auburn, other than from 2008-2010, hasn't mattered to anyone outside of the state of Alabama since, well, never.  But, in Alabamans defense, not much matters in Alabama anyway.

Number 1 vs. Number 2.  I hate that after I just wrote what I wrote, that I am going to write about Alabama again.  Last Saturday, November 5, the top two teams in the nation took the field to play the biggest game of the year (except to Alabamans, who can't wait for Alabama/Auburn).  Here's what I remember from the game: nothing.  See, my buddy Tore got married on Saturday (this is what we get for letting women pick the date of the wedding...just saying), and I was busy drinking, socializing, and dancing (and by dancing, I mean moving my feet around and trying to not look like an idiot - alcohol helps).  I did sneak off to the hotel bar to watch a bit of the game, but I always felt guilty, and would catch only a few plays.  I heard Alabama missed 14 field goals and ended up losing by 3 (sounds like if 'Bama had a kicker, they would have covered the 5 point spread...that would have been nice).  I only wish both Alabama and LSU could have lost the game.  Watching this game (or the few plays I did watch) was like watching the Ravens and Steelers on Sunday night.  Can we invent a new rule where both teams get a loss?  I don't wish injury on anyone, but could Ben Rapistberger suffer a high ankle sprain?  Or Ray Lewis break a hand?  Or Nick Saban get rolled up on like Sean Payton did a few weeks ago?  I blame my hatred of the SEC on my southern friends who only pretend they like the SEC because it's better than the Big 10 (it is, I can admit that) and can tell me about it all the time.  Unless you actually went to one of the crummy SEC schools, you cannot like them.  It's physically impossible.  What is going to tick me off the most, is when Oklahoma State drops a game and LSU and Alabama end up meeting for the National Championship.  That will be sweet.  A 3-0 final in the National Championship.  Can't wait.  Unless, of course, Nick Saban gets rolled up by a linebacker tackling a tight end.

Penn State/Joe Paterno.  This is a difficult one.  So, I am going to attack it like the lawyer I once wanted to be (what was I thinking?).  Here are the facts:

1. Jerry Sandusky is a sick f&#k.  Period.  End of story.
2. An assistant coach, Mike McQuery, once witnessed Sandusky in the shower with a child in the Penn State locker room.  He did report the incident to his superior, one, Joe Paterno.
3. We don't know what McQuery told Paterno.  Therefore, we have no idea what Paterno knew.  Here are Paterno's own words: "As my grand jury testimony stated [emphasis added], I was informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report. Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As Coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators. [emphasis added]"
4. Paterno, reported the incident to his superior, the Athletic Director of Penn State, Tim Curley.
5. Jerry Sandusky is a sick f&#k.

Now, everyone who is anyone, i.e., ESPN, is calling for the head of Joe Paterno.  I can't figure this out.  Yet.  LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR: if it comes to light that Joe Paterno had anything to do with any part of a cover-up, he should be thrown in jail with Jerry Sandusky.  But, to me at least, it looks like Joe Paterno did something about what he knew (which, we still don't know what he knew).  He reported it up the chain.  Now, the talking heads on ESPN have made it sound like Paterno should have gone immediately to the authorities to report Sandusky.  I'm not saying he shouldn't have, I'm only saying - how do we know?  Paterno was told that a guy, who didn't even work for Penn State football at the time, was acting inappropriately.  Paterno took it upon himself to report it up the chain, and now we are going to call for his head because he didn't go to the authorities?  I'm not sure I can make the connection.

I watch ESPN every day as I work at home.  I have had to listen to ESPN talk about Joe Paterno for the last two days.  Here is my question: why is this story about Joe Paterno and not Jerry Sandusky?  Joe Paterno testified in front of a grand jury that the specifics of that incident in the shower were NOT relayed to him.  He didn't know exactly what happened, and still may not.  So why are we attacking the morals of a man who, in this day in age of cheating in the NCAA, has a squeaky clean image, a squeaky clean record, and a legacy unmatched by any other coach in the history of the NCAA.  Jerry Sandusky is on trial here, because he is a sick f&#k.  Joe Paterno should be on trial if we find out he knew exactly what happened and did nothing about it.  My guess is that he didn't, and that's why he didn't go to authorities.  However, ESPN, with their calls for Joe Paterno's head, has given Penn State a reason to do what they have wanted to do for a long time - get rid of Joe Paterno.  It's sad actually.  Like Penn State or not, Joe Paterno has always been what's right, with a game that is increasingly going bad.

This is a bad situation for all, especially for the victims of these heinous crimes.  Penn State will forever have a black eye because of the actions of one sick f&#k, and Joe Paterno's legacy will be tarnished, no matter what, because of this sick f&#k.  It's a damn shame for everyone involved.

The Big XII Dilemma

Issue: What is going on in the heartland?

Short Answer: The Big XII is falling apart, thanks to ESPN.

Reasoning: The first weekend of college football is in the books, and, although there were some great games (and some blowouts), what I will remember most about the weekend is the national coverage Texas A&M received for wanting to leave the Big XII.  The SEC was their destination, but the SEC decided they do not want to expand.  Yet.  For those of you who watch (or read) ESPN for your sports news, I expect that you have no idea why Texas A&M was attempting to bolt the Big XII, mere hours before the college football season started.  That is because when you have a monopoly on sports news and reporting, like ESPN does, you need not report negative stories about yourself.  Must be nice.

Let's play make-believe.  You are the Athletic Director at Texas A&M, a middle-of-the-road Big XII school.  Sure, you have a good athletic program, but competing with Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri is quite difficult.  Then ESPN comes along and makes it nearly impossible to compete.  How is ESPN responsible for the (soon-to-be) ultimate collapse of the Big XII?  Well, "[s]ince the joint partnership between ESPN and the University of Texas was announced, many have cried foul. Texas' bitter rival, Texas A&M, has even made plans to leave the conference, a decision that was propelled by the announcement of the Longhorn Network."  In my opinion, a great move by Texas A&M.  So, shouldn't schools like Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas, and Kansas State be right on the Aggies heals, attempting to find a newer, fairer conference than the Big XII?  I sure as heck would be.

Some of you out there may be wondering why a network televising all things UT all the time, is a problem for other schools in the Big XII.  Let's play make-believe again.  You are an 18-year old, stud football player from the state of Texas (this is truly make-believe!).  You are being recruited by Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma State.  If you go to any school, besides Texas, you may play a few games on TV every year.  If you go to Texas, every single play you ever play on a football field, will be on television.  Think of a baseball player, or tennis player, being recruited by Texas, being told all of their games will be on TV too!  Isn't that an easy decision for a kid to make?  Why wouldn't you go to Texas?  Exactly.

The ultimate question is this: Is there any University out there that needs its own network?  The answer is simple: Hell no.  The University of Texas is good in almost every sport, from women's volleyball to men's football, they compete in the upper echelon of every single one.  But still, is there enough drama and excitement, 24/7/365, to fill a network with compelling television?  Those of us who have the Big 10 (or is it the Big 100?  Beats me.) Network know there isn't.  And that is a network dedicated to an entire conference, not just one school.  Ever watched Minnesota vs. Northwestern in women's volleyball?  Yeah, me either.  I'd rather watch re-runs of Pawn Stars that I have already seen three times.  I am rooting for the Longhorn Network to fail miserably, partly because I don't think one University supplies enough substance to fill up and entire network, and partly because I hate ESPN.  See, "[w]ith [ESPN] investing such a large sum of money into a single university, there is a chance, for good reason, that ESPN will lose a great deal of its credibility when reporting Texas-related stories. And credibility is not something that can be bought back."  Funny, I didn't know ESPN still had any credibility left.

The "Senator" from Ohio

Issue: Jim Tressel?

Short Answer: Unfortunately, yes.

Reasoning: Allow me first to say, that above all things, Jim Tressel was wrong.  He lied and he got what he deserved.  Nothing I am about to say is meant to exonerate the ex-head coach of The Ohio State University.  It is a rough time to be a fan of the University, thanks, for the most part, to Jim Tressel.  But, I have a slightly different outlook than most, on the transgressions that he committed.  I can't believe this whole scenario is because of tattoos.  Freakin' tattoos, that a bunch of 18-21 year old kids decided not to pay for.  Just like a punch to the face of a Clemson player brought down the best coach in Ohio State history, tattoos brought down the second greatest coach in Ohio State history.  It almost seems part of Ohio State lore - coaches being brought down under the strangest of circumstances.  It's downright crazy.

But, I am not as quick to jump on Jim Tressel as being a hypocrite, as most journalists have been.  That may seem strange for me to say, as lying straight to the face of the NCAA doesn't seem to fit with a person who wrote books entitled The Winner’s Manual: For The Game of Life, and; Life Promises For Success: Promises From God on Achieving Your Best.  But, since when does writing books about how to live a quality life mean the author is free from all sin?  I'm not sure it does.  If the title of one of his books was I Am Perfect and I Have Never Made a Mistake In My Life, Here's How You Can Be This Awesome Too, then I would be the first to jump on board in calling Jim Tressel the biggest hypocrite on the planet.  Many people have already jumped on board, saying it is the hypocrisy, not the crime, that bothers them the most.  It seems like a good argument, but it has holes.  See, "[h]ypocrisy consists not in failing to practice what we preach, but in not believing what we preach."  Jim Tressel absolutely failed to practice what he preaches.  No one would ever doubt that.  My question is this: how can anyone out there say that Jim Tressel doesn't believe what he preaches?  Call me crazy, but Jim Tressel is really the only person who knows if he is a hypocrite or not.  For what it's worth, I don't think he is.  I think Jim Tressel absolutely believes everything he has ever preached to his student-athletes.  It is human nature to want to protect everything you have when you are on top of the world (Rep. Anthony Weiner, anyone?), which is where Jim Tressel used to be.  When faced with allegations of players breaking the rules, Jim Tressel made a huge mistake, and he got caught.  He was fired and ridiculed in the media, and will be for a long time coming.  He got what he had coming.  But everyone makes mistakes, and that is all Jim Tressel is guilty of - making a huge mistake.

I read the Sports Illustrated investigation into allegations of Jim Tressel cheating all the way back to his days as an Ohio State assistant coach in the early-1980's and as the head coach at Youngstown State.  It is a good article and one that makes it look as if Jim Tressel has been a damn cheater his whole life.  Yet, not one place in the article is there any physical link to the impropriety that was going on to Jim Tressel himself.  People are quoted and relationships examined, but not one time is there a direct link between cheating and Tressel.  Sure, it all looks suspicious, but suspicious isn't enough to convict.  Unless, it all comes out after someone has already been convicted of lying, like Tressel.  See, Tressel admitted he lied, so what better time to publish a bunch of hearsay than right after that?  It makes it all sound so much more believable, whether it is or not.  And, I have no idea if it is all true or not.  I'm pretty sure no one else knows if it true or not either.  But, publishing conjecture at a time when people want to believe that Jim Tressel is a liar (he is) and a cheat (he may or may not be) is a very sly tactic indeed.

At this point, most people are probably wondering how I can say that Jim Tressel isn't a cheater.  Is it really possible that players were taking money, selling memorabilia, and driving around in cars they can't afford, and he not know any of it was going on?  My answer is simply, yes.  Do you think Tyrelle Pryor was given a couple thousand dollars in cash and then went straight to Tressel and said, "hey coach, just thought you'd like to know..."?  The very last person on earth that the cheating players would want to know what they were doing, is Jim Tressel.  The players knew what they were doing was an NCAA infraction, and they wouldn't want their coach to find out, that's for sure.  Yes, it is a far stretch to think Tressel had absolutely no idea what was going on, but to think that he masterminded or allowed everything to go on the way it did, is just as far of a stretch.  I remember when I got into a little trouble in college, the one person that I didn't want to find out, the one person I would do anything I could to keep it from, was my head coach.  Had I been successful in keeping the secret, would my head coach have been to blame for my transgression?  I think not.  A lot of people have said there is no way Tressel couldn't have known what was going on.  Really?  Why is that?  Just because it sounds good to say?  Because taking the side of Tressel at this point would be crazy?  No one really knows if he knew anything before December 2010 or not.  Maybe everything that came to light completely took Tressel by surprise.  Maybe it didn't.  But, I'm not sure how anyone outside the Ohio State athletic department can claim to know either way.  Because they don't.

This is what I know: Jim Tressel had one of the biggest falls from grace in the history of college football, all because of tattoos.  Maybe we should take a look at the social acceptance of 18-22 year old kids having as many tattoos as they do.  Watch a college basketball or football game and count the number of tattoos you see.  You won't be able to, because there isn't enough time in the games.  How do these kids afford these tattoos?  They are not cheap to get.  Why do these kids get so many tattoos anyway?  I'm not really sure, and I'm sure Jim Tressel is wondering the same thing.  Had the Ohio State players traded memorabilia with a tattoo parlor owner who wasn't under investigation by the FBI, it would still be going on right now, and no one would be worse for the wear.  That means NCAA violations would still be going on, but really, how bad is getting a couple of free tattoos?  These players should be getting paid anyway.  That's why I don't care when I hear about players receiving money.  I played college sports, and I could have used a little dough in my pockets (even though baseball is a sport that doesn't make money for a university).  Football teams support entire universities.  It's crazy to think the players don't see a dime of it.  But, that is an entirely different story.  You know when Tressel was informed of the violations, he did what he thought was in the best interest of his players - tell them to stop, and not tell the NCAA about it.  It was the wrong decision, but not one that makes him a hypocrite.  But, that decision ultimately cost Tressel his job and maybe any future job.  When you lie, you have to be prepared for the consequences.  But, I can't help but think Tressel, at some point in time, figured his players trading memorabilia for tattoos wouldn't be his ultimate undoing.  He felt like he could sweep it under the rug, and, he was wrong.  Freakin' tattoos.

Parity at its Finest

Issue: Didn't you already use that title once?

Short Answer: Sort of.  For this hilarious video post.  But, this is "parity," not "parody."

Reasoning: My old high school teammate Tim wrote on my Facebook page about an article from the Wall Street Journal about the craziness going on in the sports world, and, especially the state of California.  I went in search of the column but quickly realized I am not a member of the WSJ online, and have no desire to be one ("disposable income" is not in my lexicon these days).  So, I am going to just go off what Tim said was in the article, the crux of which is the state of parity in athletics - California being the microcosm of said parity.  I'm not sure words can describe how much I love parity, but you know I'm going to try.

The NBA sucks.  I hate it, and I don't watch it.  Usually, it is 8 guys standing around watching two guys play one-on-one.  I'd rather watch college basketball, where guys dive on the floor and attack the rim, for pure love of the game (or because they are attempting to impress NBA scouts - either way, I don't care, the passion of the college game makes it better).  However, our parody-in-sports journey begins with the NBA.  The L.A. Lakers are one of the few west coast teams (in any sport) that seem to escape the east coast "media bias."  People love the Lakers, and always have - not just in Los Angeles.  The L.A. Clippers have always been the red-headed stepchild of the Lakers.  They are never good, and, in fact, are usually the laughingstock of the league (kind of like the Bengals in the NFL - this is why I don't feel sorry for Clippers fans).  But, this year, Los Angeles has been introduced to an ex-Oklahoma Sooner named Blake Griffin.  Folks, if you haven't seen this guy, then you don't watch any highlight shows.  His dunks are of legend.  He is the brightest superstar the entire league has right now (everyone hates LeBron; people are tired of Carmelo; and Kobe is just as whiny as he's always been), and he is an L.A. Clipper.  Strange.

But it gets even more strange.  California has never had a slew of great college football teams.  However, the University of Southern California, over the last 10 years, has been a constant in the top-10 rankings.  They have competed for, and won, National Championships and Heisman Trophies (Carson Palmer anyone?  Ha!).  But, who would have thought the best college football team in California (and one of the best in the country) last year would be the Stanford Cardinal?  Have you ever met anyone from Stanford?  I have.  I played collegiate summer baseball with quite a few kids from there.  And, the only thing I remember about each and every one of them is how socially awkward they were.  Most didn't talk.  When they did, nothing but nonsense came spewing forth.  Myself and the rest of my teammates chalked it up to them being too smart for their own good.  You know, trying to dumb everything down for the idiots on the team (although Andrew Luck doesn't seem to be that smart).  Anyway, my point is, how can such socially awkward, smart-as-can-be, non-athletic kids make up the best college football team in California?  My guess is Jim Harbaugh.  This one may not last long.

Finally, we get to college basketball.  The UCLA program is the best ever.  USC is usually not bad.  Stanford is hit or miss (socially awkward kids aren't usually good at basketball either).  So, who is leading the way this year?  San Diego State and St. Mary's.  Huh?  The best thing to ever come out of San Diego State is Marshall Faulk (not a basketball player) and the best thing to come out of St. Mary's is a bunch of people with degrees (although my former minor league teammate Mark Teahen went to St. Mary's - best I can do).  At the time this post went to press San Diego State was 27-1 and #4 in the coaches poll (for those of you who don't believe coaching matters - Steve Fisher anyone?); St. Mary's was 22-6, coming off two straight losses (one to lowly San Diego University - I hope they were without their best players for some reason).  UCLA is not great.  USC is not good.  Stanford is turrrrible.  It's nice to see some of the little guys get their comeuppance.  And, it's nice to see some of the big guys take a fall.  I love parity in all sports - it makes it more fun to watch (which is all I do anyway).

I'm going to Las Vegas and putting all my money on the Padres to win the World Series.  Alright, maybe not.

Thanks To My Brother. Again.

Issue: Do you, or does your brother, actually write this blog?

Short Answer: I do.  I think.

Reasoning: As more people start reading this blog (or just clicking on the page to give me a false sense of security), I start getting more e-mails about ideas, or articles, or videos that people think are relevant.  I love getting these e-mails because it makes my job a bit easier.  But, it also makes me feel like others are doing my job for me, or that I am ripping off other people's ideas (DISCLAIMER: if you are one of the people who send me stuff, please don't stop - I'm not complaining!).  My brother Casey, who has been mentioned here at Uncommonly Sports a time or two, is the lead perpetrator of this activity.  He is an intellectual, who spends a lot of time reading everything, so when he sends me something, I pay attention to it (even if it is a video, a la, the one we have here).

What we have below is a video featuring University of Connecticut redshirt junior quarterback, Johnny McEntee.  In the video, McEntee self-describes himself as a "trick-shot quarterback."  Intriguing.  Let's take a look at this video:

Now, while I believe every throw in this video is possible, here are a few reasons that I am a little skeptical:

1. The credits at the end of the video list all of 6 people (one is McEntee and two others are other UConn football players (well, one is the kicker, so I guess he's not really a football player, but you get the point)), and the only one that caught my eye was "Edited by Kyle Campbell".  I'd like to talk to Mr. Campbell about what he really edited.  Technology is so flawless today that many people will question the validity of these throws because we all know, through the magic of editing, my little sister could be a "trick-shot quarterback."
2. Anyone who actually can make all these throws would have to know that people may doubt what they see on this video.  Why not have a disclaimer before every throw?  Or edit in some of the throws that were failures?  We all know he didn't make all these throws on the first try, so why make a video that purports just that?  Some of these throws could have taken 100 tries or more (at least I think so), so I think it would have been more impressive to say "it took me 5 tries to do this, but here is the successful throw."  Makes more sense to me, but what do I know?
3. The throws McEntee makes in this video are the equivalent of hitting the small bullseye in darts (or maybe even better).  I have watched professional darts on TV before (it is actually a lot cooler than you would think) and even the best dart throwers in the world can't hit their mark every single time.  Just saying.
4. What are you saying about yourself as a quarterback when you can make all these throws, including some blindfolded, but you literally have zero career stats.  Seriously, this guy has never thrown a pass, or had a rushing attempt, or thrown a pick, or gotten sacked.  Ever.  Check out his bio page from UConn's website.  And, I can add in that he played in two games in 2010 and again amassed zero stats - but he can throw a ball into a basketball hoop from 40 yards?  Maybe, but I doubt it.
5. This video can only add pressure to McEntee's attempts to become a good quarterback.  He has shown on this video that he can make any and every throw, so interceptions should never happen.  Nor should incompletions.  Or losses.  See what I mean?  This video may get McEntee some publicity, but the last time I checked, trick-shot quarterbacks didn't get paid very well.
6. And, most telling - there are only two of Johnny's "trick-shots" that garnered any sort of reaction from anyone who was present.  Obviously, in most of the shots, there is a cameraman and one other person, but wouldn't they go nuts?  Wouldn't the camera start shaking because the cameraman was jumping around going crazy?  It happens twice, which makes me believe he made those two throws (and some of the others that are cool, but not jump-around-going-crazy throws) on his first try (or second or third), and all the others took forever and no one was excited, or, Mr. Campbell (the editor) did a fantastic job.  I'm going with the latter.

With all that said, I have no idea how real this video is.  I don't know how many takes each one took, or if all of it is editing magic.  I'm not sure I even care though, because this video is pretty darn cool.

National Signing Day?

Issue: What is that?  Some sort of Declaration of Independence recreation?

Short Answer: I wish it were.

Reasoning: Tomorrow, February 2, 2011, marks the day when numerous high school seniors (who also happen to be fairly good at football) finally decide where they are going to "attend" college.  Or, shall I say, where they are going to play football, all the while acting like a college student.  Sort of.  If you are reading this, and you are excited about "national signing day," then you are part of the problem.  You, and ESPN, who is televising 10 hours of coverage on ESPNU.  That's right, 10 hours of children (yes, 17 and 18 year olds are still children) sitting in front of a slew of microphones, announcing that next year they will "take their talents" (I guarantee that at least one kid uses LeBron's line, thinking it's funny, even though it will be nothing more than sad) to some university by picking one of the five hats in front of them and putting it on their head.  And people care about this.  Or, perhaps more acurately, there is money to be made off of it.  Why else would ESPNU televise it for 10 hours?

Folks, this is utterly ridiculous.  Most of these kids will not be prepared to play at the college level next year anyway.  The game will be too fast for them.  So, in turn, a lot of them will redshirt, maybe unwillingly.  Then the kid is going to be upset and transfer somewhere else, or sit out the entire year as a redshirt.  Then, why should we have cared about his "press conference" in the first place?  We shouldn't have.  And the fact that ESPN is telling you that you should care, makes me think, that ESPN thinks, that you are dumb ("you" meaning second person everyone, not "you" in particular).  Now, to say that a recruiting class, as a whole, means nothing, is incorrect.  Having a good recruiting class for any school, in any sport, is extremely important.  And, I don't mind if fans pay attention to that and care about that, i.e., "our recruiting class was ranked 2nd in the nation...I hope these guys pan out!"  But, to have individuals picking a school on national TV, is asinine at best.

Let me tell you about the day I decided when I was going to take my talents to Atlanta (that's where Georgia Tech is, for those of you who don't know).  The early signing period for baseball players is sometime in November (c'mon people, this was 14 years ago - I don't really remember the exact date!).  So, a few days before that magical date, I received my "national letter of intent" in the mail (remember, this was 1996 - I wonder if they are e-mailed and electronically signed these days?).  A few days later, on "national signing day," I sat down at my kitchen counter, with my dad, signed my name on the dotted line, folded the paper back up, stuck it in the envelope provided, and put it in the outgoing mail.  Dad patted me on the back, and I went back to watching TV, with a smile on my face.  No cameras.  No fanfare.  No media.  And I was ranked as the #1 prospect in the state of Ohio.  No joke.  Now, I realize that baseball does not make millions of dollars for universities, and, well, football does.  But when I was 18, I didn't live under the delusion that anyone really cared (outside of my immediate family and friends) where I was going to go to school.  Today's youth has been brought up in the "me" era of reality TV and people who are famous for no reason (the Kardashians, Paris Hilton, everyone on MTV, etc.).  These kids have been lead to believe, probably by those closest to them, that they deserve the attention they are getting.  They don't.  Yet.  Too many "top prospects" fizzle out in college (mostly because of beer) no matter what sport they play, so it shouldn't be a big deal where these kids are going to college in the first place.  Let's wait and see if they can handle the pressures of wearing a big time school's name on their chest before we start telling these kids how great they are.

So, when you are looking for something to watch on TV tomorrow, please, please, please, avoid ESPNU.  Don't be part of the problem, start being part of the solution.  If there is one.

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.

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.

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 Buck"I"s

Issue: What do I make of the whole Ohio State football debacle?

Short Answer: It is quite sad, actually.

Reasoning: First, let me tell you why the players are at fault.  This is single-handedly one of the most selfish acts I have ever seen (hence, the title of this post).  Terrelle Pryor, Dan Herron, DeVier Posey, Mike Adams, and Solomon Thomas have spat in the face of the Ohio State tradition.  They have taken awards, jerseys, championship rings, and gold pants (awarded for a victory over the University of Michigan), and sold them for money and tattoos.  These things were given to them by the football team and they sold them for the betterment of themselves (if, you know, tattoos make you "better").  In the HBO documentary film Michigan vs. Ohio State: The Rivalry, Ohio State players talk about their gold pants as if they are their most prized possession.  Players from the 1930's can't help but smile when they hold up their gold pants for the camera.  Current Buckeye players sold theirs so they could get more tattoos.  Sad.

Another reason the players are at fault is because they knew the rules.  Let me explain why this rule exists.  Let's look at a college baseball player (something I believe I am qualified to speak on) and imagine what the University gives him.  A new glove every year (value $200), a new bat every year (value $300+), a pair of cleats (value $100), a pair of turf shoes (value $75), a pair of Oakley sunglasses (if you are at a school sponsored by them, value $150), a ring (if you win something, value $1000) and sweatshirts, sweatpants, hats, t-shirts, sliding shorts, a protective cup (a must), and batting gloves (value $300).  Now, say that kid decides to go sell some of it, or take it back to the store, or trade it for something.  Is this fair?  No, it's not.  These things are given to the kids to use, not to make a profit.  The rule exists for a reason, and the Buckeye players knew it.  I'm sure they just thought they wouldn't get caught.  Life lesson: if you are going to do something illegal, make sure you don't do it with someone who is also doing something ELSE illegal (the tattoo parlor was under investigation by the IRS).  Sad.

Finally, the reason the kids aren't at fault: The NCAA is the most hypocritical governing body on the face of the earth.  The NCAA makes millions, if not billions of dollars off of these kids.  Yes, they get a free education for it, but you can't tell me they don't deserve something more.  Take it from a former college athlete, who wasn't allowed to work in college (not that I would have anyway) - the extra money would help.  Beyond that, the NCAA spat in the face (there seems to be a lot of that happening in this post) of our entire sports-watching-society when they suspended the players for the first five games of next year, but NOT the Sugar Bowl (with a little helping hand from the Sugar Bowl CEO).  The NCAA knows how much money the Sugar Bowl will make with Terrelle Pryor and Dan Herron and DeVier Posey playing, and the NCAA knows how much the Sugar Bowl will make without Terrelle Pryor and Dan Herron and DeVier Posey playing.  It's safe to assume (yes, I know) the figures are not close.  So, the NCAA decides it is going to teach a lesson to these 18-22 year old kids by suspending their suspensions for 8 months.  What kind of message does this, and the Cam Newton situation (using the "I didn't know about it" defense) send to kids that play at smaller schools?  Would they get the same treatment?  The answer is a resounding NO.  The NCAA does what it wants, when it wants, because they have no one governing them.  So, so, sad.

And when these Buckeye players declare for the NFL draft next year, instead of sticking around for their suspensions and a half of a season, it is going to hurt the kids, the University, and college football.  Sad indeed.

The Big (?) 10

Issue: Could the Big 10 have made a worse decision in naming their conference divisions?

Short Answer: No. Freakin'. Way.

Reasoning: Big 10 Commissioner Jim Delany granted himself a stay of execution last week when he announced the Big 10 may consider changing the name of the divisions he and the rest of the Big 10 brass had originally chosen.  In case you have been living somewhere they don't cover news stories, or you can't read, the Big 10 (which will have 12 teams next year) will split into two divisions and call them "Leaders" and "Legends".  Uh, Jim, please stop considering, and do it.  They sound stupid, look stupid, make zero sense, and no other conference in the country does this (although, I guess that could be an argument for not changing the division names, but it is a rather weak one).

I have read quite a few editorials on the topic, and none have been positive (rightly so).  Other than being just plain corny, I can see the optimism with which Jim Delany announced this decision.  The Big 10 brass was looking at this as a good thing.  It's not.  But, the words "leader" and "legend" is something every college athlete aspires to be, although very few ever achieve said aspiration.  The words have an extremely positive connotation.  The Big 10 brass had their hearts in the right place.  But, they obviously didn't have their heads in the right place.

The problems with bigger conferences is the perennial bottom feeders.  When I played college baseball in the ACC (waaaay back when there were still only 9 teams), Duke and Maryland were, year-in and year-out, playing each other on the first day of the ACC Tournament to see who actually got to play in the ACC Tournament.  Big 10 football has a few candidates as well - Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue, and Indiana (I'm sure these schools excel in "other" sports, which happen to not matter) are non-factors when it comes to a Big 10 football championship.  So, can we rightly place any of these teams in a division entitled "Leaders" or "Legends"?  No chance.  Why don't we let Indiana play in the "East" or "South" or "Plains" division, but please, please, not in the "Legends" division.  Time to go back to work Jim.

Cam Newton

Issue: Should Cam Newton's past transgressions affect the Heisman Trophy voting?

Short Answer: No.

Reasoning: Well, he has been in the news more than body scanners and TSA gropings lately, and since the Heisman Trophy will be awarded this Saturday, I figured he was a good place to start.

Cam Newton should win the Heisman Trophy this year by the largest margin ever.  He is Tyrelle Pryor on steriods (and by steriods, I mean he can read defenses and throw passes that are caught by his own receivers).  He is going up against Andrew Luck (who will be a great professional quarterback (Bengals?), Kellen Moore (never trust a lefty quarterback unless his name is Young or Esiason), and LaMichael James (the old, wise, "sportswriters" who vote, will never allow a sophomore to win it).  Who in their right mind could NOT vote Cam Newton as the best player in the country?  Stats: Passing - 188.16 (efficiency), 165-246-6 (completions-attempts-interceptions), 67.1 (completion %), 2589 (yards), 28 (TD); Rushing - 242 (attempts), 1409 (yards), 5.8 (per carry avg.), 20 (TD).*  That's 48 touchdowns.  It must have been hard for the Heisman committee to figure out who the other 3 invitees should be. 

So why am I writing this post?  Because there are sportswriters out there who have put in print, that they will not vote for Cam Newton due to his checkered past.  The "academic dishonesty", the "stolen laptop", and the "pay-for-play" scandal have called Cam's character into question.  I think the problem is that these sportswriters are too far removed from ages 18-22, to remember what it was like to be 18-22.  Although, to be honest, I don't remember that much about being 18-22 either, other than the fact that 1) I had a blast; and 2) I did some things that you will probably never read about in this blog.

I am not condoning what Cam Newton has done in the past by any means, but I can relate.  I had an episode in college that is the definition of "academic dishonesty," and I have had to explain that to more than one company/school/person in my life.  I wish it never happened.  But, I look back on the kid I was - someone who was relatively famous in the small-campus life of Georgia Tech; someone who thought he could get away with anything and everything because he was smarter than everyone else; someone who thought he was invincible; someone who, in part, believed he deserved special treatment - and I can't imagine the situation happening any differently, even if I had it to do over again today.  Society worships good athletes, and Cam Newton is the best athlete in our most beloved sport.  He needs to be held responsible for his actions, and he will, as his mistakes will follow him around for the rest of his life (mostly because they have been so widely reported).  But let us all withhold judgment, not Heisman votes, until we see if he actually learns from his mistakes.  That's one of the most important things you learn from college anyway.

P.S. I despise the SEC...go Ducks!

* Auburn Tigers