Justin Verlander is going to win the AL Cy Young Award. There's absolutely no doubt about it. He had the award locked up by the All-Star break. Verlander won the pitching Triple Crown and led the AL in every major pitching statistic (except, obviously, for saves). He went 24-5 with 250 strikeouts and a 2.40 ERA as the Tigers won their first division title since 1987. Oh yeah, Verlander also led the AL in innings pitched (251), held opponents to a .192 batting average and had a WHIP of 0.92.
There are no other candidates. That's by no means a knock on the rest of the pitchers in the American League. Jered Weaver had a very solid year. CC Sabathia won 19 games. James Shields had 16 wins, including four shutouts, for a Rays team that surprisingly won the wild card. But Verlander was far and away the best pitcher in the American League all season. He wasn't just good, he was dominant. Everyone knows that.
So, instead of making the case as to why Verlander deserves to win the Cy Young, I'm going to argue why he belongs in the discussion for AL MVP, an award that hasn't gone to a pitcher (in either league) since Oakland's Dennis Eckersley in 1992. There's undoubtedly going to be a number of people who feel that since pitchers have their own award, the MVP should go to a position player. While I disagree with them, they're entitled to have that position. However, sometimes a pitcher's season is so exceptional that you can't help BUT put him in the MVP discussion. That's certainly the case this season with Justin Verlander.
I thought Pedro Martinez was worthy of winning AL MVP honors in 1999, when he went 23-4 with a 2.07 ERA and a ridiculous 313 strikeouts for the Red Sox. However, despite collecting the most first-place votes, he finished second in the MVP vote to Ivan Rodriguez. The reason? Two of the voters left Martinez completely off their ballot, arguing that pitchers don't deserve consideration for MVP. That's completely ridiculous. According to the rules that are in place, pitchers are eligible for MVP. Yet two guys decided that Martinez shouldn't be since he wasn't an everyday player.
Hopefully, the same thing doesn't happen to Verlander this year. It's clear to anybody who watched baseball this season that he was the most dominant figure in the game. I'm usually pretty hesitant to make the case for a pitcher for MVP, but this year is an exception. MVP stands for Most Valuable Player. Justin Verlander's value to the Detroit Tigers was pretty obvious. The Tigers knew they were going to win every fifth day. Yes, he only played in 35 games compared to the 140 or so that Curtis Granderson, Jacoby Ellsbury, etc., played. But the Tigers won the AL Central because of those 35 games. Without Verlander, they don't win the division.
Sadly, this principle is also used in Cy Young voting. The last closer to win the Cy Young was Eric Gagne in the NL in 2003. The last AL closer to win the Cy Young was Eckersley in that 1992 MVP year. Mariano Rivera has never won a Cy Young Award. I'm not saying that there's a closer in either league that should be in this year's Cy Young discussion, but I do think there are cases where a standout season by a closer can't be overlooked. It really is the same argument: if the rules say a closer can win the Cy Young Award, the voters really shouldn't be able to take it upon themselves to decide whether or not they're worthy of the award.
In my opinion, Justin Verlander wasn't just the best pitcher in the American League this season. He was the best player. I don't care that he didn't play every day. Anyway, more on that next week when they actually award the MVP. As for Cy Young, there's no question.
My vote: Justin Verlander-That's pretty obvious. But since the actual voters are required to put five guys on the ballot, I'll follow those same rules and make selections 2-5. 2-Jered Weaver, 3-James Shields, 4-CC Sabathia, 5-Jon Lester.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Rookies of the Year
Baseball's awards season is upon us! Six of the eight major awards will be handed out this week, with the two MVP awards wrapping things up next Monday and Tuesday. Continuing in the tradition started last year, I'll break down each of the awards the day before they're announced, as well as giving you my pick for the winner. To get things started, MLB is doubling-up the Rookies of the Year, with both winners being announced tomorrow.
American League
If AL Cy Young is the easiest of the eight awards to pick (Justin Verlander had it locked up in like June), AL Rookie of the Year might be the hardest. There are about five or six viable candidates, and I really have no idea who the writers are going to choose. This is one of the most wide-open years I can remember. Any one of these guys would be a deserving winner. The way I see it, this race comes down to three starting pitchers--Jeremy Hellickson, Ivan Nova and Michael Pineda--and two first basemen--Eric Hosmer and Mark Trumbo. There's also been some discussion about Mariners second baseman Dustin Ackley, but I don't think his candidacy is as strong as the other five. A case could also be made for Angels closer Jordan Walden, but again, he's not as strong a candidate as the other guys.
Let's start with the pitchers. Hellickson and Nova were No. 2 starters on teams that made the playoffs, while Pineda made the All-Star team. Jeremy Hellickson led all Major League rookies with a 2.95 ERA and was third in all of baseball with a .210 opponents' batting average. He went 13-10, and 20 of his 29 starts were quality starts. The reason the Rays made the playoffs was because of their pitching, and Hellickson was one of the big reasons why. He was Baseball America's choice. Then there's Ivan Nova, who went 16-4 for a Yankees team that had the best record in the American League. He got sent down in June because the Yankees had too many starters, then came back and won each of his final 12 decisions, including an eight-game winning streak. Nova provided some semblance of stability behind CC in that rotation that had a lot of question marks even during the season. And the voting was already done, so it doesn't help his case at all, but who can forget that performance in Game 1A of the ALDS against the Tigers? Michael Pineda looked like he'd run away with the award at midseason before struggling down the stretch. He finished just 9-10, mainly becuase Seattle isn't good, with a respectable 3.74 ERA.
Trumbo took over as the Angels' first baseman when Kendrys Morales broke his leg jumping on home plate after a walk-off homer. He took full advantage of the opportunity. Trumbo played in 149 games and belted 29 home runs. He also had 87 RBIs to help the Angels stay in the race longer than they probably should have. Hosmer was the first in that stable of top-notch prospects to reach the Royals' Major League team. He led all AL rookies in runs (66) and hits (153) to go along with 19 homers, 27 doubles and 78 RBIs. Oh yeah, and he's just 21.
My pick: Jeremy Hellickson-This was a tough one, but I think I'm going to go with Hellickson. The Rays wouldn't have made the playoffs without his contributions, and being a starting pitcher on a contending team in September is tough for anybody, let alone a rookie. Trumbo and Nova round out my ballot. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if Hosmer won.
National League
The NL Rookie of the Year isn't anywhere near as up in the air as the AL award is. But that doesn't mean it's a lock for anybody, either. Last year it was San Francisco's Buster Posey edging out Atlanta's Jason Heyward. This year, two more Braves are in the mix, and I expect them to go 1-2 in the voting.
I think Braves closer Craig Kimbrel has the slight edge over his teammate Freddie Freeman. Closers have won the last two AL Rookie of the Year awards, but the last to do it in the NL was Cincinnati's Scott Williamson in 1999. Kimbrel was overused all year, which is one of the reasons why Atlanta collapsed down the stretch. Even with a rocky September, he put up some pretty impressive numbers: a rookie record 46 saves, a .178 batting average against, 127 strikeouts in 77 innings (14.84 per nine). He also had a stretch of 37 2/3 consecutive scoreless innings from June 14-September 8. Christened Atlanta's everyday first baseman coming out of spring training, Freeman led NL rookies in seven different offensive categories. He hit .282 with 161 hits, 32 doubles, 21 homers and 76 RBIs. He might've been the Braves' most consistent bat all season.
Brandon Beachy is a third Brave in the discussion, but he's a distant third behind his teammates. He was in Atlanta's postseason rotation in 2010, and he followed that up by going 7-3 this year, his first full season in the Majors. Beachy recorded 169 strikeouts and held opponents to a .236 batting average. If you've never heard of Vance Worley, it's probably because the other four guys in the Phillies rotation got just a bit more press than he did. Being on the Phillies obviously helped, but Worley went 11-3 with a 3.01 ERA. He took over the fifth spot in Philadelphia's rotation in mid-June and pitched so well they couldn't take him out of it. Nationals second baseman Danny Espinosa is also worth a mention. He had 16 homers at the All-Star break before fading badly down the stretch. He's not going to win, but had a nice season nonetheless.
My pick: Craig Kimbrel-In a tight race with Freeman, I think Kimbrel's contributions to the Braves were more valuable. Yes, he faded down the stretch, but that's Fredi Gonzalez's fault. Kimbrel was so reliable all season, Gonzalez used him a little too much. And the Braves probably wouldn't have been in a position to blow it in September if Kimbrel hadn't been lights out for the first five months of the season. Freeman is second with Worley a distant third.
American League
If AL Cy Young is the easiest of the eight awards to pick (Justin Verlander had it locked up in like June), AL Rookie of the Year might be the hardest. There are about five or six viable candidates, and I really have no idea who the writers are going to choose. This is one of the most wide-open years I can remember. Any one of these guys would be a deserving winner. The way I see it, this race comes down to three starting pitchers--Jeremy Hellickson, Ivan Nova and Michael Pineda--and two first basemen--Eric Hosmer and Mark Trumbo. There's also been some discussion about Mariners second baseman Dustin Ackley, but I don't think his candidacy is as strong as the other five. A case could also be made for Angels closer Jordan Walden, but again, he's not as strong a candidate as the other guys.
Let's start with the pitchers. Hellickson and Nova were No. 2 starters on teams that made the playoffs, while Pineda made the All-Star team. Jeremy Hellickson led all Major League rookies with a 2.95 ERA and was third in all of baseball with a .210 opponents' batting average. He went 13-10, and 20 of his 29 starts were quality starts. The reason the Rays made the playoffs was because of their pitching, and Hellickson was one of the big reasons why. He was Baseball America's choice. Then there's Ivan Nova, who went 16-4 for a Yankees team that had the best record in the American League. He got sent down in June because the Yankees had too many starters, then came back and won each of his final 12 decisions, including an eight-game winning streak. Nova provided some semblance of stability behind CC in that rotation that had a lot of question marks even during the season. And the voting was already done, so it doesn't help his case at all, but who can forget that performance in Game 1A of the ALDS against the Tigers? Michael Pineda looked like he'd run away with the award at midseason before struggling down the stretch. He finished just 9-10, mainly becuase Seattle isn't good, with a respectable 3.74 ERA.
Trumbo took over as the Angels' first baseman when Kendrys Morales broke his leg jumping on home plate after a walk-off homer. He took full advantage of the opportunity. Trumbo played in 149 games and belted 29 home runs. He also had 87 RBIs to help the Angels stay in the race longer than they probably should have. Hosmer was the first in that stable of top-notch prospects to reach the Royals' Major League team. He led all AL rookies in runs (66) and hits (153) to go along with 19 homers, 27 doubles and 78 RBIs. Oh yeah, and he's just 21.
My pick: Jeremy Hellickson-This was a tough one, but I think I'm going to go with Hellickson. The Rays wouldn't have made the playoffs without his contributions, and being a starting pitcher on a contending team in September is tough for anybody, let alone a rookie. Trumbo and Nova round out my ballot. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if Hosmer won.
National League
The NL Rookie of the Year isn't anywhere near as up in the air as the AL award is. But that doesn't mean it's a lock for anybody, either. Last year it was San Francisco's Buster Posey edging out Atlanta's Jason Heyward. This year, two more Braves are in the mix, and I expect them to go 1-2 in the voting.
I think Braves closer Craig Kimbrel has the slight edge over his teammate Freddie Freeman. Closers have won the last two AL Rookie of the Year awards, but the last to do it in the NL was Cincinnati's Scott Williamson in 1999. Kimbrel was overused all year, which is one of the reasons why Atlanta collapsed down the stretch. Even with a rocky September, he put up some pretty impressive numbers: a rookie record 46 saves, a .178 batting average against, 127 strikeouts in 77 innings (14.84 per nine). He also had a stretch of 37 2/3 consecutive scoreless innings from June 14-September 8. Christened Atlanta's everyday first baseman coming out of spring training, Freeman led NL rookies in seven different offensive categories. He hit .282 with 161 hits, 32 doubles, 21 homers and 76 RBIs. He might've been the Braves' most consistent bat all season.
Brandon Beachy is a third Brave in the discussion, but he's a distant third behind his teammates. He was in Atlanta's postseason rotation in 2010, and he followed that up by going 7-3 this year, his first full season in the Majors. Beachy recorded 169 strikeouts and held opponents to a .236 batting average. If you've never heard of Vance Worley, it's probably because the other four guys in the Phillies rotation got just a bit more press than he did. Being on the Phillies obviously helped, but Worley went 11-3 with a 3.01 ERA. He took over the fifth spot in Philadelphia's rotation in mid-June and pitched so well they couldn't take him out of it. Nationals second baseman Danny Espinosa is also worth a mention. He had 16 homers at the All-Star break before fading badly down the stretch. He's not going to win, but had a nice season nonetheless.
My pick: Craig Kimbrel-In a tight race with Freeman, I think Kimbrel's contributions to the Braves were more valuable. Yes, he faded down the stretch, but that's Fredi Gonzalez's fault. Kimbrel was so reliable all season, Gonzalez used him a little too much. And the Braves probably wouldn't have been in a position to blow it in September if Kimbrel hadn't been lights out for the first five months of the season. Freeman is second with Worley a distant third.
Friday, November 11, 2011
A Sad End
I've made my general disdain for college football well-known throughout the history of this blog. So today is truly an exception in that I'm doing a college football post. More specifically, I'm writing about the sad ending of the Joe Paterno Era at Penn State. He was at the school for 46 years, yet this is how he goes out. What's even worse, this is how he's going to be remembered.
The ending came swiftly and abruptly. Personally, I think Joe Pa was scapegoated for something that wasn't at all his fault. It's not Joe Paterno's fault that Jerry Sandusky is a pervert. Is he completely blameless in this scandal? Absolutely not! But I also don't think he's anywhere near as responsible for everything as some people are making him out to be. Could he have done more? Yes. But you're never going to be able to convince me that Joe Paterno turned a blind eye to what was going on, either. I've never met the man, but he doesn't strike me as the type to put up with something as disgusting as that. His guilt is more by association than anything else.
If it were up to me, Joe Paterno wouldn't have been fired immediately. I would've let him finish out the season then "retire," which is what he "decided" to do on his own during the day on Wednesday. He deserved that. Joe Paterno has meant so much to Penn State University that he had earned the right to go out on his own terms. In fact, he IS Penn State to so many people.
However, while I don't necessarily agree with it, I do see the point that a number of people made about Paterno's role in the scandal. Penn State had no choice. Whether he was directly involved or not, he's the biggest figure in this mess, so he was going to be the one that took the fall. The fact that the Penn State Board of Directors has been trying to get rid of Paterno for years didn't help his case, either. It's similar to when Bobby Knight was fired at Indiana. Whether or not they wanted to let Knight go, they had to cut ties with him before things got any worse. Penn State pretty clearly wanted to let Paterno go. This finally gave them their reason.
But, like I said, the saddest part about all this (outside of those boys who were victimized by Sandusky, many of whom have never been the same again) is that Joe Paterno, one of the greatest coaches in college football history, will be remembered because of how he went out. It didn't end on his terms. He was fired. He was fired because of sick actions by a depraved individual who happened to be a Penn State assistant coach. It happened under his watch, so it was his "fault." Nevermind all the good things he did in 46 years, one really bad thing is all it took to bring him down.
Instead, I'm going to choose to remember Joe Paterno for all those good things. He came to Penn State in 1950 and took over as head coach in 1966. In those 46 years, the most by any coach with one program in history, he won a record 409 games, including 24 bowl victories in 37 appearances. The Nittany Lions won national championships (at least the college football version of such) in 1982 and 1986 and had five undefeated seasons. (It was Penn State's undefeated 1994 team getting screwed out of the national championship that began my realization that college football is a complete joke, as well as my conscious decision to stop caring about college football at all as long as that ridiculous system is still in place.) In addition, he sent so many guys to the NFL that you can't even begin to name them all (Penn State is nicknamed "Linebacker U" for a reason). Perhaps most importantly, his players graduated.
Joe Paterno has been cleared of any legal wrongdoing (at least for now). The criminal charges are reserved for Jerry Sandusky, who deserves to go away for a long time if these allegations prove to be true, as well as former AD Tim Curley and Penn State President Graham Spanier, who was fired along with Paterno on Wednesday. But let's not forget that this isn't about any of them. It's about these innocent kids who will never be the same because of the actions of one sick man.
Many fans are obviously upset. That's always the case when a legend falls. There are plenty of other fans who feel exactly the opposite. They think Paterno got what he deserved. My stance? While not innocent, Joe Paterno is still one of the many victims in this scandal. He shouldn't go out like this.
Penn State's fine season will continue, as will its football program. But it's safe to say that it'll never be the same again. Ask Indiana basketball about that one. "Happy" Valley? Not right now it isn't.
The ending came swiftly and abruptly. Personally, I think Joe Pa was scapegoated for something that wasn't at all his fault. It's not Joe Paterno's fault that Jerry Sandusky is a pervert. Is he completely blameless in this scandal? Absolutely not! But I also don't think he's anywhere near as responsible for everything as some people are making him out to be. Could he have done more? Yes. But you're never going to be able to convince me that Joe Paterno turned a blind eye to what was going on, either. I've never met the man, but he doesn't strike me as the type to put up with something as disgusting as that. His guilt is more by association than anything else.
If it were up to me, Joe Paterno wouldn't have been fired immediately. I would've let him finish out the season then "retire," which is what he "decided" to do on his own during the day on Wednesday. He deserved that. Joe Paterno has meant so much to Penn State University that he had earned the right to go out on his own terms. In fact, he IS Penn State to so many people.
However, while I don't necessarily agree with it, I do see the point that a number of people made about Paterno's role in the scandal. Penn State had no choice. Whether he was directly involved or not, he's the biggest figure in this mess, so he was going to be the one that took the fall. The fact that the Penn State Board of Directors has been trying to get rid of Paterno for years didn't help his case, either. It's similar to when Bobby Knight was fired at Indiana. Whether or not they wanted to let Knight go, they had to cut ties with him before things got any worse. Penn State pretty clearly wanted to let Paterno go. This finally gave them their reason.
But, like I said, the saddest part about all this (outside of those boys who were victimized by Sandusky, many of whom have never been the same again) is that Joe Paterno, one of the greatest coaches in college football history, will be remembered because of how he went out. It didn't end on his terms. He was fired. He was fired because of sick actions by a depraved individual who happened to be a Penn State assistant coach. It happened under his watch, so it was his "fault." Nevermind all the good things he did in 46 years, one really bad thing is all it took to bring him down.
Instead, I'm going to choose to remember Joe Paterno for all those good things. He came to Penn State in 1950 and took over as head coach in 1966. In those 46 years, the most by any coach with one program in history, he won a record 409 games, including 24 bowl victories in 37 appearances. The Nittany Lions won national championships (at least the college football version of such) in 1982 and 1986 and had five undefeated seasons. (It was Penn State's undefeated 1994 team getting screwed out of the national championship that began my realization that college football is a complete joke, as well as my conscious decision to stop caring about college football at all as long as that ridiculous system is still in place.) In addition, he sent so many guys to the NFL that you can't even begin to name them all (Penn State is nicknamed "Linebacker U" for a reason). Perhaps most importantly, his players graduated.
Joe Paterno has been cleared of any legal wrongdoing (at least for now). The criminal charges are reserved for Jerry Sandusky, who deserves to go away for a long time if these allegations prove to be true, as well as former AD Tim Curley and Penn State President Graham Spanier, who was fired along with Paterno on Wednesday. But let's not forget that this isn't about any of them. It's about these innocent kids who will never be the same because of the actions of one sick man.
Many fans are obviously upset. That's always the case when a legend falls. There are plenty of other fans who feel exactly the opposite. They think Paterno got what he deserved. My stance? While not innocent, Joe Paterno is still one of the many victims in this scandal. He shouldn't go out like this.
Penn State's fine season will continue, as will its football program. But it's safe to say that it'll never be the same again. Ask Indiana basketball about that one. "Happy" Valley? Not right now it isn't.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Week 10 Picks
We're already up to the Thursday night games. I still don't know if that means the picks will be made earlier every week (or if I'll still do them on Saturday and just tell you whether or not I got Thursday right), but it does this week. I also find it somewhat weird that 28 of the 32 teams have already had their byes, yet we're playing a full 16-game schedule this week and saving those remaining four byes until next week. That doesn't make much sense to me. Anyway, I digress. On to the picks:
Raiders (4-4) at Chargers (4-4): San Diego-At the halfway point, there are three-way ties for first in both the AFC East and AFC West. The AFC West is more interesting because Denver's just one game back. That's thanks to the Raiders, who lost at home to the Broncos last week. The Chargers really need to get back on track, too. San Diego was 4-1 before visiting the Jets. Now they've lost three straight, including that Monday night game they should've won in Kansas City. Needless to say, this is an important game in the AFC West race. NFL Network gets a good one for its first game of the year. I think the Chargers are a better team, thus they're the pick.
Saints (6-3) at Falcons (5-3): New Orleans-The Saints are one of those teams that hasn't had their bye yet, and they enter this one with a half-game lead over Atlanta. They meet again in New Orleans on a Monday night in Week 16, and that game could decide which one wins the division. The Falcons have won three straight, including a victory over the Lions. The Saints rebounded from that inexcusable loss to the Rams with a win over the Bucs last week. This is a good matchup that I expect New Orleans to win.
Steelers (6-3) at Bengals (6-2): Pittsburgh-This week we finally get to find out if Cincinnati is actually good or if the Bengals' record is just a reflection of their easy early schedule (my theory). Cincinnatti hasn't played either the Steelers or the Ravens yet, while Pittsburgh and Baltimore are done with each other. Blowing that game on Sunday night really cost the Steelers. Not only did it knock them out of first place, it gave the Ravens the tiebreaker. Pittsburgh can't really afford another division loss. I think the Steelers knock the Bengals back to reality.
Rams (1-7) at Browns (3-5): Cleveland-Little known fact: both of these teams actually started in Cleveland, and the Rams moving to Los Angeles is part of the reason the original Browns came into existence in the first place. Sometimes the NFL gives us games like this one. Is Cleveland OK with everybody?
Bills (5-3) at Cowboys (4-4): Buffalo-The Bills had a chance to take sole possession of first place in the AFC East last week, but lost at home to the Jets and are now stuck in a three-way tie. This the first of three straight home games for Buffalo, while Dallas has this one, then visits archrival Washington before that Thanksgiving game against Miami that the NFL for some reason is going to make us watch (although, in fairness, this was the only other option for the Cowboys' Thanksgiving game and nobody knew the Bills would actually be good this year). Both teams' playoff chances are definitely on the line this week. I'm going with the Bills.
Jaguars (2-6) at Colts (0-9): Jacksonville-Now that the Dolphins somehow managed to screw up and get a win last week, the Colts are now the leaders in the Andrew Luck Sweepstakes. With both games against Jacksonville and a matchup with the Panthers left on the schedule, I don't think they'll go winless, but in following my "pick against the Colts until they win" policy, Jacksonville's the pick.
Broncos (3-5) at Chiefs (4-4): Kansas City-Maybe going to Tim Tebow was the right move. Since he took over as the starter, Denver has won a pair of road games, but lost its only home game. They're on the road this week, which improves their chances. But I'm still going with the Chiefs to rebound after last week's disaster against Miami.
Redskins (3-5) at Dolphins (1-7): Washington-Attention Rex Grossman. This just in: the Redskins aren't going to win the NFC East. I just wanted to clear that up. With that being said, they're better than Miami.
Cardinals (2-6) at Eagles (3-5): Philadelphia-How much of a killer was that loss on Monday night for the Eagles? At 3-5, it's going to be hard for them to make the playoffs and nearly impossible to win the division (they're three games behind the Giants, who beat them the first time). The Eagles really can't afford to lose to the Cardinals at home. And they won't.
Texans (6-3) at Buccaneers (4-4): Houston-This was one of the toughest picks to make this week. Houston's probably going to run away with the AFC South and make the playoffs for the first time in their history. The Bucs, meanwhile, need a win to keep pace with the Saints and Falcons (a loss drops them two back of the Atlanta-New Orleans winner). Tampa Bay hasn't won since Week 6, while Houston has won three straight. That's why I'm taking the Texans in a close one.
Titans (4-4) at Panthers (2-6): Tennessee-The Titans are the only team that actually has a chance of giving Houston a race in the AFC South. Carolina is the only team that won't be in the race in the NFC South. I'm taking Tennessee in one of this week's dud games.
Ravens (6-2) at Seahawks (2-6): Baltimore-After last week, I think Baltimore might be the best team in the AFC. A loss to the Seahawks would be unacceptable. But then again, the Giants lost (at home) to Seattle, and it doesn't seem to have that adverse of an effect on them. The Ravens already laid their egg for this season, though, in that Monday night game against Jacksonville. They'll take care of business in the Pacific Northwest.
Lions (6-2) at Bears (5-3): Detroit-The Bears jumped right back into the thick of the playoff race with last week's win over the Eagles. Now they can make a move in the division with a win over the Lions. Detroit, meanwhile, hasn't played either the Bears or the Packers yet, so this is an important test for them, too. The Lions are coming off a bye, while the Bears are coming off a short week, having played on Monday night. That's enough for me to like the Lions in a close one.
Giants (6-2) at 49ers (7-1): Giants-It's safe to say that the winner of the NFC West won't be 7-9 this year. In fact, this matchup will probably determine which of these teams gets the other NFC bye (I don't think the 49ers will have any problems winning the NFC West). It's nice to see a Giants-49ers game meaning something again. I can totally see either team winning. San Francisco already has signature wins over Philadelphia and Detroit, and is a blown lead and resulting overtime loss to Dallas away from being undefeated. The Giants got their signature win last week in Foxboro. FOX has a tremendous doubleheader game for the second straight week. For no other reason than the fact I'm a Giants fan, I'm going with the Giants.
Patriots (5-3) at Jets (5-3): New England-Well, well, well. What have we here? The Patriots have actually lost back-to-back games for just the third time since 2003. The Jets, who were 2-3 after a three-game losing streak, have now won three straight, including their first road win of the season last week in Buffalo. As a result, they're tied for first place. A Jets loss means their chances of winning the division, and thus hosting a playoff game, will be slim to none. New England is in danger of not making the playoffs at all if they drop their third straight. I know I said before they played the first time that I expected the Patriots and Jets to split this season, but I don't see Bradicheck losing three in a row.
Vikings (2-6) at Packers (8-0): Green Bay-Did the NFL think this Favre retirement was like all of the other ones when they set Vikings-Packers at Lambeau as a Monday night game? I thought the first Packers loss might come last week in San Diego it didn't. Now we've got to wait until either that Thanksgiving matchup at Detroit or the following week at the Giants. In other words, the Packers aren't losing at home to woeful Minnesota.
Last Week: 6-8 (I know, it's embarrassing. I'm doing worse than a 10-year-old girl making her picks by pulling the teams out of a hat. I don't even know why I insist on making these picks public.)
Overall: 80-50 (Not terrible, but should be much better.)
Raiders (4-4) at Chargers (4-4): San Diego-At the halfway point, there are three-way ties for first in both the AFC East and AFC West. The AFC West is more interesting because Denver's just one game back. That's thanks to the Raiders, who lost at home to the Broncos last week. The Chargers really need to get back on track, too. San Diego was 4-1 before visiting the Jets. Now they've lost three straight, including that Monday night game they should've won in Kansas City. Needless to say, this is an important game in the AFC West race. NFL Network gets a good one for its first game of the year. I think the Chargers are a better team, thus they're the pick.
Saints (6-3) at Falcons (5-3): New Orleans-The Saints are one of those teams that hasn't had their bye yet, and they enter this one with a half-game lead over Atlanta. They meet again in New Orleans on a Monday night in Week 16, and that game could decide which one wins the division. The Falcons have won three straight, including a victory over the Lions. The Saints rebounded from that inexcusable loss to the Rams with a win over the Bucs last week. This is a good matchup that I expect New Orleans to win.
Steelers (6-3) at Bengals (6-2): Pittsburgh-This week we finally get to find out if Cincinnati is actually good or if the Bengals' record is just a reflection of their easy early schedule (my theory). Cincinnatti hasn't played either the Steelers or the Ravens yet, while Pittsburgh and Baltimore are done with each other. Blowing that game on Sunday night really cost the Steelers. Not only did it knock them out of first place, it gave the Ravens the tiebreaker. Pittsburgh can't really afford another division loss. I think the Steelers knock the Bengals back to reality.
Rams (1-7) at Browns (3-5): Cleveland-Little known fact: both of these teams actually started in Cleveland, and the Rams moving to Los Angeles is part of the reason the original Browns came into existence in the first place. Sometimes the NFL gives us games like this one. Is Cleveland OK with everybody?
Bills (5-3) at Cowboys (4-4): Buffalo-The Bills had a chance to take sole possession of first place in the AFC East last week, but lost at home to the Jets and are now stuck in a three-way tie. This the first of three straight home games for Buffalo, while Dallas has this one, then visits archrival Washington before that Thanksgiving game against Miami that the NFL for some reason is going to make us watch (although, in fairness, this was the only other option for the Cowboys' Thanksgiving game and nobody knew the Bills would actually be good this year). Both teams' playoff chances are definitely on the line this week. I'm going with the Bills.
Jaguars (2-6) at Colts (0-9): Jacksonville-Now that the Dolphins somehow managed to screw up and get a win last week, the Colts are now the leaders in the Andrew Luck Sweepstakes. With both games against Jacksonville and a matchup with the Panthers left on the schedule, I don't think they'll go winless, but in following my "pick against the Colts until they win" policy, Jacksonville's the pick.
Broncos (3-5) at Chiefs (4-4): Kansas City-Maybe going to Tim Tebow was the right move. Since he took over as the starter, Denver has won a pair of road games, but lost its only home game. They're on the road this week, which improves their chances. But I'm still going with the Chiefs to rebound after last week's disaster against Miami.
Redskins (3-5) at Dolphins (1-7): Washington-Attention Rex Grossman. This just in: the Redskins aren't going to win the NFC East. I just wanted to clear that up. With that being said, they're better than Miami.
Cardinals (2-6) at Eagles (3-5): Philadelphia-How much of a killer was that loss on Monday night for the Eagles? At 3-5, it's going to be hard for them to make the playoffs and nearly impossible to win the division (they're three games behind the Giants, who beat them the first time). The Eagles really can't afford to lose to the Cardinals at home. And they won't.
Texans (6-3) at Buccaneers (4-4): Houston-This was one of the toughest picks to make this week. Houston's probably going to run away with the AFC South and make the playoffs for the first time in their history. The Bucs, meanwhile, need a win to keep pace with the Saints and Falcons (a loss drops them two back of the Atlanta-New Orleans winner). Tampa Bay hasn't won since Week 6, while Houston has won three straight. That's why I'm taking the Texans in a close one.
Titans (4-4) at Panthers (2-6): Tennessee-The Titans are the only team that actually has a chance of giving Houston a race in the AFC South. Carolina is the only team that won't be in the race in the NFC South. I'm taking Tennessee in one of this week's dud games.
Ravens (6-2) at Seahawks (2-6): Baltimore-After last week, I think Baltimore might be the best team in the AFC. A loss to the Seahawks would be unacceptable. But then again, the Giants lost (at home) to Seattle, and it doesn't seem to have that adverse of an effect on them. The Ravens already laid their egg for this season, though, in that Monday night game against Jacksonville. They'll take care of business in the Pacific Northwest.
Lions (6-2) at Bears (5-3): Detroit-The Bears jumped right back into the thick of the playoff race with last week's win over the Eagles. Now they can make a move in the division with a win over the Lions. Detroit, meanwhile, hasn't played either the Bears or the Packers yet, so this is an important test for them, too. The Lions are coming off a bye, while the Bears are coming off a short week, having played on Monday night. That's enough for me to like the Lions in a close one.
Giants (6-2) at 49ers (7-1): Giants-It's safe to say that the winner of the NFC West won't be 7-9 this year. In fact, this matchup will probably determine which of these teams gets the other NFC bye (I don't think the 49ers will have any problems winning the NFC West). It's nice to see a Giants-49ers game meaning something again. I can totally see either team winning. San Francisco already has signature wins over Philadelphia and Detroit, and is a blown lead and resulting overtime loss to Dallas away from being undefeated. The Giants got their signature win last week in Foxboro. FOX has a tremendous doubleheader game for the second straight week. For no other reason than the fact I'm a Giants fan, I'm going with the Giants.
Patriots (5-3) at Jets (5-3): New England-Well, well, well. What have we here? The Patriots have actually lost back-to-back games for just the third time since 2003. The Jets, who were 2-3 after a three-game losing streak, have now won three straight, including their first road win of the season last week in Buffalo. As a result, they're tied for first place. A Jets loss means their chances of winning the division, and thus hosting a playoff game, will be slim to none. New England is in danger of not making the playoffs at all if they drop their third straight. I know I said before they played the first time that I expected the Patriots and Jets to split this season, but I don't see Bradicheck losing three in a row.
Vikings (2-6) at Packers (8-0): Green Bay-Did the NFL think this Favre retirement was like all of the other ones when they set Vikings-Packers at Lambeau as a Monday night game? I thought the first Packers loss might come last week in San Diego it didn't. Now we've got to wait until either that Thanksgiving matchup at Detroit or the following week at the Giants. In other words, the Packers aren't losing at home to woeful Minnesota.
Last Week: 6-8 (I know, it's embarrassing. I'm doing worse than a 10-year-old girl making her picks by pulling the teams out of a hat. I don't even know why I insist on making these picks public.)
Overall: 80-50 (Not terrible, but should be much better.)
Monday, November 7, 2011
Miscellaneous Musings
The NFL's in full swing. College basketball season is fast approaching. Baseball's awards are right around the corner (and so is free agency). In other words, there's a lot of stuff going on in the world of sports. Time for my thoughts on some of it:
- I have to admit, I've been suckered into ESPN's "live" coverage of the World Series of Poker. It's not really live. The Nevada Gaming Commission is making them do it on a 15-minute delay, but that's more live than some Olympic coverage, so I'm going to count it. They did this over the summer when the main event was actually going on, and I thought it was really stupid. Not seeing or being able to talk about the cards the players actually have really takes a lot away from televised poker. Then the "live" coverage returned for the final table and, embarrassingly enough, I found myself watching it. It's not even close to the same, but it's still addictive.
- The New York City Marathon was yesterday. There's been talk that they want to extend it into a two-day event in the future. I'm somewhat lukewarm about this idea. I just can't envision some random schmo from Brooklyn who didn't actually "win" crossing the finish line first. The only way I see a two-day marathon working is to separate the men's and women's events entirely. Have the women go on Saturday and the men go on Sunday. That way, the first person to cross the line each day is an actual winner of the race.
- I'm starting to rethink my position on the Colts drafting Andrew Luck. I've been saying all along that they obviously don't need a quarterback (the fact that their quarterback's out is the main reason why they're in this position in the first place). They really won't next season when Peyton's back. But it wouldn't be a bad idea to draft Luck and have him apprentice behind a Hall of Famer for a couple years. Just ask the Packers how well that plan can work out. It could benefit Luck, too. If he goes to Indy, not only does he get to learn behind Peyton, but he won't be in the position where he's starting from day one and automatically anointed as the franchise "savior."
- Am I the only person who's completely confused by what's going on in the NFL this season? Other than the Packers, you have no idea who's going to win each week, let alone who the second-best team is. (That's clearly been my problem with my picks this season.) And then there are the teams that came out of nowhere like Cincinnati and Buffalo. Behind Green Bay, the rest of my top five NFL power rankings is: 2. San Francisco, 3. Baltimore, 4. Detroit, 5. Giants.
- Tony Stewart has won four straight Sprint Cup races and is now just three points behind leader Carl Edwards with two races remaining. I don't really have a preference one way or the other. I'm just happy that it's finally going to be somebody other than Jimmie Johnson that wins the championship.
- David Stern and the NBA owners are still trying to convince themselves that there's going to be a labor deal in place that will still allow them to have a season. The rest of us know that they're fooling themselves, so why don't they? The players seem perfectly content to go without playing for the foreseeable future, which they should take as a sign.
- The Mets are moving in the fences at Citi Field. Evidently they realized that the stadium is a little too big. In the five games I've been to at Citi Field since it opened, I've seen a grand total of one home run, which didn't even go out (it hit the orange line on the top of the wall). Bringing the fences in was necessary if they ever want a hitter to come play for the Mets. The best part is that the "Mo's Zone," that stupid area in right field where the wall is 15 feet further back than it should be, will be eliminated. What made the "Mo's Zone" even stupider is that there was an overhang that jutted out that same 15 feet, and if it hit the overhang, it was a homer.
- I think the fine institutions that make up the BCS conferences are done being selfish, greedy hypocrites (at least for this year). The only school I'm letting off scott-free in all this conference-jumping is TCU, which is the only one that made its decision based on the best interest of all its student-athletes. The West Virginia thing is the latest disgusting twist in this whole mess. They're suing the Big East to get out early, claiming that they can't be held to the exit time frame that every Big East school agreed to when joining the conference. All of these moves were exclusively about football, which we all already knew. The worst part is that all of the travel these athletic departments will now be making all of their other student-athletes do will mean they'll rely on the football money even more.
- Call me blissfully ignorant, but I do think that Joe Paterno was being honest when he said he didn't know anything about these sexual assault allegations against the former Penn State assistant. He saw something and reported it to the AD, which was his job. If Paterno had known, that guy would've been fired long before he was. He doesn't strike me as the type to turn a blind eye to that sort of thing.
- The term "all-star" was used very loosely for the MLB team that played five games in Taiwan. Robinson Cano and Curtis Granderson were there, and so was Pablo Sandoval, but the rest of them certainly don't qualify as all-stars. It was a bunch of random Marlins and Nationals, with the occasional Royal or Oriole thrown in. The starting catcher was Drew Butera, who's Joe Mauer's backup in Minnesota. I was watching one game where Kansas City's Felipe Paulino started, then was relieved by some completely random middle reliever from Washington who went a whopping 1-5 last season.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Week 9 Picks
It's hard to believe that we're already halfway through the football season, isn't it? It's also hard to believe that we can't figure out who's the second-best team behind the Packers. Is it the Steelers? Is it the 49ers? Is it the Lions? Is it the Ravens? Is it the Patriots? We'll obviously start finding some of this stuff out as the season goes on, starting with this week, which boasts a couple of intriguing matchups.
Jets (4-3) at Bills (5-2): Buffalo-This game feels like it's almost a must-win for the Jets, who sit behind both the Bills and Patriots in the AFC East. However, the Jets play both teams in the next two weeks, so they can definitely jump back in the race. They're coming off their bye week, which was preceded by an important win over the Chargers. However, the Jets are 0-3 on the road this season. The Bills, meanwhile, look like a serious contender for the first time in years. They've already beaten the Patriots, and a victory over the Jets will firmly establish them as a legitimate force to be reckoned with. Circle the wagons. The Bills are coming.
Seahawks (2-5) at Cowboys (3-4): Dallas-Dallas continued its usual M.O. of looking good one week then terrible the next in last Sunday night's loss to the Eagles. The Seahawks, meanwhile, have scored 15 points in two games since beating the Giants. The Cowboys get back to .500.
Falcons (4-3) at Colts (0-8): Atlanta-I seriously think Peyton Manning should be in the MVP discussion. Yes, he hasn't played a game, but would the Colts be 0-8 if he was playing? No. They'd be the Colts. But alas, they still haven't won. Following my self-imposed rules, I'll continue picking against them until they do.
Dolphins (0-7) at Chiefs (4-3): Kansas City-The also-winless Dolphins might be the only team in football worse than the Colts right now. Indy can at least blame injuries. Miami is clueless. Don't worry Dolphins fans, Andrew Luck is coming. The Chiefs, meanwhile, barely resemble the team that got slaughtered by the Bills and Lions to start the season. After that win over San Diego on Monday night, they're in a three-way tie for first in the AFC West. This one's an easy pick.
Buccaneers (4-3) at Saints (5-3): New Orleans-These two played just three weeks ago in Tampa and the Bucs picked up a statement win. New Orleans has a half-game lead in the NFC South standings and needs to win this one. If the Bucs win, that'll give them a sweep of the season series, and, assuming the Lions get the first wild card, that tiebreaker could potentially cost the Saints come January. New Orleans won't let that happen. Especially at the Superdome.
49ers (6-1) at Redskins (3-4): San Francisco-After a fast start that saw them actually somehow sitting in first place in the NFC East, reality has begun to set in for the Redskins. Last week in Toronto, a Mike Shanahan-coached team was shutout for the first time ever. The 49ers haven't officially won the NFC West yet, but, let's face it, San Francisco's already playing for a first-round bye. Whether or not they're for real is a question that will continue to persist (for the record, I think they ARE for real), but the Niners should move to 7-1 with another road win.
Browns (3-4) at Texans (5-3): Houston-First-place Houston continues to prove it's the team to beat in the AFC South. The Browns, meanwhile, are the only team out of the race in the AFC North. Cleveland doesn't have a favorable matchup this week, and the road's only going to get tougher for the Browns. The Texans win at home ahead of their tough road game in Tampa next week.
Bengals (5-2) at Titans (4-3): Cincinnati-I was wrong about the Cincinnati Bengals. Evidently they do know what they're doing. This game is a definite toss-up that could go either way. My gut tells me Cincinnati, so that's what I'm going with.
Broncos (2-5) at Raiders (4-3): Oakland-This battle in the AFC West is going to come down to the wire. That means all three teams need to take care of business against Denver. The Raiders have had two weeks to think about their 28-0 loss to Kansas City, but the bye week also gave Carson Palmer extra time to get familiar with Oakland's system. The addition of T.J. Houshmandzadeh, one of his favorite receivers in Cincinnati, should help, too. The Raiders win.
Giants (5-2) at Patriots (5-2): New England-The last time these two teams met, it was "One Giant Upset" over the undefeated Pats in Super Bowl XLII. This year's Patriots are definitely flawed, especially on defense, as the Steelers exposed last week. Meanwhile, the Giants barely escaped against a bad Dolphins team. But, they're in first place and they've played better on the road this season. However, I think I'm leaning in New England's direction. There's a reason the Patriots haven't lost back-to-back games in a long time. I also doubt Belichick's forgotten the Super Bowl. Revenge could definitely come into play here.
Rams (1-6) at Cardinals (1-6): St. Louis-St. Louis somehow beat New Orleans last week. Arizona somehow almost beat Baltimore last week. Now these two bad teams get to play each other, meaning one has to win. The NFC West at its finest.
Packers (7-0) at Chargers (4-3): San Diego-Once the Packers and Lions were the only two undefeated teams left, I started looking down both teams' schedules to see if it was possible for them to both be undefeated when they play on Thanksgiving. That obviously won't happen, but while combing through Green Bay's schedule, I thought to myself that Week 9 at San Diego could be their first loss. I don't know why, but I'm sticking with that feeling and taking the Chargers. I think San Diego's the best team in the AFC West, and they certainly need to rebound after road losses to the Jets and Chiefs. I'd also be willing to bet that to a certain extent FOX wishes Giants-Patriots was another weekend. Going against that matchup is the only thing that prevented this one from being a yummy national game.
Ravens (5-2) at Steelers (6-2): Pittsburgh-Speaking of yummy national games, we get what's currently the best rivalry in the NFL on Sunday night. The Steelers made a statement by beating the Patriots last week. In fact, I think Pittsburgh is the second-best team in the NFL. They take a half-game lead in the AFC North into their second meeting of the season with the archrival Ravens. Don't think Pittsburgh's forgotten that drubbing they took in Baltimore in Week 1. Since beating the Texans in Week 6, the Ravens laid an egg against the Jaguars before needing a huge comeback to barely survive against Arizona. Maybe the Ravens were playing down to their competition and playing a good team will be good for them. But the Steelers know that they need to win this one to avoid Baltimore automatically having the tiebreaker if they finish tied. Plus, Pittsburgh's playing much better football now and is at home. In typical Steelers-Ravens fashion, there'll be a lot of hard hits and a lot of penalties in a defensive struggle that someone wins by a field goal. That team will be the Steelers, 17-14.
Bears (4-3) at Eagles (3-4): Philadelphia-Has a 3-4 record ever looked so good? After starting 1-4, Philadelphia is finally starting to look like the team we all thought they would be. Look out for the Eagles in the second half! Chicago hasn't lost since the last time it played on Monday night, winning two straight before its bye week. If the Bears have any shot at the playoffs, they need to collect as many non-division wins as they can. But getting one in Philadelphia against an Eagles team that's finally clicking might be a tough task.
Last Week: 10-3
Season: 73-42
Jets (4-3) at Bills (5-2): Buffalo-This game feels like it's almost a must-win for the Jets, who sit behind both the Bills and Patriots in the AFC East. However, the Jets play both teams in the next two weeks, so they can definitely jump back in the race. They're coming off their bye week, which was preceded by an important win over the Chargers. However, the Jets are 0-3 on the road this season. The Bills, meanwhile, look like a serious contender for the first time in years. They've already beaten the Patriots, and a victory over the Jets will firmly establish them as a legitimate force to be reckoned with. Circle the wagons. The Bills are coming.
Seahawks (2-5) at Cowboys (3-4): Dallas-Dallas continued its usual M.O. of looking good one week then terrible the next in last Sunday night's loss to the Eagles. The Seahawks, meanwhile, have scored 15 points in two games since beating the Giants. The Cowboys get back to .500.
Falcons (4-3) at Colts (0-8): Atlanta-I seriously think Peyton Manning should be in the MVP discussion. Yes, he hasn't played a game, but would the Colts be 0-8 if he was playing? No. They'd be the Colts. But alas, they still haven't won. Following my self-imposed rules, I'll continue picking against them until they do.
Dolphins (0-7) at Chiefs (4-3): Kansas City-The also-winless Dolphins might be the only team in football worse than the Colts right now. Indy can at least blame injuries. Miami is clueless. Don't worry Dolphins fans, Andrew Luck is coming. The Chiefs, meanwhile, barely resemble the team that got slaughtered by the Bills and Lions to start the season. After that win over San Diego on Monday night, they're in a three-way tie for first in the AFC West. This one's an easy pick.
Buccaneers (4-3) at Saints (5-3): New Orleans-These two played just three weeks ago in Tampa and the Bucs picked up a statement win. New Orleans has a half-game lead in the NFC South standings and needs to win this one. If the Bucs win, that'll give them a sweep of the season series, and, assuming the Lions get the first wild card, that tiebreaker could potentially cost the Saints come January. New Orleans won't let that happen. Especially at the Superdome.
49ers (6-1) at Redskins (3-4): San Francisco-After a fast start that saw them actually somehow sitting in first place in the NFC East, reality has begun to set in for the Redskins. Last week in Toronto, a Mike Shanahan-coached team was shutout for the first time ever. The 49ers haven't officially won the NFC West yet, but, let's face it, San Francisco's already playing for a first-round bye. Whether or not they're for real is a question that will continue to persist (for the record, I think they ARE for real), but the Niners should move to 7-1 with another road win.
Browns (3-4) at Texans (5-3): Houston-First-place Houston continues to prove it's the team to beat in the AFC South. The Browns, meanwhile, are the only team out of the race in the AFC North. Cleveland doesn't have a favorable matchup this week, and the road's only going to get tougher for the Browns. The Texans win at home ahead of their tough road game in Tampa next week.
Bengals (5-2) at Titans (4-3): Cincinnati-I was wrong about the Cincinnati Bengals. Evidently they do know what they're doing. This game is a definite toss-up that could go either way. My gut tells me Cincinnati, so that's what I'm going with.
Broncos (2-5) at Raiders (4-3): Oakland-This battle in the AFC West is going to come down to the wire. That means all three teams need to take care of business against Denver. The Raiders have had two weeks to think about their 28-0 loss to Kansas City, but the bye week also gave Carson Palmer extra time to get familiar with Oakland's system. The addition of T.J. Houshmandzadeh, one of his favorite receivers in Cincinnati, should help, too. The Raiders win.
Giants (5-2) at Patriots (5-2): New England-The last time these two teams met, it was "One Giant Upset" over the undefeated Pats in Super Bowl XLII. This year's Patriots are definitely flawed, especially on defense, as the Steelers exposed last week. Meanwhile, the Giants barely escaped against a bad Dolphins team. But, they're in first place and they've played better on the road this season. However, I think I'm leaning in New England's direction. There's a reason the Patriots haven't lost back-to-back games in a long time. I also doubt Belichick's forgotten the Super Bowl. Revenge could definitely come into play here.
Rams (1-6) at Cardinals (1-6): St. Louis-St. Louis somehow beat New Orleans last week. Arizona somehow almost beat Baltimore last week. Now these two bad teams get to play each other, meaning one has to win. The NFC West at its finest.
Packers (7-0) at Chargers (4-3): San Diego-Once the Packers and Lions were the only two undefeated teams left, I started looking down both teams' schedules to see if it was possible for them to both be undefeated when they play on Thanksgiving. That obviously won't happen, but while combing through Green Bay's schedule, I thought to myself that Week 9 at San Diego could be their first loss. I don't know why, but I'm sticking with that feeling and taking the Chargers. I think San Diego's the best team in the AFC West, and they certainly need to rebound after road losses to the Jets and Chiefs. I'd also be willing to bet that to a certain extent FOX wishes Giants-Patriots was another weekend. Going against that matchup is the only thing that prevented this one from being a yummy national game.
Ravens (5-2) at Steelers (6-2): Pittsburgh-Speaking of yummy national games, we get what's currently the best rivalry in the NFL on Sunday night. The Steelers made a statement by beating the Patriots last week. In fact, I think Pittsburgh is the second-best team in the NFL. They take a half-game lead in the AFC North into their second meeting of the season with the archrival Ravens. Don't think Pittsburgh's forgotten that drubbing they took in Baltimore in Week 1. Since beating the Texans in Week 6, the Ravens laid an egg against the Jaguars before needing a huge comeback to barely survive against Arizona. Maybe the Ravens were playing down to their competition and playing a good team will be good for them. But the Steelers know that they need to win this one to avoid Baltimore automatically having the tiebreaker if they finish tied. Plus, Pittsburgh's playing much better football now and is at home. In typical Steelers-Ravens fashion, there'll be a lot of hard hits and a lot of penalties in a defensive struggle that someone wins by a field goal. That team will be the Steelers, 17-14.
Bears (4-3) at Eagles (3-4): Philadelphia-Has a 3-4 record ever looked so good? After starting 1-4, Philadelphia is finally starting to look like the team we all thought they would be. Look out for the Eagles in the second half! Chicago hasn't lost since the last time it played on Monday night, winning two straight before its bye week. If the Bears have any shot at the playoffs, they need to collect as many non-division wins as they can. But getting one in Philadelphia against an Eagles team that's finally clicking might be a tough task.
Last Week: 10-3
Season: 73-42
Thursday, November 3, 2011
A Step In the Right Direction
Did you all enjoy my NBA preview the other day? Ha ha. Just kidding! I do want to talk about some guys that will probably be in the NBA soon, though. I'm of course talking about college basketball players.
The NCAA recently passed legislation that allows student-athletes to receive a stipend of up to $2,000 in addition to their scholarships. Critics of this new rule claim that this is the beginning of the end of the NCAA as a strictly amateur organization. Mind you, these are many of the same critics that argued it was unfair the student-athletes didn't receive any sort of compensation for their services other than a scholarship. Their argument is: "Now that they're getting $2,000, what's to stop some schools from giving $5,000?"
For starters, that argument doesn't make any sense. Whether or not they want to, schools can't give student-athletes more than $2,000 per year ($1,000 per semester) as a stipend. The reason this rule was even discussed is because the value of a full scholarship doesn't cover the full cost of attending college. It covers tuition, books and room & board, but not things like food, travel, etc. As a result, student-athletes were still paying a significant amount out-of-pocket despite having a "full" scholarship. (Just imagine how much out-of-pocket student-athletes on partial scholarships have to pay per semester.) This is designed to be a remedy to that.
$1,000 a semester isn't a lot, but it's enough. In fact, it's roughly the same amount regular students receive in federal work study. Nobody has a problem with that. Most student-athletes don't have time to find work study jobs, let alone something off-campus. As a result, there previously wasn't a way for them to do something as simple as order a pizza with there roommates or go out on a date. All this is doing is making it so that student-athletes can enjoy the same college experience other students enjoy.
This isn't the end of amateurism as we know it. It's a way to make an inherently unfair system a little bit fairer. And just maybe, it'll help curb the blatant rules-breaking that has run amok among athletes at BCS schools lately. I'm not condoning knowingly and deliberately breaking NCAA rules, but I'd be willing to bet (no pun intended) that many of the athletes who accepted "extra benefits" felt justified in doing so. "If my school is making money off me and I can't even afford to pay my rent, why shouldn't I be allowed to have a piece of the pie?" Especially with the size of these TV contracts that lead to all this disgusting conference-jumping. It doesn't make it right, but you do kind of have to see their point.
The other big change involves the scholarship structure. Previously, scholarships were one-year agreements that were renewable each year. Now schools have the option of offering multi-year scholarships, going all the way to a full four-year commitment. Furthermore, they can no longer be terminated based on performance alone. Doing something stupid like getting arrested or flunking out of school are still valid reasons to be kicked off a team. As they should be. Point is, now schools will be more invested in these student-athletes, and these student-athletes will be more invested in the program.
Yes, the offering of a student-athlete stipend does open up a can of worms. The NCAA didn't mandate these changes. They just said that it's an option schools now have. That obviously means the BCS schools will choose to utilize this new rule, while smaller schools that don't have the budget probably won't be able to afford it, since giving the football players a stipend means you have to give one to the women's soccer players and female gymnasts, too. This could be a huge recruiting advantage (why go to Illinois when you can go to Michigan and get $2,000 in addition to your scholarship?), as well as possibly creating an even larger gap between the haves and have-nots of college sports.
Even with these new rules in place, there are still going to be shameless boosters that try to get around the system. But I'm going to choose to look at the positive. This gives student-athletes the chance to enjoy being college students. Yes, some of the football and basketball players are going to make their millions when they leave college, but they aren't yet. And they deserve the chance to be regular college students, too.
The NCAA recently passed legislation that allows student-athletes to receive a stipend of up to $2,000 in addition to their scholarships. Critics of this new rule claim that this is the beginning of the end of the NCAA as a strictly amateur organization. Mind you, these are many of the same critics that argued it was unfair the student-athletes didn't receive any sort of compensation for their services other than a scholarship. Their argument is: "Now that they're getting $2,000, what's to stop some schools from giving $5,000?"
For starters, that argument doesn't make any sense. Whether or not they want to, schools can't give student-athletes more than $2,000 per year ($1,000 per semester) as a stipend. The reason this rule was even discussed is because the value of a full scholarship doesn't cover the full cost of attending college. It covers tuition, books and room & board, but not things like food, travel, etc. As a result, student-athletes were still paying a significant amount out-of-pocket despite having a "full" scholarship. (Just imagine how much out-of-pocket student-athletes on partial scholarships have to pay per semester.) This is designed to be a remedy to that.
$1,000 a semester isn't a lot, but it's enough. In fact, it's roughly the same amount regular students receive in federal work study. Nobody has a problem with that. Most student-athletes don't have time to find work study jobs, let alone something off-campus. As a result, there previously wasn't a way for them to do something as simple as order a pizza with there roommates or go out on a date. All this is doing is making it so that student-athletes can enjoy the same college experience other students enjoy.
This isn't the end of amateurism as we know it. It's a way to make an inherently unfair system a little bit fairer. And just maybe, it'll help curb the blatant rules-breaking that has run amok among athletes at BCS schools lately. I'm not condoning knowingly and deliberately breaking NCAA rules, but I'd be willing to bet (no pun intended) that many of the athletes who accepted "extra benefits" felt justified in doing so. "If my school is making money off me and I can't even afford to pay my rent, why shouldn't I be allowed to have a piece of the pie?" Especially with the size of these TV contracts that lead to all this disgusting conference-jumping. It doesn't make it right, but you do kind of have to see their point.
The other big change involves the scholarship structure. Previously, scholarships were one-year agreements that were renewable each year. Now schools have the option of offering multi-year scholarships, going all the way to a full four-year commitment. Furthermore, they can no longer be terminated based on performance alone. Doing something stupid like getting arrested or flunking out of school are still valid reasons to be kicked off a team. As they should be. Point is, now schools will be more invested in these student-athletes, and these student-athletes will be more invested in the program.
Yes, the offering of a student-athlete stipend does open up a can of worms. The NCAA didn't mandate these changes. They just said that it's an option schools now have. That obviously means the BCS schools will choose to utilize this new rule, while smaller schools that don't have the budget probably won't be able to afford it, since giving the football players a stipend means you have to give one to the women's soccer players and female gymnasts, too. This could be a huge recruiting advantage (why go to Illinois when you can go to Michigan and get $2,000 in addition to your scholarship?), as well as possibly creating an even larger gap between the haves and have-nots of college sports.
Even with these new rules in place, there are still going to be shameless boosters that try to get around the system. But I'm going to choose to look at the positive. This gives student-athletes the chance to enjoy being college students. Yes, some of the football and basketball players are going to make their millions when they leave college, but they aren't yet. And they deserve the chance to be regular college students, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)