I must thank the Baltimore Ravens for providing me with the topic for this post. Although there certainly isn’t a shortage of issues to talk about, I haven’t really felt compelled to write about anything recently. With the Winter Olympics underway, I hope to write down a few opinions on these events in the coming days. I’ve made similar promises before, so don’t hold your breath waiting for my next entry.
Anyway, about these Ravens…
Like most ridiculous stories, it is often times difficult to decide where to begin. With all of their current stable of wide receivers headed for free agency, the Ravens apparently thought their position was so dire that they needed to go out and start signing convicted criminals. Enter Donte Stallworth. In case you are unaware, Stallworth pleaded guilty to DUI vehicular manslaughter in which he killed a Miami construction worker after a night of drinking. He did all of this about a year after signing a mega-deal with the Cleveland Browns. You can check out all of the details related to his court sentence and the subsequent one-year suspension that was levied by the NFL here.
While it is embarrassing enough for the pathetic legal system that only sentenced him to 30 days in jail (of which he served only 24 days) to be shown up by the NFL and their not-as-limp-wristed-but-still-pretty-lame year-long suspension, for any team to immediately sign this guy is another awful twist in an already pitiful exhibition. I wonder what horrifying atrocities a player needs to commit in order to receive a lifetime ban from the NFL or, at the very least, for teams to not jump at the first chance to sign them?
One of the things that came to mind for me will be to see what kind of a public outcry there will be against the Ravens for signing Stallworth and against Stallworth himself in comparison to Michael Vick. I won’t get into the debate about whether torturing and killing dogs is worse than getting liquored up and running over a human being – I’ll leave that up to my sophisticated readership to figure out on their own. At the very least, there should be some sort of equal public displeasure with this particular personnel decision by the Ravens. Unfortunately, I doubt we will see the same sort of fanatical protests for the Ravens and Stallworth as was seen for the Eagles and Vick. We can already see that it wasn’t as hard or as long a process for Stallworth to find a new job as it was for Vick.
Beyond the Vick comparisons, I am just ashamed of my hometown team for feeling it necessary to immediately sign this guy. Winning is nice, but at what cost? And sure, I am in favor of everyone getting a second chance. Unfortunately, not everyone gets a second chance. It appears that second chances are primarily reserved only for the very gifted or the well-connected among us. Dose anyone out there believe that the initial punishment or the ability to receive a second chance in his profession is anything close to the type of treatment that any normal citizen would receive?
Further, when looking at second chances and athletes, the staggering amount of money they make to play a game makes it even worse. Typically, I don’t have any problem with athletes' high-dollar contracts. If you are among the top performers in your profession, I believe that you should be rewarded as such. Although Stallworth is set to make a fraction of the total value of his old contract with the Browns (now having since been made into confetti), he is still set to make $900,000 for one year of work, plus incentives that could add up to an additional $300,000. There should be a different set of salary rules for criminals who are allowed to re-enter the league – especially for people who plead guilty to manslaughter (like Stallworth).
Maybe I’m just being stupid, but I will find it very difficult to cheer for this guy.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Moving On...
Ok, so it appears that this really is the blog that everyone has been “waiting” for. Unfortunately for me and my devoted readers, it appears that it takes me a little longer to devote the necessary time towards making thorough, thoughtful posts about a particular subject. Either way, the waiting is now over and I’m on to my next topic of disgust…
The BCS.
Recently, I read that the US Government appears poised to act in an attempt to change or eliminate the BCS in favor of a playoff system. That appears to be quite unnecessary when you consider all the other major issues that the President, Congress, and all their ancillary personnel could be addressing. I’ve never been a big fan of the BCS, but I’ve also never held the venomous contempt for it that so many other college football fans share. As such, if anything is to change about the BCS, I would hope that it could come about without the “help” of the Federal Government.
Personally, I think all systems that could be used to establish a champion for college football are flawed. People complain about the BCS now because it shuts out a lot of teams from a chance to be in the BCS Championship Game. That seems reasonable enough, but where does it stop? A four team playoff? Eight team? More? Who decides who makes the cut? Wouldn’t that just be based on the same rankings that are already used by the BCS or the Coaches Poll? Just like anything, there will always be people who will complain and there will always be teams that will be shut out from being able to compete in any playoff system.
When I think about the BCS or any playoff system, I first want to determine what the point is for any of these systems. What defines a team as being a championship team? Are the playoffs the best gauge to find the best team for that given year or the best team during the playoffs? For the most part, it would appear that playoffs do not always find the best team for a particular year or are a completely pointless exercise altogether.
For an example of what I mean, let’s look at the NFL. This year, the Saints went 13-3 this year and were the #1 seed in the NFC. The Colts went 14-2 and were the #1 seed in the AFC. It could be argued that, through their performance in the regular season, both were the best teams in their respective conference. Through their performances in the playoffs, they have maintained that distinction and they are now set to play each other for the championship. In this instance, it appears that the playoffs system in the NFL was an unnecessary practice.
Look at most other sports and you’ll see that the higher ranked teams are usually still winning the championships over their lower ranked competitors. This could be because they are truly the better team and/or because they get favorable match-ups through the seeding process that is typically locked into any type of playoff system. In either case, it appears to me that a playoff system is mostly a waste of time. It provides more games and more intrigue, but does it provide any better results? In the cases where lower ranked/lower seeded teams happen to win a championship (like the 2000 Baltimore Ravens, 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers, or 2006 St. Louis Cardinals), can it be said that the best team actually won the championship for that year – as opposed to just being the best team in the playoffs? In the same way that a lesser team can “get lucky” and beat a better team during the regular season, the same can happen during the playoffs. The only difference is when the match-up between teams actually occurs. In either case, if the purpose of crowning a champion is to find the “best” team, could you really argue that losing during the regular season or the playoffs makes any difference?
Coming back to college football – it is important to take into account the few distinct variables between college and pro (the number of teams, different conferences, etc.) when thinking about solutions for picking a champion. Most of these items are taken into account with the BCS. Check out this “brief” synopsis of the BCS: http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_explained.html. It is fantastically confusing and, I think, that is what makes it so great – er, appropriate – for college football.
Any bracket-style playoff system is just as inherently flawed as people have suggested the BCS to be. It would be unfortunate to see college football abandon the BCS in favor of a four, eight, or more team playoff system. This just appears to be a dumbed-down version of the system they already have in place and will not eliminate any controversy.
The BCS.
Recently, I read that the US Government appears poised to act in an attempt to change or eliminate the BCS in favor of a playoff system. That appears to be quite unnecessary when you consider all the other major issues that the President, Congress, and all their ancillary personnel could be addressing. I’ve never been a big fan of the BCS, but I’ve also never held the venomous contempt for it that so many other college football fans share. As such, if anything is to change about the BCS, I would hope that it could come about without the “help” of the Federal Government.
Personally, I think all systems that could be used to establish a champion for college football are flawed. People complain about the BCS now because it shuts out a lot of teams from a chance to be in the BCS Championship Game. That seems reasonable enough, but where does it stop? A four team playoff? Eight team? More? Who decides who makes the cut? Wouldn’t that just be based on the same rankings that are already used by the BCS or the Coaches Poll? Just like anything, there will always be people who will complain and there will always be teams that will be shut out from being able to compete in any playoff system.
When I think about the BCS or any playoff system, I first want to determine what the point is for any of these systems. What defines a team as being a championship team? Are the playoffs the best gauge to find the best team for that given year or the best team during the playoffs? For the most part, it would appear that playoffs do not always find the best team for a particular year or are a completely pointless exercise altogether.
For an example of what I mean, let’s look at the NFL. This year, the Saints went 13-3 this year and were the #1 seed in the NFC. The Colts went 14-2 and were the #1 seed in the AFC. It could be argued that, through their performance in the regular season, both were the best teams in their respective conference. Through their performances in the playoffs, they have maintained that distinction and they are now set to play each other for the championship. In this instance, it appears that the playoffs system in the NFL was an unnecessary practice.
Look at most other sports and you’ll see that the higher ranked teams are usually still winning the championships over their lower ranked competitors. This could be because they are truly the better team and/or because they get favorable match-ups through the seeding process that is typically locked into any type of playoff system. In either case, it appears to me that a playoff system is mostly a waste of time. It provides more games and more intrigue, but does it provide any better results? In the cases where lower ranked/lower seeded teams happen to win a championship (like the 2000 Baltimore Ravens, 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers, or 2006 St. Louis Cardinals), can it be said that the best team actually won the championship for that year – as opposed to just being the best team in the playoffs? In the same way that a lesser team can “get lucky” and beat a better team during the regular season, the same can happen during the playoffs. The only difference is when the match-up between teams actually occurs. In either case, if the purpose of crowning a champion is to find the “best” team, could you really argue that losing during the regular season or the playoffs makes any difference?
Coming back to college football – it is important to take into account the few distinct variables between college and pro (the number of teams, different conferences, etc.) when thinking about solutions for picking a champion. Most of these items are taken into account with the BCS. Check out this “brief” synopsis of the BCS: http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_explained.html. It is fantastically confusing and, I think, that is what makes it so great – er, appropriate – for college football.
Any bracket-style playoff system is just as inherently flawed as people have suggested the BCS to be. It would be unfortunate to see college football abandon the BCS in favor of a four, eight, or more team playoff system. This just appears to be a dumbed-down version of the system they already have in place and will not eliminate any controversy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)