College Football Week 8

The sliding fastener, or as we know it, the "zipper" was invented in 1890 by Whitcomb L. Judson. Did you know that? It's alright if you didn't, neither did I, but I suppose it's good information to know now that we do. Actually, I think from now on, when the zipper jams or breaks on my sweatshirt or jacket, I will react appropriately by raising a clenched fist before me and muttering...damn it, Judson!

Anyway, Whitcomb L. Judson was apparently born in New York City and died in Chicago, but it's the places of residence in between that interest me most. My research has failed me a bit, but I have reason to suspect that Judson at least at one point, maybe even in 1890 when he came up with this most useful invention, resided somewhere in between New York and Chicago, in like...say...Akron, Ohio. Of course, I could be wrong about this, but it would explain how it came to be that when summer turns to fall at the brand new InfoCision Stadium- Summa Field in Akron, a mascot kangaroo named Zippy hops onto the field, followed shortly after by the University of Akron Zips football team. And then, apparently, they get murdered. Damn it, Judson!

Yes, the Akron Zips are officially 2010's first team to lose 7 games, and subsequently bowl consideration as well. And it's with this that I offer to you another standard that I utilize when preparing my weekly rankings: no consideration, none whatsoever, will be given to any team for beating an opponent that zips out 7 or more losses. Of course, it won't count against them either, just as an early victory against an FCS level opponent did not, but in a system such as mine, which is supposed to be objective and offers credit for the difficulty in a team's schedule in terms of actual wins and losses...well, no...no more credit for beating the Akron Zips. Here are my rankings this week:

1 LSU (7-0)
2 Michigan State (7-0)
3 Oklahoma (6-0)
4 Oregon (6-0)
5 Wisconsin (6-1)
6 Auburn (7-0)
7 Ohio State (6-1)
8 Stanford (5-1)
9 TCU (7-0)
10 Boise State (6-0)
11 West Virginia (5-1)
12 Florida State (6-1)
13 Missouri (6-0)
14 Oklahoma State (6-0)
15 Utah (6-0)
16 Miami (FL) (4-2)
17 Mississippi State (5-2)
18 Arizona (5-1)
19 Iowa (5-1)
20 Michigan (5-2)
21 Texas (4-2)
22 Nebraska (5-1)
23 Kansas State (5-1)
24 South Carolina (4-2)
25 Alabama (6-1)

I suppose the team that really needs to be discussed this week is the last team on the list, #25 Alabama. Look, like Boise State, we all know, or at least we think we know that they are very good, far better than this ranking indicates. But the truth is that Alabama's opponents to date haven't really fared all that well in other games played. Their victory last week against Ole Miss appeared to be a sign of Alabama getting back on track, but then there's this. Two weeks ago when Alabama lost to South Carolina, they didn't really drop all that far in my rankings, as South Carolina was looking like not so ugly of a loss, but then this happened. Penn State was Alabama's biggest non-conference opponent and the Tide looked impressive that day...except then ouch. And of course, ever since the biggest game of the season, the one that could decide everything against Florida, a triumphant and impressive victory, things just haven't gone that well for the Gators either. So that pretty much leaves the Tide's biggest win as their thrilling comeback victory over Arkansas, but well, I guess you know what's coming.

Not all is lost for Alabama.Their schedule has failed them so far. So what? They play in the SEC, the best of the best! If they win there against those teams, they will have no problem launching themselves back atop the board, particularly in my rankings which are proving to be very fluid in that teams can move up and down at any rate that their successes, failures and their schedules allow them to. The only thing I'm kind of left wondering about Alabama is whether or not they will actually win all of these remaining games; it does occur to me that maybe this just isn't their year.

And finally, there is one more team to discuss. If you have been keeping up with my blog from the beginning, then you will already know that I have been particularly harsh on Nebraska and the non-conference schedule that they signed up for this season. Well, if you thought that the Huskers' schedule was pathetic, check out this one. That's right, Indiana, a BCS conference school has played this season: FCS Towson, Western Kentucky (0-6), barely beat Arkansas State (2-5) and, oh what do you know? The Akron Zips!!! I know, I know, kicking around the University of Indiana football team is not really worth my time. After all, it's not like they make the kind of claims that Nebraska fans insist on...but still...a Big 10 school...are you kidding me with this schedule? The thing is about Indiana, and why it's pertinent to my rankings, is that their only two losses are to Michigan and Ohio State, two teams that I have ranked, so had Indiana beaten anyone at all of any significance they would file in at #21 behind Michigan for being undefeated against the field of which they are being compared. But my system picks up on this disparity and kicks them out accordingly. We'll at least wait to see what they do against 3 loss, but BCS conference, foe Illinois this weekend and then maybe give them some acknowledgement. Of course though, they will probably lose that one too.

College Football Week 7

My brothers, myself, and a few friends of ours have a term that we like to refer to as "no credit games." Now, a lot of games can offer very little credential for victory, yet this is not exactly what we mean. Instead, the games that we are referring to are games against teams that our teams very well could lose to, but should we win, no credit whatsoever will be granted for the accomplishment. In other words, these opponents are fairly equipped, yet nobody really recognizes it. Boise State was once one of those teams, as were TCU and Utah. But these teams are examples of programs that have made the leap to absolute acknowledgement. It's all a bit relative, but essentially the more time a team spends atop the national spotlight, the more prestige someone gets for knocking them off, not that anyone ever takes down Boise State or TCU anyway, except for each other.

Thursday night, the spot-light will be on the Sunflower State, as it was multiple times this past basketball season and was this very same time last week for Kansas State in football. It's been well discussed at this point, that the game did not go well for Kitty Cat hopefuls last Thursday. However, their opponant this time around, Kansas, is extraordinarly ugly this season and has no business being profiled in any "spot-light" game. So Kansas State should win this time around, right? One would think, but I've already offered my condolensces on such topics as attempting to project outcomes and I'm not likely to take another stab at it anytime soon. Just for the sake of argument though, let's say the Cats win, it doesn't really matter by how much, a road game against a rival leaves little room for criticism in a resulting victory. But they win. What's interesting is that beating 4 loss (with more to come) Kansas would generate far more credit than their earlier victory against Central Florida ever did. Is this wrong? Absolutely.

A team like Central Florida is exactly what we are talking about when we discuss the concept of "no credit games." They have lost two games, each against 1 loss BCS conference teams, North Carolina State and of course, Kansas State. Each were close, here's what NC State Coach Tom O'Brien had to say about their meeting with this no credit team:  "That was a heck of a win for our team," O'Brien said. "A couple of big, big turnovers were the difference in the game, but it's always that way. Turnovers and penalties decide games." Heck of a win? Yes. All Central Florida has done is blow everyone else out, besides the one near miss at Kansas State. Any credit at all achieved that day? Not likely. But hey, by beating Georgia Tech 2 weeks later, the Wolfpack earned themselves all the credit that they needed! Except...well...Kansas did that. To me, the most damning concern regarding that particular program (NC State) is that they lost to Virginia Tech, a loss that is looking far less disconcerting every week, but nonetheless it did follow a very unfortunate mishap by the Hokies earlier in the season, a loss that I'm not yet ready to disregard and therefore counts against all that they ravage in the mean time.

So I now return to Kansas State. Let's go ahead, proceed inch by inch way out onto that proverbial limb, and actually give them some credit for that "no credit game" against Central Florida. Then combine that with victories against UCLA and Iowa State, two teams that anihilated the only Big 12 Texas teams that we actually respect and suddenly, it's a lot easier to at least slightly overlook the demoralizing beat-down by Nebraska last week, particularly when Nebraska shoots up in my rankings to #6 this week and was already somewhere in that neighborhood by everyone else well before they actually had to play somebody. Is it really that crazy for a team to get blown up by the sixth ranked team in the country? I think not. Now, lose to Kansas on Thursday night and you are not likely to hear much from me for the rest of the season regarding Kansas State. That's fine; I'm not really fond of spending too much time talking about them anyway. My rankings this week:

1 Michigan State (6-0)
2 LSU (6-0)
3 Oklahoma (5-0)
4 Auburn (6-0)
5 Oregon (6-0)
6 Nebraska (5-0)
7 South Carolina (4-1)
8 Alabama (5-1)
9 West Virginia (4-1)
10 Ohio State (6-0)
11 Missouri (5-0)
12 TCU (6-0)
13 Boise State (5-0)
14 Stanford (5-1)
15 Michigan (5-1)
16 Florida State (5-1)
17 Oklahoma State (5-0)
18 Arkansas (4-1)
19 Nevada (6-0)
20 Kansas State (4-1)
21 Utah (5-0)
22 Oregon State (3-2)
23 Arizona (4-1)
24 Florida (4-2)
25 California (3-2)

Ahhh, Michigan State. At #1 no less? I know that Ohio State is the Big 10 team most would expect to see here...if any Big 10 team at all, but consider it a scheduling coincidence. Michigan State has very little to offer in their non-conference offerings, best win being Notre Dame, yet their conference wins to this date have been nails. Ohio State can't claim anywhere close to wins over otherwise undefeated Wisconsin and Michigan. LSU has some nice wins, but most of those are against teams that have compiled at least two losses. Oklahoma has a "no credit game" victory of their own against Air Force and a sold resume building washout of Florida State, but it's still not quite Wisconsin and Michigan. Auburn? Fine, but not quite great. Oregon? Yeah, nice win against Stanford, but that's just about it. No, I'm alright with this selection; Michigan  State can be my number one for at least a week.

College Football Week 6

In the year 1900, William McKinley was President of the United States. That year, the first electric bus became operational in New York City, Hawaii became an official US territory and Carrie Nation began her ever so uncalled for crusade against drinking establishments. The Wright Brothers were busy fooling around with "gliders" and the first zeppelin flight was launched in Germany. In sports, the American Baseball League was created to compete with the already existing National League and in Texas, a month after a hurricane killed 8,000 people in Galveston, the University of Texas football team hosted and defeated the University of Oklahoma by the score of 28-2, in the first meeting between the two programs. They've played some games since.

Actually, I assume that you already know something of the mirth involved with this rivalry, so I see little reason to expand on it too much, other than to state the obvious that it is one of our nation's best...in any sport. My personal experience with it is of relatively little depth, as I grew up somewhat apathetic to UT and was far more familiar with the Oklahoma/Nebraska rivalry, which has become virtually irrelevant over the last ten years and now tilts on the brink of extinction as Nebraska takes off for the tastier TV contract. Nonetheless, I have both friends that received their educations from Texas, as well as those that experienced the Oklahoma version, thus accelerating my familiarity with the event that is the Red River...uhhhh...Rivalry(Shootout? When did that happen?)

Last year, on kind of a whim, I joined my Texas friend, Emily, for one of the Texas watch parties in our area. Catching wind of the idea, my parents opted to join us and together we had a blast, as Texas celebrated in the end and my ordinarily non-Texas fan family (brothers excluded) jumped right in like it was the biggest win of our lives.

Have you ever done this? Gone to a watch party for an out of town school or team at one of your local bars and celebrated that team as if it were your own? Not a bad time, let me tell you. The only problem with the BIG Texas fun we had that day, was that I had previously, on numerous occasions, been invited (by the way, do you now attempt to spell invite e-nvite, because of e-vite? I do.) to Oklahoma watch parties by my Sooner friends, Paul and Earleen. It's not that I felt guilty for not having attended, but my choice to celebrate their greatest rival's victory over them, after never having accepted one of these invitations...well, I didn't really feel like the friend that they deserved me to be. So this year, I gathered up the parents again, and after watching Kansas get crushed by...ahem...Baylor, we headed over to join our friends at the Oklahoma watch party in town. And the party was on.

We call it watch party crashing. And now it's a tradition that we look to continue. It seems that a lot of schools have them in a lot of cities, and I'm already tossing around some ideas for next year. Let me know if you have a recommendation or would just like to start joining us in the newly founded tradition....the more the merrier...that kind of thing. Oh, and if the concept does appeal to you, allow me to suggest trying either Oklahoma or Texas for the Red River Rivalry. Actually, try both!

As for the game itself, well it's fairly clear that Texas just isn't very good this year. But here's the thing that is getting to me, I'm not hearing about much momentum in the Oklahoma corner as of yet. Look, they are undefeated, and it's not like they've cleaned up on a Husker-ish schedule either. They beat Cincinnati, who is down this year, but they also beat Florida State and Air Force, two teams that do not appear to be down at all. And now Texas on a neutral site, and regardless of the Longhorns' difficulties as of yet, Texas is still Texas, not to mention Oklahoma's greatest rival. Pretty impressive stuff to me, at least so far. Others might disagree because of the margins of victory, but did anyone watch the Alabama/Arkansas game...and then Alabama every other week? Alabama is the best team in the country, regardless of the Arkansas score. And Oklahoma is right up there too, regardless of the Cincinnati score. Points don't play here...and my new rankings reflect that:

1 Alabama (5-0)

2 LSU (5-0)
3 Oklahoma (5-0)
4 Auburn (5-0)
5 Florida (4-1)
6 Michigan (5-0)
7 TCU (5-0)
8 Arizona (4-0)
9 Ohio State (5-0)
10 Oregon (5-0)
11 Michigan State (5-0)
12 Oklahoma State (4-0)
13 West Virginia (3-1)
14 Missouri (4-0)
15 Kansas State (4-0)
16 Boise State (4-0)
17 Iowa (4-1)
18 Miami (FL) (3-1)
19 Stanford (4-1)
20 Florida State (4-1)
21 Nebraska (4-0)
22 South Carolina (3-1)
23 Nevada (5-0)
24 Utah (4-0)
25 Northwestern (5-0)

I am only interested in who a team beats, who a team loses to and how many times those losses have occurred. Because of this, I have been admittedly harsh on Nebraska up until now. This all changes Thursday night as Nebraska plays host to undefeated Kansas State. I think they should probably win. We know that their fans think that they should definitely win. It will be fun, and the winner will inevitably start to look quite attractive in my rankings, and I imagine, everyone else's as well.

Have a great week, and again, thank you much for reading!

(Correction: The Kansas State/Nebraska game will be played in Manhattan tonight. Now I'm even less sure Nebraska wins...where is all this confidence coming from? We'll see I guess. Now that I think of it, I did read something from a K State fan about a "no red" policy...this makes much more sense now. I think that I might enjoy this.)

The 2010 Fantasy Baseball Championship

After a fantasy celebration on the fantasy field of a fantasy ballpark with a fantasy capacity crowd, the fantasy players, in a fantastic manner, exited via the fantasy dugout to head down the fantasy tunnel for a fantasy celebration with lots of fantasy champagne in the fantasy locker room, surrounded by fantasy media and the fantasy players' fantasy families and fantasy friends.

My fantasy is that it was a fantastic time, a wonderful fantasy festivity for a fantastic fantasy season, the kind of thing fantasies are made of. You see, fantasy sports, after all, are kind of like Dungeons and Dragons for sports fans. We mask them deep inside a genre of competitiveness that we like to consider "cool" but in the end, we are not playing the sport, or not actually discussing the real contest at hand, instead qualifying our interests and endless dialogue on the subject as not too much much better than D&D. But instead of "Ha Ha, your Elf Wizard just got triple point blasted by a tree!" I can now claim stuff like, "I just won my 2nd fantasy championship in the 4 years of our fantasy baseball keeper league's existence!" And the difference? Well,  not much, really. What hopefully is not a fantasy, however, is the prize money that should be on it's way. My fantasy players will not be receiving a cut of that, but I should at least recognize them, just like one might gloat if their dwarf ninja cleric successfully mastered the spontaneous combustion spell and took down an entire nation of radio-active trolls.

So, many thanks to:

Robinson Cano
Carlos Carrasco
Shin-Soo Choo
Ryan Dempster
J.A. Happ
Aaron Harang
Corey Hart
Derek Holland
Ubaldo Jimenez
Adam Jones
Garrett Jones
Clayton Kershaw
Hong-Chih Kuo
Brandon League
Colby Lewis
Joe Mauer
Brett Myers
Brayan Pena
Luke Scott
Clayton Richard
Koji Uehara
Juan Uribe
Brian Wilson
Chris R Young
Michael Young

Also a huge fantasy thank you to those fantasy players, that unknowingly helped my team along the way but were not on my final fantasy roster, even though, like you the unfortunate reader of this obnoxious behavior, they could not care any less, even in their wildest fantasies. Or yours. Or mine.

May your fantasies all come true...but until then, I'll be back with more college football soon.

College Football Week 5

Imagine what it's like living in SEC country. The Tampa Bay Rays are in first place, a half game ahead of the New York Yankees. They are young; they are exciting. Two seasons ago, they surged all the way to the World Series, only to be denied in the end by a damn good Philadelphia Phillies team and some freakish torrential downpours that provided no momentum for anyone. And now they're back to try again, as they once again clinched a playoff spot, coming from the toughest division in baseball to do so. But then there's this. How is this possible? If the Kansas City Royals fielded a team even close to the Rays' caliber, our town would be painted blue. We would have parades every day. Our city would no longer be called "City of Fountains," but instead the "City of Parades." But we don't have a team like theirs. Not even close. So we just move on to our Chiefs, our Jayhawks, our Tigers and our Wildcats. We embrace football just like everyone else, all the while dreaming of the Big 12 basketball season to come. The Royals are a void that remains unrealized for 25 years and counting.

Football season, just like everyone else. Well...not exactly "everyone" else. Because the reason, as pathetic as it may seem, that the Rays can't find their fans is because they don't really have them. Nobody cares about sports in SEC country, they only care about 1 sport, college football. I don't like it, you probably don't either. MLB definitely does not like it. But here's what can be said on behalf of SEC people, this sport they do pay attention to, the one they fill the stadiums for: at least they are very, very good at it. They win every year. They snatch up the National Championships and they win the majority of their Bowl games. And their non-conference schedules before they tee off against each other? They win those too. And unlike some of the teams getting dropped in my rankings because of poor competition, the SEC teams schedule real, intriguing match ups. And win. My top 25 this week:

1 Florida (4-0)
2 Auburn (4-0)
3 Alabama (4-0)
4 LSU (4-0)
5 Arizona (4-0)
6 Oklahoma (4-0)
7 TCU (4-0)
8 Missouri (4-0)
9 USC (4-0)
10 Ohio State (4-0)
11 West Virginia (3-1)
12 Stanford (4-0)
13 Kansas State (4-0)
14 Boise State (3-0)
15 Oregon (4-0)
16 North Carolina State (4-0)
17 Michigan (4-0)
18 South Carolina (3-1)
19 Northwestern (4-0)
20 Toledo (3-1)
21 Nebraska (4-0)
22 Penn State (3-1)
23 Temple (3-1)
24 Utah (4-0)
25 Wisconsin (4-0)


Notice a trend here. Unlike last season, in which I made it virtually impossible for a team to be passed in the standings without losing, this season is ever changing from week to week. The reason for this is simple, my standings are not only responsive to how a team does in a given week, but also how their prior opponents fared that same weekend. So a team such as TCU, who was just last weekend glorified for having beaten 2 otherwise unbeaten BCS conference teams, saw Oregon State tumble again and will also likely see Baylor visit darker days before too long. I have never been a fan of the theory that games later in the season are of more significance than games played early on, but by the same token a team shouldn't receive too much credit for exactly the opposite either. The inherent problem with football in general, is that the sample size of an entire season never seems adequate enough to really create much separation amongst the top teams. This is the very reason I am supportive of the NFL's recent decision to expand the schedules to 18 games. The more games, the more likely we are to see the best teams eligible for post-season play. College football, of course is even fewer games then the inadequate 16 games that the NFL is expanding from. A tournament would go a long way to help resolve that, but hey, we don't have it, so the best approach is to consistently evaluate a team's success and the successes of their opponents. And all games are to be evenly evaluated, regardless of at what point in the season the victories and defeats took place.

In last week's comments, my friend Kevin said this: "You make an assumption that Boise State has the ability to schedule more quality non-con games. Most high-level opponents are loathe to play them. Certainly nobody wants to do a home and away series with Boise. When Boise has offered to play people at their houses no-strings-attached, they are still rejected. The money is not that great, you get zero credit for beating them, and god forbid you lose to them. Props to VA-Tech and Oregon State for stepping up. Search your soul and honestly tell me that you don't think Boise is one of the ten best teams in college football, let alone top twenty. Do the right thing kyle."

First of all, yes, my soul tells me that Boise State is very good, one of the best teams in the country. So why play the games then? The entirety of a season is important for earning championships, not just being gifted one. My soul is not objective and should not be trusted. But beating good teams leaves little doubt, and Boise added one this past weekend so they have moved back on up accordingly. Again, not losing will certainly help, but they're going to need some help from the better programs they do play, because if those teams flop, Boise St will have accomplished not much at all. And then there's this. Granted, it's not until 2015, but can you imagine if that game happened this year? Subtract South Dakota State or Idaho or Western Kentucky from Nebraska's schedule and add Boise State. Subtract Wyoming or Toledo from Boise State's schedule and add Nebraska. Wow the difference. Suddenly, we have a great game to watch and are looking at the two teams in an entirely different light. The larger point here is that Boise State's anyone, anytime, anyplace, slogan seems to have some disclaimers. We shouldn't be surprised; we know that money does most of the talking. Just saying, if the two schools roll out schedules in 2015 that at all look like this season's, then shame on both schools for not reaching a compromise. I suspect that this is more common than we may know, so no, I don't really buy into the argument that Boise State can't get decent teams to play them.

The other comment of note came from anonymous:  "Your betting system is a joke. Good job otherwise, though"

I'm not sure about the "good job" part, but one thing remains clear, yes anonymous, my betting system is very much a joke. I believe that there really are those that can keep up with Vegas' trends and are very adept at taking advantage of their misgivings. My mama's boy mid-western ass, however, is not one of those people. I've always had an inclination that gambling, besides the basic low stakes pools and brackets and fantasy leagues, is just not my thing. I think I'll trust my intuition here and stay away from it. Consider the gambling system discontinued, it's merely a waste of my time otherwise.

Thoughts? Comments? I really do appreciate those that I do get, so if something occurs to you, by all means....

College Football Week 4

Let me tell you about the Western Kentucky Hilltoppers. They are, by my account, the worst team in NCAA-FBS college football. And it's not even close. Last season they actually managed to finish strong, losing their last 3 games by less than a touchdown, but that's about the best thing one might say about this program to date. Not only did they lose every game, but it was following a 2008 season in which they won 2 games against non-FBS schools and only managed to stay within a touchdown against one opponent in the division of which they, at least attempt to, compete. Is this excusable? Well sure it is, the truth is that Western Kentucky only qualified for top division status a couple years back and should probably not be overly criticized for demanding some time to adjust and get better. They have recently made a coaching change and play in a weak conference, by FBS standards, one that they should be able to maintain at least a hint of competitiveness within the not too distant future. But they are not there yet.

So what's the problem then? Nebraska, actually. It's not that the Huskers won't get their opportunity to validate their hype, they do after all play in a conference that affords them that chance, well at least for now they do. But when I saw that their opponent is FCS South Dakota State this coming Saturday , I thought oh come on man. When I say that Nebraska carries with it a lot of hype, it's an understatement. For the last few seasons, fans of Big 12 North teams have kind of justified their inadequacies with the thought that should they just win the North, then one never knows what could happen in one game for the conference championship. And last year, Nebraska nearly pulled off just that. But they didn't. And they lost 3 other games as well, including one ugly one at home against Iowa St that gave us this wonderful scene. What's more is that their best player from a year ago, not to mention maybe the best player in college football, moved on and with him a handful of other starting players, including the quarterback. Yet here we stand, 3 weeks into the season, and the Husker hype is boiling over.

And what do they have to show for it? Blow out city, no question, but against Western Kentucky, Idaho and Washington. The Washington game is their only real test so far, as it was a road game against a BCS conference team. Washington though has been awful in recent past, even losing every single game 2 years ago (Incidentally, Idaho 2 seasons ago. Hmmm, noticing a trend here? In 2008, Western Kentucky, Idaho and Washington combined to beat 1 FBS foe...New Mexico State). Last season, Washington's production spiked a little with a new coach and a couple of huge conference upsets, but they still topped out with a 5-7 season. Better, but not good enough for their opponents to stake claim to any consideration the likes of which most Nebraska fans are posturing for, particularly since Washington opened the season with a loss to BYU, who has had a bit of a rough go at it since. It's not that blowing out Washington on the road is without merit, but to truly justify recognition of accomplishment heading into conference play, backing it up with a second notable opponent this coming weekend would be appreciated, particularly given the lack of substance in weeks one and two. Instead, we get South Dakota State in Lincoln. Oh come on man.

This all leads us to my rankings this week. As promised, everything has been completely reshuffled to be more representative of this year's achievements, as opposed to last year's as my previous polls to date had demonstrated. Like my little point spread forecasting attempts, I will provide explanation as to the specifics of my methods as we go along, but I'd really like to cover this in parts, so let's unveil it first and work on the explanation later. Some things might stand out to you, one being Nebraska's falling a bit, but somehow I don't think that will offer the most vivid reaction. Here they are and then I'll discuss a couple of them:

1 TCU (3-0)
2 Florida (3-0)
3 Alabama (3-0)
4 USC (3-0)
5 Oklahoma (3-0)
6 Auburn (3-0)
7 Stanford (3-0)
8 Arizona (3-0)
9 Missouri (3-0)
10 Texas (3-0)
11 Ohio State (3-0)
12 Wisconsin (3-0)
13 Utah (3-0)
14 West Virginia (3-0)
15 Nevada (3-0)
16 California (2-1)
17 LSU (3-0)
18 Michigan State (3-0)
19 Nebraska (3-0)
20 Temple (3-0)
21 South Carolina (3-0)
22 Kansas State (3-0)
23 Michigan (3-0)
24 North Carolina State (3-0)
25 Oklahoma State (3-0)

So Nebraska has been much discussed and yeah, they have dropped to 19 accordingly. But have you noticed yet who is missing entirely? Yes, Boise State is not ranked at all. As much as I've criticized Nebraska for their schedule, at least they will play in a very challenging conference, second only to the SEC and will have every opportunity to make up for a lack-luster first 4 games of competition. Boise State though is in the WAC, a conference which a team of Boise State's caliber should and usually does annihilate. Nevada looks pretty good so far and might be able to provide some problems, but really nobody else will likely offer any challenge at all. This isn't completely condemning, for now it is their conference, and they cannot do much of anything about that. But what's shocking to me about Boise State, which has so few match-ups of any significance in conference play, I wonder why a team such as this would then go ahead and schedule Wyoming and Toledo to supplement their 2 challenging non-conference games against Virginia Tech and Oregon State. Shouldn't they load up with 4 big games to put on their resume? Or at least 3? I mean, it's pretty clear to everyone what kind of status they have prepared themselves for and therefore should be competing at this level more than 2, maybe 3 times in a season. I don't get it and now that Virginia Tech seems to be less than advertised, and Oregon State has dropped a game already, Boise State might have very little to fall back on as they did last season, when they beat Oregon, who went undefeated the rest of the way. For now, I reward achievment, and never losing will help, but a lot of teams have not lost yet and they have more impressive wins to date.

The team that has achieved thus far is TCU. Now, many teams have also played well, but TCU is the only team in the country that has defeated 2 otherwise undefeated BCS conference teams. So for now they are one. Should they lose, or the teams they are being credited for beating lose, then my ranking system will adjust accordingly. But for now they are the team, and given the level of play we have become accustomed to seeing TCU play at, this is not too far of a stretch anyway.

So last week, I suggested some discomfort with some of the teams my betting system was recommending, and sure enough it suffered cataclysmic defeat, losing to the tune of a whopping -$428.50. Unfortunately, while it did project some of the results, the betting amounts would have completely sunk me.

Winners: Temple, Arizona State, Air Force and Northwestern.
Losers:  Ohio, Kent State, Tulsa, Troy, Wake Forest and Iowa.

A good amount of money would have been saved by the 2 alternative systems. Betting only on spreads of 20 or less would have resulted with -$228.50 and betting an even $100 per game would have given me -$240. That leaves the totals as such:

My system as is: -$238
The flat $100 per game rate: -$140
Betting only on spreads of 20 or less: -$17.50

Hopefully I can rebound from this week. Here are the picks:

Florida International +11 vs Maryland   $20
Rutgers +1 vs North Carolina   $80
Pittsburgh +3.5 vs Miami (FL)   $65
Temple +14 vs Penn State   $20
BYU +4 vs Nevada   $130
Oregon State +17 vs Boise State   $60
California +6.5 vs Arizona   $85
Arkansas State +11 vs Troy   $10
Middle Tennessee -2.5 vs Louisiana-Lafayette   $25
FAU -9.5 vs North Texas   $65

Thanks for reading and have a fantastic weekend!

College Football Week 3

The Chiefs are in first place. I know it's just one game, but I'm not certain how often I will be able to write that down, so well, Chiefs-first place! Also, after next week, the Chiefs can be no less than tied for first place, which means that the Chiefs will have been in first place for 2 weeks! Wow! What an amazing season they are having! And then there are my blessed Kansas Jayhawks! I was in Lawrence for that one and will simply say this: that was a really, really good time and very much needed by all.

So with the very busy, local (to me) sports weekend behind us, I can move on to examining the rest of the college football world. My thoughts on the weekend? Well, let's see, the Mormons lost. Oklahoma, Cal and Michigan look impressive so far. And Virginia Tech either sucks...or. Of course though, that's just scratching the surface. More importantly, you can already start to see some division as to who, on a national scale, we will be watching all season and who we should just store away in our memory until next year.

Naturally though, all is not lost for any school. It's way too early to tell for sure. And that's why I decided last week to wait until after week 3 to start truly assessing what teams have earned up to that point. It's decent in principle, many teams have been squaring off against opponents of minimal significance and little to no chance of finding victory against their bigger opponents. How can one assess accomplishment without any data available supporting the team or the strength of their schedule? So we just start the season with what we know from the previous year, and kind of, I don't know, just work with it, as the teams from the expired paradigm start to falter. The result is fine for week 1, dissatisfying for week 2, and now as we approach week 3 of college football, my rankings look distorted and ugly, to say the least. Clearly, I'll have to come up with a better approach to this period of status purgatory in the future. But for now, here they are:

1 Alabama (2-0)
2 Texas (2-0)
3 Florida (2-0)
4 Boise State (1-0)
5 Ohio State (2-0)
6 TCU (2-0)
7 Iowa (2-0)
8 Penn State (1-1)
9 Oregon (2-0)
10 Nebraska (2-0)
11 Wisconsin (2-0)
12 LSU (2-0)
13 Utah (2-0)
14 Pittsburgh (1-1)
15 Miami (FL) (1-1)
16 Texas Tech (2-0)
17 USC (2-0)
18 Clemson (2-0)
19 West Virginia (2-0)
20 Fresno State (1-0)
21 Cincinnati (1-1)
22 Air Force (2-0)
23 BYU (1-1)
24 Temple (2-0)
25 Central Michigan (1-1)

So this is almost criminal. No Michigan. No Oklahoma. But Central Michigan at (1-1) gets the nod? Yeah, I know. But there's a point to doing it this way, and it isn't to offer up a skilled analysis of how the teams should be ranked to this point. Granted, should I continue this approach in the future, it would get insanely old and the masses would rebel against me. OK fine, but here's the lesson. Last year I made it clear, at this point, that only undefeated teams would gather recognition. Undefeated is undefeated, I said. And after 2 weeks' sample size, perhaps this isn't a poor guideline...undoubtedly something to consider coming back to in the future. The problem with that, however, is that when teams lose to ranked teams, they are playing a competitive schedule, and that should not be punished. And that's the basic point here. An undefeated team beats a ranked team, and they should by displacement, take over a spot in the top 25. Fine. But what about the teams that only sustain losses against teams already ranked ahead of them. Theoretically, those losses should be expected, and they are, in fact, undefeated still against the field of which they are being compared. But, what I fail to do here is consider the significance of their wins, something I intend to do next week, not only for these specific 1 loss benefactors, but for all teams altogether. Get ready for a massive shuffle; I told you that it was coming.

My gambling week was encouraging and discouraging at the same time. On the surface, my system rolled, but for the first time, my model demonstrated loss in one of the methods being tracked. 

My winners: FAU, California, Ohio State, Troy and Rice
My losers: Georgia, Arkansas State, BYU and Penn State

OK, so once again, I won 5 out of 9,  so my flat rate concept would have netted another $50. At least that's consistent, because the other scenarios have me flip-flopping a bit. This week, my actual system would have raked it in, achieving me $180 for my efforts. The problem is, that the redeeming success was entirely sustained by FAU, a team that was a whopping 28 point underdog against Michigan State. Credit my system for identifying the extremity of that spread, but as I said before, I have little confidence in large spreads and had I opted not to bet on such games, I would have taken a loss of $49 this week. Anyway, tracking it is the whole point, so here's my tab to date:

My system as is:  $190.50
The flat $100 per game rate:  $100
Betting only on spreads of 20 points or less:  $211

That's still not bad, but I hate to see a loss in any of the categories. I was a little surprised to see some of the projections for this coming week, but then again, the easiest way to fail on a procedure is to not acknowledge it, so here are the picks:

Temple +6.5 vs Connecticut   $5
Ohio +32 vs Ohio State   $180
Kent State +21 vs Penn State   $20
Tulsa +6.5 vs Oklahoma State   $65
Arizona State +14 vs Wisconsin   $70
Air Force +17.5 vs Oklahoma   $115
Northwestern -6.5 vs Rice   $25
Troy -4.5 vs UAB   $105
Wake Forest +17 vs Stanford   $220
Iowa -2 vs Arizona   $30

That will do it for now, have a great week!

Rivoting Article

This was the subject of much conversation in our household earlier this week. Read it twice if you have to, but the final paragraph is brilliant, both in that it brings it all together nicely, but much, much more than that, for all that it reveals!

Go ahead...read it...won't take you long.

OK, do you think you have it all figured out? At first glance, we had some idea, but really had to take some time to get the big picture of how this tragedy occurred.

My brother, Phil, made the suggestion that this article should be on the standard ACT, testing reading comprehension. Of course, this is quite funny to think about, given the subject matter, but really it's not THAT bad of an idea. So let's break it down.

We have the following cast of characters:
The Victim
The Suspect
The Mother

Now, have you figured the rest out yet? Seriously, read it once more if you must.

The best I can tell, this appears to be a basic synopsis of the incident and the events leading up to the eruption of tempers and ensuing violence.

51 year old suspect, we'll call him Vern, appears to be living with his 70 year old mother, we'll just call her Vern's mom to keep the characters straight.

To Vern's dismay, his mother starts dating (and likely sleeping with) a 39 year old man, we shall call this dude, Stan, who also becomes the victim in our great tragedy at hand.

I can't imagine this being a pleasant living environment, and sure enough we come to find out that Vern and young Stan, in fact, are constantly at odds with each other.

I also get the impression that this particular microwave incident is not the first time the action has been called into question by Stan. And in Stan's defense, seriously, who puts their leftovers in the microwave to eat later? Pretty disgusting, Vern.

There, however, ends all attempts at defending Stan. Imagine Vern at this point. Here he is, 51 and living peacefully enough with his 70 year old mother. But along comes this damned 39 year old Stan guy, who for motives we cannot explain, starts shacking up with Vern's mother, right there under his same roof. Vern is pissed. But as if that is not enough, Stan has the gall to start telling Vern how to live in his own home! And so they argue constantly.

At this point, I think it becomes clear that Vern has long ago reached the brink of his breaking point. Yet, it's still not premeditated, it takes an actual physical attack to push Vern too far!

Vern is eating, and (for probably not the first time) decides to get up to put his food in the microwave to be eaten later. And this part is just unbelievable to me. Stan, who is all of 39 years old and sleeping with Vern's 70 year old mother, NOT ONLY takes exception to Vern's insistence of leaving his unfinished food grotesquely sitting in the microwave, but actually jumps up and attempts to punch Vern for doing so! WTF!?!?!?

And then Stan gets stabbed several times by Vern. Go figure.

The rest is rather straight forward. Stan falls to the floor, but isn't finished as he makes one final attempt to prevent Vern from leaving. Vern, not having anymore of it, simply pushes Stan away and leaves the premises. And the mother is away in the kitchen all the while.

And now Vern will go to jail; nobody wants to end up becoming a Vern. But for the love of God, definitely don't be a Stan.

Is this how you read it? Either way, thank you for taking the time to read my insanity; enjoy a football filled weekend and I'll be back next week to write all about it!

Also, a shameless plug:

A close friend of mine is training hard for an upcoming charity race. The training is the easy part; the hard part is gathering sponsors to reach her goal. It's an excellent cause that many of us have either already encountered in our lives, or will someday. All donations go to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. To help out my friend Carole in this event, just click here. She doesn't know I'm doing this, by the way, I'm just trying to do my part to help out!

Thanks again and I will talk to you...or at you I suppose, next week!

College Football Week 2

Who do you think put up these numbers?

2006    2-10
2007    5-7
2008    8-6
2009    5-7

I have to admit, I mistook 2008 to be even worse, but 6 losses is still nothing to tell all the pretty girls about.  Those numbers, of course, belong to Turner Gill in his time at Buffalo, also his only tenure as a head coach. Not that I would have predicted Kansas to lose 6-3 to lowly FCS North Dakota State, but now that they have, I have to ask, why did anyone ever think this was going to work? Keep in mind, Buffalo plays in the MAC and Kansas the Big 12 Conference. That's quite a leap for a winning coach and this guy is not one of those. But hey, I hear he's a super nice man! The search for a new Athletic Director begins immediately. Hopefully the new guy will prefer to have, well...a new guy.

As for the rest of the weekend, there were some pretty fun games, the best of which came last, as Boise State hung in long enough to take another impressive early victory, this time on Monday night against Virginia Tech in Landover, Maryland. Boise State always seems to touch on people's emotions in one way or another. Their conference is simply awful, although I suppose after this summer, the remedy for this problem is just around the corner. That said, people I talk to generally either quite enjoy Boise State and the underdog aspect of their improbable rise to college football domination or just the opposite and really, really hate them for that very reason, forever wishing that they would just stop making us have to evaluate whether a great team that waltzes through a pathetic conference should be given the opportunity to win the same National Championship of teams that play vigorous conference schedules, yet very well might not be as good a team. It's a good question, and the only way to prevent this dilemma is a tournament format, of which I sometimes wonder if we have made any progress toward achieving at all. I tend to like Boise State, as well as the Mountain West teams that they will soon join. They almost always fair well against the big boys and I like that every time they do it's a chilling reminder to those in charge that their system has been broken for a very long time.

OK, let's get to my rankings for this week; it is eerily similar to last week's and I will explain myself after. The only team knocked out of it is Ole Miss, who lost to FCS Jacksonville State. That gets Ole Miss closer to Lawrence than it does the Top 25.

1 Alabama  (1-0)
2 Texas  (1-0)
3 Florida  (1-0)
4 Boise State  (1-0)
5 Ohio State  (1-0)
6 TCU  (1-0)
7 Iowa  (1-0)
8 Penn State  (1-0)
9 Virginia Tech  (0-1)
10 Oregon  (1-0)
11 BYU  (1-0)
12 Georgia Tech  (1-0)
13 Nebraska  (1-0)
14 Wisconsin  (1-0)
15 LSU  (1-0)
16 Utah  (1-0)
17 Pittsburgh  (0-1)
18 Miami (FL)  (1-0)
19 Texas Tech  (1-0)
20 USC  (1-0)
21 Central Michigan  (1-0)
22 Clemson  (1-0)
23 West Virginia  (1-0)
24 Fresno State  (1-0)
25 Cincinnati  (0-1)

Notice first, that three teams, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati all lost games this week and yet all remain ranked in some capacity. This is completely different then the process that I used last year. And the thing is, I've decided that it really doesn't matter. Want all undefeated teams here? Fine. Bump the 3 that lost, and add in...say...Kansas State, Michigan and Missouri at 23-25. Think that losing to other ranked teams is nothing to be ashamed of? I agree and this is represented by my rankings above. However, what has really been established as of yet? Not much. Actually, most teams are yet to play anybody of any significance, and some haven't even played yet at all. So I've decided that about the right amount of time to have expected a team to already have demonstrated their merit, at least to some extent, is about 3 weeks. Next week, I'll do something similar to this, but then after week 3...the whole thing gets reshuffled. Stay tuned.

The gambling thing was far more interesting.
Utah was a push
My winners: FAU, Rice, Oregon State, LSU and Boise State
My Losers: Middle Tennessee, Western Michigan, Missouri and Louisiana-Lafayette

In the end, somewhere in the depths of my colorful imagination, I figuratively walked into a Las Vegas Casino and slapped down $985, unevenly distributed between 10 games. And had I gone to collect, I would have ended up winning $5.50 after the juice. That's a lot of work to win $5.50, but since I'm not actually gambling anything at all, and instead trying to come up with the best way to go about it, let's have a few different running balances, in hopes that the best approach to my system reveals itself.

The first option to track seems obvious to me. I bet $985 on 10 games, so why not bet $1000 and set each game at a flat rate of $100 per game. Now, my system is set up to spend more on the games that my numbers deviate, to a higher degree, from Vegas, so I would prefer not to select this option if making actual bets, but again, I am not actually betting anything, so let's track it as well. I won 5 games, lost 4, subtract the standard 10% juice from the winners and I would have wound up winning $50 had I opted for the flat rate last week.

The final option to track is a suspicion that I already had going in, and at least to this point, it would have served me well to obey my intuition a little more closely. Perhaps, I felt, that the larger the spread of the game, the less I can come anywhere near trying to project the margins of victory. This may very well be a theory that the "professional" gamblers abide by for the most part as well, but I have no evidence of that, it's just a hunch. Regardless, betting according to this hunch is difficult, but it's clear that to do so I will have to set a point spread at which I suspend betting on and beyond that total. I think 3 touchdowns is generally a good number to establish total domination in a given game, so I will therefore set the mark at 21 points and above. Last week, there were 3 games that fit this criteria: Michigan State/Western Michigan, Texas/Rice and Georgia/Louisiana-Lafayette. I picked all 3 underdogs to hold up under the spread, but only Rice obliged. Had I eliminated these 3 games, as I suspected I should have, I would have had quite a nice day of gambling and ended up +$251 after the juice.

Speaking of the Michigan State/Western Michigan game, someone I am close to actually decided to put my system into play, betting a small sum of money on 2 of my teams, but real bets nonetheless. What's interesting about this is that while I had the spread set at Western Michigan +23, this person actually got the bet in at +24, which was the exact result of the game, ending for them in a push in what was a loss for me. Of course, it's pure speculation, but perhaps I would have been able to take advantage of the very same push, had I placed actual money on the game as well. And that would have been huge. My measly $5.50 would have turned into $205.50 if given this extra point. But I didn't, so we won't count it as such. My tab to start off:

My system as is: +$5.50
The flat $100 per game rate: +$50
Betting only on spreads of 20 points or less: +$251

I will reveal more of what is behind my game and rate selection in the future. For now, have a great week and here are this coming weekend's selections:

FAU +28 vs Michigan State   $260
Georgia +3 vs South Carolina   $120
California -8.5 vs Colorado   $15
Arkansas State +2 vs Louisiana-Lafayette   $20
Ohio State -9 vs Miami (FL)   $20
BYU pickem vs Air Force   $70
Troy +13 vs Oklahoma State   $130
Rice +2.5 vs North Texas   $125
Penn State +12 vs Alabama   $100

College Football

I can't believe this blog is still here! Frankly, it was an utter failure before and with good reason I'm sure. But wow...it's kind of like cleaning out your closet and sorting through your old...well...junk. Somehow it's even worse though. Writing with the intent of sharing brings with it a bit of trepidation, and reading what you wrote some time ago...is actually embarrassing frankly. Oh well, I was looking for a better way to do this college football thing than the emails I sent out last year, so this will work. I did change the title at least...and that's exactly what reading any blog feels like sometimes, a complete waste of time that you will never get back, and I have no delusions of mine being any exception. Just keep this in mind though, for an even more spectacular waste of time: try writing one.

OK, back to the college football thing; the season does, after all, start tonight! Last year, some of you expressed disappointment in my tailing off at the end. The truth is that it just became far, far too time consuming to sort through every team's schedule once a good number of games had been played. I could no longer keep up and once I got behind, I was cooked. I do apologize though, if any of you were really waiting anxiously for it. This time I think I have a solution. My spreadsheets this year are ready to go and have been updated so that they should make it far less time consuming this time around. I also have some revisions to last year's ranking system, but we'll sort through that mess as it arises.

Additionally, I've added a new concept to introduce you to this year...beating Vegas. Now, I should make it perfectly clear that I am not much of a gambler. I seldom put my money where my mouth is and with good reason...I generally lose. But for some reason, I've always been fascinated with the Vegas odds. I always hear these prognosticator guys on the radio making boisterous claims of their success rates, and here's the thing: for the most part, I actually believe them. I think that there really are specific nuances to the tactics they use to set these lines and if someone, anyone were to catch on to these trends, they could in theory do very well betting on games. I'm sure I'm nowhere near even comprehending what these involve, but it's fun to try anyway, and there's no harm in it, so long as I or anyone else never puts any actual money on it! But let's start with the rankings. Here's what I wrote in my first email to some of you last year:

"So I have some distinct and specific ideas on how the rankings should be done, particularly if so much is to be decided in the end based on human evaluation, without any regard for human error. There have to be rules. I will therefore come up with new rankings each week based on my own messed up logic, providing my reasons all along. Here is my preseason list with one rationale behind it more than anything else: the same rankings to end the previous season begin the next. It is after all, the only thing that has been settled on the field. Who left where, and who came back, and who recruited who....is purely speculation. The only tangible thing we have is what was seen on the field, and for that, all we can truly resort to is last season. Of course, last season's rankings are also human error susceptible, but should a more objective system be implemented, the problem would right it's self after a season or two, and we don't have the benefit of seeing that without starting from somewhere.Therefore the top 25 from last year's end, and my beginning to this one:"


I'm going to stick with this line of thinking. Now, obviously, had I finished what I started last season, then I would be able to smoothly transition my rankings right over to this season's start. But I didn't, so let's pull up last season's final AP poll and thus present it as my preseason rankings for this season:

1 Alabama
2 Texas
3 Florida
4 Boise State
5 Ohio State
6 TCU
7 Iowa
8 Cincinnati
9 Penn State
10 Virginia Tech
11 Oregon
12 BYU
13 Georgia Tech
14 Nebraska
15 Pittsburgh
16 Wisconsin
17 LSU
18 Utah
19 Miami (FL)
20 Mississippi
21 Texas Tech
22 USC
23 Central Michigan
24 Clemson
25 West Virginia


And finally, the gambling thing. I will get more into how I come up with this stuff in the future, but for now, if I were betting on games this week, these are the teams I would bet on, and based on what my formula reveals to me, how much I would bet on each game:

Utah -3 vs Pittsburgh   $50
Middle Tennessee +2.5 vs Minnesota  $85
FAU +14.5 vs UAB  $230
Western Michigan +23 vs Michigan State $200
Missouri -11.5 vs Illinois  $15
Rice +30.5 vs Texas  $105
Oregon State +13.5 vs TCU  $85
LSU -4 vs North Carolina  $50
Louisiana-Lafayette +28 vs Georgia  $140
Boise State -2.5 vs Virginia Tech  $25

We'll see how I do; enjoy the return of football!

World Baseball Classic

Why in the hell would they pitch to Ichiro? It's been a long time since I posted, so if you're still checking this once in a while, sorry about that. Seriously though, did anyone besides me actually watch this thing? Unbelievable. That's like inviting that Chestnut guy to dinner or picking a fight with a 4 year letter man in wrestling. It's simply a bad idea.

Ross Gload

It's fair to say that the season ticket holding constituents from the Burkett family have reached their boiling point on this one. Wednesday, I sat in the sun and watched a journeyman Tiger hurler not so unusually dominate our pathetic Royal lineup, tossing a perfect game through six, going on to win 7-1, thus easily sweeping our Royals, all of which I was tuned in for, 2 of which I was in attendance. The Tigers are good. But not that good. At least their pitching isn't.

Earlier in the season, I attended another game, a certain blown 9th inning lead to Minnesota, perhaps you remember it? Let's just say that I would later, in retrospect, feel bad for those that had to suffer the ride home with me. It didn't, however, go without some representation of productivity, if production is what one could call it. That evening, in a message to my fantasy baseball league and some of my more Royals interested friends, I completely broke down the SS position, with the help of the Bill James Handbook, and, at least to my own satisfaction, demonstrated that a purely defensive minded SS with little to no hitting capability was no longer a viable option in Major League Baseball. In our case, Tony Pena JR. Well, my argument was most certainly not heard by the Royals' organization, but my wishes were granted within a week, as Mike Aviles was called up from Omaha and soon inserted into the starting SS position. And now at SS, I am content. With Aviles, seriously, who isn't at the very least, content? So now I turn my attention to 1B and MR Ross Gload.

You know, for years the experts have been clamoring on about how it is absolutely essential to get certain production from certain positions, one of the bigger productivity hot spots being first base. But I always figured that if you made up for it at other less expected positions (just look at the Yankees), then you could afford some slack elsewhere. The problem is that over the years, we haven't exactly had our version of Posada at catcher, or Jeter at shortstop, or Bernie Williams in center field. So perhaps it's time to examine our first baseman a little closer. Ross Gload, this season, is hitting .259 with 1 HR and 22 RBI in 255 at bats. One home run! One? I can't even remember what sorry pitcher dealt that unforgivable pitch up! One. Alright then, I guess it's time to examine the production of the other first basemen around MLB.

Well, at first I should mention that there are a couple of players at this position that are so mind-blowingly better than Ross Gload offensively, that they aren't even worth a comparison. Like Lance Berkman and Albert Pujols. Well, but then there are Justin Morneau, Kevin Youkilis and Mark Teixera as well. And also Jason Giambi, Adrian Gonzalez, Derek Lee, Prince Fielder and Miguel Cabrera. And of course, don't forget about James Loney, Carlos Delgado, or by any means, this year's MLB HR leader Ryan Howard. Damn it. I've only gotten started and already 13 teams, almost half of the 30 team league have way, way better first basemen than Ross Gload. This could get ugly.

Then there are Joey Votto and Chris Davis, who while being just recently called up this season, seem to be penciled in as their respective teams' future at their positions and are already demonstrating far superior offensive aptitude than that of Ross Gload. Make that 15 teams, half the majors.

Then there are these players:

Casey Kotchman is hitting .289 with 9 HR and 48 RBI, so he's clearly much better than Gload. Plus, Ross' thing is his defensive capabilities, but he doesn't even have the edge over Casey there, kind of like when (whatever Ivy league school that was) played Stanford in the tournament last year, they just really didn't have an edge in anything at all, on or off the court. Plus he's only 25 and still pretty new to the league so he has time to get much better. That said, Kotchman's never thrilled me, which I only bring up because he seems to be a guy that even younger players get compared to from time to time. If a guy is said to have the potential to be a Casey Kotchman type player somewhere down the line, at first I think, oh, that's all? But then after a moment of reflection, I wonder, wait a minute, we don't even know what kind of player Casey Kotchman's going to be down the line! Is that what scouting has come to? Players are now projected to be something like another player's projection?

Mike Jacobs has 20 HR's this year already, 20. Again, 20. Really, that's not as incredible as I'm making it sound here, but 20 at this point for a Royal, any Royal would be as incredible to me as if our dog learned to use the toilet. Carlos Pena has 15, which would lead our team as well, and he's missed time with injuries. Actually, that guy put up 46 last year! Now we're dreaming. Here's the thing, neither Jacobs or Pena really do much else at the plate offensively, but who cares? I always kind of cringe when someone labels John Buck as being this kind of hitter. You mean the John Buck with 6 HR's? He did hit 18 one season and will probably do it again, but he's not a power hitter; he's an average to below average hitting catcher with occasional power. But my beef's not with Buck, it's with Gload right now, and both Jacobs and Pena are far superior hitters.

And now that it's post-June, Adam LaRoche is too. I really hate slow starters, mostly I think because by the time those guys get it going, the Royals are all ready counting down the days to being mathematically eliminated, planning for next season and seeking to deal off some guys for prospects by the trade deadline. Where were these guys when you needed them? I'm sure it works out for teams that always make late runs, like the A's and the Yankees, but do you think Pirates fans would disagree with me much when it comes to LaRoche? Not a chance. Also not a chance that Gload will ever be capable of putting up the kind of second half numbers that LaRoche does. No contest.

Are Todd Helton and Paul Konerko washed up? Helton's hurt right now, and wasn't playing all that great before he went down. The Colorado web site's depth chart has Garrett Atkins listed at first and third as the starter right now, but which is it? Either way, when Helton gets back, he's still quite a bit better than Gload just on lineup presence alone, not to mention that he has been one of the best hitters in the league. I suspect that three years after he retires, he'll still be a better hitter than Ross Gload. And Atkins? Well, much, much better of course. Konerko is having a terrible season, but he's only 32 and he's had a season similar to this before in 2003 and he bounced back nicely then. Plus, you have to consider that he's still a lineup presence in pitcher's minds, one that Gload isn't, and for good reason, he still has 9 HR's and he's way, way off his normal offensive production. With Gload, what you see is about what you're likely to get, a lot of ground balls that might find a hole if he's lucky, unless he gets some air under it, in which case, won't be for very far. I can't believe I'm even comparing these guys; I feel like an idiot. Tell you what, Helton v Gload, Konerko v Gload: you choose. Now, Helton v Konerko, that's a lot more interesting discussion.

I don't even know who is officially Arizona's starting 1B. I thought it was Conor Jackson, but the team's website lists Chad Tracy there. Either way, Tracy has much better numbers than Gload and Jackson has far better numbers than our boy. I have no idea what direction the first place, below .500 D-backs are going with this, but I'm pretty sure that it's better than what's manning the position back here on the home front.

Lyle Overbay is essentially the league average 1B in my mind. To be league average, that means that the player, in a perfect world, should either be the 30th best starting 1B or one of the better reserve 1B in the league. He's hitting .275 with 6 HR's and 39 RBI's. That's a little better than last season and a little worse than the 2 seasons he had before that. Average. So, it stands to reason that he's about the worst starting first baseman in the league, right? Wrong, the following teams are doing much worse at the position:

The Oakland A's, Seattle Mariners, Cleveland Indians, Baltimore Orioles, San Fransisco Giants, Washington Nationals, and of course, the Kansas City Royals. Notice something these teams have in common? They all suck, except of course for the A's whom we all thought would suck and now that they're trading everybody away, will probably suck. Ladies and Gentleman, to win, you must have a first baseman that can hit. Now, most teams, besides these 7, all have one so you need much more than just that, but you gotta have it. And we don't. Or do we?

Ryan Shealy in AAA Omaha is hitting .296 with 15 HR's and 44 RBI. Mike Stodolka is on the same team and hitting pretty well but needs a lot more playing time. Kila Kaaihue is in AA Northwest Arkansas and is hitting, get ready for this, .305 with 25 HR's and 71 RBI! What? Oh, we have no idea what these guys' numbers will translate to MLB as being, but we're pretty sure we know what we're going to get with Gload. He's a perfectly acceptable BACKUP 1B at the major league level. It's time to give someone a chance to prove that they can be a solid starting 1B at the major league level. Just a chance, that's all I'm asking for.

Stuff

The other day, a not so old friend of mine criticized my "sportsandstuff" title of this blog when I gave her the address, sarcastically inquiring, "how did you come up with such a clever title?" Clever? Well, admittedly, not exactly. Perhaps even a bit hasty, but given that I really wanted to just move on with it instead of struggling for hours, trying to come up with "clever," I hope you can understand. Plus, as I told her at the time, I really like the word "stuff." If you think about it, it's one of few words that are all inclusive, yet not at all wordy. But now I'm all self-conscious about it and kind of wish I hadn't acted so hastily in naming this thing. Plus, she's adorable; that doesn't help. Anyway, I fear that it's too late to change now, so I'll have to move on with it and tonight I have a few subjects on my mind. So...some stuff:

-I was both right and wrong about the HR derby. You might have noticed that I accurately picked Justin Morneau to win the thing, but if you noticed that much, then you might have also noticed that the Canadian didn't exactly steal the show. Josh Hamilton and his sidekick 71 year old perfect strike thrower did. Man. I don't know where to start with that performance.

Well first off, props to Mr. Hamilton. Prior to this, knowing very little about the man and thus being foolishly judgemental, he was to me nothing more than that crackhead playing ball in Texas. Not that he did or ever will even know who I am, but I now feel terribly bad about myself for this. I believe very strongly in redemption stories and he very clearly is one of those. I am now and forever that he remains clean, a Josh Hamilton fan. I don't really care if he only has 95 RBI for the rest of his career (that's how many he has already this season!), the man's accomplishments far exceed what those statistics that I and all other hardcore baseball fans labor over can ever possibly illustrate.

And the old dude? He was the best part. I kept thinking, this guy could be dying out there throwing all those pitches, but there's no way that he'll even consider relinquishing this opportunity to keep throwing perfect HR balls to his old friend, Josh Hamilton on baseball's greatest stage, Yankee's stadium, at the derby the night before the all star game, in the last year of the cathedral's playing existence. And he never did. Amazing.

So I guess given the captivating nature of Monday night, I also have to admit to being wrong about the entertainment value of the event in general. Oh, not really though. It still sucks. It sucked before, it sucked again as soon as Hamilton's incredible first round display was finished, it will suck again next year, and it will suck forever after. But Kyle Burkett is a Josh Hamilton fan. Write that down.

-I don't care to hear anything else about Brett Favre.

-The all star game was also a good time, but one has to feel bad for Dan Uggla. 3 errors, 3 strikeouts, and grounding in to a key double play with the potential winning run on third, what a traumatizing performance for the poor guy! I hope that someday he can win a World Series MVP or something to get this one wiped off the back of his baseball card. He is on the right team for that, the Marlins are the only team that ever seems to be able to roll with the American League on the grandest of stages (excepting that fluky Cardinals team that was, by the way, the worst team to ever win a World's Series). I do, of course, have some theories about all this AL domination and the Florida Marlins occasional outbursts but I think I'll save that for a later date.

I was really, really, really hoping to see Soria and when we did, I wasn't disappointed. His performance was no perfect script, but it was thoroughly enjoyable all the same. It also won't be long before I dedicate an entire post to that guy. Of course his best pitch of the night came against, naturally, Uggla. Bitter-sweet.

-Did you hear that Billy Packer retired from the Tourney this week? So long, fella. Billy has been over the years, for whatever reason, a strongly disliked figure in many circles. But doesn't it seem, and perhaps I'm wrong about this, that Kansas fans seemed to hate the man more than other fans did? Ironic then, if that's the case, that the last tournament game of Billy's broadcasting career will go down in history as being Mario's Miracle. To tell you the truth, I can't remember why I ever really started disliking the guy in the first place. I'm sure it had something to do with his general smugness or his mistaking his own opinions for absolute fact, but really, I can't cite any specific instances. And maybe that coupled with his voice, to me, becoming synonymous with my favorite event, is why in the end, the guy had actually started to grow on me.

-Finally, and currently most pressing on my mind, some of us lost a great friend this week. I for one will always remember the poker night declaration, "I got the deuces!" with the biggest of smiles. Scotty P, on behalf of all of us that knew you, you were one of a kind brother, and you are already greatly missed.

The Home Run Derby

It's here! Are you excited? Have you decided where you're going to watch it yet? Are you going to put on your Dan Uggla jersey, call up all your friends, by yourself a sixer of your favorite suds and sit down to some of that killer cheese dip tomorrow night at 7 central to listen to Chris Berman chatter Back, Back, Back, Back, Back for 3 hours? No, sadly, I'm probably not going to watch it either. But just in case I change my mind, or really can't find anything better to do and you find yourself somehow drawn to it as well, here's the cast for Monday night's MLB version of the slam dunk contest:

Lance Berkman
Ryan Braun
Josh Hamilton
Evan Longoria
Justin Morneau
Grady Sizemore
Dan Uggla
Chase Utley

Don't get too excited. I mean, I'm pretty sure that no more than 1 of those players has, you know, been addicted to crack, and there's a nice mix of young, like real young talent in there, but try if you can to remain calm. Instead, look over that list again. Notice something missing? Yankee's stadium...last season there...Ahhh, got it, where's A-Rod?

Well, here's a theory for you. It seems that A-Rod has recently been mistaken for Brad Pitt. For years now, we have been unnecessarily exposed to every twist, every turn of little Bradly's love life. Yes, the women he encounters are extraordinarily hot and almost every bit as recognisable in the entertainment world as he is. But here's the thing, the rub I suppose for those of you that are truly into this kind of gossip. Not all of us care. And do you know where those of us that don't care turn to when we no longer want to be smothered by this senseless crap? That's right, sports.

No longer. The tabloids have now officially infected our sanctuary. A-Rod is getting a divorce, and Madonna this, and Lenny that, and yeah, yeah, yeah, WE DON'T CARE!!! And now we have nowhere to turn to. And A-Rod, being the sports guy that he is, definitely doesn't know how to assess all the attention. And so he steps out of the spotlight. Are you really surprised? Well I'm not. Oh, he'll claim that the derby sets his swing back weeks and this and that, but really, don't you think he just wants to take a step back for a minute? Frankly, I don't blame him. Divorce, by most accounts, is already unpleasant enough without having to answer to the entire baseball watching world about it. Please just stop. Enough. Let us have our game back.

So, baseball has the home run derby, and basketball the slam dunk contest, but what's football's equivalent? Wouldn't it be cool if there was an NFL sack derby? You following me? We could get the best linebackers and pass rushing linemen in the game and grade them by how well they light up some dude. Even better if "some dude" happened to be the game's worse off the field offenders like Pacman or Mike Vick. Or even if it were on a volunteer basis, I guarantee there would be some takers. Sign up here to get your clock cleaned by Ray Lewis at the NFL sack derby on ESPN! There are a lot of idiots in this country that would do just about anything for a little TV time. Worse case scenario, you know that the Jackass guys would be all over it.

Anyway, not that I'll be watching, but tomorrow night, my pick to win: Morneau. What's that? Oh fine, you're right, I'll probably be watching.

Noodling

So the other day, some friends and I were talking about this little sport:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biL-QcviQGk

Now, I like fishing. Bass fishing. Deep sea fishing. Fly fishing. It's one of my favorite outdoor activities. And I even enjoy from time to time, catching a catfish. Oh, it's not my favorite, getting the hook out can be a nuisance and as an entree the flavor is, well, let's just say that I usually catch and release anyway but with this particular fresh water dump-truck, I really like the catch and release policy. They do put up a good fight though, and on a day where you're pulling nothing but bluegill out of their natural habitat, hooking one of these beasts can be a rather exciting change of pace. Hooking one. With bait on a hook, attached by way of fishing line to a rod and a reel. You can even use a bobber to indicate bait/hook activity.

Perhaps I'm a sissy though. I think the fellas in the video might think so. Yes, I'm pretty sure of that actually; they seemed pretty free about dropping the sissy bomb and I think I would have that one coming. It just seems, I don't know, unpleasant. And given the rod/reel/line/hook/bait technology, a little unnecessary. Yet, there is one undeniable truth about myself or my friends (to my knowledge or memory of our conversations on the subject), none of us have actually tried noodling, never even seen it done before.

Now let's be clear about something, the don't knock it until you've tried it thing is a bogus line. Some things need to be left alone, never tried by anyone. I don't want to go into too much detail on this subject, but let me give you an example: heroin. OK? Can we agree? Don't try everything? That said, I'm not sure noodling qualifies for this category. Granted, I've always been much more inclined to participate in random outdoor sports than I am drug-experimentation, but I don't think it would be too hard to justify my preferences. So, let's say for the sake of argument that, I and perhaps some of my more adventurous friends, decided to give this noodling thing a try. I'd like some questions answered first.

Where would we go? Mississippi? Oklahoma? We'd need a guide, someone that knows what they're doing. I mean, we're not exactly going to just tromp on into a random river or farm pond and just start feeling around for catfish holes. Would I Google "noodling tours" or "grabbing guides?"

Next, can we try using alternative methods first? Maybe the fish would like to eat something besides my hand. I guess the point of noodling very well might be just to be noodling, but to me it seems more like a tactic to be used after all others have been exhausted. It could go something like this, "Well, I guess the fishing pole thing isn't working today. We're going to have to noodle it." OK then, catfish master, then I guess that's what we're going to have to do. Just don't call me a sissy.

And who pioneered this concept? Is there a Naismith, a Doubleday of noodling? And how did they come up with it and why? I'd bet it was to impress girls. Did that work back then? Does it work now? I'm definitely in if it does.

And most importantly, why is it illegal in so many states? Is it dangerous? Do people really actually lose fingers sometimes? Or more often drown, I guess. But that's nonsense if this is the case. Rock climbing is dangerous. Racing cars is dangerous. Why would we single out the noodlers? More than likely I think it probably has more to do with the fish themselves. But catfish aren't exactly endangered are they? Is the tactic considered unfair? Couldn't be anymore unfair than say, I don't know, firing a shotgun at something! Is this a PETA thing?

Anyway, before participation, I'd like some of this cleared up. Even then I'm hesitant, but then I wouldn't want to be called a sissy, so you know if the opportunity arises, what the hell? If it does though, I'm not going alone on this one. Noodling anyone? Sissy.

Greek Tragedy

I very much liked Vin Scully's comparison of Baseball to Greek tragedy. At first, I enjoyed it as the kind of nostalgic glee that only a true baseball fan can experience. But after further consideration, it occurs to me how much the comparison hits home...as a Royals fan.

Did you ever notice that every Greek tragedy seems to be a lesson of sorts of what not to do? Oedipus: don't kill pops and shack up with mom. Medea: don't kill the kids now. And from another perspective, don't bring home some strange chick from a foreign land, marry her, and then promptly leave her for a wife that best fits your family's desires based on social prominence that she (the first wife) has no awareness of or affiliation with; she'll kill the kids dude.

It seems that the last 20+ years of Royals baseball have been a constant lesson of what not to do, doesn't it? I mean, fill in your example of choice here _______ (just please spare me the words: BELTRAN or DAMON, unless you're talking about value in return). We're one constant predicament after another, and every turn demonstrates a tragedy to learn from, so many that we're left a little confused of exactly what we're learning at all: wait...offer money to...the nice guy...Mike Sweeney or... the disruptive Jose Guillen? I can't remember...nobody likes...either one...and neither player seems to work out in any one's perspective...at least not that guy's...but then he didn't like either player...and wait, does that player hurt the team when he's playing hurt...or by saying hurtful things about them...or is it worse to always be hurt...what should I do...what should I think? On that one, at least for now, I'll stick with Guillen.

And our most recent example of lessons taught by our Greek tragedies at the K: don't bunt with Billy Butler. Actually, don't draft Billy Butler altogether. It's almost like Billy Butler is that wife we brought in from some foreign baseball universe, where slow doesn't matter, defense matters even less, and hitting is at a premium, but certainly not hitting for power. Nobody saw that pick coming because nobody would know what to do with a player like that. And if we sought to trade him today, I doubt we'd get much value for him because I doubt anyone would know what to do with him now. He's clearly got some upside just like that exotic woman from another world, but at what expense? He's killing the kids dude.

Introduction or lack there of

This is my first blog. Anybody that reads this likely needs no introduction because you are among an initial short few whom I opted to alert to it's very existence. I guess it's possible that even I could grow a readership that expands beyond my immediate circle of friends, but that kind of development is unexpected and would likely take the amount of time and posts that would render this first entry obsolete, so why worry about a full-fledged documentation of my life, likes, dislikes, health report, etc.?

What you can expect are a lot of thoughts on sports, mostly local (but certainly not exclusively), and regrettably for you the reader, my thoughts on just about anything else that somehow has the unique qualities enough to generate the often misguided assessment of yours truly. I like the idea of blog, have for some time now. The bottom line is that sometimes the worst part of maintaining relations with others is having to actually listen to everything they have to say. Some people have the unique ability to almost always be interesting, or funny, but not everyone and not anyone from the perspective of everyone. Through this venue, paying attention is optional. A choice is made. I like that.

Anyway, not much to say for my first post, just wanted to get it started. I did watch a perfect game through 7 tonight, which was fun while it lasted. Hiroki Kuroda was on the mound for the Dodgers and managed to turn away 21 batters before Mark Teixiera broke him up in the 8th. But more important to me wasn't who was pitching or who got the first hit, but rather, that Vin Scully was calling the game. Now, I'm well aware that the baseball package on cable is not exactly a majority purchase. That said, it's unfortunate that not everyone can enjoy his broadcasts because the man makes my favorite game even better and that's hard to do (Of course I feel the same about Matthews and Lefebvre). Anyway, tonight Kuroda fell just short of perfect, but Vin Scully sure didn't. It was fun to watch. Scully has a number of quotes that you can look up if you're interested, but for now I'll leave you with one that I found:

"Football is to baseball as blackjack is to bridge. One is the quick jolt. The other the deliberate, slow-paced game of skill, but never was a sport more ideally suited to television than baseball. It's all there in front of you. It's theatre, really. The star is the spotlight on the mound, the supporting cast fanned out around him, the mathematical precision of the game moving with the kind of inevitability of Greek tragedy. With the Greek chorus in the bleachers!" Source: Los Angeles Times (June 20, 1976)