The Saints were always getting worked over in trades and free agency. Teams could unload "talent" on the Saints, only to leave the franchise to find out that they had a dud. Steve Walsh and Jason David come to mind. The club was also a sucker for bringing in veterans past their prime. Think Earl Campbell, Jim Everett, and Mike Ditka (ugh).
But something happened that most of us missed in the Spring of 2009.
First, the Saints signed Darren Sharper from the Vikings. He was 12 years into the league, a quickly-aging veteran, who only had one interception in the previous season and who - the Vikings believed - had lost a step. The Vikings let him go.
Then Josh Bullocks, a second round pick who didn't pan out after four seasons, was signed away by the Chicago Bears. Saints fans couldn't believe that the Bears wanted a guy that fans fully supported discarding. It was strange.
This totally upset the balance of the Saints universe (What? Hyperboles are fun.). Brees had been in New Orleans for three seasons by this point, as had Sean Payton and Micky Loomis. They had an excellent first season in 2006, but they only went 10-6, and by the spring of 2009, the Saints were a mediocre team coming off two years of 15-17 ball. But the cataclysmic changeover at free safety signified that things had finally rebalanced.
So what happened? Darren Sharper came in and started at free safety. He had nine interceptions, an NFL record 376 return yards, and scored three touchdowns. The Saints won the Super Bowl. Meanwhile, poor Mr. Bullocks made 34 tackles and had no interceptions. In two seasons. Last week, he signed with the Oakland Raiders. Ouch.
So if you ever see Josh Bullocks, don't think of the missed tackles. Don't think of the lack of speed. Think of Super Bowl XIV, and buy him a drink. Given that he's playing in Oakland, he probably needs one.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
In Support of the Death Penalty
Cripes, another political article? No, not this time (thank God). We're back to sports . . .
Yahoo! Sports dropped the bomb this week on Miami, after a year-long investigation into, um, improprieties surrounding the football and basketball programs. If you've read about it on ESPN, then I suggest reading the actual article from Yahoo! Sports (linked above). It's so salaciously scandalous, that you'll think you're reading a synopsis of ESPN's "Playmakers," which magically got canceled when the NFL complained that it was soiling the image of NFL players. (Good call, ESPN. That's a huge client that you don't want to upset.)
Nevin Schapiro, a former booster - who, it should be noted, is now in jail for perpetrating a giant ponzi scheme - disclosed paying players and recruits, taking them to clubs, soliciting sex for them, and even an abortion in one case. Players were in on it. Staffers were in on it. Even coaches were in on it. All the while, Schapiro was hailed as a wonderful booster, allowed to lead the team out on the field, given access to the press box - where he unloaded on the compliance head while Miami was getting killed by Virginia in 2007 - and even had a "student athlete lounge" named after him. The time period: 2002-2010. Eight years. And Yahoo! Sports clearly did their homework in validating the allegations, which fingered 72 players. Whoa.
So let's assume that the allegations are true (because what fun would it be not to?). This is Cam Newtongate times 1,000. That makes it almost as bad as Kim Jong Il's attempt to use weapons of mass destwuction across the world, before he was thwarted by Team America when Gary out acted Arec Barwin.
Surely, the NCAA has to do something drastic. But how drastic? "Experts" say that the death penalty was too harsh in the only instance in which it was applied to football, and that SMU is still feeling the effects of it over 20 years later.
I disagree. SMU had their 1987 season canceled, and didn't field another team until 1989. Essentially, they had to re-start their program. Unfortunately, for reasons that had nothing to do with their punishment, it was a really BAD time to be a bad program. The headwinds that were coming over the next decade were unstoppable:
Think about it this way: if Ohio State were given the death penalty today, do you really think that they would have lots of trouble rebuilding their program? With the stadium, facilities, and conference affiliation that they have? No way. They'd be competitive in five years.
Another potential punishment that would be a delicious experiment would be to send them to the FCS division (I-AA) for five years. They could still keep their football infrastructure without having to start over, but they have to play FIU, Delaware St, and McNeese St, instead of Oklahoma, Va Tech, and FSU. Scholarship reductions would be mandated, because FCS teams have fewer scholarships anyway. They couldn't play in a bowl, but those poor poor kids who didn't arrive at the school until after the wrongdoing could still play for something: an FCS championship.
I still favor the death penalty. I mean, did you read the article? The school deserves it.
Yahoo! Sports dropped the bomb this week on Miami, after a year-long investigation into, um, improprieties surrounding the football and basketball programs. If you've read about it on ESPN, then I suggest reading the actual article from Yahoo! Sports (linked above). It's so salaciously scandalous, that you'll think you're reading a synopsis of ESPN's "Playmakers," which magically got canceled when the NFL complained that it was soiling the image of NFL players. (Good call, ESPN. That's a huge client that you don't want to upset.)
Nevin Schapiro, a former booster - who, it should be noted, is now in jail for perpetrating a giant ponzi scheme - disclosed paying players and recruits, taking them to clubs, soliciting sex for them, and even an abortion in one case. Players were in on it. Staffers were in on it. Even coaches were in on it. All the while, Schapiro was hailed as a wonderful booster, allowed to lead the team out on the field, given access to the press box - where he unloaded on the compliance head while Miami was getting killed by Virginia in 2007 - and even had a "student athlete lounge" named after him. The time period: 2002-2010. Eight years. And Yahoo! Sports clearly did their homework in validating the allegations, which fingered 72 players. Whoa.
So let's assume that the allegations are true (because what fun would it be not to?). This is Cam Newtongate times 1,000. That makes it almost as bad as Kim Jong Il's attempt to use weapons of mass destwuction across the world, before he was thwarted by Team America when Gary out acted Arec Barwin.
Surely, the NCAA has to do something drastic. But how drastic? "Experts" say that the death penalty was too harsh in the only instance in which it was applied to football, and that SMU is still feeling the effects of it over 20 years later.
I disagree. SMU had their 1987 season canceled, and didn't field another team until 1989. Essentially, they had to re-start their program. Unfortunately, for reasons that had nothing to do with their punishment, it was a really BAD time to be a bad program. The headwinds that were coming over the next decade were unstoppable:
- Conference realignment - In the mid-1990s, there was a major conference shift and SMU's Southwest Conference was at the epicenter. It dissolved. The strongest players joined with former members of the Big 8, and SMU missed the Big 12 bus.
- Television - During the same decade, a revolution happened in sports: everyone could watch everything on tv. By the late 90s, one could watch football on four channels by noon in any region. Dallacians (commonly called Dallasites by people who aren't as cool as me) could watch Texas or A&M just about every week, or their school back east. They didn't need SMU anymore. This made it hard for them to draw support.
- Evolution of the BCS - When the Southwest Conference broke up, SMU lost its ticket to college football's emerging VIP room. By the time that the BCS officially formed in the late 90s, SMU was out, just like any other team (besides Notre Dame) that didn't belong to the major conferences. This wasn't an SMU problem; it was an "every team that doesn't play in the major conferences" problem.
Think about it this way: if Ohio State were given the death penalty today, do you really think that they would have lots of trouble rebuilding their program? With the stadium, facilities, and conference affiliation that they have? No way. They'd be competitive in five years.
Another potential punishment that would be a delicious experiment would be to send them to the FCS division (I-AA) for five years. They could still keep their football infrastructure without having to start over, but they have to play FIU, Delaware St, and McNeese St, instead of Oklahoma, Va Tech, and FSU. Scholarship reductions would be mandated, because FCS teams have fewer scholarships anyway. They couldn't play in a bowl, but those poor poor kids who didn't arrive at the school until after the wrongdoing could still play for something: an FCS championship.
I still favor the death penalty. I mean, did you read the article? The school deserves it.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Accomplishments
Pardon the continued forbidden foray into the world of politics, but how am I not supposed to seize on this most amazing quote?
“'Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney,' said a prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House." (Politico - link)
Premise - By November of 2012, I will have been the President of the United States for nearly four years.
Premise - By November of 2012, I will have fallen short on accomplishments necessary to merit a second term.
Is the conclusion:
(a) I should step aside and let somebody else give it a shot
(b) I should be re-elected, because I'm still the one who can get the job done, even though my track record doesn't show it . . . yet.
(c) Not only should I be re-elected, but in order to be elected, I should willfully tear down another candidate for the position personally, in order to attempt to steer the attention away from my lack of accomplishments. I'll do anything to retain the office, because I matter most to me.
Well, (a) may be the most statesmanlike, (b) is not only defensible, but also admirable because anyone who cares about something doesn't want to give up, but (c) is just unethical. I sincerely hope that POTUS finds a way to choose option (b) over the next year instead of (c), because anyone who lets advisers convince them to choose (c) is just a narcissist.
“'Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney,' said a prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House." (Politico - link)
Premise - By November of 2012, I will have been the President of the United States for nearly four years.
Premise - By November of 2012, I will have fallen short on accomplishments necessary to merit a second term.
Is the conclusion:
(a) I should step aside and let somebody else give it a shot
(b) I should be re-elected, because I'm still the one who can get the job done, even though my track record doesn't show it . . . yet.
(c) Not only should I be re-elected, but in order to be elected, I should willfully tear down another candidate for the position personally, in order to attempt to steer the attention away from my lack of accomplishments. I'll do anything to retain the office, because I matter most to me.
Well, (a) may be the most statesmanlike, (b) is not only defensible, but also admirable because anyone who cares about something doesn't want to give up, but (c) is just unethical. I sincerely hope that POTUS finds a way to choose option (b) over the next year instead of (c), because anyone who lets advisers convince them to choose (c) is just a narcissist.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
More on America
Thought-provoking piece from Fouad Ajami highlighting POTUS's unfortunate lack of belief in American Exceptionalism. The Hoover Institution fellow is, of course, days behind yours truly, who blogged on the subject on Friday. (See below)
Not on to more positive news. Congress passed a debt resolution and everyone hates it. I think this is what happens when a bunch of brats are forced to compromise.
Not on to more positive news. Congress passed a debt resolution and everyone hates it. I think this is what happens when a bunch of brats are forced to compromise.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Ok, now I'm upset
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN WASHINGTON??????
First of all, this is not a column about political preference or policy. This is a column about dignity. It discusses the lack thereof anywhere in Washington, with the most galling absence at the White House.
This morning, the President held a "press conference," which is an adorable term since it is not a conference at all if only one person speaks, and refuses to answer questions. Given the format and frequency of these "conferences" these days, it's more like a single person co-opting the press to deliver a message to the people, based exclusively on said person's viewpoint about the importance of said message. You know who does this? Hugo Chavez. Nice.
Legislators have held their ridiculous conferences too, but there is a sharp difference between the expected behavior of legislators and the expected behavior of the American President. Simply put, legislators debate and push their own agendas, while Presidents lead and craft consensus. Well, not all Presidents, apparently.
President Obama seems to enjoy the power of the presidency, but the job function of a legislator. This is a bitter recipe. My opinion is that he acts beneath the dignity of his office, and it undermines his ability to get the job done. In times like these, it is the President's role to assist the leaders of both houses to bring together a bipartisan coalition. Here is what a President should have done:
Now, this is not to say that the legislators' behavior in this mess can't be helped. Their eternal concern about "messaging" - aka, campaigning for the next election - is an abomination. Their job is not to get re-elected; their job is to do what's best for the nation. At the very least, they should believe in their constituents enough to think that they will be measured by something other than "How much funding did you get us for projects in our district?" Or, they should at least resist any temptation to listen to that philosophy because they know that it can only lead to national ruin: "United we stand. Divided we fall."
This concern leads to the press conference circuses that we see today. It is understandable that legislative leaders want their position articulated, but the frequency and the verbiage is not good for the nation. And the lesson of, "He started it," or "They do it, so why can't I?" are just about the last thing that we need our alleged leaders telling us. Congressmen are now a bad influence on our children. How pathetic is that? If I saw my father talk about somebody in the way that Reid, Boehner, et al. talk about each other in public, then I would be embarrassed. Even if it were in private! These people aren't "saving the planet" from each other . . . they have diverging philosophies on how to run the nation. Guess what? On some points, each side needs to be saved from itself. Our current entitlement programs will bankrupt us financially, but a balanced budget amendment will cripple us someday as well. Those two efforts are big deals, and neither ought to exist without bipartisan support. Neither will have that level of support, and for good reason. Therefore, they should not be implemented. See how we all can win?
Presidential leadership will guide us through keeping a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget off the table. It will also guide us through making fair adjustments to entitlement programs that reflect the nation's overall viewpoint, which - shockingly - aligns itself between the parties' positions.
Unfortunately, it appears that it will be the next President's leadership.
First of all, this is not a column about political preference or policy. This is a column about dignity. It discusses the lack thereof anywhere in Washington, with the most galling absence at the White House.
This morning, the President held a "press conference," which is an adorable term since it is not a conference at all if only one person speaks, and refuses to answer questions. Given the format and frequency of these "conferences" these days, it's more like a single person co-opting the press to deliver a message to the people, based exclusively on said person's viewpoint about the importance of said message. You know who does this? Hugo Chavez. Nice.
Legislators have held their ridiculous conferences too, but there is a sharp difference between the expected behavior of legislators and the expected behavior of the American President. Simply put, legislators debate and push their own agendas, while Presidents lead and craft consensus. Well, not all Presidents, apparently.
President Obama seems to enjoy the power of the presidency, but the job function of a legislator. This is a bitter recipe. My opinion is that he acts beneath the dignity of his office, and it undermines his ability to get the job done. In times like these, it is the President's role to assist the leaders of both houses to bring together a bipartisan coalition. Here is what a President should have done:
- Develop a plan with his legislative leader, Harry Reid. Get on the same page. Understand which areas will be contentious. Understand which areas are highest priority for their position. Understand which areas are ripe for compromise. In sum, be ready to negotiate together, because any plan crafted by Democrats would need support from at least some House Republicans. The larger the impact of the legislation, the more important it is to have bipartisan support. This is good for the nation. It's why the Supreme Court bends over backwards for a heavy majority - if not unanimous - opinion when it comes to landmark rulings. (Brown v Board of Education, which ended segregation in schools, is a fantastic example.) So, if the bill ends up being temporary in nature, a simple majority is fine. If it ends up making significant changes to Social Security, Medicare, etc., then you had better be ready to gather strong support. This may require more concessions, but it is better for the nation.
- Negotiate respectfully with the other side. This does not mean "give in to Republican demands." It means, let the legislators fill the airwaves with their verbal artillery, but take the opportunity to look like the leader that all Americans would respect. Fight hard behind the scenes for the portions of the bill that you believe in. If the other side says they can't or won't deliver the votes, then get on the phone and go get the votes yourself. But don't, in any circumstance, get dragged into the political mudslinging ritual of dueling press conferences. If you had accomplished step one, then you can rest assured that your legislative teammate will have your back and communicate your position. Meanwhile, you get to be "good cop," and reach out to the other side. Use your legislative whip, use the other side's whip . . . the system is in place.
- Allow legislators to take credit publicly. Nobody believes anything that legislators say anyway. Everyone knows that landmark legislation with bipartisan support only happens with Presidential leadership. Seriously. It might come out in people's minds as, "Yeah right, you guys in Congress are a bunch of idiots. The President gets credit by default." But they know. If it really bothers you, then you can say how proud you are of Congress, that you were glad that they did what they were supposed to do, etc. etc. You know, paternalistic comments that say, "I'm in charge of all of this," without saying "I'm in charge of all of this." Just don't lay it on too thick. People get the point even if they don't know it.
Now, this is not to say that the legislators' behavior in this mess can't be helped. Their eternal concern about "messaging" - aka, campaigning for the next election - is an abomination. Their job is not to get re-elected; their job is to do what's best for the nation. At the very least, they should believe in their constituents enough to think that they will be measured by something other than "How much funding did you get us for projects in our district?" Or, they should at least resist any temptation to listen to that philosophy because they know that it can only lead to national ruin: "United we stand. Divided we fall."
This concern leads to the press conference circuses that we see today. It is understandable that legislative leaders want their position articulated, but the frequency and the verbiage is not good for the nation. And the lesson of, "He started it," or "They do it, so why can't I?" are just about the last thing that we need our alleged leaders telling us. Congressmen are now a bad influence on our children. How pathetic is that? If I saw my father talk about somebody in the way that Reid, Boehner, et al. talk about each other in public, then I would be embarrassed. Even if it were in private! These people aren't "saving the planet" from each other . . . they have diverging philosophies on how to run the nation. Guess what? On some points, each side needs to be saved from itself. Our current entitlement programs will bankrupt us financially, but a balanced budget amendment will cripple us someday as well. Those two efforts are big deals, and neither ought to exist without bipartisan support. Neither will have that level of support, and for good reason. Therefore, they should not be implemented. See how we all can win?
Presidential leadership will guide us through keeping a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget off the table. It will also guide us through making fair adjustments to entitlement programs that reflect the nation's overall viewpoint, which - shockingly - aligns itself between the parties' positions.
Unfortunately, it appears that it will be the next President's leadership.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
College Football postseason solved...
It's rather simple actually. First we move the entire bowl season up a couple of weeks, the room is there, and then we develop a hybrid bowl/playoff system. The BCS games will remain, but they'll all be played some time between December 22 and 24, with one, at most, on the 24th. This is for TV ratings reason, which is why we're not putting any of them on the 25th.
The winners of these four games get to move on to the two playoff games New Year's Day, with the Championship following 8 days later in order to give the teams a slightly extended week.
Other bowl games will be free to play whenever they so desire, but no regular bowl shall be played on or after New Year's Day.
The main drawback is that only 4 teams will now get to play in a New Year's Day game every year with only 2 being victorious, but come on pansies, we can get over that. This system will keep the excitement of the bowl season, while adding the playoff flare and taking out all doubt of any Champion.
Another drawback would be the griping coming from the NFL about fighting for TV slots, but the NFL mostly plays on Sundays, so we can get around that pretty easily by moving games up or pushing them back by 24 hours.
Out.
The winners of these four games get to move on to the two playoff games New Year's Day, with the Championship following 8 days later in order to give the teams a slightly extended week.
Other bowl games will be free to play whenever they so desire, but no regular bowl shall be played on or after New Year's Day.
The main drawback is that only 4 teams will now get to play in a New Year's Day game every year with only 2 being victorious, but come on pansies, we can get over that. This system will keep the excitement of the bowl season, while adding the playoff flare and taking out all doubt of any Champion.
Another drawback would be the griping coming from the NFL about fighting for TV slots, but the NFL mostly plays on Sundays, so we can get around that pretty easily by moving games up or pushing them back by 24 hours.
Out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)