Not Much Deviation Among Top Predictions: Everyone has Alabama getting to the College Football Playoffs again, joined almost as universally by Clemson and Oklahoma. The only suspense seems to be who will be the fourth school in the mix. I guess there's really not much reason to play the regular season and conference championship games. We should just have a playoff between Ohio State, Michigan, LSU and Florida State to see who gets the final spot. If we believe the early prognosticators, teams like Tennessee, Stanford and Baylor might make things fun for a while, but when it all shakes out, the drama will have evaporated and we'll be down to the favorites. Of course, I beg to differ, if for no other reason than to present another point of view. I've taken a look at all of the Big Five conference teams as well as a few of the others, including independents and Group of Five conference teams that may compete at the national level. Using some easy to find criteria, I scored every team and came up with conference and national rankings. The intent was to find out who had the best chance to win their division and conference, thus enabling them to compete for a spot in the College Football Playoffs. It was not intended to provide a full ranking of all of the teams. The methodology doesn't hold up well for teams in the middle of the pack.
Wins in 2015: Like it or not, in college football, the prior season's results are a fair indicator of the prospects for the current season. I began with the number of victories each team had last season, including conference championship games, the bowls and any playoff wins. This obviously afforded the successful teams from a year ago a significant advantage.
Returning Offensive Starters: For the top teams or even ones that had moderate success, bringing back experienced players is an advantage. On the offensive side of the ball, I gave teams an additional point if they have their starting quarterback returning. Although teams have been able to win with a new signal caller, it's a big advantage to have continuity at that position from season to season.
Returning Defensive Starters: No extra points for any particular position and I also didn't include any special teamers, such as placekickers or punters.
Conference Schedule Adjustment: Even though schools play in the same league, or even in the same division. their schedules can still vary greatly, especially because imbalances create different matchups with teams from the opposite division. This is the case in every conference with the exception of the Big 12, whose teams play a round robin schedule. Still, home and road games are sometimes inordinately skewed in a team's favor. The adjustments are subtractions for tougher schedules and additions for easier ones.
Non-conference Schedule Adjustment: The same logic as the previous criterion, but taking into consideration the quality of opponents faced outside of their conference. For independents, this is an adjustment based on their entire schedule.
ACC: Not a big surprise, as Clemson topped the Atlantic division and the league with a score of 28. The Tigers benefited greatly from a favorable conference schedule, which sees them take on a rebuilding Georgia Tech and a decent Pittsburgh squad from the Coastal division. A team that probably under-performed last season, the Louisville Cardinals, came in a close second, also getting a break in their conference schedule, with bottom feeders Boston College and Virginia on the schedule. Where is Florida State, you're asking? They came in third in the Atlantic, due to a much tougher conference slate that includes North Carolina and a Miami team that's expected to be much improved under new coach Mark Richt. In the Coastal, look for North Carolina to have a leg up in what is always a dogfight, made more so this year if Virginia Tech coach Justin Fuente gets the Hokie offense in gear.
Big 12: Oklahoma advanced to the College Football Playoffs last season and are looking to take it to another level, getting to the final and perhaps getting another national championship for coach Bob Stoops. But their biggest competition might just be from their home state, as rival Oklahoma State returns ten offensive starters to a team that didn't exactly have trouble putting points on the board last season. The problem for the Cowboys came from the other side of the ball as they surrendered 151 points in season ending losses to Baylor, Oklahoma and Ole Miss. The seven returning defensive starters will need to get some help if they are to live up to the 28 points in my study, tops in the conference.
Big Ten: Michigan, in coach Jim Harbaugh's second season in Ann Arbor, is a popular pick to challenge Ohio State for their division and the conference, but to advance to the playoffs as well. Although I tend to think it's a bit premature to expect the Wolverines to unseat Urban Meyer's Buckeyes as the top dog in the Big Ten, my scoring method actually has them coming out on top. Ohio State, with only three offensive and four defensive returning starters, will be looking to reload the team that was arguably the best in college football last season. But unlike last year, when the East clearly had more depth and talent than the West, the league may have a bit more balance. Iowa went into the Big Ten championship undefeated and were within a field goal of defeating Michigan State. Another favorable schedule again has the Hawkeyes clear favorites in their division, and with eight defensive starters back, they can once again challenge for a spot in the playoffs. Wisconsin will be victimized not only by graduation, but also by a brutal schedule that has them playing at Michigan State and Michigan in back to back weeks, then after a bye week hosting Ohio State and traveling to Iowa. No chance.
Pac-12: After getting shut out of the playoffs last year, most pundits have it happening again. The conference is deep and because the teams play a nine-game league schedule, the chances of dodging good teams in the regular season are slight. The favorites coming into the season are Stanford in the North and UCLA in the South, and my numbers add up the same way. But unlike a lot of experts that are falling in love with Washington, I believe the team from the other side of the state has a great chance to surprise some people. It's true that Washington State's head coach Mike Leach has never really paid much attention to defense, but with a little improvement on that side of ball could push the Cougars to the next level. Offenses are scoring more points than ever, and one need look no further than last year's championship game to see Alabama win despite giving up 40 points to Clemson. In the South, the Bruins will be challenged by a good USC team and Utah, who will need to find some offensive replacements for a group that had trouble scoring at times last season.
SEC: Alabama leads the nation in championships the last seven seasons and the conference has dominated for well over a decade. Can the Crimson Tide continue their run, despite losing half their starters, including the quarterback? My numbers say no. As predicted by many, LSU stands to make a leap and finally give Alabama a run in the West. But that half of the conference is so strong, that it may be difficult to have a clear enough winner to have a representative in the playoffs. Arkansas gets Alabama and LSU in Fayetteville this season, while Mississippi State and Ole Miss might take a step back. In the East, Tennessee returns almost the entire team and looks like the favorite to unseat Florida atop the division. My analysis has Georgia a close second, making the October 1 matchup between the two as critical a game as any on the season's schedule.
Others: Three other teams in particular stand out from the non-Big Five. San Diego State has a lot of talent returning from an 11 win team and also plays California, giving them a chance at a quality win. Houston, hosting Oklahoma in their opener, has a great opportunity to build on last season, where they picked up 13 victories with a defeat of Florida State in the Peach Bowl. One more that could make some noise is Appalachian State. Although they are a recent addition to the FBS, they open at Tennessee after picking up 11 wins and bowl victory over Ohio. Notre Dame, while having a schedule worthy of any conference school, just won't have enough horses to make it beyond the regular season.
Comments: What the numbers can't take into consideration are factors such as quality of recruiting classes, coaching ability and the talent of replacements. So while the exercise was enlightening, it didn't totlally dictate who I picked to win conferences and advance to the playoffs.
Picks:
ACC: Atlantic - Clemson; Coastal - North Carolina; Championship - Clemson
Big 12: Oklahoma State
Big Ten: East - Ohio State; West - Iowa; Championship - Iowa
Pac-12: North - Stanford; South - UCLA; Championship - Stanford
SEC: East - Georgia; West - LSU; Championship - LSU
College Football Playoffs:
Clemson
Oklahoma State
Iowa
LSU
National Champion
Clemson
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" at Amazon.com and listen to me Friday's at 8:40 am EDT/ 7:40 am CDT on Lou in the Morning, streaming live on www.WPFLradio.com, 105.1 FM.
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Saturday, August 20, 2016
THE RIO GAMES: EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS, SEVENTEEN DAYS OF ATHLETIC EXCELLENCE
No Violence, No Deaths, No Controversy: Eighteen days ago, most of us would have been very surprised to have witnessed what transpired in Rio de Janeiro during the course of these Olympic Games. All we heard about in the months prior to the Olympics were horror stories of polluted waters, security fears, public health disasters and unfinished venues. There was little publicity about the actual competitors, who the favorites were and what athletic story lines we should be paying attention to. In retrospect, it was all overblown, the negativity in our culture overshadowing the promise and optimism of a compelling and captivating event.
As I watched a stadium packed with the host country's fans cheering their soccer team on to victory in penalty kicks over Germany, I couldn't imagine a more fitting finale to a truly great Olympics. From the stunning topography to the scintillating action, I've been riveted for the last two weeks to any broadcast coverage I could find. Perhaps it's been about the domination of the U.S. delegation, racking up a total of 116 medals at this writing, ensured to put at least one more on the board when the men's basketball team wraps up competition in the gold medal game. Or maybe it's just the sheer expanse of competition, from high profile sports like swimming, gymnastics and athletics to lesser known endeavors like fencing, badminton or kayaking.
The sheer determination of the athletes to train and compete for a once every four years' shot at glory should be inspiring, prompting positive reaction and a call to devote ourselves to something more than sitting on our tails and taking pot shots at things that we don't agree with. My opinion is that if one hasn't been in another person's position, then it's virtually impossible to have a worthwhile perspective of their reaction. To criticize Michael Phelps for his boisterous celebration at winning yet another gold medal, or Lilly King for wagging her finger in response to another swimmer, or Usain Bolt for looking at the camera on his way to victory, or anyone for their reaction on the medal stand, is ludicrous. I say go out and win yourself a gold medal, then you earn an opinion. Otherwise, shut up and do something useful with your life.
Prior to the start of these Games, I was totally committed to boycotting, much like the U.S. did in 1980, prompting the Eastern Bloc to reciprocate in 1984. But I decided to give them a look, and I'm certainly pleased that I did. By tuning in, I was treated to Katy Ledecky, Michael Phelps, Simone Biles, Aly Raisman, Usain Bolt and a hundred other terrific stories. But the biggest lesson I learned was that the story is not the IOC, the venue, controversy surrounding the choice of the host city or anything else not directly associated with the competition, No, the real story is the about competitors, who seemingly rise above all else when it comes time to perform to the best of their abilities. And that's what I'll take from these Games, the positive outlook of the athletes, not the negativity of those that choose to stay on the sidelines.
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" and my first two, "Illegal Procedure - A PK Frazier Novel" and "Roughing the Passer - A PK Frazier Novel", available in print and e-formats at Amazon.com, iBooks and Smashwords. Tune into www.WPFLRADIO.com at 8:40 am EST every Friday for my Beyond the Commentary segment on "Lou in the Morning" with Lou Vickery and Jonathan McMath.
As I watched a stadium packed with the host country's fans cheering their soccer team on to victory in penalty kicks over Germany, I couldn't imagine a more fitting finale to a truly great Olympics. From the stunning topography to the scintillating action, I've been riveted for the last two weeks to any broadcast coverage I could find. Perhaps it's been about the domination of the U.S. delegation, racking up a total of 116 medals at this writing, ensured to put at least one more on the board when the men's basketball team wraps up competition in the gold medal game. Or maybe it's just the sheer expanse of competition, from high profile sports like swimming, gymnastics and athletics to lesser known endeavors like fencing, badminton or kayaking.
The sheer determination of the athletes to train and compete for a once every four years' shot at glory should be inspiring, prompting positive reaction and a call to devote ourselves to something more than sitting on our tails and taking pot shots at things that we don't agree with. My opinion is that if one hasn't been in another person's position, then it's virtually impossible to have a worthwhile perspective of their reaction. To criticize Michael Phelps for his boisterous celebration at winning yet another gold medal, or Lilly King for wagging her finger in response to another swimmer, or Usain Bolt for looking at the camera on his way to victory, or anyone for their reaction on the medal stand, is ludicrous. I say go out and win yourself a gold medal, then you earn an opinion. Otherwise, shut up and do something useful with your life.
Prior to the start of these Games, I was totally committed to boycotting, much like the U.S. did in 1980, prompting the Eastern Bloc to reciprocate in 1984. But I decided to give them a look, and I'm certainly pleased that I did. By tuning in, I was treated to Katy Ledecky, Michael Phelps, Simone Biles, Aly Raisman, Usain Bolt and a hundred other terrific stories. But the biggest lesson I learned was that the story is not the IOC, the venue, controversy surrounding the choice of the host city or anything else not directly associated with the competition, No, the real story is the about competitors, who seemingly rise above all else when it comes time to perform to the best of their abilities. And that's what I'll take from these Games, the positive outlook of the athletes, not the negativity of those that choose to stay on the sidelines.
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" and my first two, "Illegal Procedure - A PK Frazier Novel" and "Roughing the Passer - A PK Frazier Novel", available in print and e-formats at Amazon.com, iBooks and Smashwords. Tune into www.WPFLRADIO.com at 8:40 am EST every Friday for my Beyond the Commentary segment on "Lou in the Morning" with Lou Vickery and Jonathan McMath.
Friday, August 19, 2016
US OLYMPIC MEDAL HAUL: IS THERE MORE BEHIND IT THAN JUST STRONG PERFORMANCES?
China, Russia Down; UK Up: The United States tallied their 100th medal of the Rio Games last night, coming within a couple of exceeding the combined total of China and Russia. In Beijing in 2008, the host Chinese came within ten total medals of of the Americans, an incredible rise in accomplishment from finishing with just less than half the U.S. count of 101 just eight years earlier in Atlanta. Following the surge in medals for the Chinese in their own country and then in London in 2012, they appear to have fallen back to more historical levels. Great Britain as well is seeing better counts following their host status, currently sitting in third place.
Is there more to this than simply normal fluctuations in performance levels? Was there more behind the success of China than just an increased emphasis spurred on by being the host nation? Given the doping and other performance enhancing drug (PED) revelations of the past several months, I believe there is a good chance that there is. These games aren't over yet, but if the trend continues to their conclusion, with the exception of Russia, the medal totals will look very much as they did in Athens in 2004. In that year, the U.S. led with 101, followed by Russia with 90, China (63), Australia (50), Germany (49), Japan (37), France (33), Italy (32), Great Britain and South Korea (30). Currently, the standings are U.S. (100), China (58), Great Britain (56), Russia (44), Japan (37), France (34), Germany (32), Australia (27), Italy (24) and South Korea (18). The major movers are Great Britain to the positive and Russia to the negative. Obviously, Russia was going to take a hit with their track and field athletes banned from Rio, but that just helps make my case. Of their 90 medals in Athens, 19 came from athletics, accounting for less than half their deficit in Rio.
What's interesting here is that the main beneficiary of the medal count shift is not the United States, but rather Great Britain. The point could be made that PED's, while helping to make a middle of the pack competitor compete for a medal, may not be a full replacement for training and raw ability. I'm neither a scientist nor a sports performance expert, but I'm pretty good at analyzing numbers and statistics to come to a conclusion. This isn't to say that athletes in countries other than Russia aren't using PED's. We need to look no farther than Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, half of major league baseball and any number of NFL players for substantiation that PED use pervades any number of sports on global basis. But it appears from the numbers that perhaps their use in the Olympics has been discouraged and hopefully curbed to the extent that what we have seen in Rio is legitimate competition that is not affected by chemical substances.
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" and my first two, "Illegal Procedure - A PK Frazier Novel" and "Roughing the Passer - A PK Frazier Novel", available in print and e-formats at Amazon.com, iBooks and Smashwords. Tune into www.WPFLRADIO.com at 8:40 am EST every Friday for my Beyond the Commentary segment on "Lou in the Morning" with Lou Vickery and Jonathan McMath.
Is there more to this than simply normal fluctuations in performance levels? Was there more behind the success of China than just an increased emphasis spurred on by being the host nation? Given the doping and other performance enhancing drug (PED) revelations of the past several months, I believe there is a good chance that there is. These games aren't over yet, but if the trend continues to their conclusion, with the exception of Russia, the medal totals will look very much as they did in Athens in 2004. In that year, the U.S. led with 101, followed by Russia with 90, China (63), Australia (50), Germany (49), Japan (37), France (33), Italy (32), Great Britain and South Korea (30). Currently, the standings are U.S. (100), China (58), Great Britain (56), Russia (44), Japan (37), France (34), Germany (32), Australia (27), Italy (24) and South Korea (18). The major movers are Great Britain to the positive and Russia to the negative. Obviously, Russia was going to take a hit with their track and field athletes banned from Rio, but that just helps make my case. Of their 90 medals in Athens, 19 came from athletics, accounting for less than half their deficit in Rio.
What's interesting here is that the main beneficiary of the medal count shift is not the United States, but rather Great Britain. The point could be made that PED's, while helping to make a middle of the pack competitor compete for a medal, may not be a full replacement for training and raw ability. I'm neither a scientist nor a sports performance expert, but I'm pretty good at analyzing numbers and statistics to come to a conclusion. This isn't to say that athletes in countries other than Russia aren't using PED's. We need to look no farther than Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, half of major league baseball and any number of NFL players for substantiation that PED use pervades any number of sports on global basis. But it appears from the numbers that perhaps their use in the Olympics has been discouraged and hopefully curbed to the extent that what we have seen in Rio is legitimate competition that is not affected by chemical substances.
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" and my first two, "Illegal Procedure - A PK Frazier Novel" and "Roughing the Passer - A PK Frazier Novel", available in print and e-formats at Amazon.com, iBooks and Smashwords. Tune into www.WPFLRADIO.com at 8:40 am EST every Friday for my Beyond the Commentary segment on "Lou in the Morning" with Lou Vickery and Jonathan McMath.
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
THE RIO SUMMER OLYMPICS: OF COURSE I'M WATCHING
I Tried to Resist: Every four years, amidst controversy and stories of rampant materialithansm (Atlanta, 1996), human rights violations and corruption (Beijing, 2008), security concerns (London, 2012), economic issues (Athens, 2004), or all of the above plus dire predictions of a public health catastrophe (Rio de Janiero, 2016), the Summer Olympic Games take place and in almost every case, the concerns tend to go largely unjustified. This year I was intent on avoiding the event, turned off by reports of over promising and under delivering by the Rio organizing committee, not to mention the rampant bribery of IOC officials to win the bid to host the Games. But there I was earlier this week, tuning in to watch the U.S. women's rugby team trying to upset New Zealand to get to the quarterfinals. Really? Women's rugby? Then there's archery, the cycling road race, beach volleyball, synchronized diving and it goes on and on and on. And I'll be watching.
It's an amazing sports phenomenon, the world getting together to compete in an almost unending variety of athletic events. Smiling faces of competing athletes, disappointment of those who just miss out on a trip to the medal platform, nervous parents and family members, stunning scenery and enthusiastic fans are shown every night on what has proven to be an excellent prime time production by NBC. Sure, the coverage is heavily slanted toward the United States teams and individuals, but the last time I checked, we are living in the U.S. and it's fairly safe to assume that interest in our the competitors from our own country would be significantly higher than those from other places. But if you want to see every second of every event, NBC has that for you as well, streaming all of its coverage live on their NBC Olympics app.
The Americans at these Games have fared very well to date. The men were even able to grab a silver medal in the platform synchronized diving competition. Why not a gold? Well, because the Chinese divers were so good that even their poor dives were perfectly synchronized. Go figure. Then there is the U.S. swimming team, an entertaining mix of rookies and grizzled veterans, like Michael Phelps at age 31 and Ryan Lochte at 32. They both swam on the gold medal winning men's 4 x 200 meter freestyle relay team. That's a combined 63 years old. That's probably older than the total ages of the entire Russian women's gymnastics team. But on a more serious note, the Americans have put on a clinic in the pool, with Katie Ledecky looking like a unisuit clad assassin. Then there was Lilly King calling out and defeating Russia's Yulia Efimova, a repeated doping offender, in the 100 meter breaststroke.
There's disappointment for the U.S. as well. The men's volleyball team has managed just a single set in two matches, one against a Canadian team that shouldn't have been able to stay on the floor with them. Sloppy play and a lack of cohesion have victimized the squad that despite its youth and inexperience, was expected to at least compete for a medal. In the men's team competition, the U.S. gymnastics team got off to a horrrendous start, suddenly forgetting how to stay on the competition section of the floor exercise mat. As they move on to the individual apparatus and all-around competition, they need to remember one thing: white good, green bad. Of course the contrast with the women's team couldn't be any clearer. In winning the team gold, they obliterated the competition with almost perfect routine followed by perfect routine after perfect routine after...well, you get the picture. I've been following the Olympics since the 1964 Games in Tokyo, and even the great Soviet and other Eastern Bloc teams lacked the depth and precision that the U.S. women demonstrated in their dominating win.
Can the quintet add to there medals, will the U.S. women's soccer team follow up their World Cup win with a gold, can Michael Phelps possibly continue to do well enough to consider returning for another Games? I don't know, but I'm sure I'll be tuned in. And guess what? We haven't even started with track and field, golf or medal rounds in basketball, volleyball and beach volleyball. I just hope I have something left to walk in, uh, I mean watch the closing ceremonies.
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" and my first two, "Illegal Procedure - A PK Frazier Novel" and "Roughing the Passer - A PK Frazier Novel", available in print and e-formats at Amazon.com, iBooks and Smashwords. Tune into www.WPFLRADIO.com at 8:40 am EST every Friday for my Beyond the Commentary segment on "Lou in the Morning" with Lou Vickery and Jonathan McMath.
It's an amazing sports phenomenon, the world getting together to compete in an almost unending variety of athletic events. Smiling faces of competing athletes, disappointment of those who just miss out on a trip to the medal platform, nervous parents and family members, stunning scenery and enthusiastic fans are shown every night on what has proven to be an excellent prime time production by NBC. Sure, the coverage is heavily slanted toward the United States teams and individuals, but the last time I checked, we are living in the U.S. and it's fairly safe to assume that interest in our the competitors from our own country would be significantly higher than those from other places. But if you want to see every second of every event, NBC has that for you as well, streaming all of its coverage live on their NBC Olympics app.
The Americans at these Games have fared very well to date. The men were even able to grab a silver medal in the platform synchronized diving competition. Why not a gold? Well, because the Chinese divers were so good that even their poor dives were perfectly synchronized. Go figure. Then there is the U.S. swimming team, an entertaining mix of rookies and grizzled veterans, like Michael Phelps at age 31 and Ryan Lochte at 32. They both swam on the gold medal winning men's 4 x 200 meter freestyle relay team. That's a combined 63 years old. That's probably older than the total ages of the entire Russian women's gymnastics team. But on a more serious note, the Americans have put on a clinic in the pool, with Katie Ledecky looking like a unisuit clad assassin. Then there was Lilly King calling out and defeating Russia's Yulia Efimova, a repeated doping offender, in the 100 meter breaststroke.
There's disappointment for the U.S. as well. The men's volleyball team has managed just a single set in two matches, one against a Canadian team that shouldn't have been able to stay on the floor with them. Sloppy play and a lack of cohesion have victimized the squad that despite its youth and inexperience, was expected to at least compete for a medal. In the men's team competition, the U.S. gymnastics team got off to a horrrendous start, suddenly forgetting how to stay on the competition section of the floor exercise mat. As they move on to the individual apparatus and all-around competition, they need to remember one thing: white good, green bad. Of course the contrast with the women's team couldn't be any clearer. In winning the team gold, they obliterated the competition with almost perfect routine followed by perfect routine after perfect routine after...well, you get the picture. I've been following the Olympics since the 1964 Games in Tokyo, and even the great Soviet and other Eastern Bloc teams lacked the depth and precision that the U.S. women demonstrated in their dominating win.
Can the quintet add to there medals, will the U.S. women's soccer team follow up their World Cup win with a gold, can Michael Phelps possibly continue to do well enough to consider returning for another Games? I don't know, but I'm sure I'll be tuned in. And guess what? We haven't even started with track and field, golf or medal rounds in basketball, volleyball and beach volleyball. I just hope I have something left to walk in, uh, I mean watch the closing ceremonies.
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" and my first two, "Illegal Procedure - A PK Frazier Novel" and "Roughing the Passer - A PK Frazier Novel", available in print and e-formats at Amazon.com, iBooks and Smashwords. Tune into www.WPFLRADIO.com at 8:40 am EST every Friday for my Beyond the Commentary segment on "Lou in the Morning" with Lou Vickery and Jonathan McMath.
Thursday, August 4, 2016
FOUR WEEKS TO COLLEGE FOOTBALL KICKOFF: FIRST LOOK AT THE ACC
Clemson vs. Florida State: Is That All There Is? Listening to the so-called college football experts would lead you to believe that there are only two team in the ACC. Unfortunately, Florida State and Clemson are both in the same division of the league, so only one will even have a chance of playing in the league championship game. Will the ACC title end up going to the winner of the regular season matchup between the Tigers and the 'Noles? And will that guarantee the victor qualification for the College Football Playoffs? Once again, the experts would have you thinking that there are only a handful of meaningful games in the ACC, and all of them involve the frontrunners in the Atlantic Division.
If it sounds like I'm about to make an argument against the conventional wisdom, you're absolutely on the right track. Do I believe that Clemson and Florida State have the best two teams in the league? Pretty much. Do I think they'll both come through the season unscathed with the exception of their game against each other? Not really. Why, you might ask? Because there is a little matter of scheduling, or more accurately, the discrepancies in the college schedules that can make a huge difference in how teams ultimately finish the season. And in the ACC this year, there is a significant delta between the teams Florida State faces and those that Clemson will play, not to mention other potential contenders, if indeed you can believe there are any of those.
I'll start with the two favorites. The Seminoles play three games against FBS opponents, two of them from the SEC. Clemson plays three games against FBS opponents, two of them from the SEC. The similarities end there. The combined 2015 records of Florida State's FBS opponents is 28 - 12. Those of Clemson's is 14 - 23. That's a very significant difference, plus the fact that FSU plays South Florida, a team that is picked to be better than last year's 8 - 5. Clemson takes on Troy, hardly a team in the same class as the Bulls. Clemson opens at Auburn, while FSU takes on Ole Miss in Orlando. Okay, true road game for the Tigers, a quasi home game, at least in terms of fan support for Florida State. But Ole Miss is probably better than Auburn right now. To go to the other end of the schedule, both teams finish with traditional in-state rivalry games. The difference is that South Carolina is trying to rebuild under new coach Will Muschamp, while Florida is hoping to build on last year's SEC East title.
The conference schedule offers the same kind of advantages in Clemson's favor. The top two teams in the ACC Coastal are projected to be Miami and North Carolina, the defending Coastal champ. Guess which opponents Florida State plays from the other division in the league? In contrast, Clemson plays Georgia Tech and Pittsburgh, projected by one publication to finish fifth and fourth in their division, respectively. When you factor in the non-conference schedules, Clemson clearly has the advantage in scheduling. But there's a team in the same division that could end up taking advantage of a favorable conference schedule, especially if they pull an upset of either of the favorites. Louisville draws Duke and Virginia, two of the bottom feeders in the Coastal. I had picked the Cardinals to fare very well last season, so there's a chance Bobby Petrino can get his team in contention for the title.
In the Coastal division, there's a lot of buzz around Miami, hoping to get re-energized by the hiring of alumnus Mark Richt as head coach. He's hoping to do for the 'Canes what he had trouble doing at Georgia by winning a conference title. New Va. Tech coach Justin Fuentes will be attempting to bring new life to the Hokies offense while allowing long-time defensive coordinator Bud Foster to handle the other side of the line of scrimmage. From a scheduling perspective though, the Hokies have a big advantage over not only Miami, but also North Carolina. Va. Tech plays Boston College and Syracuse from the Atlantic Division, neither of which are even close to competing at a high level and picked to bring up the rear in the division. As mentioned before, the other two Coastal contenders take on Florida State. So as you can see, scheduling is likely to play a very big role in who contends for and ultimately wins the ACC title.
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" and my first two, "Illegal Procedure - A PK Frazier Novel" and "Roughing the Passer - A PK Frazier Novel", available in print and e-formats at Amazon.com, iBooks and Smashwords. Tune into www.WPFLRADIO.com at 8:40 am EST every Friday for my Beyond the Commentary segment on "Lou in the Morning" with Lou Vickery and Jonathan McMath.
If it sounds like I'm about to make an argument against the conventional wisdom, you're absolutely on the right track. Do I believe that Clemson and Florida State have the best two teams in the league? Pretty much. Do I think they'll both come through the season unscathed with the exception of their game against each other? Not really. Why, you might ask? Because there is a little matter of scheduling, or more accurately, the discrepancies in the college schedules that can make a huge difference in how teams ultimately finish the season. And in the ACC this year, there is a significant delta between the teams Florida State faces and those that Clemson will play, not to mention other potential contenders, if indeed you can believe there are any of those.
I'll start with the two favorites. The Seminoles play three games against FBS opponents, two of them from the SEC. Clemson plays three games against FBS opponents, two of them from the SEC. The similarities end there. The combined 2015 records of Florida State's FBS opponents is 28 - 12. Those of Clemson's is 14 - 23. That's a very significant difference, plus the fact that FSU plays South Florida, a team that is picked to be better than last year's 8 - 5. Clemson takes on Troy, hardly a team in the same class as the Bulls. Clemson opens at Auburn, while FSU takes on Ole Miss in Orlando. Okay, true road game for the Tigers, a quasi home game, at least in terms of fan support for Florida State. But Ole Miss is probably better than Auburn right now. To go to the other end of the schedule, both teams finish with traditional in-state rivalry games. The difference is that South Carolina is trying to rebuild under new coach Will Muschamp, while Florida is hoping to build on last year's SEC East title.
The conference schedule offers the same kind of advantages in Clemson's favor. The top two teams in the ACC Coastal are projected to be Miami and North Carolina, the defending Coastal champ. Guess which opponents Florida State plays from the other division in the league? In contrast, Clemson plays Georgia Tech and Pittsburgh, projected by one publication to finish fifth and fourth in their division, respectively. When you factor in the non-conference schedules, Clemson clearly has the advantage in scheduling. But there's a team in the same division that could end up taking advantage of a favorable conference schedule, especially if they pull an upset of either of the favorites. Louisville draws Duke and Virginia, two of the bottom feeders in the Coastal. I had picked the Cardinals to fare very well last season, so there's a chance Bobby Petrino can get his team in contention for the title.
In the Coastal division, there's a lot of buzz around Miami, hoping to get re-energized by the hiring of alumnus Mark Richt as head coach. He's hoping to do for the 'Canes what he had trouble doing at Georgia by winning a conference title. New Va. Tech coach Justin Fuentes will be attempting to bring new life to the Hokies offense while allowing long-time defensive coordinator Bud Foster to handle the other side of the line of scrimmage. From a scheduling perspective though, the Hokies have a big advantage over not only Miami, but also North Carolina. Va. Tech plays Boston College and Syracuse from the Atlantic Division, neither of which are even close to competing at a high level and picked to bring up the rear in the division. As mentioned before, the other two Coastal contenders take on Florida State. So as you can see, scheduling is likely to play a very big role in who contends for and ultimately wins the ACC title.
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" and my first two, "Illegal Procedure - A PK Frazier Novel" and "Roughing the Passer - A PK Frazier Novel", available in print and e-formats at Amazon.com, iBooks and Smashwords. Tune into www.WPFLRADIO.com at 8:40 am EST every Friday for my Beyond the Commentary segment on "Lou in the Morning" with Lou Vickery and Jonathan McMath.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
TIGER WOODS IS OUT FOR THE YEAR: NO SURPRISE, BUT WHAT ABOUT 2017?
Will He Ever Make it Back to the Tour? Tiger Woods says he can come back, he says he can compete for titles with the current crop of players, he says he has the desire to tee it up again and be a part of the PGA Tour. The question really isn't whether he thinks he can, or even if he wants to. The real question is, after spending most of the last 35 years or so swinging violently at a golf ball, will his now surgery wracked body be capable of supporting him? Of course no one really knows the answer, probably not even Tiger himself. In a week when arguably the most dominant individual athlete in history during his unbelievable stretch from 1999 to 2008 announced through his agent that he wouldn't be competing in 2016, the golf world was saved from his absence and the Olympic debacle by the incredible performances of Henrik Stenson and Phil Mickelson at The Open Championship at Troon. But Mickelson is 46, Stenson 40. It's unlikely that this past weekend's dual will spark any kind of lasting rivalry. But since it's been over eight years since Tiger's last major, perhaps the ship has sailed on anyone counting on a miraculous comeback by him to rejuvenate the game.
I've written a lot about the dominance of Tiger and about the fact that when it was happening, we didn't necessarily realize how historical his run was. I believe it's because he was chasing numbers, such as Jack Nicklaus' 18 major championships and Sam Snead's 82 career victories, that were accumulated over decades of play. Nicklaus won his last major at the age of 46 and Snead earned his final tournament win at 53. At the time of his last major win and 65th overall, the 2008 U.S. Open that he won on basically one leg, Tiger Woods was a mere 32 years of age. By the end of 2009, he'd pushed that total to 71, but without an additional major victory. In eleven seasons (1999 - 2009) he managed to chalk up 13 majors and 64 tour wins. That's a major tournament winning percentage of an unbelievable 29.5% over that span! The closest any of his contemporaries has come to that is Mickelson himself, who stands at five majors. Contrast that to Nicklaus' competition over his career: Palmer had 7, Player 9, Watson 8 and Trevino 6. Other than Player, very few international golfers competed on the PGA Tour, so while there were some good players at the top, the depth that exists today just wasn't there. There were no World Golf Championship events, where the fields are stacked with the top players in the world. And by the way, Woods dominated those as well. This isn't to diminish Nicklaus' accomplishment in any way, but to further illustrate just how good Tiger Woods was relative not only to his playing peers, but to all time. Will we ever see that kind of dominance again? Perhaps for shorter periods of time, as we've seen recently from Padraig Harrington, Rory McIlroy, Jordan Speith and Jason Day. But to sustain that level of play for more than a decade is highly unlikely. And just to add to the resume, from 1996 - 1998, Woods won seven times with a major, and continued in 2012 - 2013 with eight more victories.
Will Tiger Woods play tournament golf again? I sure hope so. Will he win another tournament? His history would indicate that if he plays, he'll win. Will he ever win another major? It's highly doubtful, but a lot more players are winning majors in their forties, and I have to believe he'll only come back if he can compete. Does it really matter to his legacy? Not so much, unless we somehow think he could do something no one has ever done, and win four majors in their forties. Do I think, regardless of his return, if the state of professional golf is in good hands? Judging by the enthusiastic crowds I witnessed firsthand at the U.S.Open, I would have to say yes, but the game in general is suffering (that's a topic for another time). Am I more likely to watch a golf tournament when Tiger Woods is playing? Absolutely, and I'm pretty sure that's a sentiment shared by a lot of golf fans, whether they're willing to admit it or not.
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" and my first two, "Illegal Procedure - A PK Frazier Novel" and "Roughing the Passer - A PK Frazier Novel", available in print and e-formats at Amazon.com, iBooks and Smashwords. Tune into www.WPFLRADIO.com at 8:40 am EST every Friday for my Beyond the Commentary segment on "Lou in the Morning" with Lou Vickery and Jonathan McMath.
I've written a lot about the dominance of Tiger and about the fact that when it was happening, we didn't necessarily realize how historical his run was. I believe it's because he was chasing numbers, such as Jack Nicklaus' 18 major championships and Sam Snead's 82 career victories, that were accumulated over decades of play. Nicklaus won his last major at the age of 46 and Snead earned his final tournament win at 53. At the time of his last major win and 65th overall, the 2008 U.S. Open that he won on basically one leg, Tiger Woods was a mere 32 years of age. By the end of 2009, he'd pushed that total to 71, but without an additional major victory. In eleven seasons (1999 - 2009) he managed to chalk up 13 majors and 64 tour wins. That's a major tournament winning percentage of an unbelievable 29.5% over that span! The closest any of his contemporaries has come to that is Mickelson himself, who stands at five majors. Contrast that to Nicklaus' competition over his career: Palmer had 7, Player 9, Watson 8 and Trevino 6. Other than Player, very few international golfers competed on the PGA Tour, so while there were some good players at the top, the depth that exists today just wasn't there. There were no World Golf Championship events, where the fields are stacked with the top players in the world. And by the way, Woods dominated those as well. This isn't to diminish Nicklaus' accomplishment in any way, but to further illustrate just how good Tiger Woods was relative not only to his playing peers, but to all time. Will we ever see that kind of dominance again? Perhaps for shorter periods of time, as we've seen recently from Padraig Harrington, Rory McIlroy, Jordan Speith and Jason Day. But to sustain that level of play for more than a decade is highly unlikely. And just to add to the resume, from 1996 - 1998, Woods won seven times with a major, and continued in 2012 - 2013 with eight more victories.
Will Tiger Woods play tournament golf again? I sure hope so. Will he win another tournament? His history would indicate that if he plays, he'll win. Will he ever win another major? It's highly doubtful, but a lot more players are winning majors in their forties, and I have to believe he'll only come back if he can compete. Does it really matter to his legacy? Not so much, unless we somehow think he could do something no one has ever done, and win four majors in their forties. Do I think, regardless of his return, if the state of professional golf is in good hands? Judging by the enthusiastic crowds I witnessed firsthand at the U.S.Open, I would have to say yes, but the game in general is suffering (that's a topic for another time). Am I more likely to watch a golf tournament when Tiger Woods is playing? Absolutely, and I'm pretty sure that's a sentiment shared by a lot of golf fans, whether they're willing to admit it or not.
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" and my first two, "Illegal Procedure - A PK Frazier Novel" and "Roughing the Passer - A PK Frazier Novel", available in print and e-formats at Amazon.com, iBooks and Smashwords. Tune into www.WPFLRADIO.com at 8:40 am EST every Friday for my Beyond the Commentary segment on "Lou in the Morning" with Lou Vickery and Jonathan McMath.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
FIFA AND IOC CORRUPTION: HOW FAR DOES IT GO, AND IS ANY SPORT IMMUNE?
Does it Just Exist at the Top?: It's not exactly news that there is almost certainly some amount of corruption in the two most global of sports organizations, FIFA and the IOC. FIFA runs soccer at the international level and is involved in a number of criminal cases stemming from bribery scandals related to the awarding of World Cup sites. The International Olympic Committee suffers from a similar malady, much to the chagrin of the United States, which despite having the best sports facilities on the planet, last hosted a World Cup in 1994, a Summer Games in 1996 and the Winter Games in 2002. In the meantime, Brazil has been awarded both the Summer Games and the World Cup for 2016 and 2014 respectively. Qatar, with no soccer stadiums and a climate more suited to competitive sidewalk egg-frying, will host the World Cup in 2022. Russia has secured the Winter Games for 2014 in a city that barely existed and the World Cup for 2018 where the games will be far flung with a questionable infrastructure in place. It's fairly well-documented that these awards were bought, not earned. So I'll move on from those issues and dwell instead on something more troubling, even if it's pure speculation.
If an organization is so corrupt that it will jeopardize its very existence to maintain that culture, how are we to assume that the bribes couldn't be used to affect the results of the competition itself? Just think about it. The entire Russian Olympic contingent is currently banned from competing in Rio due to widespread PED use. That's called cheating. That's called trying to gain a competitive advantage. This from a country where bribery, extortion and corruption is an institutionalized art form. Of course, given the health and security concerns in Brazil, they may have pulled off the coup of the young century by not having to show up. Think about soccer, where the referee has immense power and discretion during the course of a match. In just the past month, there have been gross inconsistencies in matches. The U.S. was called for a hand ball in the box against Colombia, resulting in a penalty shot, essentially ending the American's chances. Yet earlier this week, an almost identical play by Portugal was ignored by the referee in the UEFA final against France that would have surely settled the match. Instead, Portugal, after a flurry of yellow flags against France, scored in extra time to win their first major tournament title. Call me cynical, but because the culture of the United States doesn't embrace greasing of palms, we generally get the short end of the stick when it comes to international organizations, especially in the last ten years or so.
It seems like ancient history now, but back in the 1970's it was generally considered fact that the judging and officiating in the Olympic games was grossly in favor of then Eastern Block nations, primarily controlled by the USSR, or Soviet Union. In the 1972 Summer Olympics, the men's basketball final was such a travesty that the officials literally gave the game to the Soviet team, resulting in the U.S. runner-ups refusing to accept their silver medals. In gymnastics, diving and figure skating, three of the more prominent events that determine their champions through judging, the U.S. continually received lower scores for what appeared to be comparable performances. So some forty years later, why should we think the competitions aren't still suffering from similar indiscretions? Haven't we learned anything from cycling, track and field, and even the steroid era in Major League Baseball?
Another aspect of all of this that I don't understand is that we now have major league sports leagues beginning to embrace the idea that creating a closer relationship with legalized gambling will somehow result in little or no impact on the results on the field or court. I still maintain, although there is a lot of difference of opinion on the matter, that daily fantasy operations are gambling. Many proponents of the companies define them as a game of skill. Really? Is anyone putting a fantasy team together catching a ball, scoring a basket or draining a putt? Are they putting the game plan together that allows their player to get mismatches against the other team's defense? I have played fantasy sports for almost thirty years, and I can't even begin to make the case that it's a game of skill. At best, it's educated luck. In the case of baseball and other sports that require daily attention, it's usually just a case of having the time to pay attention. And if a group of NFL officials put a team together with $1,000,000 payout on the line, it's more than plausible that they have enough influence over the course of their games to influence the outcome enough to impact their fantasy team's performance.
The business of sports is huge on a global basis, and that popularity is due in most part because fans believe that the results of the competitions are not tainted by corruption. However, when the ruling organizations themselves are rife with scandal, isn't it reasonable to at least be concerned that there is a trickle down effect? I wholeheartedly think we should, and we're being naive and irresponsible to think otherwise.
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" and my first two, "Illegal Procedure - A PK Frazier Novel" and "Roughing the Passer - A PK Frazier Novel", available in print and e-formats at Amazon.com, iBooks and Smashwords. Tune into www.WPFLRADIO.com at 8:40 am EST every Friday for my Beyond the Commentary segment on "Lou in the Morning" with Lou Vickery and Jonathan McMath.
If an organization is so corrupt that it will jeopardize its very existence to maintain that culture, how are we to assume that the bribes couldn't be used to affect the results of the competition itself? Just think about it. The entire Russian Olympic contingent is currently banned from competing in Rio due to widespread PED use. That's called cheating. That's called trying to gain a competitive advantage. This from a country where bribery, extortion and corruption is an institutionalized art form. Of course, given the health and security concerns in Brazil, they may have pulled off the coup of the young century by not having to show up. Think about soccer, where the referee has immense power and discretion during the course of a match. In just the past month, there have been gross inconsistencies in matches. The U.S. was called for a hand ball in the box against Colombia, resulting in a penalty shot, essentially ending the American's chances. Yet earlier this week, an almost identical play by Portugal was ignored by the referee in the UEFA final against France that would have surely settled the match. Instead, Portugal, after a flurry of yellow flags against France, scored in extra time to win their first major tournament title. Call me cynical, but because the culture of the United States doesn't embrace greasing of palms, we generally get the short end of the stick when it comes to international organizations, especially in the last ten years or so.
It seems like ancient history now, but back in the 1970's it was generally considered fact that the judging and officiating in the Olympic games was grossly in favor of then Eastern Block nations, primarily controlled by the USSR, or Soviet Union. In the 1972 Summer Olympics, the men's basketball final was such a travesty that the officials literally gave the game to the Soviet team, resulting in the U.S. runner-ups refusing to accept their silver medals. In gymnastics, diving and figure skating, three of the more prominent events that determine their champions through judging, the U.S. continually received lower scores for what appeared to be comparable performances. So some forty years later, why should we think the competitions aren't still suffering from similar indiscretions? Haven't we learned anything from cycling, track and field, and even the steroid era in Major League Baseball?
Another aspect of all of this that I don't understand is that we now have major league sports leagues beginning to embrace the idea that creating a closer relationship with legalized gambling will somehow result in little or no impact on the results on the field or court. I still maintain, although there is a lot of difference of opinion on the matter, that daily fantasy operations are gambling. Many proponents of the companies define them as a game of skill. Really? Is anyone putting a fantasy team together catching a ball, scoring a basket or draining a putt? Are they putting the game plan together that allows their player to get mismatches against the other team's defense? I have played fantasy sports for almost thirty years, and I can't even begin to make the case that it's a game of skill. At best, it's educated luck. In the case of baseball and other sports that require daily attention, it's usually just a case of having the time to pay attention. And if a group of NFL officials put a team together with $1,000,000 payout on the line, it's more than plausible that they have enough influence over the course of their games to influence the outcome enough to impact their fantasy team's performance.
The business of sports is huge on a global basis, and that popularity is due in most part because fans believe that the results of the competitions are not tainted by corruption. However, when the ruling organizations themselves are rife with scandal, isn't it reasonable to at least be concerned that there is a trickle down effect? I wholeheartedly think we should, and we're being naive and irresponsible to think otherwise.
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" and my first two, "Illegal Procedure - A PK Frazier Novel" and "Roughing the Passer - A PK Frazier Novel", available in print and e-formats at Amazon.com, iBooks and Smashwords. Tune into www.WPFLRADIO.com at 8:40 am EST every Friday for my Beyond the Commentary segment on "Lou in the Morning" with Lou Vickery and Jonathan McMath.
Monday, July 11, 2016
MONDAY MUSINGS: THE USGA BOGEYS AGAIN, REPLAY IN PENALTIES, AND WHERE HAVE ALL THE OLYMPIC GOLFERS GONE?
USGA U.S. Women's Open Controversy I: For 74 holes, the Women's Open was compelling and unpredictable, with a wave of terrific Korean players trying to hold off a field that was a dynamic international assortment of wonderful golfers. The tournament was played on the beautiful and challenging CordeValle in the foothills of Northern California near Silicon Valley. The USGA did a great job of setting up the course in a way that rewarded accurate shots, punishing poor ones, without brutalizing the players in the process. When American Brittany Lang bogeyed the seventeenth to set up a playoff with Anna Nordqvist, we were going to be treated to something the men don't do: Award the championship on Sunday with a three hole aggregate playoff. After both players parred the first two holes, or at least we thought they had, a high definition replay of Nordqvist's bunker shot on seventeen showed that she had barely grounded her club in the sand, a clear rules violation. but then things got a bit squirrelly. Even prior to the players teeing off on the final hole, it was apparent that a violation had taken place and that it would result in a two stroke penalty for Nordqvist, potentially eliminating her from contention. But the eighteenth at CordeValle is a reachable par 5 and if the Swede had known about the penalty before her tee shot, she probably would have chosen to hit driver instead of three wood in an effort to put her in position to go for the green in two. Instead, she wasn't notified until after her third shot. But wait, this gets better. Lang was told about the penalty on Nordqvist before hitting her own approach, creating a clear competitive advantage for the American. In fact, Lang changed clubs after the notification, choosing to play a safer shot knowing that a par would win the tournament. Now it isn't as if the USGA hadn't just been through a very similar set of circumstances at last month's Men's Open at Oakmont. Dustin Johnson and his pursuers had to play seven holes knowing that a penalty might be assessed for a possible ball movement infraction on the fifth hole of the final round. Fortunately for the ruling body of golf in the U.S., Johnson made the penalty, which was in fact assessed post-round, irrelevant by leaving the eighteenth green with a four shot lead. In the USGA's defense, the two situations were a little different. Nordqvist clearly was guilty of the infraction while Johnson's case was much more subjective. Of course, the consensus of the golf world is that they got the decision totally wrong, even to the extent that Johnson's playing partner agreed that the ball had not moved due to anything that Johnson did. In addition, the timing on Sunday's infraction was tricky in that the playoff was moving quickly and the decision makers really needed to get it right, because the outcome of the championship would almost surely be determined by the ruling. The mistake was in the timing of the notification of the players. One got notified before her third shot, the other after. That's clearly a mistake, and one that easily could have been avoided by better communication and thought. Johnson was able to overcome the bungling and still get his first major win. Nordqvist had no chance and thus lost out on an opportunity at her second major victory. Unfortunately for the USGA, the controversy totally overshadowed what was a great tournament, one that had a great chance of increasing interest in women's golf around the world.
USGA U.S. Women's Open Controversy II: It's impossible to write about the ruling itself without discussing whether high definition cameras should be used in the infraction determination process. Especially for the women, it is an uneven playing field, as there are fewer cameras on the course, with just a handful of groups having television coverage. In Sunday's case of course, both players were subject to the same scrutiny, as they were in the same group in the midst of a playoff. But it seems patently unfair that some players are subject to greater scrutiny because they happen to be on television. I've been playing golf now for over fifty years (I started very young...) and one of the unique aspects of the game is that players police their own adherence to the rules. In some cases, their playing partners are another set of eyes, but it eventually comes down to the player to assess a penalty on themselves. There have been instances through the years where television viewers spotted an infraction, called into the network and influenced the outcome of a tournament. One famous instance was when Craig Stadler used as a towel to kneel on in muddy ground so his pants wouldn't get wet. Well, it just so happens that using the towel could be construed as building a stance, even though his fellow competitors in his group, as well as Stadler himself, didn't see it that way. Unfortunately, the PGA didn't take his side, and to make matters worse, Stadler ended up signing an incorrect scorecard because the ruling was made well after he'd finished his round. Now in the PGA's defense, they no longer take calls from viewers as a basis for a ruling, but they still can use selective camera shots when reviewing possible infractions. I understand that the use of technology is a forward thinking way of officiating sports, not just golf. The difference in golf is that it's spread out over eighteen holes and fourteen hours of inconsistent availability of the very technology used to review a ruling. I say if it can't be consistently applied, then don't allow it. That includes making sure all competitors' shots are equally accessible to camera angles. Would that have changed yesterday's situation? Maybe, especially if during the course of a hole there are instances where the club position at the address of the ball is not fully visible to a camera. So the bottom line for me is it shouldn't be used and rely on the integrity of the players and the sport.
Golfers Already Over Par at the Olympics: Whether it's the threat of the Zika virus, the compressed major schedule due to the Olympics, the fact that it's a Ryder Cup year or just the amount of money up for grabs on the PGA Tour, but many of the golfers eligible to represent their countries at the Olympics in Rio de Janeiro are opting to stay home. Golf has not been an Olympic sport for close to 112 years and is only approved for two appearances. At this rate, the IOC may pull the plug on any future engagements before the first medal is awarded. Jordan Spieth and Dustin Johnson of the United States, Ireland's Rory McIlroy and Jason Day of Australia have all declined to participate. However, the American team of Bubba Watson, Rickie Fowler, Patrick Reed and Matt Kuchar is still a great representation of American golf. On the women's side, the U.S. will be represented by an impressive trio of Lexi Thompson, Stacey Lewis and Gerina Piller, who qualified with a gutsy top ten performance at the U.S. Open that completed on Sunday. Unlike other sports, the lack of some top players hardly diminishes the product. Point of reference is the World Match Play, when the results never follow the seeding. The difference on any given day between the top ranked player and the one ranked 70th in the world is fairly negligible, especially on the men's side, where most of the AWOL players come from. The subject of golf's place in the Olympics is another topic, one that I'm fairly ambivalent about. Unlike a lot of Olympic Sports, where competitions are limited to annual World Championships or even to the quadrennial Games themselves, golf is already a global game with numerous competitions pitting players from all over the globe. Add to that the Ryder and President's Cup for the men and the Solheim Cup for the women, and it almost makes the Olympics a redundant affair. On the other hand, it gives these players a chance to play for their country in an environment most will have never experienced. Having attended the Centennial Olympic Games in Atlanta in 1996, I can attest, at least from a fan's perspective, the sheer scope and international flavor provided by the two week event. Overall, I don't think the absence of a few top golfers will hurt the competition at all and it actually provides the players that have a true desire to be there an opportunity to represent their countries on the golf course in a way no one alive has been able to do.
USGA U.S. Women's Open Controversy II: It's impossible to write about the ruling itself without discussing whether high definition cameras should be used in the infraction determination process. Especially for the women, it is an uneven playing field, as there are fewer cameras on the course, with just a handful of groups having television coverage. In Sunday's case of course, both players were subject to the same scrutiny, as they were in the same group in the midst of a playoff. But it seems patently unfair that some players are subject to greater scrutiny because they happen to be on television. I've been playing golf now for over fifty years (I started very young...) and one of the unique aspects of the game is that players police their own adherence to the rules. In some cases, their playing partners are another set of eyes, but it eventually comes down to the player to assess a penalty on themselves. There have been instances through the years where television viewers spotted an infraction, called into the network and influenced the outcome of a tournament. One famous instance was when Craig Stadler used as a towel to kneel on in muddy ground so his pants wouldn't get wet. Well, it just so happens that using the towel could be construed as building a stance, even though his fellow competitors in his group, as well as Stadler himself, didn't see it that way. Unfortunately, the PGA didn't take his side, and to make matters worse, Stadler ended up signing an incorrect scorecard because the ruling was made well after he'd finished his round. Now in the PGA's defense, they no longer take calls from viewers as a basis for a ruling, but they still can use selective camera shots when reviewing possible infractions. I understand that the use of technology is a forward thinking way of officiating sports, not just golf. The difference in golf is that it's spread out over eighteen holes and fourteen hours of inconsistent availability of the very technology used to review a ruling. I say if it can't be consistently applied, then don't allow it. That includes making sure all competitors' shots are equally accessible to camera angles. Would that have changed yesterday's situation? Maybe, especially if during the course of a hole there are instances where the club position at the address of the ball is not fully visible to a camera. So the bottom line for me is it shouldn't be used and rely on the integrity of the players and the sport.
Golfers Already Over Par at the Olympics: Whether it's the threat of the Zika virus, the compressed major schedule due to the Olympics, the fact that it's a Ryder Cup year or just the amount of money up for grabs on the PGA Tour, but many of the golfers eligible to represent their countries at the Olympics in Rio de Janeiro are opting to stay home. Golf has not been an Olympic sport for close to 112 years and is only approved for two appearances. At this rate, the IOC may pull the plug on any future engagements before the first medal is awarded. Jordan Spieth and Dustin Johnson of the United States, Ireland's Rory McIlroy and Jason Day of Australia have all declined to participate. However, the American team of Bubba Watson, Rickie Fowler, Patrick Reed and Matt Kuchar is still a great representation of American golf. On the women's side, the U.S. will be represented by an impressive trio of Lexi Thompson, Stacey Lewis and Gerina Piller, who qualified with a gutsy top ten performance at the U.S. Open that completed on Sunday. Unlike other sports, the lack of some top players hardly diminishes the product. Point of reference is the World Match Play, when the results never follow the seeding. The difference on any given day between the top ranked player and the one ranked 70th in the world is fairly negligible, especially on the men's side, where most of the AWOL players come from. The subject of golf's place in the Olympics is another topic, one that I'm fairly ambivalent about. Unlike a lot of Olympic Sports, where competitions are limited to annual World Championships or even to the quadrennial Games themselves, golf is already a global game with numerous competitions pitting players from all over the globe. Add to that the Ryder and President's Cup for the men and the Solheim Cup for the women, and it almost makes the Olympics a redundant affair. On the other hand, it gives these players a chance to play for their country in an environment most will have never experienced. Having attended the Centennial Olympic Games in Atlanta in 1996, I can attest, at least from a fan's perspective, the sheer scope and international flavor provided by the two week event. Overall, I don't think the absence of a few top golfers will hurt the competition at all and it actually provides the players that have a true desire to be there an opportunity to represent their countries on the golf course in a way no one alive has been able to do.
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" and my first two, "Illegal Procedure - A PK Frazier Novel" and "Roughing the Passer - A PK Frazier Novel", available in print and e-formats at Amazon.com, iBooks and Smashwords. Tune into www.WPFLRADIO.com at 8:40 am EST every Friday for my Beyond the Commentary segment on "Lou in the Morning" with Lou Vickery and Jonathan McMath.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
NBA FREE AGENT KEVIN DURANT GOES TO THE WARRIORS: WHAT'S THE CONTROVERSY ALL ABOUT?
KD Takes His Talents to the Bay Area: So former Oklahoma City Thunder star Kevin Durant decided to exercise his right under free agency to shop around for another team. After nine years, four conference finals and one NBA Finals appearance, he might just be thinking that time is running out on his chances to win a championship ring. Commentators such as ESPN's Stephen A. Smith and TNT's Charles Barkley have soundly criticized the player for making his move to Golden State Warriors, a team that came back from three games to one down in the Western Conference finals to defeat Durant's Thunder this past season. From the reaction, you'd think that he had committed some heinous act, like perhaps vacationing with other players from different teams or maybe working out at a prior club's facility, or...oh, wrong dude. I had him confused with Lebron James there for a second. But seriously, Durant has spent nine years on a small market team, with about as much success as you can expect. Sure, they almost got to the Finals this season and probably had a decent chance of derailing the eventual champion Cavaliers had they made it. So he's leaving a pretty good team, one that many feel would have still had a chance at a title had Durant stayed in OKC with running mate Russell Westbrook.
But in order to clear some space for KD, the Thunder made a couple of moves in anticipation of his return. However, the biggest factor in the equation is probably Westbrook, who still has another year on his contract. Without him, even if Durant stayed, OKC would still need a lot of help to remain near the top of the league in the future. So if Westbrook informed Durant of his intent to leave after next season, it could clearly have had a huge impact on Durant's decision making process. His choice of the Warriors has spawned a lot of criticism, many accusing him of taking the easy way to a potential title. While I understand the criticism, I totally disagree with it. First, unless anyone has been in his shoes, it's very difficult to take shots. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago regarding Lebron James, very few people on the planet have ever found themselves in the situation a few of these top players are. Just think about being considered one of the best at your profession, highly compensated, entering potential free agency, but not appreciated unless you can somehow win an elusive title. James was there six years ago, Durant is there now and Westbrook will be there in less than a year. Now imagine the team that had the best regular season record in the NBA and fell just one game short of a second consecutive crown comes courting your services. Do we expect him to say no? I mean really Stephen A. and Chuck? Didn't Charles Barkley go from the Philadelphia 76er's to the Phoenix Suns, a team that came tantalizingly close to NBA title? And Stephen A., it doesn't look like you're toiling for a home town station instead of having your face all over the self-proclaimed "worldwide leader in sports".
I would also argue that a Warriors title is no slam dunk. Golden State, with the exception of Steph Curry's leg issues in the playoffs, has enjoyed a fairly injury-free run the past two seasons. In addition, they lost Andrew Bogut and Harrison Barnes to a trade and free agency in this off-season. Bringing in Durant, while probably a no-brainer, is still a bit of a risk and will no doubt take some time to develop a new chemistry with a different lineup. And as the Cavaliers showed in the Finals, the Warriors can still be vulnerable inside and they've done little to address that need. Despite his size, Durant doesn't play a traditional center position, so there is a chance Golden State will find more teams figuring out a way to defend the splash brothers and get the ball down low on the other end of the court. If we look at the Miami Heat and the Cleveland Cavaliers, both teams took a season to really get their star-studded lineup to gel. It's probably realistic to expect the same type of adjustment in Oakland. But don't get me wrong here. If they add the right big man in the middle and get it going, the Warriors could be a juggernaut. James better be glad he has his three rings already.
But in order to clear some space for KD, the Thunder made a couple of moves in anticipation of his return. However, the biggest factor in the equation is probably Westbrook, who still has another year on his contract. Without him, even if Durant stayed, OKC would still need a lot of help to remain near the top of the league in the future. So if Westbrook informed Durant of his intent to leave after next season, it could clearly have had a huge impact on Durant's decision making process. His choice of the Warriors has spawned a lot of criticism, many accusing him of taking the easy way to a potential title. While I understand the criticism, I totally disagree with it. First, unless anyone has been in his shoes, it's very difficult to take shots. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago regarding Lebron James, very few people on the planet have ever found themselves in the situation a few of these top players are. Just think about being considered one of the best at your profession, highly compensated, entering potential free agency, but not appreciated unless you can somehow win an elusive title. James was there six years ago, Durant is there now and Westbrook will be there in less than a year. Now imagine the team that had the best regular season record in the NBA and fell just one game short of a second consecutive crown comes courting your services. Do we expect him to say no? I mean really Stephen A. and Chuck? Didn't Charles Barkley go from the Philadelphia 76er's to the Phoenix Suns, a team that came tantalizingly close to NBA title? And Stephen A., it doesn't look like you're toiling for a home town station instead of having your face all over the self-proclaimed "worldwide leader in sports".
I would also argue that a Warriors title is no slam dunk. Golden State, with the exception of Steph Curry's leg issues in the playoffs, has enjoyed a fairly injury-free run the past two seasons. In addition, they lost Andrew Bogut and Harrison Barnes to a trade and free agency in this off-season. Bringing in Durant, while probably a no-brainer, is still a bit of a risk and will no doubt take some time to develop a new chemistry with a different lineup. And as the Cavaliers showed in the Finals, the Warriors can still be vulnerable inside and they've done little to address that need. Despite his size, Durant doesn't play a traditional center position, so there is a chance Golden State will find more teams figuring out a way to defend the splash brothers and get the ball down low on the other end of the court. If we look at the Miami Heat and the Cleveland Cavaliers, both teams took a season to really get their star-studded lineup to gel. It's probably realistic to expect the same type of adjustment in Oakland. But don't get me wrong here. If they add the right big man in the middle and get it going, the Warriors could be a juggernaut. James better be glad he has his three rings already.
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" and my first two, "Illegal Procedure - A PK Frazier Novel" and "Roughing the Passer - A PK Frazier Novel", available in print and e-formats at Amazon.com, iBooks and Smashwords. Tune into www.WPFLRADIO.com at 8:40 am EST every Friday for my Beyond the Commentary segment on "Lou in the Morning" with Lou Vickery and Jonathan McMath.
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
SAD DAY IN SPORTS: THE PASSING OF TWO GREATS IN PAT SUMMIT AND BUDDY RYAN
Pat Summit Set the Standard: The death of long-time former University of Tennessee women's basketball coach Pat Summit early this morning at the age of 64 was a sad ending to the life of a true pioneer. Eight national titles and almost 1,100 victories over a 38 year career doesn't even begin to tell the whole story. When she took over the Lady Volunteer program, women's basketball was hardly a mainstream college sport. Smaller schools such as Immaculata, Louisiana Tech and Old Dominion, the latter led by a dynamic Nancy Lieberman, were still dominating the sport. In fact, until 1982 and the first women's NCAA tournament, the ruling body was the AIAW (Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women). At the time, I lived in the Tidewater, Virginia area and marveled at how Lieberman was revolutionizing the style of play. While she was taking the game to a new level on the court, the then Pat Head was forging a similar path in the coaching ranks.
Her accomplishments are well documented, so I'll focus instead on her style and determination, the two attributes I always admired about her. I'm just a few years her junior and since I was a fan of the women's game, tended to follow the Lady Vols. While in college, I even covered the Virginia Tech women's team and did some play by play and analyst work for the campus radio station, so I consider myself somewhat of an early adopter of the sport. What always impressed me about Pat Summit (she was married in 1980), was the total immersion she had in the actions of her players. It was a trait that men's coaches like Dean Smith and Bobby Knight exhibited, but Summit was the first one that I remember taking it to that level in the women's game. The tenacity of her players and the style of play eventually led her program to rise to dominance, winning six NCAA titles between 1987 and 1998. But it was more than that. There was just something special about her that drew interest to her.
I've commented to many people through the years that I truly believe Pat Summit could have been successful coaching any gender at any level. While we still haven't seen a female coach of a men's team in college or the NBA, it's probably only a matter of time and when it happens, we'll have Pat Summit to thank for it. I watch the top coaches in the women's game today, and it's evident that most, if not all, are devotees of Summit's ground-breaking style and commitment to excellence. Her presence has been sorely missed from the game for the past four years, and it will now be forever missed just as those truly great ones always leave a hole in the hearts of those they affected so positively throughout their lives.
Buddy Ryan, A True Original: There was a lot of conversation on sports talk radio this morning on where the defense of the 1985 Chicago Bears rates in the history of professional football. Even though it might not have been the statistical leader in a lot of categories, I believe it was the most dominant I've ever seen, and my NFL viewing began in 1962. Green Bay was great. Even the George Halas led Bears with Dick Butkus wreaking havoc at middle linebacker, had a fierce defense. The Steel Curtain that led Pittsburgh to four Super Bowl victories and the Ravens squad led by Ray Lewis deserve special consideration. But none of them were so strong that when my team went up against them, it was as if there was virtually no hope of being able to get on the scoreboard. The Bears topped the Redskins 45 - 10 in the fourth game of the season and really never looked back, except in their only loss, an inexplicable 38 - 24 defeat by the Miami Dolphins. The defense held opponents to ten points or less in an unbelievable fourteen of nineteen games, including four shutouts. In their two NFC playoff games, they didn't allow a single point. Now that's true dominance. And their leader was Buddy Ryan, who died this morning at the age of 82.
Ryan, who left the Bears after that magical season to take the head coaching job for the Philadelphia Eagles, caught lightning in a bottle. His innovative 46 defense combined with very talented personnel created a force that, as the season wore on, continued to improve to the point that made them virtually unbeatable. Former players have nothing but praise for Ryan, attributing his uncanny ability to get the most from his team as the reason for his success. Even though his Eagles team never won a playoff game under his tutelage, it wasn't necessarily the fault of the defense. Reggie White and Jerome Brown were forces of nature and the reason the Eagles were always at or near the top of the NFC East during his tenure.
But Ryan will not be remembered for those Eagles teams. No, his legacy will always be that one, unbelievable, truly special group of players that lifted the 1985 Chicago Bears to their lone Super Bowl crown. And as far as I'm concerned, you can take your Packers, argue for your Steelers and try to make a case for the Ravens. But they all fall short of Buddy Ryan's 46 defense where the stars aligned and the Bears ruled the football world, if only for that single season.
Her accomplishments are well documented, so I'll focus instead on her style and determination, the two attributes I always admired about her. I'm just a few years her junior and since I was a fan of the women's game, tended to follow the Lady Vols. While in college, I even covered the Virginia Tech women's team and did some play by play and analyst work for the campus radio station, so I consider myself somewhat of an early adopter of the sport. What always impressed me about Pat Summit (she was married in 1980), was the total immersion she had in the actions of her players. It was a trait that men's coaches like Dean Smith and Bobby Knight exhibited, but Summit was the first one that I remember taking it to that level in the women's game. The tenacity of her players and the style of play eventually led her program to rise to dominance, winning six NCAA titles between 1987 and 1998. But it was more than that. There was just something special about her that drew interest to her.
I've commented to many people through the years that I truly believe Pat Summit could have been successful coaching any gender at any level. While we still haven't seen a female coach of a men's team in college or the NBA, it's probably only a matter of time and when it happens, we'll have Pat Summit to thank for it. I watch the top coaches in the women's game today, and it's evident that most, if not all, are devotees of Summit's ground-breaking style and commitment to excellence. Her presence has been sorely missed from the game for the past four years, and it will now be forever missed just as those truly great ones always leave a hole in the hearts of those they affected so positively throughout their lives.
Buddy Ryan, A True Original: There was a lot of conversation on sports talk radio this morning on where the defense of the 1985 Chicago Bears rates in the history of professional football. Even though it might not have been the statistical leader in a lot of categories, I believe it was the most dominant I've ever seen, and my NFL viewing began in 1962. Green Bay was great. Even the George Halas led Bears with Dick Butkus wreaking havoc at middle linebacker, had a fierce defense. The Steel Curtain that led Pittsburgh to four Super Bowl victories and the Ravens squad led by Ray Lewis deserve special consideration. But none of them were so strong that when my team went up against them, it was as if there was virtually no hope of being able to get on the scoreboard. The Bears topped the Redskins 45 - 10 in the fourth game of the season and really never looked back, except in their only loss, an inexplicable 38 - 24 defeat by the Miami Dolphins. The defense held opponents to ten points or less in an unbelievable fourteen of nineteen games, including four shutouts. In their two NFC playoff games, they didn't allow a single point. Now that's true dominance. And their leader was Buddy Ryan, who died this morning at the age of 82.
Ryan, who left the Bears after that magical season to take the head coaching job for the Philadelphia Eagles, caught lightning in a bottle. His innovative 46 defense combined with very talented personnel created a force that, as the season wore on, continued to improve to the point that made them virtually unbeatable. Former players have nothing but praise for Ryan, attributing his uncanny ability to get the most from his team as the reason for his success. Even though his Eagles team never won a playoff game under his tutelage, it wasn't necessarily the fault of the defense. Reggie White and Jerome Brown were forces of nature and the reason the Eagles were always at or near the top of the NFC East during his tenure.
But Ryan will not be remembered for those Eagles teams. No, his legacy will always be that one, unbelievable, truly special group of players that lifted the 1985 Chicago Bears to their lone Super Bowl crown. And as far as I'm concerned, you can take your Packers, argue for your Steelers and try to make a case for the Ravens. But they all fall short of Buddy Ryan's 46 defense where the stars aligned and the Bears ruled the football world, if only for that single season.
Don't forget to check out my new book, "Offsetting Penalties - A PK Frazier Novel" and my first two, "Illegal Procedure - A PK Frazier Novel" and "Roughing the Passer - A PK Frazier Novel", available in print and e-formats at Amazon.com, iBooks and Smashwords. Tune into www.WPFLRADIO.com at 8:40 am EST every Friday for my Beyond the Commentary segment on "Lou in the Morning" with Lou Vickery and Jonathan McMath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)