Monday, December 8, 2008

Back In The Game...

Sorry I've been so lazy... well, actually, I'm not that sorry. I've been busy!

Week 14 of the NFL: I have to be honest, I didn't watch a ton of the games- and for good reason. I won't watch the Bears because they literally are 0-"every time I watch them." I couldn't watch the Giants/Eagles, Niner/Jets, or Steelers/Cowboys because none of the games really entertained me. Some were interesting if you're a fan of those teams, but overall they were very boring, slow paced games. Same with Ravens/Redskins on Sunday night. I will say this though, NorCal talk radio is going to be on fire today with people thinking the Niners are on their way back to greatness. For example:

A caller on Murph & Mac (KNBR 680) called up this morning with a metaphor- I'll paraphrase: I see a strong correlation with history and the Niners. Coach Singeltary is General Lee and Mike Martz is Stonewall Jackson -

[Murph interrupts- "The only problem I see is that Confedercy ended up losing." - caller continues]

Hold on there buddy! WE ran out of men! I'm not saying it wasn't a good thing the North won, but that was "The War of Northern Aggression."

Awesome. What have we come to in the Bay Area? Honestly, keep on holding to that metaphor, buddy. There's no way the Niners are going to end up winning this war.

MLB Hot Stove Update: I'm truly addicted to checking updates on baseball signings. It's truly great if the team you root for has the ability to go out and make big moves. It feels like winning the World Series when your team makes a big trade. Oh wait- I have no idea what that actually feels like so I can't be saying such silly things. But what I will say, is the Cubs don't really have an excuse to not get Jake Peavy. Here's how:

- Trade Jason Marquis to the Mets. Preferably for Aaron Heilman, but if not, just take whatever prospect and have the Mets eat a large portion of Marquis' salary.

- Next, swap Felix Pie for Garret Olson (Orioles). The O's have wanted Pie forever. They still think he's good. Take advantage of that. They took Sammy Sosa and Corey Patterson off your hands, I'm sure they will take another bust outfielder. Sidenote: I know Pie's last name is pronounced Pee-A, but wouldn't it be awesome if his jersey number was the Pi symbol? Ok, I'm a dork...

- Throw Garret Olson on his way to San Diego along with Sean Marshall, Ronny Cedeno, Josh Vitters, and Mike Hart. GM Kevin Towers wants five players in return for Peavy, so give him five players. He'd love to have those particular five players. You don't give up Jeff "I'm going to have to look up how to spell" Samardzija. You don't give up Mike "I hit pinch hit homers all day" Fontenot. You don't give up Micah "I won't play until Derrek Lee is gone, but I still hit .400" Hoffpauir. Heck, if Brian Giles would waive his no-trade clause, I'd even throw in some of these players to get him as well.

So what? I'm a greedy Cubs fan. But seriously, that trade would get it done- and with reasonable payroll. It's like I majored in Econ and should be a GM (well, at least one of those things is true.) I don't think that scenario is unrealistic, and if the Cubs end up getting Peavy, check out the framework- I bet it looks similar to the above.

The BCS - I hate the BCS. I'm not a fan and never will be. It disgusts me that Texas does not get a shot to at least redeem themselves against Oklahoma (in a tournament, perhaps?) Which is why I'm going to anger even myself when I say this- I think the two best teams are playing for the National Championship.

I understand that Texas beat them earlier in the season on a neutral field. Even when I was watching that game, it felt like Oklahoma was better. I actually think if they played 10 games, OU would win 8 out of 10 times. And you can definitely disagree with that, but we can't prove it because there is no tournament.

With that being said, does a tournament even solve anything? I've seen teams get upset in the NCAA basketball tournament that are clearly more talented teams than the eventual champions. Many underdogs can pull of a 3-14 or 4-13 upset and then immediately get bounced in the next game (e.g. Santa Clara (15) beat Arizona (2) in the first round of the 1993 tourney only to lose to Temple (7) in the next game.)

Maybe eliminating the tournament also sets up the ideal match-up. It eliminates all those great moments that everyone lives for where the underdog beats the powerhouse. No George Mason No Kent St. No (wait for it G$) Miami of OH. No Gonzaga.

Sorry, I can't jump on board with a system that eliminates those great moments. Regardless if these are the two best teams in College Football, they both have losses to Texas and Ole Miss (making them good, but not automatic championship game good). There should be a tournament where the winner EARNS their championship game participation by beating the other best teams in the nation.

Go Texas and USC. Blow out your Big 10 opponents (Ohio St and Penn St, repectively) and cause a massive problem for the BCS.

Phew! Sorry for being absent. I'll try to raise my game a bit in the coming weeks.


GMoney said...

Agreed, even in a tournament, the best team doesn't always win. Isn't it better that you get to argue about the BCS anyway? It gives you ample debating material between you and your friends.

Tony B. said...

In one way, yes- but unfortunately it also doesn't allow me to get fully interested in college football.

I'd rather watch the first round of the basketball tournament than the BCS game this year.

sean said...

im down with the pi symbol for Pie.