~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There has been such persistent clamoring for a write-up concerning some Kansas Basketball, that I am opening it up to you, the folks (that means you Brock and Zeets) to share some insight on what you've seen so far.
Dirkness has been so immersed in his Huskers becoming the evil villain of College Football (loving it), and the Chiefs contending for the playoffs for the first time in what seems like decades (loving it more).
But the Dirkness cupboard has been noticably empty on KU sticky notes. So help me out here, let me know what you've seen, what you think we'll see, or any other humorous interjections you might have on Kansas basketball (opposing K-State thoughts welcomed).....
His Dirkness
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
NFL Week 13 PaT's (Picks and Thoughts)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The best addition of the 2010 NFL season has been FOX's decision to add Mike Pereira to their telecast. Pereira held the title of Vice President of Officiating for the NFL from 2001-09. I was first introduced to him through weekly installments on NFL Network where he'd review the biggest calls from the previous week of NFL games. But, it was always the same calls that had been digested throughout the week, and although it was fascinating, not much was learned.
But now, I believe Pereira is a part of every single broadcast on FOX. I got my first dose of him during the Chiefs-Cardinals game last week, where he quickly dismissed an official's ruling on the field by describing it as "a waste of 3 minutes" because "the pass should have been ruled incomplete on the field." It was awesome. Pereira has shed his label with the NFL, and is able to subjectively share his opinion on the officiating almost immediately. Not only in this incredibly insightful, but it eases the frustration of fans watching at home in a weird way. The instant justification of the correctness of the calls on the field, can be very comforting. And isn't that what we're all seeking in this cruel, cruel world?
The bigger issue at hand might be that Fox is finally making moves to catch up with CBS, which has been pumping out better broadcasts for years now. Better game choice, better pump up intro videos to the games, and I much prefer the ice of CBS to Fox's robot guy. I'm the kinda guy that believes this could swing the balance of power from the AFC, where it's been for the last 15 years, back to the NFC.
Week 12 picks: 11-5
Overall Record: 99-61 (62%)
Week 13 picks....
The best addition of the 2010 NFL season has been FOX's decision to add Mike Pereira to their telecast. Pereira held the title of Vice President of Officiating for the NFL from 2001-09. I was first introduced to him through weekly installments on NFL Network where he'd review the biggest calls from the previous week of NFL games. But, it was always the same calls that had been digested throughout the week, and although it was fascinating, not much was learned.
But now, I believe Pereira is a part of every single broadcast on FOX. I got my first dose of him during the Chiefs-Cardinals game last week, where he quickly dismissed an official's ruling on the field by describing it as "a waste of 3 minutes" because "the pass should have been ruled incomplete on the field." It was awesome. Pereira has shed his label with the NFL, and is able to subjectively share his opinion on the officiating almost immediately. Not only in this incredibly insightful, but it eases the frustration of fans watching at home in a weird way. The instant justification of the correctness of the calls on the field, can be very comforting. And isn't that what we're all seeking in this cruel, cruel world?
The bigger issue at hand might be that Fox is finally making moves to catch up with CBS, which has been pumping out better broadcasts for years now. Better game choice, better pump up intro videos to the games, and I much prefer the ice of CBS to Fox's robot guy. I'm the kinda guy that believes this could swing the balance of power from the AFC, where it's been for the last 15 years, back to the NFC.
Week 12 picks: 11-5
Overall Record: 99-61 (62%)
Week 13 picks....
- New England over DETROIT (The Rock tells me the Lions are better than their record. I agree)
- New Orleans over DALLAS (Is Jon Kitna the worst-good-QB of all time or the best-bad-QB?)
- NY JETS over Cincinnati (Carson Palmer might be the worst QB of right now)
- Green Bay over ATLANTA (Home field advantage for NFC could be on the line)
- Pittsburgh over BUFFALO (If Buffalo wins, I won't pick against them the rest of 2010)
- CLEVELAND over Carolina (Peyton Hillis moved up to #1 in my Favorite White Running Back Rankings)
- NY GIANTS over Jacksonville (Records don't match perceptions in this 6-4 battle)
- Minnesota over WASHINGTON (Didn't hear a damn thing about the Vikings all week. That's what I'm thankful for)
- HOUSTON over Tennessee (Randy Moss meet Rusty Smith, our new starting QB)
- KANSAS CITY over Seattle- This game is a toss up. Both teams are duplicates of each other. Leading the worst divisions in the NFL (NFC version WAY worse), both teams win at home, and both teams employ mediocre QB's named Matt, who are less attractive then they should be because of their haircuts. Seems like a 50/50 game tilted towards Seattle because they're at home. I'll even say 60/40 in Seattle's favor. But, I feel like the Chiefs are due for a day of execution. They turned momentum around in their favor after sleepknocking the Cardinals last week, and haven't put together a complete 60 minutes since early in the season (I'd say Indianapolis). I think Tamba gets 2 sacks. I think the Chiefs break a 60 yard screen pass. And I think the Chiefs win 23-19.
- Miami over OAKLAND (Thigpen loves Black Hole)
- Philadelphia over CHICAGO (I'll take Mike Vick, while watching him host dog fights, over Jay Cutler in a better human being contest)
- BALTIMORE over Tampa Bay (REALLY wanted to take Tampa. Raheem Morris should be runaway winner of Coach of the Year)
- St. Louis over DENVER (...because of spite)
- INDIANAPOLIS over San Diego (Almost a must win here for the Chiefs. Go ahead and look at the rest of San Diego's schedule)
- San Francisco over ARIZONA (Final score: 6-3)
Go CHIEFS!
His Dirkness
Friday, November 26, 2010
Defending the BCS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry DirkNation, I've been slacking in the write-ups, especially for this time of year. Dirkness likes to get out and boogie though, and this Thanksgiving week was the perfect opportunity to do so. Combine that with the fact there was little to say about the Chiefs beatdown of Arizona and here we are. In the meantime, enjoy this article I wrote over at Husker Corner defending the BCS. Yes, you heard that right.
A Sonic-Sized Defense of the BCS (yes, I sold out)
I'm about to take a very unpopular stance on a very prevalent topic in today's world of sports. This activity, unconventional wisdom if you will, is one of my favorite pastimes. I call it my fight against "mothoughtony." After all, conformity is for the weak. But, here goes…
I think the BCS is great. Yep, go ahead and let that soak in for a minute.
We live in a society of discontentment that believes constant complaining is the best way to improve our existence. I'm here to set everybody straight.
I'll start with the most common argument against the BCS, which doubles as the biggest fallacy against the much-maligned system: The BCS is unfair.
First off, an example of what's truly unfair: A team that goes 32-2 in the regular season, yet whose season is ultimately considered a disappointment and a failure, because of one loss. This is exactly what happened to the 2009-10 University of Kansas Basketball team.
Yet, nobody complains about how "unfair" College Basketball is. Sorry Jayhawks fans, but nothing you accomplished during the regular season mattered because your entire season is judged by what you do in the NCAA Tournament.
I've never understood why College Football receives so much ridicule on this topic, while other league's structures are, at best, equally as inept. It's been widely accepted that going all out in the NBA regular season actually hurts your chances in the playoffs, while the College Basketball regular season is even more meaningless. Your team's season can go down in three games after playing a 162 game marathon of a season in the MLB. The NFL? Well, they got some things figured out.
College Football boasts the best regular season of any sport. The implementation of a playoff, which is what most BCS haters want, takes that fact away. Suddenly, big games lack meaning, because a loss wouldn't kill a team's chances at winning it all, a fact that I believe to be underrated in most people's minds. A big upset, while fun for the day, might not have a lasting impact on the season. These are points that shortsighted BCS-haters fail to realize.
I'm not saying a playoff wouldn't be incredibly entertaining because it most definitely would, but it would have just as many problems as the BCS. Include too few teams and someone would be wrongfully excluded just as they are now. Include too many teams and the regular season loses its zest. You will never satisfy everybody.
The absolute beauty of College Football is that you cannot take a week off. Your season could go up in smoke on any given Saturday. Every week is do or die.
For this reason, I cannot ever support putting a Boise St, TCU, or Utah in the National Championship game. They cannot possibly face the same rigors week in and week out as a BCS conference team, making it unfair to the teams that have to face that. And if they want an invite to the big party, they need to do everything in their power to join a BCS conference. I'm sure they'd be happy to have them (after all, the Pac-10 wanted Colorado).
Structurally speaking, College Football is built very differently from all other sports, and is the polar opposite of College Basketball. And that's great. Why do we need all of our sports to be constructed the same way? Variety creates balance.
Now I want to make it very clear that I don't believe College Football, or the BCS, is flawless by any means. There are many problems within the game, but the BCS shouldn't top that list.
Preseason polls are based off nothing more than expectations, yet can easily shape the season's outcome. If a BCS team goes undefeated, they will get to the National Championship Game, with one notable exception (more on that in a bit).
However, if it comes down to numerous teams with one loss, the team starting out the season ranked highest in the preseason polls is the most likely to be selected.
This becomes an even bigger problem when voters use what they call "slotting," which basically means they will not drop a team in the rankings for winning. This makes the preseason polls overly critical. While the problems with the BCS are discussed insurmountably more, the incompetence of the human voting process is a much larger problem in College Football.
Other problems that I would aim to fix before taking down the whole BCS system: The amount of time off from regular season to the BCS bowl games (makes games very sloppy, kills momentum), the inconsistency of conference championship games across the nation (an extra game that is oftentimes the toughest of the season creates an unfair advantage for conferences with the extra affair), and too many bowl games (which encourages teams to schedule soft non-conference games).
The one black eye with the BCS that I cannot justifiably defend occurred in the 2004 season. The Auburn Tigers went undefeated but were left out of the National Championship Game for undefeated Oklahoma and USC teams. This is a very rare feat, and has yet to repeat itself (excluding Cincinnati from the ultra-weak Big East in 2009). Auburn remains the one team to be truly jobbed by the BCS.
Every other year the BCS has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do.
The BCS was implemented to unite the elite conferences, and to take human bias out of the equation in deciding who plays for the National Championship. When humans didn't want to decide between two contending teams, the BCS would. Wrongly considered failure, that is the BCS's sole purpose.
Before the BCS, the top two teams weren't even guaranteed to meet in a National Championship Game. In fact, with conference bowl ties, the top two teams rarely squared off in bowl games. This led to #1 teams playing teams outside the top 10 to conclude their season and wrap up a National Championship. Talk about unfair. There were also multiple years that saw the National Champion designation split between two teams (occurring in 1990, 91, and 97).
So remember the next time you're watching a big game in October, about how the circumstances would change with a playoff system in place. Think about how the loser of that game wouldn't be out of the race for the prize. Think about how that stunning upset earlier in the day did little to change the final outcome of the season. Think about how dominant the NFL would become over College Football, and whether it would remain as relevant, or if it would be relegated to little-brother-status instead. And then ask yourself….
Do you still hate the BCS?
His Dirkness
Sorry DirkNation, I've been slacking in the write-ups, especially for this time of year. Dirkness likes to get out and boogie though, and this Thanksgiving week was the perfect opportunity to do so. Combine that with the fact there was little to say about the Chiefs beatdown of Arizona and here we are. In the meantime, enjoy this article I wrote over at Husker Corner defending the BCS. Yes, you heard that right.
A Sonic-Sized Defense of the BCS (yes, I sold out)
I'm about to take a very unpopular stance on a very prevalent topic in today's world of sports. This activity, unconventional wisdom if you will, is one of my favorite pastimes. I call it my fight against "mothoughtony." After all, conformity is for the weak. But, here goes…
I think the BCS is great. Yep, go ahead and let that soak in for a minute.
We live in a society of discontentment that believes constant complaining is the best way to improve our existence. I'm here to set everybody straight.
I'll start with the most common argument against the BCS, which doubles as the biggest fallacy against the much-maligned system: The BCS is unfair.
First off, an example of what's truly unfair: A team that goes 32-2 in the regular season, yet whose season is ultimately considered a disappointment and a failure, because of one loss. This is exactly what happened to the 2009-10 University of Kansas Basketball team.
Yet, nobody complains about how "unfair" College Basketball is. Sorry Jayhawks fans, but nothing you accomplished during the regular season mattered because your entire season is judged by what you do in the NCAA Tournament.
I've never understood why College Football receives so much ridicule on this topic, while other league's structures are, at best, equally as inept. It's been widely accepted that going all out in the NBA regular season actually hurts your chances in the playoffs, while the College Basketball regular season is even more meaningless. Your team's season can go down in three games after playing a 162 game marathon of a season in the MLB. The NFL? Well, they got some things figured out.
College Football boasts the best regular season of any sport. The implementation of a playoff, which is what most BCS haters want, takes that fact away. Suddenly, big games lack meaning, because a loss wouldn't kill a team's chances at winning it all, a fact that I believe to be underrated in most people's minds. A big upset, while fun for the day, might not have a lasting impact on the season. These are points that shortsighted BCS-haters fail to realize.
I'm not saying a playoff wouldn't be incredibly entertaining because it most definitely would, but it would have just as many problems as the BCS. Include too few teams and someone would be wrongfully excluded just as they are now. Include too many teams and the regular season loses its zest. You will never satisfy everybody.
The absolute beauty of College Football is that you cannot take a week off. Your season could go up in smoke on any given Saturday. Every week is do or die.
For this reason, I cannot ever support putting a Boise St, TCU, or Utah in the National Championship game. They cannot possibly face the same rigors week in and week out as a BCS conference team, making it unfair to the teams that have to face that. And if they want an invite to the big party, they need to do everything in their power to join a BCS conference. I'm sure they'd be happy to have them (after all, the Pac-10 wanted Colorado).
Structurally speaking, College Football is built very differently from all other sports, and is the polar opposite of College Basketball. And that's great. Why do we need all of our sports to be constructed the same way? Variety creates balance.
Now I want to make it very clear that I don't believe College Football, or the BCS, is flawless by any means. There are many problems within the game, but the BCS shouldn't top that list.
Preseason polls are based off nothing more than expectations, yet can easily shape the season's outcome. If a BCS team goes undefeated, they will get to the National Championship Game, with one notable exception (more on that in a bit).
However, if it comes down to numerous teams with one loss, the team starting out the season ranked highest in the preseason polls is the most likely to be selected.
This becomes an even bigger problem when voters use what they call "slotting," which basically means they will not drop a team in the rankings for winning. This makes the preseason polls overly critical. While the problems with the BCS are discussed insurmountably more, the incompetence of the human voting process is a much larger problem in College Football.
Other problems that I would aim to fix before taking down the whole BCS system: The amount of time off from regular season to the BCS bowl games (makes games very sloppy, kills momentum), the inconsistency of conference championship games across the nation (an extra game that is oftentimes the toughest of the season creates an unfair advantage for conferences with the extra affair), and too many bowl games (which encourages teams to schedule soft non-conference games).
The one black eye with the BCS that I cannot justifiably defend occurred in the 2004 season. The Auburn Tigers went undefeated but were left out of the National Championship Game for undefeated Oklahoma and USC teams. This is a very rare feat, and has yet to repeat itself (excluding Cincinnati from the ultra-weak Big East in 2009). Auburn remains the one team to be truly jobbed by the BCS.
Every other year the BCS has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do.
The BCS was implemented to unite the elite conferences, and to take human bias out of the equation in deciding who plays for the National Championship. When humans didn't want to decide between two contending teams, the BCS would. Wrongly considered failure, that is the BCS's sole purpose.
Before the BCS, the top two teams weren't even guaranteed to meet in a National Championship Game. In fact, with conference bowl ties, the top two teams rarely squared off in bowl games. This led to #1 teams playing teams outside the top 10 to conclude their season and wrap up a National Championship. Talk about unfair. There were also multiple years that saw the National Champion designation split between two teams (occurring in 1990, 91, and 97).
So remember the next time you're watching a big game in October, about how the circumstances would change with a playoff system in place. Think about how the loser of that game wouldn't be out of the race for the prize. Think about how that stunning upset earlier in the day did little to change the final outcome of the season. Think about how dominant the NFL would become over College Football, and whether it would remain as relevant, or if it would be relegated to little-brother-status instead. And then ask yourself….
Do you still hate the BCS?
His Dirkness
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)