Showing posts with label USA Today. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA Today. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Three Thoughts for a Tuesday

Darn it all, I really should write this on Thursday. The alliteration would be much nicer! ...three thoughts for a Thursday...

I really don't like doing this, but I've had such a hard time finding time to blog over the past few weeks between work at work and work at home, I now feel the need to combine three completely unrelated topics into one post. Here we go, and in no particular order:

1. As a Browns fan, I am quite happy to see that the new GM, George Kokinis, is NOT making very many trades or free-agent pickups in the current player market. Let me repeat: NOT making player personnel moves in the days immediately following when veterans become free agents in the NFL can be a good thing. All too often, teams adopt a "Try to win it all this season" approach, and it only hurts their long-term prospects. The Browns tried that last year, after going 10-6 but missing the playoffs the previous season.

Perhaps the previous GM, Phil Savage, thought he only needed a few key free agent pickups to go far in the playoffs in 2008. He made two key trades, for former GB DL Corey Williams and former DET DL Shaun Rogers, which when combined with the previous trade of a draft pick to move up in 2007 to grab QB Brady Quinn, meant the Brownies had ZERO draft picks in the first four rounds of the 2008 draft. Talk about sacrificing the future for a win-now mentality!

Smart NFL GMs tend to put their money on younger players who later grow into top-notch free agents. The important thing (some would say the most important thing!) is to not overpay for previous performance. Think the Patriots really wanted to pay Matt Cassel over $14M after slapping the franchise tag on him at the end of last year? They might have not gotten enough value in return (a second round draft pick from the Chiefs) for Cassel and soon-to-be 34 year old Mike Vrabel... ...but then again, maybe they did.

2. I was saddened to see that the Rocky Mountain News went under after its last published edition last Friday. While I was a freshman (AKA Doolie, Smack, 4 smoke, etc.) at USAFA, we all had to subscribe to a newspaper in order to have three news stories memorized for the breakfast table. Woe to the 4 smokes who all subscribed to USA Today! I actually subscribed to the C. Springs Gazette-Telegraph as a freshman, and then switched to the RMN as an upperclassman. Not many cadets continued to subscribe to any newspaper after the freshman year, which was just indicative of the broader societal trend towards other sources of news and away from print media. And this was six years before the first GUI-based browser made surfing the Internet practical!

At any rate, I feel sad for the loss of the RMN, which was a great paper for two reasons: it was published in tabloid format (which made it easier to flip through), and they had a terrific comics section! Hardly anyone still reads the comics these days, I've noticed. I went out of my way to place a subscription with Comics.com, which delivers 36 different daily comic strips to my Google Reader account. Who does that?!

Other, much more well-established pundits already covered the loss of the RMN, of course. Joe Posnanski had his own thoughts on its demise, made more poignant by the fact he wanted to work there way back when. I was more shocked to hear that San Francisco might be the first major U.S. city to be completely without a major daily newspaper if a buyer for the Chronicle cannot be found.

On the one hand, I fully understand and support the move away from traditional broadcast print media like newspapers. People can and do get their news from other sources these days, right? All too often, small daily papers like the one in our town become news aggregators for sources like the AP; if I've already read those stories online, then why pay for something I have to deal with and recycle later?

On the other hand, I do wonder just where all these newly unemployed reporters will go. Think about it: without the fine investigative reporters being paid by the SF Chronicle, we wouldn't have the BALCO investigation and what we know of the story on Barry Bonds. How many reporters can the AP really absorb, anyway? And don't we want independent views of local news? There should be a way to make local reporting work outside the printed newspaper, but no one has invented it yet. The invariably poor quality of local newspaper and TV station websites is so darn depressing, they aren't worth mentioning.

3. Am I the last person on Earth without a smart phone? My sister dropped their landline and went strictly CrackBerry and cell phone. I see them everywhere, and it really is amazing to see all the things the different apps on the iPhone can do. We were driving back from The Beef House in Indiana two weekends ago, and the person driving let me check out his iPhone. While driving on the highway, I was able to check out the GPS application, put in the path for our route, and even pulled up live weather reporting (including a live radar picture!) for the local area. It's phenomenal! Even the college student working a minimum-wage job "guarding" the lobby for the building where I work has an iPhone.

And yet, I can't really see paying all that money for the monthly service plan for voice, data, Internet access, text, etc., etc. It has to be over $100 per month once you add in all the service charges and network fees, right? Plus, to get the iPhone, you either have to be happy with AT&T (NOT!), or you have to perform delicate and unsanctioned geek surgery to break it loose from the AT&T network. Not gonna happen.

Maybe we're just old-fashioned. We're contemplating swapping our landline at home (still a traditional, hard-wired landline) and two cell phones for one iPhone. The payments would roughly equal each other, since we do pay about $50 per month for our landline and $50 per month for our portion of the family cell phone plan we share with Amy's family. But then I would be without a cell phone, and we still would buy something like an Xlink BT Bluetooth cell phone gateway in order to transfer the phone calls throughout the house.

I just hate the idea of paying additional monthly service fees above and beyond what we already pay. We don't pay for cable TV service, primarily because I don't want to pay over $100 per month for high-definition TV. We do pay for the cable broadband Internet access -- the $42 we pay per month is well worth the cost to not be stuck on dial-up! We don't have an Xbox 360, primarily because I know I would want to also subscribe to the Xbox Live online community, if for no other reason than to be able to play Grifball! Tell me that doesn't look like fun! But I can't really stomach the thought of another monthly service fee. We pay for Netflix every month, but that subscription provides a great value for the price. We don't pay for a TiVO box, since that would be another monthly subscription fee. I feel like I've reached my limit when it comes to monthly subscription fees.

Even with drawing the line where I do, I know that Henry David Thoreau would be aghast at our daily lives these days. There's something to be said for the thought: "Simplify, simplify, simplify."

Friday, January 9, 2009

Another College Football Season Finished, but Not Without Controversy

I'm sure that anyone with an interest in college football probably took the time to watch last night's BCS National Title Championship Game Sponsored by FedEx between Florida and Oklahoma University. It was perhaps not a pretty game, owing to the layoff between conference championship games and the last game of the BCS bowl season. Still, the game was interesting for many different reasons.

The first example is that last night's game pitted the past two Heisman Trophy (the award that annually goes to the player voters deem to be the best overall player in all of college football) winners, Tim Tebow of Florida (the 2007 Heisman winner) and Sam Bradford of OU (the 2008 Heisman winner). There have been many players who won the Heisman as underclassmen, certainly. I would venture that last night's game was the first to have two Heisman winners opposing each other* in a game with national title implications on the line.

* When Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush were playing Texas in the BCS Title game after the 2005 season (Leinart being the 2004 Heisman winner, and Bush being the 2005 Heisman winner), they were on the same side of the ball.

The announcers also made a comment that I took to be a real, "Well, duh!" statement during the game. They made sure to point out how Bradford was also named to the AP First Team All-American roster.* If a person has been voted as the best all-around player in all of college football, why wouldn't he be named to the First Team All-American squad?

* Tebow, by the way, was only named to the Third Team All-American list, with UT QB Colt McCoy being named to the Second Team list. Forget that he was the 2007 Heisman winner, and that he outplayed Bradford by a large margin in the BCS Title game itself.

Which then got me to thinking about whether there had been times in the past where the Heisman Trophy winner has not been voted First Team All-American. I know that the voters for each award are different, but as I started to do some research on the topic, I was blown away just at the sheer number of All-American lists put out every year. I'm not even going to touch on all the other awards out there in big-time college football, such as the Bronco Nagurski (awarded annually to the best defender), Chuck Bednarik (ditto), Dick Butkus (best LB), Outland Trophy (best lineman), Doak Walker (best RB), Lou Groza (best K), Ray Guy (best P), etc. etc.

In terms of All-American rosters alone, there are 12 different entities that annually select a team of All-American players, to wit: the Associated Press, the Football Writers Association of America, the American Football Coaches Association, the Walter Camp Foundation, the Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, Pro Football Weekly, ESPN, CBS Sports, College Football News, Rivals.com, and Scout.com. Whew! I'm tired from typing all of that! Trying to choose just one All-American team to compare against the list of Heisman Trophy winners, I wanted to go with just the best known of all rosters, the annual AP list of All-Americans.

While it was easy to pull up a comprehensive list of Heisman Trophy winners from the www.heisman.com website, I had a much harder time finding resources on the Internet for the history of AP All-American teams. Finding historical records for AP All-Americans might be one of those traditional trek-to-the-library-and-pore-over-microfiche tasks. Normally, putting more search terms into a Google search helps to limit the results somewhat. When I googled for "first team ap all-american history", I received 102,000 hits. When I added the word "records" to the search string, that narrowed down the list somewhat, but only to 74,800 hits. Unfortunately, whenever a writer pens a story about someone from his or her school being named to the AP All-American team, he almost always includes the word "history" or "records" in the story itself. The end result was I couldn't find historical records of AP All-American teams, not even on the AP's own website.

Which brought me back to using the ol' standby, Wikipedia. I actually really like and generally trust the information I find available on Wikipedia, even though I know it is ripe for abuse by people who push a singular point of view. On balance (or should I say "by and large," in honor of Wall-E [2008]?), I feel the people behind Wikipedia do a very good job of moderating revisions to the point where it is no less accurate than any other encyclopedia out there. It's a reference, and any information on it should be treated like it's coming from any other reference: Trust but verify.

Sadly, on the Wikipedia page for College Football All-American Teams, they have data basically covering the modern Internet plus a few scattered years in history (1998-2008, plus 1970, 1931, 1925, and 1910). For comparison's sake with the list of Heisman winners, only those years since 1935 are relevant. Here are the Heisman winners for the years on which we do have AP All-American roster data:
  • 1970 - Jim Plunkett, QB, Stanford
  • 1998 - Ricky Williams, RB, Texas
  • 1999 - Ron Dayne, RB, Wisconsin
  • 2000 - Chris Weinke, QB, Florida State
  • 2001 - Eric Crouch, QB, Nebraska
  • 2002 - Carson Palmer, QB, USC
  • 2003 - Jason White, QB, Oklahoma
  • 2004 - Matt Leinart, QB, USC
  • 2005 - Reggie Bush, RB, USC
  • 2006 - Troy Smith, QB, Ohio State
  • 2007 - Tim Tebow, QB, Florida
  • 2008 - Sam Bradford, QB, OU
That's it, that's the list! Going through all the current years (1998-2008), it certainly appears that every single Heisman Trophy winner was named to the AP First Team All-American roster. In 2000, only AP named Chris Weinke to its list of All-Americans; all the other rating entities chose Josh Heupel, QB, OU over Weinke, which is interesting in and of itself.

Going back to 1970 reveals something different, however. Jim Plunkett, voted as the best player in all of college football that year, was named only to the AP Second Team of All-Americans. None other than Joe Theisman, QB, Notre Dame beat out Plunkett for First Team honors. Which meant the AP voters didn't think Plunkett was the best QB in college football, much less the best overall player that year. As Spock would say, "Fascinating!"

All of this gets right back to what's wrong with Big Time College Football and the BCS, naturally! Too many opinions are thrown around, and you know what they say about people's rear ends and opinions. Voters chose to elevate undefeated Utah up to the #2 spot in the final AP poll of the season, and 16 of those voters selected Utah as the #1 team in the country.

Utah head coach Kyle Whittingham even broke ranks on the USA Today coaches' poll, voting his own team #1 even though coaches are typically bound to vote for the winner of the BCS National Title Championship Game. As of yet, there is no word whether Whittingham will be disciplined for his action by the American Football Coaches Association, but the better question may be why only 61 coaches vote in the USA Today coaches' poll when there are 120 universities playing Division 1-A football?

In my own humble opinion, no one who is a fan of college football would lose interest in early- or mid-season games if the NCAA were to switch to a playoff system. No one would talk around the water cooler any less, and sportswriters still would provide their opinions at the same rate if we had a true champion in college football. Last time I checked, everyone LOVES March Madness, with the only gripes coming just after the Selection Show. People still love to debate who got dissed and/or who should be in the NCAA Tournament, and in that format, 65 teams earn the right to play for a national title in mens' college basketball. At least the outcome of the season is decided on the court, with every team having a chance to win. In Big Time (Division 1-A, or Bowl Subdivision) College Football, everything is subject to opinion. This year, many of the voters never saw Utah play a game until they destroyed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.

I think I'll go back to supporting my second alma mater, the College of William & Mary, who plays big time (albeit Division 1-AA, or Championship Subdivision) football. When they made the playoffs in 2004, it was terribly exciting going to the playoff game between the Tribe and James Madison, the eventual champ. Even as a grad student, I thoroughly enjoyed the playoff atmosphere. The Division 1-A guys could learn from that.