Mason NEEDS this, Pistons, after all you've put him through
Yes, the BlogPoll is open for business. Voters: when you post your votes, kindly link to them here so people can check them out. Readers: read them if you like.
Again, if you aren't getting my emails, drop me a line. You will require instructions if you are to vote.
Posting might be light today. I have to stuff a lot of dead cats in a lot of boxes and then mail them to Kings GM Dave "I Hate Brian from mgoblog" Taylor. But I shall tear myself away from my mission from God to address this article from The Lincoln Journal-Star. It's another in the burgeoning "recruiting is ruining college football" genre.
Michigan sites again pop up in the article, brought forth by Nebraska QB commitment Josh Freeman:
Said Husker commit Josh Freeman: "They would say stuff about their school, like, 'Hey, you should really be going to Michigan. It'd be great. It'd be a perfect fit for you.' They say this when they don't know really anything about me."
Strange when Freeman never seemed like a serious Michigan target. Freeman clarifies who he's talking about later:
While both Michigan and Oregon Scout writers tried to sell their universities to him, Freeman said "Rivals was more worried about my opinion than their own."
Seems increasingly likely that Bruce Feldman's article was indeed in error and the lovelorn letter to Myron Rolle the Wolverine was accused of sending came from another source, either another school or the Michigan Scout site.
There's more. Rivals honcho Bobby Burton says that Michigan tells everyone they're the next Woodson:
"I'll never forget when I covered recruiting, I called three kids in a single night who had all been told by a Michigan coach that they were going to be the next Charles Woodson. ...
"When I put it on the Internet, I got a call an hour later from a Michigan coach saying, 'You're hurting us.' I said, 'I was just reporting ...' It used to be where college coaches could tell white lies like that to recruits until the cows came home."
They lied to Shawn Crable!
These things are getting tiresome. Clearly there's a conflict of interest in each and every one of these things: newspapers and the Internet sites are in direct competition and going in opposite directions. Scout was just purchased by Fox Sports. Rivals, according to the article, has over 140,000 subscribers. I can't imagine paying for a newspaper. So you get these nasty articles as a result that accuse the Scout/Rivals writers of not being "journalists," a daring gambit in the post-Rathergate era when, fair or not, public opinion of the profession "journalist" is probably closer to "pervert" than "brain surgeon."
Is the rise of the Internet recruiting sites really a huge deal? I mean, this is a little hysterical:
Husker freshman Barry Turner said there was one horrific week when he received between 75 and 100 calls.
HORROR. What did Turner do to survive?
"I had to turn off my phone," he said.
Quick thinking there. The N does stand for Nowledge. There are some people in the recruiting business that are inappropriately advocating schools. Will this change? Yes. This is the wild west period of this industry--little regulation, massive expansion, occasional gut-shot cowboys. Rivals has already worked to rein in their writers, and now that Scout has been purchased by a major media conglomerate they will follow suit sooner rather than later. And "real" sportswriters will continue to sneer at them, baselessly. I trust the guys at Rivals and respect their opinion--I have something of a (one-way) personal relationship with them. That's why I pay them money to do what they do. I don't have that relationship with any members of the MSM. Scorn 'em all you want, but there's something there that bodes unwell for the single-sentence-paragraph blowhards of the world.
Update:For the record, a GBW subscriber comments: Don Hoekwater flatly denied Freeman's claims on GBW. He noted that he only spoke to him once and that he never said anything along the lines of what Freeman claimed.
It's telling that when I read the "uh-oh" from Spath my immediate thought was "ohgodnotTambellini".
LOS ANGELES â€“ The Los Angeles Kings have agreed to terms on a multi-year entry-level contract with forward Jeff Tambellini, Kings Senior Vice President/General Manager Dave Taylor announced today. Per club policy, terms of the agreement were not announced.
We hates them, precious. While I'm on a Buck-bashing tear, Warren St. John points out the weird Buckeye paraphenalia you can acquire, including this beauty:
Perfect for your brother-in-law who just quit the chewin' terbaccy. (OMG BUY RJYH.)
I wrote off Pierre Woods, but I hope I'm flagrantly wrong. MLive has an article focusing on him. Sounds like he'll get playing time, but it's awfully crowded at SAM all of a sudden.
Blogspotting continues apace. Since I pointed out Florida College Sports' BCS whinge session I feel duty bound to point out Braves & Birds' demolition of same. Blog foul on me. EDSBS engages in some gratuitous Trev-bashing; count me in. IBFC blows up that Stassen overrated/underrated thing in authoritative fashion. By the way, IBFC may have some company on the college foot-statistic T.I.P., by the way. Orange44 is like a big, uh, orange version of IBFC complete with tables and parity indices and, like, Pythagorean charts. For the record, I think the Pythagorean thing that applies so well to baseball suffers hugely from college football's small sample size and noisy data--there are a lot of reasons why scoring margin is artificially deflated imposed by the game theory in football that don't apply to baseball.
And this one is totally OT as they say (no, not operating thetan): Idle At Work takes on the mess that is the Atlanta Hawks.
I may have to revise my Northwestern preview heavily. A few days after finding out that DE Loren Howard and RB Terrell Jordan are likely going to miss large portions of the season, the Wildcats suspended WR Brandon Horn for the year. That's five projected starters down: Howard, Jordan, Horn, CB/KR Jeff Backes, and C Trevor Rees. ETA on headline featuring unclever play-on-words "Mildcats": 5 weeks into season.
I vaguely remember the SWC, which disintegrated 15 years ago. The Sports Economist points out a huge series of articles from San Antonio detailing the pressures and political machinations that self-destructified the league. Fascinating section of one article:
[After unsuccessfully courting the Pac-10] The Longhorns next turned to the Big Ten.
Having added Penn State in 1990, the Big Ten was now made of universities that, in the view of UT officials, matched UT's profile -Â— large state schools with strong academic reputations. Berdahl liked the fact that 10 conference members belonged to the American Association of Universities.
Yet, distance remained a disadvantage. Iowa, the closest Big Ten school to Austin, was 856 miles away Ã‚Â— but the appeal of having 10 of 12 schools in the same time zone was seen as a plus.
But after adding Penn State in 1990, Big Ten officials had put a four-year moratorium on expansion. Although admitting interest, Big Ten bosses ultimately rejected UT's overtures.
Holy crap. Totally logistically implausible... but damn, man, UT in the Big Ten. That would be strange but utterly compelling.
Rah rah goes the Oakland Press and their article on the Deshawn Sims commitment. Slightly over the top ("Michigan took a big step toward re-establishing supremacy"... uh, get back to me when we beat MSU) but encouraging. Basketball recruit guru Dave Telep is mucho in favor:
"Through four days, he went bananas out there [the Big Time tournament in Las Vegas]," Telep said. "One of the things I've always liked about him is his versatility. He's got such a unique size, body and skill package that he can do a lot of things. He can shoot the ball on the perimeter ... having said that, he doesn't forget that he can go to the blocks and just absolutely work a guy over. He can become an interesting mismatch on the college level."
123, don't suck.
2007 words on why I don't listen to sports talk radio:
Also, I don't have a working radio.
Fifteen more: What's the over under on "Mike Valenti is totally bald"? Like two years? Six months?
I usually try to keep politics off this blog, but the nation will be faced with a critical decision in 2008 that may well determine the course of history. One man can take on the job: Christopher Walken.
(Some have left notes saying that you're getting around to it... do it posthaste and I'll modify the roundup to note these things.)
Okay. Feedback was received on Roundtable #5, but there are still swaths of uncharted lands. Most of the ACC: dunno. Pac-10 teams not named "USC": dunno. SEC? Dunno. Any chipping in on the mysteries of Auburn, Georgia, Miami (Florida), Virginia Tech, Arizona State, Cal, etc., would be appreciated. A second opinion on the Big Ten would also be fantastic.
Anyway. On with the show.
No one bothered to attack my ranking of Purdue in the top ten. I provide a link to my thoughts on the matter here. In summary:
Michigan: I said #5, but given everyone else's input I actually put them #3 in my first poll by default. The offense: mauling OL, Mike Hart and Kevin Grady and Max Martin, Chad Henne, Avant and Breaston. At first blush the most talent of anyone outside USC. The defense: well... there's a lot of talent on the defensive line, and the linebackers should rebound. Leon Hall is one really good corner. The safeties, meh.
Purdue: #7. They almost had a really good season a year ago but were undone by untimely fumbles, a spate of short missed field goals, and an 80-yard, 31 second scoring drive in the Sun Bowl. Every defensive starter returns, and Brandon Kirsch and Kory Sheets should improve the run game. Ingraham, Bryant, and TE Charles Davis are a good 1-2-3 receiving combination.
Ohio State: Troy Smith is not that good. They can't run. Their pass defense is questionable. I try not to dwell on the linebackers and receivers. I had them #10, but in a fit of pissiness dropped them to #11. The djl Zone also says that "ranking them much higher than tenth is being exceptionally generous," but he doesn't like Ohio State any more than I do.
Iowa: Drew Tate, Ed Hinkel, and Clinton Solomon will make a fearsome pass-throwing-and-receiving trio this year but there are significant questions at OL, especially the tackles, and RB. The defensive back seven is formidable but the front four is all new and totally green. The projected starters are all either sophomores or freshmen, and while I believe in Kirk Ferentz, I don't believe that much. I've got them from #12 to #14.
Minnesota: I have them #22. Laurence Maroney is good, and so are three of their offensive line starters. Like "whoah did three Gopher offensive linemen go on the first day of the NFL draft" good. They have a huge, rangy wide receiver in Ernest Wheelwright who is the next Braylon Edwards if he just gets those hand things working right. Brian Cupito is pretty okay. The offense: muy good. The defense? Uh... that's why they're #22.
Texas got hammered in the first edition of the roundtable for being the most overrated team going into the season, but damn if a couple of the Big Twelve blogpollers didn't peg them second anyway. TAMBINPO is sadly permalink-free, but I promise if you scroll down extensively you'll come across a thoughtful rundown of the various Big Twelve teams. He, citing AAARGH Vince Young, like, a lot, says that there's as good a choice as anyone for #2. Not so fast, my friend, says Struggling Joe, who admits that the Longhorns are a top-10 team but certainly not #2. Texas Tech blogger RD Baker has them #7.
There's much conflict of opinion on Oklahoma. The Bruce says they're due for a fall (as does ESPN Bruce, by the way) and has them #13. So does TAMBINPO. Joe says... #5? RD Baker says #5, too, but both Bruce and TAMBINPO bring copious nasty facts to the table, like OU will be breaking in new starters at seven defensive spots, quarterback, three offensive line slots, and wide receiver. Oy vey!
Texas A&M, at least, seems to be well-pegged by voters. Joe says #17. TAMBINPO says #16. RD says #11. Year three of Reggie McNeal and the promise of the Year 3 Franchione liftoff has various persons buzzing.
Texas Tech returns a lot this year and seems to have a defense that can keep up with the Joneses in the Big Twelve for a change. RD Baker has them at #20; TAMBINPO says the Red Raiders are #23.
Colorado was mentioned a couple times. TAMBINPO has them #25, but actionBERG specifically calls them out as a team that shouldn't be ranked.
Nebraska shouldn't be ranked according to Husker partisan Joe, but could "almost stumble to a 7-4 record" this year. So they've got that going for them.
Section Six reiterates his belief that NC State is a likely surprise (oxymoron?) team this year. Most of a defense that was really good a season ago returns and NC State was on the implausibly short end of the turnover stick in 2004. If Jay Davis doesn't suck the Wolfpack could be a really good team. As it is, he says they're worth a ranking from 20-25.
He's also down on Florida State, although not as down as I thought he'd be. Citing the mere 9 returning starters and big gaps at DB, DL, and QB, he has them from 14-16.
Eagle In Atlanta offers his educated opinion on Boston College: "At this point I think Tom O'Â’Brien can squeak out seven wins in any conference in the country. I also think we'Â’ll win a crappy bowl. So starting the season at No. 22 seems right." Feel the excitement! EIA also takes some time to wonder about a "Mackovic-like mutiny" against Chan Gailey. Uh, now that you mention it, Georgia Tech is not ranked by EIA.
Pittsburgh is sneaking onto the end of a lot of lists, but EIA says nyet. SportsBiz, on the other hand, says da, #23.
SportsBiz is listed as an NU partisan but also has a strong Louisville affiliation, so listen up when he says they are for real. #8 for real.
No one covered anyone in the Pac-10. MDG did note that he thought USC should be #1 and Cal #21 but rightfully spent most of his time covering the two WAC powers (more on them later).
Section Six also addresses
Alabama in his post, saying that the Tide should indeed be ranked coming off a 6-6 year. Brodie Croyle, who's like MSU QB Drew Stanton in that his last name may as well be "Ifhealthy," should be good, er, if healthy, and nine starters return from one of the best defenses in college football last year. S6 has them at 18-20.
EDSBS is content with Florida's just-outside-the-top-ten ranking of 11. Ditto for Auburn's modest expectations at #15.
The Bruce attempts to get in EDSBS's good graces by knocking Tennessee, placing them #10 instead of the coaches' poll-anointed #3, citing Ainge's late-season tendency to throw copious interceptions, a dearth of talent at wide receiver, and that 22.7-ppg yielding defense, which is all back. Good thing or bad thing? Bruce says the latter. No pooftahs.
Eagle in Atlanta is veeery skeptical of Georgia's chances this year, rating them from 23-25. But here's Wacky RD again. He's got Georgia #2! Go go gadget Tee Martin Hypothesis, I guess.
Both the djl Zone and Have You Met Tony? make cases for the Falcons in the top 25. Omar Jacobs is real good, but Tony points out that the other dudes around him have pretty nice credentials, too. Both Falcon partisans are extremely worried about the defense, which was crapulent in traditional Explosively Offensed Mid-Major fashion, but neither pegs BGSU a top-ten team either. DJL says 17-23. Tony says 15-20. Non-Falcon The Bruce also pegs BG at 20. Sounds like something of a consensus.
Our lone WAC pollster, MDG, weighs in on both Fresno State and Boise State only to find them (slightly) lacking. MDG notes something that EDSBS is on, too: the Bulldogs have a really undersized defense that leaves them susceptible to plowing by teams like, say, maybe Georgia that makes it somewhat difficult to take them super seriously. Like say, #4 seriously. He's torn as a Fresno fan. The talent is there, he says, but who knows how they'll hold up mentally? He wouldn't object to you placing them anywhere from 15 on up, but says for the record he won't be voting them in the top 25 to start. Ditto for Boise.
Hurray, that's the poll hurray. If you're interested, you can see all the individual ballots here. Now on to the extracurriculars. First up are the teams which spur the most and least disagreement between voters as measured by standard deviation. Note that the standard deviation charts halt at #25 when looking for the lowest, otherwise teams that everyone agreed were terrible (say, Eastern Michigan) would all be at the top.
Now on to the blog-specific rankings. First up are "Mr. Bold" and "Mr. Numb Existence." The former goes to the voter with the ballot most divergent from the poll at large. The number you see is the average difference between a person's opinion of a team and the poll's opinion.
Next we have the Coulter/Krugman Award and the Straight Bangin' Award, which are again different sides of the same coin. The CKA and SBA go to the blogs with the highest and lowest bias rating, respectively. Bias rating is calculated by subtracting the blogger's vote for his own team from the poll-wide average. A high number indicates you are shameless homer. A low number indicates that you suffer from an abusive relationship with your football team.
Swing is essentially the total change in each ballot from last week to this week (obviously voters who didn't submit a ballot last week are not included). A high number means you are easily distracted by shiny things. A low number means that you're damn sure you're right no matter what reality says.