- Member for
- 8 years 16 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|17 hours 16 min ago||Almost certainly human||
Almost certainly human nature. It's why I don't participate in the apparent contest to see who can express the most outrage at the most people. People always judge other people and organizations first by how they themselves were treated. We rush to see the good in those we know and the bad in those we don't. It's not much different, IMO, how we might cuss out somebody who cut us off in traffic for being a brainless fucking imbecile with no regard for others, yet instantly forgive our own friends and relatives if they did the same thing.
I don't jump on the fuck-PSU outrage bandwagon, not because what happened wasn't outrageous, but because it could've happened anywhere. I don't think there's anything uniquely perverted about Penn State fans, or for that matter Paterno, I just think human nature in general is what caused Paterno to do something other than immediately take a flamethrower to Sandusky upon hearing the accusations. When you've worked side by side with someone for 40 years, it's easy to brush aside whispers and an accusation in favor of your daily personal interactions. Similar concept for their fans. There are cults of personality at dozens of schools, because that's what college football has done for everyone, and I suspect a similar thing would happen if Bear Bryant, Woody Hayes, Bobby Bowden, John Wooden, or various other personalities had been accused of the same thing.
|20 hours 41 min ago||This year, the NHL champions||
This year, the NHL champions are in Pittsburgh, the NBA champs are in Cleveland, and the MLB champs are soon to be either Cleveland or Chicago. To hell with the salt coasts. Rise of the Midwest, bitches. Perhaps in a couple months the ultimate Third Coast state will follow.
|1 day 7 hours ago||This game really lends||
This game really lends credence to the idea that Speight's shoulder was screwing with his accuracy. Bye week, two weeks to rest it, he comes out slinging it. Coincidence? Probably not.
|2 days 6 hours ago||I like this emphasis the||
I like this emphasis the Wings seem to have on fighting more. Larkin got high-sticked by Yannick Weber, and then Weber came in and tried to bully him around with a cross check. The refs did nothing, so Larkin took care of things.
I was more impressed when I thought it was Shea Weber, before I remembered he was traded to Montreal, but still.
|2 days 12 hours ago||(No subject)||
|2 days 14 hours ago||It's astounding when the||
It's astounding when the offense scores 78 points and has a worse day than the defense.
|2 days 18 hours ago||2016, man. And 56. It's a||
And 56. It's a little bit nerve-wracking to think that I'm still awfully young (relative, you know, to most of the population) and I could be way more than halfway done.
|3 days 10 hours ago||This doesn't make a lot of||
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Regardless of player development, even a game between the Browns and 49ers will feature far better football players than any college game. Every NFL team is like a college all-star team. So if the skill level in the NFL is unwatchable, how can you stand college football?
|3 days 14 hours ago||I can kinda see this idea of||
I can kinda see this idea of doing fun new stuff every week that always works. How much good does it do Urban Meyer to tell his team, "ok guys, when they line up like this, be ready for these nine different plays"?
|3 days 19 hours ago||There are hotels in Evanston,||
There are hotels in Evanston, but I do believe most of them charge nightly parking fees the same way hotels in downtown Chicago do. Not as exorbitant as downtown, but still large enough to add up if you stay more than one night.
|4 days 13 hours ago||Someone is clearly trying to||
Someone is clearly trying to put together a featurette story on the Glasgow brothers.
|4 days 13 hours ago||Generally when a coach says||
Generally when a coach says so-and-so is performing well in practice, I always mentally add "for him" to the end of it. In other words, I take the coach's meaning as relative to the benchmark the player has set for himself, not as compared to everyone.
|5 days 16 hours ago||Schools like A&M, Nebraska,||
Schools like A&M, Nebraska, OU, were not exactly pikers. If Texas is willing to be huge dicks to A&M and Oklahoma, why would they treat Michigan and Ohio State any better? Why would they be suddenly OK with being told, sorry, you're like, fourth banana now?
Keep in mind they went into negotiations with the Pac-10 demanding that the Pac-10 realign their divisions exactly how Texas wanted, so that Texas could play a road game in Los Angeles every year. There would already be a Pac-16 if they hadn't been raging assholes, but the Pac schools decided not to put up with Texas's shit. And they were smart. No reason to assume Texas will change its behavior.
|5 days 18 hours ago||Texas personally destroyed||
Texas personally destroyed two different conferences. Why the hell should we give them the chance to destroy ours?
I got a better idea. Since everyone seems to want to treat this like a game of Pokemon - gotta catch 'em all - let's just add Boston College, UConn, Syracuse,Army, Navy, Pitt, West Virginia, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Arkansas, Louisville, Cincinnati, Missouri, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor, Colorado, BYU, New Mexico, Air Force, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, UNLV, Nevada, Boise State, Washington, Washington State, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, and Hawaii, and rename the Big Ten to the National Collegiate Association of Athletics. Then we can divide up the conference into divisions like the Southeastern, Southwestern, Pacific, Atlantic, Mountain/West, etc.
|5 days 18 hours ago||Actually, what makes the most||
Actually, what makes the most sense is to kick out the east-coasters that do nothing for the conference, not add southern teams to a midwestern conference, and stay at 12 teams.
|6 days 6 hours ago||Even if every word of that||
Even if every word of that were absolutely true, though, none of it guarantees a 4x16. One conference may want 14 teams, one may want 18 teams. And really, the conferences aren't going to necessarily agree with each other on what's best for whom. The Pac-12 may think it best to guarantee each conference a spot, but the SEC or B1G, for example, may prefer to hold out for simply having the top four teams. They're not guaranteed to agree.
Furthermore, they're not likely to think of it in terms of squashing the AAC and CUSA. I think your post is still thinking too collaboratively. The P5 conferences have operated far more often at odds with one another than together. They're going to try and get all they can for themselves, not set up a system by which they can collectively profit at the expense of the Little 5. That may mean expanding to 18. Or it may mean expanding the playoff to six or eight teams (the latter of which is not at all guaranteed to mean they'll just agree to guarantee themselves two spots each.)
I don't at all think it's inconceivable. I am sure, however, 100% convinced, that there are ten zillion variables involved in all of this and any one of them can throw off the supposedly inevitable. Nothing is inevitable, not in this game. And let's face it, if people like Delany played the long game, there sure as hell would be no Rutgers in the Big Ten.
|6 days 7 hours ago||Of course it's conceivable.||
Of course it's conceivable. It's just not inevitable. I think you mistook my meaning in that last sentence there, so let me rephrase: Nobody in a decision-making capacity cares if the end result is 4x16. At all.
To address your bullets one by one:
- Nobody cares what's logical, only about how to get the best out of the situation for their own institution.
- Yes, but that doesn't do anything to drive conferences to 16 any more than it drives them to 14 or 18 or 15.
- See above.
- See above.
- Sneak in? This makes no sense at all Is the SEC going to take Oklahoma to preclude the possibility of waking up one day and finding Tulane has stealthily joined? Or do you mean the four conferences are worried about the Sun Belt weaseling its way into a guaranteed playoff spot? They don't need a particular number to avoid any of those scenarios. As you say, they're holding a winning hand. They've already played it and will continue to do so, and don't need to organize any special situation. In fact, they're smart enough not to collude too much lest they incur some kind of antitrust wrath, which is the ace in the hole that led them to the concession of allowing a Little 5 team into the "new BCS" in the first place.
Yes, of course 4x16 is conceivable, but that's not why people talk about it. People talk about it for the same reason they talk about promotion/relegation: they like to imagine everything working perfectly just the way they want it. Equally conceivable is 14-16-14-16, or 16-16-14-12, or 16-18-14-12 followed shortly thereafter by 16-10-8-14-12. Or, in fact, a great many different combinations. The last 16-team football conference exploded three years after its formation and is now a pitiful shell of its former self (not to mention no longer sponsoring football). There's nothing so magic about 4x16 that can't be ruined by self-interests chasing even more money.
|6 days 9 hours ago||I continue to be amazed at||
I continue to be amazed at people acting as if the 4x16 model is the inevitable result, and that once achieved it will settle things for all time. You're expecting a neat and tidy result from an inherently chaotic process. Chaos does not turn into order without a greater force pushing it there, which doesn't exist here. Four conferences of 16 teams is no more likely than any other possible outcome. Everyone has their own list of interests at heart, and making sure the conference structure ends up all pretty and nice is so far down all of those lists it's not even conceivable.
|6 days 10 hours ago||Guy (or gal) smelled a||
Guy (or gal) smelled a feature story and a headline. So did Harbaugh.
|6 days 15 hours ago||I could see him showing up at||
I could see him showing up at the door with a six of Beast Light, maybe.
|1 week 2 days ago||64 bucks to be surrounded by||
64 bucks to be surrounded by a bunch of drunk angry people who hate you for your shirt color and whose brains still don't really grasp the concept of future consequences? Think I won't.
|1 week 2 days ago||Yup. I guess I should||
Yup. I guess I should rephrase - it's not that I don't get it, I've seen it a thousand times. We all have. For some reason, fan psychology has evolved so as to compare the flaws of the guy we've seen to the idealized version of the guy we haven't. We've yet to watch the backup fling the ball five feet over anyone's head, so clearly, he's not going to.
|1 week 2 days ago||(No subject)||
|1 week 2 days ago||Brian's point I think is that||
Brian's point I think is that Rudock had a track record of high-level competence, and the only problem was needing a little bit more of a settling-in time. New system, new coaching, new receivers, etc. I would say we did have reason to believe he'd take off (or at least get better) because he'd done it before. Speight has no such track record, so his improvement trend is likely to be more of a slower upward slope than a sudden high-jump from suck to great.
|1 week 2 days ago||My favorite position to watch||
My favorite position to watch has always been running back, and my favorite running back so far is definitely Evans. He's got the quickest quicks, and he breaks tackles he shouldn't. I'm mega-excited about what he's gonna show us these next few years.
|1 week 2 days ago||Don't understand this idea||
Don't understand this idea that what we see now is what we'll always get. I am not saying that Speight is any kind of a lock to keep his job, but I don't get the mindset that says he's a lock not to. Right now, Speight is developing faster than anyone else, on account of getting all the game reps, and six games is a bullshit sample size to declare that he's obviously worse than someone nobody's ever seen at all.
|1 week 2 days ago||Analyzing something is one||
Analyzing something is one thing. Depicting it is another. This site is over ten years old, and the level of detail from back then, while excellent, is nowhere close to what it is today. Spending that long researching your topic ain't gonna work for movies. And Brian can analyze football but he would not be able to coach it at all**, which is a lot more analagous to writing and directing a movie than this.
I really think your "doctor curing pneumonia with magnesium" thing is a straw man. That's not the kind of laughability anyone's talking about. It's things like how people behave in the real world vs. the movie world. Everyone knows that random elements are not a pneumonia cure.
And movies are made every month about real life gripping stories - and they still are almost always changed for the big screen. 127 Hours, Apollo 13, even Remember the Titans. TV, on the other hand.....do you really think NCIS in real life is nonstop globetrotting and solving murders that involve everything from the CIA to Russian arms dealers to Salvadoran gangs? Shit no, they're routinely sent to track down AWOL sailors and take police reports about shoplifting from the PX.
**He might well be able to design an offense and make correct game-day decisions, but the devil is in the details, and so is the technique. Even the best self-taught analyst would have a tough time teaching someone not just what a reach block is, but how to do it.
And by the way, somewhere in this post I purposely made the kind of mistake that Hollywood makes all the time. Can you find it? Did you catch it right away? If not, maybe you get the point about where Hollywood goes wrong when it shows a specialty of some kind, and how most details are considered good enough.
|1 week 3 days ago||It sounds like you took what||
It sounds like you took what I said to mean that Hollywood makes incorrectly-detailed movies on purpose, or at least out of almost willful negligence. I don't mean that at all. It's just that topics like that are always amazingly complex, and they wouldn't necessarily be expected to know the whole gamut of nuances about, say, the military, any more than a Navy captain could be expected to direct a movie.
Take A Few Good Men. Rob Reiner has his Marines saluting indoors and uncovered. The Army does that, but the Navy and Marines don't. Anyone from those branches would pick up on that immediately, but I would think Reiner wouldn't even have a reason to ask if that difference exists. Even if he had a military advisor on set, that guy might be from the Army and still not even think about the difference.
|1 week 3 days ago||I think it's that you get||
I think it's that you get negged for calling a legitimate question stupid, whether or not you're roundabout in doing so.
|1 week 3 days ago||I think he was going for||
I think he was going for "syphilis."