I remember something about false idols...

[Update]

Jay Mariotti chimed in with this ridiculous column yesterday. His blog on AOL is now required reading for me:

Down in these parts, where college football is part religion and part psychosis, they like to say Superman wears Tebow pajamas. I'm thinking that's an understatement. I'm thinking if Tebow heads to Wall Street next week, the economic crisis instantly will end. I'm thinking he convinces Amy Winehouse to sober up and Lindsay Lohan to stop fighting with this Samantha person. I'm thinking he shows up in Detroit, and the Lions go 16-0.

He is, I dare suggest, one of the most important young people in this country: true to his faith, unfailingly humble and courteous, a together kid in a complicated world. He's a rock star without the sex and drugs and even the rock and roll, citing Frank Sinatra as his fave and "Send in the Clowns'' as his coolest song, which isn't exactly Lil Wayne doing "Lollipop."

This is not a joke. Those words are real. Written by someone who is paid. Really.

And the ending:

I feel so inferior. You, too?

Kill me now.

***

Tim Tebow (God bless you) and the Florida Gators beat Oklahoma in the BCS National Championship game last night. But much more entertaining than the game was the announcing.

The guilty party? Thom Brennaman - whose constant slobbering over Tebow was borderline fetishistic.

Some excerpts:

"You know, in such a cynical, sarcastic society; oftentimes looking for the negative on anybody or anything, if you're fortunate enough to spend five minutes or twenty minutes around Tim Tebow, your life is better for it."

Holy fucking shit.

This made me LOL a little bit:

"Time Tebow, the young man unwavering in his faith and how it sustains him, his remarkable achievements off the field define him far more than those on the field. ... He's fed needy children, lived in an orphanage as well as a lepper colony."

Lepper colonies still exist?!

*After a taunting penalty on The Great One*
"That may be the first thing he's done wrong in his life. I'm dead serious."

Ok, so maybe that second sentence wasn't spoken, but it was implied.

I really LOLed at this one:


*After the subject of Tebow being the fourth best QB in the Big 12*
"That may be the single most ridiculous statement anybody has ever uttered."

No, I think that is the most ridiculous statement anyone has ever uttered.

All in all, it was a night of absurd exaggeration for a player who will be the third tight end on an NFL team in a year.

Colin Cowherd (clearly) 'not a numbers guy'

When a talking head speaks the phrase, "I'm not a numbers guy", what usually follows is a string of idiotic anecdotes and cherry-picked "stats" to seem edgy or against the public opinion. They are almost always wrong and always hilarious.

ESPN Radio's resident talking head king, Colin Cowherd used that dreaded line to precede this gem: Vincent Jackson (SD wide-out) is better than T.O. - who should be outright cut from the Cowboys.

Oh doctor.

Excerpts transcribed from 1/8/09 show

*Said after cartoonish "Nerd alert!" sound bite*
I'm not a nerd. I don't watch a lot of TV.

Well thank God, because dem nerds can't be trusted. With their calculators, pocket-protectors, horn-rimmed glasses with masking tape holding them together in the middle, high-pitched voices and lack of confidence when it comes to women.

Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, mom's basement living.

Not into fantasy stuff. I get guys who are, I'm not banging on ya,

Your previous sound bite and entire existence beg to differ

but statistical analysis is largely overrated.

I know this is a radio "show" and speaking properly is hard, but this logistically makes no sense. Do you mean the way stats are used in the media is overrated? The stats themselves cannot be, neither the analysis of them. Unless, of course, there was a list of awesome things and stat analysis was too high for Cowherd's liking.

1. Pizza
2. Stats
3. Puppies

In that instance, yes, statistical analysis would be overrated. Everyone knows puppies are great.

Let me just throw a few "nerd alert" numbers at you: ... T.O. had two games all year when he was a "huge game influencer."

Quotes mine. "Huge game influencer" may be one of the dumbest ways to gauge a wide receiver - or any athlete.

Here are games in which I think T.O. had a "good"* game:
(Week: REC/YDs/TDs)

Week 1: 5/87/1
Week 2: 3/89/2
Week 4: 7/71/1
Week 5: 2/67/1
Week 12: 7/213/1
Week 13: 5/98/1
Week 16: 5/63/1
Week 17: 6/103/0

Da Herd?

Week 2 against the Eagles; two touchdowns and week 12 against the Niners where he was unguardable, seven catches.

Love the omission of the ridiculous 213 yards and a TD versus the Niners.

He averages just over four catches. Of his biggest days in total receptions - his BIG days - he had two seven catch days and one six catch day. Two resulted in a loss, one they beat the mighty Niners.

Those things are unrelated. The Skins game was 24-26. Probably not T.O.'s fault. And the six catch game they turned the ball over roughly 25 times and got their ass kicked. Again, not T.O.'s fault.

And when he faced premiere defenses - the Giants twice and Pittsburgh and Baltimore - four games, no "breakout" games, one TD.

I have the numbers right in front of me and it's making me more and more confident that Cowherd does not.

NY, Pitt., Bal., combined stats:
16/169/3

Seems alright to me, especially against good defenses.

Now let's compare $8.6 million/year T.O. to Vincent Jackson at San Diego. ... But in his big five games, *smarmy voice, engage* they translated to four wins

Jackson's "good" games:
Week 1: 3/47/1 (L)
Week 6: 5/134/1 (W)
Week 7: 4/42/1 (L)
Week 8: 4/60/1 (L)
Week 12: 2/57/1 (L)
Week 14: 5/148/1 (W)
Week 15: 6/89/1 (W)
Week 16: 7/111/0 (W)

Those wins were against New England, Oakland, KC and Tampa. A veritable murderer's row!

He had his biggest games often against divisional rivals or against New England or at Tampa Bay.

Oooooo, divisional rivals! The mighty Chiefs and Raiders (combined 7-25).

T.O. had his biggest against *smarmy voice again* the Niners.

Well Jackson had his biggest against *smarmy voice* the Raiders.

Cowherd makes good points here about salary and age, but then goes right back to his old ways.

Whereas T.O. disappears during playoff games, ... Vincent Jackson elevates his game.

All I had to do here is click the "playoffs" tab on profootballreference to find how wrong Cowherd is.

T.O. playoffs:
11 games
54/751/5

Per game:
5/68/.45

Jackson playoffs:
4 games
20/343/2

Per game:
5/86/.5

So yes, in less than half as many games, Jackson has ever-so-slightly better numbers.

Jackson is 1/10 price, 1/100 the disruption, ten years younger and his numbers are significantly better against the better teams, where T.O.'s disintergrate.

Well I am going to use the average season for each and not the games against "better teams" because that's stupid.

Who's really better?

T.O. career average:
73/1076/11

Jackson's career average:
37/638/4.5

I mean come on.

It's not a question of WHETHER you cut T.O., it's when. It's obvious.

I hope Jerry Jones is listening.

*good being ten or more fantasy points; six points/TD, one point/ten yards receiving.

Utah winners of Rick Reilly's Fav Team Bowl!

College football is not my cop of tea. Sure, I'll watch bowl games and big regular season games, but the whole BCS system is undeniably stupid.

The Utah Utes went 13-0 this season. Not the first time a crappy conference team went undefeated and it won't be the last.

Rick Reilly, in all his (see: interns) photoshopping glory, has crowned Utah the national champs after they beat number four ranked Alabama.

Some gifts people give are pointless: Styling mousse to Dick Vitale. An all-you-can-eat card to Kate Moss. The BCS Championship given to Oklahoma or Florida.

It means nothing because the BCS has no credibility. Florida? Oklahoma? Who cares? Utah is the national champion.

The End. Roll credits.

A Kate Moss (is she still living?) joke? Delightful. Next they'll be a "Thong Song" reference and a Kurt Cobain shot.

And it's not the end. Utah plays in the shitty Mountain West Conference - featuring such luminaries as San Diego State (4-8 in 2007), Colorado State (3-9), Wyoming (5-7) and UNLV (2-10). Now it's not their fault they play in a bad conference, but when measuring them against other teams, it is a fair point.

Argue with this, please. I beg you. Find me anybody else that went undefeated. Thirteen-and-zero. Beat four ranked teams. Went to the Deep South and seal-clubbed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. The same Alabama that was ranked No. 1 for five weeks. The same Alabama that went undefeated in the regular season. The same Alabama that Florida beat in order to get INTO the BCS Championship game in the first place.

Only because you begged.

Those four ranked teams: Oregon State (24), TCU (11), Brigham Young (17) and Alabama (4). So yes, the Bama win was huge. An upset, one could say. But the TCU game was 13-10 and the game versus that other OSU was 31-28 - hardly blowouts. Could've gone either way. But nope, Utes are the champs. Engrave the trophy.

Sure, BCS blowhards will hand you schlock about how the college football season is like a playoff, how it's an elimination tournament every week. Really? Well, how come Florida and Oklahoma weren't eliminated with their losses? Utah ran the table, beat everybody set in front of them, including Ala-damn-bama in no less than the Sugar Bowl, and gets the bagel.

Other close games (margin) versus crappy teams: Michigan (two points), Air Force (seven), New Mexico (three). New Mexico finished 4-8.

Utah beat everyone in front of them. Every crappy MWC team, many by very few points. Congrats.

Oklahoma, that horrible one-loss team, meanwhile, scored 54 points per game, will play seven ranked teams, is in a division with Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State, and a bunch of other teams with third stringers that would start at Utah. Oklahama's closest win? Twenty versus Oklahoma State.

Florida, that team with one loss (by one point), also sucks. Playing four ranked opponents, playing with Bama, Georgia, LSU, Tennessee and all those other perennially great football teams and outscoring opponents 45 to 13 on the season. Their closest call? An eleven point win versus Bama. Next closest? Twenty-three against Miami.

Reilly's ignorance of margin of victory is so profound, I bet he picked the Angels to win the World Series last season.

What, you want the Utes to win a spelling bee? Make a prize-winning souffle? Knock up Angelina Jolie? What?

Schedule games against tougher non-conference opponents? And no, this year's Weber and Utah State don't count.

Until all these people do the right thing, I'll be celebrating with the true national champions — the undefeated, untied Utah Utes. (Our new slogan: Utahk about a team!)

They can join Hawaii and Boise State as the faux-National Champions.

Lemonades for everybody!

Excuse me? Is lemonade the state drink of Utah or something?

Grog hate numbers! Arrrrgh!

As far as sports stats are concerned, football is third - miles behind baseball and quite a ways behind basketball.

So I am all for networks throwing random stats - however silly they may be - at me to look at while Madden tries to pronounce Brandon Manumaleuna. It's cute that they're trying!

Phil Mushnick - who I can only assume is the progenitor of a group of monsters known as the Mushnicks - does not like them there numbers. Not at all.

NBC's two wild-cards,

He means games, I think.

Saturday, were typical NFL telecasts in that they seemed designed by those who don't know better for those who wouldn't know better.

I think "for those who don't know better" would have flowed much better. Also, I just want to watch football. I don't care if they have Scooter, the talking football explaining crossing routes to me.

They were so overloaded with useless, football-is-baseball stats that legit fans might have thought they were watching (or reading) ESPN. Or Fox. Or CBS. Or the NFL Network.

None of those mentioned entities use stats to any in-depth level. ESPN maybe. But the NFL Network has Deion Sanders screaming at me in a checkerboard/paisley suit while dancing and not many stats.

What did it matter that QB passing ratings are created by adding nonsense to silliness, then dividing ridiculous by the square root of stupid?

Hardy har har har.

1. Go to Wikipedia
2. Search "passer rating"
3. Read

Yes, it's esoteric and weird (why not out of 100, please? We like that number), but it also gives us insight into how good a QB is. More so than TDs or wins or numbers of guns slung per game.

Throughout the Falcons-Cards game, NBC not only posted Matt Ryan's rating,

Criminal.

it went micro - when he throws to the right, to the left, when winning, when trailing.

Somewhat interesting, especially considering they then said that most QBs are more comfortable going right.

(Apparently, he hadn't yet thrown in a scoreless or otherwise tied game, nor had he thrown over the middle.)

I'm confused. So you want more stats now?

Despite 22 people in motion at once and hundreds of variables, TV wants you to believe that everyone operates alone, from inside a lab, inside a test tube. TV producers believe it, so should you.

What the hell are you mushnicking about?

No one thinks football is an individual game. Yes, QBs are deified, but no one is dumb enough to think they could do it one on eleven. Football is number one precisely (well, the violence helps) because one can watch it and enjoy any number of a billion things going on, including dreaded stats.

Late in the Colts-Chargers game, headed for the wire, NBC asked us to stop paying attention to the game in order to consider a graphic - the Chargers' record in games determined by "eight or fewer points." Why not show us a kitten pawing at a ball of yarn?

The cat with the yarn ball would be awesome.

The Chargers record in those games: 0-7. I think there is a little something to that. Mostly, that they were unlucky in close games, or, as annoucers would say, "They just couldn't win the close ones."

As it happened, they won this close one. Still, the fact that they hadn't all year is at least bottom-line scroll-worthy.

Late in the third quarter, Ravens' safety Ed Reed, who prevents TDs by scoring them, was injured while returning his second interception. CBS even showed a replay of his leg being bent backward.

And then CBS forgot about him, not a mention as to whether he was in the game during Miami's next two possessions, when he suddenly re-appeared, making a tackle.

Would this have sated you?

"And Ed Reed will be sitting a few plays out with what trainers are calling a sore leg. His return is probable."

*Two friggin playes later*

"Reed is coming back on the field! And I'm not talking about Willis!"

But during that time, CBS posted a graphic comparing this game's score and stats to the 2001 wild card the teams played. Nurse!

And that, inexplicably, is how the article ends.

My anecdotal evidence says: 'NFL Overtime sucks!'

It's NFL playoff time and that means the team/player/coach with the most heart, guts, ability to run the ball/stop said run will obviously win the Super Bowl.

It also means some games may go to overtime, as some teams are equally matched. This happened with San Diego/Indy over the weekend, a game in which the Chargers won after winning the coin flip.

This one instance means the coin flip sucks as a way to "decide who wins" an NFL game.

King me:

The overtime rule continues to be the dumbest, stupidest, most indefensible rule the NFL has on its books. Giving a coin flip more power than Tony Soprano has now deprived us of a satisfactory ending to two pivotal games this year -- Jets-Patriots in Week 11, when the Patriots and 401-yard passer Matt Cassel never saw the ball in overtime after a heroic fourth-quarter comeback, and Colts-Chargers, when we didn't get to see the NFL MVP even play in the fifth quarter because it was a one-possession overtime."

Oh how quickly we forget things that do not support our opinions. In week 16 the Giants and Panthers played a football match that proceeded to go into extra play. The Giants won the flip. Auto-win, right? Well they went three and out and punted. But so did Carolina. The second time around, the Giants win.

So the Giants won the flip and won the game, but both teams had a shot at it. Sounds fair to me.

That brings me to the enemy of anecdotes, mathematics (here, and elsewhere).

There have been 365 OT games from 1974 to 2003 (finding up-to-date stats was difficult). Seventy two percent of the time, teams have each had a possession. Fifty two percent of the time, teams that have won the flip have have won the game. Forty four percent of teams that have lost the flip have won the game, with five percent ending in a tie. Only 28% of teams have won the flip and driven to a score. It is unclear if that means directly scored, or, as in the Giants/Panthers case, simply scored and won the flip.

To me, 52 to 44 is a difference, but not a huge one. Plus, 365 games over thirty years isn't a very substantial sample size. There were 512 games played in 2008 alone, not including the playoffs.

Is it perfect? Obviously not. There are a number of solutions such as a timed OT period, not sudden death or using the idiotic college overtime system - in which teams start at the one-yard line and must only use linemen for quarterbacks.

But the coin flip isn't that bad - it just sticks out when teams who win it, win the game.

And for the record, I think pass interference is the "dumbest, stupidest, most indefensible rule the NFL has on its books."

That, or roughing the kicker. Those guys are wimps.

NFL MVP voters prove (again) 'winning' is the bomb dot com

Peyton Manning - who is only a few steps away from becoming the new Favre - has won his third MVP in a landslide.

Is him winning the worst thing in the world? No, not really. He was good in a season where there were no LDTs or Shaun Alexanders (remember him?) smashing TD records.

Manning received 38 points. Adrian Peterson, who finished second, had 15.5 points.

Where did Manning rank amongst the NFL's best passers this season? Glad you asked.

Comp. % - third
Yards - sixth (over 1,000 behind leader)
Yards/attempt - 13th (a full yard behind Rivers)
TDs - fifth (seven behind Rivers)
INTs - tied for 18th
QB rating - fifth (ten spirit points or whatever the hell they're called behind Rivers)
Team W/L - 12-4 motherfuckers!

A fine resume for an MVP. But there is a certain name that keeps ranking near the top of all these - Philip Rivers.

Comp. % - seventh
Yards - fifth
Yards/attempt - first
TDs - first
INTs - tied for 18th
QB rating - first
Team W/L - 8-8 :(

And because his team finished 8-8, he gets a whopping 4 total points in the voting. I am not saying Rivers should have won, but he had a better season than Manning. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

Rivers, Peterson, Brees, Turner, Portis - hell even Thomas Jones, Chad Pennington or Albert Haynesworth, are all better MVP candidates.

But how many of them have two other MVPs and are the poster boys of the NFL?

Please, for the love of all that is holy, retire already

And I'm not talking about Favre, I am talking about Wojo.

Just kidding. I am talking about both of them.

Let's add another chapter to the "It's more than numbers, it's about heart. And wins" book of idiocy. This chapter's title? "2008 Aaron Rodgers SUCKS when compared to 2008 Favre."


Rodgers: 3807 YDS/28 TD: 13 INT/93.8 QB Rating

Jeans monger: 3259 YDS/22 TD: 22 INT/81.0 Rating

Pretty cut and dry, right? I mean, what could possibly put Favre ahead of Rodgers when comparing their seasons?

But sorry, there won't be any retractions. Just because Rodgers had a better statistical season doesn't mean the Packers were a better team without Favre.

So: worse QB = better team performance. Dan Orlovsky's phone must be ringing off the hook!

First of all, the numbers don't always make the man.

Never do.

If they did, then six of the top 10 quarterbacks by passing yards and six of the top 10 by touchdowns wouldn't be done with their seasons. But they are, including Rodgers and Favre.

Great, wonderful misuse of "stats."

Those ten by yards: Rivers, Pennington, Warner, Brees, Manning, Rodgers, Schaub, Romo, Garcia, Cassel.

Schaub, Brees and Rodgers were out. But the rest of those missed the playoffs on the last fucking game of the season. Seriously. The Patriots, Bucs and Cowboys were eliminated on the last day of the season.

Rodgers played well this season. He played hurt. He played in the blinding light of the post-Favre era and did so with poise and heart. If he stays healthy (he played much of the season with a shoulder injury), the Packers have themselves a quarterback.

But Favre played well, too -- not as often as Rodgers did,

Doesn't that undermi ... aw forget it.

but well enough that the Jets were 8-3 after beating the then-undefeated Tennessee Titans on the road.

All because of Favre. Football is not a team game played by two seperate 11-man units. It is a game of quarterbacks. Just good, American, white quarterbacks. Gunslingin' and havin' a ball out there.

Thomas Jones, who led the AFC in rushing (the other part of offense that is not throwing) with 1312 yards and 13 TDs, had nothing to do with the Jets being good during one random stretch of the season.

Also, in that wonderful game against the Titans, Favre threw for 224 yards, two TDs and a pick. A typical Favre game. But the Jets won 34-13. How can that be? Without Favre throwing four TDs, kicking every PAT and picking off two passes while playing cornerback?

Leon Washington ran for 82 yards and two TDs on eight (!) carries and Jones had over 100 total yards (96 rushing) and a rec. TD. That's how. They ran for 192 yards.

You remember: That was the same week the Packers got beat 51-29 by New Orleans to drop to 5-6 and start a five-game losing streak. Weird. I don't remember getting any "Favre's washed up" e-mails then.

I know it's hard for you to believe Wojo, but luck is an element in sports. A big one. One that the Packers had a lot of the bad variety this season. Look at their losses:

16-27, 21-30, 24-27, 16-19, 27-28, 29-51, 31-35, 21-24, 16-20, 17-20.

That's a crazy five games decided by three points or less. Two by four-seven and three by seven points or more. That sucks. I would be pissed if I was a Packers fan.

Now, of course, the Jets' losses:

10-19, 29-48, 13-16, 17-34, 14-24, 3-13, 17-24.

One by three or less. One by four-seven and five by seven or more.

This all means the Packers could have easily been 11-5 if they win a few more of the really close ones and one or two of the kind of close ones. The Jets, meanwhile, are pretty much where they should be.

The mistake people make is trying to compare Rodgers' season with Favre's. ... But do wins count for anything?

No. They count for everything.

Favre's Jets had nine compared to the Packers' six.

See above long-winded loss breakdown.

They beat three playoff-bound teams; the Packers defeated one. Favre's Jets gagged away their division lead in the last month, but they still had a chance at the playoffs. The Packers were officially eliminated with two weeks remaining in the season.

I'll give you the division thing, but counter with the AFC East played the AFC and NFC West. Those teams are garbage.

And the Pack beat the Vikings and Colts. That equals two playoff teams, not one.

Anyway, the move from the Packers to Jets doesn't absolve Favre from throwing a league-leading 22 interceptions. Some of those INTs were killers. But the same goes for Rodgers, whose late-game interceptions in Week 14 against Houston and Week 15 against Jacksonville ended comeback attempts. In fact, Rodgers was 0-8 in comeback situations this season.

But he also only threw 13 INTs and 6 more TDs than Favre. And what the fuck are "comeback siutations" anyway? Does being down 7-0 in the first quarter count? I bet it does.

I'm not blaming Rodgers for the mess. He wasn't perfect, but he also wasn't the problem -- just like Favre wasn't the main problem with the Jets. I see why Thompson was willing to make a leap of faith with Rodgers, but Favre's departure could have -- and should have -- been handled better by Packers management.

What I don't see is why it had to end this way, with some Packers fans reveling in the Jets' failures and Favre's injury and struggles. It's as if they can live with a 6-win season as long as Favre and the Jets suffer, too.

I could live with a six-win season too, as long as at least 70% of those 10 losses were winnable games. Oh, and my quarterback wasn't a 40-year-old dude with a TD to INT ratio of 1:1.

Dumb.

Just like this ... well you get it.