Wednesday, July 4, 2012
2011-12 College Football Bowl Predictions
There are less than two months away from college football. We're fast approaching conference media days. In the upcoming days, I will provide my predictions and analysis for each bowl game for the upcoming season.
2011 College Football Conference Predictions
SEC (East)
1. Florida (10-2, 6-2)
(T) South Carolina (10-2,6-2)
3. Georgia (9-3, 5-3)
4. Tennessee (8-4, 4-4)
5. Vanderbilt (7-5,3-5)
6. Missouri (6-6, 2-6)
7. Kentucky (3-9, 0-8)
SEC (West)
1. LSU (12-0, 8-0)
2. Alabama (11-1, 7-1)
3. Auburn (10-2,6-2)
4. Arkansas (8-4, 4-4)
5. Mississippi State (7-5, 3-5)
6. Texas A&M (4-8, 1-7)
7. Mississippi (3-9, 0-8)
SEC Championship: LSU beats Florida
ACC (Atlantic)
1. Florida State (10-2,6-2)
(T) Clemson (8-4, 6-2)
3. NC State (7-5, 4-4)
4. Wake Forest (5-7,4-4)
5. Maryland (3-9, 1-7)
6. Boston College (1-10, 0-8)
ACC (Coastal)
1. Virginia Tech (11-2, 7-1)
2. Virginia (10-2, 6-2)
3. North Carolina (9-3, 5-3)*
4. Georgia Tech (7-5, 4-4)
5. Miami (5-7, 3-5)
6. Duke (3-9, 0-8)
ACC Championship: Florida State beats Virginia Tech
Big East
1. Louisville (10-2, 5-2)
(T) Cincinnati (9-3, 5-2)
(T) Rutgers (8-4, 5-2)
(T) South Florida (8-4, 5-2)
5. Pittsburgh (7-5, 4-3)
(T) Temple (6-5, 4-3)
7. Syracuse (5-7, 2-5)
8. Connecticut (3-9, 0-8)
Big 12
1. Oklahoma (11-1. 8-1)
2. Oklahoma State (10-2, 7-2)
(T) West Virginia (10-2, 7-2)
4. Kansas State (9-3,6-3)
(T) Texas (9-3, 6-3)
(T) TCU (9-3, 6-3)
7. Baylor (6-6, 3-6)
8. Texas Tech (5-7, 2-7)
9. Kansas (4-8, 1-8)
10. Iowa State (2-10, 0-9)
Big 10 Leaders
1. Wisconsin (12-1, 7-1)
2. Ohio State (9-3, 5-3)
3. Penn State (8-4, 4-4)
4. Purdue (6-6, 3-5)
5. Illinois (6-6, 2-6)
6. Indiana (3-9, 0-8)
Big 10 Legends
1. Michigan (11-1, 8-0)
2. Nebraska (11-1, 7-1)
3. Michigan State (7-5, 4-4)
(T) Northwestern (6-6, 4-4)
5. Iowa (7-5, 3-5)
6. Minnesota (3-9,0-8)
Big 10 Championship: Michigan beats Wisconsin
Pac-12 North
1. Oregon (12-0, 8-0)
2. Washington (8-4, 6-3)
(T) Stanford (8-4, 6-3)
4. California (6-6, 4-5)
(T) Washington State (6-6, 4-5)
6. Oregon State (1-11, 0-9)
Pac-12 South
1. USC (12-1, 8-1)
2. Utah (10-2, 7-2)
3. UCLA (7-5, 5-4)
4. Arizona (5-7, 3-6)
5. Arizona State (3-9, 1-8)
6. Colorado (3-9, 0-9)
Pac-12 Championship: USC beats Oregon
C-USA (East)
1. Central Florida (9-3, 7-1)
2. Marshall (8-4, 5-3)
3. Southern Miss (7-5, 4-4)
4. UAB (5-7, 3-5)
(T) East Carolina (5-7, 3-5)
6. Memphis (2-10, 1-7)
C-USA (West)
1. SMU (10-2, 7-1)
(T) Houston (10-2, 7-1)
3. Tulsa (7-5, 4-4)
4. Rice (4-8, 3-5)
5. UTEP (2-10, 1-7)
6. Tulane (1-11, 0-8)
C-USA Championship: Central Florida beats SMU
Mountain West
1. Boise State (12-0, 8-0)
2. Nevada (9-3, 7-1)
3. Fresno State (7-5, 5-3)
(T) San Diego State (8-4, 5-3)
5. Air Force (7-5, 4-4)
6. Wyoming (6-6, 3-5)
(T) Hawai'i (5-7, 3-5)
8. Colorado State (3-9, 2-6)
9. UNLV (2-10, 1-7)
10. New Mexico (2-10, 0-8)
MAC (East)
1. Ohio (10-2, 8-0)
2. Miami-OH (7-5, 4-4)
(T) Bowling Green (6-6, 4-4)
4. Kent State (4-8, 3-5)
5. Buffalo (2-10, 1-7)
6. Akron (2-10, 1-7)
7. Massachusetts (0-12, 0-8)
MAC (West)
1. Northern Illinois (10-3, 8-0)
2. Western Michigan (8-4, 7-1)
3. Toledo (7-5, 6-2)
4. Eastern Michigan (6-6, 4-4)
5. Central Michigan (4-8, 3-5)
6. Ball State (0-12, 0-8)
MAC Championship: Ohio defeats Northern Illinois
Sun Belt
1. Troy (8-4, 8-0)
2. Florida International (7-5, 6-2)
(T) Western Kentucky (7-5, 6-2)
4. Arkansas State (7-5, 5-3)
5. Louisiana-Lafayette (6-6, 4-4)
(T) South Alabama (6-7, 4-4)
7. North Texas (4-8. 3-5)
8. Middle Tennessee State (2-10, 1-7)
9. Louisiana-Monroe (0-12, 0-8)
WAC
1. Louisiana Tech (9-3, 6-0)
2. Utah State (8-4, 5-1)
3. New Mexico State (6-6, 3-3)
(T) San Jose State (5-7, 3-3)
5. Idaho (3-9, 2-4)
6. Texas San Antonio (5-7, 1-5)
7. Texas State (1-11, 0-6)
Independents
Notre Dame (8-4)
BYU (9-3)
Army (4-8)
Navy (8-4)
1. Florida (10-2, 6-2)
(T) South Carolina (10-2,6-2)
3. Georgia (9-3, 5-3)
4. Tennessee (8-4, 4-4)
5. Vanderbilt (7-5,3-5)
6. Missouri (6-6, 2-6)
7. Kentucky (3-9, 0-8)
SEC (West)
1. LSU (12-0, 8-0)
2. Alabama (11-1, 7-1)
3. Auburn (10-2,6-2)
4. Arkansas (8-4, 4-4)
5. Mississippi State (7-5, 3-5)
6. Texas A&M (4-8, 1-7)
7. Mississippi (3-9, 0-8)
SEC Championship: LSU beats Florida
ACC (Atlantic)
1. Florida State (10-2,6-2)
(T) Clemson (8-4, 6-2)
3. NC State (7-5, 4-4)
4. Wake Forest (5-7,4-4)
5. Maryland (3-9, 1-7)
6. Boston College (1-10, 0-8)
ACC (Coastal)
1. Virginia Tech (11-2, 7-1)
2. Virginia (10-2, 6-2)
3. North Carolina (9-3, 5-3)*
4. Georgia Tech (7-5, 4-4)
5. Miami (5-7, 3-5)
6. Duke (3-9, 0-8)
ACC Championship: Florida State beats Virginia Tech
Big East
1. Louisville (10-2, 5-2)
(T) Cincinnati (9-3, 5-2)
(T) Rutgers (8-4, 5-2)
(T) South Florida (8-4, 5-2)
5. Pittsburgh (7-5, 4-3)
(T) Temple (6-5, 4-3)
7. Syracuse (5-7, 2-5)
8. Connecticut (3-9, 0-8)
Big 12
1. Oklahoma (11-1. 8-1)
2. Oklahoma State (10-2, 7-2)
(T) West Virginia (10-2, 7-2)
4. Kansas State (9-3,6-3)
(T) Texas (9-3, 6-3)
(T) TCU (9-3, 6-3)
7. Baylor (6-6, 3-6)
8. Texas Tech (5-7, 2-7)
9. Kansas (4-8, 1-8)
10. Iowa State (2-10, 0-9)
Big 10 Leaders
1. Wisconsin (12-1, 7-1)
2. Ohio State (9-3, 5-3)
3. Penn State (8-4, 4-4)
4. Purdue (6-6, 3-5)
5. Illinois (6-6, 2-6)
6. Indiana (3-9, 0-8)
Big 10 Legends
1. Michigan (11-1, 8-0)
2. Nebraska (11-1, 7-1)
3. Michigan State (7-5, 4-4)
(T) Northwestern (6-6, 4-4)
5. Iowa (7-5, 3-5)
6. Minnesota (3-9,0-8)
Big 10 Championship: Michigan beats Wisconsin
Pac-12 North
1. Oregon (12-0, 8-0)
2. Washington (8-4, 6-3)
(T) Stanford (8-4, 6-3)
4. California (6-6, 4-5)
(T) Washington State (6-6, 4-5)
6. Oregon State (1-11, 0-9)
Pac-12 South
1. USC (12-1, 8-1)
2. Utah (10-2, 7-2)
3. UCLA (7-5, 5-4)
4. Arizona (5-7, 3-6)
5. Arizona State (3-9, 1-8)
6. Colorado (3-9, 0-9)
Pac-12 Championship: USC beats Oregon
C-USA (East)
1. Central Florida (9-3, 7-1)
2. Marshall (8-4, 5-3)
3. Southern Miss (7-5, 4-4)
4. UAB (5-7, 3-5)
(T) East Carolina (5-7, 3-5)
6. Memphis (2-10, 1-7)
C-USA (West)
1. SMU (10-2, 7-1)
(T) Houston (10-2, 7-1)
3. Tulsa (7-5, 4-4)
4. Rice (4-8, 3-5)
5. UTEP (2-10, 1-7)
6. Tulane (1-11, 0-8)
C-USA Championship: Central Florida beats SMU
Mountain West
1. Boise State (12-0, 8-0)
2. Nevada (9-3, 7-1)
3. Fresno State (7-5, 5-3)
(T) San Diego State (8-4, 5-3)
5. Air Force (7-5, 4-4)
6. Wyoming (6-6, 3-5)
(T) Hawai'i (5-7, 3-5)
8. Colorado State (3-9, 2-6)
9. UNLV (2-10, 1-7)
10. New Mexico (2-10, 0-8)
MAC (East)
1. Ohio (10-2, 8-0)
2. Miami-OH (7-5, 4-4)
(T) Bowling Green (6-6, 4-4)
4. Kent State (4-8, 3-5)
5. Buffalo (2-10, 1-7)
6. Akron (2-10, 1-7)
7. Massachusetts (0-12, 0-8)
MAC (West)
1. Northern Illinois (10-3, 8-0)
2. Western Michigan (8-4, 7-1)
3. Toledo (7-5, 6-2)
4. Eastern Michigan (6-6, 4-4)
5. Central Michigan (4-8, 3-5)
6. Ball State (0-12, 0-8)
MAC Championship: Ohio defeats Northern Illinois
Sun Belt
1. Troy (8-4, 8-0)
2. Florida International (7-5, 6-2)
(T) Western Kentucky (7-5, 6-2)
4. Arkansas State (7-5, 5-3)
5. Louisiana-Lafayette (6-6, 4-4)
(T) South Alabama (6-7, 4-4)
7. North Texas (4-8. 3-5)
8. Middle Tennessee State (2-10, 1-7)
9. Louisiana-Monroe (0-12, 0-8)
WAC
1. Louisiana Tech (9-3, 6-0)
2. Utah State (8-4, 5-1)
3. New Mexico State (6-6, 3-3)
(T) San Jose State (5-7, 3-3)
5. Idaho (3-9, 2-4)
6. Texas San Antonio (5-7, 1-5)
7. Texas State (1-11, 0-6)
Independents
Notre Dame (8-4)
BYU (9-3)
Army (4-8)
Navy (8-4)
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Creating Parity in Major League Baseball
I've become somewhat disillusioned with the lack of a salary cap in baseball. On one hand, I enjoy baseball being the one team sport in which the cap doesn't exist. On the other hand, I'm tired of teams like the Yankees going out and snatching every available free agent they covet. As I pondered this injustice, I thought about a radical idea for Major League Baseball. Instead of a salary cap, why not force teams to play with home grown talent.
Forcing teams to play with home grown talent levels the playing field for teams like Tampa Bay, Florida, and Oakland. Each team has a 25-man roster. Of those 25 players, 22 of those players must be home grown players. Hence, each team can only sign three free agents on the team. If a team wants to pick up someone else, they would have to trade one of the free agent acquisitions.
The exception to the rule will be minor league deals. If a team signs a couple of players to minor league deals during spring training, and they make the team, the players will not count against the ballclub as free agent signings. The same goes for players in the Rule 5 draft.
As for the definition of "home grown", baseball could come up with their own term. Teams will trade a veteran for a young prospect. Baseball might say a player with under 100 plate appearances in the Majors will be considered a home grown talent. A pitcher cannot exceed more than 20 big league games to be considered home grown.
Ball clubs will lose draft picks for signing a player to a contract worth a certain amount. The team will not lose a pick if the difference in offers does not exceed 15 million dollars. Please note the rule should be applied to contracts worth a minimum of 50 million dollars.
Let's use the Albert Pujols situation as an example. The Cardinals and Pujols have broken off talks, and it appears Pujols is heading to free agency. Vultures like the Yankees and Red Sox will try every trick in the book to convince him to leave St. Louis. Let's say the Cardinals offer an 8 year contract worth 230 million, but the Red Sox offer 8 years worth 260 million. However, the Yankees top them all and offer 9 years 300 million. If Pujols takes the contract from either Boston or New York, they will be forced to relinquish picks in the first 5 rounds to the Cardinals because they exceeded 15 million past the Cardinals offer.
This idea creates an even level playing field for everyone in the game. The top teams will be forced to think twice about free agency, and not sign everyone in sight. With only three slots, teams will have to use free agency wisely, and put a greater emphasis on the amateur draft each June.
I remember watching a program with Peter Gammons on the MLB network. He said the draft is different for each team. He stated a team like Pittsburgh would have to strike gold whereas a team like the Yankees didn't necessarily have to land a big time pick with their financial resources.
Look, I'm not hating on teams such as the Yankees and Red Sox. It's nice to see organizations caring enough about the team and doing what it takes to win (unlike the Cleveland Indians and their frugal efforts). Nevertheless, it's sad to see an organization like the Rays lose the likes of Carl Crawford, Matt Garza, Rafael Soriano, and Dan Wheeler simply because a large number of fans in the city refuse to support the team. It's never a good sign when a playoff team has to beg fans to come out and support the team.
For the record, I respect the way the Rays drafted players since their inaugural season in 1998. They scouted well and drafted the right players. The young players took their lumps for a number of seasons. But once the players matured, they brought in the likes of Soriano, Wheeler, and other veterans to lend a hand. We witnessed their success the past three seasons. They were a team with a nice blend of home grown talent and free agency.
It's important to note not all organizations are thrifty and try to win at the absolute lowest payroll possible. Take a glance at the roster of the Cleveland Indians roster, and you'll see their organization is downright frugal. They've signed two guys to Major League contracts this offseason. Outfielder Austin Kearns was signed to a one year deal worth 1.3 million plus incentives. Shortstop Orlando Cabrera was signed to a one year deal worth 1 million. I've spent the entire offseason questioning the entire organization from ground up.
This radical idea will provide a balance between the haves (the Yankees) and have nots (Clevelands). Maybe, just maybe, we'll see a meaningful, relevant free agent land somewhere other than New York, Boston, Chicago, or Los Angeles.
Forcing teams to play with home grown talent levels the playing field for teams like Tampa Bay, Florida, and Oakland. Each team has a 25-man roster. Of those 25 players, 22 of those players must be home grown players. Hence, each team can only sign three free agents on the team. If a team wants to pick up someone else, they would have to trade one of the free agent acquisitions.
The exception to the rule will be minor league deals. If a team signs a couple of players to minor league deals during spring training, and they make the team, the players will not count against the ballclub as free agent signings. The same goes for players in the Rule 5 draft.
As for the definition of "home grown", baseball could come up with their own term. Teams will trade a veteran for a young prospect. Baseball might say a player with under 100 plate appearances in the Majors will be considered a home grown talent. A pitcher cannot exceed more than 20 big league games to be considered home grown.
Ball clubs will lose draft picks for signing a player to a contract worth a certain amount. The team will not lose a pick if the difference in offers does not exceed 15 million dollars. Please note the rule should be applied to contracts worth a minimum of 50 million dollars.
Let's use the Albert Pujols situation as an example. The Cardinals and Pujols have broken off talks, and it appears Pujols is heading to free agency. Vultures like the Yankees and Red Sox will try every trick in the book to convince him to leave St. Louis. Let's say the Cardinals offer an 8 year contract worth 230 million, but the Red Sox offer 8 years worth 260 million. However, the Yankees top them all and offer 9 years 300 million. If Pujols takes the contract from either Boston or New York, they will be forced to relinquish picks in the first 5 rounds to the Cardinals because they exceeded 15 million past the Cardinals offer.
This idea creates an even level playing field for everyone in the game. The top teams will be forced to think twice about free agency, and not sign everyone in sight. With only three slots, teams will have to use free agency wisely, and put a greater emphasis on the amateur draft each June.
I remember watching a program with Peter Gammons on the MLB network. He said the draft is different for each team. He stated a team like Pittsburgh would have to strike gold whereas a team like the Yankees didn't necessarily have to land a big time pick with their financial resources.
Look, I'm not hating on teams such as the Yankees and Red Sox. It's nice to see organizations caring enough about the team and doing what it takes to win (unlike the Cleveland Indians and their frugal efforts). Nevertheless, it's sad to see an organization like the Rays lose the likes of Carl Crawford, Matt Garza, Rafael Soriano, and Dan Wheeler simply because a large number of fans in the city refuse to support the team. It's never a good sign when a playoff team has to beg fans to come out and support the team.
For the record, I respect the way the Rays drafted players since their inaugural season in 1998. They scouted well and drafted the right players. The young players took their lumps for a number of seasons. But once the players matured, they brought in the likes of Soriano, Wheeler, and other veterans to lend a hand. We witnessed their success the past three seasons. They were a team with a nice blend of home grown talent and free agency.
It's important to note not all organizations are thrifty and try to win at the absolute lowest payroll possible. Take a glance at the roster of the Cleveland Indians roster, and you'll see their organization is downright frugal. They've signed two guys to Major League contracts this offseason. Outfielder Austin Kearns was signed to a one year deal worth 1.3 million plus incentives. Shortstop Orlando Cabrera was signed to a one year deal worth 1 million. I've spent the entire offseason questioning the entire organization from ground up.
This radical idea will provide a balance between the haves (the Yankees) and have nots (Clevelands). Maybe, just maybe, we'll see a meaningful, relevant free agent land somewhere other than New York, Boston, Chicago, or Los Angeles.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
2010-11 Bowl Predictions
BCS Bowls
BCS National Championship: Ohio State (12-0) vs. Oklahoma (13-0)
Sugar Bowl: Florida (12-1) vs. Pittsburgh (10-2)
Orange Bowl: Miami (11-2) vs. Alabama (10-2)
Fiesta Bowl: Texas (10-2) vs. Virginia Tech (11-1)
Rose Bowl: Washington (10-2) vs. Wisconsin (10-2)
Other Bowls
Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl: Fresno State (7-5) vs. Oregon (6-6)
Papajohns.com Bowl: Mississippi (6-6) vs. Connecticut (7-5)
Cotton Bowl: Auburn (10-2) vs. Texas Tech (8-4)
GMAC Bowl: Middle Tennessee State (9-3) vs. Ohio (9-3)
Gator Bowl: South Carolina (8-4) vs. Iowa (9-3)
Capital One Bowl: Arkansas (10-3) vs. Penn State (9-3)
Outback Bowl: LSU (7-5) vs. Michigan (7-5)
Dallas Football Classic: Texas A&M (8-4) vs. Michigan State (7-5)
Chick-fil-A Bowl: Georgia (8-4) vs. North Carolina (9-3)
Insight Bowl: Northwestern (7-5) vs. Kansas State (10-3)
Sun Bowl: Oregon State (9-3) vs. Boston College (9-4)
Meineke Car Care Bowl: West Virginia (10-2) vs. Georgia Tech (7-5)
Liberty Bowl: Mississippi State (6-6) vs. Central Florida (9-4)
Holiday Bowl: Arizona (10-2) vs. Nebraska (8-4)
Music City Bowl: Tennessee (6-6) vs. Florida State (7-5)
Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl: Utah (9-3) vs. Houston (11-2)
New Era Pinstripe Bowl: Rutgers (8-4) vs. Missouri (8-4)
Alamo Bowl: Baylor (7-5) vs. Stanford (8-4)
Texas Bowl: Minnesota (6-6) vs. San Diego State (6-6)*
EagleBank Bowl: Clemson (7-5) vs. Army (6-6)
Champs Sports Bowl: NC State (6-6) vs. Cincinnati (9-3)
Independence Bowl: Kentucky (6-6)* vs. Marshall (6-6)*
Little Caesars Bowl: Purdue (6-6) vs. Temple (11-2)
Sheraton Hawaii Bowl: Boise State (11-1) vs. California (7-5)
Poinsettia Bowl: Navy (11-1) vs. TCU (11-1)
MAACO Bowl Las Vegas: BYU (7-5) vs. Nevada (9-4)*
Beef O'Brady's Bowl: South Florida (6-6) vs. UTEP (8-4)
New Orleans Bowl: Troy (10-2) vs. Tulsa (7-5)
New Mexico Bowl: Air Force (7-5) vs. Louisiana Tech (8-4)
Humanitarian Bowl: Northern Illinois (9-4) vs. Hawaii (7-6)
BCS National Championship: Ohio State (12-0) vs. Oklahoma (13-0)
Sugar Bowl: Florida (12-1) vs. Pittsburgh (10-2)
Orange Bowl: Miami (11-2) vs. Alabama (10-2)
Fiesta Bowl: Texas (10-2) vs. Virginia Tech (11-1)
Rose Bowl: Washington (10-2) vs. Wisconsin (10-2)
Other Bowls
Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl: Fresno State (7-5) vs. Oregon (6-6)
Papajohns.com Bowl: Mississippi (6-6) vs. Connecticut (7-5)
Cotton Bowl: Auburn (10-2) vs. Texas Tech (8-4)
GMAC Bowl: Middle Tennessee State (9-3) vs. Ohio (9-3)
Gator Bowl: South Carolina (8-4) vs. Iowa (9-3)
Capital One Bowl: Arkansas (10-3) vs. Penn State (9-3)
Outback Bowl: LSU (7-5) vs. Michigan (7-5)
Dallas Football Classic: Texas A&M (8-4) vs. Michigan State (7-5)
Chick-fil-A Bowl: Georgia (8-4) vs. North Carolina (9-3)
Insight Bowl: Northwestern (7-5) vs. Kansas State (10-3)
Sun Bowl: Oregon State (9-3) vs. Boston College (9-4)
Meineke Car Care Bowl: West Virginia (10-2) vs. Georgia Tech (7-5)
Liberty Bowl: Mississippi State (6-6) vs. Central Florida (9-4)
Holiday Bowl: Arizona (10-2) vs. Nebraska (8-4)
Music City Bowl: Tennessee (6-6) vs. Florida State (7-5)
Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl: Utah (9-3) vs. Houston (11-2)
New Era Pinstripe Bowl: Rutgers (8-4) vs. Missouri (8-4)
Alamo Bowl: Baylor (7-5) vs. Stanford (8-4)
Texas Bowl: Minnesota (6-6) vs. San Diego State (6-6)*
EagleBank Bowl: Clemson (7-5) vs. Army (6-6)
Champs Sports Bowl: NC State (6-6) vs. Cincinnati (9-3)
Independence Bowl: Kentucky (6-6)* vs. Marshall (6-6)*
Little Caesars Bowl: Purdue (6-6) vs. Temple (11-2)
Sheraton Hawaii Bowl: Boise State (11-1) vs. California (7-5)
Poinsettia Bowl: Navy (11-1) vs. TCU (11-1)
MAACO Bowl Las Vegas: BYU (7-5) vs. Nevada (9-4)*
Beef O'Brady's Bowl: South Florida (6-6) vs. UTEP (8-4)
New Orleans Bowl: Troy (10-2) vs. Tulsa (7-5)
New Mexico Bowl: Air Force (7-5) vs. Louisiana Tech (8-4)
Humanitarian Bowl: Northern Illinois (9-4) vs. Hawaii (7-6)
Marlon's Preseason Top 25
1. Ohio State
2. Oklahoma
3. Virginia Tech
4. Alabama
5. Miami
6. Florida
7. Pittsburgh
8. Boise State
9. Arkansas
10. North Carolina
11. Arizona
12. Wisconsin
13. Texas
14. Oregon State
15. Auburn
16. Iowa
17. TCU
18. West Virginia
19. LSU
20. Nebraska
21. Georgia
22. Washington
23. Texas Tech
24. Stanford
25. Cincinnati
25. Houston
2. Oklahoma
3. Virginia Tech
4. Alabama
5. Miami
6. Florida
7. Pittsburgh
8. Boise State
9. Arkansas
10. North Carolina
11. Arizona
12. Wisconsin
13. Texas
14. Oregon State
15. Auburn
16. Iowa
17. TCU
18. West Virginia
19. LSU
20. Nebraska
21. Georgia
22. Washington
23. Texas Tech
24. Stanford
25. Cincinnati
25. Houston
Others Receiving Votes
Texas A&M, Florida State, California, Missouri, Utah, South Carolina, Oregon, Notre Dame, Navy, Rutgers, Clemson, Connecticut, Michigan State, Central Florida, Nevada, Temple
Friday, June 11, 2010
How to Save the Big 12 Conference
First the Southwest Conference goes. Then, the Big 8 folds. Now, over a decade later, the Big 12, the product of both conferences, is headed towards its own demise within another year.
I'm still not sure how this has happened or why? I've heard of strife between the Big 12 North or Big 12 South, but seriously, is it enough to cause something akin to the sporting world's version of the Civil War. Who knows. All I know is if I'm Dan Beebe, the Big 12 commissioner, I would do everything in my power to save this conference. The last decade has been very kind to this conference. On the gridiron, the Big 12 has appeared in seven national championships, winning two (2001 Oklahoma and 2005 Texas). On the basketball court, four different teams have gone to the Final Four six times in the past decade, with Kansas winning the conference's lone championship in 2008.
If I'm Beebe, I would've been looking for replacements for Colorado and Nebraska as soon as possible. I would do everything in my power to hold the conference together. Since Colorado and Nebraska have been mostly irrelevant the past decade (excluding Nebraka's runner-up finish for the 2001 National Championship), I would inquire about TCU and Boise State's interest in helping to save the league. Since the issue appears to be about money, what better way to make money than to have two of the biggest mid-majors joining the big dogs.
Lastly, to prevent any further strife with the remaining teams in conference, I'd realign the divisions to create parity. Colorado (2001) and Kansas State (2003) are the only teams to beat either Texas or Oklahoma in the conference championship. Don't get me wrong. Oklahoma and Texas are two talented great teams, but no one wants to see a four touchdown massacre in a conference championship game every year. The following shows the list of teams currently in the Big 12, and the list of teams in the proposed new Big 12.
Big 12 North (2010)
Oklahoma
Texas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Oklahoma State
Baylor
Big 12 South (2010)
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Colorado
Big 12 North (2011)
Oklahoma
Texas Tech
Boise State
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State
Big 12 South (2011)
Texas
Texas A&M
TCU
Missouri
Baylor
Iowa State
This alignment allows the Big 12 to remain in its current geographic location. Another team from Texas will be added, and Boise State would replace Colorado in the Western time zone. The traditional rivalries will remain intact, while new rivalries should emerge. Also, the Big 12 South will have four Texas Schools. The Big 12 North will have the two Kansas and Oklahoma schools. If it's truly about the money, why not put Texas and Oklahoma in opposite divisions. Since each school would be allowed two natural rivals in opposite divisions, they could play in the regular season, and maybe meet in the conference championship. Imagine an 11-1 Texas team looking to avenge an early season loss to 12-0 Oklahoma. The winner goes to the national championship. The stakes for the Red River Shootout "Part Two" couldn't be scripted any better. Of course other games than the Red River Rivalry exist. However, the possible high stakes matchup for the two rivals would bring a serious payday to the conference.
As far as my proposed revamped Big 12 is concerned, each team will play every team in their division once, two teams from the opposite division every season, and will rotate the third team every two years. For example, Boise State would play Texas home and away for two years, and rotate to another Big 12 South school for another two year battle, and so on. Here are the possible divisional schedules for each school in conference.
* The rotating team on the team's schedule
** Neutral site game
Baylor
vs. Texas
at Texas A&M
at TCU
vs. Missouri
vs. Iowa State
vs. Oklahoma State
at Kansas State
at Kansas*
Boise State
at Oklahoma
vs. Texas*
vs. TCU
at Kansas
vs. Kansas State
vs. Oklahoma State
at Texas Tech
at Missouri
Iowa State
vs. Texas
vs. Texas A&M
vs. TCU
at Missouri
at Baylor
vs. Kansas State(in Kansas City, MO)**
at Kansas
vs. Oklahoma*
Kansas
at Oklahoma
vs. Texas Tech
vs. Boise State
at Oklahoma State
at Kansas State
at Missouri (in St. Louis, MO)**
vs. Iowa State
vs. Baylor*
Kansas State
at Oklahoma
vs. Texas Tech
at Boise State
at Oklahoma State
vs. Kansas
vs. Iowa State
vs. Baylor
at Texas A&M*
Missouri
at Texas
vs. Texas A&M
at TCU
at Baylor
vs. Iowa State
vs. Kansas (St.Louis, MO)**
at Texas Tech*
vs. Boise State
Oklahoma
at Texas (in Dallas)**
at Texas Tech
vs. Boise State*
at Oklahoma State
vs. Kansas
vs. Kansas State
vs. Texas A&M
at Iowa State
Oklahoma State
vs. Oklahoma
at Texas Tech
at Boise State
vs. Kansas
vs. Kansas State
at Baylor
vs. TCU
at Texas A&M*
TCU
at Oklahoma State
vs. Missouri
at Iowa State
at Boise State
vs. Missouri
at Texas A&M
at Texas*
vs. Baylor
Texas
vs. Oklahoma (in Dallas)**
at Texas A&M
vs. TCU
at Boise State*
vs. Missouri
at Baylor
at Iowa State
vs. Texas Tech
Texas A&M
vs. Texas
vs. TCU
at Missouri
vs. Baylor
at Iowa State
at Texas Tech
at. Oklahoma
vs. Oklahoma State*
Texas Tech
vs. Oklahoma
at Oklahoma State
vs. Boise State
at Kansas
at Kansas State
at Texas
vs. Texas A&M
vs. Missouri*
I'm still not sure how this has happened or why? I've heard of strife between the Big 12 North or Big 12 South, but seriously, is it enough to cause something akin to the sporting world's version of the Civil War. Who knows. All I know is if I'm Dan Beebe, the Big 12 commissioner, I would do everything in my power to save this conference. The last decade has been very kind to this conference. On the gridiron, the Big 12 has appeared in seven national championships, winning two (2001 Oklahoma and 2005 Texas). On the basketball court, four different teams have gone to the Final Four six times in the past decade, with Kansas winning the conference's lone championship in 2008.
If I'm Beebe, I would've been looking for replacements for Colorado and Nebraska as soon as possible. I would do everything in my power to hold the conference together. Since Colorado and Nebraska have been mostly irrelevant the past decade (excluding Nebraka's runner-up finish for the 2001 National Championship), I would inquire about TCU and Boise State's interest in helping to save the league. Since the issue appears to be about money, what better way to make money than to have two of the biggest mid-majors joining the big dogs.
Lastly, to prevent any further strife with the remaining teams in conference, I'd realign the divisions to create parity. Colorado (2001) and Kansas State (2003) are the only teams to beat either Texas or Oklahoma in the conference championship. Don't get me wrong. Oklahoma and Texas are two talented great teams, but no one wants to see a four touchdown massacre in a conference championship game every year. The following shows the list of teams currently in the Big 12, and the list of teams in the proposed new Big 12.
Big 12 North (2010)
Oklahoma
Texas
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Oklahoma State
Baylor
Big 12 South (2010)
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Colorado
Big 12 North (2011)
Oklahoma
Texas Tech
Boise State
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State
Big 12 South (2011)
Texas
Texas A&M
TCU
Missouri
Baylor
Iowa State
This alignment allows the Big 12 to remain in its current geographic location. Another team from Texas will be added, and Boise State would replace Colorado in the Western time zone. The traditional rivalries will remain intact, while new rivalries should emerge. Also, the Big 12 South will have four Texas Schools. The Big 12 North will have the two Kansas and Oklahoma schools. If it's truly about the money, why not put Texas and Oklahoma in opposite divisions. Since each school would be allowed two natural rivals in opposite divisions, they could play in the regular season, and maybe meet in the conference championship. Imagine an 11-1 Texas team looking to avenge an early season loss to 12-0 Oklahoma. The winner goes to the national championship. The stakes for the Red River Shootout "Part Two" couldn't be scripted any better. Of course other games than the Red River Rivalry exist. However, the possible high stakes matchup for the two rivals would bring a serious payday to the conference.
As far as my proposed revamped Big 12 is concerned, each team will play every team in their division once, two teams from the opposite division every season, and will rotate the third team every two years. For example, Boise State would play Texas home and away for two years, and rotate to another Big 12 South school for another two year battle, and so on. Here are the possible divisional schedules for each school in conference.
* The rotating team on the team's schedule
** Neutral site game
Baylor
vs. Texas
at Texas A&M
at TCU
vs. Missouri
vs. Iowa State
vs. Oklahoma State
at Kansas State
at Kansas*
Boise State
at Oklahoma
vs. Texas*
vs. TCU
at Kansas
vs. Kansas State
vs. Oklahoma State
at Texas Tech
at Missouri
Iowa State
vs. Texas
vs. Texas A&M
vs. TCU
at Missouri
at Baylor
vs. Kansas State(in Kansas City, MO)**
at Kansas
vs. Oklahoma*
Kansas
at Oklahoma
vs. Texas Tech
vs. Boise State
at Oklahoma State
at Kansas State
at Missouri (in St. Louis, MO)**
vs. Iowa State
vs. Baylor*
Kansas State
at Oklahoma
vs. Texas Tech
at Boise State
at Oklahoma State
vs. Kansas
vs. Iowa State
vs. Baylor
at Texas A&M*
Missouri
at Texas
vs. Texas A&M
at TCU
at Baylor
vs. Iowa State
vs. Kansas (St.Louis, MO)**
at Texas Tech*
vs. Boise State
Oklahoma
at Texas (in Dallas)**
at Texas Tech
vs. Boise State*
at Oklahoma State
vs. Kansas
vs. Kansas State
vs. Texas A&M
at Iowa State
Oklahoma State
vs. Oklahoma
at Texas Tech
at Boise State
vs. Kansas
vs. Kansas State
at Baylor
vs. TCU
at Texas A&M*
TCU
at Oklahoma State
vs. Missouri
at Iowa State
at Boise State
vs. Missouri
at Texas A&M
at Texas*
vs. Baylor
Texas
vs. Oklahoma (in Dallas)**
at Texas A&M
vs. TCU
at Boise State*
vs. Missouri
at Baylor
at Iowa State
vs. Texas Tech
Texas A&M
vs. Texas
vs. TCU
at Missouri
vs. Baylor
at Iowa State
at Texas Tech
at. Oklahoma
vs. Oklahoma State*
Texas Tech
vs. Oklahoma
at Oklahoma State
vs. Boise State
at Kansas
at Kansas State
at Texas
vs. Texas A&M
vs. Missouri*
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Plagiarism in Hollywood
Is it just me or has Hollywood finally run out any new material? Granted, I know and understand remakes are a part of the industury. However, why does it seem like nearly every movie released is some form of remake or sequel?
In the world of academia, remakes would be known as plagiarism. Let a college kid buy someone's paper online and "remake" it into their own paper. Sure, he/she might tweak a few things here and there, but the idea is not original. In high school or college, plagarism results in an automatic F and the possibility of expulsion from school. These days, it appears plagiarism in Hollywood is encouraged.
As a fan, I can certainly stomach sequels a lot more than remakes. For instance, I've enjoyed each and every Rush Hour movie in the film's series. As long as both Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan are in the film together, it's okay with me. You have the same characters from each film, but different plots in each movie.
Now, remakes on the otherhand, is a different kind of animal. Most remakes, in my humble opinion, lack originiality. Remakes will have the same plot as in the original. Why should cusomers spend their hard-earned money on a movie they've probably seen before. Is it really that hard to come up with a decent idea that will appeal nowadays? I feel remakes are a disservice to those involved with the original films, from the actors to the writers to the directors and so on. If I wrote a script for a film, I wouldn't want someone coming around 20-25 years later trying to steal the idea. As a writer, I'd get a bigger thrill coming up with something unique, and a script I developed on my own. If you're going to steal an idea for a film, why not take a box office flop from a film 40 years old or older, figure out why it flopped, and change the script into a success. That in of itself, is more of a challenge than simply taking someone else's work and cashing in on it.
I suppose it's inevitable to turn to remakes for films. We now have the Super Heroes being exploited as the next in-line to be remade. We've already seen Batman, Spiderman, and the Incredible Hulk. From what I understand, Wonder Woman will be the next superhero turned into a movie.
It's not that I hate all remakes. It's just the idea of taking a hit movie from the past 20-25 years, and plagiarising it. I wouldn't mind as much if the films in question were made in the 60's or later. Most of the films remade these days are on television quite often. One can simply tune in to a channel and find a smash 80's film somewhere on tv.
Why this hostile attitude for remakes? Well, it started a few years ago when I flipped through the channel to watch Love Don't Cost a Thing. I noticed the similarities to 80's movie, Can't Buy Me Love. Both movies had nerdy central characters who paid cool girls to pose as girlfriends for a month. I watched roughly 20-30 minutes of the film before I realized this film was a remake. Initially, I thought someone ripped the film off before realizing the film was intended to be a remake. Needless to say, once I recognized the film's plot, I switched channels.
A couple of years later, Bewitched hit theaters. Bewitched was/is one of my favorite shows. I fondly remember watching the show as a child on Nick-at-Nite when both Nick-at-Nite and TV Land actually aired classic shows on their respective networks. That's another argument for another time. Anyway, I'll always associate Elizabeth Montgomery, Dick York, and Dick Sargent as the roles of Samantha and Darrin Stevens. This is not any sort of slight on the abilities of Nicole Kidman nor Will Ferrell. They are both talented actors. I'm just not interested in watching anyone else play the parts other actors portrayed years before. Montgomery will forever be Samantha and York and Sargent will be Darrin (although York was my favorite). I looked upon Kidman and Ferrell as a couple of imposters. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who felt this way.
Before you blast this blog, just check out the list of remakes from 80's films schedule for release in 2010-2012:
Red Dawn
21 Jump Street
Footloose
the Smurfs
Clash of the Titans
A Nightmare on Elm Street
The Karate Kid
The A-Team
Tron
Beverley Hills Cop 4
Let's use Nightmare on Elm Street as an example. I've read Jackie Earle Haley will play Freddie Kruegger in the film. This is no slight to Haley. He's a terrific actor, but when I think of Kruegger, I think of Robert Englund. Maybe Englund turned down the role. I don't know. But this fact alone will not arouse any interest in the film.
The Karate Kid is another remake I don't like. I have nothing against Chan nor Jaden Smith, but I've seen the Karate Kid dozens of times in my life. I know Smith's character will be picked on by bullies (much like Ralph Macchacio's character in the original), but will learn to defend himself by taking karate from a local expert. I know how this film is going to end before I step foot in a theatre (or in my case, before I turn the channel to watch the movie when it's on tv).
Red Dawn is an 80's film that has several 80's stars such as C. Thomas Howell (Soul Man and the Outsiders), Patrick Swayze (Dirty Dancing and the Outsiders), Jennifer Grey (Dirty Dancing and Ferris Bueller's Day Off), Charlie Sheen (Lucas and Major League), and Lea Thompson (Back to the Future and Howard the Duck). In the film, teens battle Soviet troops, who have invaded their town. The remake will feature a new ensamble who will battle Chinese troops. I understand why the film used Soviet troops. At the time, the United States was involved in the Cold War with Russia. I don't know why Chinese soldiers are used in the remake.
These films only further prooves my point. Some tweaking and slight alterations will be made to the remakes. The films will be modernized to the standards of the 21st century, but the result remains the same...the films in question have been plagiarized.
It seems like the trend of remakes is gravitating towards television. In recent years, shows such as American Gladiators, Knight Rider, 90210, and Melrose Place have been revived. Ironically, 90210 is the only show that is presently on air. With the demise of Lost and 24, and Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy probably winding down in the next couple of years, one has to wonder what other tv classic will be the next in line to be plagiarised and butchered.
In the world of academia, remakes would be known as plagiarism. Let a college kid buy someone's paper online and "remake" it into their own paper. Sure, he/she might tweak a few things here and there, but the idea is not original. In high school or college, plagarism results in an automatic F and the possibility of expulsion from school. These days, it appears plagiarism in Hollywood is encouraged.
As a fan, I can certainly stomach sequels a lot more than remakes. For instance, I've enjoyed each and every Rush Hour movie in the film's series. As long as both Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan are in the film together, it's okay with me. You have the same characters from each film, but different plots in each movie.
Now, remakes on the otherhand, is a different kind of animal. Most remakes, in my humble opinion, lack originiality. Remakes will have the same plot as in the original. Why should cusomers spend their hard-earned money on a movie they've probably seen before. Is it really that hard to come up with a decent idea that will appeal nowadays? I feel remakes are a disservice to those involved with the original films, from the actors to the writers to the directors and so on. If I wrote a script for a film, I wouldn't want someone coming around 20-25 years later trying to steal the idea. As a writer, I'd get a bigger thrill coming up with something unique, and a script I developed on my own. If you're going to steal an idea for a film, why not take a box office flop from a film 40 years old or older, figure out why it flopped, and change the script into a success. That in of itself, is more of a challenge than simply taking someone else's work and cashing in on it.
I suppose it's inevitable to turn to remakes for films. We now have the Super Heroes being exploited as the next in-line to be remade. We've already seen Batman, Spiderman, and the Incredible Hulk. From what I understand, Wonder Woman will be the next superhero turned into a movie.
It's not that I hate all remakes. It's just the idea of taking a hit movie from the past 20-25 years, and plagiarising it. I wouldn't mind as much if the films in question were made in the 60's or later. Most of the films remade these days are on television quite often. One can simply tune in to a channel and find a smash 80's film somewhere on tv.
Why this hostile attitude for remakes? Well, it started a few years ago when I flipped through the channel to watch Love Don't Cost a Thing. I noticed the similarities to 80's movie, Can't Buy Me Love. Both movies had nerdy central characters who paid cool girls to pose as girlfriends for a month. I watched roughly 20-30 minutes of the film before I realized this film was a remake. Initially, I thought someone ripped the film off before realizing the film was intended to be a remake. Needless to say, once I recognized the film's plot, I switched channels.
A couple of years later, Bewitched hit theaters. Bewitched was/is one of my favorite shows. I fondly remember watching the show as a child on Nick-at-Nite when both Nick-at-Nite and TV Land actually aired classic shows on their respective networks. That's another argument for another time. Anyway, I'll always associate Elizabeth Montgomery, Dick York, and Dick Sargent as the roles of Samantha and Darrin Stevens. This is not any sort of slight on the abilities of Nicole Kidman nor Will Ferrell. They are both talented actors. I'm just not interested in watching anyone else play the parts other actors portrayed years before. Montgomery will forever be Samantha and York and Sargent will be Darrin (although York was my favorite). I looked upon Kidman and Ferrell as a couple of imposters. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who felt this way.
Before you blast this blog, just check out the list of remakes from 80's films schedule for release in 2010-2012:
Red Dawn
21 Jump Street
Footloose
the Smurfs
Clash of the Titans
A Nightmare on Elm Street
The Karate Kid
The A-Team
Tron
Beverley Hills Cop 4
Let's use Nightmare on Elm Street as an example. I've read Jackie Earle Haley will play Freddie Kruegger in the film. This is no slight to Haley. He's a terrific actor, but when I think of Kruegger, I think of Robert Englund. Maybe Englund turned down the role. I don't know. But this fact alone will not arouse any interest in the film.
The Karate Kid is another remake I don't like. I have nothing against Chan nor Jaden Smith, but I've seen the Karate Kid dozens of times in my life. I know Smith's character will be picked on by bullies (much like Ralph Macchacio's character in the original), but will learn to defend himself by taking karate from a local expert. I know how this film is going to end before I step foot in a theatre (or in my case, before I turn the channel to watch the movie when it's on tv).
Red Dawn is an 80's film that has several 80's stars such as C. Thomas Howell (Soul Man and the Outsiders), Patrick Swayze (Dirty Dancing and the Outsiders), Jennifer Grey (Dirty Dancing and Ferris Bueller's Day Off), Charlie Sheen (Lucas and Major League), and Lea Thompson (Back to the Future and Howard the Duck). In the film, teens battle Soviet troops, who have invaded their town. The remake will feature a new ensamble who will battle Chinese troops. I understand why the film used Soviet troops. At the time, the United States was involved in the Cold War with Russia. I don't know why Chinese soldiers are used in the remake.
These films only further prooves my point. Some tweaking and slight alterations will be made to the remakes. The films will be modernized to the standards of the 21st century, but the result remains the same...the films in question have been plagiarized.
It seems like the trend of remakes is gravitating towards television. In recent years, shows such as American Gladiators, Knight Rider, 90210, and Melrose Place have been revived. Ironically, 90210 is the only show that is presently on air. With the demise of Lost and 24, and Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy probably winding down in the next couple of years, one has to wonder what other tv classic will be the next in line to be plagiarised and butchered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
