Ok people, I just can't take this anymore.
No. 5 Boise State beat Tulsa last night to move to 6-0 on the season. They're about halfway done with their schedule, they're undefeated, and they're ranked 5th (AP) in the nation. After watching the highlights of last night's victory over (dramatic music) Tulsa, those formidable, daunting opponents from Oklahoma, I'm still not convinced that Boise State is the real deal. I'm still not convinced that, faced with an opponent like Florida, Texas, Alabama, Iowa or LSU, that these guys would emerge victorious. I'm still not convinced that, if faced with the schedules of those aforementioned teams, Boise State would win even half its games.
Let's examine the opponents of Boise State this year, and their records and schedules as well. Perhaps we'll come up with some sort of, oh, I want to call it "Schedule Strength", against which to measure Boise State's sparkling 6-0 record. Genius idea, I know; you can thank me later. So the (what are they called again? Blue um... Blue Horses?... Aqua Velvet Knights?... Ultramarine Trojans?...) Broncos opened up the season ranked (preseason) no. 14, which we all know is based on absolutely nothing but opinions and paper, and has nothing to do with actually playing the game of football. They beat then-(16) Oregon (again a preseason ranking based on nothing) at home 19-8. Oregon has gone on to win all of its subsequent games, beating the likes of Purdue, then-(18) Utah, then-(6) Cal, Washington St, and UCLA, to run their record to 5-1. Not bad, but we must remember that Utah is now ranked 24th and Cal is not ranked at all. It's safe to say that Oregon has had a moderately soft schedule thus far, and remains to be tested against (6) USC later this year - its only formidable opponent. Suffice it to say then that Boise State's victory at home in the opener over Oregon was not the big deal that everyone likes to think it is, especially considering the fact that preseason rankings are horseshit. Stop shaking your heads and admit it - you know better.
The following week the Broncos took on Miami (OH) and won 48-0. Whoa Nelly, Keith Jackson would've said. And what about Miami (OH)'s record? Right now they're a (dis)respectable 0-6, in the basement of the Mid American Conference, having lost their other games to Kentucky (2-3, unranked), Western Michigan (3-3, unranked), Kent State (2-4, unranked), Cincinnati (5-0, no. 10), and Northwestern (4-2, unranked). Let's pause for a moment and make a quick point: Cincinnati's 5-0 record and no. 10 ranking come after they've beaten Rutgers, Southeastern Missouri State (I think I just peed a little), Oregon State, Fresno State, and of course Miami (OH). What a holy terror of a schedule for Cincinnati, ladies and gentlemen. I mean, if anyone deserves a top-ten ranking... ok, ok, sarcasm be damned. Back to Boise State. We see then that the victory over Miami (OH) was nothing special; the Broncos demolished a team that has been demolished by everyone else it's played. Big deal.
Moving on to week 3, the Blue Ballers handed Fresno State a loss, but not until Fresno put up 34 points on them. Fresno State is currently 2-3, unranked, and has beaten the likes of UC Davis and Hawaii, while losing to Wisconsin, Cincinnati, and of course Boise State. Again, Fresno State is simply another unimpressive opponent. And they managed to score 34 points on the supposed no. 5 team in the country.
Boise State's next opponent would be Bowling Green, those fearsome Falcons of northwest Ohio, who have compiled a record thus far of 2-4, with wins against Troy (who? are they a sub-division of USC?) and Kent State, and losses to Missouri, Marshall, and Ohio University. Oh, and Boise State beat them as well... like a rented mule.
October 3 saw Boise State beat UC Davis. I sincerely had no idea until this season that UC Davis even existed, let alone had a football program. UC Davis has also lost to Fresno State and Montana, while beating Western Oregon and South Dakota to complile a record of 2-3 this year. UC Davis actually gave the Broncos a tough time for the first couple of quarters in this contest, which doesn't bode well for Boise State's case as a top-10 (or even top-25) team.
Finally we have last night's game against Tulsa. Boise State won 28-21 when Tulsa's wide receiver dropped a pass at mid-field on 4th down with less than a minute to play and Tulsa driving. Tulsa has a record now of 4-2, with wins over Tulane, New Mexico, Sam Houston State, and Rice, and losses to then-(12) Oklahoma, and now Boise State. As you can see, just like the rest of Boise State's opponents, we have a team whose wins came over weak teams.
To quickly review, Boise State's 6-0 record has come by beating preseason (16) Oregon (5-1), Miami (OH) (0-6), Fresno State (2-3), Bowling Green (2-4), UC Davis (2-3), and Tulsa (4-2). Their opponents' combined record thus far is 15-19, with 1/3 of those victories coming from one team. Their opponents' losses have come at the hands of traditionally weak, bottom-dwelling teams from mid-major conferences. Their opponents themselves, with the exception of Oregon, are from consistently weak mid-major conferences. Their remaining schedule looks like this: Hawaii (2-3), San Jose State (1-4), Louisiana Tech (2-3), Idaho (5-1, against more weak teams), Utah State (1-4), Nevada (2-3), and New Mexico State (3-3).
All alliances aside, we must admit one thing at this point: Boise State is in no way deserving of its top-5 ranking. It's not even deserving of a top-20 ranking. When teams beat up on perennial losers in order to compile a winning or undefeated record, and end up nationally ranked in the top 25, there is a problem. I won't go into the issues with the human polls in this article, but I will make the point: those of you coaches and sports writers out there voting these blood-sucker, bottom-feeding teams like Boise State into the top-25 are either ignorant of the concept of schedule strength or are just blatantly ignoring it; you obviously haven't a clue about what makes a team good, let alone great, and deserving of a high national ranking. Put down your ballots, go to Barnes & Noble, and read a book on logic. Many will argue that a win is a win, and an undefeated record is simply perfect. But we must ask ourselves, as true logical thinkers and fans of the college game, who exactly are teams like Boise State playing and beating? And who are those teams playing, with their losing records? A win is not simply a win. It does matter in the college game who you play and who you beat. Schedule strength, in my opinion, is of utmost importance in conjunction with a team's record. For that matter, if it's not, we may as well have Idaho (5-1), Tulsa (4-2), Notre Dame (4-1), and Marshall (4-2) ranked in the top-10 as well.
Ah, but you so slyly ask, who have those guys played? Nobody. Just like Boise State.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The (Toilet) Bowl "Championship" Series
Ok folks, I have to get this off my chest... for about the tenth time in as many years.
The college football ranking system is useless, absurd, obsolete, and produces no true National Champion. Here's why.
Let's start with the obvious. The AP and Coaches polls are used to determine a national ranking. These polls are based on one thing: some sports writer's or coach's opinion of how good a team is. This in itself should be enough to make the point that any national champion that emerges at the end of the year from this system is based upon an unfounded opinion of how good a team is. It's simply ridiculous.
This matter of opinion determining a national rank is no more glaringly obvious than in the first few weeks of the college football season in which teams are nationally ranked in the preseason poll before they ever set foot on the football field. The preseason rankings are based not only on these unfounded opinions, but they take into account the previous year's teams and returning members. In essence what the preseason poll states is merely what a select group of people think the teams are going to be like once the season begins. It's all "on paper" at that point, and therefore is pointless. Furthermore, a team's preseason ranking -- again based on a hollow opinion, on the previous year's accomplishments, and on returning members -- continues to determine is sustained national rank throughout the year. For example this year, if preseason #1 Florida simply goes unbeaten, no matter how pathetically weak their schedule may be, they'll remain the #1 ranked team because they were ranked #1 in the preseason. It's horseshit, and it gives zero potential for any other team to usurp their position.
So at this point in the development of our examination we have a ranking system that's based upon the opinions of a select few individuals, in turn, whose opinions are based on forethought and predictions in the preseason and not at all on what's going on on the football field. Had enough already? It gets better.
When the season actually begins, the polls run into many problems, the most obvious of which has already been mentioned (a team's ability to maintain its preseason, unfounded, opinion-based national rank based solely on the fact that it just hasn't lost a game yet, no matter how insanely easy its schedule is). But then we run into a problem regarding schedule strength. Take, for example this year, Boise State. They're currently ranked #6 in the country, having a record of 5-0. And how did they accumulate that record? By beating teams like Miami Ohio, Bowling Green, Fresno State, UC Davis (didn't know they played football there), and Oregon who was unranked at the time of Boise State's victory. Their remaining schedule looks like this: Tulsa, Hawaii, San Jose State, Louisiana Tech, Idaho, Utah State, Nevada, and New Mexico State. Seriously folks? You're going to rank these guys as the 6h best football team in the country because they beat the living shit out of all these bullshit football teams that Lakeland High School in Rathdrum could beat? This is a glaringly obvious issue with the polls. There are far too many weak teams from horrible conferences playing other weak teams from other horrible conferences and ending up nationally ranked. Boise State is this year's most obvious, but others of note right now are Cincinnati, TCU, Houston (who thank god, dropped from the rankings after a lopsided loss to an unranked UTEP), and BYU. Take a look at their schedules and ask yourself if they deserve to be ranked nationally, even with 5-0 or 4-1 records right now, resulting from beating up on teams like Middle Southeastern Wyoming State West Campus For The Blind. Gimme a break.
The next issue is a result of an aforementioned issue regarding the preseason ranking. Oklahoma is this year's prime example. Right now OU is 2-2. They're ranked #19 in the AP poll. Why? Because they were preseason ranked in the top 5, and won two of their four games. Their wins are against Idaho (those formidable Vandals' football teams strike fear in the hearts of grown men) and Tulsa (still shaking in my shoes over here). Their two losses are against current #18 BYU (a previously mentioned prime example of a bullshit team with several wins on a bullshit schedule) and current #11 Miami, who has risen steadily in the ranks early this season. Several sub-issues come to mind in this situation. BYU's problem has already been mentioned (nationally ranked based on winning with a weak schedule). Miami's problem with rising in the ranks is based on the overall problem with the polls: Miami has beaten teams whose rankings were unfounded, based on the preseason polls, and beating up on weaker teams. So we really don't know how good Miami is right now. But to further compound the issue, if we take the rankings for being somewhat true at this point just for the sake of argument, and we see clearly that OU has lost half of its games, both of them to ranked opponents, we must ask ourselves how good OU can possibly be if it can't beat a ranked opponent, even if those rankings are unfounded.
This is the gigantic monkeywrench in the early season rankings: we really don't know how good a team is until it's about halfway through its schedule. Consider also that most teams have a "warm up" game or two (or 12 in Boise State's case) at the beginning of the year, in which they play a terrible, unranked opponent from a weak conference. This year seems to be worse than others, in that even after 5 games we're still seeing match-ups that don't make sense, with traditional powerhouse programs playing football teams that haven't won games, much less a conference or national title, ever.
So at this point in our examination we have a preseason poll based on opinions, last year's team, and returning members. We have nationally ranked teams who play absolutely no formidable opponents, yet who compile undefeated records. We have traditional powerhouses who play weak teams and win, and who play strong teams and lose, yet remain nationally ranked. And we truly don't know how good or bad any of these teams in the national rankings are because they've not yet been adequately tested, their rankings are still based on preseason spots, and their records largely reflect weak schedules with games played against schools who've never had any sort of noteworthy football programs in their history. Messy enough for you?
The problems deepen as the season progresses and comes to completion. As the season continues teams may slide up or down a bit, but we have to understand the points we've examined at the beginning of the season. A team's national rank cannot possibly matter if it's based on a preseason poll, an opinion of a coach or sports writer, or on beating up weak teams with less than adequate football programs. So at the end of the year, when the final rankings are set and the bowl games are picked, are we really seeing a true champion crowned when the likes of Boise State, TCU, and BYU, with their pathetic schedules, are playing in major bowl games? Obviously we are not. We're seeing who a select few individuals have decided will play in those bowl games. Period.
Many think that the BCS system has solved some of these problems because it incorporates "computer" rankings, based on schedule strength, into its national ranking system. Two things. First, the BCS also takes into consideration the AP and Coaches polls when it "calculates" the national rank of a team. How a national ranking can be unbiased, mathematical, or based on strength of schedule when it still incorporates someone's opinion, is beyond the comprehension of my intellect. It's simply not a true, mathematical system. Secondly, the BCS' strength of schedule category makes a good point. But it's almost moot because it still incorporates the opinion polls of the AP and Coaches. If you're going to base a national ranking off a record versus strength of schedule, then damn well do it. Forget the AP and Coaches polls. The BCS, because of this, still does not crown a true national champion.
In examining this system, one wonders what it will take to abolish it. One wonders how on earth the BCS could complain about losing money if a playoff system is established, which would generate more games played in bowls at the end of the year. It's beyond me. But I do have a few suggestions.
Get rid of the preseason polls and rankings. No one knows how good a team is until it steps onto a football field and plays an entire season. Period. No rankings until the end of the year.
Remove the possibility for traditional powerhouse teams to play Division II teams, who have very little, if any, chance of beating the powerhouse teams. It does nothing but add another win or two to the powerhouse team's record, and falsely inflates their "image" as a good team. It also continues to subdue those teams that are not traditional powerhouses, keeping them in the basement of college football. It keeps the scales tipped in favor of the traditional teams and does not allow a chance for anyone else to emerge as a significant winner. All Division I teams need to play only other Divsion I teams. Period.
Next, use the one little good idea the BCS has had and wait to rank teams nationally. The BCS does us all a little favor when it waits until after week 6 to rank teams so it can "calculate" schedule strength. I'm saying wait until the end of the year. Examine a team's record. Examine its opponents records and the opponents' opponents records. Figure out how good or bad these teams are based on the one and only thing that can do that: how many wins a team has and how strong its schedule has been. (I'm sick of seeing Boise State beat the shit out of 12 horseshit opponents and play in a bowl game, then bitch about not being considered for a national title. Give Boise State the schedule of LSU this year and watch it go 4-8 if it's lucky). And once the season is over, and teams are nationally ranked based on record and schedule strength, once this true ranking is established, plug the top 25 teams into a bracket playoff system (like, oh I don't know, every other sport does) and go through a few rounds of playoffs.
When it's all said and done, you'll see who the strongest team is. You'll know who deserved to win the national title, instead of sitting around second guessing everything at the end of the year. You'll see the traditional powerhouse teams beating each other up in the playoffs instead of seeing them beat up Akron and Wyoming and Middle Northeastern Tennessee Trade School of Art & Design. And most gratifying of all, these teams -- all teams -- will have the chance to play strong schedules, to win those big games, and to legitimately contend for a playoff spot. And Boise State, BYU, TCU, Houston, and Cincinnati can go duke it out amongst themselves for the Tampax Bitch Trophy in the Summer's Eve Douche Bowl with the local high school teams, where they deserve to be.
The college football ranking system is useless, absurd, obsolete, and produces no true National Champion. Here's why.
Let's start with the obvious. The AP and Coaches polls are used to determine a national ranking. These polls are based on one thing: some sports writer's or coach's opinion of how good a team is. This in itself should be enough to make the point that any national champion that emerges at the end of the year from this system is based upon an unfounded opinion of how good a team is. It's simply ridiculous.
This matter of opinion determining a national rank is no more glaringly obvious than in the first few weeks of the college football season in which teams are nationally ranked in the preseason poll before they ever set foot on the football field. The preseason rankings are based not only on these unfounded opinions, but they take into account the previous year's teams and returning members. In essence what the preseason poll states is merely what a select group of people think the teams are going to be like once the season begins. It's all "on paper" at that point, and therefore is pointless. Furthermore, a team's preseason ranking -- again based on a hollow opinion, on the previous year's accomplishments, and on returning members -- continues to determine is sustained national rank throughout the year. For example this year, if preseason #1 Florida simply goes unbeaten, no matter how pathetically weak their schedule may be, they'll remain the #1 ranked team because they were ranked #1 in the preseason. It's horseshit, and it gives zero potential for any other team to usurp their position.
So at this point in the development of our examination we have a ranking system that's based upon the opinions of a select few individuals, in turn, whose opinions are based on forethought and predictions in the preseason and not at all on what's going on on the football field. Had enough already? It gets better.
When the season actually begins, the polls run into many problems, the most obvious of which has already been mentioned (a team's ability to maintain its preseason, unfounded, opinion-based national rank based solely on the fact that it just hasn't lost a game yet, no matter how insanely easy its schedule is). But then we run into a problem regarding schedule strength. Take, for example this year, Boise State. They're currently ranked #6 in the country, having a record of 5-0. And how did they accumulate that record? By beating teams like Miami Ohio, Bowling Green, Fresno State, UC Davis (didn't know they played football there), and Oregon who was unranked at the time of Boise State's victory. Their remaining schedule looks like this: Tulsa, Hawaii, San Jose State, Louisiana Tech, Idaho, Utah State, Nevada, and New Mexico State. Seriously folks? You're going to rank these guys as the 6h best football team in the country because they beat the living shit out of all these bullshit football teams that Lakeland High School in Rathdrum could beat? This is a glaringly obvious issue with the polls. There are far too many weak teams from horrible conferences playing other weak teams from other horrible conferences and ending up nationally ranked. Boise State is this year's most obvious, but others of note right now are Cincinnati, TCU, Houston (who thank god, dropped from the rankings after a lopsided loss to an unranked UTEP), and BYU. Take a look at their schedules and ask yourself if they deserve to be ranked nationally, even with 5-0 or 4-1 records right now, resulting from beating up on teams like Middle Southeastern Wyoming State West Campus For The Blind. Gimme a break.
The next issue is a result of an aforementioned issue regarding the preseason ranking. Oklahoma is this year's prime example. Right now OU is 2-2. They're ranked #19 in the AP poll. Why? Because they were preseason ranked in the top 5, and won two of their four games. Their wins are against Idaho (those formidable Vandals' football teams strike fear in the hearts of grown men) and Tulsa (still shaking in my shoes over here). Their two losses are against current #18 BYU (a previously mentioned prime example of a bullshit team with several wins on a bullshit schedule) and current #11 Miami, who has risen steadily in the ranks early this season. Several sub-issues come to mind in this situation. BYU's problem has already been mentioned (nationally ranked based on winning with a weak schedule). Miami's problem with rising in the ranks is based on the overall problem with the polls: Miami has beaten teams whose rankings were unfounded, based on the preseason polls, and beating up on weaker teams. So we really don't know how good Miami is right now. But to further compound the issue, if we take the rankings for being somewhat true at this point just for the sake of argument, and we see clearly that OU has lost half of its games, both of them to ranked opponents, we must ask ourselves how good OU can possibly be if it can't beat a ranked opponent, even if those rankings are unfounded.
This is the gigantic monkeywrench in the early season rankings: we really don't know how good a team is until it's about halfway through its schedule. Consider also that most teams have a "warm up" game or two (or 12 in Boise State's case) at the beginning of the year, in which they play a terrible, unranked opponent from a weak conference. This year seems to be worse than others, in that even after 5 games we're still seeing match-ups that don't make sense, with traditional powerhouse programs playing football teams that haven't won games, much less a conference or national title, ever.
So at this point in our examination we have a preseason poll based on opinions, last year's team, and returning members. We have nationally ranked teams who play absolutely no formidable opponents, yet who compile undefeated records. We have traditional powerhouses who play weak teams and win, and who play strong teams and lose, yet remain nationally ranked. And we truly don't know how good or bad any of these teams in the national rankings are because they've not yet been adequately tested, their rankings are still based on preseason spots, and their records largely reflect weak schedules with games played against schools who've never had any sort of noteworthy football programs in their history. Messy enough for you?
The problems deepen as the season progresses and comes to completion. As the season continues teams may slide up or down a bit, but we have to understand the points we've examined at the beginning of the season. A team's national rank cannot possibly matter if it's based on a preseason poll, an opinion of a coach or sports writer, or on beating up weak teams with less than adequate football programs. So at the end of the year, when the final rankings are set and the bowl games are picked, are we really seeing a true champion crowned when the likes of Boise State, TCU, and BYU, with their pathetic schedules, are playing in major bowl games? Obviously we are not. We're seeing who a select few individuals have decided will play in those bowl games. Period.
Many think that the BCS system has solved some of these problems because it incorporates "computer" rankings, based on schedule strength, into its national ranking system. Two things. First, the BCS also takes into consideration the AP and Coaches polls when it "calculates" the national rank of a team. How a national ranking can be unbiased, mathematical, or based on strength of schedule when it still incorporates someone's opinion, is beyond the comprehension of my intellect. It's simply not a true, mathematical system. Secondly, the BCS' strength of schedule category makes a good point. But it's almost moot because it still incorporates the opinion polls of the AP and Coaches. If you're going to base a national ranking off a record versus strength of schedule, then damn well do it. Forget the AP and Coaches polls. The BCS, because of this, still does not crown a true national champion.
In examining this system, one wonders what it will take to abolish it. One wonders how on earth the BCS could complain about losing money if a playoff system is established, which would generate more games played in bowls at the end of the year. It's beyond me. But I do have a few suggestions.
Get rid of the preseason polls and rankings. No one knows how good a team is until it steps onto a football field and plays an entire season. Period. No rankings until the end of the year.
Remove the possibility for traditional powerhouse teams to play Division II teams, who have very little, if any, chance of beating the powerhouse teams. It does nothing but add another win or two to the powerhouse team's record, and falsely inflates their "image" as a good team. It also continues to subdue those teams that are not traditional powerhouses, keeping them in the basement of college football. It keeps the scales tipped in favor of the traditional teams and does not allow a chance for anyone else to emerge as a significant winner. All Division I teams need to play only other Divsion I teams. Period.
Next, use the one little good idea the BCS has had and wait to rank teams nationally. The BCS does us all a little favor when it waits until after week 6 to rank teams so it can "calculate" schedule strength. I'm saying wait until the end of the year. Examine a team's record. Examine its opponents records and the opponents' opponents records. Figure out how good or bad these teams are based on the one and only thing that can do that: how many wins a team has and how strong its schedule has been. (I'm sick of seeing Boise State beat the shit out of 12 horseshit opponents and play in a bowl game, then bitch about not being considered for a national title. Give Boise State the schedule of LSU this year and watch it go 4-8 if it's lucky). And once the season is over, and teams are nationally ranked based on record and schedule strength, once this true ranking is established, plug the top 25 teams into a bracket playoff system (like, oh I don't know, every other sport does) and go through a few rounds of playoffs.
When it's all said and done, you'll see who the strongest team is. You'll know who deserved to win the national title, instead of sitting around second guessing everything at the end of the year. You'll see the traditional powerhouse teams beating each other up in the playoffs instead of seeing them beat up Akron and Wyoming and Middle Northeastern Tennessee Trade School of Art & Design. And most gratifying of all, these teams -- all teams -- will have the chance to play strong schedules, to win those big games, and to legitimately contend for a playoff spot. And Boise State, BYU, TCU, Houston, and Cincinnati can go duke it out amongst themselves for the Tampax Bitch Trophy in the Summer's Eve Douche Bowl with the local high school teams, where they deserve to be.
The Defunct Browns Fan
I remember being a couple years old and listening to my dad and grandfather talk about Brian Sipe and Sam Rutigliano in the early 1980s. When my dad was a kid, there were the likes of Jim Brown, Lou Groza, Frank Ryan, Gary Collins, Leroy Kelly, Dick Schafrath, and Paul Warfield. Those guys went 10-3-1 in 1964 and won an NFL Championship, demolishing the then-powerhouse Baltimore Colts 27-0. From their inception in 1950 through 1969, those Cleveland Browns appeared in 12 NFL Championship games, compiling an overall record of 180-71 in the regular season, and winning four championships. Those teams were hall-of-famer producing machines.
And then I was born in 1979.
We're all familiar with the 1986 - 89 teams who won during the regular season and came "this close" in the AFC title games before losing to the Denver Broncos. We won't go there. It's too disgusting for me to think about. But those were my teams when I was a kid: Bernie Kosar, Kevin Mack, Earnest Byner, Reggie Langhorne, Ozzie Newsome, Webster Slaughter, Brian Brennan, Clay Mathews, Frank Minnifield, Hanford Dixon, Mike Baab, Matt Bahr, Chip Banks, Bob Golic, Carl Hairston, Gerald "The Ice Cube" McNeil, and Felix Wright - just to name a few that stick out in my mind. Those guys played a damn good game of football. They won games, they made believers out of us in Northeast Ohio, they attracted national attention, and they believed in themselves. Marty Shottenheimer was one bad-ass coach and he got the job done.
Fast-forward to today. There are talks of Cleveland trading Brady Quinn, their former first round quarterback out of Notre Dame. All bias aside, the kid is intelligent, reads the field, plays a smart game, and can throw a decent football... especially when he isn't limited by the bullshit 3-yard short-pass game plan of a certain "Mangenius" coach from New York. The Browns have already unloaded their top receiver in Braylon Edwards. They dumped Kellen Winslow in the off season. Tim Couch was ruined so many years ago. Josh Cribbs isn't allowed to do anything that will highlight his talents. I look back on the regimes we've experienced in this city since the 1989 firing of Marty Shottenheimer and I wonder - was it always just Art Modell? Or is it the team itself?
Because you have to realize that since I've been following these guys since I was old enough to hold a football, all I've ever seen them do, in spite of a few good seasons, is trade, release, and fire all their best players and coaches. And with recent talks of trading Brady Quinn, much like the Indians just traded their ace Cliff Lee last year (again... after CC Sabathia and Bartolo Colon were traded previously), I have wholeheartedly come to believe that the sports teams of Northeast Ohio, those heroes of my childhood, are simply meant to be sustained - and not meant to win.
I suppose at 30 years old it's time for me to admit it. It saddens me really. When I was 7, 8, 9 years old, I wanted nothing more than to see my Browns win something, to see Bernie and Webster and Kevin out there beating people and carrying trophies, like the tradition of the teams before them in Cleveland. But by the time 1990 rolled around, everything collapsed. Marty was fired. Bernie was benched (I still hate Bill Belichik with a passion). Everyone was traded. And in 1995 Modell just up and left with "his" football team, moving to Baltimore. Nothing has ever been the same on the football field on the south shore of Lake Erie.
So go ahead Browns. Trade your number one draft pick again. Hire your demolition football coach from New York. Limit your best players. Uphold that mantra: it's the town where talent comes to die.
At least I'll always have Notre Dame - where the kids come to play for the love of tradition and the game - and the Pittsburgh Penguins - where Mario and The Kid know how to build a team and win championships. Is it any wonder I've defected?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
