We're Talkin' Football

As we say good-bye to the first round of playoff castaways and near the end of another controversial (if not exciting) bowl season, I wanted to share some thoughts.

Raise your hand if you were even just a little upset that the Indianapolis Colts never even touched the football in their overtime loss to the Chargers. I'm pretty sure I've made my feelings clear on this, but in case you've forgotten....IT'S THE DUMBEST RULE IN ALL OF SPORTS!!!!

There NEEDS to be an equanimity of opportunity. An entire team's season was just ended because of a coin toss. The Colts (whose QB just happened to be the league MVP) never even got a chance to play on offense. What a shame. Nothing against the Chargers. They may be the best 8-8 team ever, but you have to feel bad that Peyton didn't even get a chance to do his thing in the OT.

I had a discussion with my dad about this rule and we both had a similar idea on how to solve it. Credit to fellow sports enthusiast Bob Dealy who reminded me that there are 3 phases to the game and that the college system of OT leaves out Special Teams. Please share your thoughts on this solution:

The coin toss decides who gets the ball to start the OT, just as it does now. If the team who gets the ball first does not score and has to punt, or turns the ball over -- then we play a normal, sudden death overtime. However, if the teams who has the ball first scores, they then have to kick off to the other team. The other team now has to match or best the first team. If at any point they turn the ball over, whether it be on downs, fumble of interception, the game is over.

If Team A starts with the ball and kicks a field goal and Team B scores a touchdown on their possession, Team B wins. If Team B kicks a field goal and matches Team A, then we continue in this fashion.

I am calling it the Extra Innings Rule. Like in baseball, the team who hits in the top half of the inning has a chance to score. The team who hits in the bottom half then has to do the same or better.

Other Playoff Curiosities:
There has been a lot of screaming and yelling over the past few days about regular season records and how teams are seeded in the playoffs. The venom here has been primarily directed at the 8-8 Chargers hosting the 12-4 Colts and the Giants facing the 9-6-1 Eagles instead of the 9-7 Cardinals.

This argument is pretty simple. You have to give credit to the team that wins their division. Just because their record is not as good as some other teams that might not even make the playoffs, you cannot discount the fact that you won your division. This year is odd because the Cardinals and the Chargers both won with mediocre records in extremely weak divisions. However, what if you have a division where all 4 teams are incredibly well balanced? Let's say each team goes 1-1 against their division opponents. Now everyone stands at 3-3. They also all have an equally tough non-divisional schedule and the best team in the division finishes up 9-7, while the last place team is 8-8. By winning that tough division, they have earned the right to host a playoff game.

Using this same argument we can immediately shoot down the complaints from certain Giants' fans (and I am not among these complainers) that the G-Men should be playing the Cardinals this week instead of the Eagles. Giants fans are simply upset because the Eagles are a hot team right now and managed to barely hold on for a win against the Giants in the regular season (mind you that game was played days after the Plaxico Burress incident and the team had already solidified a playoff spot the previous week by improving their record to 10-1). If the shoe were on the other foot and the 9-7 Cardinals were the hot team going into this round of the playoffs, Giants fans would be saying, "Whew, it's a good thing the rule states that we play the lowest seed." Every fan wants the rules to be convenient for their team. Simply put, the Giants play the lowest seed; which right now is the Eagles. The Cardinals and the Chargers have earned their places in the post-season by winning their division.

Finally, some College Football Thoughts:

I think ESPN needs to tone down the over-coverage of certain players' parents. In both the NU-Mizzou game and the Texas-OSU game, it seemed that after every play that Texas and Mizzou played on offense, ESPN showed a picture of the quarterback's parents and girlfriend. You want to show them after big plays, fine, but enough is enough! And don't the Wildcats and Buckeyes have parents too? I'm pretty sure CJ Bacher (NU quarterback) has parents. In fact I met them on my way to a game when I was living in Chicago. They're lovely people. I would have liked to have seen how they reacted when their son threw a 45-yard TD pass in the 2nd half of the Alamo Bowl.

My last point of the day is probably a touchy subject, but one I feel necessary to bring up. I think it might be time to start telling players to ease up on the religious talk in post-game interviews. Hearing what Colt McCoy (Texas QB) had to say after the game last night, I felt it was time to speak up. This has nothing to with my own religious beliefs, I just feel that this kind of speech is out of place at the end of a football game -- comments like, "I'd like to thank Jesus, our Lord and Savior, for giving me the strength to throw those passes like I did today." or, "God was on our side today. God gave me the will to catch that ball that helped us win the game." Again, it's not that I have a problem with their religious beliefs, but with all the horrible things going on in the world today, don't you think God and Jesus have more important things to worry about than a college bowl game? And besides Colt, what if God is an Oklahoma fan?

And if you disagree....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.