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.

First Post: Cat Nipped

With all the craziness going on in the sports world right now, I definitely had my options over what to write my first post about: the Plaxico Burress incident, the drug violations and suspensions of several NFL players, the disgustingly sexist and inappropriate comments made by Sean Avery (I'll get to him later), and the unfortunate circumstances involving the BCS and the Big 12 South title. Instead, I decided to write my first post about a topic very near and dear to my heart.

After an excellent regular season, my Northwestern Wildcats sit at an impressive 9-3, ranked #22, 24, and 22 in the BCS, AP, and USA Today polls, respectively. Yet with several days to go before Bowl invitations are sent out, there is a great deal of speculation (almost to a point that it seems like a lock), that the unranked 8-4 Iowa Hawkeyes will be going to a more prestigious bowl than the Cats.

Now, aside from NU being my Alma Mater, as a sports fan I have a some problems with this potential decision:

1) First is the obvious....Northwestern went into Iowa City and beat the Hawks on their home turf 22-17. In my opinion this fact should end the discussion right now. How can their be a better tie breaker -- since, in fairness to the discussion, both teams were 5-3 in the Big Ten -- than head-to head competition?

I have read arguments that we have to discount that game because it was the first Big Ten Conference game of the season. So let me get this straight....we are supposed to penalize NU and give Iowa a pass because of the date that the game was played on? Do the Washington Redskins say to the NFL, "Well you can't really count that first game of the year against the Giants because it was early in the season and we hadn't really hit our stride yet?" NO! Of course not!

And shouldn't this early season excuse apply to both teams? If Iowa hasn't hit its stride yet because it's early in the season, then by that logic, Northwestern hasn't hit its stride yet either. The point is, is that you have to play your games when you are scheduled to play your games, and you have to respect the result.

2) Iowa is reportedly slated to go to the Outback bowl over Northwestern because of the "relative prestige of the programs." So the argument here is that Iowa has a better (football) pedigree than NU, and therefore, because NU is not a well respected program, it will get pushed down in the pecking order, despite the team's on field accomplishments. This creates a vicious cycle -- NU lacks prestige and therefore won't be selected for this bowl, and by not being selected for this bowl NU is denied the opportunity to gain a measure of prestige, and this lack of prestige will prevent them from being selected into a better bowl, which will prevent them from gaining prestige, which will...well you see what I'm getting at.

If teams' on field accomplishments are pushed aside for this euphemism "prestige," it becomes very difficult for teams to change the public's perception of them....which brings me to my final point --

3) It's all about the MONEY!!! According to just about everyone, Iowa has a bigger fan base, Iowa will be a better draw on TV, and Iowa will put more butts in the seats. Plain and simple, it's about money. The bowl selection committee will choose the team that will bring in the dough.

As a sports fan of any kind, this should anger you. This is the worst reason of all to choose one team over another. This reason completely ignores ALL of this year's on field accomplishments and defers to the power of the one thing that college sports should not be about...the Almighty Dollar. Shame on the selection committee if this is ultimately the reason that they choose Iowa over NU.


This post is certainly not to discredit the accomplishments of the Iowa Hawkeyes. They had a great season as well, and knocked off Penn St., which is no small accomplishment. When you get right down to it though, I think NU has earned the right to the better bowl game.

I hope the predictions are wrong. I hope my Cats will get the respect they deserve this year. I hope the committee will make the right choice. And I hope to be watching my Cats on January 1st in Tampa, FL at the Outback Bowl.

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