Archives For Tuesday, November 30, 1999

One time in 3rd grade I got caught chewing gum in class. Chewing gum was against the rules. So, I was mortified as to the possible outcome of my indictment — the teacher telling my parents.

My teacher approached me, leaned over, and whispered, “Just don’t put it under the desk.”

… I was elated. I didn’t get in trouble. All I had to do was throw it away in the trash can. It was the single biggest relief of my, now seemingly, pathetic childhood. I, along with the rest of my classmates, chewed gum in class that entire year.

Then came 4th grade, and the end of my gum-chewing days. In fact, on the first day of school, the teacher sent me to the principal’s office… for chewing gum?!?

What defines a “rule”?

Is a rule some lofty ideology transcribed in some rarely read book?

OR

Is a rule dependent upon the application of that lofty, rarely read, ideology?

I would argue that, in realistic application, a rule is only as good as its enforcement. It seems to be human nature to push the limits if they benefit us in some way. Thus, we, as a society, often seek to find those limits in the currently “grey area” of all aspects of life. Including sports. And including baseball.

Why do the steroid era players deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?

Because they were the best of the best, in their era, operating under that era’s “rules.”

At the height of steroid era, players were hitting 50, 60, and even 70 home runs a season. And as a Nike commercial infamously pointed out, “Chicks dig the long ball.”

Power hitting was good for baseball. At least, it was good for the sale of baseball as a product to the general public. Fans wanted to see home runs, so baseball wanted to deliver them. When players began amassing abnormal amounts of muscle in a short amount of time, baseball didn’t investigate them. Conversely, the MLB turned a blind eye.

So, what did players begin to do? They juiced up. And, why wouldn’t they? Pitchers were facing stronger hitters, and hitters were facing harder throwing, quicker recovering, pitchers. Ball players had to do it to keep up with the rest of the league. They did it to stay competitive or to become more competitive. In the end, they did it to help their team win.

Along with winning comes accolades, records, and money, which made winning even more enjoyable. And, subsequently, made steroids more inevitable.

But, what if baseball had strict regulations, tough testing policies, and extreme punishments for those who were caught using performance enhancing drugs (“PEDs”)?

Then none of the great players would have used them. Every time Bonds, Clemens, etc. shot up, they did a balancing test in their head. Did the benefits outweigh the costs? Yes- they absolutely did. Baseball was eating up their dominating performances. They were being immortalized, getting huge contracts, and breaking records. And, what if they didn’t? Their thought process must have considered the guys who did take PEDs and those players’ chances of over taking their current status in baseball if they didn’t use PEDs.

So, if baseball had stricter regulations, tougher testing policies, and extreme punishments for those who were caught using PEDs, players would have weighed the benefits and costs and determined that it simply wasn’t worth it. Why risk using PEDs if, hypothetically, the consequences were to be suspended an entire year and have an entire career of work and accomplishments erased for a tail end chase at glory?

Players would have been discouraged from using PEDs so that they would not hurt their teams, themselves, or their legacies.

BUT there weren’t strict regulations, tough testing policies, and extreme punishments for those who were caught using PEDs.

I know. And that is why a majority of the blame for these great players using PEDs should be on the league. Players, who had excelled their whole lives in baseball and were natural die-hard competitors, were going to do everything in their power to be the best they could be, within the “rules” of the game.

If it had been one or two players caught using PEDs, then they wouldn’t deserve the hall of fame, but since it was hundreds of players, those using PEDs were not given an edge, but merely staying with the pack.

It was an even playing field, in which the great players were great.

We judge players relative to the generation they played in. No one voting on the basketball hall of fame is going to compare LeBron James to Bob Cousy. We compare players’ accomplishments relative to the players of their time period. It’s a simple fact that athletes have become bigger, faster, and stronger than sixty years ago, and if LeBron had played in the 50’s, he may have averaged 50 points and 30 rebounds a game… or more. But he doesn’t get to play against the players of the 50’s, and by the same token, Cousy doesn’t have to play against the players of today.

Applying the same logic, baseball’s hall of famers didn’t have to play in an era when everyone was using steroids — and getting away with it. If they had played “clean,” then they may not have even had the careers that they had in their own eras.

*And as a side note, I simply don’t buy the “innocent until proven guilty” arguments. The media attention was on the great players that had allegations against them stemming from different investigations, but they were far from the only ones. It’s logical to assume that some players were using them simply to take themselves from bad to mediocre to prolong their careers. It’s called the “steroid era” and not the “steroid incident” for a reason.

Today, no player was voted into the baseball hall of fame, and it’s a shame.

Eventually, I hope that changes. There are several guys who deserve to be in. And do not misunderstand me, I do not approve of the use of PEDs and in no way condone of their use in baseball. I simply believe they were great players who worked within the boundaries the MLB had established to become some of the greatest players of all time, and these players shouldn’t be punished for being products of their environments.

If anyone should be blamed for baseball’s black eye known as the “steroid era,” it’s the owners and the league. Their application, or lack thereof, a “rule” evolved over time, and these great players, and their denial into the hall of fame, are the casualties of this unfair evolution.

————

By: Tyler Raborn

Lebron James (@KingJames) just followed A.J. McCarron’s girlfriend, Katherine Webb (@_KatherineWebb) on Twitter…

LBJ

 

Watch out A.J.

… and Brent Musburger?

Lance. The one-ball wonder.

…Yes, I just said that.

But, I said that because he is. He is a wondrous athlete. In 1996, Lance Armstrong was diagnosed with stage 3 testicular cancer. The cancer eventually spread to his abdomen, lungs, and brain, and doctors gave him a 40% chance of survival. But Armstrong beat the odds, and he didn’t stop there. He went on to win seven straight Tour de France titles, and encouraged millions of Americans in a movement eventually coined #LiveStrong.

That’s absolutely amazing.

Yet, his legacy has been tarnished by repeated allegations claiming Armstrong took performance-enhancing drugs (“PEDs”).

… but, who cares?

We criticize athletes for taking PEDs because it gives them an edge in comparison to their competitors. But, in the dirty sport of cycling in the 2000’s, there was no edge. Everybody was doing it. Several of the cyclists that finished 2nd and 3rd to Lance’s 1st have been tied to PED use.

So, looking at the big picture, the fact of the matter is, Lance Armstrong had no advantage over most other cyclists, but they had an advantage over him. They didn’t have cancer. They didn’t almost die. He did. Yet, he still beat them.

That’s absolutely amazing. 

But then, the hammer came down. The allegations came more frequently and with more credibility. Yet, Armstrong persistently, and vehemently, denied the use of PEDs. And, as Dan Wetzel pointed out in his article, he destroyed anyone who contradicted his claim:

Throughout Armstrong’s career, he hasn’t just denied he doped, he’s tried to destroy anyone who suggested otherwise. He and his henchmen have bullied, intimidated and threatened. They attacked reputations and fought dirty in ways that belied what he was supposed to be about. Everyone was just a jealous liar. Careers were ruined.

That’s absolutely pathetic.

And, while many other riders were admitting to the use of PEDs, Armstrong stuck to his lie. Yet, the evidence has continued to stack up against him, and in a report published on January 4th by the New York Times, Lance “is considering publicly admitting that he used banned performance-enhancing drugs and blood transfusions during his cycling career.”

And, why, may you ask is Lance “considering” this public admittance? Because we already know.

We already know he did it. So, he’s trying to “save face.” There is no noble reason for this “admittance” to something we already believe. He is acting, as he has when he has lied for over a decade, with only his self-interests in mind. And…

That’s absolutely pathetic.

So, don’t despise Lance the athlete… despise Lance the person.

————

By: Tyler Raborn

Notre Dame: For What It’s Worth

Tyler Raborn —  Sunday, January 6, 2013 — 4 Comments

Notre Dame beat Purdue by 3.

Oklahoma State beat Purdue 44.

Notre Dame beat Oklahoma by 17.

Texas A&M beat Oklahoma by 28.

Notre Dame beat Pittsburgh by 3, in overtime.

Ole Miss beat Pittsburgh by 21.

Notre Dame beat USC by 9.

Georgia Tech beat USC by 14. 

Read into that however you, or your biases, would like.

For what it’s worth.

————

By: Tyler Raborn

Brash & Burn #1

Tyler Raborn —  Thursday, January 3, 2013 — Leave a comment

Welcome to the inaugural Brash & Burn. Caleb Brasher and Tyler Raborn, Brash & Burn respectively, will answer five questions, which will eventually be decided in the coming weeks. Once every question has been determined, we’ll tally up the score and present a monthly winner. Let the games begin…

#1: Who will represent the AFC in the Super Bowl?

Brash: Out of all the questions, this one was the easiest for me. I have seen no more consistently impressive team than the Broncos- except recently the Seahawks, but more on that in a minute. Granted Denver had their growing pains at the beginning of the season starting 2-3 trying to adjust to a quarterback who people were not sure would ever be able to play again. But what have they done since then? Oh they just won 11 straight on their way to a number 1 seed and clinching home field through the playoffs. Their offense is very good but what makes me pick this team is the defense, which is ranked third in both rushing and passing yards allowed. Combine that with arguably the greatest quarterback to ever throw a football, and I believe that soon the Bronco faithful will be booking their plane tickets to the Big Easy.

Burn: Conversely, this question was not an easy one for me. I struggled between selecting the red hot Broncos and the ever-consistent Patriots. In the end, I took the Patriots. Two variables eventually tipped the scale enough for me to select the Patriots: Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. When it comes to playoff time, there is no duo that I trust more. They’ve won 3 Super Bowls together and were 2 plays away from 2 more. And, I know, they haven’t won a Super Bowl since 2004, but they’ve gotten there 5 times since 2001. Also, one final note on this selection, the fact of the matter is that football is a game of inches and any team can win on any given day. Thus, I want to pick the team that gives me the highest probability to be correct- and I see that in the New England Patriots.

#2: Who will represent the NFC in the Super Bowl?

Brash: This was much trickier. There is no clear-cut leader in this conference for me You could say San Fran, but did you see that game against Seattle? That was the most shocking game of the year for me. What about Atlanta? They are just terrible; I won’t even go there. So for me, I am going with the hottest team in the NFL right now: the Seattle Seahawks. Their defense is nasty (again I’m a big believer in defenses when it comes to the playoffs), and their QB is the surprise of the year in my opinion. Add in Pete Carroll and I think you have a Super Bowl contender. Now to get there they have to play every game on the road, but you know what they say travels well…running game and defense. Both of which Seattle possesses.

Burn: Aaron Rodgers. But, but, but… no. Aaron Rodgers. Can you outscore the Packers? Scoring will be the name of the game this postseason for teams facing Green Bay. Defenses win championships… unless you’re the Green Bay Packers. Then, Aaron Rodgers wins you championships.

#3: Who will win the Super Bowl?

Brash: So you have two great defenses and two good offenses. I believe the difference in this game is the experience of Peyton Manning. I think it is a close, fairly low scoring game that Denver eventually takes over in the fourth. Is there any way Manning could win Comeback Player of the Year, MVP, and Coach of the Year? I’d vote for him.

Burn: Have I mentioned Tom Brady and Bill Belichick? I have? Well… I think I will again. Actually, I’ll just copy and paste my last sentence from my answer to Question #1… “I want to pick the team that gives me the highest probability to be correct- and I see that in the New England Patriots.” So, I think I’ll stick with that theme. Patriots. Super Bowl Champs.

#4: Who will win the NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year?

Brash: This is a quarterback’s league. In what has undeniably been the most successful skill position rookie draft in recent memory, I believe that RG3 will take this honor from among the likes of Russell Wilson, Andrew Luck, Doug Martin, and teammate Alfred Morris. The stats speak for themselves: 3,200 yards passing, 814 yards rushing, 6.8 yards per carry, 27 total touchdown’s, and only 7 turnovers. He also became the leader of this young and surprisingly successful Redskins team.

Burn: This was the easiest question for me. Robert Griffin III has been incredibly impressive. Actually, he’s been phenomenal. Doug Martin has played head and shoulders above what anyone expected of him. Alfred Morris has been a beast, though some may argue that he’s a product of Shanahan’s system. And finally, Russell Wilson is 5-foot nothing- so, I have a special place for him in my heart. But, when discussing Rookie of the Year, I can look no further than Andrew Luck. To take a 2-14 team and mold them into an 11-5 team as a rookie is insane. Further, he did it with a change at the head coaching position. Some may make the argument that Pagano’s leave was “motivation” for the team, which I agree with- to a point. It wasn’t enough motivation to make a 2-14 team 11-5. This is still the NFL. Emotion can only go so far. At some point, talent, ability, and preparation factor into a team’s success. Thus, I attribute some of that success to the arrival of Andrew Luck- my Rookie of the Year.

#5: Who will win the NFL Coach of the Year Award?

Brash: This was again very difficult for me with all of the unexpected success of teams like the Redskins and the heart-wrenching, tear-jerking story of Chuck Pagano, Bruce Arians, and the Indianapolis Colts. But this year give the coach of the year honors to Pete Carroll. What makes me pick him over Arians and Shanahan is that in the past few weeks, Seattle is not just winning; they are dominating. He has taken a team that had a good defense and has turned them into a legitimate Super Bowl contender. As much as I love Bruce Arians and RG3, neither of those teams are contenders yet. And it makes it difficult to vote for Arians when he did not even coach a full season. Meanwhile, John Fox had all the talent and makings of a Super Bowl team in front of him and managed it great. But Carroll has taken a 5’10’’ QB and a tough D and is now on their march to New Orleans.

Burn: Expanding on my answer to question #4, the Colts improved from 2-14 to 11-5. There were several factors that attributed to this vast improvement. And, while it is impossible to put a finger on exactly what was responsible for the change, it’s obvious that the arrival of Andrew Luck and a new head coach had a lot to do with it. But, the Colts head coaching situation was far from normal. Head coach Chuck Pagano took a leave of absence in September after being diagnosed with acute promyelocytic leukemia, so offensive coordinator Bruce Arians was named interim head coach. In his first tenure as an NFL head coach, Arians did not disappoint. He humbly assumed Pagano’s role, and he deflected all of the credit for his success to the team and Chuck Pagano. For the best story in sports this year- My NFL Coach of the Year Award goes to Co-Winners in Bruce Arians and Chuck Pagano. #ChuckStrong

 So, to sum up…

Question

Brash

Burn

#1: AFC Champion? Denver Broncos New England Patriots
#2: NFC Champion? Seattle Seahawks Green Bay Packers
#3: Super Bowl Champion? Denver Broncos New England Patriots
#4: NFL Rookie of the Year? Robert Griffin III Andrew Luck
#5: NFL Coach of the Year? Pete Carroll Bruce Arians/Chuck Pagano

———-

By: Caleb Brasher & Tyler Raborn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44nP7ClxM

Why We Love Les Miles

Tyler Raborn —  Thursday, January 3, 2013 — Leave a comment

Yes, it’s true that the Mad Hatter has his flaws (See: Chick-fil-A Bowl). But, his lack of time management skills is easily overcome by some of his stronger traits:

His Clarification Abilities…

His Dedication to the Team, Literally… and Virtually…

His Physical and Mental Health Awareness…

And of Course, His Fashion Sense…

What if?

What if Texas A&M hadn’t joined the SEC? What if the Heisman Trophy winner had played the 2012 season against predominantly Big 12 opponents? What if?

Well… here’s what if:

Johnny Manziel would have had the single greatest college football season OF ALL TIME.

I’m not the type to make arbitrary statements. I asked myself these same questions and researched the applicable statistics. And then, well… and then I realized…

Johnny Manziel would have had the single greatest college football season OF ALL TIME.

Here’s how…

First, I looked at Texas A&M’s opponents this year and how those opponents did against every other team they played. Specifically, I looked out how many yards and points they allowed in those games.

So, here’s Texas A&M’s 2012 opponents, with the yards they allowed per game (“YAPG”) and the points they allowed per game (“PAPG”):

Opponent

YAPG

PAPG

Florida 283.42 12.92
SMU 400.25 27.00
South Carolina St. N/A N/A
Arkansas 409.92 30.42
Ole Miss 385.00 28.50
Louisiana Tech 526.08 38.50
LSU 296.17 16.92
Auburn 420.50 28.33
Mississippi State 389.92 22.42
Alabama 246.00 10.33
Sam Houston St. N/A N/A
Missouri 390.67 28.42

In order to obtain a more applicable statistic, I adjusted the YAPG and PAPG for each of Texas A&M’s opponents. These adjusted statistics remove each team’s game against Texas A&M, so that it gives a more accurate depiction of what the team did against every team other than Texas A&M. So here’s Texas A&M’s 2012 opponents, with their adjusted yards and points allowed per game:

Opponent

Adjusted YAPG

Adjusted PAPG

Florida 278.82 12.55
SMU 381.64 25.09
South Carolina St. N/A N/A
Arkansas 382.09 27.91
Ole Miss 376.29 28.36
Louisiana Tech 512.27 36.64
LSU 285.82 16.73
Auburn 397.73 25.18
Mississippi State 362.37 21.00
Alabama 230.36 8.63
Sam Houston St. N/A N/A
Missouri 367.37 25.64

Side Note: Yes- Removing the Texas A&M game from Alabama’s schedule would have lowered their points allowed per game to a nearly unfathomable 8.63 points a game.

Moving on…

Then, I looked at Texas A&M’s actual performance, in yards and points, against those teams in comparison to how many yards and points those teams typically allowed. Here’s Texas A&M’s actual performance against their opponents in 2012:

Opponent

Yards (Adjusted YAPG)

Points (Adjusted PAPG)

Florida 334 (278.82) 17 (12.55)
SMU 605 (381.64) 48 (25.09)
South Carolina St. N/A N/A
Arkansas 716 (382.09) 58 (27.91)
Ole Miss 481 (376.29) 30 (28.36)
Louisiana Tech 678 (512.27) 59 (36.64)
LSU 410 (285.82) 19 (16.73)
Auburn 671 (397.73) 63 (25.18)
Mississippi State 693 (362.37) 38 (21.00)
Alabama 418 (230.36) 29 (8.63)
Sam Houston St. N/A N/A
Missouri 647 (367.37) 59 (25.64)

Next, I had to compare that to how Johnny Football did in each of those games, so here’s Johnny Manziel’s stats, total yards gained and total touchdowns scored, in each game this year:

Opponent

Manziel’s Total Yards

Manziel’s Total Touchdowns

Florida 233 1
SMU 418 6
South Carolina St. 252 5
Arkansas 557 4
Ole Miss 320 2
Louisiana Tech 576 6
LSU 303 0
Auburn 350 5
Mississippi State 440 2
Alabama 345 2
Sam Houston St. 367 5
Missouri 439 5
Totals 4,600 43

Now comes the fun part. I removed all non-FBS games (South Carolina State and Sam Houston State) and determined percentages, which represented (1) Texas A&M’s total yards gained in relation to their opponents average yards allowed per game and (2) Texas A&M’s points scored in relation to their opponents average points allowed per game. The percentage for Texas A&M’s yards gained was 159%, and the percentage for Texas A&M’s points scored was 191%. In other words, Texas A&M gained 59% more yards and scored 91% more points than their opponents typically allowed.

Further, I had to determine Manziel’s total contribution to the offense this year. After dividing Texas A&M’s total offense by Manziel’s total yards gained in each game, and then averaging all of the games to figure out his percentage of contribution per game, I determined that 70.8% of the offense per game was attributable to Manziel. Using the same process, I determined he was also responsible for 47.1% of Texas A&M’s points scored per game.

So, next, I had to apply these statistics to Texas A&M’s schedule if they were still in the Big 12.

If Texas A&M had not made the switch to the SEC, here is what their 2012 schedule* would have most likely looked like:

Opponent

2012 YAPG

2012 PAPG

SMU 400.25 27.00
Arkansas 409.92 30.42
Louisiana Tech 526.08 38.50
Missouri 390.67 28.42
Oklahoma 381.36 24.82
Oklahoma State 409.09 28.36
Baylor 509.73 38.55
Texas Tech 367.25 31.83
Texas 417.73 28.27
Iowa State 444.83 23.33
Kansas 466.82 34.00
Kansas State 371.00 20.82

*I determined this schedule by combining their old projected conference schedule (not including West Virginia or TCU) with the first non-conference games they scheduled (SMU, Arkansas, and Louisiana Tech). 

So, I derived a formula for determining Manziel’s total yards gained in each game:

Opponent's YAPG x Texas A&M's Performance % x Manziel's Contribution % = Manziel's Total Yards Gained

For instance, Kansas allowed 466.82 yards per game this year. Plugging that into the formula with Texas A&M’s performance percentage (which for yards we know is 159%) and Manziel’s contribution percentage (70.8%), we get:

466.82 x 159% x 70.8% = 525.51

So, according to my formula, Manziel would have gained 525.51 total yards against Kansas. Similarly, here’s the same basic formula for Manziel’s points per game:

Opponent's PAPG x Texas A&M's Performance % x Manziel's Contribution % = Manziel's Points Scored

Applying these formulas to each game, here’s Johnny Football’s stats for 2012 in the Big 12 (numbers rounded to the nearest hundredth):

Opponent

Manziel’s Total Yards Gained

Manziel’s Points Scored

SMU 418* 36*
Arkansas 557* 24*
Louisiana Tech 576* 36*
Missouri 439* 30*
Oklahoma 429.30 22.97
Oklahoma State 460.52 26.25
Baylor 573.81 35.68
Texas Tech 413.42 29.46
Texas 470.25 26.16
Iowa State 500.75 21.59
Kansas 525.51 31.47
Kansas State 417.64 19.27
Totals 5,781.21 Yards 338.85 (~56.48 Touchdowns)

*I did not apply the formula to games Texas A&M actually played this year, I just used Manziel’s actual stats in those games.

Thus, according to my unqualified opinion, and assuming a lot of variables, Johnny Manziel would have had 5,781 yards and 56 touchdowns in 2012 during the 12-game regular season. He would have gained 1,181 more yards and scored 13 more touchdowns than he actually did this year.

But, that’s not all historians include in the stats…

As of 2002, single season records include postseason statistics. So, I’m going to take my assumptions one step (or maybe several steps) further. I think Texas A&M wins every single one of those games. Which, puts them in the National Championship*, playing an undefeated… Alabama. Alabama’s only loss came from Texas A&M, and we removed them from the SEC, remember? And as to how that National Championship game would go, well, we all know what happened when Texas A&M actually played Alabama…

*Yes, I know Notre Dame would be undefeated, but I think the computers would have given the number 2 spot to Texas A&M, placing Notre Dame at number 3, and subsequently, out of the National Championship game.

So, if you add Manziel’s actual performance against Alabama, 345 total yards and 2 touchdowns, that would give Manziel 6,126 total yards and 58 total touchdowns for the 2012 season. With 6,126 total yards, Johnny Football would have broken the record for total offense in a single season, which is currently held by B.J. Symons with 5,976 yards (2003). It would also place him only 4 touchdowns shy of Colt Brennan’s record of 63 touchdowns in a season (2006).

So, in conclusion, if Texas A&M had been in the Big 12 this year, Johnny Manziel would have broken the record for total offense in a single season, won the Heisman, and won the National Championship. In other words…

Johnny Manziel would have had the single greatest college football season OF ALL TIME.

———-

By: Tyler Raborn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ECoR__tJNQ