Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Apologies
Vinny Del Negro hasn't been fired yet, but the article I read said that according to a source inside Bulls management, the decision to fire Del Negro has already been made. Del Negro denied the report. However, I believe that his tenure as Bulls coach is basically over and its only a matter of time. Therefore my previous post was incorrect, but in the case he does get fired soon, my opinion stands. Thanks!
Monday, December 28, 2009
Bulls' Del Negro getting a raw deal
Chicago Bulls coach Vinny Del Negro was fired earlier today in a move that had been speculated for weeks. After the Bulls blew a 35 points second half lead to the Kings earlier this month, Del Negro has been on the hottest seat of any coach in the NBA.
Explain to me one thing though, how is this season Del Negros' fault? Last season Del Negro guided the Bulls to the 8th seed in the Easter Conference playoffs, where the Bulls lost to the Celtics in seven games in what is considered one of the best postseason series in the history of the NBA. During the off-season, Bulls management thought it would be a good idea to not resign the teams best shooter and proven scorer in Ben Gordon. Derrick Rose is now forced to carry this team on his own, as the Bulls' next best scorer besides Rose is John Salmons.
A classic example of a head coach getting a raw deal. Del Negro is forced to work with the pieces he has. Maybe the 11-17 record the Bulls currently have isn't Vinnys fault. I know the Eastern Conference is a joke, but how could Bulls management think that letting Ben Gordon walk would improve the team. I know sometimes you have to take a step backwards to go forward, but not in this case. I don't care if you have the best coach in the world, if you don't have any talent for him to work with, he can't succeed. Same goes if you have the best players in the world and an awful coach, those players won't be in the position to succeed. Bulls management didn't put Del Negro in a psoition to succeed. Its like he was walking the plank from the first game this season. But really, what could Bulls management expect with such a mediocre (at best) roster?
Explain to me one thing though, how is this season Del Negros' fault? Last season Del Negro guided the Bulls to the 8th seed in the Easter Conference playoffs, where the Bulls lost to the Celtics in seven games in what is considered one of the best postseason series in the history of the NBA. During the off-season, Bulls management thought it would be a good idea to not resign the teams best shooter and proven scorer in Ben Gordon. Derrick Rose is now forced to carry this team on his own, as the Bulls' next best scorer besides Rose is John Salmons.
A classic example of a head coach getting a raw deal. Del Negro is forced to work with the pieces he has. Maybe the 11-17 record the Bulls currently have isn't Vinnys fault. I know the Eastern Conference is a joke, but how could Bulls management think that letting Ben Gordon walk would improve the team. I know sometimes you have to take a step backwards to go forward, but not in this case. I don't care if you have the best coach in the world, if you don't have any talent for him to work with, he can't succeed. Same goes if you have the best players in the world and an awful coach, those players won't be in the position to succeed. Bulls management didn't put Del Negro in a psoition to succeed. Its like he was walking the plank from the first game this season. But really, what could Bulls management expect with such a mediocre (at best) roster?
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Tell me this is just a nightmare and I'll wake up..
Now I am an avid football fan. I also love basketball as well. I used to play football, and I used to wrestle as well. I have never played organized basketball, but still love the sport. I am a big fan of high school wrestling as well. However, baseball is a different sport to me. I have played since I was 4 years old and still do, and I love stepping on that diamond each and every day during the summer. I love baseball more than most things. Its special to me and I care a lot about it. After reading a certain article though, I was immediately in a state of disbelief. Check this article out.
Now what is your first reaction. I'll tell you mine. I was first mad. Then I was in a state of shock. Who says that the SEC has the right to change the rules of the national past time? Since when can you change the rules of a game just to fit your schedule and suit you better? This is a joke.
What wasn't mentioned in the article is the worst part. If the batter is not ready before that 20 second "play clock" is up, a strike is called. If the pitcher is not ready, a ball is called. Sorry, but the last time I checked, a strike could only be called on you if you were in the box and didn't swing at a called strike, or swung and missed, or fouled a pitch off. Not if you weren't ready. I know baseball games can take a long time, and there are certainly those that do not like how long the game takes. To me though, that's the beauty of the sport.
In basketball, you have a 24 or 35 seconds to shoot. You have 5 seconds to inbound the ball. You play four 12 minute quarters. Rules are different for different levels, but the one thing that remains the same, you are timed. There is a certain amount of time you have to make a play and to win a game.
In football, you have a certain amount of time before you are forced to run an offensive play, or you are penalized. You play four quarters. Again, you only have a certain amount of time to win a game.
In baseball though, you have 27 outs. You get as many or as little amount of swings you need, but its up to you to make the most of them. There is no time limit. The game is endless and you never face the pressure of having two minutes left on the clock down by 6 points. Instead, you have 3 outs left down by 1 run. Now those 3 outs can take as long as you want. You can have as long of an at bat as you want, but you decide whether you're getting on base or going back to the dugout.
Now I know these rule changes won't directly affect the score of a game, or will it? What if I'm batting. My team is down 2-1 in the 9th inning. We have 2 outs, and a runner on second. Its a 3-1 count. There is a lot of pressure on me, but I do not have to swing at the next pitch. If the next pitch is on the corner, I can wait for the next one and try to drive that. Now lets say I took just a second too long to get ready to hit in the batters box. Their is strike two, and I never even saw a pitch, thus I never had a chance to WIN THE GAME. Now its 3-2. I have to protect the plate. I have to swing at anything relatively close. I swing at that nasty curveball on the corner and I miss. I'm out, game over, we lose. What if that pitch was only the second strike though? Maybe I could have swung at the next pitch, looking for another sort of offspeed pitch that I can drive. Then maybe I tie the game. Maybe, just maybe, we win the game.
Whats worst about these rule changes are that no one knows how widely they will spread. The SEC is going to see how these changes affect the SEC tournament, and if the SEC likes what they see, they may implement the changes in to the regular season. Then maybe all of college baseball does it. Then maybe it trickles down to high school baseball. Maybe a new commissioner after Selig likes the idea, and adds it to the MLB. To be honest, I don't even like the idea of instant replay in baseball. I know i'm only 17, but I'm old fashioned. I like how the game was played in the early 1900's. If the ump calls a line drive fair and it ends up being the game winning hit, thats how the cookie crumbles sometimes. There shouldn't be an opportunity to double check whether the ump really got it right, because that to me is compromising the integrity of the game. Getting screwed over by an ump on a bad call is the way the game goes sometimes, and you just have to live with it. I know, I have been in that position hundreds of times before. Now there is talk of one day getting rid of umps and having a computer call balls and strikes. I could not be more against these changes. You are completely eliminating the entire human element of the game. Why not have robots play the game instead of humans?
Bottom line, leave baseball the way it was. When hot dogs and cracker jacks were ballpark favorites. When the losing team left the park complaining about how they got screwed on a terrible "strike 3" call. Leave baseball as it was, don't compromise the game just because oen generation lacks patience and the ability to find beauty in our national past time.
Now what is your first reaction. I'll tell you mine. I was first mad. Then I was in a state of shock. Who says that the SEC has the right to change the rules of the national past time? Since when can you change the rules of a game just to fit your schedule and suit you better? This is a joke.
What wasn't mentioned in the article is the worst part. If the batter is not ready before that 20 second "play clock" is up, a strike is called. If the pitcher is not ready, a ball is called. Sorry, but the last time I checked, a strike could only be called on you if you were in the box and didn't swing at a called strike, or swung and missed, or fouled a pitch off. Not if you weren't ready. I know baseball games can take a long time, and there are certainly those that do not like how long the game takes. To me though, that's the beauty of the sport.
In basketball, you have a 24 or 35 seconds to shoot. You have 5 seconds to inbound the ball. You play four 12 minute quarters. Rules are different for different levels, but the one thing that remains the same, you are timed. There is a certain amount of time you have to make a play and to win a game.
In football, you have a certain amount of time before you are forced to run an offensive play, or you are penalized. You play four quarters. Again, you only have a certain amount of time to win a game.
In baseball though, you have 27 outs. You get as many or as little amount of swings you need, but its up to you to make the most of them. There is no time limit. The game is endless and you never face the pressure of having two minutes left on the clock down by 6 points. Instead, you have 3 outs left down by 1 run. Now those 3 outs can take as long as you want. You can have as long of an at bat as you want, but you decide whether you're getting on base or going back to the dugout.
Now I know these rule changes won't directly affect the score of a game, or will it? What if I'm batting. My team is down 2-1 in the 9th inning. We have 2 outs, and a runner on second. Its a 3-1 count. There is a lot of pressure on me, but I do not have to swing at the next pitch. If the next pitch is on the corner, I can wait for the next one and try to drive that. Now lets say I took just a second too long to get ready to hit in the batters box. Their is strike two, and I never even saw a pitch, thus I never had a chance to WIN THE GAME. Now its 3-2. I have to protect the plate. I have to swing at anything relatively close. I swing at that nasty curveball on the corner and I miss. I'm out, game over, we lose. What if that pitch was only the second strike though? Maybe I could have swung at the next pitch, looking for another sort of offspeed pitch that I can drive. Then maybe I tie the game. Maybe, just maybe, we win the game.
Whats worst about these rule changes are that no one knows how widely they will spread. The SEC is going to see how these changes affect the SEC tournament, and if the SEC likes what they see, they may implement the changes in to the regular season. Then maybe all of college baseball does it. Then maybe it trickles down to high school baseball. Maybe a new commissioner after Selig likes the idea, and adds it to the MLB. To be honest, I don't even like the idea of instant replay in baseball. I know i'm only 17, but I'm old fashioned. I like how the game was played in the early 1900's. If the ump calls a line drive fair and it ends up being the game winning hit, thats how the cookie crumbles sometimes. There shouldn't be an opportunity to double check whether the ump really got it right, because that to me is compromising the integrity of the game. Getting screwed over by an ump on a bad call is the way the game goes sometimes, and you just have to live with it. I know, I have been in that position hundreds of times before. Now there is talk of one day getting rid of umps and having a computer call balls and strikes. I could not be more against these changes. You are completely eliminating the entire human element of the game. Why not have robots play the game instead of humans?
Bottom line, leave baseball the way it was. When hot dogs and cracker jacks were ballpark favorites. When the losing team left the park complaining about how they got screwed on a terrible "strike 3" call. Leave baseball as it was, don't compromise the game just because oen generation lacks patience and the ability to find beauty in our national past time.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The BCS system got it right
Whenever you hear anyone talk about college football these days, at some point the argument over the BCS rankings comes in. I think the BCS got it right this year.
Florida was crushed by Alabama. They looked lifeless. So Alabama easily took the #1 spot in the polls, and after Texas narrowly escaped from Nebraska, they deserve a shot in the title game.
"Well, what about TCU, Boise State, or Cincinnati? They all went undefeated, how can they not get in to the title game?"
Believe me, I feel your pain. I'll explain it to you how I see it though. In todays world of college football, its very competitive. You have to win every single week. And even if you do that, it may not be enough. Not only do you have to win, but win against good teams. I would rather give the nod to Texas, who finished the season 13-0 while playing in the Big 12, one of the four most competitive conferences in the nation, over TCU, Cincy, or Boise.
Texas beat good teams such as Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Nebraska.
TCU's had only two wins which I consider impressive. They defeated both BYU and Clemson, who are fringe top 25 teams to me.
Boises best win came against Oregon in the first week of the season. After that, no win is even close to impressive. UC Davis? Bowling Green? Idaho? Utah State? Come on now, Broncos. You want a title shot, your going to have a tough time playing in the WAC.
Cincinnati did play in a BCS conference, the Big East, but come on, the Big East is a basketball conference, not football. Oregon State, West Virginia, and narrowly escaping Pitt are all impressive victories to me, but the Big 12 is better than the Big East in football. Thats why Texas got in.
The bottom line is, it used to be all you had to do was focus on winning. Well now with so many competitive and talented teams, winning alone isn't good enough anymore. You have to win, win convincingly, and against good teams.
Texas did that, and they are led by the best QB in the nation, so they get the nod over the Bearcats. Can Cincinatti really be disappointed though? They get a shot to prove how good they are againt Florida in the Sugar Bowl. They have the chance to prove everyone wrong.
For TCU, they didn't lose a game, but it has to do with the schedule.
Florida was crushed by Alabama. They looked lifeless. So Alabama easily took the #1 spot in the polls, and after Texas narrowly escaped from Nebraska, they deserve a shot in the title game.
"Well, what about TCU, Boise State, or Cincinnati? They all went undefeated, how can they not get in to the title game?"
Believe me, I feel your pain. I'll explain it to you how I see it though. In todays world of college football, its very competitive. You have to win every single week. And even if you do that, it may not be enough. Not only do you have to win, but win against good teams. I would rather give the nod to Texas, who finished the season 13-0 while playing in the Big 12, one of the four most competitive conferences in the nation, over TCU, Cincy, or Boise.
Texas beat good teams such as Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Nebraska.
TCU's had only two wins which I consider impressive. They defeated both BYU and Clemson, who are fringe top 25 teams to me.
Boises best win came against Oregon in the first week of the season. After that, no win is even close to impressive. UC Davis? Bowling Green? Idaho? Utah State? Come on now, Broncos. You want a title shot, your going to have a tough time playing in the WAC.
Cincinnati did play in a BCS conference, the Big East, but come on, the Big East is a basketball conference, not football. Oregon State, West Virginia, and narrowly escaping Pitt are all impressive victories to me, but the Big 12 is better than the Big East in football. Thats why Texas got in.
The bottom line is, it used to be all you had to do was focus on winning. Well now with so many competitive and talented teams, winning alone isn't good enough anymore. You have to win, win convincingly, and against good teams.
Texas did that, and they are led by the best QB in the nation, so they get the nod over the Bearcats. Can Cincinatti really be disappointed though? They get a shot to prove how good they are againt Florida in the Sugar Bowl. They have the chance to prove everyone wrong.
For TCU, they didn't lose a game, but it has to do with the schedule.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
It's good to be back..
I apologize for not updating this for over a month. My weekly workload has definitely increased within the last month. I just finished applying to most of my colleges on Sunday. Between that, my high schools basketball team is now underway and they have their first game Saturday. I'm not on the team, but I am very involved with the team as I am sort of the leader of my schools student section and I run the school flag out before games. I won't bore you with all of the other stuff thats kept me busy between college apps, basketball, work, off-season baseball workouts etc. I'll start getting back to actually spreading some light on the world of sports (Lets see if I remember how to do this..)
So how 'bout them Saints? Yeah I know. We have been hearing about them all year. But man, what a team they have. That Monday night drubbing of the Pats was a franchise changing win.
The Vikings look better and better and better with each passing week. They have possibly the best defensive player in the NFL in Jared Allen. They have arguably the best running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson. Last time I checked, to be successful in the NFL, a team needs to be able to run the ball and stop the run. Check and check. Oh yeah, Brett Favre is having a decent year too..
Peyton and the Colts tend to scare us every week, but who can remember the last time they lost a regular season game? Try October 27th, 2008. The Colts gave up 31 points to the Titans and lost that game 31-21. The Colts face the Tennessee Titans this weekend, who have won five straight. Does any QB-RB tandem in the NFL look better right now than the revived Vince Young and speedster Chris Johnson?
If I had to vote for MVP, these would be my top five candidates.
1.) Peyton Manning
2.) Drew Brees
3.) Chris Johnson
4.) Brett Favre
5.) Bruce Gradkowski
Ok, Ok. The last one is a joke. So before you go off and start punching your computer screen, realize it was a joke.
On a serious note, Peyton is the front runner right now for the MVP race. Now obviously one big reason is because the Colts are 12-0 and could finish undefeated, but perhaps whats even more significant is that this is with a rookie head coach! Jim Caldwell was on Tony Dungys staff for years, but how often does a rookie head coach start the season 12-0? Peyton has eased the transition of a new head coach as he is the coach on the field. He is more than a field general, he is an intelligent, well oiled machine that will out think your defense and knows that your going to blitz on 3rd down while he is still in the huddle for first down.
Brees has to be second because he is the quarterback of the other undefeated NFL team right now. Brees is in the same category with Manning and Brady now as the best QB in the game. And to think he began his career struggling with the Chargers, and people thought the former Boilermaker would never pan out.
Chris Johnson is third because he is less than 600 yards away from breaking Eric Dickersons single season rushing record of 2,105 yards- and we still have 4 games to play, however the Titans are only a disappointing 5-7. Without Johnson, this team would have two wins AT BEST. He makes this team go, but its going to be hard for him to win MVP with the Titans having seven losses and counting.
Brett Favre is easily in this conversation because statistically speaking, he is playing the best football of his career. At age 40! When Favre signed with the Vikings, I thought that he would put them at about a 9 or 10 win season and fade out towards the end of the season like he did last year with the Jets. However, the Vikings already have 10 wins and Favre has thrown 26 touchdowns and only 5 interceptions. Wait, is this the same gun slinging, risk taking Brett Favre we have always known? Yeah. The same Favre who threw 29 interceptions in 2005 has only thrown five this year. The Vikings are 10-2 and with losses only to last years superbowl teams (Arizona and Pittsburgh), Minnesota poses a real threat to New Orleans if they happen to meet up in the playoffs this year.
I'm not going to go in to detail about Bruce, but hell of a game by him at Pittsburgh, eh?
Four weeks left, and I'm going to try to update this thing more. I'm always on the go (who isn't these days?) but I'll do my best to get to this more. Anyways, I'm out for now.
So how 'bout them Saints? Yeah I know. We have been hearing about them all year. But man, what a team they have. That Monday night drubbing of the Pats was a franchise changing win.
The Vikings look better and better and better with each passing week. They have possibly the best defensive player in the NFL in Jared Allen. They have arguably the best running back in the NFL in Adrian Peterson. Last time I checked, to be successful in the NFL, a team needs to be able to run the ball and stop the run. Check and check. Oh yeah, Brett Favre is having a decent year too..
Peyton and the Colts tend to scare us every week, but who can remember the last time they lost a regular season game? Try October 27th, 2008. The Colts gave up 31 points to the Titans and lost that game 31-21. The Colts face the Tennessee Titans this weekend, who have won five straight. Does any QB-RB tandem in the NFL look better right now than the revived Vince Young and speedster Chris Johnson?
If I had to vote for MVP, these would be my top five candidates.
1.) Peyton Manning
2.) Drew Brees
3.) Chris Johnson
4.) Brett Favre
5.) Bruce Gradkowski
Ok, Ok. The last one is a joke. So before you go off and start punching your computer screen, realize it was a joke.
On a serious note, Peyton is the front runner right now for the MVP race. Now obviously one big reason is because the Colts are 12-0 and could finish undefeated, but perhaps whats even more significant is that this is with a rookie head coach! Jim Caldwell was on Tony Dungys staff for years, but how often does a rookie head coach start the season 12-0? Peyton has eased the transition of a new head coach as he is the coach on the field. He is more than a field general, he is an intelligent, well oiled machine that will out think your defense and knows that your going to blitz on 3rd down while he is still in the huddle for first down.
Brees has to be second because he is the quarterback of the other undefeated NFL team right now. Brees is in the same category with Manning and Brady now as the best QB in the game. And to think he began his career struggling with the Chargers, and people thought the former Boilermaker would never pan out.
Chris Johnson is third because he is less than 600 yards away from breaking Eric Dickersons single season rushing record of 2,105 yards- and we still have 4 games to play, however the Titans are only a disappointing 5-7. Without Johnson, this team would have two wins AT BEST. He makes this team go, but its going to be hard for him to win MVP with the Titans having seven losses and counting.
Brett Favre is easily in this conversation because statistically speaking, he is playing the best football of his career. At age 40! When Favre signed with the Vikings, I thought that he would put them at about a 9 or 10 win season and fade out towards the end of the season like he did last year with the Jets. However, the Vikings already have 10 wins and Favre has thrown 26 touchdowns and only 5 interceptions. Wait, is this the same gun slinging, risk taking Brett Favre we have always known? Yeah. The same Favre who threw 29 interceptions in 2005 has only thrown five this year. The Vikings are 10-2 and with losses only to last years superbowl teams (Arizona and Pittsburgh), Minnesota poses a real threat to New Orleans if they happen to meet up in the playoffs this year.
I'm not going to go in to detail about Bruce, but hell of a game by him at Pittsburgh, eh?
Four weeks left, and I'm going to try to update this thing more. I'm always on the go (who isn't these days?) but I'll do my best to get to this more. Anyways, I'm out for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)