We Just Can't Get No Respect
Right now I have a great big complaint with espn.com, which is one of the only sites I check regularly for news and opinions about sports (i.e., about College Football, this month). Maybe that's a bad plan, but I think it's mostly because espn.com is just way prettier than the other sites I've looked at. Could be the writers, but I doubt it.
Anyway, my complaint right now is that espn.com's columnists have nearly all turned into, of all things, Big East apologists. Even better, today there's a Big Ten-bashing column. I guess all this makes sense, since there's nothing creative about suggesting that the Big Ten is better than the Big East. I take issue, however, with the writers who don't seem to have watched the games they use as evidence. Michigan is lousy because they let Ball State get close. Louisville is great because they beat West Virginia at all. Who cares whether Michigan was playing first or third stringers? Who cares that Louisville benefitted greatly from five turnovers, mostly unforced?
Scoreboards matter only so far as you have to knock teams down from the upper eschelon if they can't finish a game, and actually lose. Beyond that, you need to watch a game to judge the quality of a win - the scoreboard does not tell the whole story.
And here's a good line - "So, hats off to Michigan, but Notre Dame hasn't been that sloppy since, and Manningham isn't certain to regain the form this season that made him a star that day." Since when does it hurt Michigan that Notre Dame has played well all season, after they dominated Notre Dame on both sides of the ball? All of a sudden, Notre Dame's play was "sloppy," not "greatly affected by the constant pressure on Quinn and the fact that there was no space to run." I'll grant that Super Mario was involved in a lot of the Wolverines' points that day, but I daresay we could have gotten most of them through other avenues, although it might have taken a little longer. Plus, since when do we downplay teams because we're projecting that players will pull up lame?
Oh - and my biggest complaint with the Big East boosters was actually this - every article I see that downplays the schedule and wins of Big Ten and SEC teams conveniently omits the parallel coverage of the Big East teams they claim are comparable. Prior to last Thursday, it was a joke to compare the top tier of the Big East to the rest of the BCS Top 10, in terms of teams they had played. Fortunately, all the writers who were pretending to, didn't. They just suggested that maybe the Big Ten and SEC weren't that good, and then neglected the fact that WVU and Louisville had both played nobody. (In fact, I still submit that it's possible that Louisville hasn't played anybody.)
Anyway, my complaint right now is that espn.com's columnists have nearly all turned into, of all things, Big East apologists. Even better, today there's a Big Ten-bashing column. I guess all this makes sense, since there's nothing creative about suggesting that the Big Ten is better than the Big East. I take issue, however, with the writers who don't seem to have watched the games they use as evidence. Michigan is lousy because they let Ball State get close. Louisville is great because they beat West Virginia at all. Who cares whether Michigan was playing first or third stringers? Who cares that Louisville benefitted greatly from five turnovers, mostly unforced?
Scoreboards matter only so far as you have to knock teams down from the upper eschelon if they can't finish a game, and actually lose. Beyond that, you need to watch a game to judge the quality of a win - the scoreboard does not tell the whole story.
And here's a good line - "So, hats off to Michigan, but Notre Dame hasn't been that sloppy since, and Manningham isn't certain to regain the form this season that made him a star that day." Since when does it hurt Michigan that Notre Dame has played well all season, after they dominated Notre Dame on both sides of the ball? All of a sudden, Notre Dame's play was "sloppy," not "greatly affected by the constant pressure on Quinn and the fact that there was no space to run." I'll grant that Super Mario was involved in a lot of the Wolverines' points that day, but I daresay we could have gotten most of them through other avenues, although it might have taken a little longer. Plus, since when do we downplay teams because we're projecting that players will pull up lame?
Oh - and my biggest complaint with the Big East boosters was actually this - every article I see that downplays the schedule and wins of Big Ten and SEC teams conveniently omits the parallel coverage of the Big East teams they claim are comparable. Prior to last Thursday, it was a joke to compare the top tier of the Big East to the rest of the BCS Top 10, in terms of teams they had played. Fortunately, all the writers who were pretending to, didn't. They just suggested that maybe the Big Ten and SEC weren't that good, and then neglected the fact that WVU and Louisville had both played nobody. (In fact, I still submit that it's possible that Louisville hasn't played anybody.)
posted by john (east lansing, mi) at 3:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home