Foil in the Oven: In Defense of the BCS, In Defense of Rajon Rondo, and in Defense of Hating the Dallas Cowboys

For my first order of business, as I did last year, I'd like to make a preemptive strike against all of those fans, coaches, players, analysts, and politicians who are gearing up for their annual bashing of the BCS, which is set to begin soon. It's gotten to the point now where we are all programmed to believe that the BCS system is somehow inherently unfair and unjust. We're supposed to blindly agree that it doesn't work the same way we're supposed to agree that kids shouldn't smoke cigarettes and fast food is unhealthy. Politicians are even speaking out and taking action against this system not because they truly feel it an abomination, but rather because there is seemingly no other matter on which the American people seem more passionately unified.


My biggest fear in all of this is not that the BCS might be changed. The system is certainly imperfect, and the methods for which a national champion are chosen could no doubt be improved. Rather, I worry that as the naysayers are swept up in all of the anti-BCS hysteria, they lose sight of the fact that this system is an improvement over what was in place before. And, most of the time, the system gets it right.


Obviously, the biggest issue that people have with the BCS is that teams are not given the chance to settle things on the field. Teams can make it through an entire season unscathed, and still be denied the chance to compete for the national championship. It doesn't feel right. However, the only way to fix this trouble would be to implement a playoff system, which is something we've never had.


Many people act as if the BCS was implemented in place of a previously existing playoff tournament. Not the case. In fact, before the BCS, there was no national championship game, and the potential for trouble was far greater. John Flinn, loyal Michigan Wolverine fan and roomofzen follower, still tenses up when he discusses the 1997 season, the final season before the BCS. His Michigan Wolverines were 11-0, and had one of the most dynamic players in the history of college football (Charles Woodson). John swears up and down (and it's hard to argue with him) that the Wolverines were the best team in college football. By taking care of business against PAC-10 champion Washington State, he argues, they should have earned their sole place as national champions. Instead, they (the AP poll champs) had to share their championship with the Coaches Poll champion, Nebraska.


Both Michigan and Nebraska finished their seasons undefeated, and were clearly the two best teams in college football. There is no question that they should have been playing each other for the national championship. However, because the old system offered no such game, and they were instead each forced to play one loss teams in their Bowl Games. This was our old system, and we survived with it for a long time. I don't see how you can think we haven't made progress in the past 10-12 years.




Look, if it could work, I'm all in favor of a playoff system. College football is a spectator sport, and this would add more excitement and draw in more fans. That's why it would be great. More drama, more tailgating, more rowdy screaming fans, and more cheerleaders. It would scratch the fans right where they itch, and sports are all about the fans. That's the most persuasive argument for a playoff system. However, it's not the one I normally hear. Most people who argue in favor of a playoff system because they think it would do a better job than the BCS currently does of finding us college football's two best teams. On this, I disagree.


Last year, T wrote about a book he had read called The Drunkard's Walk by Leonard Mlodinow. The book talkes about randomness in the world, and deals mostly with statistics. My wife really enjoys studying statistics and also is a college football fan. She posed this question to me today when discussing the BCS vs. playoff system issue (and she wants me to be clear that she wasn't giving an opinion here): Who deserves to be in the championship game more: the team who wins 1 actual game or the team who would win more often over the course of hundreds of games?. She then referenced this passage from The Drunkard's Walk (note, he is discussing baseball and a 7 game series, but the passage is still relevant):


"....you will discover that in a 7 game series, there is a sizeable chance that the inferior team will be crowned champion. For instance, if one team is good enough to warrant beating another in 55% of it's games, the inferior team will nevertheless win a 7 game series about 4 times out of 10. And, if the superior team could be expected to beat its opponent on average 2 out of ever 3 times they meet, the inferior team will still win a 7 game series about once every 5 matches. There is really no way for sports leagues to change this. In the lopsided 2/3 probability case, for example, you'd have to play a series consisting of at minumum the best of 23 games to determine the winner with what is called statistical significance, meaning the weaker team would be crowned champion 5 percent or less of the time. And in the case of one team's having only a 55-45 edge, the shortest statistically significant "world series" would be the best of 269 games, a tedious endeavor indeed!" (pages 70-71)


What this tells us is that a playoff tournament would probably be less effective at giving us the two best teams in the nation at season's end than a system that factors in season-long trends, the vote of people who know the game well, and algorithms that crunch statistics that go beyond simply wins and losses. Take our current season. There are two clear classes of undefeated. We have the juggernauts: Texas, Florida, and Alabama. If all goes according to plan, two of these three will meet in the national championship. When this happens, the fans of the other undefeated teams (potentially Iowa, TCU, Boise State, and Cincinnati) will no doubt scream injustice, particularly mid-major fans. Well, sure, there is no doubt that in a one-game playoff situation Iowa, TCU, Boise, State, or Cincinnati COULD upset Florida, Texas, or Alabama. Anything can happen in one game. But, would that really mean that they are better than Florida, Texas, or Alabama? No. Wouldn't you know that you weren't watching the two best teams if Iowa or Cincinnati were in the game? Yes, you would. If all you're really concerned about is finding the two best teams, this system is probably more accurate than a playoff would be.


Perhaps I have veered all over the map here, so I'll try to sum up what I'm trying to say to the BCS bashers. First, you should be glad that we have a national championship game. It hasn't always been so. Next, a playoff system would no doubt be amazing, because it would add a great deal of excitement and upset potential. But, there is evidence that what we have in place might actually be more effective at finding the two best teams. Also, given the stadium and media contracts involved, I wonder if the logistics are as easy to overcome as people think (for the record, I'm still in favor of a playoff, because this is a spectator sport, and who ends up winning at the end has no real global implications one way or the other).

And, lastly, college football is awesome, and you shouldn't let all this negativity ruin it for you.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sources report that the Celtics and Rajon Rondo are going to make one last effort on Sunday to reach a contract extension. I will be at the Garden Sunday night to see the Cs and Hornets, and I am very hopeful that before tipoff the announcement will come that the sides have finally reached an agreement.


Look, I understand why the Cs are hesitant to overpay here. They have the right to match any offers after the season, and doing so is a great way to make sure they're not dishing out more than what the market commands (sucks to be restricted). But, there is something that really doesn't feel right about the way this whole thing has been handled. The negativity that came out over the summer did not sit well with me. This guy needs to be a Celtic for life, and even though I know they wouldn't let him go in the offseason, I'd feel great about getting it done now.

Take a look at Rondo's line from Friday night against the Bulls: 1-2 from the field with 2 points, 8 rebounds, 16 assists, and only 2 turnovers. There could not be a more perfect line from the point guard of this team. He was totally in control of the game, forcing nothing, letting things come to him, not concerned with how many shots he gets, and distributing the ball to his scorers. On top of that, he is one of the best guards in the league when it comes to rebounding and defense. Mike Gorman said on Friday night that the Cs have been working hard to increase the number of deflections that they get on defense. They have been tracking the stat in practice and in games. Rondo was the first guy I thought of, because he is so good at getting into the passing lanes and disrupting opponents' flow.

I won't say he's the best point guard in the league. But, I will say that I NEVER look at other ones and think "god, I wish we could have him instead of Rondo." The thought has never crossed my mind. At least not in the past two years.


That being said, am I excited to see Chris Paul tonight?....



----------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm a sucker for articles like this one from Green Street that describe what great chemistry the Celtics have. I sent it around to a bunch of people, and we all had the same reaction: great article, but why the hell is Rasheed Wallace a Chiefs fan? I wouldn't expect that. We all agreed that maybe Sheed was from the Kansas City area. I left it alone for a few weeks.


However, then Steve Buckley had this to say in the Boston Herald on Thursday:

"Coming off the bench with 4:06 remaining in the first quarter of the Celtics' too-easy, 92-59 victory against the Charlotte Bobcats in last night's Garden opener, Wallace got the place rocking just 40 seconds later when he pumped in a 3-pointer from 25 feet out. Ninety seconds later, he did it again. And the place rocked again. He had three treys and nine points in all. Could the new guy feel the love? 'I didn't feel it, I heard it,' he said as he buttoned up his stylish black-and-white Philadelphia Phillies warmup jacket, all while glancing at the flat screen to check out his hometown nine's Game 1 victory in the World Series. [...] 'Guys were talking about it on the plane (ride home from Cleveland). They said, ‘The fans here ... they're going to be crazy.' And you felt that as soon as they said, ‘And now, your starting lineup for your Boston Celtics.' Wallace then did a cool imitation of a roaring crowd. It's simple as this: He fits in. He has played just two games with the Celtics, one at home, yet somehow it seems as if he's been around for a long time, an old soldier of the parquet."


Now...obviously chemistry piece is great and Sheed is such a good fit here....but, more importantly...Sheed a Chiefs fan? This doesn't add up.

1. He is from Philadelphia, and this article suggests that he supports his hometown teams. So, you'd think he'd be an Eagles fan.

2. Even if he didn't like the Eagles (no argument from me), there are a clear pool of favorites from which fans generally draw. It includes the Cowboys, Raiders,and Packers. The Chiefs are not one of these teams. I find it hard to believe he would have arrived on this conclusion by himself.

3. Sometimes there are historical trends in certain areas that explain why fans choose against their home teams. Many people in New York are Dodgers or SF Giants fans. I am one of many Giants fans living in Massachusetts because my father grew up rooting for the Giants. But, I cannot for the life of me think of any reason why someone growing up in Philly would find themselves rooting for the Chiefs.

This all had me stumped on Thursday. I chewed on this stuff all day, and finally came up with this answer, which seems the most logical. But, unless I actually get the chance to sit Sheed down and talk to him, I won't be satisfied.

My explanation: Ok, the original Green Street article scene begins with Kendrick Perkins declaring the greatness of the Cowboys to the Celtics lockerroom. Sheed then interjects as he cheers for his alleged "favorite team", the Kansas City Chiefs. He gloated as Perk walked off into the trainers room when the Chiefs scored to sent the game into overtime.

I'm a Giants fan, and I would do the same thing if I were watching that game with a Cowboys fan. Everyone hates the Cowboys, particularly NFC East fans. I wouldn't be surprised if Sheed were an Eagles fan. At the very least, I suspect that growing up around so many Eagles fans taught him to hate Dallas. I believe that Sheed's gloating was nothing more than anti-cowboy sentiment. The writer, in this case, chose to assume him a Chiefs fan, because it paints the perfect picture of a lockerroom scene: two big men taking in a matchup beween their favorite teams.

Unless I hear otherwise, this issue has been put to rest in my mind.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Having free NBA League Pass this week has been great, and I thought I would end with some quick thoughts I have from flipping around the League Pass channels this week:

- One nice thing about League Pass is that you see teams you wouldn't see otherwise. I haven't watched the Kings play anyone but the Celtics in years. I caught parts of all their games this week, as they played three teams I wanted to see (Thunder, Hornets, and Spurs). The Kings aren't good. But, they are young, and they aren't boring. In particular, I was impressed with Jason Thompson, who appears to be a strong rebounder and a pretty solid all-around piece.


- If I were a Rockets fan, I would be absolutely loving this team. They are uptempo, and they have all hustle guys and overachievers. Trevor Ariza showed me more this week than Tracy McGrady ever has in terms of his prowess as a complete player. The Rockets, even without T-MAC and Yao, will be a tough out for everyone, and will give their fans something to be excited about all season.


- I am not afraid of the Cavaliers. That game with the Bobcats on Saturday night was much closer than the score indicates. I am hoping, with every fiber of my being, that Stephen Jackson and Ronny Turiaf come over and Big Z is run out of town. Big Z has always created matchup problems for the Celtics because of his shooting range. He spaces out the defense. If he is gone, this is going to be the most predictable and easy-to-plan-for offense in the NBA. LeBron could score 38 every night and it won't matter. On top of that, it will leave a greater burden on the old, achy, flabby back of Shaq.