Seeping Matter

I love watching SEC football, but I must admit I can’t stand LSU.  The main reason, in fact I think the only real reason, is because of Les Miles, the head coach.  I don’t think I can count the number of times I’ve watched LSU get totally outplayed throughout the duration of a game only to end up winning on some combination of luck, luck, and dumb luck.  However, even this is okay, I guess.  But then they interview coach Miles at the end of the game, and he proceeds to explain just what an incredible football team they are, and how they had everything totally in control and that things worked out exactly like he planned it.

So, pretty much every time LSU loses, I’m happy about it.  That included last weekend’s game with Ole Miss.  Seeing Ole Miss win the game was excellent.  The fact that, by winning, Ole Miss supplanted LSU as the second-ranked team in the SEC West was even better.  But the best of all was watching LSU completely fail to call their final timeout in a timely fashion, wasting some ten to twelve precious seconds off the clock, only to actually get a first down on 4th and 26 with one second remaining on the clock, and then cap it off by squandering their chance at victory by trying to spike the ball on what would obviously be the final play of the game.

That’s exactly what they did.  Apparently, Les Miles’ ego is so enormous that he thinks the laws of physics and even the nature of time itself does not apply to him or his team.  You can see him after the game complaining that his play to spike the ball took the final second off the clock, but he should have nobody to blame but his own arrogant self.

He obviously disagrees, though.  In the post-game press conference, he was more than happy to pin the loss squarely upon the shoulders of his sophomore quarterback, even though this video quite clearly shows Miles frantically calling for the spike and the quarterback incredulously and blindly following orders.

Hey LSU, I’d be happy to come and coach the team instead.  You could pay me a much lower salary than his $3.75 million, and I can almost assure you I wouldn’t be so boneheaded as to let that opportunity pass away without at least trying for victory, nor would I be so low as to try to defer blame away from myself and pin it upon a player.

I couldn’t be more pleased.  It’s about time he had to pay for his arrogance.

Ah, the opportunities for metaphor-speak, puns, and double entendres abound.  I’ll try to keep it straight here.  Try not to read between the lines.  I mean it.

Notre Dame is one of the most successful college football franchises in history, although recent years would make you wonder how it could have ever been so great.  Once as lofty a program as a gargoyle perched atop a cathedral, Notre Dame has fallen harder and faster than the priest Frollo did after being pushed by Quasimodo.  (I couldn’t help it.)

Charlie Weis should have been the savior of the franchise.  Indeed, in his first year it seemed so obvious that he was an excellent, even fortunate, choice that they extended his contract ten years.  And then the bottom fell out.

So now we’re about halfway through that contract, but it seems pretty apparent that Notre Dame is going to buy Weis out and go hunting again.  The common rumor is that Florida coach Urban Meyer heads the shortlist for Notre Dame.

Urban has previously said that coaching Notre Dame would be his dream job.  Wait — when did I last hear him say that?  Oh yeah.  It was the same year Notre Dame hired Charlie Weis instead, and Meyer went to Florida.  Since then, Florida has won two national titles, and Notre Dame  has fallen out of the polls.

Florida has been a great team for decades, but they are an absolute football dynasty right now.  Notre Dame is a mid-pack team with troubles.  I can’t imagine things getting any better for Meyer than they are right now.  There’s no way he should leave Florida for Notre Dame.  No way.

Plus, I like Florida, and Urban Meyer.  So this might ruin a good thing for me.

I have a great idea:  Notre Dame, hire Les Miles.  Or Pete Carroll.  I want to like LSU and USC, but I can’t like them because I can’t stand those coaches.  Moving one of them to Notre Dame would help me like college football better.  This is a much better idea.

In 1972 the Miami Dolphins completed the only perfect season in the history of the NFL, going a perfect 17-0 and winning Super Bowl VII.  Undefeated seasons are fairly common in college football, and in fact is generally required for any chance at playing for the national title.  But in the NFL it is a different story.  Nobody else has ever done it before or since.

The Hall of Fame quarterback that led that famous team, Bob Griese, went on to become one of the best color commentators in college football.  Yet he now risks being remembered more for the remark he made on October 24, 2009, when a list of the current NASCAR top five drivers was displayed on screen.  Regarding the fact that driver Juan Pablo Montoya’s name was not shown, as explanation Griese quipped, “He’s out having a taco.”

Griese certainly did not consider his words before he said them.  He apologized during the game and later that day.  He was given a one-game suspension by ESPN for it, but I have to wonder if the real punishment is yet to come.

This whole thing has been bothering me ever since it happened, because frankly, I think it’s way past time for people to lighten up a little bit.

Before you cinch the noose around my neck, let me say a couple of things first.  I have many great friends of varied ethnic, cultural, and national backgrounds that I’ve made over the course of my life who I cherish and value, not only for the perspective they provide which broadens my own perspective, but for the numerous ways in which we are the same, as well as the ways in which we are different.  I have been greatly enriched by having the opportunity throughout my career to benefit from diversity in the places where I’ve worked — I value that experience tremendously.  And, believe it or not, I come from a background that’s endured its own share of discriminatory treatment.  More on that later.

Because of those valued relationships, even more than what people might think of me in general, I’ve been measured in blogging about this.  But I’ve got to tell you:  I think we’re taking this whole discrimination thing way too far.  I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

First off, I’ll state that, in my opinion, Mr. Griese should not have said what he said.  He knows it.  He knew it right after he said it.  ESPN also thinks he should not have said it, and I agree with them.

Now that we’ve established that, I’d like to figure out exactly why what he said is considered offensive.

• Eating — I’m pretty sure this isn’t it.  Every person eats.
• Eating A Taco — As far as I can tell, the act of eating a taco itself isn’t offensive, nor would it be offensive to suggest that a person might eat a taco.  I have eaten a taco.  More than one, in fact.  I’m not ashamed of it.  If you were to tell someone who does not read my blog that I have eaten a taco before, not only will I not be offended, but the other person will wonder why this is a big deal.  So I can only assume that it is not the suggestion of eating a taco itself that was offensive.
• Implying That Juan Pablo Montoya Is Hispanic — Whether Griese meant to imply that Juan Pablo Montoya was Hispanic is hard to say.  However, Juan Pablo Montoya IS Hispanic.  Columbian, in fact.  There’s nothing wrong with being Hispanic, or Columbian.  So implying that a Hispanic person is Hispanic shouldn’t be a problem.
• Implying That Juan Pablo Montoya Is Mexican — I honestly don’t know whether tacos are really Mexican or not.  I’m told they are.  But the tacos we eat here aren’t necessarily authentic anyway.  Regardless, there’s nothing wrong with being from Mexico; after all, Sammy Hagar lives there, at least some of the time.  And we already established that Montoya is from Columbia anyway, not Mexico.  I don’t see a problem here.
• Implying That Juan Pablo Montoya Eats Tacos — I don’t know whether Montoya eats tacos or not.  We already established that it is not offensive to say that I eat tacos.  Why would it be offensive to suggest that Montoya eats tacos?  There’s nothing wrong with eating tacos.
• Implying That Juan Pablo Montoya Eats Tacos Because He Is Hispanic — Well, now I think we may be getting somewhere, although I have to wonder why this matters.  Being Hispanic is not offensive.  Eating tacos is not offensive.  Is it offensive to suggest that Hispanic people eat tacos?  Can someone explain why this is?

On the day that Griese made this comment, NASCAR driver Ryan Newman was also not shown on the screen.  What if they had instead asked where Ryan Newman was instead of Montoya?  What if Griese had commented about Newman, “He’s out eating a hamburger.”  Certainly that would be equally offensive, right?

Or what if Griese had said the exact same thing — “He’s out eating a taco” — about Ryan Newman instead?  Would that also be offensive?

If it is not offensive when it is said about a Caucasian from the United States, why is it offensive when it is said about a Hispanic from Columbia?  I thought this whole thing was about treating all people as equals.  How is this treating people as equals?  Isn’t it wrong to treat people differently because of their differences, regardless of how we treat them?

This is society’s problem, not Montoya’s or Griese’s.  In our society, we’ve done a great job of identifying the people who have been discriminated against.  They are in protected classes.  Those are the people who have been discriminated against.  If you, like me, are not in a protected class, then it is not possible that others would discriminate against you.  In fact, according to society, I can only be the instigator of discrimination, not the victim, because I’m not in a protected class.

The problem here is, according to the popular interpretation, discriminatory treatment now has nothing to do with treating people equally and fairly.  It has to do with treating protected classes preferentially.  Ironically, we fail to realize that by treating others preferentially, we draw attention to the fact that there is a difference.  Treating them preferentially portrays the implication that they are uncapable of handling life the way the non-protected-class people face life, which is most certainly not true.  The reality is that we are equals.  Creating different sets of rules for different groups of people in society is exacerbating the problems and not solving anything.

Back in the middle of the 19th century, there was another group of people in the United States that were generally discriminated against by many in the general public.  Members of this group were publicly ridiculed; many others in society shunned and ostracized them, even members of their own families; much of the general public would refuse to live near them or patronize their businesses.  Prominent members were frequently subject to the wrath of mobs and riots, and even had property destroyed, and many were tortured publicly and even wrongly imprisoned.  Members of this group were so persecuted that many were forced to abandon homes and property numerous times as they moved again and again attempting to find a place where they could live peaceably.  Conditions escalated to the point that laws were changed in places such that it was not considered a crime to murder a member of this group in cold blood.  This group repeatedly appealed to local and federal government for protection but were flatly and openly denied.  Many members of this group, including a number of leaders, were killed.  Our government did nothing to stop this.  Eventually members of this group had to leave the country and flee to a barren wasteland in order to be left alone.

This group was not different because of their ethnicity or national background.  This group of people were known as Mormons.  Religion was the difference between them and those who discriminated against them so strongly.  Because of their religion, which is the first freedom guaranteed us by the US Constitution, they were discriminated against, while the very government that should have guaranteed their freedom turned a blind eye or even in some cases participated in the discrimination, to the point that they had to leave the very country that should have guaranteed their rights in order to have any semblance of peace.

These are my ancestors.  Even today, people have no issues at all saying derogatory things about members of my faith.  They will make jokes about how many wives I have (1) or how many horns come out of my head (0) or whether I am allowed to drive a car or use electricity (yes to both).  I find it ironic that a comedian or talk-show host can make fun of my religion in a public forum wherein he will knowingly make statements he either doesn’t understand or knows full well are untrue, and yet someone like Bob Griese can inadvertently and completely by accident say something as apparently benign as “He’s out having a taco” and have the whole world ready to string him up in a tree for being so racist and discriminatory.

I’m fully aware of the history of my ancestors.  I’ve mentioned some of it here.  It is a bit disturbing to know that this happened here in the United States, just some 150 years ago or so.  But I’ve gotten over it, and so have the members of my faith.  We aren’t on a crusade to have society make right to us all the wrongs that their ancestors did to ours.  We’re not lobbying for our group to receive a special protected class status.  And honestly, when people make fun of Mormons eating funeral potatoes or lime jello with shredded carrots inside, we laugh along with them.  Even though I love funeral potatoes and avoid lime jello with shredded carrots like the disgusting fodder it is, it doesn’t bother me that people would joke about me eating either one.

In other words, I would not be offended if people claimed I ate food stereotypical of Mormons, whether I actually eat it or not.

It seems to me like we need to just relax a little bit, and choose not to be offended.  I’ve found my life is a lot happier when I do that.  How might society be if we all did this?  Seems like that is something worth pursuing.

Football season is in full swing, which means that I am now very very busy on the weekend, so don’t bother me, unless you have tickets.

I love both NCAA and NFL football.  But if I had to choose (and often Amber, uh, encourages me to), I’d take college football over pro any day.  There’s a number of things that are better about college football than pro.  Here’s three big ones:

1. Instant Replay Technically, as I understand it, collegiate officials review every play for correctness in a replay booth upstairs.  I’m sure most of these reviews are a formality only, but it definitely helps officials to get the calls right nearly all of the time.  In pro, if a coach disagrees with a call, he has to consider not only whether he thinks the call was incorrect, but the likelihood of having indisputable video evidence in his favor, how many challenges he has left, how many timeouts he has left, the potential impact of a reversal on the game, etc.  College coaches still get some number of challenges throughout the game, but I think the general correctness of officiating in college football is higher because of this rule.
2. Overtime Let’s face it:  NFL overtime is a joke.  Alternating possessions from the 25 yard line, the way it is done in college football, is much more fair, much more exciting, and definitely superior to NFL overtime.
3. Stadiums I have a hard time figuring out why NFL franchises will build a brand new stadium and only have it house 70,000-80,000 fans.  The Denver Broncos build a new stadium in 2001, but made it basically the same capacity as the old stadium.  And even the brand-new Cowboys Stadium only officially seats 80,000 people, at least in its normal configuration.  Did you know that of the twenty largest football stadiums in the US, all of the top ten and nineteen of the top twenty are college football stadiums?

There are other differences both directions.  Differences are good; I don’t want college to be exactly like pro.  But those are three things about college that I think are superior to pro, which I’d love to see pro football adopt wholesale.

Of course, there are some things that are better about pro than college, but most of that I wouldn’t change either.  One biggie, though, is this:  In the NFL, they have playoffs at the end of the year to determine the champion.

This would unquestionably make for a better college football season and more interesting bowl games.  But would it make for a better experience?  That’s hard to say.  What would we all argue and complain about every year if the BCS went away?

Well, it was a great college football season.  It included some slight disappointments, like early season favorites Clemson and Georgia.  It included some refreshing surprises, like Utah and Alabama.  And it ended predictably, with yet another variant of intense BCS controversy.

It’s popular every year to engage in the debate about the state of the BCS and how lousy a job it does, or not, in determining a national collegiate football champion.  And since I’m all about being popular, I thought I ought to jump in here and add to the noise a bit.  Maybe what I’ve got to say is a bit different though.  And maybe not.

So a couple of days ago the Denver Broncos fired their long-time coach, Mike Shanahan.

So, it is time for the predictions as to who will win the bowl games. At least the ones that matter. Not all bowl games matter. For example, bowl games like the Sugar, Orange, and Toilet matter. Bowl games like the EagleBank and Super do not. So here we go:

• Las Vegas Bowl – Whichever team Max Hall plays for. Yes, I know he attends BYU. But he sometimes plays for another team, like Utah.
• Poinsettia Bowl – TCU. Has Boise State really played anybody good this year?
• Car Care Bowl – West Virginia.
• Citrus Bowl – Florida State. Wisconsin was an also-ran in the Big 10, which is really not much of a compliment at all.
• Emerald Bowl – Cal. Home field advantage makes the difference.
• Alamo Bowl – Missouri. The Big 12 is to the Big 10 as Mozy is to Wal-Mart. Awesome vs. not awesome. Moving along.
• Holiday Bowl – Oklahoma State. The fourth-best team in the Big 12 South could be the conference champion in almost any other conference.
• Sun Bowl – Pitt. Oregon State continues to lament what could have been and loses again.
• Chick-Fil-A Bowl – Georgia Tech. This game is a tale of two teams going different directions. GT has the momentum.
• Citrus Bowl – Georgia. SEC vs. Big 10? Please.
• Rose Bowl – Penn State. Eh. Who knows if they will actually win. Maybe karma makes a difference in this one, in favor of good ol’ Joe.
• Orange Bowl – Cincinnati.
• Cotton Bowl – Texas Tech. Not taking anything away from Ole Miss, but them beating Florida took a bit of luck. They wouldn’t do it today. And they won’t beat Texas Tech either.
• Liberty Bowl – Kentucky. C’mon. East Carolina isn’t even a real state.
• Sugar Bowl – Alabama. Most Utah fans think the Utes will win. They have two reasons for believing this. One is that they are completely delusional. The other is that they haven’t watched any other college teams besides Utah this year. Hey, I’d love Utah to win. I’d also like to win the lottery. But, like winning the lottery, it just ain’t gonna happen.
• Fiesta Bowl – Texas. Texas beat Oklahoma this year. Ohio State beat, uh, Michigan.
• National Championship – Florida. This is a close, close game. Two really awesome teams. Florida’s raw speed makes the difference.
• Toilet Bowl – In this marquis matchup between Western Kentucky and North Dakota Culinary & Drama College, ND C&D wins in a landslide for the third consecutive year. It’s a bit sad, really – Utah State did so well this year that they did not get to go to this game again. Perhaps that is why they fired their head coach.

What do you think? Do you have a different opinion on these games? I’d really love* to hear about it. E-mail your opinions to i.am.a.doofus@i.disagree.with.the.halfbadboy.com and let me know if you hear back.

* not really

So far this weekend I’ve seen at least two different occasions I’ve seen this happen:  Quarterback drops back to pass – defensive lineman breaks free and closes in on the quarterback for the sack – quarterback executes a pump-fake – as the defensive lineman is wrapping up he notices the pump-fake and releases, thinking the quarterback has passed the ball – quarterback actually keeps the ball and completes a play for positive yardage, having avoided a sack – defensive lineman is left in the backfield shaking his head for the sack he almost had.

BYU eked out a win on the road against Washington last Saturday, 28-27. Lest we get confused, I would not wish to tarnish my half-badness in any way by conveying any semblance of support for BYU. So let’s be clear about this: THIS IS NOT A PRO-BYU POST.

Now that we’ve cleared that up, I’ve simply got to talk a bit about how stupid the sports analysts are, pretty much universally, everywhere, even on other planets. Lest we forget, they make a point of reminding us every so often, when some type of controversy like this arises. It would be easier if they just said, “I can’t actually think for myself, so let’s just assume that my opinion lies completely contrary to common sense.” That would be much quicker.

If you do not watch college football and are therefore not a half-badboy, I assume you are reading this blog because you are trying to repent. So for you folk, I will give you the basic rundown of the controversy:

• BYU played Washington at Washington on Sept. 6.
• Sports analysts are required to hate BYU, because they are not from a BCS conference and are therefore less of everything.
  • Note – I do not have to like BYU. But seriously, how long do we have to put up with this BCS superiority garbage? Haven’t we learned anything yet? Anyway.
• With time expiring in the fourth quarter, and BYU leading 28-21, Washington put together a heroic drive culminating in a touchdown with 0:02 left.
• After scoring, the Washington player threw the football up into the air. On TV it appeared to go some 20 feet or more into the air.
• Said throwing of the football into the air was clearly and without question an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty according to the rules (2008 NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations, Rule 9, Section 2, Article 1, Number 2), which state that
  • After any play the player in possession must immediately return the ball to an official or leave the ball near the downed spot
  • Among other acts, throwing the ball high into the air is prohibited (item c of said rule)
• As a result, the official flagged and penalized Washington 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct, as he is required to do by the rules.
• The ensuing 35-yard PAT try was blocked by BYU.
• Thus BYU ended up winning the game, 28-27.

Literally billions of sports analysts weighed in over the weekend, all of them blaming BYU and officials for the controversy. Well, maybe not blaming BYU per se, but definitely expressing disdain and disagreement for the fact that an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty was called at that point in the game. Anyway, the essence of the argument was threefold:

• The player was clearly overcome by exuberance, and was not in control of himself, as could be expected.
• No harm was done or intended by the player, who was only celebrating the great play made, and not attempting to be unsportsmanlike.
• A penalty or other call by an official should never determine the outcome of a game.

Let’s attack these in reverse order.

First of all, it is the job of the officials to attempt to enforce the rules of the game in a fair and unbiased format. They do not weigh the gravity of each individual play and take that into consideration as to whether or not a rule was violated. If a rule is violated, it is their responsibility to enforce the rule. In this case, the ruling was clear. The rulebook clearly describes the inappropriate behavior, which obviously matches the actual behavior in this case. It is the responsibility of the official to enforce the penalty in this case.
At any rate, the plays at the end of the game are not the only ones that can determine the outcome of the game. If not so, then please let me know at what point in the game do the plays become relevant to the outcome? I’d say, potentially all plays are relevant from the opening kickoff onward. Officials should not be expected to guess or determine whether a play will be a determining factor in deciding the outcome, let alone allow this to factor into any decision regarding rule enforcement.
Furthermore, this is all based on the assumption that the ruling actually affected the play. Are you trying to convince me that a college-level placekicker in the PAC-10 does not have sufficient strength to reliably kick a 35-yard field goal with sufficient altitude to avoid a block? Or that BYU (am I actually saying this) is not capable of blocking a field goal except under extreme conditions?

Next point. What exactly was the player’s intention is unknown and irrelevant. Intent is not a factor in determining whether to enforce a rule, at least not in NCAA football. If you are tackling someone, and you grab the face mask and turn the head while tackling them, that is a 15-yard personal foul penalty. Whether you meant to do it is not relevant. The same is true in this case. Whether the player intended to taunt the other team or otherwise exhibit unsportsmanlike conduct is not the issue. The issue is that the player did violate the rule, regardless of intent, and it is the job of the officials to enforce the rule.

Finally, the issue with the significance of the play and the resulting excitement meaning that the player obviously was overcome with emotion and could not control himself. Man, how I love that phrase: “Could not control himself.” “Yes, Bob, the player is literally not in control of his own self! He cannot make responsible choices! His freedom to choose has been revoked due to extreme excitement!”
Give me a break. Let’s suppose the penalty was more harsh. Suppose that he is told, “Look, go out there and score a touchdown. But if you do not hand the ball to the official after the play is over, I am going to cut your index finger off with this here old rusty wood rasp.” Do you really think he would score, forget that his finger was in jeopardy, and throw the ball into the air anyway? And then come back and say, “Sorry! Please don’t cut my finger off with that there old rusty wood rasp! I was excited and lost control! I literally could not choose otherwise!”

This last one actually gets me more than any of the others. This is not the first time I’ve heard sports analysts defending the players because they lost control. This is probably because a lot of them used to be players also, which also probably means they don’t have much education, and also think they are better than everyone else. Well, in this little place I call “Realworldia,” we are expected to maintain control of ourselves and make correct choices, even when it is hard.