Pundit Roundup
Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 01:00AM Making Tuesday Fun Since 2006!
***
--- ESPN's Bruce Feldman recalls the folksy charm of Indiana coach Terry Hoeppner who died last week after a battle with brain cancer.
He reminded me a lot of Wyoming coach Joe Glenn in that he was one of those guys you try to get to know because you hear all the stories about what a great guy he is. And usually when such stories are coming from cynics like many of us in the media, that's not a long list.
Also: the endless and complex saga of recruit Leon Jerrell Powe.
Also: Friday Mailbag. Football movie talk, Indiana folks love Terry Hoeppner, Feldman's pick for the one game he most wants to go to this year, Florida's offseason arrest spree and its effect on recruiting and media backlash after three years of Charlie Weis hype.
--- ESPN's Ivan Maisel looks at the Randy Walker/Terry Hoeppner connection.
On the day Indiana University hired Terry Hoeppner as its football coach, his counterpart at Northwestern, Randy Walker, warned his staff.
"Better buckle it up, boys," Walker said. "Indiana will be a force to be reckoned with now that Terry's in charge."
Also: opening up the mailbag. Ivan's a little jumpy after scads of emails poured in about his comparison between the tactics of people who attacked Houston Nutt's character and "Rovian" political skills. Also inside: more Terry Hoeppner recollections, more discussion of the '94 Colorado/Michigan game, revisiting Dennis Erickson's scandalous past and Cal's most important opponent in '07.
Also: ESPN unveils "The 100" - "the plays, performances and moments that define college football"
The first 20 have been made available: 81-100 (see link above).
--- ESPN's Pat Forde recalls Terry Hoeppner's legacy at Indiana while needlessly piling on with the "miserable football history at IU" sidestory.
--- ESPN's Mark Schlabach spotlights ten freshmen and seniors to watch in '07.
--- Sports Illustrated's Stewart Mandel starts another round of the Mailbag and adds some random predictions. Included this week: Terry Hoeppner, Cal trying to move the preseason needles once more, the John Blake/Butch Davis connection at North Carolina, the best quarterback in the state of Florida, best rivalry game trophy, a TCU fan getting chippy about Louisville's hype, the mid-majors vs. Non-BCS argument (I prefer Non-BCS; mid-major is just soooooooo college basketball) and Purdue's '07 fate.
Also: ten showdowns that could shape the 2007 campaign.
CBS SportsLine's Dennis Dodd looks at the trend of athletes enrolling at USC without having completed four years of high school.
John David Booty (football), Daniel Hackett (basketball) and Robert Stock (baseball) have all taken this route.
The basic point was this: If the honors program didn't admit Stock, he would be turning professional with a $1 million-plus bonus. If he enrolls, the majors can't touch him for three years.
"It is a non-traditional path but it has paid dividends for him," said associate AD and education professor Brandon Wright, a liaison between the athletic department and admissions office. "I wouldn't recommend it for every kid. When I first met the kid, he just came across as being beyond his years."
Carroll set the tone for the young and restless. He has played more than 40 true freshmen over the past four years.
"They're not afraid to compete," Steve Sarkisian said. "They don't care what the depth chart looks like. They don't care how many guys are at their position. They believe in themselves and that they want to compete."
Carroll's offensive coordinator was talking about football players, but he might as well had been talking about a USC ethic.
Also: the early-enrollment story of Florida's gregarious Pouncey twins.
--- Yahoo! Sports' Terry Bowden says goodbye to late Indiana coach Terry Hoeppner.
Also: a visit with Dick Vermeil and observations of some of what made him such an accomplished coach.
--- The Sporting News' Matt Hayes writes that Terry Hoeppner had a champ's heart.
I called Terry Hoeppner and asked him about playing BCS teams, and what he could do from a technical standpoint to even out the talent disparity. You know, X's and O's stuff.
He was coaching Miami of Ohio, and his team was set to play at LSU, a week after nearly beating an Iowa team that would end up playing in the Orange Bowl.
"Forget about personnel," Hoeppner said. "These are the games where you find what kind of heart you have."
In other words, how badly do you want it? How badly do you want to prove yourself?
How fitting then, that Hoeppner somehow made it through last season at Indiana while battling brain cancer. That he never gave in to the awful disease; that, yes, he had something to prove. He finally succumbed this morning, and college football is less of a game without him.
Miami didn't come close against LSU in 2002, absorbing a big loss that humbled a young rising quarterback by the name of Ben Roethlisberger. A few days later, I spoke with Hoeppner again as a follow-up to the story, and his response was just as revealing.
"I guarantee this team is on the verge, this team believes, this team has something to prove," he said.
Miami won 27 of its next 36 games under Hoeppner before he left to coach Indiana -- a job many in his profession told him not to take. Why leave the safety of success for the uncertainty of the dregs of the BCS world?
Because, he said, he had something to prove.
Also: a clean slate as a result of the offseason coaching purge at Florida State may have saved Bobby Bowden's job.
"He was closer to being forced out than many people think," says one prominent FSU booster. Now Bowden is closer to outlasting fellow coaching icon Joe Paterno in the race for most career wins.
We can debate whether Bowden is as sharp as he once was (of course he is), and whether coaches of other elite programs would've been fired after a five-season run that included 22 losses (of course they would've).
The reality is this: Bowden's gutting of his longtime, like-minded staff will allow him to gradually and gracefully walk away from the game a winner instead of going out kicking and screaming -- and losing. All without damaging his platinum legacy.
Hallelujah.
Also: Inside Dish. Big 12 commish concerns, USF and Miami look to play each other and the USC/UCLA rivalry extends to the recruiting world.
Also: Mail Call. Trading um, emails with angry Alabama fans.
--- The Sporting News' Tom Dienhart ranks the best and worst helmet and uniform designs.
I'll agree to disagree with a lot of that.
Also: Big Ten Network will change football on TV.
No doubt, the SEC is watching the BTN. It's the only other league that I think is a viable option to start its own network. The SEC almost HAS to start a network to keep pace with the Big Ten from a competitive balance standpoint. Think of it: There are reports that each Big Ten school will receive around $7.5 million this year from the Big Ten Network. More money leads to better facilities and coaching salaries. The SEC has to follow suit. It's like Coke vs. Pepsi.
When I talked with SEC Commissioner Mike Slive this week, he wouldn't put odds on if or when his league would launch its own network, since the conference still has TV deals with CBS, ESPN and Lincoln Financial that run through 2008-09. But I have to think it's just a matter of time. It's all about money and control of your product. And that's what an in-house network provides.
And, you can count on this: The SEC will learn from the BTN -- and probably do things even better.
"At our league meetings this offseason in Destin, Fla., I was authorized to explore the possibility of an SEC network with enthusiasm," Slive said. "We will be watching the Big Ten Network closely."
Also: The HIT system could help better determine concussions and severe head injuries.
Sweet.
Also: Christmas wishes in June.
--- The Sporting News'/Rivals.com's Mike Farrell asks "how young is too young to commit?"
Basketball's entire recruiting process has been absurd for a while now, so it's hard to get any more alarmed than I already am. However, the good thing with football is that there appears to be a limit to how much projection can truly be made on a prospect. Although more kids are being offered and making verbal commitments as sophomores, I doubt we'll see too much more of that going forward.
This actually relates to the "early signing period" debate in college football. Most coaches who object to it argue that they don't get enough time to evaluate the background, grades and character of a recruit. I would add that such an early signing date is a handicap in the football evaluation process.
I have some friends in the recruiting business and I hear stories all the time about coaches and schools changing their minds about a recruit a handful of times in a year, right up to signing day. And these doubts aren't just for back-of-the-class guys, but frontline players. Kids grow, their work ethic may change for better or worse, they can get injured, their skills may peak, or a school/coaches may simply mis-evaluate the actual talent and ability of such players and not catch their errors until a colleague and fresh pair of eyes points something out. The more time given towards evaluation, the less mistakes made by both sides.
With basketball I guess the coaches are comfortable projecting pre-high-schoolers into college, but somehow I doubt football coaches trust both the recruits and their own evaluation abilities enough to dive much farther into that fountain of youth.
--- CSTV's Trev Alberts answers his mailbag. Like Phil Steele, he thinks the Mountain West is the best non-BCS conference and not the WAC. Hmm ... He's also lukewarm about Penn State's '07 prospects and addresses hypocrisy in college football (with a bonus, seemingly unrelated dig at the nutty environmentalism hypocrisy of mega-polluters John Travolta and Al Gore).
As Ivan Maisel (above) was hit with conservative reader complaints about his Karl Rove crack, this will be sure to get responses from Trev's more liberal readers. Sports and politics and pundits, who knew?
Two interesting quotes from this:
But I agree with the original question; schools play on whatever night the networks dictate as long as the revenues are there. I think the only way if you're unhappy if your team is consistently playing on the weeknights is to have enough alumni and boosters say you're taking away from the core thing that makes college football so great: the Saturday afternoon in the fall where the family goes to the game and there's tailgating. But it's all about revenue. You'd like something to be special, like have games played on one night a week other than Saturday. There is too much college football played midweek. And that's unfair.
And ...
It's ludicrous how you can have a conference that allows teams to not play everyone.
The first quote is interesting because I love a little midweek football to get me through the week, but it can't be fun for fans of schools playing on Tuesdays (!) or more than one Thursday night game a week.
The second quote I wholeheartedly agree with.
--- CSTV's Adam Caparell previews week four and week five of the 2007 college football season.
--- Sun Sports TV's Whit Watson has some nice things to say about College Football Resource (gracias!).
College Football Resource: The editor of this site, Brian, has e-mailed back and forth with me several times on the topic of a playoff in Division I football, of which he is decidedly not a fan. He also loves the Artists and Mechanics Theory (and really, who doesn't?), and we've shared some space on that very topic. I always stop at CFR at some point during the day. Not only does it find all the interesting stories for me, I also get to enjoy weekly anti-playoff rants, which is worth the price of admission.
--- The Dallas/Ft. Worth Star-Telegram's Wendell Barnhouse has a terrific breakdown of the Big 12's revenue sharing scheme.
--- The Mobile Register's Paul Finebaum says Nick Saban's huge salary is worth the risk.
By the way, Saban isn't a mere football coach; those guys are a dime a dozen. He's a hired gun. You tell him he has a job to do -- in this case, restore Alabama's shattered football reputation, beat Auburn, compete for SEC and national titles. You negotiate a price. He says yes and the money changes hands. No questions asked.
***
To read articles and blog entries from many other college football writers, be sure and visit CFR's "The Punditry" links. You can either bookmark that link or find it via CFR's College Football Links section on the menu at left.
***
The latest models of canon digital cameras are well-recognized among the worldwide users due to the fine-quality and functionality. The advanced models of nikon digital camera are designed in the most stylish and classy style. The Canon digital cameras are well-reputed and well-recognized for the slim and stylish models. The multi-dimensional featured models of olympus digital camera are popular among the photographers. The kodal digital camera is most reliable product of this well-known brand of photogenic device.
Reader Comments (19)
The story about the recruit's saga was not of Jerrell Powe, not Leon Powe, a former Cal Bears great and current Celtic. I trust that you will correct the headline. Thanks
I wouldn't expect Alberts to get it, but you're smart enough to understand the concept of "offsets". Al Gore does use a large amount of fossil fuels for energy in his home and travel expenses. And that's why he spends (at considerable cost) so much money purchasing carbon offsets so that his "footprint" isn't "three times more" than Alberts' or anyone else's.
If Alberts gets mail on this, it's deserved, not just political posturing. And the same should be true if a sportswriter unfairly describes conservative political figures with untrue statements.
That said, I agree with it. I understand offsets and think they're not much more than an excuse for very wealthy people to shove their environmental causes down others' throats while maintaining lifestyles that run counter to the cause. They're like the creepy return of that Catholic church concept (I'm forgetting the name at the moment) where people pay donations to supposedly be absolved of their sins. They weren't, but the Church got rich while available cash to buy more absolution became the excuse to commit more sins.
The bottom line is that Gore DOES use massive amounts of energy and emissions which is well documented. Offsets or not, he doesn't exactly live the life and make the kind of sacrifices he expects other people, businesses and nations to make which is why he upsets so many people.
BTW when he starts hammering China and its businesses and citizens (http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/an-inconvenient.html ) like he does Americans ... count me a little less skeptical.
Hypocrisy happens, I understand it. We all have our various moments of shaky conduct in life. But Gore's the poster boy for a movement that asks of others a lot of which he cannot himself deliver. Such criticism is warranted.
[I now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast].
Al Gore is open to criticism from CO2 Purists, who oppose all usage, but I personally don't have a problem with the pragmatic approach he takes personally.
Here are two, I believe fair, summaries:
http://www.neutralsource.org/content/blog/detail/598/
http://www.neutralsource.org/content/blog/detail/842/
Further, I personally think the class argument is sort of a red herring. Purchase of offsets is prohibitively expensive for an individual when that individual is a massive user of energy (which isn't possible unless the person can afford it).
As to the indulgences argument (that's the term), even Gore's admitted the "increased usage after purchasing offsets" problem. The analogy, however, is inapposite in one distinct way: carbon offsets do have a tangible effect. Sins and absolution thereof are inherently intangible. Though the amount and degree of the offset's effect is debatable, at some point there is a tangible reduction of CO2 compared to the actual usage.
But the main point is that conservative/anti-conservationist/corporatist criticism of Gore because "he's not a purist" simply doesn't work from a rhetorical standpoint. Gore's actions are far more in line with his viewpoints, taking into account practicalities, than any of his critics' opinions or actions.
Use this college football analogy. Person X doesn't like the bowl system. Person X would like one day to have a playoff in place instead of the bowl system. Person X knows that for all practical purposes (contracts with television networks, current conference agreements), a playoff is impossible. So Person X continues to speak publicly about how a playoff is ideal, but serves on committees and meets with conference heads on trying to get a "plus one" title game as a practical solution that moves toward a playoff one day. For this, Person X is criticized by playoff supporters, who call him a hypocrite for supporting something less than a full playoff (rhetorically, I think this is fair criticism). But playoff and plus-one opponents can't fairly criticize Person X for being a hypocrite. They can (and most certainly should) fairly oppose his plus-one ideas or playoff ideas on their merits, but the hypocrisy argument doesn't fly because those opponents don't support the opinions of Person X either from the practical or the ideal position.
The point is this: Gore should be susceptible for criticism from the left on his approach to carbon neutrality, but those on the right of him on this issue are hardly in the position to criticize him for not going far enough. It's a misdirection argument, and it makes one wonder why the critics don't focus more on the merits of the original argument.
But to get back on track, I agree with you that Alberts shouldn't have raised the point at all, especially when his writing suggests that he knows nothing about the subject at all. There are reasonable arguments that can be made against Gore, but I don't think Alberts came close to making one.
I do appreciate the level of dialogue here, and certainly appreciate the varied points of view. I'm not to the left or right of Gore. I like the attention he has brought to certain matters, I also think he's a hypocrite (for reasons other than carbon neutrality/offsets, see above).
Sorry to CFR for turning this into politics, its a long offseason and you opened the door!
Your kill/give birth analogy is inapossite and kind of offensive, personally. The use of energy is an aspect of daily life - and it is virtually impossible in this day and age to go without using oil/gas/coal energy. It is quite easy to go about your day without killing people. I think all conservationists support reducing usage personally, but where it is impossible or impractical, other methods of reducing overall usage should be encouraged as well.
Like I said before, Gore's pragmatic approach opens him up for criticism from CO2 purists. But for those who might not want everyone to go off the grid, what, exactly, is wrong with using free market economics to support conservation?
Ah yes, the old "we can criticize but you can't" argument. That's a good one!
"There are reasonable arguments that can be made against Gore"?
All I've said is that the hypocrisy argument (that Gore doesn't go far enough for their tastes) rings completely hollow when it comes from people who don't agree with him in the first place.
Here's an analogy: A group wants to put a halfway house in my neighborhood. The group states on it's mission statement that it wants to rehabilitate and house 10,000 ex-convicts. The house they want to build in my neighborhood only has room for 10. I don't want the house in my neighborhood. Should I argue against the merits of having a halfway house for ex-cons in my neighborhood? Of course. Should I call the group hypocrites for not building a facility for 10,000 ex-cons? Well, I guess I could, but I'd sound stupid and it wouldn't get my point across at all.
Question Gore's opinions, challenge his facts, attack his proposed solutions all you want. But calling him a hypocrite for not doing things you don't want to do in the first place? That's just avoiding a debate on the actual issues.
But if hypocrisy is all you want to talk about, well, you kind of missed the point of the movie and book. It's not about achieving ecological perfection. The point was to do something, anything. The end of the film has, like, 100 suggestions and a lot of them are really simple, little things. It's about taking whatever steps you can to reduce usage and conserve resources.
Of course we can't go without carbon based fuel. We can, however, go without Humvees and personal indoor swimming pools. Its not how Gore has nuetralized the atmospheric impact of his irresponsibility, its that he's irresponsible to begin with, using up an irreplaceable resource with impunity...
Frankly, I personally don't care about Gore's pool.
Its not my job or desire to regulate how much fuel someone wants to pay for and burn, or what car they want to drive, or whatever, but Gore has purposefully cultivated and accepted attention, Oscars, and major income as an "environmental spokesman", and thus he needs to be able answer some tough questions about his personal choices that are inconsistent with the public persona he has chosen to exploit. That doesn't mean the exploitation is all bad, as I by and large agree with the attention he's bringing to these issues....
...but you hit on the next, most important idea: there's people who are going to disagree with him no matter what. If you know that is the case, why make choices that are going to give those people even less of a reason/easier cop-out from listening to what you have to say?
It's just poor leadership/judgment (but sadly the norm for this day and age, no matter the politics).
Politicos/Religious leaders preaching family values get criticized harshly when they have affairs, as they should. This is no different.
And my words weren't exactly careful. The analogy isn't so much offensive as, maybe, somewhat inflammatory. When used to make the point that _any_ usage of resources is wrong, rather than simply unreasonable usage, I think the analogy goes too far - and serves to discourage ideas such as offsets. I think certainly there's an issue of framing at work here. I think we agree that the offset idea isn't the problem, it's the usage. I think there ought to be two arguments at play: (1) that people can be encouraged to limit wasteful usage and (2) for any usage, wasteful or not, offsetting such can be a good idea. In my view, the idea that carbon offsets may encourage wastefulness isn't as strong as the idea that offsets can reduce overall usage, and indeed, for those people who are wasteful and simply choose not to stop, having them purchase offsets is better than them not (even if it's not as good has less waste). But, of course, there's a debate there and reasonable minds may differ on whether offsets may do more harm than good.
Say I tell you that I believe hamburgers are unhealthy and that I will not eat hamburgers. You disagree and you think hamburgers are great and healthy. Then one day you find out that I regularly eat hamburgers. You could criticize me for not making an honest statement, but in the end it's not really your business what I do.
Now say that instead of just telling you that I won't eat hamburgers, I also make a big deal about telling everyone over and over what a bad person you are for eating hamburgers because you are unhealthy. Then one day you find out that I regularly eat hamburgers. I say you are completely justified in criticising me for being a hypocrite, because not only have I been dishonest, I have been publicly chastising you for something that I do myself.
I don't know if that made any sense, but now I'm ready for a hamburger....
But nobody's changing anyone's mind on anything on the internet, so I'm out on this one.
Lets hope CFR and the rest who agree can change some minds about College Football playoffs - I think the Net has been able to make some people pause and think of things in a different light, if only they are willing to do so...
They're sports writers, that's what they're hired to do.