OK, with all the conference re-alignment crud going on... I want to to emphasize that this is my "old plan", and it probably won't work when everything shakes out in the end. So, it will need to be "adjusted" once all this conference swapping settles down.
However, I still feel like it's a good starting point, toward the development of a College Football playoff system.
Right now, the following conferences are Automatic Qualifiers for the BCS Bowls.
The ACC, The Big 12, The Big 10, The Big East, The Pac 12, and the SEC.
That's six of the schools right there, to qualify for either: The Rose Bowl, The Fiesta Bowl, The Orange Bowl, The Sugar Bowl, or the BCS Championship game. So that's five games. Five games would need ten teams... 6 of which are decided by conference champions, and 4 basically at large teams. However, only 2 of these teams will play for the championship... no matter if 3 teams are undefeated, or if there are several one loss teams stacked into the top ten.
I've heard arguments that College Football doesn't need a playoff system, because the regular season is their playoffs, and by adding a playoffs system, you would devalue the regular season.
Now, I have also heard the argument time and time again, that you cannot get rid of the Bowls, because they pay the schools too much money, and school officials do not want to miss the big payout they receive for being a bowl game attendee.
So my thought is this.... is there a way we can do it all? Can we have a playoff, have the regular system mean something, and still incorporate the Bowls to mean something? I think we can.
First of all, as of right now I think the Big East and/or Big 12 should be stripped of their "automatic qualifier" status until they are able to host a championship game. Only conference champions of 12 member conferences are "automatic qualifiers". The Big East is down to what...6 Football schools with Pitt and Syracuse's departure?
So let's say the Big 12 gets back up to 12 members... for the heck of it. And so we have 5 Automatic Qualifiers... These five get an automatic birth in the 8 team tournament. The other 3 teams are selected "at large" from the field, an undefeated team from a lower conference (like Houston this year), or a one loss team to a team from a power conference in the same division (like Alabama this year)... whoever. We will use the rankings, top 3 teams that aren't Conference Champions are in. I don't even care which ranking system we use. We can use the current BCS rankings if they want to.
That is a field of 8. 5 Automatic Qualifiers and the top 3 "At Large" teams.
Round One of the playoffs will occur the week after Conference Championship Game week. This will be seeded 1-8 by their ranking. Seeds 1-4 will host... seeds 5-8 will play on the road. Typical seeding would be used 1vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5.
Round 2 of the Playoffs would be the Semifinals and Bowl Week. Depending on the winners of the first round... You could have Orange and Fiesta be the semi-finals one year, and Rose and Sugar the next year... or however you want to do it... say a Big 10 and Pac 12 team are matched up for the Semi's that would be the Rose Bowl. Each of the Bowls would still get a quality (think top 8 in the country) team to play in their game, and two of the games would be semi-finals for the national championship game.
Round 3 would include the two winners of the Semifinals, and would be played one week following the bowl games, for a true National Championship Game. It would be played during the same week
In one stroke of genius, you've included everything, a true playoff system, the bowl games, and the regular season still counts.
For those people who cry out about "extending the season" or other such nonsense... For 8 teams, you would extend the season by ONE GAME. And two teams would play two extra games. That's it.
It could work. It doesn't cheapen the bowls. Are the bowls cheapened now? In fact, with two of the Bowls being National Semifinals, it actually increases the importance of the Bowls. Currently none of the teams playing in the Orange, Rose, Sugar, or Fiesta Bowl are contenders for the national championship. This would change that.
I'm not saying it's perfect. Maybe you want to hold the Round One two weeks after the Conference Championships so things are a bit more spread out. Whatever, that's fine. And I know, people will say.. .but, but, but what about the 9th best team, etc... It's not basketball. We're not going to be able to have a field of 64 or 68, the line has to be drawn somewhere. In my opinion, this does the best job of covering all the bases needed.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
The Wussification of the Vampire.
I have something I need to get off my chest. I hate the “new” vampires. All of them: The Twilight saga
(movies/books), the Vampire Diaries (TV show), Angel, every
stinking one of them. And you know why,
because Vampires are supposed to be evil, not romantic.
When I was a kid, vampires were freaking scary. They were NOT something that you hoped to meet. They were something you feared when you went outside after dark. They were evil, undead, creatures who would kill you, by biting you and drinking your blood. Have you read the book “Dracula”? He’s not a nice guy. Go watch the movie “Salem’s Lot” and tell me how ‘romantic’ the vampire is in that movie? The point is, they have taken something that was actually scary, and wussified it down to something that can/could be scary, but has decided to be nice.
I got the following information from wikipedia " the term vampire was not popularized until the early 18th century, after an influx of vampire superstition into Western Europe from areas where vampire legends were frequent". I found it interesting, that originally vampires weren't thought to be attractive "Vampires were usually reported as bloated in appearance, and ruddy, purplish, or dark in colour; these characteristics were often attributed to the recent drinking of blood. Indeed, blood was often seen seeping from the mouth and nose when one was seen in its shroud or coffin and its left eye was often open".
You see, they really started off as evil , as is shown in this quote "... in ancient times, the term vampire did not exist; blood drinking and similar activities were attributed to demons or spirits who would eat flesh and drink blood; even the Devil was considered synonymous with the vampire". Synonymous with the Devil? Hmmm, doesn't sound to me like someone romantic. Let's read some more... " the returned spirits of evil-doers or those who died insane, also bear vampiric attributes", so they are often evil and insane. Let's see if we can find any more... how about this one, "These vampires were corpses, who went out of their graves at night to suck the blood of the living, either at their throats or stomachs, after which they returned to their cemeteries".
One of the biggest problems I have with Twilight/True Blood/Vampire Diaries is the fact that it’s perfectly OK for the Vampire to have sexual intercourse with humans. Let’s discuss this (sort of) intelligently. Now the reason humans have sex is for propagation of the species, because humans are, you know, alive. Vampires, being dead, would have no reason to desire this. They can’t have children, because they aren’t alive. They would not have ovum, or sperm, or anything needed to make this desire possible (don’t get me started on the “twilight baby”). They are dead. They are cold. They don’t produce stuff. They have no need for progeny, because they are ‘eternal’. So the idea that these modern “writers” (and I am using that term loosely) have given them an entirely human trait is ridiculous on that side of things.
I'm not sure if Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a step in this direction, or not. Most vampires were certainly evil, but then again, some of them were not. To be honest, I never really got into Buffy the TV series. I did see the movie though, the one with Kristy Swanson as Buffy, and in the movie the vampires were evil.
Then, all of a sudden, Vampires became "romantic". I watched "Bram Stoker's Dracula" and was amazed that this was a love story, all this time I thought Dracula had been evil. I'm beginning to wonder if Francis Ford Coppola even read the actual book. Because, he combines two characters into one (the two lead female characters), and makes up some hokey story about Dracula falling in love with one of them. Listen closely here, I read the book, Dracula wasn't in love with these women, he wanted to kill them. In fact, he does kill one of them. He wasn't nice, he wasn't trying to be nice, he moved to London and its "swarms" of people so he could eat as many people as he wanted without people knowing why. There was nothing romantic about it.
Dear Hollywood producers (assuming you ever read the sports doofus), here is your next big money making horror film: Make an actual vampire movie. That's actually scary. Where people are frightened for their lives. Make the vampire evil, scary, and in no way cuddly. Get Stephen King, Clive Barker, and Neil Gaiman to write the script, have some young director who has grown up worshipping classic scary movies to direct it. Have no stars whatsoever involved in it. You know what you've got there, you've got a winner.
Thanks, I feel better now.
When I was a kid, vampires were freaking scary. They were NOT something that you hoped to meet. They were something you feared when you went outside after dark. They were evil, undead, creatures who would kill you, by biting you and drinking your blood. Have you read the book “Dracula”? He’s not a nice guy. Go watch the movie “Salem’s Lot” and tell me how ‘romantic’ the vampire is in that movie? The point is, they have taken something that was actually scary, and wussified it down to something that can/could be scary, but has decided to be nice.
I got the following information from wikipedia " the term vampire was not popularized until the early 18th century, after an influx of vampire superstition into Western Europe from areas where vampire legends were frequent". I found it interesting, that originally vampires weren't thought to be attractive "Vampires were usually reported as bloated in appearance, and ruddy, purplish, or dark in colour; these characteristics were often attributed to the recent drinking of blood. Indeed, blood was often seen seeping from the mouth and nose when one was seen in its shroud or coffin and its left eye was often open".
You see, they really started off as evil , as is shown in this quote "... in ancient times, the term vampire did not exist; blood drinking and similar activities were attributed to demons or spirits who would eat flesh and drink blood; even the Devil was considered synonymous with the vampire". Synonymous with the Devil? Hmmm, doesn't sound to me like someone romantic. Let's read some more... " the returned spirits of evil-doers or those who died insane, also bear vampiric attributes", so they are often evil and insane. Let's see if we can find any more... how about this one, "These vampires were corpses, who went out of their graves at night to suck the blood of the living, either at their throats or stomachs, after which they returned to their cemeteries".
So, to sum up.... evil spirits who drink blood, synonymous with the devil, returned evildoers and insane people who tear out the throats of the living at night, and then go back to their graves. Sounds like a hot date for a Friday night, right?
People like me, who grew up and saw Salem's Lot at a young age, did not foresee vampires becoming the objects of attraction and affection that we are seeing now (although that trailer does look a bit cheesy, now). They were something to be feared, and to be honest, they scared the crap out of me.One of the biggest problems I have with Twilight/True Blood/Vampire Diaries is the fact that it’s perfectly OK for the Vampire to have sexual intercourse with humans. Let’s discuss this (sort of) intelligently. Now the reason humans have sex is for propagation of the species, because humans are, you know, alive. Vampires, being dead, would have no reason to desire this. They can’t have children, because they aren’t alive. They would not have ovum, or sperm, or anything needed to make this desire possible (don’t get me started on the “twilight baby”). They are dead. They are cold. They don’t produce stuff. They have no need for progeny, because they are ‘eternal’. So the idea that these modern “writers” (and I am using that term loosely) have given them an entirely human trait is ridiculous on that side of things.
In addition to why would a vampire want to have sex (because
they wouldn’t), why would a human want to have sex with a vampire? They are cold. Their skin is cold. Go down to a morgue or a funeral home and see
if you can touch a dead body… now imagine trying to have intimate relations
with it. Doesn’t sound very tempting,
does it? Also, supposedly… Vampire’s
breathe smell like, well,death. Because you
know, they subsist on blood. Not someone
you would want to kiss and make out with.
Personally, I blame the “Blade” and “Underworld” movies. Some people would go back to “The Lost Boys” but I disagree. Although “The Lost Boys” was a “cool and hip” vampire movie, the vampires were still evil. They didn’t go out in the daytime. They killed people, not animals. They were actual evil creatures.
Blade and Underworld are essentially action/adventure movies
masquerading as vampire movies. Each of
them is loaded with gratuitous violence.
Heroes and Heroines fighting against the odds that are stacked
significantly against them. Both of them
feature “nice” Vampires, who fought against the "evil" ones. Blade was a “day walker”. It was the beginning of the end, we just didn't know it yet.Personally, I blame the “Blade” and “Underworld” movies. Some people would go back to “The Lost Boys” but I disagree. Although “The Lost Boys” was a “cool and hip” vampire movie, the vampires were still evil. They didn’t go out in the daytime. They killed people, not animals. They were actual evil creatures.
I'm not sure if Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a step in this direction, or not. Most vampires were certainly evil, but then again, some of them were not. To be honest, I never really got into Buffy the TV series. I did see the movie though, the one with Kristy Swanson as Buffy, and in the movie the vampires were evil.
Then, all of a sudden, Vampires became "romantic". I watched "Bram Stoker's Dracula" and was amazed that this was a love story, all this time I thought Dracula had been evil. I'm beginning to wonder if Francis Ford Coppola even read the actual book. Because, he combines two characters into one (the two lead female characters), and makes up some hokey story about Dracula falling in love with one of them. Listen closely here, I read the book, Dracula wasn't in love with these women, he wanted to kill them. In fact, he does kill one of them. He wasn't nice, he wasn't trying to be nice, he moved to London and its "swarms" of people so he could eat as many people as he wanted without people knowing why. There was nothing romantic about it.
Anne Rice didn't help matters a whole lot with her "The Vampire Chronicles". Because she made them living characters who cared for people and whatnot. I will give her credit for sticking to her guns about traditional vampire stuff, they didn't go out in the daylight (or they'd burn), they didn't make love to humans (although they wanted to). So although she sort of stayed with the thought of them being "evil beings", she did romanticize them. And what is with making Lestat into a famous heavy metal rock singer?
Then we come to the modern day, where Vampires are thought of as something "desirable" and young pre-teens run around in shirts with "bite me" written on them with a little vampire fang pictured as well. They go out in the daylight, because they don't burn in the sun, they "sparkle". They are nice, and subsist on other animals instead of humans. They live forever, and love you, and will love you for eternity. They will make love to you, and you can even (Really, Stephanie Meyer?) have a child with them.
Listen, I understand the attraction for young preteen/barely teen girls. It's the whole forbidden love thing. Meaning that although he may be dangerous and evil (sort of) that his love for them will overcome this and turn him into a good person. (So what if I learned most of this from Mr. Van Driessen on Beavis and Butthead?) It's similar to why girls like "bad boys", they think they can be the one to change him.... only this is even more romantic because vampires live forever, and they will love them forever, and blah, blah, blah forever.
Here's a thought, why not just make them a superhero, or a God of some sort? I mean, because honestly, what they are now really aren't vampires. Creatures who walk in the daylight, fall in love, are capable of copulation, and don't feed on people aren't vampires. Also, these vampires are always handsome and attractive. Really? If they have lived for like 100 or 200 years or so... go back with me. I'm not sure people had the best dental work back in the 1800's. Certainly their hygiene was very poor. Wouldn't a person that died a couple hundred years ago still retain the traits that they had when they died? I'd think they would. I propose we create a "new" characterization for this new breed of 'day-walking, love-making, nice-guy' vamps.. Call them "cramps" "wamps" something... can we just come up with a new term, because there already are vampires, and they're supposed to be evil.Listen, I understand the attraction for young preteen/barely teen girls. It's the whole forbidden love thing. Meaning that although he may be dangerous and evil (sort of) that his love for them will overcome this and turn him into a good person. (So what if I learned most of this from Mr. Van Driessen on Beavis and Butthead?) It's similar to why girls like "bad boys", they think they can be the one to change him.... only this is even more romantic because vampires live forever, and they will love them forever, and blah, blah, blah forever.
Dear Hollywood producers (assuming you ever read the sports doofus), here is your next big money making horror film: Make an actual vampire movie. That's actually scary. Where people are frightened for their lives. Make the vampire evil, scary, and in no way cuddly. Get Stephen King, Clive Barker, and Neil Gaiman to write the script, have some young director who has grown up worshipping classic scary movies to direct it. Have no stars whatsoever involved in it. You know what you've got there, you've got a winner.
Thanks, I feel better now.
College Football Openings
A list of openings for good jobs next year.
With the hiring of Urban Meyer, Ohio State has jump started this year's coaching carousel. This was a good hire for a couple of reasons. One is that he is the biggest name out there, and the second is that he is an Ohio native who has coached at the school in the past. Win/Win
Should be very fun and interesting having Meyer at OSU and Brady Hoke at Michigan for the next several years. What's good for rivalries is good for football.
A look at some other openings, or soon to be openings.
Penn State University - Wow. This job went from a "will JoePa ever retire?" to "what will they do now"? I know Penn State is a traditional place, and before the scandal broke I would have expected someone from the Paterno coaching tree to end up with this job. However, now I'm not so sure. Penn State hasn't had to look for a new coach since 1966. So we have no idea what they will do. It could be a great job for the right guy, but boy would you have to be the right guy. Tough to fill those shoes.
University of North Carolina - The only thing surprising about Butch Davis's dismissal as the Head Coach at UNC was the timing of it. That is an institution that prides itself on playing by the rules. So it was surprising that Butch made it all the way through last season, and then all the way through the off-season, to be removed right before this season started. All I know is this is a pretty choice job. If I was an "up and coming" college football head coach, this would be the spot I'd pick. The ACC is a good conference, and they just picked up Pittsburgh, so: Miami, Va Tech, Pitt, Fla State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech... some traditional football powers in there. But not as tough as the SEC. You still get to see Duke, Boston College, NC State and Wake Forest on a regular basis. This is a school with money, motivated alumni, and a great campus. (Plus UNC basketball in the off season, what a great recruiting tool).
UCLA - For the right coach, this could be a good job. Rick Neuheisal wasn't that guy. However, the thing everyone at UCLA is going to have to understand is that you are going to have to build this slowly. You aren't going to topple USC immediately, it just don't work like that. Kiffen and crew have a huge head start on the recruiting trail, and have amassed a ton of talent the last couple years. Find a Good, Young, Passionate coach, and give him sometime to grow. The Neuheisal hiring reeked of desperation, the guy has never been a great head football coach. He's OK, but that's not enough when you share the same city with USC. You need someone that can go head to head with Lane and win.
Arizona State - What a shock, Dennis Erickson is out. This is a guy who has made an entire career out of winning with other people's players. His best Miami team was the one right after Jimmy Johnson left. His best Oregon State team was all recruited by Mike Riley. And now Arizona State... his best season? His first one, of course! The Sun Devils won 10 games in his first season, and now after five years, his record is 31-30 at the school. This is going to be tough for ASU. You have USC, Oregon, Stanford in your conference. I think Arizona State might need to do something like Minnesota did last year, who hired Jerry Kill from Northern Illinois. Go find a head coach at a smaller school, who has a record of building a program, that is the step you need to take. No hotshot assistant is going to do this. I don't think this should be a young guy, either.
Kansas - surprised that Turner Gill was fired after only two seasons. I thought KU would give him more time than that. Kansas has never been a football power, and to be honest Mark Mangino went 2-10 in his first season, and 4-7 in his 3rd. Not sure who Kansas is looking at hiring, or why they think they can do better than Turner Gill. Coach Gill revived a basically dead program at Buffalo, and I think he should have been given more time. Good Luck, Jayhawks.
Illinois - So, the Ron Zook era comes to a close. Not too surprising, considering the way they finished the season. They had a nice start this year, and I really thought they may be able to make some noise, but they didn't. Illinois will probably look to raid the staff from another school. Maybe someone like Houston Nutt from Ole Miss. Maybe Butch Davis from North Carolina? I can totally see Illinois grabbing someone with experience, and experience in a big conference.
Ole Miss - Houston Nutt is out after 4 years since they stole him from SEC Rival Arkansas. It will be interesting to see what Ole Miss does. They are an SEC school, so they carry that panache, but they are also among the "lower class" schools of the SEC... this isn't Florida, Alabama or LSU.
I can see Ole Miss going after a coordinator at another big school. Maybe even an SEC school? Also, being in the SEC, they've seen Urban Meyer run to two national titles, and Auburn another running their spread option attacks. I wouldn't be astounded to see Ole Miss hire someone with spread experience to help them make some gains against the LSU's and Alabama's of the world. Just my thought.
It will be interesting to watch this year's version of the coaching carousel turn, and turn, and turn some more.
The NFL is only a few weeks away from starting their own.
With the hiring of Urban Meyer, Ohio State has jump started this year's coaching carousel. This was a good hire for a couple of reasons. One is that he is the biggest name out there, and the second is that he is an Ohio native who has coached at the school in the past. Win/Win
Should be very fun and interesting having Meyer at OSU and Brady Hoke at Michigan for the next several years. What's good for rivalries is good for football.
A look at some other openings, or soon to be openings.
Penn State University - Wow. This job went from a "will JoePa ever retire?" to "what will they do now"? I know Penn State is a traditional place, and before the scandal broke I would have expected someone from the Paterno coaching tree to end up with this job. However, now I'm not so sure. Penn State hasn't had to look for a new coach since 1966. So we have no idea what they will do. It could be a great job for the right guy, but boy would you have to be the right guy. Tough to fill those shoes.
University of North Carolina - The only thing surprising about Butch Davis's dismissal as the Head Coach at UNC was the timing of it. That is an institution that prides itself on playing by the rules. So it was surprising that Butch made it all the way through last season, and then all the way through the off-season, to be removed right before this season started. All I know is this is a pretty choice job. If I was an "up and coming" college football head coach, this would be the spot I'd pick. The ACC is a good conference, and they just picked up Pittsburgh, so: Miami, Va Tech, Pitt, Fla State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech... some traditional football powers in there. But not as tough as the SEC. You still get to see Duke, Boston College, NC State and Wake Forest on a regular basis. This is a school with money, motivated alumni, and a great campus. (Plus UNC basketball in the off season, what a great recruiting tool).
UCLA - For the right coach, this could be a good job. Rick Neuheisal wasn't that guy. However, the thing everyone at UCLA is going to have to understand is that you are going to have to build this slowly. You aren't going to topple USC immediately, it just don't work like that. Kiffen and crew have a huge head start on the recruiting trail, and have amassed a ton of talent the last couple years. Find a Good, Young, Passionate coach, and give him sometime to grow. The Neuheisal hiring reeked of desperation, the guy has never been a great head football coach. He's OK, but that's not enough when you share the same city with USC. You need someone that can go head to head with Lane and win.
Arizona State - What a shock, Dennis Erickson is out. This is a guy who has made an entire career out of winning with other people's players. His best Miami team was the one right after Jimmy Johnson left. His best Oregon State team was all recruited by Mike Riley. And now Arizona State... his best season? His first one, of course! The Sun Devils won 10 games in his first season, and now after five years, his record is 31-30 at the school. This is going to be tough for ASU. You have USC, Oregon, Stanford in your conference. I think Arizona State might need to do something like Minnesota did last year, who hired Jerry Kill from Northern Illinois. Go find a head coach at a smaller school, who has a record of building a program, that is the step you need to take. No hotshot assistant is going to do this. I don't think this should be a young guy, either.
Kansas - surprised that Turner Gill was fired after only two seasons. I thought KU would give him more time than that. Kansas has never been a football power, and to be honest Mark Mangino went 2-10 in his first season, and 4-7 in his 3rd. Not sure who Kansas is looking at hiring, or why they think they can do better than Turner Gill. Coach Gill revived a basically dead program at Buffalo, and I think he should have been given more time. Good Luck, Jayhawks.
Illinois - So, the Ron Zook era comes to a close. Not too surprising, considering the way they finished the season. They had a nice start this year, and I really thought they may be able to make some noise, but they didn't. Illinois will probably look to raid the staff from another school. Maybe someone like Houston Nutt from Ole Miss. Maybe Butch Davis from North Carolina? I can totally see Illinois grabbing someone with experience, and experience in a big conference.
Ole Miss - Houston Nutt is out after 4 years since they stole him from SEC Rival Arkansas. It will be interesting to see what Ole Miss does. They are an SEC school, so they carry that panache, but they are also among the "lower class" schools of the SEC... this isn't Florida, Alabama or LSU.
I can see Ole Miss going after a coordinator at another big school. Maybe even an SEC school? Also, being in the SEC, they've seen Urban Meyer run to two national titles, and Auburn another running their spread option attacks. I wouldn't be astounded to see Ole Miss hire someone with spread experience to help them make some gains against the LSU's and Alabama's of the world. Just my thought.
It will be interesting to watch this year's version of the coaching carousel turn, and turn, and turn some more.
The NFL is only a few weeks away from starting their own.
Top 5 NFL Team Uniforms
For the 5 Worst Uniforms, click the link.
Once again,
This is looking at the whole uniform: pants,
jersey, and helmet in concert. How does everything look
together?
Here’s what I used for criteria: my opinion.
While I know that is lacking on specifics and details, it is the truth, and it's
good enough for me... hey, it's my blog.5. Arizona Cardinals
A few things to mention. I do NOT like the Cardinals alternate black uniforms. They don't look right. The reason these uniforms look sharp is because of the bright Red. You take that away and replace it with Black, and it just looks blah.
A quick suggestion for the Cardinals... for your "alternate" uniforms. Red Helmets. You may think a Red Cardinal on a Red Helmet would looks weird, but it really doesn't. So, get rid of the Black Jerseys... and strap on Red Helmets.
4. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Probably the greatest uniform transformation of all time. There is not one thing, not one single thing, about the old Tampa uniforms that was better than the new version.
The color scheme: From the old Orange, Red, and White to Red, Pewter, and Black.
The logo: From the Gay Pirate to Skull and Crossed Swords hanging on a flag, hung on a sword.
The helmet: From This to This.
Do you remember the Buccaneers before the change in 1995? They went from a joke, a farce, and someone that no one feared into a legitimate contender. Almost immediately. Never has the fate of a franchise changed more drastically. The Buccaneers changed the image and the perception of their team in one fell swoop. (Hiring Tony Dungy didn't hurt, either.) This is why uniforms are important. Players play feel better about themselves when they look good. They feel better, they play better.
3. New York Giants
Simple. Clean. Elegant.
To be honest, I never thought there was anything wrong with the Giants Uniform in the Bill Parcells era. Those were pretty good looking. They weren't Top 5 in the league, but they looked good.
Here is where just a slight, subtle adjustment, can make a huge difference. The helmet has changed both in color and logo. The "new" helmets are brighter and more colorful than the old ones. Technically, they are both blue with a red stripe, but the change is definitely for the better.
The logo went from GIANTS to NY. Again, the difference is slight, but I like it. Two Color scheme on the logo from one. And something about the lowercase lettering looks cooler too. I just like what they did here. More colorful. More modern. And still, simple and easy.
And I love the Gray pants. How many teams do that? One. The Giants. It sets them apart. It makes them different. These would have been my second favorite except for a major uniform overhaul in the past off season by the....
2. Buffalo Bills
I'm going to be honest here, I've been waiting for this change. The past few years whenever I saw the Bills on television I would text my brother and say something along these lines, "I really wish the Bills would go back to their throwback uniforms, they look better than these things."
The Bills uniforms were awful. The Red helmets look like something from the 80's. They weren't terrible, but mixed in with all the color in the uniform... There's no contrast. They're all Blue and Red, it hurt the eyes. Another thing I didn't like about them is the weird shoulder square thing. It's more notable on the white uniforms, but it's even there on the blue ones? What the heck? And if you have a Blue shoulder thing on the white uniforms, shouldn't you have a White shoulder thing on the Blue ones?
Buffalo General Manger Buddy Nix, used to be the Assistant GM to the San Diego Chargers. He took a page out of his old team's book. He changed the uniforms so that it looked like the throwback uniforms, but had their own charm. They pay homage to the bills of old, without exactly copying it and looking like they belong in a museum like like the Jets did. Straight out of the Chargers playbook. Going back to the white helmets? Check. Going back to an old color scheme? check. Well done, Bills, well done.
1. San Diego Chargers -The Hands Down best looking uniforms in the league.
"Home"
I'm fully prepared for the cries of "Homer!" and "That's your favorite team, of course you like them the best!" Listen, it's not my fault that my favorite team also has the best looking uniforms in the league. It's just the way it is. If I were a Packers fan, I would not be claiming we had the best looking uniforms in the league. Because they don't. If I were a Bears fan, I would not think the Bears had the best uniforms either, because even though they are fine, traditional, and classic... they aren't cool. The Chargers uniforms are cool.
"Away"
This is why I have included photos of each of the three styles, Home, Away, and Alternate. Look closely at each of these photos. And then think back to the five worst uniforms, as recorded yesterday. Do the Chargers uniforms do anything like those teams?
Are they:
Trying too hard to be audacious, like the Broncos uniforms?
Relics of the past like the Jets uniforms?
Racially and culturally inappropriate, as well as poorly colored, like the Redskins?
Plain, bland, boring and ugly like the Browns uniforms?
Wimpy, new age colored, and adorned with a silly looking mascot?
"Alternate"
Let me answer each of those questions with one answer, "NO". Here is how nice looking the Charger uniforms are, first of all imagine a little kid... 6, 7, 8 years old... and put him in a room full of NFL jerseys and let him pick the one he likes the most (we have to imagine he knows nothing about football, and has no favorite team or anything.... just picking on which jersey he likes the best). More than likely he's coming out of there with the one that has Lightning Bolts on it. What would you pick.... one with a bird on it?
I was watching a pre-season game of the Chargers this summer, and my wife looked up from the computer and says, "When you picked them as your favorite team, did you do it because their uniforms look so cool"? Honestly, it played a role. I was 10 years old. This was basically pre-espn, and I'd never heard of them. (Remember the NFL didn't dominate the culture of the nation in those days, as it does now.) I saw this cool looking team, throwing the ball all over the field, putting up tons of points. (Dan Fouts and the Air Coryell era Chargers)
Listen, as a Chargers fan, they've never won the Super Bowl. They may never win the Super Bowl (Particularly the way the current version of the team is playing). Can't you just admit that their uniforms look good? It's not like saying they're the best team. Just the best dressed. Is there anything wrong with that? Not in my opinion. Of course, Chiefs, Broncos, and Raiders fans are excused from giving the Chargers any credit whatsoever, and that's alright because it's obvious by your choice of team that you have made worse decisions in the past. (tee-hee)
I was texting back and forth with a friend (Steelers fan) this summer, and we were busting on each others teams a little, and he said something like "The Steelers would beat the Chargers" and I replied back with, "I don't doubt it, but the Chargers still have the best looking uniforms." To which he replied, "True. Even I won't argue that point."
So there you go. My completely unscientific, and completely biased opinion on who looks the best.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
5 Worst NFL Uniforms
5 Worst NFL Team Uniforms
This is looking at the whole uniform: pants, jersey, and helmet in concert. How does everything look together?
Here’s what I used for criteria: my opinion.
While I know that is lacking on specifics and details, it is the truth, and it's good enough for me... hey, it's my blog.
Here we go, starting with:
Despite what many who know me may think, this has nothing to
do with them being a division rival of my favorite team (the Chargers). The Raiders and Chiefs aren’t on this
list. So that’s not it. It’s not the color scheme because the
Virginia Cavaliers make the dark blue and orange thing work.
First of all, I hate the design. The little point thing on the helmet stripe? It starts out wide on the back of the helmet
and then shrinks down to a little point at the front. That looks stupid. Also, on the jerseys and pants… their stripes
come to a point… at the top of the jersey (point on the chest) and then down
the side, and finishes with another point on the bottom of the pants.
Then, we come to the ‘bronco’ on the helmet. It’s too… tooo... it’s just too much. First of all it’s enormous! And secondly, it’s too “fierce” looking. This horse is trying too hard. Maybe the actual logo wouldn’t be so bad if
it wasn’t so large. But when you put the
“fierce horse face” in combination with the size of the thing, it just looks
like it’s overcompensating for something.
When Bill Parcells took over the Jets in the late 90’s, he
changed the uniforms and logos from the ones they had been using, to the look
the team sported during the Joe Namath era.
Most likely hoping it would “recapture the glory years” of the franchise
(they did win a Super Bowl).
Too be honest, at first I was on board with this
change. At that time the “throwback”
uniforms were popular, and the Jets uniforms at that time did leave something
to be desired. Now though, they look like something from the 1960’s, which is exactly what they are. It’s not that they are ugly like the Broncos,
they just look like something out of a museum.
The Jets need an update.
I’m not sure how, and I’m not sure what, but they need a change. You live in New York! The media capital of the world! You have one of the most vocal fan bases in
the league! You can do better! Get some PR people working on this issue. You have how many advertising and marketing
firms based in New York? There is no
reason for you to keep trotting out a team that looks like they are playing in
the same clothes that their Grandpa did.
Get with the 2000’s Jets.
I’m not sure where to begin with the Redskins.
1.
The racially inappropriate mascot. (Redskins? really?)
3.
The horrendous color scheme. (Red and Yellow, no wait Burgundy and Gold)
First of all, it is beyond my understanding how any team could
exist in 2011 and have a mascot be named the Redskins. How is this possible? It’s the most ridiculous thing I can imagine
a team being called. What if San Antonio
got a team and started calling it the “Wetbacks”? How about the San Jose Slant Eyes? Would that be good? What if Miami’s team was called the “Refugees”
instead of the Dolphins, and had a picture of a floating Cuban refugee on the
side of the helmet?
You can talk all you want about tradition and history, and blah, blah, blah. It makes no difference. It’s wrong. It needs to go. When you also factor in that this team also represents our nation’s capital, it makes it worse.
You can talk all you want about tradition and history, and blah, blah, blah. It makes no difference. It’s wrong. It needs to go. When you also factor in that this team also represents our nation’s capital, it makes it worse.
So, Washington fans you need a new mascot, which also means
a new logo, why not go for wholesale changes while you are at it? I don’t think the next team should be that burgundy and gold color scheme. You can't have a "new identity" with the same colors. It could
be close, but different.
How about maroon and gold like the University of Minnesota? That would be close, but a change, and a change is needed. Think of it this way, when you’re going out, and you want to look good… who puts on Burgundy and Gold together? How about Red and Yellow, for that matter? It’s not a good color scheme to begin with, so you may as well change that.
How about maroon and gold like the University of Minnesota? That would be close, but a change, and a change is needed. Think of it this way, when you’re going out, and you want to look good… who puts on Burgundy and Gold together? How about Red and Yellow, for that matter? It’s not a good color scheme to begin with, so you may as well change that.
Personally, I’d be in favor of naming the team the
Washington Senators like the old baseball team.
But that is all beyond the point, which is that this uniform, logo, and
mascot NEED TO GO. Do the right thing, Dan Snyder. Just do it.
The ugliest uniforms in professional football, hands
down. Possibly the ugliest uniforms in all of professional sports. The Browns aren’t going to win any
beauty contests. From the plain white jerseys
with the orange pants, or the brown jerseys with the white pants, these things look terrible.
First off, this was a fine look back in the way back… you
know, before teams adorned their helmets with logos and graphics. But teams have been doing that for a while. The Browns stubbornly refuse to change. OK, so you like a simple helmet. You do notice that your helmet is colored
Orange? The team is named the Browns,
but you wear Orange helmets?
I know the team is named the Browns after the legendary
coach Paul Brown. I get that. I even think it’s cool. But couldn’t you incorporate something about
that? You’re just plain. These are the most boring and plain looking
things you can imagine. And you know what, it would not be hard to change to something better. A quick internet search of Cleveland Browns Uniforms, found me these "fan made uniforms'. Those look pretty sweet, right? Much better than what they actually wear.
In fact, the only thing that prevents them from being the #1
worst uniform in the League is this… they are so ugly that Browns fans are
proud of this. They relish the fact that
they are “the Browns” and that they are plain, and their fans are “the dogpound”. This fact prevents them from
being the worst, however they are still ugly.
But there is one worse...
But there is one worse...
Where oh where, do we begin with the Dolphins? Should we start with the mascot? Who is intimidated by a Dolphin? How about the color scheme? Aqua and Coral sound more like stripper names
than a football team’s colors. And let’s
call them what they are: Teal and
Orange. Let’s move on to the logo on the
Helmet. A cartoon dolphin, wearing a
football helmet (with an orange M on it) jumping in front of a silhouette of
the sun. Wow.
Does anyone find it ironic, that the Dolphin on the helmet
is actually wearing a cooler looking helmet, than the helmet it is appearing
on? Seriously, look closely at that
helmet… a plain and simple orange M looks better than what they have on there.
Miami, it’s time to wake up.
You are happening, you have South Beach, you have beautiful ladies,
beautiful weather and tremendous football history. You can do better than this. Allow me to make a few suggestions:
Did you know that one of the Dolphins official colors is
Navy? It’s absolutely true. What are you doing dressing in teal and orange
(OK fine, have it your way, Aqua and Coral)?
You need to incorporate some Navy into those uniforms. How about the pants? They could be Navy with a two color coral and
aqua stripe up the side (similar to what you have now). I understand wanting to wear white down there
in the heat…but instead of teal, um, aqua numbers on the jerseys go with Navy
and outline the trim in coral and aqua.
You should keep the Dolphins are your mascot. But change the logo. Almost anything is better than what you
have. Change the helmet while you’re at
it. It doesn’t need to be an M, it could
be anything, shoot a scripted “Dolphins” looks
better than what you have now.
So there you have it, change you helmets, change your logo, and
God’s sake incorporate some Navy into your uniforms. It’s one of your colors, use it.
My next post will be on the Top 5, and you know that you want to know.
My next post will be on the Top 5, and you know that you want to know.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Put your best (Bare) foot forward
It started with a book.
About a year ago (over Christmas Break, in fact), I read the book Born To Run by Christopher McDougall. An amazing story in which the author chronicles the life of the Tarahumara tribe, who live the mountains of Mexico. But that's really too simplistic.
The book actually talks about the human race, and basically, well that we are "Born to Run". In looking at a number of different scientists research McDougall basically comes to the conclusion that we are naturally made, by evolution, to be able to run long distances.
Which leads to the shoe issue. Or no shoe issue. Or lack of shoes issue. Whatever you would like to call it. McDougall studies how the Tarahumara ran amazing distances, in basically what you and I would considered to be home made flip flops. He spends quite a bit of time on the subject.
In the past few years, there has been what has been called a "barefoot revolution". Numerous books have been published about it. And dozens of websites, are devoted to running shoeless, or natural. Probably the most informational of the sites is from Harvard University.
Basically, the arguement is that by wearing big, fancy, cushioned, running shoes... we are training ourselves to run incorrectly. And that because of the fact we are running incorrectly, this is causing the multitude of running related injuries we see today.
It's a very interesting and radical idea. Instead of running on our "forefoot" like our bodies intended, we developed shoes that made us become "heel strikers". The evidence is pretty compelling.
So, I got fired up. I mean, I was going to totally change my ways... it was winter, I was running almost exlusively indoors on the treadmill anyway... why not try some barefoot running? Three miles sounded like a simple little run, so I did a 3 mile run barefoot on the treadmill. Big Mistake.
My calves hurt for a solid week. I had some "hot spots" on my feet from the belt. This wasn't heaven, this was painful. A quick investigation online, and i find out you are supposed to break into barefoot running "gradually". Good thing I was so prepared.
So I went online and bought a pair of racing flats. I tried to do half of my runs in those, and half of my runs in my normal training shoes. I started out doing a quarter of a mile (in socks, this time) barefoot on treadmill. I slowly added a quarter of a mile a week... each week until I got up to about half a mile each run. I suffered no setbacks, but was unable to continue once I started running outside.
I thought about buying a pair of Vibram Five Fingers, but I just couldn't force myself to spend that much money (about $100) to "slowly break into it". I was running outside, didn't want to go a mile, and then change back into regular shoes.
However, I'm now on my "midwinter break". (I'm taking November off this year, instead of December. Getting an early start on the "new year".) I've been thinking about giving it another go. I've been looking at a few pairs of "barefoot style" shoes. The Altra Zero Drops look intriguing to me, so I'm going to give them a try. They seem like a good shoe to "transition" into this style of running.
Maybe I'll blog about how it's going, maybe I won't. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has experience with "barefoot running", and what you think of it. Great things, horror stories, whatever... I'd like to hear from you.
Either way, I highly recommend the book, and look forward to putting some miles in this winter in my Altra's.
About a year ago (over Christmas Break, in fact), I read the book Born To Run by Christopher McDougall. An amazing story in which the author chronicles the life of the Tarahumara tribe, who live the mountains of Mexico. But that's really too simplistic.
The book actually talks about the human race, and basically, well that we are "Born to Run". In looking at a number of different scientists research McDougall basically comes to the conclusion that we are naturally made, by evolution, to be able to run long distances.
Which leads to the shoe issue. Or no shoe issue. Or lack of shoes issue. Whatever you would like to call it. McDougall studies how the Tarahumara ran amazing distances, in basically what you and I would considered to be home made flip flops. He spends quite a bit of time on the subject.
In the past few years, there has been what has been called a "barefoot revolution". Numerous books have been published about it. And dozens of websites, are devoted to running shoeless, or natural. Probably the most informational of the sites is from Harvard University.
Basically, the arguement is that by wearing big, fancy, cushioned, running shoes... we are training ourselves to run incorrectly. And that because of the fact we are running incorrectly, this is causing the multitude of running related injuries we see today.
It's a very interesting and radical idea. Instead of running on our "forefoot" like our bodies intended, we developed shoes that made us become "heel strikers". The evidence is pretty compelling.
So, I got fired up. I mean, I was going to totally change my ways... it was winter, I was running almost exlusively indoors on the treadmill anyway... why not try some barefoot running? Three miles sounded like a simple little run, so I did a 3 mile run barefoot on the treadmill. Big Mistake.
My calves hurt for a solid week. I had some "hot spots" on my feet from the belt. This wasn't heaven, this was painful. A quick investigation online, and i find out you are supposed to break into barefoot running "gradually". Good thing I was so prepared.
So I went online and bought a pair of racing flats. I tried to do half of my runs in those, and half of my runs in my normal training shoes. I started out doing a quarter of a mile (in socks, this time) barefoot on treadmill. I slowly added a quarter of a mile a week... each week until I got up to about half a mile each run. I suffered no setbacks, but was unable to continue once I started running outside.
I thought about buying a pair of Vibram Five Fingers, but I just couldn't force myself to spend that much money (about $100) to "slowly break into it". I was running outside, didn't want to go a mile, and then change back into regular shoes.
However, I'm now on my "midwinter break". (I'm taking November off this year, instead of December. Getting an early start on the "new year".) I've been thinking about giving it another go. I've been looking at a few pairs of "barefoot style" shoes. The Altra Zero Drops look intriguing to me, so I'm going to give them a try. They seem like a good shoe to "transition" into this style of running.
Maybe I'll blog about how it's going, maybe I won't. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has experience with "barefoot running", and what you think of it. Great things, horror stories, whatever... I'd like to hear from you.
Either way, I highly recommend the book, and look forward to putting some miles in this winter in my Altra's.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
General Silliness
Fostering some good tunes
I downloaded the entire Foster the People album, and listened to it basically nonstop over the weekend.
It's definately my favorite album of the year. It makes me, a non-dancer, want to get up and groove.
Last week, David Letterman was kind enough to let the perform in the Ed Sullivan Theater.
Check it Out, if you have a spare 45 minutes. Pretty darn good show.
The Big East - expanding?
Sounds like the Big East has extended invitations to six schools for football (3 FB only, and 3 fulltime).
If I were you Boise State, I'd wait for the Big 12. They still don't have 12 teams, and it's a better FB conference.
Cubs fire Quade
Newly appointed Team President Theo Epstein announced today that the team is letting go Mike Quade as the team's Manager. Good idea. I'm not anti-Quade or anything, he seems like a great guy. But with the new management team in place, we need a fresh start for the organization. Next, bring in a bunch of new players.
New Girl Fever
Have you watched Fox's "New Girl" yet? If not, what on Earth are you waiting for?
It is my favorite new TV show this year. And, she's kinda hot. And for you single guys, she's single now. Not that it would ever happen, but it's nice to dream.
Fire Norv Sentiment GrowsAfter the Chargers improbable Monday night loss to the Chiefs, the movement for the dismissal of the Chargers Head Coach has grown by leaps and bounds. We've been down this road a few times before, I'm willing to wait out the season, and see what happens.
Cuban Interested in the Dodgers?
Stop me if you've heard this before. Mark Cuban is interested in buying a MLB team. This time, the Dodgers. I think this would be awesome. Cuban should be in baseball. I wish he'd have gotten a chance to own the Cubs.
That's about really all I have. Congrats to Austin Sumner of South Dakota State University for being named the FCS National Freshman of the week. Young man has a bright future in the blue and yellow.
Later Taters!
I downloaded the entire Foster the People album, and listened to it basically nonstop over the weekend.
It's definately my favorite album of the year. It makes me, a non-dancer, want to get up and groove.
Last week, David Letterman was kind enough to let the perform in the Ed Sullivan Theater.
Check it Out, if you have a spare 45 minutes. Pretty darn good show.
The Big East - expanding?
Sounds like the Big East has extended invitations to six schools for football (3 FB only, and 3 fulltime).
If I were you Boise State, I'd wait for the Big 12. They still don't have 12 teams, and it's a better FB conference.
Cubs fire Quade
Newly appointed Team President Theo Epstein announced today that the team is letting go Mike Quade as the team's Manager. Good idea. I'm not anti-Quade or anything, he seems like a great guy. But with the new management team in place, we need a fresh start for the organization. Next, bring in a bunch of new players.
New Girl Fever
Have you watched Fox's "New Girl" yet? If not, what on Earth are you waiting for?
It is my favorite new TV show this year. And, she's kinda hot. And for you single guys, she's single now. Not that it would ever happen, but it's nice to dream.
Fire Norv Sentiment GrowsAfter the Chargers improbable Monday night loss to the Chiefs, the movement for the dismissal of the Chargers Head Coach has grown by leaps and bounds. We've been down this road a few times before, I'm willing to wait out the season, and see what happens.
Cuban Interested in the Dodgers?
Stop me if you've heard this before. Mark Cuban is interested in buying a MLB team. This time, the Dodgers. I think this would be awesome. Cuban should be in baseball. I wish he'd have gotten a chance to own the Cubs.
That's about really all I have. Congrats to Austin Sumner of South Dakota State University for being named the FCS National Freshman of the week. Young man has a bright future in the blue and yellow.
Later Taters!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)