Imagine Denver's edge if the Broncos played 10 of their 16 games at Once It Was Called Mile High Stadium.

That would be really cool because there is a parking lot where Mile High Stadium used to be. The Broncos' current stadium was never called Mile High Stadium.

The comments I just posted over at the FEI preview apply to this weeks TMQ as well. Easterbrook is correct that cupcake nonconference scheduling is a blight on college football, and the trend toward talented teams scheduling seven home games, or even eight home games, with only five or four road games, just makes it worse.

The NFL never explained why Miami was designated the home team for the London event.

They didn't have to. Miami is the home team because of the rotating schedule. If the NFL designated the Giants as the home team, they would have to switch another Giants game, another Dolphins game, and probably a bunch of other games to balance the schedule.

Accuscore is love.

1: the mile-high mistake is one easterbrook has made before. Sad.

as far as comparing the college "preseason" games to the nfl, well its apples and oranges imo.

What the hell is the Boss Button?

TMQ is definitely worse than MMQB.

Regarding the Eagles' drafting of Kevin Kolb:

By acting hurt and dazed and petulant and forlorn and threatening to hold his breath 'til he turns blue, McNabb only made himself appear weak.

Um, what?? McNabb barely reacted at all. TMQ is making the local Philly press look level-headed and well-informed.

I'd like to propose a new TMQ thread rule. No sniping. If you don't like TMQ, or his writing - stop reading it. I don't agree with a lot of what he writes, but he has a good writing style and I find a lot of his observations humorous at least.

He has taken a lot of flack here for not presenting facts in a non-biased way, but that is not what he is paid to do. That is what reporters are supposed to do. His job is to express his opinions, sort of like a documentary film. Think of all the documentaries you have heard of lately. How many of them were presented in an objective manner?

Anyway, I'm not saying Easterbrook is the best writer of all time. Just please let's discuss his points - both valid and invalid - instead of just bashing.

Okay, I'm off my soapbox now. Sorry.

I wasn't trying to bash; I felt I was pointing out a factual error. McNabb hasn't said anything negative (at least not in public) about the Kolb pick.

#6: you click it, and it gets rid of the cheerleader pictures so that if your boss happens to walk by, he'll only think you're wasting his money, not engaging in lewd conduct.

Re: 6

Boss Button is the link to the TMQ without pictures. Because he likes to post bikini shots, somebody (him or otherwise) realized that some people at work would be better served not to have scantily-clad cheerleaders on their screen when they're reading the article.

Unfortunately, this week's Boss Button is a link to last week's picture-free article.

#9
Is saying his point is invalid "bashing"?
I also think he's taken more flack for presenting falsehoods as facts, rather than presenting facts in a biased manner. Furthermore, I think the majority of extreme reactions to TMQ come from the perceived decline in the quality of his column over the years. Finally, the "if you are going to criticize don't read it" argument is pretty weak. It's sort of like the "well if you don't like it here, move!" argument you occasionally see in politics.

Re: 9

I can agree with the motion with a caveat: TMQ's articles are designed to stir controversy, even to the point of making himself look silly. His basic trick is to bring up something that sounds awry from the outset, and then leave an unanswered question about it. From there, it's usually pretty easy to see what the hole(s) in the argument is(are). For example, the concept of calling the Giants the home team may sound like a plausible argument on the surface; when you actually bother to look at why Miami's home and what would be involved in changing it, you realize that it's an absurd notion. This, I believe is TMQ's real value.

I actually rather enjoy reading the debunking of TMQ here, because there's always some point that a commenter brings up that I didn't think of when I read through the article.

That said, I will agree that it can be done (perhaps more effectively) without all the "such an idiot" type comments. Those just get in the way of otherwise good reader analysis.

Chris, pointing out that Easterbrook has written something factually wrong or logically ridiculous is not "sniping" unless "sniping" means not being thoughtlessly supportive of everything Easterbrook writes. When Easterbrook writes something with validity, like his comments about college football this week, I will support him. When he writes fatuously, I'll rip him hard. What's wrong with that?

I will note that Easterbrook redlined the fatuousometer so often last year that I gave up on him about halfway through the season, so we'll see what happens this year, but it is a little much to ask people to remain silent when Easterbrook indulges in near-idiocy, and frequently pompous near-idiocy at that.

holding the fourth overall choice in the 2007 draft plus two second-round selections, Tampa was in solid position...
---
...used the choices on Gaines Adams and Sabby Piscitelli

Wait, Tampa used 3 picks in the first two rounds to come away with 2 players?

Seth, I wasnt' really referencing anyone's comments in particular, I just like to discuss the points. About McNabb, I actually agree that I haven't heard him say anything negative. Just the media. That type of counter point is what I'm looking for in this thread!

TheWedge, you're right my "don't read it" was weak. I'm actually fine with people criticizing the writing. I just get tired of the repetive lame pot-shots. Also, I agree that TMQ is more formula than substance lately.

Ah, let me answer my own question. According to wikipedia, Tampa took an offensive tackle with the 35th overall pick, Arron Sears.

Oh TMQ, why must you misrepresent the truth so?

Will, nothing is wrong with that, and that's the kind of insight I want to read from all of you guys. I'm mostly a reader here.

RE the Giants at home in the UK. Can someone please explain to me why a neutral site game can't count as an away game on both teams sched? I'm sure there's a reason for it, but I can't figure it out. Thanks.

19: For every "home" game scheduled, there has to be an "away" game scheduled too.

Consider a league where there were only three teams, and each team played each other once. One game is in London, and is an away game for both teams there. Then they'd have to both play "home" vs the third team. That would mean the third team gets two "away" games.

There's no way of making two teams both be "away" against each other, unless you have a way of making both teams "home" in another game.

Considering the Giants had an "away" game against the Saints after Hurricane Katrina, and they sometimes play "away" games vs the Jets at the Meadowlands, it's hard for me to feel too sorry for them.

Please tell me the Chris Leak stuff is shtick.

Considering the Giants had an “away� game against the Saints after Hurricane Katrina, and they sometimes play “away� games vs the Jets at the Meadowlands, it’s hard for me to feel too sorry for them.

Especially since Miami is the home team in London!

Chris G -
Designating both teams as "away" isn't a problem in and of itself, except that each team expects 8 home games and 8 away games. But if both of those teams were designated as the "away" team, then you'd have one team with 9 "away" games for the season, unless the giants and jets played in meadowlands/giants stadium and were both designated the "home" team for that game.

19: For every "home" game scheduled, there has to be an "away" game scheduled too.

Consider a league where there were only three teams, and each team played each other once. One game is in London, and is an away game for both teams there. Then they'd have to both play "home" vs the third team. That would mean the third team gets two "away" games.

There's no way of making two teams both be "away" against each other, unless you have a way of making both teams "home" in another game.

...you've got to seriously rethink your thought that Detroit can be a playoff team.

If you ever thought Detroit could make the playoffs you need to seriously rethink your sanity.

re #9

How's this for sniping: You spelled 'flak' wrong.

Seriously though, instead of trying to police the internet, you might consider leading the discussion.

Wow, Yaguar said what I said, only 3 minutes earlier. Sorry for the duplication.

Odd, kept getting WP errors. Sorry about the DP.

And I didn't know Miami was the home team in London. I guess I feel kind of bad for them. They're stuck with Chris Chambers and a 9 away game schedule.

Great. I responded to MMQB in the TMQ comments. One tab on FO at a time from now on.

Thanks Yaguar. I think I got it backwards though. Miami is the home team, so they lose a home game and the Giants still get 9 (Jets).

#19 - I think recognizing the London game as an away game for both teams would upset the delicate balance of NFL scheduling, and potentially rend a hole in the time-space continuum.

Seriously - you couldn't give two teams a simultaneous away game and still meet the 8 home games and 8 away games stipulation. That would require both teams observing an away game as a home game, at the expense of some other team, since Miami and the Giants don't meet but once in this season. Still, Miami gets screwed.

I think the real issue is that the whole premise of playing a regular season game outside the US is kind of stupid (with apologies to the European readership), especially since the concept of "home turf" is important to many teams (Broncos, Packers, Patriots, etc.).

#30

Actually, the NYG-NYJ game this seasons is nominally a Giants home game (Week 5 schedule linked on my name). So it's the Jets that get 9 games at their home stadium this year.

funny smack down of George Tenet, when's football start

TMQ brings up the possibility of selling double naming rights. Except, when he points out the double-naming phenomenon, none of the examples are of double-sales. Instead, they're done to honor some personage (well, not quite w/r/t the WV Mountaineer), and still take in naming right fees. I guess this is in keeping with the week's football columns theme, "Solutions to Problems That Don't Exist." (See #14 in yesterday's MMQB thread.)

#30:

Actually, the NYG-NYJ game this season is officially a Giants home game (click name). So it's the Jets that get 9 games in their home stadium this year.

Thanks to you too Tracy. I guess that's why we need that 17th game that King wants so badly.

#26, Frank, I wasn't trying to "police the internet". I just have high expectations for this site from both the staff writers and the posters. Most of you know way more about football than I do, and I really appreciate the knowledge. Especially from RaiderJoe. I just felt that there were too many "TMQ is an idiot" posts showing up over the last several weeks (going back to last year), and I wanted something a bit deeper. Sorry if I offended you.

PS - thanks for the spell check. I'm a horrible speller, and can't believe people actually wrote before spell checkers existed.

Completely off topic, but my line breaks keep vanishing after I post. I'm using Safari as my browser. Is there anything I can do to keep the break in? Thanks.

Yeah, the Chris Leak stuff is ridiculous, and one can only hope intentionally so. Unfortunately, I suspect it is a very far-fetched hope. Anybody who saw "winner" Chris Leak "beat" Ohio State last January, and came away thinking that Leak was a good NFL quarterback prospect, is a very, very, poor evaluator of talent.

It's a little annoying how he criticizes Green Bay, essentially, for not going Daniel Snyder Style and using up their available cap space in the off-season, when he constantly rips the Redskins for doing just that.

and seems to insinuate they're being cheap on purpose because they are a publicly owned team that needs to make the shareholders happy, or something like that. That's what I got from it anyway. I'm pretty confident GB shareholders would trade a little fiscal solvency for a super bowl.

6.
You're talking about your boss and what a piece of junk he is... when he walks in the room you say "...so that's when I said not to worry about the reports".

Chris G,
The only reason I really put myself through easterbrook was, like #14, to better understand the FO comments.

And Will, this article made me already give up on TMQ this season because of great analysis that there is no mature way of arguing against, like

"There's a greater chance that, having signed his monster contract, Davis will celebrate by taking 2007 off."

and "By acting hurt and dazed and petulant and forlorn and threatening to hold his breath 'til he turns blue, McNabb only made himself appear weak."

it's just chock full of this stuff. I also decided to not read it again this season when now I'm supposed to only post on these imaginary points that Easterbrook makes.

Chris G --

There are no line breaks in the preview, if that's what you mean.

[web developer]
It's because they have some hacktastic crap on top of wordpress for a website.
[/web developer]

I'm not sure why he questions Cedric Benson's effort. His ability is definitely questionable until proven otherwise, but I've never seen a reason to doubt his efforts.

zip, thanks. I wasn't looking at my own posts once they went through. Duh. I thought the breaks were gone forever.

#40 "imaginary points" funny. Quite possibly a very bad choice of words on my part.

To everyone, I'm sorry I started all this crap. Please consider me properly chastised.

#37, You're right on. You can't call out a team for not using it's cap space in the preseason. It isn't wasted until the season is over. There are lots of things they could do with that money, extensions for example. Now if they finish the season with a boat load of money on the table they are being foolish.

I believe the Eagles have a reputation for not spending to the cap. Have they actually ever made it through a whole season with lots of cap space?

TMQ might be presumptuous and not so funny a lot of times, but he's got some good arguments against the whole Vick-The-Great-Vilain hysteria. Animals are so cute... when we don't need them for the purpose of «gastronomy».

Actually, Grand Wazoo, even his Vick commentary wasn't much, such as when he put forth the notion that an animal that is shot in the head or has it's carotid artery severed suffers a slow agonizing death. Easterbrook's understanding of the physiology of mammmals is a little weak.

If both teams were the away teams, who would call the coin toss?

"I believe the Eagles have a reputation for not spending to the cap. Have they actually ever made it through a whole season with lots of cap space?"

I dont think so.

The patriots get chastised all the time for being cheap too... and they finished last year with $0.12 left on the cap, IIRC.

I'm amazed that after 10+ years, people still dont understand the salary cap.

Hmmm...Trent Edwards and Marshawn Lynch (Bills' 1st and 3rd rounders, RB and QB) were at the "NFL Players Rookie Premiere Presented By EA Sports" but 2nd round LB Posluszny was not. Well, now I know why Edwards is pictured in Madden 08 but Poz isn't.

Wasn't the original name of the Stadium "Invesco Field at Mile High?"

Easterbrook is an insufferable blowhard, but the boy can write. If only ESPN would edit him just a bit...

#31 I think the real issue is that the whole premise of playing a regular season game outside the US is kind of stupid (with apologies to the European readership), especially since the concept of “home turf� is important to many teams (Broncos, Packers, Patriots, etc.).

Yeah, cos god forbid that the NFL should ever be popular outside the good ol' US of A.

What's that you say, there are 20 times as many people in the real world as there in citizens of the USA? But shurely they aren't real people?

Shurely?

#49 - That's still the name of the stadium.

His Vick comments show an ignorance that is staggering. First of all, cutting the carotid artery is an extremely quick and painless death. Second of all, electrocution as it is done in slaughter houses and electrocution as it is performed in someones backyard with a bucket of water and a live wire is two completely different things. Third, where does hanging a dog to slowly strangle on a rope rate up there on the humane scale? Fourth, Easterbrook is deliberately ignoring the obvious fact which is that Vick and company took pleasure in the slow and agonizing death of the dogs. That is disturbing. No one should ever kill for pleasure. Fifth, in what imaginary world does Easterbrook claim that animals of the same species fight for hours to the death? On the planet Earth, they don't. If animals do fight, it's only to the point that one establishes dominance and the other retreats. Extremely rarely do these fights result in death and they never in nature last more than a few minutes. Finally, for me at least, dogs are in a separate class than animals which are traditionally raised for meat. I know Easterbrook doesn't understand this, or people who engage in dog-fighting, but it is what I think anyhow.

Morgnaja, I am hesitant to write more about Vick and dogs, but I will say that if Vick had operated a dog fighting enterprise but had executed his "underperformers" like a Rabbi kills a lamb, or simply shot them in the head with a .22 pistol, I'd still condemn the behavior, but I would think less poorly of him than I do now. Of course, it isn't surprising that a guy who would fight dogs for entertainment would kill "undrperformers" extremely painfully.

#50, surely.

#52,

I'm still trying to figure out how a systematic pattern of behavior over 7 years counts as a first offense?

#49: What TMQ really needs is a researcher, not an editor. His bits are usually pretty well edited. They're just not terribly well researched, and usually include blanket statements that, in some cases, could border on libel.

I'm actually kinda wondering when that will happen, to be honest. And when it does, will TMQ raise the "it's obviously a farce" defense?

With his comments about how the US takes fewer/shorter vacations than Europeans and how they live a less stressful life than we do: I ask a question. How many innovations and inventions had the Europeans had since WWII, compared to the United States and Japan? Is there any correlation between vacation time and innovation?

As others have pointed out, the Chris Leak stuff is absurd. Barring an injury or a trade of one of the 3 QBs entrenched above him on the depth chart, there's no way he comes close to making the Bears roster. Unless one of those things happens this week, he will be cut when the rosters are pared to 53.

"Green Bay lost to Chicago and New England last season by a combined 61-0, while posting zero wins against playoff-bound clubs."

The Packers beat the Bears in their rematch on New Year's Eve in Rex's Blutarsky game, so they did win a game against a playoff team. The game meant nothing to the Bears since they had clinched home field throughout the playoffs, and it meant even less to Rex, with it being New Year's Eve and all, but still . . . .

#38, having lived near GB for about 20 years, those people would trade their first born son for a Super Bowl.

I think it's great that TMQ just writes what we wants and all those here who have no sense or context or proportion get so bent out of shape. Oh no! He doesn't know what type of death is painless and quick!! Look in the mirror losers.

I usually just read the message board, but 52 you have to be being sarcastic, right? Cutting the carotid article allows an animal to bleed to death over minutes in extreme pain. You need to visit a slaughterhouse, or watch one of the many documentaries on the subject. And the electrocution is not that different, its a huge amount of current put through the animal, and it does cause a painful death, which is why electrocution is not considered a "humane" form of death for humans anymore.

But none of that is nearly as astounding as this statement:
Fifth, in what imaginary world does Easterbrook claim that animals of the same species fight for hours to the death? On the planet Earth, they don’t. If animals do fight, it’s only to the point that one establishes dominance and the other retreats. Extremely rarely do these fights result in death and they never in nature last more than a few minutes.

Animals often kill each other, from fighting fish, to wild dogs, to rams, to lions, to bears, sharks, etc, often resulting in cannibalism. I have no idea where you get the idea that many of these territorial fights are not fights to the death? Mountain Dew Commercials? If an animal in the wild has its leg broken or even pulls a major muscle in a territorial fight it can easily mean death for that animal, excluding the number of these fights that are fights to the death (which are many).

Also, could you please point out where Easterbrook claims they fight for hours in the wild? I believe the only relevant quote is here:
after all, animals fight to the death in nature, tearing each other's flesh with heartless violence.

good to see TMQ criticizing someone for *not* taking JP Losman.

Re 61
The context, which you could very easily have missed, concerns dog-fighting in a square pit in which the dogs have no choice but to fight to the death over hours. Where in nature do animals of the same species fight for hours to the death? Frankly, what in the hell are you talking about? Find me any research anywhere which states that animals of the same species commonly fight each other to the death. Bears? Goats? Lions? Cannibalism? Where are you getting this stuff? All the research I have ever seen is clear that animals of the same species do not fight each other to the death because it is suicidal for both of them. The survivor will be so wounded that he will just as surely die. There is a novel scientific breakthrough you might want to read up on called evolution. It pretty much says that animals which exhibit self-destructive behavior die out. That is why this behavior you seem to think is so common is in actuality so rare.

Cutting the artery leads to blood loss to the brain and a quick death. Not quick enough if not done properly in a slaughterhouse in which the creature can take up to a minute to lose consciousness. But sure as hell quicker than hanging a pit-bull by the neck.

What you are deliberately missing here is the huge difference between a slaughterhouse trying to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible, which is still disturbing, and someone taking pleasure in killing a creature slowly, getting off on watching it fight for life and eventually die in horrible agony.

I'm going to jump into this animal cruelty discussion, just because. (Note: I'm not a hunter.)

TMQ equates Vick's dog killing to hunting. Where does he come off doing that? Was Vick acting to control the growing dog population? Were the dogs spilling out of their natural environment (a kennel, I guess) and into populated areas? Did Vick obtain a license from the government to kill dogs? Hunting is not merely killing for sport. It also serves the important purpose of controlling animal populations whose natural predators no longer fulfill that role.

Further, animals which are hunted and animals which are pets are clearly in different classes, as pets are domesticated and hunted animals are wild. This is not a false dichotomy because domesticated animal populations are controlled much more directly by society than wild animal populations.

Finally, hunters don't electrocute, strangle, or beat their prey to death. Bow and crossbow hunting is possibly less humane than using a gun (and possibly not, I don't really know), but it is also less disruptive to the environment (noise is a type of pollution, too).

As to killing animals for meat, that's a whole different matter. Killing for meat serves a productive purpose, since it provides nourishment. Obviously it should be done in a humane way, but the entire point of the laws TMQ mentions which govern animal slaughter is to ensure humane practices. And about the exception for kosher slaughter, the laws for kosher slaughter are quite specific and strict, and are designed to cause as little distress to the animal as possible. If the slaughter is not done precisely as it should be, the meat is not kosher. I don't know the details of halal slaughter, so someone else can comment on that if they choose.

Oops, forgot something:

When a male lion takes over as alpha in a family group, he kills all the cubs (who were fathered by another male) so his genetic material is passed on instead of the previous alpha male. OK, so it's not fighting to death over a period of hours, just infanticide. Nature is full of it.

I, too, believe I am a better researcher than your average Brookings fellow.

I'm the frickin' Queen of England too.

There's a time to wonder why a guy said what he said rather than just assuming he's wrong. I think this is what Chris G was getting at before he was so roundly shouted down... there's a certain life-cycle to commenting on sports sites: they start quite smart, and then it becomes increasingly about why the commenters know more than the columnists, and then it gets unbearable. This site is currently the best I know of, and I, too, would hate to lose the opportunity to learn what I do in just the comments.

So, to complete the ellipse that TMQ began when discussing animals and food--and bear in mind that I am *NOT* a PETA person--I think that his suggestion that there is more animal cruelty in the food industry than in dog fighting is not really that controversial. Or rather: it's controversial, but only because people are not informed. Anyway, as I rad it, padagogically, this is where I, a meat eater, see him hinting (NSFW, and parent advisory and all that):
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=mym2002

#60, if you are claiming that Easterbrook makes wildly wrong assertions on purpose, well, it is hard to believe that he is as pompously stupid as he sometimes appears.

#61, uh, no, mammals don't feel agony for minutes after having their carotid arteries severed, and if you've ever been opened up by an extremely sharp blade, you know it takes some time for the pain to register. Never had my carotid severed, fortunately, but I'd wager that those experience the misfortune have everything go black and numb in less than 20 seconds. There is a reason why special forces types are taught to kill silently by that method; even when the windpipe is severed, you still don't want the enemy flopping around in agony.

Well, #66, if that is what he meant to write, that is what he should have written, because that is part of what constitutes good writing; clarity and accuracy. What doesn't constitute good writing is to make any number of factually inaccurate claims on the way to hinting at what you mean to say.

The credentialism involving the Brookings fellow comment is just silly. Look, the guy's assertions either hold up to scrutiny, or they don't, and in his tmq columns they frequently don't. Gregg Easterbrook could hold seven Nobel Prizes, in multiple disciplines, and it wouldn't change the fact that asserting that Chris Leak is a good NFL QB prospect reveals utter ignorance about quarterbacking on the NFL level.

For the record, I don't think TMQ meant the Chris Leak comment seriously.

59: matt millen's brain and his body are in separate states? it all makes sense!

Re:63
I'm only going to respond this last time because I honestly think you are being sarcastic. Have you ever seen fighting fish that can be in the same tank? Have you ever seen a Molly eat her young so they don't compete with her? And while we are on fish have you ever seen a bass eat a minnow? Often Bass minnows? Or any other species, I think genus is a more accurate representation of cannibalism in this case. Also see 65, which is well documented in more than just Lions.

You say I missed the context on how long these animals fight, but I think you added context where none was needed. Nobody claimed the fight being long or short made a difference in the humanness of the final act. You added that.

I am not in any way, shape or form a fan of PETA so I refuse to link to them, but go to their site and watch a cow being slaughtered through cutting its carotid artery and tell me it is in any way quick or humane.

Please site any research you have that animal fights in the wild don't end in death. As a Zoologist, I would love to see it. Plus we are just talking about inter-genus/species fights, completely discounting lion v zebra, cat v mouse, shark v fish or any other fight. Easterbrook did not make this distinction, you did. Animals often kill each other in the wild, not always for food. I'm sorry but that does happen. If you honestly believe that animals don't kill each other often (even of the same species and genus) than I am impressed by your naivety.

By the way, thanks for the lecture on Evolution. Now go read an Origin of Species and consider why it might actually be in a species best interest for the male to kill his rivals and impregnate all the females. I believe that is called "survival of the fittest", but I could be completely wrong.

and here i thought the boss button was a way to rate the article as being boss. which it's not, quite.

DC, if PETA shows a cow suffering for more than a quick moment after having it's carotid artery cut, guess what? The cow's carotid artery was not, in fact, cut.

McNabb BGA, if this....

"Leak went undrafted because he's 5-11, but consistently has been a winner in high school and college, where he threw for a combined 26,086 yards -- most of those throws coming over the outstretched hands of guys just as big as NFL defenders. I'd rather have a couple of shortish players who are high-motor and know what they're doing run my offense than hand the Duke to the blundering Grossman and phlegmatic Benson."

....is meant to be a satirical comment, it is very bad writing, or if Easterbrook really thinks that Leak's primary problem is that he is short, he either saw Leak play very seldomly, or he is clueless.

i want a burger.

Leak went undrafted because he's 5-11

Actually, he went undrafted because he was a four year starter, and as such, NFL scouts were able to determine with a great deal of certainty that he would not succeed as an NFL QB.

Leak...has been a winner

Free Kyle Orton!!

Seriously, though, the reason everybody rips on TMQ is that, nowadays at least, he gives us no better analysis/information/opinion than a typical idiot sports pundit, but he acts like he's so much smarter than all the other writers.

Honestly, MMQB has had more good information/opinions in it this season, and PK isn't an arrogant prick, either. At least PK is fairly humble when he writes about the NFL, and usually comes off as a reasonably likeable writer, even if he doesn't have much more understanding of the game than most pundits do. That's why we're relatively less harsh in our criticisms of him. He comes off as a fairly regular guy, in terms of football knowledge, and he doesn't pretend to be any more than that.

But when TMQ acts like he knows everything and his word is NFL gospel, he puts himself on a pedestal. A very public pedestal. And it's absolutely fair game to knock him off it.

You must go back to December 2004 for the last time the Packers bested a playoff-bound opponent.

Ok, not only is this not a particularly relevant fact, but it's not even a fact at all. Since Dec 2004, the Packers have beaten two playoff-bound opponents. In fact, in each of the last two years, they have posted a win over the eventual NFC Champion. It's his blatant disregard for the facts that makes his column particularly grating on the nerves. If you're going to play the part of an arrogant, more learned version of the sports pundits that we see on ESPN all the time, you at least have to get all of your facts right.

Sorry for being off topic but I have a question and think this group of posters is exactly the right bunch to handle it...

I have the ball on the one inch line. I extend the ball forward - touchdown - it has crossed the plane. OK no problem.

Now I have the ball at the one inch line on the sideline. I exttend the ball out of bounds then forward. Is it still a touchdown?

I would think not but have never seen anything definitive.

DC, the point morganja is trying to make (I think) is that animals have a VAST array of methods specifically aimed at avoiding fighting to the death in territorial/dominance/whatever conflicts. these conflicts happen countless numbers of times in the life of the animal which is why........ they don't result in fights to the death! They have others methods of indicating their health/virility status (lion's mane for instance). If you're really a zoologist and you didn't get that's the point that was being made, well you're not a very good one then.

Too say her comments were somehow denying lethal violence being pervassive in nature (which of course it is) is to deliberately misconstrue both morganja's point, and the point easterbrook seemed to be trying to make.

Re: 76

Unless the ruling has been changed since I last saw (which I don't believe it has), the concept is that the goal line extends horizontally to infinity. That is, if the ball carrier carries the ball outside the sideline (without touching the ground out of bounds) and manages to get a part of his body across the goal line from within bounds, it's ruled a touchdown. (This also seems to assume that the ball crosses the goal line, even though it might be out of bounds.)

Of all his recent troubles, Vick was actually very good at this one. I didn't see many Falcons games, but I did see one running touchdown where he shifted the ball to his outside hand (in this case, his left hand since he was running along the left sideline). To avoid a defender, he dove out of bounds and held the ball as far out of bounds as possible. Before he touched the ground, he extended his right hand back and slapped the top of the orange end zone marker, causing it to tumble out of bounds with him. The play was ruled a touchdown.

It's a nice little trick because there's really no way for a defender to stop it. If you hit the ball carrier to push him further out of bounds, you set yourself up for a late hit call, even though the carrier still has a chance of scoring.

Unfortunately, I don't have a reference in the rules to point to. But on an intuitive level, does this answer the question?

A playoff will not discourage playing cupcakes. It could very well encourage playing cupcakes in the current BCS system. The most important aspect, without a doubt, is going without a loss or no more than 1 loss. A playoff system with the current BCS system might encourage this more for teams that are perceived to be strong.

Previous versions of the BCS ranking system placed more weight on strength of opponents and allowed margin of victory to be included. That would mean that Florida winning by a field goal against Western Kentucky would NOT be a good thing for Florida, but would be a good thing for Kentucky, despite the loss. Personally, I think the weighted BCS system (including Margin of Victory and Strength of Schedule, with the greatest weight on wins, combined with the Polls) is actually a better representation than just Wins and Losses. Who gets into the playoffs and who gets byes and home field advantage might rely on playing starters and doing well. Preseason games in the NFL could be used to feed the original rankings, while not counting towards the ending wins and losses.

Personally, I think the College System is a hair away from having a Bowl + 1 (Championship) game. All of the normal bowls can be played, including Big 10 vs. Pac 10 in the Rose Bowl. Then a week or so later, we see the #1 and #2 teams (likely having played and won a major bowl game against an out of conference opponent) face off. The site could be moved each year. There would be a small advantage should the Rose Bowl winning team play the Championship Game in the Rose Bowl that year (no extra travel, more advantageous for LSU in Sugar Bowl or USC in Rose Bowl, obviously). However, I think this would satisfy all of the historical matchups and give an even more relevant Championship Game. Non-BCS conference teams migth still be seen in major bowls and might have a chance to play in the Championship Game.

A larger playoff (4 teams, 8 teams) could be possible, eventually. However, I think these should be done after the Bowls. Playoffs and Bowls are not scheduled and would not be cupcakes. Seeding by wins and losses encourages playing cupcakes and only winning enough games to reach your goal (home field advantage). The polls can provide value, especially when accounting for injuries and suspensions (current or past) and growth of players.

On the whole animal inter-species violence point of view. Plenty of species will attack and kill other members of the same species. One of the most shocking to observe is infanticide in chimps (and yes they do then eat the baby, protein can be rare in some of their habitats). When looked in terms of each gene looking to see itself replicated it makes sense for the dominant animal to ensure that the resources of the group and the group's habitat are used in producing copies of itself and not the genes of other males. If a new male takes over a group he will want to mate with all the females. Any females who already have dependant young are going to be unreceptive while they raise their babies. Simple solution (if you are a chimp) kill the baby. It is brutal, but it follows the rules of evolution, it is what happens in nature.

What bugs me about dog fighting is that the human relationship with dogs isn't natural, it is a human construct that has some benefits to both species. Historically dogs would have helped hunt prey or protect livestock, providing humans with help by using senses (smell, hearing, night vision etc) that have atrophied through human evolution and civilisation. The benefit to the dogs is that they are provided with some degree of shelter and protection especially for their young. At no level however is the dog/human relationship natural, the dogs don't really have a choice, any dog that behaved in a manner that didn't fit into the role humans decided for it will be killed. As such abusing these animals by forcing them to fight just for your own vicarious amusement is just twisted. If humans hadn't domesticated dogs what would Vick and his pals have looked for to make fight each other so they could gamble. Hobos? If they had used them then there would have been questions asked, easier to use an animal.

Re: 79: It totally depends on the playoff system. My ideal system would take the 11 conference winners plus 5 at-large teams. Since the emphasis would be on winning your conference, teams could play tough non-conference games without affecting their chances of winning their conference.

And the at-large spots should have strength of schedule as a key factor, so teams would get more credit for losing a close game to a good team than they would for beating Troy State or North Texas.

Re 66: There’s a time to wonder why a guy said what he said rather than just assuming he’s wrong.

The problem is there are too many times when he states basic facts that are just flat out wrong. It's not a matter of assuming that he's wrong, it's knowing that he's wrong. When he refers to the Broncos' stadium as "Once It Was Called Mile High Stadium", he's just flat out wrong because it was never called Mile High Stadium.

You can wonder why he said that or "The NFL never explained why Miami was designated the home team for the London event." and if you can come up with a decent reason other than he just didn't bother to do his research, I'd love to hear it.

76: The Sunday (I think) night telecast indicated that, for this season, the goal line is no longer an infinite plane, and that the ball must cross inside the pylons (inclusive). I didn't see an oops-ball-outside-the-pylons-no-TD call, though, and the announcers moved on pretty fast.

#81, I don't mind your set-up, but I'd really prefer to keep it at one at-large bid, to drive home the importance of winning the conference. Seeds 1-4 would get a first round bye, and the first two rounds would be played at the higher seeds' home fields. Play the semis at traditional bowl sites on Jan. 1, with the big game a weeks later.

Seed the 12 teams purely by 1) Nonconference wins over high quality opponents, 2)competitive losses to high quality nonconference opponents, with 3) huge subtraction of points for a loss to a low quality nonconference opponent.

Schools would compete like hell to get high quality nonconference opponents scheduled if they knew it was the only way for them to get a playoff game at home, or a shot at a bye.

" Hunting is not merely killing for sport. It also serves the important purpose of controlling animal populations whose natural predators no longer fulfill that role.

Further, animals which are hunted and animals which are pets are clearly in different classes, as pets are domesticated and hunted animals are wild. This is not a false dichotomy because domesticated animal populations are controlled much more directly by society than wild animal populations."

I agree with your point that Vick is horrific, and TMQ is a buffoon, but the population control argument isnt really a valid one here.

Dog populations are just as out of control as deer populations. Spay and nueter your pets people.

And again, the horse racing and dog racing industries are just as brutal to losers or wounded animals as dog fighting -- it's just that the nature of the sport itself isn't brutal.

The relative dismay over Michael Vick's hobby is way out of proportion to its relative acceptability in a lot of areas of the country.

Seriously, if you can't read TMQ's preview columns without bitching, it's time to stop reading. Offseason and preseason columns are usually the best of the lot, and this is no exception.

#84: I'm flexible on the overall format as long as all the conference champions get in. My thinking on having 5 at-large berths is:

1. 16 teams makes an even bracket so there aren't debates about who should get byes.

2. It would be really hard to pick just one at-large team in most seasons. Deciding between the the number 5, 6 and 7 teams for the last spot isn't as big a deal as deciding between the number 1, 2 and 3 teams.

Dennis, if you want to really ratchet up the pressure against nonconference cupcake scheduling, you simply award the one at large bid to the 2nd place conference finisher on the same basis as the overall seeding. The at large bid automatically is seeded 12th, and is chosen by 1)wins over high quality nonconference opponents 2)competitive losses to high quality nonconference opponents, with 3)huge loss of credit for a loss to a low quality nonconference opponent. How desperate will current good BCS conference teams be to avoid nonconference cupcakes if they know that finishing 2nd in the conference with such nonconference opponents is ruinous? Make the byes available by the same criteria, and teams will avoid cupcakes at all costs.

dbt, I have no real regard for the dog racing and horse racing industries, but let me know when racehorse owners and racing dog owners decide to destroy their animals by stringing them up by the neck to slowly strangle.

76, 78, 83: I did not see this past Sunday night's game, so I missed the discussion Stephen referenced, but I read a while ago that the rule has been changed so that (as Stephen said) the ball must cross the plane of the goal line in bounds. In reading about the rule change, an example given of a play that would no longer be a touchdown was the Michael Vick play that hooper referenced in #78 (which I remember seeing live and which was a great play by Vick). I cannot remember where I read about the rule change, but it was quite some time ago.

Re: 85

I assume you are not suggesting that people go out and hunt stray dogs, or that Vick was acting to control the dog population, so my point still stands.

I agree that pets should be spayed or neutered.

Will, if the seeding is based solely on nonconference schedule, how valuable is the seeding?

Let's say your system is in place for this year. USC goes 11-1 with a solid nonconference schedule and gets the #1 seed. Michigan goes 12-0 with a soft nonconference schedule and gets the #8 seed and plays USC in round 2. Texas is a 10-2 team with a strong nonconference schedule and is the #4 seed.

Are we sure that USC was rewarded with the best matchup because of their seed? Or would the entire benefit of their tough non-conference schedule be born out by getting the first round bye?

"I assume you are not suggesting that people go out and hunt stray dogs"

We (the state) pay people to do exactly that. Stray/Feral dogs do a whole lot more damage than excess deer.

I don't see any ethical difference in that respect.

I do agree that its not what Vick was doing, I just don't think "thinning the herd" is a valid argument for hunting in this context.

"Are we sure that USC was rewarded with the best matchup because of their seed?"

no, but with the limited amount of games, and the incomplete nature of college competition, theres no better way. Theres no real way to accurately judge things

Rich, my question is more about under Will's system, are teams truly rewarded for having a strong non-conference schedule, if all the seedings are based on non-conference schedule? Wouldn't a team still be better off to schedule weak non-conference, to keep your team healthier for the conference games?

Well, a bye and the home field in the first playoff game is a pretty big advantage. Heck, if Michigan's nonconference schedule is soft enough, maybe they get seeded 11th, and have to play two consecutive playoff games on their opponent's home field. Imagine having to play Rutgers in New Jersey on Saturday, and then, assuming they win, going to Los Angeles for a game seven days later. That'd be a real challenge for college players. Imagine, say, Florida', having to travel to L.A., and then seven days later going on the road to Boise State. Teams would be taking some huge chances by scheduling cupcakes, especially with only one at large bid available, and chosen fron 2nd place conference finishers with the best nonconference performance.

I wasn't thinking about the home field factor.

I had never heard a proposal like yours until now, and I think I like it, but I'd still probably prefer a 16-team playoff. I like underdogs and I want C-USA, Big West and WAC teams to have auto bids every year. There's almost always one of those teams that goes undefeated and I'd like to see them have a go in the playoffs.

Also, if you let the home playoff teams keep the entire gate, and trust me, the ADs will be fighting like hell to have their teams increase their chances of getting a home playoff game. What would the nonstudent season ticket holders at the Horseshoe be willing to pay to see Texas in a playoff game?

I agree Richie, which is why I'd reserve seeds 1-11 for conference champs, and have only one at-large bid. I want to make the prospect of finishing 2nd in the conference very, very, perilous, even if it only entails one loss.

First round, first Saturday in December: seeds 9-12 at seeds 5-8, with seed 12 being the only team that didn't win it's conference.

Second round, second Saturday in December: winners in first round at seeds 1-4.

Semifinals on Jan. 1, at traditional bowl sites.

Championship on Jan. 8.

This means that fans in large numbers have two trips to make, which strikes me as doable, and I guarantee you could develop this thing quickly to the point that the

Very importantly, unlike NCAA basketball, the conference races lose none of their urgency.

Every time I think about the lack of a playoff system it just annoys me to no end. A football tournament would be twice as huge (with 1/6 the number of games) as the basketball tournament. It would be HUGE.

I am a pretty casual college football fan, mainly only watching UCLA games. I rarely watch bowl games. I would be far more interested in watching playoff games. It might even make me more interested in the regular season games.

All the bowls can still have their stupid little games with the teams that don't make the tournament.

Geez, I just saw I lost the end of the sentence, which was that such a playoff would very quickly dwarf the BCS in terms of television rights fees.

101.

Will, I completely agree with that.

I hate college football, and the bowls are a big part of the reason why. You put in a legitimate playoff system, and take away Upper West Rhode Island State-AT-The Ohio State type games, and I've got a whole lot less problems with college football.....

other than that the ball looks too big.

Re #76, et al.:
The rule was indeed changed before the beginning of this season, and you can click the link in my name to see an article that discusses it. From the article:

"...players are most concerned with a new rule stating the football must actually break the plane of the goal line inside of the pylon to be called a touchdown. Before, if a player had any part of his body cross the goal line, regardless of where the football was, it was ruled a touchdown."

I hope that helps.

Re #86: "Seriously, if you can’t read TMQ’s preview columns without bitching, it’s time to stop reading."

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? That's like saying, "Seriously, if you can't watch Daunte Culpepper play without screaming at your TV, it's time to stop watching the Raiders/whatever hopeless team trades for him." Easterbrook has been regressing almost as dramatically as Culpepper recently, and he doesn't have an injury as an excuse either (unless he's had some recent brain damage that he hasn't told us about - which would explain a lot, actually).

Re: 83, 90

Thanks for the clarification about the rule change. I get precious little time to do fact-checking like that when I'm at a computer, so I try to be careful to couch things in speculation with the hopes that the fact-hawks here correct any errors.

Killing the infinite goal line idea is a good idea to me, as it defeats the untouchable rusher concept. I hope the rule change is effective, with allowance for somebody who is legitimately running down the sideline with the ball protected in the outboard hand (like anywhere else on the field).

Good Things. Criticizing college football scheduling; Praising summer; Trying to put perspective on the Vick scandal; Ripping on clueless hypocritic celebs; Making fun of incompetent Georgre Tenet; Wondering why high school football should be on national TV. Bad Things. Justifying Vick's behavior by saying animal cruelty is widespread; Using Leak's 15,000 high passing yards as a reason he should play; Using Leak is a winner as an argument for playing him; Criticizing Dallas for not drafting JP Losman; Expecting Sci-Fi TV shows to be logically consistent; Blaming the Giants best player for their poor play; New Orleans as a Monster Team; Taking McNabb's concern that a backup QB was not the biggest need for the draft as a whining me-first tirade; Implying th 49ers charged to name their field after Bill Walsh;