Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web

Need Help with KUBIAK or Premium?

blog advertising is good for you


31 Aug 2010

TMQ: Cupcakes And The NFC Preview

Gregg Easterbrook's column this week covers the cupcake schedules of various college teams before getting to a preview of the NFC.

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 31 Aug 2010

71 comments, Last at 02 Sep 2010, 9:34pm by Jimmy Oz

Comments

1
by chemical burn :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 1:24pm

Gah - we know, we know, there are weak teams that have to play strong teams in college football! Enough!

4
by Phoenix138 :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 1:59pm

+1

41
by >implying implications (not verified) :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 6:11pm

It's not that they have to play strong teams, it's that their being bribed to play strong teams in order to pad the strong teams' numbers.

50
by ab (not verified) :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 10:10am

His criticism of Clemson looks rather harsh when you click through and see they are playing 5 ranked opponents.

55
by Roscoe :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 3:31pm

And LSU is not opening against McNeese St., as TMQ implies. It is opening against ranked UNC at a neutral site. They should get profs for that, as well as scheduling non-conference West Va.

But, ok, sure they schedule some extra home games against weak teams for the revenue (they have to be weak teams, or else they would demand home and home games). I don't know why this is an issue, so long as there are enough tough games on your schedule.

63
by Dennis :: Thu, 09/02/2010 - 12:03am

The only problem I have with it is when they schedule FCS teams. At least have the decency to schedule FBS cupcakes.

2
by Lou :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 1:51pm

He's right about 18 games being a horrible idea.

10
by Eli (not verified) :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 2:22pm

I agree. I'm so sick of hearing Goodell say this is what fans are demanding. Season ticket holders who don't like paying for preseason games should just realize that their regular season tickets cost 10/8 more than face value and preseason tickets are worthless.

15
by Lou :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 2:50pm

seriously, why don't people understand this about the cost of tickets?

28
by tuluse :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:15pm

There are a few markets where this isn't true (Detroit and Jacksonville come to mind), but I don't think this is league mandated. If teams wanted to just sell the 8 home games they could, right?

Complain to the team, not to the NFL.

22
by LukeM :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 3:19pm

This fan is only demanding better officiating. For example, I'm tired of hearing, "you could call holding on every play." If it's true, it should be called every play. That kind of thing is why the NBA is unwatchable to me.

36
by Jerry F. (not verified) :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:42pm

I agree, although the "foul on every play" thing is a problem of basketball generally. I watch college basketball and am just as frustrated with this as I am with the NBA. They've allowed so much contact and so much walking, that there just isn't any clarity to the rules anymore.

52
by RichC (not verified) :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 12:54pm

Well, except in the 15 or so football markets where every game is sold out. I'd love to see some games, even preseason, but the tix just aren't available.

56
by Jerry :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 4:52pm

Have you checked with the ticket office for preseason games? And even if they're sold out, it always looks to me like a buyers' market with the scalpers outside Heinz Field.

67
by Mikey Benny :: Thu, 09/02/2010 - 12:43pm

This is actually why I buy college season tickets instead of NFL season tickets: I refuse to pay for preseason tickets.

68
by Jerry :: Thu, 09/02/2010 - 5:53pm

If it's a major college, aren't you stuck with a couple of games against East Cupcake?

20
by Richie :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 3:17pm

Strictly as a consumer of NFL football, I would like to see 2 fewer preseason games and 2 more regular season games.

29
by Brendan Scolari :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:19pm

Agreed.

40
by anon (not verified) :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 5:30pm

i'd be interested in seeing 16 games spread out over a longer season with more byes. this could also allow you to spread out games over the whole week, so every night there could be a football game on tv.

42
by Richie :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 6:43pm

I'm torn on this one. The bye weeks really frustrate me. I hate it when my team is on bye. I hate the way it affects fantasy football. I hate the way it affects my weekly pools. But I do like stringing out the season this way. I would probably settle for a 16-game schedule played over 18 weeks with the elimination of 2 pre-season games. In 1993 the NFL played 16 games over 18 weeks. Not sure why they abandoned that plan. I also think that all teams in a division should have a bye on the same week.

64
by Bright Blue Shorts :: Thu, 09/02/2010 - 8:29am

I believe they gave up on it because it gave too few quality matchups. But that was in the era of 28 teams. I think with the rise to 32 and flex scheduling it would be worth revisiting from their perspective.

3
by ammek :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 1:54pm

After reaching a 31-10 edge, had the [Cardinals] done nothing but run up the middle for no gain, the Pack's comeback might not have happened.

Yes, Kurt Warner was having a wretched game. Take the ball out of his hands, Mr Whisenhunt.

Also, the score was 31-24 by the time the Cards' offense touched the ball again. TMQ chooses cutoff points to fit the stats to his argument. It's annoying.

7
by E :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 2:05pm

I don't understand why TMQ's columns are listed on Extra Points year after year. He completely twists stats and selects random game anecdotes to fit his arguments and represents something that I would think FO writers would hate - a columnist who has no backing for his theories but pretends to back them up with psuedo-statistical rationales. There are so many good writers out there covering the NFL - let's show this tired act the door.

14
by Bowl Game Anomaly :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 2:44pm

The reason is because back when FO was new, TMQ was hosted on their site for a little while after he got (temporarily) fired by ESPN, which brought tons of new readership to FO. Basically, he helped them get off the ground.

16
by Scott P. (not verified) :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 2:50pm

Year after year? For the last two years at least, TMQ has practically been banished from the sidebar.

34
by E :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:26pm

Bowl Game Anomaly is right - I'd forgotten that it was originally TMQ that introduced me to FO, so I guess they owe him the occasional link in recognition of that. And to Scott's point, I think it's true that the TMQ links have been fewer and fewer each year. I guess my slightly irrational hatred of the man caused me to post too quickly.

57
by jebmak :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 7:19pm

Same here. TMQ and "1st and Ten" were the extent of my 'smart' football reading until TMQ brought me here.

24
by MatMan :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 3:24pm

FO plugs Easterbrook's column, and Easterbrook plugs FO. Simple as that.

11
by Spielman :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 2:22pm

Heh. Yes. The four incomplete passes Warner threw in that game really destroyed the Cardinals chances of running out the clock.

In fact, only one of those incompletions came after the point Easterbrook cites, and came on 3rd and 6 with the Cardinals leading by just 7 points.

5
by Iostcause :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 2:01pm

He doesn't even try to take conference scheduling into account here, and he gets a few of his facts wrong (namely, Mizzou's schedule). As a Clemson fan, I'm fine with the two cupcake games because Auburn is one of the other games, and we also draw Miami, UNC, and GT out of the Coastal. It's our toughest schedule in years.

47
by The Ninjalectual :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 2:08am

Agreed... that schedule looks plenty tough to me.

"Just look at that pumpkin."
-John Madden, looking at the moon.

6
by Dennis :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 2:02pm

He's totally clueless about a lot of the neutral site games that he thinks are slanted in favor of one team. The Missouri-Illinois game is technically in Missouri, but St. Louis is about halfway between the campuses and they split the tickets between the schools. Dallas is pretty much halfway between Austin and Norman, and again they split the tickets.

8
by Cols714 :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 2:17pm

People, it's easy. Just stop reading TMQ. It sucks, it's worthless. Stop reading it. I did two years ago and I don't miss it at all.

It is fun to read the comments everytime FO posts a TMQ article.

And yes, Easterbrook has no idea what he is talking about on pretty much every subject he covners.

13
by chemical burn :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 2:31pm

I did stop reading Easterbrook (after he directed me to FO and I realized I didn't need to waste my time with him any longer), but it's been a long off-season and I was weak - I thought maybe since it was a conference preview he might talk mainly about professional football. But he's writing the exact same things (the EXACT same things) he was when I stopped reading it years ago. It's genuinely infuriating because the things he says are so transparently stupid...

30
by tuluse :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:20pm

Don't tell them that. if they don't read him, there won't be comments to read here.

58
by jebmak :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 7:20pm

+1

9
by funkdoc (not verified) :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 2:21pm

easterbrook always gets an extra point because he plugged FO in its early(-ish?) days, simple as that

12
by Not Jimmy (not verified) :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 2:22pm

Another waste of time. I don't know why I bother. I just keep pining for TMQ of 5 years ago.

18
by Richie :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 3:13pm

This is the TMQ of 5 years ago! Cupcake schedules, stop me before I blitz, preposterous punts, cold coaches, haikus, sweet play of the week, etc.

I actually read TMQ every week and enjoy it. But I skip most of the football commentary. Most of it was interesting when I first discovered TMQ in 2001. But so much of it is boilerplate, I don't need to read it each week. Sometimes his opening paragraphs are new and interesting to me. I also find a lot of his government and social commentary to be interesting.

26
by Dean :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 3:56pm

The problem there is the same as the problem with his football analysis. Preordained conclusions. He'll shoehorn data into his pet theories and/or ignore inconvenient data that doesn't jive with his worldview in hopes of ramming a point of questionable accuracy down the throats of his readers.

35
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:27pm

I hate his social commentary. In fact, it was something along those lines, albeit related to the NFL, which finally caused me to give up on him nearly completely. This is a guy who makes a point, from time to time, to inform his readership of his Christian religous habits and beliefs, and dabbles in theology. He then, in the course of a rant pertaining to Bill Parcells, finds it notable that Parcells is a "failed human being", and portentously informs his readers of this. Sheesh.

This is the sort of guy who gets completely unbearable after about two beers at a sports bar, and why I can barely stand to watch games in that environment any more.

37
by Marko :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:53pm

In Will's version of hell, he will spend eternity sitting at a sports bar between MMQB and TMQ. The only thing he will be thankful for is that there is not a Wednesday Morning Quarterback.

38
by Dean :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:57pm

Now that you mention it, that might be a lot of peoples hell. Especially if the game on the TV features Troy Aikman doing commentary on his old team.

45
by Phoenix138 :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 8:31pm

Who would write Wednesday Morning Quarterback? Phil Simms?

46
by tuluse :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 8:57pm

The horror, the horror

53
by Chocolate City (not verified) :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 2:07pm

He'd have to be able to write.

59
by jebmak :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 7:22pm

That never stopped...oh never mind.

21
by wr (not verified) :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 3:18pm

I hear you. There was a time when TMQ was an interesting read.
I think some people keep reading him in the hope that he will
revert to his old form. Sadly, I don't think that's going to happen.

25
by Richie :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 3:55pm

My point is that he is doing exactly the same thing he's been doing for the 8 years I've been reading.

54
by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 3:12pm

Richie has it dead on. TMQ hasn't changed; you have. That's a compliment, not an insult. TMQ is no different than he was 10 years ago. It's just gets stale if you've been reading him for that long.

17
by Q (not verified) :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 3:10pm

"Rodgers has 58 touchdown passes versus 20 interceptions in his first two seasons as a starter, which is excellent by any standard, as well as better than Favre's 37 touchdown passes and 37 interceptions in the comparable period."

Here is another ridiculous stat usage by TMQ. As we all know, Rodgers sat on the bench for 3 years whereas Favre sat on the Bench for 1. The better comparison would be between Favre's and Rodger's 4th and 5th Seasons in the NFL.

Favre's 4th and 5th Seasons- 58 TDs 20 Ints
Rodger's 4th and 5th Seasons- 71 TDs 27 Ints

19
by Richie :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 3:15pm

That's not a perfect comparison either. Yeah, a QB who sits on the bench for 3 years has an advantage over a guy who starts as a rookie. But a QB who is playing for a couple of years has an advantage over a guy who had almost no playing time.

23
by Yaguar :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 3:22pm

A better comparison yet would be to actually have the right stats for each player. Favre is the high TD high INT one. You switched their stats.

27
by Bright Blue Shorts :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 3:58pm

C'mon ... does it matter whether we compare 2nd&3rd seasons, 8th&9th or 16th&17th ... at the end of their careers, Rodgers TD-int ratio will be far better than Favre. Favre has fun when he's playing ball; Rodgers looks to win games by not turning the ball over.

31
by tuluse :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:22pm

More importantly, does TD-INT ratio tell us anything useful at all?

32
by Brendan Scolari :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:22pm

TMQ may not be the best, but I'll take it over MMQB any day personally.

33
by Marko :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:25pm

TMQ was good
Now just recycles same shtick
Lather, rinse, repeat

39
by Joseph :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 5:00pm

Marko wins the thread

43
by Richie :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 6:50pm

"The [Cow]Boys' 2008 season ended with a 44-6 loss to Philadelphia in a contest for the final NFC playoff slot; the 2009 season ended with a 34-3 loss to Minnesota in the divisional round. Outscored 78-9 in money time, the Boys did not put up a touchdown in either game. "

If the Cowboys lost in "money time" in 2008 when they lost in week 17, shouldn't they get credit for their week 17 win in 2009 and their first round playoff win in 2009? That would improve their composite "money time" points over the last 2 years to: 67-92.

44
by Tracy :: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 7:11pm

I think you're forgetting that the Cowboys are losers. Any data that suggests otherwise is irrelevant.

48
by Theo :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 5:50am

isn't any last playoff game you lose, failing in 'money time'?
That's like saying 'you are bad at finding your keys, because they are always in the last pocket you look into'.

60
by Richie :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 7:45pm

What does it mean when we still can't find the car keys that have been missing for 2 weeks?

61
by tuluse :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 7:50pm

Clearly you lack swagger

65
by Theo :: Thu, 09/02/2010 - 9:25am

... no his car keys, he just told you.

69
by justanothersteve :: Thu, 09/02/2010 - 6:17pm

or, in TMQ fashion, too many pockets.

71
by Jimmy Oz (not verified) :: Thu, 09/02/2010 - 9:34pm

If its the TMQ i know, its the idea of keys that are the problem and we should all have retina/finger print scanners on our cars, which segways into a Big Auto bash about not embracing innovation and executive salaries.

51
by chemical burn :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 12:46pm

Yeah, I think destroying your divisional rival, taking away the NFC East title, a home playoff game and a first round bye from them might constitute a little bit of success in "money time."

62
by Venger :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 9:39pm

Going one-and-done in the playoffs is nothing to write home about, though.

66
by chemical burn :: Thu, 09/02/2010 - 12:26pm

But they weren't one and done in the playoffs. They obliterated their divisional rival for a 3rd time in the season. They went 2 and done, which isn't spectacular, but it was better than 27 other teams in the league.

49
by evenchunkiermonkey (not verified) :: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 7:00am

thanks a lot for the futhermoking expendables spoiler, you smarmy douche...

70
by Admore :: Thu, 09/02/2010 - 8:52pm

Ah the TMQ - he's got something wrong and stupid to say to everyone. It's almost a divine gift.

Texas may play too many home games but Texas/OU isn't one of them. Has he even HEARD about this game? Half the students from each school in the stands - Dallas halfway between Norman and Austin? It's fairly famous, and it's not a home game for either school. Despite being IN Texas, it's neutral. Trust me, just as many Sooners have vomitted on the streets of Dallas.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.