Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features


» Futures: Maurice Hurst

A heart condition discovered at the combine has put the Michigan lineman's career in limbo, but Hurst had the best film of any defensive tackle in this year's draft class.

01 Dec 2009

The Week in Quotes: December 1, 2009

compiled by Rory Hickey


"They play well up front and they got a daddy in the backfield. I felt like a little kid out there with a daddy just beating us up."

-- Bears defensive tackle Tommie Harris on the systematic dismantling of the Bears' defense by Vikings quarterback Brett Favre and the Vikings. (Chicago Tribune)


"I almost couldn't do it, because I was peeing in my pants. I'm serious."

-- Titans owner Bud Adams on the multiple sensations he felt from watching quarterback Vince Young lead the Titans to victory on a 99-yard drive to end the game. (USA Today)


"Maybe we'll kiss."

-- Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall on the suddenly harmonious Denver locker room after their 26-6 Thanksgiving victory over the Giants. (NFL Nation)


"All we're trying to do is win a fucking game!"

-- Broncos coach Josh McDaniels, while addressing his team on the sideline during Thursday night's win against the Giants. The profanity was picked up by the NFL Network and broadcast to whoever actually gets NFL Network. (AP)


"If you doubt, you're done. It's just like showing a bad poker face. If they see that, you're in trouble."

-- Colts wide receiver Reggie Wayne on how the Colts never doubted themselves when down by three scores against the Texans. (Honolulu Advertiser)


"You see what happens when I play smart. I don't know how to explain it, but it works."

-- Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez on the phenomenon of playing smart football and the magical effect it has on winning games. (AP)

"It's like The Da Vinci Code. I'll send you a crypt text. It has nothing to do with the play calling. Nothing. I mean, absolutely nothing. It's just a mindset. There's a lot that goes into it."

-- Sanchez. (FantasyAces.com)


"Oh, I love it. I told him, 'You have some big gonads.' And I told him as long as he keeps hitting them, keep throwing them."

-- Bills interim coach Perry Fewell on quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick throwing it deep to wide receiver Terrell Owens to put Sunday's game out of reach. (The Buffalo News)


"At some point we can sit back in Ocean City [and] have some salt water taffy, right now we're right in the middle of the season."

-- Patriots coach Bill Belichick on his Hall of Fame prospects. (The Huddle)


"I've lied to a couple of doctors saying I'm straight, I feel good when I know that I'm not really straight. I don't think guys really worry about the future while they're playing currently in the NFL."

-- Steelers wide receiver Hines Ward referring to quarterback Ben Roethlisberger not playing in the Steelers' overtime loss to the Ravens. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)


"Look, I love Jay [Cutler], and I understand he's a great player who can take us a long way, and I still have faith in him. But I hate the way our identity has changed. We used to establish the run and wear teams down and try not to make mistakes, and we'd rely on our defense to keep us in the game and make big plays to put us in position to win. Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that's the truth."

-- Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher's thoughts on the Bears' change in identity. (Yahoo!)


"The first time I met her, we were in an elevator in San Diego. She says, 'Hi, I'm Michael Oher's mom. You need to get rid of the ball faster.'
"I said, 'What are you talking about?'
"I went up to Mike and said, 'Mike, your mother just came up to me and is like, you need to get rid of the ball faster.'
"He told her, just joking, nothing too serious. I liked it. It was funny.
"After the game, she sees me and she's like, 'Where's the tattletale?' "

-- Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco on the first time he met offensive tackle Michael Oher's mom. (USA Today)


"Yeah, I think it was a 15-yarder maybe."

-- Redskins quarterback Jason Campbell, when asked if the hit he took at the end of the game would have been a penalty if he were Tom Brady. (D.C. Sports Bog)

IN THE YEAR 3000 ...

"Definitely. I don't know what guy would be happy to be a backup, but some situations you have to take advantage of. Not many quarterbacks can say they learned from a Hall of Fame quarterback."

-- Vikings quarterback Tarvaris Jackson on whether he is still the Vikings' quarterback of the future. (St. Paul Pioneer Press)


"I had a bad game. This is the type of game that you hit your head on a wall about."

-- Lions running back Kevin Smith on his Thanksgiving performance against the Packers. (MLive.com)


"Honestly, my thought on that is, I would like to petition Mr. Goodell and say, if a coach can talk to me like that, I should be able to fight him. I don't know where he's from, but where I'm from, when somebody talks to you like that, they've got a problem with you. And we should be able to fight. If a player talks that way, you get to hit him. When a coach talks that way, you don't really get to strike back. Who wants to have verbal jabs with a coach? That's no fun. Let's fight."

-- Steelers safety Ryan Clark on Broncos coach Josh McDaniels allegedly trash-talking players on opposing teams. (Yahoo!)


"I don't have anything to say to any decision-makers or anything. A friend of mine told me something one time I think is a very good way to go about life. That is: I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees."

-- Kansas Jayhawks coach Mark Mangino defending his administration by channeling his inner Che Guevara. (Huffington Post)


"A little bit, yeah. I don't like Utah. In fact, I hate them. I hate everything about them. I hate their program, I hate their fans, I hate everything. So it felt really good to send those guys home. They didn't deserve it. It was our turn, and our turn to win. We deserved it."

"I think the whole university, their fans and their organization is classless. They threw beer on my family and stuff last year, and they did a whole bunch of nasty things, and I don't respect them, and they deserved to lose."

-- BYU quarterback Max Hall on whether Saturday's victory over Utah redeemed last season's loss against the Utes. (Salt Lake Tribune)


"If you think the Bowl Championship Series is controversial, wait until you realize how much more contentious a playoff would be."

-- BCS executive director Bill Hancock on why playoffs are terrible and we should let the BCS run not just college football but our entire lives. (Deadspin)


"I don't forget much."

-- UCLA coach Rick Neuheisel, referring to USC throwing a 48-yard touchdown pass to go up 28-7 with 44 seconds remaining and the game already in hand, after Neuheisel called a timeout when USC was attempting to kneel the clock out. (Los Angeles Wave)


"Score more points."

-- Las Vegas Locos coach Jim Fassel on what it would take for his team to defeat the Florida Tuskers in the UFL Championship Game. They did win 20-17 in overtime ... but you knew that. (UFL Access)


"I'm getting you this time, Brady."

-- ESPN sideline reporter Suzy Kolber on The Mayne Event making light of her unwitting attempt to interview Tom Brady when Brady was not supposed to be interviewed. (Awful Announcing)


"He's so much more than stats."

-- CBS analyst Gary Danielson on Florida Gators quarterback Tim Tebow. (Awful Announcing)

"It's like watching The Natural; I feel like lightning is about to hit somewhere."

-- Danielson on Tebow's entrance into The Swamp. (Awful Announcing)

"Look at me! I'm even paying tribute to Tim Tebow today!"

-- CBS sideline reporter Tracy Wolfson showing her true journalistic integrity by joining the fans at The Swamp in wearing eye black in honor of Tim Tebow, our Lord and Savior. (Awful Announcing)


"Anybody that sees us coming, they better bring their best, because that's what we're bringing to the table. And I back coach on that 100 percent. I work too hard in the offseason, and we worked our tails off to come out and defend our throne. Obviously, things haven't turned out like we planned. The next thing is to start knocking over people's houses until we get what we want."

-- Steelers offensive tackle Willie Colon (Page Two)


"That would mean a lot. That's like me dating Halle Berry."

-- Bengals wide receiver Chad Ochocinco on the potential of an unblemished division record, which the Bengals earned with a 16-7 victory over the Browns. (Cincinnati.com)


"I thought we had our house of cards built up pretty good and a [darn] stiff wind came and knocked 'em all down. That really did hurt. That game was not what we were looking for on defense. The offense was so outstanding, we didn't hold up our end."

-- Browns defensive coordinator Rob Ryan on his team giving up 38 points to the Detroit Lions in their Week 11 loss. (Ohio.com)


"Is there only one Black Eyed Pea group? I've seen them everywhere."

-- CBS analyst Gary Danielson on the confusing nature of the Black Eyed Peas. (Awful Announcing)

Send a quote to quotes-at-footballoutsiders.com and I may or not hand deliver a gift to your house. Yeah, I probably won't, but there's a miniscule chance that I will, and can you really afford to let that slip away?

Posted by: Rory Hickey on 01 Dec 2009

72 comments, Last at 04 Dec 2009, 5:46pm by Bright Blue Shorts


by Purds :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 11:19am

Okay, everyone who has ready any of my posts knows I think BB is an arrogant SOB, but even I have to come to his defense on this one. Did someone really ask a current head coach what he thinks his chances are of getting into the HOF? What the hell kind of answer did that person expect?

by T. Diddy :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 11:21am

Belichick is the best in the business at not answering questions he doesn't want to answer.

by Purds :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 11:41am

I'm not sure how you can be "the best" at not answering questions. You simply don't say anything. I guess we can all be the best by not saying anything. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

by T. Diddy :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 11:46am

But then where would Coors Light get their commercial material?

by Key19 :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 11:55am

Not saying anything isn't allowed though. :) You have to give an answer that shows at least a morsel of answering effort. Hence, taffy.

by el plaga :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 11:24am

Perry Fewell not Terry Fewell.

by Guy #1 (not verified) :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 2:01pm

Perry Farrell? Been caught stealin' again?

by starzero :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 11:26am

With Dungy gone the Colts now have personality. Before it was just a brick wall and a laser rocket arm. Fortunately, the guys who do talk seem to make sense. None of that idiot kicker nonsense.

by Safety_First (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 11:39am

Actually, the line from Josh McDaniels went (at least, as I'd heard it):

"All we're trying to do is win a mother#*$&ing game..."

This was back when the game was still somewhat of a contest, I forget who he was yelling at but it might have been some of his DBs. I laughed. I cried. Two minutes later the announcers woke up and profusely apologized for letting that one slip through, and I laughed again.

Seriously, that's exactly what I'd expect out of a coach. Would suck if this made the network start putting everything on a 10-second delay, "just in case"...

by Mile-High Meltdown (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 12:14pm

He was yelling at the offense right after their second trip to the red-zone without a touchdown. Kyle Orton was trying not to make eye contact.

by Benjy Rose :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 12:26pm

The truly amazing thing about the quote is that it wasn't a live "oops"...it was a cut-in replay: after the field goal, and ensuing commercial, they came back and showed McDaniels getting upset at his offense. That quote was the first thing out of McDaniels' mouth -- it wasn't at the end of the clip, as has been claimed, but right at the beginning. Not sure how the editors could have missed that. Funny, nonetheless.

by bravehoptoad :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 12:44pm

Can someone please explain to me why the word "fuck" is so upsetting?

Seriously, I've just never gotten it. The best I can get is that it's upsetting because people say it's upsetting, and so saying it when you know it's supposed to be upsetting is upsetting.

Good grief. On the list of things to be upset about, that one seems, to me, to be ranked somewhere in the bottom million.

by countertorque :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 1:29pm

I used to think that way too. Then I had 2 kids and I found that my opinion on this subject had changed dramatically.

by bravehoptoad :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 4:01pm

Okay...what's going to happen to your kids if they hear the word "fuck?" Are their moral values going to slip? Are they going to start hating democracy? Please tell.

by The Human Spider :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 4:18pm

See: Jay & Slient Bob Strikes Back.

by Daniel :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 7:21pm

Well, democracy really is about as overrated as Yards Per Carry

by HostileGospel :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 10:13pm

The issue is mostly that (younger) kids aren't too good with the concept of "certain words are not appropriate at all times." I'm assuming you don't have kids, but if you imagine being responsible for a four-year-old who won't stop saying "fuck" in the middle of the supermarket... Not something I want to be catching dirty looks over, despite the fact that I'm not particularly bothered by profanity in general.

Overall, I'd be kind of embarrassed to critique something when I didn't know what the hell I was talking about, but then, oh yeah, my NAME is on what I write, isn't it?

-Les Bowen

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Fri, 12/04/2009 - 5:46pm

I've got an 8-year-old ... I always felt I wanted to be the one who taught her swear words ... it's not like she's going to get to be a teenager without ever hearing one.

The key is that you explain it real matter of fact. You explain to your child that there are times when it really shouldn't be used because it'll cause a lot of embarassment. For example, they don't say it at school or in front of their grandparents. If however they happen to shut their finger in the cardoor that would probably be excusable.

If you dramaticise it and try to cover it up, it becomes an issue where they use that kind of language to get attention at the most inappropriate times possible. Say, in the middle of the supermarket ...

by Temo :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 1:46pm

You're thinking about it the wrong way. Instead of wondering why "fuck" is a reviled word, consider the need for reviled words in general. It's a method of communication; all languages/cultures that I can think of off-hand have some cuss words that are ill-advised in most situatations but in a time of stress can be used as an effective communication tool.

Apparently we all need to have some way to communicate a greater-than-normal amount of special meaning, and cuss words are an effective way of doing such. If we all just started saying "fuck" all the time, the word would lose its emotional import and thus its function.

I have learned as much recently by being reprimanded for using a word that at its base merely refers to female genitalia but apparently is way too offensive to be used in most conversation (thanks, Joe_Football). This word, unbeknownst to me, has a way higher threshold of emotional impact than "fuck". Live and learn, I suppose.

by Safety_First (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 1:50pm

I'd also add that according to a recent study, people who swear can stand more pain. [Basically, they had people hold their hands in iced water - half said a word like "table", the other half - their favorite curse word. The ones who swore lasted 1.5 times as long on average.] Something to do with an increase in adrenalin, or so the researchers said.

From my own experience in sports, nothing like a stressful situation on the field to bring out the sailor in you.

by bravehoptoad :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 4:14pm

Well, Japanese jumps immediately to mind as a language without cuss words. (Instead, they use a lower level of politeness, which is a function of grammar. I remember trying, with a bunch of my gaijin friends, to introduce the phrase "shit head" into Japanese. Unchi atama. No luck -- just blank stares.)

I don't understand the trouble people have separating the word from its context. Josh McDaniels urging his team on at the height of emotion -- this seems like a proper and appropriate time to use "fuck." Someone using the word casually without any heat -- this seems like a particularly unthreatening use, and therefore un-upsetting.

Even if you have a strong and immediate reaction to the word, wouldn't 2 seconds thought be enough to override that reaction?

by DaveRichters :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 12:14am

Japanese absolutely does have profanity.

by Kevin from Philly :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 11:56am

Yes, and they're pretty adept at cursing in English too, when the need arises.

by Gruntled (not verified) :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 9:07am

This is going to be boring; just a heads up.

The word is not upsetting in and of itself. It is its violation of the accepted parameters of some social contexts that is bothersome. Every social context (and 2 people is all it takes to make a social context) will have some understood set of rules and limitations - a small version of the 'social contract' that Hobbes, Rousseau and many others have argued is essential to our lives being something other than nasty, brutish and short.

EVERY social context has understood limitations, whether we think they do or not - e.g. even when we're just hanging around with our best buddies watching a football game. Yelling 'Freebird!' every 10 minutes or farting loudly is perfectly acceptable in some such gatherings - but maybe wouldn't be welcome in yours.

Netspeak, mispellings, bad grammar, lack of punctuation and paragraphs, all CAPS, etc. are perfectly acceptable on some message boards, and may not be at all upsetting in those contexts, but they probably wouldn't go over well here, for example. And, by the way, it is not uncommon to tolerate and accept a single violator in that regard; that can be a special extension of the social contract.

The word 'fuck' and similar words are somewhat special in that just the fact of their use conveys something about the social context. Construction workers use it frequently. Soldiers in a harsh situation, in my experience, can rarely complete a sentence without using some variant of 'fuck.' In cases like that, the use of the word is largely a commentary on the realities of the situation, and their use in that manner is generally understood and accepted.

In the casual football watching scenario, accepted use of the word is more an unconscious extension of the rebellious phase of being a teenager - when violation of the accepted social rules is a necessary part of asserting one's independence and separating - e.g. growing up. There's nothing wrong with that, but having raised 4 sons to adulthood I can safely assert that living among rebellious teenagers for your entire life would be a life in hell.

Because words like that have a commonly understood, historical association with those kinds of social situations, their exclusion from other social contexts is in large part an implicit assertion that this social gathering is not like those. Grandma has undoubtedly heard the word many times in her life, but if your drunken brother in law starts swearing like a sailor at Thanksgiving dinner, everybody in the room (hopefully including you) is going to get upset. He has violated the social contract.

Because we are all, absolutely dependent on the accepted rules of every social context. We need stability and boundaries in our social interactions; we would become nervous wrecks if every social gathering became unpredictable and chaotic. It doesn't matter exactly what the rules are - it just matters that there are some kind of rules, and 'fuck' just happens to have developed into one of those defining words.

I'm out of gas; I invite you to do more research if you have any interest at all, particularly in regard to our psychological dependence on social contracts, which I know I skimmed.

by Fred (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 2:45pm

This whole episode makes me think of John McKay.

"You're a f------ embarrassment to the National Football League," Jet quarterback Pat Ryan shouted in McKay's face, one of several Jets who screamed at McKay as he left the field for the last time.

"Shocking," McKay deadpanned in usual form after the game, "just shocking to hear such language on a football field."


by Phil O'sopher (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 11:49am

Some idiot kicker gets liquored up and runs his mouth.

Best line of all time

HOF quote --Peyton Manning

by Phil O'sopher (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 11:50am

"I'm about to go in and throw a touchdown to Jerry Rice, we're honoring the Hall of Fame, and we're talking about our idiot kicker who got liquored up and ran his mouth off."

actual quote is even better than I remember

by Sophandros :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 12:12pm

So was that Hines Ward's coming out statement?

Sports talk radio and sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.

by Marcumzilla :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 1:52pm

It read that way to me

by DrewTS (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 4:27pm

I just think it's weird that the doctors would even ask, apparently more than once.

by Hurt Bones :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 4:54pm

He's just jealous that Troy gets the shampoo commercials.

by Kevin from Philly :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 5:09pm

Wow, I'll bet the DB whose jaw Ward broke feels even WORSE now. I mean, bad enough getting knocked out by a WR...

by MJK :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 12:42pm

1). The thing about the McDaniels quote was that, if they hadn't apologized for it, a lot of people might not have even noticed it, because it was indeed at the beginning of his tirade. However, after the announcers apologized, I heard 1,000,000 DVR's (including mine) rewinding to find out just what they were apologizing for.

2). Did Urlacher really just come out and say that he thinks Kyle Orton is a better QB than Jay Cutler?

3). On the Oher's mother quote...if you've read The Blind Side, it's not that surprising. His mother (his adopted mother, I assume) helps coach football, understands the game, and, in the book at least, is extremely vocal whenever she disagrees with a particular style of play or coaching.

4). What the heck is Ryan Clark talking about..."if a player talks that way to you, you get to hit him"? Last time I checked, one player punching another, REGARDLESS of what the other guy said, is a 15 yard penalty and probably an ejection, plus almost certainly a $10k fine (unless they also celebrate excessively in the endzone, in which case it's a $15k fine). And if they try it outside of a football stadium, it's an arrest for misdemeanor assault and battery.

by Sophandros :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 12:53pm

You may or may not have noticed that football is a physical game where players do, on occasion tackle and/or hit each other...

Sports talk radio and sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 1:30pm

Urlacher may be saying something I wondered about yesterday, which is whether you would rather have Cutler at the price the Bears paid for him, or Orton and the high draft picks with which to get some offensive linemen who can best the hell out of people, instead of having offensive linemen who get the hell beat out of them. I think I like the latter option.

by TomC :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 1:43pm

I don't know what part of Urlacher's quote made you think he was saying that, Will. I think it's pretty clear he's demonstrating his love of football cliches and lack of understanding of the current state of the Bears. Oh yeah, Brian, the Bears just need to establish the run, that would solve everything. And Orton just wins. And the Bears should be relying on the defense to win games --- the defense that gives up 300 yards in the 1st half to any QB with half a brain. I really wish Urlacher would learn how to stay healthy and shut up.

by dbostedo :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 2:15pm

I think you nailed it TomC. Further evidence that playing a position in the game doesn't make you an expert on all facets of the game.

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 2:48pm

Well, when he says.....

" We used to establish the run and wear teams down and try not to make mistakes,...."

....that certainly implies to me having a competent offensive line, and I suspect Urlacher is aware of the primary neans by which to obtain competent offensive linemen. Yes, "establish the run" is a mindless cliche, but like a lot of mindless cliches, there is a kernal of truth at it's core. As the Vikings can attest, the threat of an effective running game forces defense to do things which makes passing more effective and less prone to interceptions. It helps a helluva lot in the red zone as well. When an offensive line is completely incompetent, qb play becomes secondary, so when a team with an aging and incompetent offensive line trades significant draft value and a (at least) average qb, to get a very physically talented, but not completely proven qb, that team has likely made a large error in constructing it's roster.

Then again, it's quite possible that Urlacher was half in the bag, and I am giving him too much credit, so I'll ignore the implications of Gaines Adams for next spring's 2nd rounder.

by tunesmith (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 8:59pm

Such a large part of the criticism against Josh McDaniels this season has been ageism. Players indulging in pissing matches, the people that were so certain he was screwing up the team in the offseason.... Phillips called him a "punk", etc. A lot of it has calmed down as McDaniels has proved competent, but the real lowlifes will continue it for a while.

by are-tee :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 12:46pm

So Sandra Bullock wants Flacco to get rid of the ball quicker?

Surprised you didn't use Sanchez's line about not being able to "make chicken soup out of chicken dung".

by Thanos (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 1:21pm

The BCS quote makes my brain bleed a little.
I really wonder if the people behind it really believe in the crap that they are shoveling to us. Because, obviously, a playoff system works. This is evidenced by almost EVERY OTHER SPORT using a form of playoffs.
But I at least understand when the people responsible defend it, when (seemingly) intelligent and unconnected people defend it, I just do not get it.

by Kevin from Philly :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 5:15pm

The guy was probably talking about how every March, a few deserving mid-major teams get left out of the NCAA b-ball tournament. Sure, that's unfair - but not NEARLY as much as the BCS bowl system.

by Fontes of Wayne :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 5:17pm

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "works." A playoff system doesn't end controversy, and the team that wins isn't necessarily the best team. It does produce a definitive champion, but so does the BCS.
In fact, the BCS is a playoff system, it's just that only two teams make the playoffs, and then a bunch of other teams get to play lucrative but ultimately meaningless exhibitions. Adding more teams to the playoffs is just a matter of where you want to set the cutoff - there's still going to be someone arguing that Gridiron State got jobbed out of a playoff spot.
Whatever system you use is ultimately an exercise to pick the best team from a league in which each team plays approximately 10% of the other teams, and only rarely plays any of those teams twice - no system can do that effectively, so the league will settle for the one that makes the most money for everyone. If you really want a playoff, convince the NCAA or CFL or FBS or whoever that it's more profitable than the BCS system - anything else is just swapping one set of problems for another.

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 7:37pm

A well designed playoff system would very likely be significantly more profitable, but it isn't extremely unusual for a cartel to fail to maximize profits by failing to maximize the size of an industry. A playoff system could also be designed to produce a situation where any team, which was complaining about not having a chance to win a championship, could be truthfully told, "If you had won more games, that would not have happened to you." . That isn't the case now.

by oi! (not verified) :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 11:23am

Actually, I'm not sure that it would be more profitable than the current bowl system. It might be more profitable in certain ways, but the overall amount of money coming in would be much less.

First, any playoff system will, in the end, result in the current bowl structure becoming at best, the equivalent of the postseason NIT tournament. Any plan that "incorporates" the current bowls into the playoffs will eventually fail as people will not travel repeatedly to neutral sites for playoff games. (As evidence, note that the basketball tournament has moved early round playoff games closer to home for the top seeds.) That will lead to less overall revenue, as the bowls are marginalized and many probably fold up entirely.

Second, home games for the top seeds (as will most likely end up the situation) will lead to fewer seats sold in many cases. Yes, the big schools have big stadiums, but how big is Cincinatti's stadium? What if Wake Forest is the undefeated ACC champion? If you have a 16 team tournament this year, Boise State gets a home game in the first round.

Third, in any seeded tournament (like the 1-AA and lower ones), you won't know where the next game is until Sunday morning. How many fans can take a long weekend on no notice?

Of course, I'm old school. I don't really care if there's a "champion". For that matter, I don't believe that any playoff system in existence shows which team is the best. I believe that it shows which team won a postseason tournament. That team may be the "best", or they may be the luckiest. If Arizona won the Super Bowl last year, would everyone assume they were the best team in 2008? Or just a good team that got hot at the right time?

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 12:15pm

You are entirely underestimating the television rights fees (ticket sales are just the icing on the cake) for a tournament which includes a "Conference Championship Saturday" on the first Saturday in December, and then a playoff among conference champs, at their home fields, with two semi-finals on January 1, at two traditional bowl sites, and a championship a week later.

The current bowl structure is already the equivalent of the NIT tournamant, compared to the revenue generated by a well designed tournament.

I'm really old school, which means I advocate a system which entails a return to the oldest tradition of college football, where no season could be considered a success without a conference championship.

by Thanos (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 9:57pm

your comment on 'works' is valid. To clarify, I was speaking in relative terms. There would certainly be less controversy over who has a chance to win if more teams than just two would have a shot. Especially because there are diminishing returns as far as how many teams are included.
I would argue that the BCS does NOT produce a definitive champion because of the existence of the AP poll.
You are correct about the the arguing of who gets in, but it would be minimized because no matter who the last couple seeds are, they likely do not have a realistic shot in a multiple game playoff.
You also have to do more than just convince the BCS, the individual Bowls involved are the real sticking point. Right now there is one Bowl above all others and the rest are the same. With a playoff, there would be a multi-tiered system that would be more difficult for the Bowls to swallow.

by Alexander :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 10:36pm

Its silly to say that the playoff system in College basketball is better when it comes to purely getting a championship game though. The NCAA tourney is famous for upsets because a team with a few "shooters" can go lights out for a day and just rain threes.

The NFL system is great, I like it, but its hardly an objective playoff. People say they want the BCS to be fair, well it usually is fair. 2 teams that have played the best all season get through. Unless you want to argue that North Carolina vs. Michigan State was the game you wanted to see, or the Giants would have taken a 7 game series from the Pats in 2007, its not an objective playoff you want, its more chances for Boise/Utah/TCU/BYU that you want. And in that case the NCAA should just force teams to play them.

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 11:05pm

How a about a system where a team knows that if they beat every opponent they have, they will win a championship?

by Thanos (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 11:09pm

Well, that's just nonsense. ;)

by mlc808 (not verified) :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 12:44am

They have that now -- it's called a conference championship.

I think that with 120 teams (and growing) division I-A is too big to not have a playoff become unwieldly. That doesn't mean there aren't solutions -- perhaps a re-aligning of the division structure with the relegation of some teams. However, that runs into the real problem -- changing the current structure does a real number on a lot of powerful (and in the cases of public schools governmentally aligned) peoples bottom line.

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 1:12am

I think having the conference champs, and only the conference champs, seed the playoffs would work fine, unless "fine" is defined as "what makes the people running the current cartel most comfortable".

by tuluse :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 4:07am

You could have 2 undefeated Big 10 teams. Although that is more the Big 10s own doing.

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 11:26am

Exactly. Tell the Big Ten, and every other conference, that they can start playing on the last Saturday in August, and they have until the first Saturday in December to name their champion. If the morons can't figure out a good way to do it in that time span, so it goes.

by Thanos (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 11:18pm

You are right, I am looking for more seeds in the playoff. Selfishly, I am looking for more personal excitement. I am looking for upsets for multiple weeks and a possible 'run.' A secondary consequence of that is getting rid of the elitist system that is the BCS.
I am not looking for fair, but rather more openness and availability. The system is designed to get the two best teams into the game, and that is it. It normally does work, I agree. I just want more. More fun, more time, more hype, etc.
But your use of the NCAA tournament seems less applicable. There has never been a team lower than an 8 seed that even reached the championship game.

by Alexander :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 1:27am

That is because teams lower than 8 seeds win their games by getting lucky(most of the time).

Would Dayton have beaten WVU in a 7 game set last year? What about a 3 game set? Nova over Pitt?

Last year was a scratch year by NCAA standards, but crazy things happen all the time.
In 2008 Davidson (10 seed) was in the elite 8 basically by riding hot shooting, WVU upset duke because of abnormally cold shooting by Duke, and I know for sure I wanted to see that championship game played again.

The real problem I see with the BCS is that the game is like 2 months after the season, it should be 2 weeks, at most.

by Thanos (not verified) :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 2:53am

I am confused on your position regarding the NCAA men's B-ball tourney. You say that crazy things and upsets happen regularly, but there is no repeatable evidence that this luck effect occurs past the first weekend. You can bring out the Villanova over G'town in the championship and the unlikely final four runs of LSU and GMU, but that is three occurrences over 20+ years. Far more fluke than anything else. This lack of repeatable luck effect goes to support my position of an 8+ football playoff system. Because anyone lower that what is allowed (given that there are at least 8 teams) either 1) does not have a realistic chance, or 2) played too poorly over the regular season to be considered.

by Alexander :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 1:29pm

Its the difference between winning 4 games (WC, SEMI, CONFC,SUPERBOWL) vs winning 6 games(64,32,16,8,4,2). In 2002 Indiana(5 seed) made it to the National title game before their run ended. A 5 seed doesn't sound bad, but really a 5 seed is the 17th-20th team in the tourney. That is like USC playing in the championship game this year.

by Venger :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 1:37pm

Bill Belichick referencing Shriver's salt water taffy. Damn.

I used to go down to Ocean City every summer and let me tell you: that is some damn good taffy. BB earns some brownie (taffy?) points from me for that answer.

by tgt2 (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 3:44pm

FYI: There are 4 at least Ocean City's in the US. Two of which are pretty well known.

by Temo :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 5:44pm

And Ocean City, MD is far better than Ocean City, NJ. And I say this as a native New Jerseyean.

by Harris :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 1:54pm

Now I'm imagining Deanna calling the Land Baron "Daddy" and I . . . blaaargh!

Stop being a bitch, Campbell.

Hail Hydra!

by DrewTS (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 2:18pm

The Max Hall quote is simply awesome. Someone must have skipped the day they taught "it's a great team win, we just take em one game at a time and give 110%".

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 2:51pm

I just love it when a guy like Mangino makes an ass of himself, and when it is noted that he has made an ass of himself, he reacts by saying that not making an ass of himself would be to adopt a servile posture.

by zip.4chan.org/sp/ (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 4:33pm

AFAIK, that's an Emiliano Zapata quote, not Che Guevara.

by bubqr :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 4:45pm

I already can't stand the Tebow stories anymore, and he hasn't even been drafted yet. What a great year 2010 will be...

by tunesmith (not verified) :: Tue, 12/01/2009 - 9:01pm

Rapidly getting curious what the announcers will do if Tebow and Favre play against each other.

by PackerJeff (not verified) :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 1:38am

I think that is obvious. A new universe would form due to their combined awesomeness. In this universe all laws of nature would be bound by swagger, winners, and pad level. We would all be sucked into the black hole formed by this cataclysmic event but on the plus side may all be converted to pure energy and treated to an eternity of mindless announcing during a eternal football game featuring only clones of both players.

by KC (not verified) :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 4:02pm

OR, maybe they will just all lean back, drool and moan ala Homer Simpson and we won't have to listen to their blather at all.

by Anonymousse (not verified) :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 5:06pm

Vikings are going to draft Tebow as a FB/TE, so that he can be the single wing QB/hybrid that Jackson never quite turned out to be.

Every single Vikings game will be on Primetime next year.

by Kevin from Philly :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 12:00pm

Why shouldn't we worship Tebow? I mean, besides playing football, he killed all those mummies and travelled to the center of the Earth and...what? That was Brendan Frasier? Sure looked like Tebow. Just movies? Never mind.

by HollywoodCaveman (not verified) :: Wed, 12/02/2009 - 11:04pm

tebow vs favre joe bucks head explodes. thank god the is no more kornheiser!!