By updating RealClearSports I read hundreds of articles every week but sometimes there are particularly passages that need highlighting. And to make these passages more palatable I'm doing them in award form! The awards are completely random and will change weekly (though some may become reoccurring).
We had our first week of the NFL since they decided to crack down on illegal hits. Kind of funny that they need to crack down on ILLEGAL hits and that's pretty much what Steelers coach Mike Tomlin said. He was asked about whether he'd coach his players any differently and he said he wouldn't since he had always coached them to hit legally. I guess sometimes they just don't listen.
So what happened this week? Football went on as planned. That's basically the point David Climer of the Tennessean made: This wasn't supposed to happen, right? When the NFL office came out
with its crackdown on cheap-shot blows to the head and neck of
defenseless players, all these so-called football purists told us that
it would ruin the game.
The hue and cry: Football is blood sport. Only the toughest survive. Intimidation is part of the game. If you try to legislate big hits of any kind out of the game, you're killing all the fun.
A couple points - 1. It was only one week but I do agree with him that football will go on. 2. The argument that cutting down on these hits will ruin the game is absurd. First, the people who enjoy these hits should start thinking of the ramifications they are going to have on these humans lives. These are actual people and they need to be protected. And second, this isn't the first time rules have changed. The NFL is always looking to change to stay competitive and entertaining and they've done a terrific job. How about we assume they know what they're doing in this case as well? These players must be protected from themselves. If huge hits are rewarded then they are going to go out there and lay into somebody. If they're discouraged then they will adjust. It's that simple. On to the awards!
Kalani Simpson of Fox Sports thinks the BCS brings about some interesting scenarios: So when the Wolf Pack get ranked in the AP poll for the
first time since 1948 in the same season everyone is agog over Boise
State's strength of schedule? Well, it's something Arsenio Hall and I
file under the list of things that make us go "Hmmm."
Good points though - this revisionist history - Va. Tech's record so important but Boise's win should be viewed for what it was at the time.
Arsenio Hall? I don't even remember that reoccurring bit. Maybe he's actually friends with Arsenio Hall (well-known for his avid hatred of the BCS...). But Simpson does bring up some good points about how the BCS can really obscure many things. Many have mentioned that what Virginia Tech does down the stretch is extremely important for Boise State's strength of schedule. The Broncos beat the Hokies in the first game of the season. But shouldn't that game only count for what it meant at the time? The Hokies were a very young team facing a senior-filled Boise State. Virginia Tech has now gotten better. Does that mean Boise's win should be worth more? The whole system is screwy (dawg pound woofs in agreement).
Ignoring the Facts
Steve Serby of the New York Post wrote an entire article lambasting Jets QB Mark Sanchez: Ryan
needed his quarterback to rescue him yesterday, and Sanchez was off the
mark. "Poor performance by myself and it's tough to get an offense
going when your quarterback's not playing well," Sanchez said.