College Football Week 4 Awards 2016 September 25, 2016Posted by intellectualgridiron in Sports.
Tags: Akron, Alcorn State, Arkansas, Art Briles, Auburn, Badgers, Bayou Bengals, Bobby Petrino, Brian Kelly, Bruins, Bulldogs, Butch Jones, BYU, Cardinal, Chris Petersen, college, Colorado, Dabo Swinney, David Cutcliffe, David Shaw, Duke, Florida, Florida State, football, Gators, Georgia, Gus Malzahn, Houston, Jim Mora, Kansas State, Kent State, Kentucky, Kevin Sumlin, Kirby Smart, Les Miles, Louisville, LSU, Mark Dantonio, Memphis, Michigan, Michigan State, Mike MacIntyre, Mississippi, Mississippi State, NCAA, Nevada, New Mexico State, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Ole Miss, Oregon, Pittsburgh, Purdue, South Carolina, Spartans, Stanford, Tarheels, TCU, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Texas State, Tigers, Troy, UCLA, UMass, USC, Utah, Volunteers, War Eagle, Washington, West Virginia, Will Muschamp
add a comment
(Note: All rankings are current AP [week 4] unless otherwise noted.)
Wish I were him: Butch Jones, Tennessee
Glad I’m not him: Mark Dantonio, Michigan State
Lucky guy: Guz Malzahn, Auburn
Poor guy: Jim Mora, UCLA (Hon. Mention: Les Miles)
Desperately seeking a wake-up call: Butch Jones, Tennessee
Desperately seeking a P.R. man: Mike MacIntyre, Colorado
Desperately seeking sunglasses and a fake beard: Kirby Smart, Georgia
Desperately seeking … anything: Brian Kelly, Notre Dame
Thought you’d kick butt, you did: Houston (defeated Texas State 64-3)
Thought you’d kick butt, you didn’t: Mississippi State (defeated UMass 47-35)
Thought you’d get your butt kicked, you did: Kent State (lost to No. 1 Alabama 48-0)
Thought you’d get your butt kicked, you didn’t: UMass (lost to Mississippi State 47-35)
Thought you wouldn’t kick butt, you did: Troy (defeated New Mexico State 52-6)
Dang, they’re good: Houston
Dang, they’re bad: UTEP
Can’t Stand Prosperity: Michigan State
Did the season start? Oregon
Can the season end? USC
Can the season never end? Michigan
Play this again: No. 24 Utah 31, USC 27
Play this again, too: No. 7 Stanford 22, UCLA 13
Never play this again: Missouri 79, Delaware State 0
What? Purdue 24, Nevada 14
Huh? No. 23 Ole Miss 45, No. 12 Georgia 14
Double-Huh? Colorado 41, Oregon 38
Are you kidding me? Duke 38, Notre Dame 35
Oh – my – God: No. 11 Wisconsin 30, No. 8 Michigan State 6
(rankings are current AP (post-week 4, pre-week 5) T
icket to die for: No. 3 Louisville @ No. 5 Clemson
Also: No. 8 Wisconsin @ No. 4 Michigan
Keep an eye on this one, too: No. 7 Stanford @ No. 10 Washington
Best non-Power Five vs. Power Five matchup: Memphis @ No. 16 Ole Miss
Best non-Power Five matchup: Navy @ Air Force; also: South Florida @ Cincinnati
Upset alert: North Carolina @ No. 12 Florida State
Must win: Oklahoma @ No. 21 TCU
Offensive explosion: No. 22 Texas @ Oklahoma State
Defensive struggle: Northwestern @ Iowa
Great game no one is talking about: Kansas State @ West Virginia
Intriguing coaching matchup: Chris Petersen of Washington vs. David Shaw of Stanford
Also: Dabo Swinney of Clemson vs. Bobby Petrino of Louisville
Who’s bringing the body bags? UConn @ No. 6 Houston
Why are they playing? Alcorn State @ No. 20 Arkansas
Plenty of good seats remaining: Akron @ Kent State
They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? Incarnate Word @ Texas State
Week 4 Take-aways:
A premonition last week gave me that idea that, while many matchups this week did not exactly shine with prestige (or did they?), they were nevertheless competitive and engaging. The examples are rather numerous. The USC-Utah game on Friday was one such example. The Trojans led most of the way, but the Utes triumphed in the end, 31-27. LSU at Auburn developed into a relatively low-scoring affair (plus, no matter the outcome, we were guaranteed that the Tigers would win!). A quirk in clock management led to the War Eagles winning over the Bayou Bengals, and thus brought a sudden end to the Les Miles era in Baton Rouge. Where LSU will go from here is anybody’s guess, but they do now have carte blanche to hire Art Briles, who is currently unemployed.
Tennessee seemed to finally learn to close the deal in a big game. Last year at this time, they gave up some heartbreakers to big-name teams, though they led the majority of those games (namely, Oklahoma and Florida). To make the situation murkier, they played inconsistently in their wins this year prior to yesterday. Even during the first half, they were clearly off rhythm, and the Gators led at the half, 21-3. All that changed in the second half. The Volunteers came out an entirely different team, executing effectively, and scoring, seemingly, at will, while Florida only scored a touchdown for that entire half. Now that the Vols have proven they can “close the deal,” they need to prove they can effectively play a good first half as well as a good second. Once they do, they’ll be one of the best teams in football. As things currently stand, Tennessee seems to have a clear path to the SEC East berth of their conference’s championship game.
That path was opened all the wider after then-No. 12 Georgia embarrassed themselves on the road to then-No. 23 Ole Miss. Sure, the Rebels are a good team, but the Bulldogs made them look like world-beaters. Couple this with the fact that Mark Richt did not leave the team’s talent cupboard bare, and this seriously calls into question the wisdom in hiring Kirby Smart as his replacement.
Speaking of questionable hires, Kentucky won over South Carolina in a contest of ineptitude on both sides of the ball. Mark Stoops’ days are clearly numbered in Lexington, despite all of his hiring hype from a few years ago. But Will Muschamp is the new hire in Columbia. As I have previously inquired, what sense does it make to hire a coach who failed with the talent at Florida, only to bring him into a program with less talent and less of a recruiting pipeline? Indeed, the South Carolina-Georgia border rivalry game might as well be dubbed the clash of the two coaching hire trainwrecks (in the making). But in the meantime, the Bulldogs have no time to lick their wounds, as they play Tennessee next week.
In a good game that was on nobody’s radar screen, Purdue actually beat an opponent with some degree of credibility in Nevada. In what seemed, on paper to be a lop-sided matchup, South Florida acquitted themselves well against Florida State, losing only 55-35.
On the other side of the proverbial coin was Wisconsin at Michigan State. The then-No. 11 Badgers embarrassed the then-No. 8 Spartans, 30-6. Sparty is lucky to remain ranked after such a drubbing, and this loss certainly does not make Notre Dame look any better after the drubbing they suffered at MSU’s hands.
Speaking of Notre Dame, head coach Brian Kelly fired his defensive coordinator after the Fighting Irish lost, at home, to Duke. Yes, Duke. But be not fooled: the Blue Devils are a respectable team, thanks to the patient building of head coach David Cutcliffe. Those “in the know” anticipated a decent game regardless of the outcome.
On the west coast, the competition was more than decent between Stanford and home team UCLA. The Bruins led most of the game. The Cardinal did not score the go-ahead touchdown until fewer than 30 seconds remained in regulation. The last six points to add to their margin came on a fluke. UCLA’s QB attempted a “Hail Mary” pass, but a Stanford defensive linemen forced a fumble instead before successfully running the ball back for another score with 0:00 left on the play clock. Notwithstanding the fluke score, it was a very good game.
Another good game for much of the duration was the Texas A&M vs. Arkansas game. The game was hard-fought on both sides, but as the game progressed, the Aggies played better and better. All this talk about Coach Kevin Sumlin being on the hot seat seem a overblown at least and more than a tad premature at worst, as A&M is now ranked No. 9 in the AP Poll, with more great SEC West matchups remaining.
Two other close, hard-fought games that relatively few people noticed: BYU vs. West Virginia (the Mountaineers won, 35-32) and Pitt vs. North Carolina (the Tarheels won that close one, 37-36). As previously observed, the entire day consisted of close games, top, bottom, and middle.
College Football Week 3 Awards (2016) September 19, 2016Posted by intellectualgridiron in Sports.
Tags: Alabama, Arizona State, Baylor, Bobby Petrino, Brian Kelly, Butch Jones, BYU, Cal, California, Clemson, college, Colorado, Cornhuskers, David Cutcliffe, Ducks, Florida, Florida State, football, Georgia, Georgia State, Georgia Tech, Houston, Idaho, Iowa, Jim McElwain, Jimbo Fisher, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisville, Michigan, Michigan State, Mississippi State, NCAA, Nebraska, North Texas, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Ohio U, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, Oregon, P.J. Fleck, Paul Chryst, Rice, Sean Kugler, South Carolina, Stanford, Tennessee, Texas, Texas State, UMass, UTEP, West Virginia, Western Michigan, Wildcats, Wisconsin
add a comment
(Note: All rankings are current AP [week 3] unless otherwise noted.)
COACHES Wish I were him: Bobby Petrino, Louisville
Glad I’m not him: Jimbo Fisher, Florida State
Lucky guy: Paul Chryst, Wisconsin
Poor guy: Hugh Freeze, Ole Miss
Desperately seeking a wake-up call: Butch Jones, Tennessee
Desperately seeking a P.R. man: P.J. Fleck, Western Michigan
Desperately seeking sunglasses and a fake beard: Kirk Ferentz, Iowa
Desperately seeking … anything: Sean Kugler, UTEP
Thought you’d kick butt, you did: Clemson (defeated South Carolina State 59-0)
Thought you’d kick butt, you didn’t: Wisconsin (defeated Georgia State 23-17)
Thought you’d get your butt kicked, you did: Appalachian State (lost to No. 25 Miami 45-10)
Thought you’d get your butt kicked, you didn’t: Ohio U (lost to No. 15 Tennessee 28-19)
Thought you wouldn’t kick butt, you did: Louisville (blew out No. 2 Florida State 63-20)
Dang, they’re good: Louisville
Dang, they’re bad: Virginia
Can’t Stand Prosperity: Texas
Did the season start? Iowa
Can the season end? Idaho
Can the season never end? Ohio State
Play this again: Cal 50, No. 11 Texas 43
Play this again, too: Nebraska 35, No 22 Oregon 32
Never play this again: No. 5 Clemson 59, South Carolina State 0
What? Nebraska 35, No 22 Oregon 32
Huh? Cal 50, No. 11 Texas 43
Are you kidding me? No. 10 Louisville 63, No. 2 Florida State 20
Oh – my – God: North Dakota State 23, No. 13 Iowa 21
(rankings are current AP (post-week 3, pre-week 4)
Ticket to die for: No. 11 Wisconsin @ No. 8 Michigan State
Also: No. 12 Georgia @ No. 23 Ole Miss
Best non-Power Five vs. Power Five matchup: BYU @ West Virginia
Best non-Power Five matchup: Georgia Southern @ Western Michigan
Upset alert: No. 5 Clemson @ Georgia Tech
Must win: No. 19 Florida @ No. 14 Tennessee
Offensive explosion: Cal @ Arizona State
Defensive struggle: South Carolina @ Kentucky
Great game no one is talking about: Oklahoma State @ No. 16 Baylor
Intriguing coaching matchup: Jim McElwain of Florida vs. Butch Jones of Tennessee
Also: David Cutcliffe of Duke vs. Brian Kelly of Notre Dame
Who’s bringing the body bags? No. 6 Houston @ Texas State
Why are they playing? Mississippi State @ UMass
Plenty of good seats remaining: North Texas @ Rice
Week 3 Take-aways:
After a lull of marquee match-ups last week, we the fans were treated to more great games this week. Watching two top ten teams in Florida State taking on Louisville is no better way to kick of the week’s massive slate of game. One-sided though the game may have been, it remained engaging in seeing the vaunted Seminoles lose by such a huge margin. Bravo, Cardinals!
Much hype has ensued in the wake of Texas defeating Notre Dame during the opening weekend. “Texas is back” has been an oft-repeated mantra. Their loss on the road to Cal calls said mantra into question. Only in the ensuing weeks, when the Longhorns play more of their respectable opponents, namely, Oklahoma State (whom they play next week), Oklahoma, Kansas State, Baylor, Texas Tech, West Virginia, and TCU will that mantra be either confirmed or denied.
Just to get this off my chest, who would have anticipated that the Kentucky – New Mexico State game would have been the offensive explosion that it turned out to be? An exciting game ensued, to be sure, but allowing a Sunbelt team to score 42 points on them is not the most ringing endorsement of the Wildcats’ defense. If these shadows remain unchanged, this does not bode for when UK enters the conference part of its schedule.
But all that aside, there were many sublime matchups this week. Oregon lost on the road to Nebraska in a game that went down to the wire. Texas lost to Cal in the same manner. As mentioned earlier, Louisville vs. Florida State was a marquee, top-ten matchup, until the Cardinals proceeded to obliterate the ‘Noles. The games in the 3:30 (EDT) time slot seemed, on paper, to be a respite before the bigger games ensued in the evening, but even they quickly became intriguing. In addition to the Ducks-Cornhuskers game, an improving Colorado gave Michigan a good fight before the Wolverines finally decided to start playing football. Ole Miss threatened to knock Alabama off its top spot in the polls. The evening time slots treated us fans to Texas-Cal, Michigan State @ Notre Dame, Ohio State @ Oklahoma (it has been a while since those two powerhouses butted heads), and BYU put up a great fight against UCLA. A great day for the game, when one tallies up the results and the moments.
Next week will frankly not measure up compared to this week and to week 1, but one cannot expect every week to deliver matchups like this. That said, some good conference games await us, as well as some tasty pre-conference games from power five teams across the board. Week 4 may not be as strong as week 3, but plenty of interesting games await us in any case!
On the Errors in Jeff Daniels’ Newsroom Rant September 16, 2016Posted by intellectualgridiron in Politics.
Tags: Bill of Rights, Cold War, Evil Empire, Facebook, freedom, Freedomhouse, James Madison, Jeff Daniels, John Adams, liberty, Newsroom, rant, Second World War, Soviet Union, Will McAvoy
add a comment
There is a video clip that continues to surface on Facebook periodically. Each time this clip surfaces, it continues to draw fresh accolades from many a user. Of course, I am talking about this oft-shared clip below:
Many users seem to gush over how the character played by Jeff Daniels “nails it,” to use the modern vernacular. The message of Daniel’s character is blunt: “America is not the greatest country in the world anymore.” It is an impassioned rant on a stage, and perhaps the best explanation for its wide appeal is that it makes an overall emotional, yet ostensibly learned attempt to explain what ails America today. In so doing, however, the character actually ends up libeling America, as the message behind his rant takes much for granted, and in the end, is destitute of foundation.
To ensure intellectual honesty, the character, Will McAvoy, demonstrates an important decree of rectitude early in his answer to a question from an audience member. He prudently observes that James Madison was a genius, that the U.S. Constitution is a masterpiece, and even goes so far to say that the Declaration of Independence is, in his words, “the single greatest piece of American writing.” Agree or disagree with the last clause, one strongly can agree with the impetus behind the observation.
Where McAvoy quickly errs, however, is the litany that follows after what he stated correctly. The reason this litany is baseless, on the whole, is that this attempted chastisement of an audience member is replete with half-truths, carelessly listed without the slightest bit of context. To wit:
“Canada has freedom. Japan has freedom. The UK, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Australia, Belgium….207 sovereign states in the world, and 180 of them have freedom.”
Truly? One-hundred eighty countries out of 207 sovereign nation-states is a percentage of nearly eighy-seven. Google indicates that there are 196 countries in toto, and of those, not even half of them on a map have been color-coded “free” by Freedomhouse.org.
Moreover, just viewing the small list of countries that McAvoy cites, (Japan, UK, Italy, France, Germany, Belgium) are “free” due to the fact that it was America that either freed them from fascist totalitarianism, or made sure (in the case of Great Britain) that they remained unmolested by it during the Second World War. Moreover, America protected all these countries from the Soviet Union’s imperialist advances during the Cold War. Only the greatest nation in the world could claim such feats.
Pursuant to the same point, the Bill of Rights, a crucial document that puts checks on government’s never-ending appetite for power and control, is absent in Europe.
“There is absolutely no evidence to support…that we’re the greatest country in the world.” Obviously, he overlooked the fact that the free world has expanded greatly since the Second World War on account of America’s efforts. He also overlooked how it was America’s efforts that ultimately brought down the Evil Empire that was the Soviet Union. But when one is consumed by emotion, why allow for this inconvenient truth to interfere with one’s self-indulgent litany?
“We’re seventh in literacy,” he continues, “twenty-seventh in math, twenty-second in science, forty-ninth in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force, fourth in exports.”
These statistics seem so randomly drawn as to give the discerning observer the sense that they were fabricated. Indeed, basic research validates this scrutiny. Are we truly 49th in the world in our life expectancy? In reality, it is 31st. Still not great, but it obviously shows the error and lack of truth in his rant.
So what might account for a life expectancy of only 79.3 years, compared to Japan’s, the leader at 83.7 years? Leftists relish using this misleading statistic as an accusation against our supposedly defective healthcare system. What is conveniently ignored in this instance is that America is the most diverse country on earth compared to Japan, which is very homogeneous. Leftists usually worship diversity as one of their many false gods, but conveniently overlook that one of the side-effects of “diversity” is diversity of behaviors. Some behaviors lead to long, healthy lives, while others will cut life short. Such diversity of behaviors account of having, on average, 4.4 fewer years of expect life compared to Japan. To express it differently, the greatest doctors in the world cannot do anything about the rampant murder rates in many inner cities, which naturally bring down the national lifespan average. But in things doctors can control, such as cancer survival rates, we do indeed lead the world.
Concerning being “third in per capita income,” the same thing regarding diversity applies. Not everybody has equal ability to be equally productive. Not everybody is equally ambitious. More to the point, there will always be those who worked harder than most other people. With such a wide range of those proclivities within our population (all 319,000,000 of us), is there no surprise what our per capita GDP is slightly lower than that of small, homogeneous Luxembourg?
How about all the high taxes in Japan and much of Europe that discourage entrepreneurship and increased productivity compared to America? Did Jeff Daniels’ script writers factor that key element into the equation regarding the supposed “freedom” in the countries he casually listed?
Already having demonstrated to be cavalier with the facts, McAvoy nevertheless continues:
“We only lead the world in three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita; number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next 26 countries combined, 25 of whom are allies.” Well.
Concerning the first point, it is a commentary on two things. First, too many laws. He may have a point, but he fails to mention it, and it surely deserves further, in-depth discussion as to the systemic legal reform we desperately need (John Stossel once offered a novel idea of clearing out antiquated laws and placing sunset provisions on all laws retained and added). But the other thing regarding incarceration rate conveniently overlooks the fact that many of the perpetrators are those who have bad, warped values, who must be removed from civil society so civil society remains safe from the evils they would otherwise perpetrate.
Concerning McAvoy sniffing about adults believing in angels, it betrays his fundamental misunderstanding of what has made America great in the first place. A strong religious grounding (specifically of the Judeo-Christian varieties) is essential to the well-functioning of America. Our Founding Fathers knew this when they first practiced statecraft. Indeed, John Adams concisely underscored this necessity when he observed “[O]ur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Angels are thoroughly understood and valued within Judeo-Christian theology, and McAvoys casual, callous dismissal of such belief betrays his true ignorance of a necessary pillar to America’s fundamental greatness.
Concerning the third point regarding defense spending, and why ours is so huge compared to “the next 26 countries,” that is because almost all of those “26 countries” rely on America to not only protect itself from evil regimes and rogue terror groups, but they also rely on America to come to their own defense in their own possible time of need. Many countries in western Europe have allowed for their militaries to atrophy because since the end of the Second World War, they counted on America for their own defense from the Soviets during the Cold War, and from terrorists today.
The error that leftists always make is equating “greatest” with “perfect”. No reasonable person would make such an equivalency. Moreover, reasonable people would also concede that systemic problems exist that need to be addressed so that we maintain our top spot amongst the other nations overall. Rather than strive for perfection (unattainable, as humans are inherently imperfect), to maintain the greatest, one must simply strive to be better. We have excelled at that since our founding. Let us always keep in mind that our liberties are not granted by our Creator as means unto themselves, but rather as means to strive for improvement itself.
On an even more fundamental level, it has escaped a critical mass of user’s notices on social media, of a fundamental, logical implication within the rant in question. If America is no longer the greatest country in the world anymore, which country has taken its place in the supreme spot of rank of nations? Is it Canada, with only eleven percent of the population of its might neighbor to its south? Is it China, what with its systemic problems of entrenched totalitarian government and continued human right violations, coupled with disturbing demographic trends of age? Is it France or Germany, with its critical masses of unassimilated Moslem immigrants who do not share the values of the generous countries who have let them escape their origins of squalor? If McAvoy/Daniels and his sycophants still cling to this message even after demonstrating it is lacking in reason, they continue to fail to select the country that has supplanted America as the greatest of nations. Perhaps that might be the baseless rant’s greatest failing of all.
As a postscript, the fellow seat next to the Will McAvoy character gave an all too expedient, incomplete, and lame answer. Freedom is all well and good, but as already mentioned, for liberty to mater, it must be leveraged for improvement, wed to proper religious grounding. The lady on his other side gave an answer that inadvertently misled. “Diversity” and “inclusion” are ornaments, not strengths, of a great nation. To relay on those two ornaments as structural elements to uphold a nation is as foolish and dangerous as to build one’s house on a foundation of sand.
College Football Week 2 Awards (2016) September 12, 2016Posted by intellectualgridiron in Sports.
Tags: Akron, Alabama, Arizona State, Arkansas, Auburn, Baylor, Bob Stoops, Brett Bielema, Brian Kelly, BYU, Cincinnati, Clemson, college, Darrell Hazell, Florida, Florida State, football, Gamecocks, Gary Patterson, Iowa State, Kalani Sitake, Kent State, Kentucky, Kyle Whittingham, Louisville, Mark Dantonio, Mark Stoops, Michigan, Michigan State, NCAA, Nebraska, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, Oregon, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, SEC, South Carolina, Stanford, TCU, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, UCLA, USC, USF, Utah, Virginia Tech, Wildcats, Will Muschamp, Willie Taggert, Wisconsin, Wyoming
add a comment
(Note: All rankings are current AP [week 2] unless otherwise noted.)
COACHES Wish I were him: Kyle Whittingham, Utah
Glad I’m not him: Kalani Sitake, BYU
Lucky guy: Brett Bielema, Arkansas
Poor guy: Gary Patterson, TCU
Desperately seeking a wake-up call: Pat Fitzgerald, Northwestern
Desperately seeking a P.R. man: Willie Taggert, South Florida
Desperately seeking sunglasses and a fake beard: Mark Stoops, Kentucky
Desperately seeking … anything: Darrell Hazell, Purdue
TEAMS Thought you’d kick butt, you did: No. 3 Florida State (defeated Charleston Southern 52-8)
Thought you’d kick butt, you didn’t: No. 2 Clemson (defeated Troy 30-24)
Thought you’d get your butt kicked, you did: Akron (lost to No. 10 Wisconsin 54-10)
Thought you’d get your butt kicked, you didn’t: Nicholls (lost to Georgia 26-24)
Thought you wouldn’t kick butt, you did: Nebraska (defeated Wyoming 52-17)
Dang, they’re good: Michigan
Dang, they’re bad: Kentucky
Can’t Stand Prosperity: Oklahoma State
Did the season start? Northwestern
Can the season end? Miami, OH
Can the season never end? Wisconsin
Play this again: Arkansas 41, No. 15 TCU 38
Play this again, too: Utah 20, BYU 19
Honorable Mention to play again: South Carolina 13, Vanderbilt 10
Never play this again: No. 20 Texas A&M 67, Prairie View A&M 0
What? East Carolina 33, N.C. State 30
Huh? Arkansas 41, No. 15 TCU 38
Are you kidding me? Illinois State 9, Northwestern 7
Oh – my – God: Central Michigan 30, No. 22 Oklahoma State 27
Told you so: Arizona State 68, Texas Tech 55
(rankings are current AP (post-week 2, pre-week 3)
Ticket to die for: No. 2 Florida State @ No. 10 Louisville
Also: No. 3 Ohio State @ No. 14 Oklahoma
Best non-Power Five vs. Power Five matchup: UCLA @ BYU
Best non-Power Five matchup: No. 6 Houston @ Cincinnati (Thurs.)
Upset alert: Auburn @ No. 17 Texas A&M
Must win: Iowa State @ TCU
Offensive explosion: No. 22 Oregon @ Nebraska
Defensive struggle: No. 1 Alabama @ No. 19 Ole Miss
Great game no one is talking about: Pitt @ Oklahoma State
Intriguing coaching matchup: Mark Dantonio of Michigan State vs. Brian Kelly of Notre Dame
Who’s bringing the body bags? South Carolina State @ No. 3 Clemson
Why are they playing? Ohio U @ No. 15 Tennessee
Plenty of good seats remaining: Monmouth @ Kent State
They shoot horses, don’t they? Georgia State @ No. 9 Wisconsin
Week 2 Take-aways:
After such a spectacular opening week in college football the previous Saturday and surrounding days, this weekend was a considerable let-down. The noon timeslots were mediocre, save for the decent matchup of Penn State vs. Pitt. The 3:30 timeslots were positively atrocious, where the best game was arguably Kentucky vs. Florida, and that game turned out to be a 45-7 blowout in favor of the Gators. All the good games were crammed together in the evening, where I found myself wearing out my TV’s remote by switching around to the games of Arkansas @ TCU, Tennessee vs. Virginia Tech (at the Bristol, Tenn. Motor Speedway), BYU @ Utah, and occasionally South Carolina @ Mississippi State.
After this mediocre lineup of games for this week, one thing that has festered for a while has become even more clear. Two teams that continue to suck with overpaid coaches who are out of their depth are both Darrell Hazell of Purdue and Mark Stoops of Kentucky. The latter is another case, apparently, of where the only Stoops brother who has the skill set to be a legit head coach at the big boy level is Bob, not brother Mark. We might recall that the other brother, Mike, flamed out at Arizona. Concerning brother Mark, who apparently has had all these great recruiting classes while at UK, lost to lowly Southern Miss last week and this week was demolished by a recovering Florida, 45-7. His predecessor, Joker Philips, went 13-24 (4-20 SEC) after three seasons. Stoops is currently 12-26 (4-21 SEC) after the second game in his fourth season of tenure at UK. The Kentucky faithful would do well to ask themselves: is this progress?
The former had only one good year at a middling MAC program (Kent State), and the powers that be at Purdue were suckered in by this limited success to offer him the Purdue job, paying him $2.2 Million annually, or about $1 Million more than his predecessor, Coach Danny Hope. Hazell is thus far 7-30 since the 2013 season at Purdue, while Coach Hope went 22-27 in four seasons there. Doing that math, that amounts to paying an addition $4 Million for 15 fewer wins. For an athletics department that ostensibly prides itself on operating in the black, those numbers simply do not add up. Moreover, it makes one wonder how much better Hope would have performed had he been given those extra resources that Hazell currently enjoys (meager as they still are compared to true big boy programs).
Meanwhile, on a totally unrelated note, Mississippi State gave the impression that they have righted the ship after their embarrassing upset at home last week to South Alabama. They defeated South Carolina this week, 27-14. Conversely, the loss on the part of the Gamecocks’ gives those who doubt the wisdom of the hire of head coach Will Muschamp further credibility.
All this aside, there are some outstanding matchups awaiting us this upcoming weekend, namely:
Michigan State @ Notre Dame; Texas A&M @ Auburn; Pittsburgh @ Oklahoma State; Oregon @ Nebraska; Alabama @ Ole Miss; UCLA @ BYU; Houston @ Cincinnati (Thurs. evening); USC @ Stanford; Ohio State @ Oklahoma; and of course, Florida State @ Louisville, which could potentially be the best game of the year thus far. I for one am already chomping at the bit, especially for the latter game!
College Football Week 1 Awards (2016) September 6, 2016Posted by intellectualgridiron in Sports.
Tags: Alabama, ANZ Stadium, Arizona, Arizona State, Arkansas, Army, Auburn, Bob Stoops, Bronco Mendenhall, Butch Jones, BYU, Charlotte, Clemson, college, Colorado, Derek Mason, Florida State, football, Georgia, Hawaii, Houston, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisville, LSU, Mark Helfrich, Michigan, Mike MacIntyre, Mississippi State, NCAA, North Carolina, Northern Illinois, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Ole Miss, Olympics, Oregon, Penn State, SEC, South Carolina, South Dakota State, South Florida, Stanford, Sydney, TCU, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Tigers, Tom Herman, Troy, Tulane, UCLA, UConn, USC, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, Will Muschamp, Wofford
add a comment
(Note: All rankings are current AP [week 1] unless otherwise noted.)
COACHES Wish I were him: Tom Herman, Houston
Glad I’m not him: Bob Stoops, Oklahoma
Lucky guy: Will Muschamp, South Carolina
Poor guy: Derek Mason, Vanderbilt
Desperately seeking a wake-up call: Butch Jones, Tennessee
Desperately seeking a P.R. man: Mike MacIntyre, Colorado
Desperately seeking sunglasses and a fake beard: Les Miles Desperately seeking … anything: Willie Fritz, Tulane
Thought you’d kick butt, you did: No. 19 Louisville (defeated Charlotte 70-14)
Thought you’d kick butt, you didn’t: No. 13 TCU (defeated South Dakota State 38-31)
Thought you’d get your butt kicked, you did: Hawaii (lost to No. 7 Michigan 63-3)
Thought you’d get your butt kicked, you didn’t: Appalachian State (lost to Tennessee 20-13).
Thought you wouldn’t kick butt, you did: Western Kentucky (defeated Rice 46-14)
Dang, they’re good: Alabama
Dang, they’re bad: Tulane
Can’t Stand Prosperity: LSU
Did the season start? Oklahoma (also: Mississippi State)
Can the season end? Hawaii Can the season never end? Louisville
Play this again: Wisconsin 16, No. LSU 14
Play this again, too: Texas 50, No. 10 Notre Dame 47
Honorable Mention to play again: South Carolina 13, Vanderbilt 10 Never play this again: No. 7 Michigan 63, Hawaii 3
Say what? Southern Miss 44, Kentucky 35
WHAT? Texas A&M 31, No. 16 UCLA 24
Huh? No. 15 Houston 33, No. 3 Oklahoma 23
Double-huh? Texas 50, No. 10 Notre Dame 47, 2OT
Are you kidding me? South Alabama 21, Mississippi State 20 Oh – my – God: Wisconsin 16, No. 5 LSU 14
(rankings are current AP (post-week 1, pre-week 2) Ticket to die for: Arkansas @ No. 12 TCU
Best non-Power Five vs. Power Five matchup: BYU @ Utah
Best non-Power Five matchup: Northern Illinois @ South Florida
Upset alert: Virginia Tech @ No. 14 Tennessee
Must win: (take your pick)
Offensive explosion: Texas Tech @ Arizona State
Defensive struggle: South Carolina @ Mississippi State
Great game no one is talking about: Penn State @ Pitt
Intriguing coaching matchup: Bronco Mendenhall of Virginia vs. Mark Helfrich of Oregon
Who’s bringing the body bags? Troy @ No. 2 Clemson
Why are they playing? Nicholls State @ No. 9 Georgia
Plenty of good seats remaining: Army @ UConn
They shoot horses, don’t they? Wofford @ No. 18 Ole Miss
Week 1 Take-aways:
What a fantastic opening week for college football. It was billed going in as the greatest opening week in the history of the game, and the games themselves did not disappoint. Two Top Five teams went down to defeat, the most teams where that has happened at the season’s onset since 1972.
On paper alone the matchups were very intriguing. To wit: No. 15 Houston played No. 3 Oklahoma at home – in NRG Stadium, no less. No. 22 North Carolina played No. 18 Georgia in the Georgia Dome in Atlanta (Peach Bowl preview, anyone?). No. 16 UCLA journeyed to Texas A&M to play the Aggies. No. 5 LSU made the trek up to Wisconsin to play the Badgers – in historic Lambeau Field. Indeed, this was the first time his legendary venue hosted a college game. Later in the day, No. 1 Alabama faced off against No. 20 USC in AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas. Later still, No. 2 Clemson came to Auburn to throw down with the [War Eagle] Tigers. While those two big game were going on, out west, BYU journeyed down to Glendale, Ariz., to play a neighbor to the south in Arizona.
On Sunday, Notre Dame played the Texas Longhorns, in Austin (nominally ACC vs Big XII), and on Monday, No. 11 Ole Miss played No. 4 Florida State (SEC vs ACC), thus adding two more highly marquee matchups two an incredible, extended opening weekend.
If that’s not enough, the previous week, Hawaii played Cal…in Sydney, Australia. The venue for this game was ANZ Stadium, the new name of the stadium used to host the opening/closing ceremonies and the track and field events for the 2000 Summer Olympics.
Whom do we have to thank for this magnificent opening to the 2016 season of college football? Most likely we have the Playoff Committee to thank. They re-worked the formula for selecting teams. The BCS formula left teams way too cautious. One loss likely meant being out of the hunt for a national title. Better therefore to pad the record with an easy win. We the fans suffered with lousy non-conference matchups as a result. When the switch was made from a BCS selection to a four-team playoff, the formula was modified to the point where one loss would not mean the end of the season for those who were in the national title hunt. Conversely, the new formula put a stronger emphasis on strength of schedule. It was a win-win-win. The first “win” is in the form of teams being more free to schedule good games before the conference portion of their season than during the BCS era. The fans reap the second win with great games (see: this weekend). The third win is, as mentioned before, if you have a tough, strong schedule, one loss will not necessarily dash your season’s aspirations.
Good thing, too, because many commentators have dubbed this Saturday the “Day of the Dog”…the underdog, that is. Texas A&M knocked off No. 16 UCLA in overtime at home. Fifteenth-ranked Houston beat No. 3 Oklahoma by 10 points. Even more stunning was Mississippi State missing a last-minute field goal…at home…to lowly South Alabama. Of course, the unranked Wisconsin Badgers upset the No. 5 LSU Tigers in a close game, 16-14. The following evening, the unranked Longhorns knocked off the 10th-ranked Fighting Irish at home, 50-57, in a second overtime, no less.
Apropos of nothing, here is a philosophical question for you: which is more pathetic; that Tulane could only score seven points on Wake Forest, or that Wake Forest could score only seven points on Tulane?
Regardless, what a stupendous weekend for college football. Fans should treasure it for a long time to come!
On the Future of the Olympic Games July 28, 2016Posted by intellectualgridiron in Sports.
Tags: Athens, Atlanta, Australia, Beijing, Berlin, boondoggle, Brazil, Calgary, Canada, commerce, culture, de Janeiro, developed, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Israel, Japan, London, Los Angeles, Munich, Olympics, Park City, Rio, rule of law, Salt Lake, Seoul, Sochi, Summer Games, superior, Sydney, Third World, Tokyo, United States, Vancouver, waste, Whistler, Winter Games
add a comment
The train wreck in Rio de Janeiro that continues to unfold as the Summer Olympics are but days away has exposed two large, systemic problems. The obvious one is with Brazil itself. Its economy may have been on the rise in 2009 to the point where it gave enough people the impression that it was becoming part of the developed world. Not long afterwards, political corruption, lack of infrastructure, and a glaring lack of sanitation exposed Brazil as still being Third World and still having a long way to go before it deserves to sit at the grownups table of world affairs (along with the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Canada, Israel, Australia, possibly France, and the like).
The other systemic issue at play is with the Olympic Games themselves. Simply put, they are huge, and very expensive to stage. Even 40 years ago, things almost reached a tipping point. The city of Montreal hosted the 1976 Summer Olympics, only to be $1.5 Billion in debt afterwards. It took that city almost 30 years to pay it off. Indeed, few cities wanted to host the Games after that. Sure, Moscow jumped at the chance four years later, because to a Communist nation, money is no object when it comes to propaganda.
Peter Ueberroth and the Los Angeles organizing committee for 1984 revolutionized how the Games were financed when he persuaded the International Olympic Committee to allow corporate sponsorship. It saved the Games for another 30 years.
Now, the Games have grown even bigger still, to the point where they are too expensive for new cities to host the Games. Sure, Putin and the Russian government seemed more than willing to turn Sochi into a $51 Billion (with a ‘B’) boondoggle, because, again, at what price propaganda?
Beijing was the only viable city that wanted to host the Winter Olympics for 2022. The IOC was certainly were not going to give the Winter Games to Kazakhstan, for goodness sake. It is a sad commentary on the susceptibility of the IOC to a bribe that so few viable countries and cities thereof even put in bids for the 2022 Winter Games in the first place.
That aside, one thing is for certain: the Olympics are so huge and such a big deal that only commerce-oriented (read: First World, developed) countries are built and, indeed, fit to host the Games.
Yet, there is this politically-correct mantra out there, saying that everyone deserves a chance, but grownups will tell you that is pure poppycock. The truth is, most nations and even whole continents are not built to handle and host the Olympics. That includes Africa (with the possible exception of Johannesburg), South America (as we are currently seeing now), the Middle East (outside of Israel), and central and Southeast Asia.
Even some countries in otherwise developed regions are more than suspect. Remember Athens in 2004? The Greeks built all those state-of-the-art facilities only to let them go to ruin a decade later. Yes, it sounded wonderful for the Olympics to be hosted in the ancient birthplace of the Games themselves, but the huge problem was that Greece is anything but commerce-oriented, which speaks to a culturally systemic problem in Greece itself.
One aspect of this systemic issue is that a city that wants to host the Games for the first time has to spend billions of dollars to build new facilities from scratch. In this day and age, even with corporate sponsorship and in some cases, state-supported funding, that is no longer economically viable.
The solution is to start cycling the Games around to cities that meet certain criteria. They are:
1.) Be situated in a commerce-oriented country (i.e., one of the aforementioned “grownup” countries). Not all cultures are equal. Some cultures are superior to others. A hallmark of this cultural supremacy is a culture that itself is commerce-oriented, that respects the rule of law and property rights of the individual, that frowns on black markets, and puts a premium on democratic governments and transparency within. Not to mention, superior cultures minimize corruption in government, at least compared to more corrupt Third World nations. These sorts of countries also have free presses (to varying extents; France is suspect in this regard) that can call wayward politicians into account for any malfeasance.
Commerce-oriented countries also have the necessary infrastructure for such massive undertakings as the Games. This includes transportation (e.g., airports and expressways), not to mention a sufficient amount of clean, comfortable, available hotel rooms to handle the crush of spectators attending said Games.
2.) Be a city big enough that it already has the aforementioned infrastructure in place. This applies to cities that have never hosted a previous Olympics.
3.) This is the big one: ideally, be a city that has already hosted the Games, and has proven to do so exceptionally well.
Indeed, for the Olympics to remain doable in the future, the way to go is to starting cycling them around to cities (and, by extension, their countries) that have proven capable of hosting the Olympics well. The IOC seems to be inching towards this already, however gradually. London just hosted its Olympic Games for the third time, most recently in 2012. Tokyo — another excellent choice on the part of the IOC — will host the 2020 Summer Games. Los Angeles is currently bidding to host the Summer Games for 2024.
For these cities, the venues/facilities are already built. Maybe a little renovation or generally sprucing up might be in place, but such expenditures pale in comparison to building everything from scratch. Los Angeles, for example, has but one additional facility to build (for rowing and kayaking) and it’s all set.
Think about it from the Winter Games perspective. Sure, a nearby, mountainous ski resort town can handle the alpine skiing events (Salt Lake had Park City, Vancouver had Whistler), but you still need to build a sliding sports track. That alone costs between $50-100 Million, and then there is the necessary ski jumping tower, etc., etc. Economically, it makes sense to host the Games in cities have already hosted them, and hosted them well.
One could cycle the Winter Games from Salt Lake City to, say, Munich (they have a sliding sports track at nearby Koenigssee), then Calgary and/or Vancouver. What’s not to love?
Similarly, a Summer Games cycle of Los Angeles, London, Sydney, Atlanta, Tokyo, and Munich/Berlin would work just fine. Seoul would be a viable cycle candidate as well.
Either we start doing this, or we encourage cities to continue to engage in multi-billion-dollar boondoggles to build athletic venues that rarely get used again, like those in Athens (indeed, what shall become of Rio’s many facilities after these upcoming Games are concluded?).
So, which is it going to be? Cycling the Games around to proven cities/countries, or more wasteful boondoggles?
On the Problems with the Rio Olympics July 27, 2016Posted by intellectualgridiron in Sports.
Tags: 1936, 1980, 2008, 2014, 2016, Berlin, Christine Brennan, corruption, Dilma Rousseff, International Olympic Committee, IOC, Moscow, Olympics, Petrobas, Rio, Rio de Janeiro, sewage, Sochi, Summer Games, The Herd, Third World, tropical, violence, Winter Games, Zika
1 comment so far
Has the IOC learned its lesson yet (I’ll pause for laughter)? Frankly, I would not hold out hope for this. This is, after all, the same IOC that gave the Olympics to Nazi Germany in 1936 (both Winter and Summer Games). That awarded the 1980 Summer Games to Moscow, the epicenter of the slave society bent on taking over the entire world (I mean Communism, of course). They also awarded the 2008 Summer Olympics to Beijing despite the decades-long, grotesque train of human rights abuses on the part of Red China.
Then there was the disaster that was Sochi in 2014. Leave aside the fact that Vladimir Putin has made every effort to cast himself in the mold of a Soviet Premier.
Focus instead on the grossly inadequate lodging; the issues with the available food; the $51 Billion overall boondoggle of hosting the Games; the subtropical climate (keep in mind these were Winter Olympics); the putrid water supply; the state-sanctioned killing of stray dogs, and, not to mention, the state-sanctioned doping of the Russian athletes (no wonder Russia came out of nowhere to win so many medals after so many mediocre performances in recent Winter Games).
Now the world is turning its attention to the Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, and the train wreck it is rapidly becoming. Granted, Rio holds a special mystique for people all over the world: a megacity in beautiful, tropical surroundings, and miles of warm, sexy beaches. Sounds great to host the Olympics there, right? That is, it all sounds great until reality is considered. To wit:
Economically, the Brazil is in its worst recession since the 1930s, partly because of the declining oil prices on the world market. Locally, Rio de Janeiro has declared a financial state of emergency. Falling oil prices alone cannot be totally blamed for this crisis. Indeed, a much larger factor is government corruption, a hallmark of Third World politics. To that point, a major investigation into the state-controlled oil corporation Petrobas has already forced several government officials to step down. That is good, but will their replacements be reform-minded? The cynical side of me says, “don’t hold your breath.” Still, the political corruption scandals leading up to the Games have already had considerable fallout, for even Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, faces impeachment. That may be good for justice, but not good timing for a country to have a political crisis when it is about to host something as mammoth as the Summer Olympic Games.
As a side note, why does an oil company need to be state-controlled in the first place? The free market, coupled with sensible regulation, has proven to be an effective means of governing, say, Chevron and ExxonMobil. But this is what helps make the developed world the developed world.
In any case, health-wise, things are no better. Yes, the tropics are lush and beautiful, with nice, sunny weather and gorgeous palm trees swaying to and fro. The bad news is that all that nice weather helps breed pathogens and vectors thereof that are non-existent in the non-tropical latitudes of the developed world. Yellow fever and malaria are two classic examples, but what has recently made news is the presence of the Zika virus in Brazil. Did the IOC consider this when they awarded the Games to a country that is A) tropical, and B), still mostly Third World?
But that’s not the half of it. Another hallmark of Third World countries is a much greater degree of pollution than in the developed world. Outdoor aquatic venues for sailing and open water swimming are contaminated with trash and (drum roll, please) raw sewage. Let that sink in for a moment or two.
Violence, of course, is another Third World problem (spare me the talk about developed world exceptions like Chicago and other inner cities where bad, warped values in those locales rule the day so as to provide Third World situations in an otherwise developed region). A human foot and other body parts have recently washed up on a beach at Rio. That’s bad enough. Worse is that this particular beach is the same venue slated for beach volleyball events. Speaking of violence, armed robberies on the street are up 24 percent. Some athletes who have already shown up in preparation for the Olympics have sadly experienced this first-hand. In May, an Olympic gold medalist from Spain and two other fellow member of their sailing team were robbed at gunpoint in Rio. More recently, the same thing happened to two Australian paralympians. Oh, and recently, a group of armed men stormed a hospital.
This rise in violence coincides at the same time with city police resources in Rio being strained to the breaking point. They are so cash-poor that they have had to beg for basic office supplies and toilet paper. Because of the lack of resources brought on by Brazil’s economic crisis, the police have had to ground their helicopters and have had to park half of their fleet of cars to save fuel. Not what you want when hundreds of thousands of visitors, athletes and spectators alike, are about to count on police protection in that city. Some policemen in Rio have threatened to shirk their duties on account of their paychecks being delayed as well.
The athletes themselves, many of whom have been gradually filing into the Olympic village in advance of the Games, have also borne the brunt of Rio’s many problems. The village, which consists of 31 17-storey towers, has been plagued with leaky pipes, exposed wires, and blocked toilets. Keep in mind that this is brand-new construction, not some dilapidated public housing tower. Gotta love those Third World construction standards. Already the Australian, Italian, and even Argentinian teams have rented hotels and/or apartments until the contractors can fix these issues.
Anybody with a healthy dose of common sense would quickly point out that when you give something as huge and important as the Olympic Games to a Third World country, even one as borderline and emerging as Brazil, that issues like these are par for the course. So how did the IOC foolishly decide to let Rio de Janeiro host the Summer Games anyhow?
Three possible reasons: One possibility is that the IOC is corrupt itself. How else does one surmise that it gave the Winter Games to Sochi? How else does one explain Russia not being entirely banned from these Olympics despite proven state-sanctioned doping at those Games? Over the past decade, one thing I have learned is to never underestimate the IOC’s susceptibility to bribes. The same thing could have happened in the Rio case.
A second reason is that political correctness clearly played a part in tainting the IOC’s collective judgment. There is this politically correct mentality out there that every major city/major region deserves to host the Games. Giving the Olympics to a South American country for the first time ever helped the IOC solidify their PC bona fides and thus they felt very good about themselves in the process for being so “inclusive”.
Third is that the International Olympic Committee was sold a bill of goods. Brazil’s economy was on the rise in 2009. Some observers at that time naively thought that Brazil’s economy would eventually surpass those of Britain and France. The folks from the Rio organizing committee played on that, as well as the sexiness of the city, along with the beauty of the geographical surroundings. Christine Brennan of USA Today, in an interview with Colin Cowherd on his FS1 radio and TV show The Herd, pointed out that this combination clearly played a factor when the IOC made their decision seven years ago. All that was before Brazil’s Third World hang-ups helped cause its economy to crash and is now behind those of Italy and even India.
Solutions to avoiding issues like these in the future shall be explored in another article shortly come. But for the time being, the economic crisis, the political crisis, the construction and infrastructural issues, the rampant pollution and the rising crime add up to a train wreck-in-the-making for these upcoming Olympic Games. Maybe it will take such a disaster for the aristocratic-wannabes in Lausanne, Switzerland to finally wake up and use better judgment to avoid such disasters in the future.
Choose Wisely Where to Campaign, Sen. Cruz March 10, 2016Posted by intellectualgridiron in Politics.
Tags: Constitution, Donald Trump, Florida, GOP, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Michael Barone, Ohio, primary, Republican, Ted Cruz
add a comment
There is an old saying of “choose your hill to die on”. The meaning behind the saying is that nobody has unlimited resources/energy. Therefore, one must pick one’s proverbial battles judiciously if that person has any hope of succeeding in his/her endeavor.
The overall message of the Tuesday, March 8 Republican primaries is that they are anything but settled. As Michael Barone points out, a Donald Trump delegate majority is anything but inevitable. The key to ensuring the prevention of Trump ruining the party is, at this immediate point, to vote tactically, not strategically. Ohio and Florida are both winner-take-all primaries. With four candidates remaining in the race, that means a win on plurality instead of majority is a foregone conclusion.
Both the aforementioned states off lots of delegates. The ideal tactical votes right now is for Ohio GOP voters to give the delegates to Gov. John Kasich. Likewise, the ideal tactical vote in Florida is for Senator Marco Rubio to win. Both of these candidates are the most viable alternatives to Trump in these respective states.
Enter Cruz, who seems to have no concept of these important tactics. He has been going after Rubio in Florida and going after Kasich in Ohio. This is madness. Undermining both of these candidates in these respective states can only help Trump. Extra votes to Cruz in both of these states are unlikely to be detracted from The Donald, but are very likely to hurt the respective viable alternatives to Trump.
Cruz has thus become a very frustrating candidate to follow. His energy is admirable, but he has proven to not have an eye for these important tactics, and that could be potentially hazardous to us all. For if Trump wins the GOP nomination, the party faithful are essentially doomed to a Bataan Death March of a political campaign, slowly and agonizingly dragging into early November. Moreover, those of us who care about the Constitutional limits on governmental scope and power shall be particularly scorned, as neither nominee of the two major parties will, in this scenario, have any respect for America’s founding document.
The irony in all of this is that Cruz bills himself as a Constitutional standard-bearer. Yet his lack of tactical sense in this crucial primary could very well undermine his most cherished selling point by not understanding which states he can credibly win and which states he ought to let other anti-Trump nominees win to make sure The Donald does not gain further strength.
Be wise, Senator Cruz: leave Florida to Rubio and Ohio to Kasich, and by all means, concentrate your energy in the other states still in play. Otherwise, you might ruin things for all us, in some way for a generation to come. Should the unthinkable come to pass, how then will you be of any benefit to those of us who share your ideology? Sharing our values is all well and good, but if you lack the discipline to effectively advance these values, you become a liability and thus an unaware tool for those who are hostile to that which the Constitution stands.
Tags: Barry Goldwater, big government, conservative, David Brooks, Donald Trump, George Will, GOP, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, primary, Republican, Ronald Reagan, Ted Cruz
add a comment
David Brooks, the in-house, right-leaning centrist for the NY Times, has written yet another thought-provoking article (this on March 8, 2016). This is not news. He usually does this, and does so rather eloquently, though he lacks the true intellectual firepower and vocabulary of George Will. This is not to be held against him: who does have such capacity as Will? Hands, anyone?
Thought-provoking as his most recent article may be, entitled “It’s Not Too Late,” there are some problems with his thesis. Yes, he did get some things right, but he also got some key things wrong. But in which respective areas?
Let us start with what the article is all about. Brooks clearly recognizes the urgency within the Republican primary at the moment. That is to say, the majority of the GOP electorate recognizes what a disastrous candidate Donald Trump would be in the general election, and his would-be GOP nomination must be thwarted at all costs. Moreover, Brooks proceeds, further down in the article, to lay out the systemic problems behind Trump’s cult of personality. He outlines that Trump’s populism is premised on an active, big government that is energized to help the American working class, but doing so in negative, defensive ways. The blowhard wants to build walls, to close trade, to ban outside groups, and to otherwise smash enemies. Put all your trust in Trump (half-sarcastically described in source-synonym form as “The Great Leader”), and he’ll take all enemies down.
This dovetails nicely into where Brooks made some very insightful observations, and also some caveats. Let us look at where he “got it right” and “got it wrong” simultaneously. He points out that Goldwater and Reagan positioned the Republican Party as that of those who are free-market and anti-government. He got the first part correctly, the second part, not so much.
Goldwater and Reagan, for example, were trying to tackle the issues to make the marketplace freer after decades of Democrat interference via excessive regulation, excessively high taxes, union-friendly laws and trade-protectionist laws that ended up raising costs for consumers, allowing consumers fewer options, and stymying the economy in so doing. Reagan helped re-energize America by doing away with most of such hindrances. Today, the market is freer and taxes are much lower than they were prior to Ronaldus Magnus.
Since “Dutch” left office, most folks in the GOP have been searching for “the next Reagan”. Here’s the problem, though: since Reagan, new challenges have emerged. Today, the economy has become much more unforgiving (“crueler” is Brooks’ adjective of choice). Technology – particularly automation – has displaced workers and globalization has dampened wages. Also, the social structure is far more atomized and frayed than it was 30 years ago, especially among the less-educated. If that is not enough, demographics have also shifted, though to my mind, the previous item is part of this last item mentioned.
So far, Brooks is spot-on in listing some of the major domestic challenges that Americans face today. Each one deserves lengthy, multi-installment analysis. But where Brooks gets things wrong is by saying that “Orthodox Republicans” (embodied by Ted Cruz – Brooks describes him as the “extreme embodiment”, emphasis mine) are out of date. Indeed, allowing free people to freely transact with one-another, abiding by sensible regulations and sensible laws, is never out of date. Those were Reagan’s principles, and they still work today: indeed, they work in any era, because human nature has not changed since the dawn of Man.
The other part of Brooks’ erroneous assertion is that Orthodox Republicans see no positive role for government. Orthodox Republicans / doctrinaire conservatives do indeed see a positive role for government, but only in areas where they rightly recognize the things for which government is built to do effectively. The Federal Government, for example, is built to defend our country, which is why conservatives call for a strong military. Conservatives/Orthodox Republicans also recognize that the Federal Government is there to deliver the mail. It can also help out with the national infrastructure (i.e., interstate highways, bridges, etc.), and is also there to regulate interstate commerce (see: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution), though vigilance must be maintained to keep said regulation sensible and thus to keep it from getting out of hand, as it is apt to do if we elect too many big-government liberals to Congress. Beyond that, you leave it up to the States to decide, as it is written in the Tenth Amendment.
What Brooks has also overlooked is that, yes, while new challenges have emerged for America since Reagan’s time, some of these challenges can be addressed by Orthodox Republicans. For example, lots of jobs have been killed by excess regulation. It paralyzes innovation, it stymies companies trying to expand, and thus kills job growth. Many of us want more manufacturing jobs in this country, but that will not happen with the EPA being allowed to run amok under the Obama Administration, for example. An Orthodox Republican like Cruz would put a stop to that. Same thing goes for the amazing potential to create jobs for the educated and under-educated alike in, say, the energy sector.
Another aspect of Orthodox Republicanism that could help meet the challenges of today would be to allow for more local control over education, so that educational reformers have more flexibility to be more innovative. The idea behind this is that doing so could help us improve our human capital. The part of American society that has atomized could improve themselves through fundamental improvements in education, but that will not happen under a top-down approach from the Federal Government, where innovation is stifled through bureaucracy.
Granted, Cruz has his own problems, but they’re more about him than the ideology. He managed to alienate just about everyone in the Senate in both parties since he was elected in 2012. These are the same people with whom he must build coalitions if he wants to accomplish anything through Congress so he could sign it into law as President. His rigid, immoderate tone could alienate too many moderate voters as well. Goldwater was way too rigid as a candidate, and that is why he lost as badly as he did in 1964. Reagan, conversely, was just as conservative as Goldwater, but he was much more moderate in his tone. This in turn allowed for the Gipper to successfully position himself as a pragmatic problem-solver, allowing him to win over enough moderates, who joined the conservative voters in allowing him to win comfortably in 1980, and even more so four years later.
Cruz likes to think that he is Reagan’s ideological heir, but to truly find his inner Gipper, he too must moderate his tone. It remains to be seen whether or not he can. At least Brooks, to his credit, was on to something when he pointed out that both Marco Rubio and John Kasich are viable alternatives to the rigid (at the moment) Cruz and to the authoritarian Trump. He even proceeds to hint at the potential of both Rubio and Kasich as potential candidates to successfully position the Republicans as a party of reform, which is desperately needed at the Federal Government level for America to continue to be a viable power both at home and abroad. I personally would, at this time, favor either over Cruz, to say nothing of Trump, who, just to remind everyone, must be stopped at all costs, lest the efforts to roll back big government be set back for a generation.
Nevertheless, Brooks conveniently overlooks some important tenants of the conservative ideology, and how they would still work today. If he meant to say that Cruz’s tone was out of date, he was partly right: it never has been palatable to the national electorate. But Orthodox Republican/conservative principles are timeless because they recognize that the nature of mankind is permanent. No doubt these convenient dismissals on Brooks’ part are ongoing symptoms of his Stockholm Syndrome to which he has succumbed after all those years with the New York Times.