Games I saw (some of):
(3) Georgia 41-17 (24) South Carolina
I thought South Carolina would give the Bulldogs a game--and even rationalized the pick-6 Carolina spotted UGA early on. Hey, at halftime it still seemed like an even game. But the 2nd half was all Georgia. Felt like they were gonna score every time they touched the ball and that South Carolina had no chance. Good win for Georgia, tough loss for South Carolina.
UCLA 21-49 (6) Oklahoma
Right off the bat OU got jobbed: went for a big pass over the middle on the first play, I thought it was defensive interference, the refs did not. Then I don't recall the specific play, but UCLA got away with a non-call on their next possession, which ended in a TD. Seems like an early 14-point swing would make a difference but, nah, OU settled in and steadily pummeled the Bruins, who had no offensive attack to speak of. Pointless TD at the end covered the 30 point spread, so...you know...not a total loss for Bruin fans.
(13) Penn State 51-6 Pitt
Didn't see much of this but what I did see was the Nittany Lions thrashing the Panthers mercilessly. Kinda thought Penn State might come in hungover from last year's nail biter against App State, but, no, they came in ready to play.
Samford 26-36 Florida State
Hey, man, until Samford's best defender (Ahmad Gooden--remember that name because that guy'll be playing on Sundays!) went out on a targeting penalty (yeah, it was good call) late in the 3rd quarter, the Seminoles were getting outplayed in every way. The Samford QB was moving the ball, their WR's were making plays, the Samford special teams was better and that kid Gooden lived in FSU's backfield. It wasn't a fluke. But Gooden went out, then QB Francois was able to settle down some, they finally had a good drive in the 4th quarter, then a late pick-6 sealed it. But anyone who watched that game will not be putting money on Florida State this season.
Top 25
Handled their business
(1) Alabama, (3) Georgia, (4) Ohio State, (5) Wisconsin, (6) Oklahoma, (7) Auburn, (9) Washington, (10) Stanford, (11) LSU, (12) Virginia Tech, (13) Penn State, (14) West Virginia, (16) TCU, (18) Mississippi State. (19) Central Florida, (20) Boise State, (21) Michigan, (22) Miami, (23) Oregon
Didn't impress but did what they needed to do
(2) Clemson. I thought I was crazy for thinking Furman actually looked kinda good against Clemson last week, but after they barely squeaked by A&M, Clemson is not exactly blowing me away like they did last season. I dunno, A&M is sometimes sneaky good (and sometimes sneaky bad), it's too early to think Clemson's season is over (but when it all goes wrong, it's not like the signs weren't there).
(8) Notre Dame. Ooooh, they did not look good against Ball State. Not good, man.
Bad beat
(17) USC. Meh, they didn't get blown out by Stanford but they never had much shot at a W.
(24) South Carolina. The game felt close at halftime, but not much longer after that.
Not good
(15) Michigan State. Sparty's always hard to figure but this does not look like a vintage side
(25) Florida. Ha! I can now no longer say I was at the game the last time Kentucky beat Florida (but I can still say was at the game the next-to-last time Kentucky beat Florida and that might last me for a while).
Monday, September 10, 2018
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
2018-19 NFL Over/Unders
On the one hand I feel like I did more research than ever on the upcoming NFL season; on the other, it all looks exactly the same as last year. And the year before. I dunno, man, somehow paying attention to football doesn't make me understand football any better. Anyway, I went through the whole schedule, picked winners, ended up with this.
AFC East
Pats (11) (over/12-4)
Dolphins (6.5) (over/7-9)
Bills (6) (push/6-10)
Jets (6) (under/2-14)
(12-4) I always kinda assume each year that this is the year it all falls apart for the Pats. Brady and Belichik allow the team to get by on a whole lotta duct tape and the moment something bad happens, that whole team can be pretty bad pretty fast. Is this the year? I don't see why it would be. They're still better than the rest of that division.
(7-9) As for the rest of that division, looks the same as ever to me. Dolphins have nothing at all and win 6-8 games every year. Seven W's seems crazy, but I don't see why not.
(6-10) Buffalo has had O-line problems since the Doug Flutie days (ahh, man, I'd love to have Doug Flutie right now), but usually has a good D, a decent running game and somehow manages to score more than you think possible. This year I don't think they reach their typical 8-8, but not too far off.
(2-14) I'm not buying the Jets, man. They've got their savior, they've finally got a coach that knows what he's doing and the fans are all excited...yeah, do you realize how often that happens? Every year. Every year they're like this. NYC is allergic to winning, the Yanks are still generally good but the rest of the teams have never been good and I don't see that changing any time soon (NYG and the Devils aren't NYC, which is why they are allowed success from time to time, Nets used to have that but they gave it up, *smh*). I bet NYJ isn't any better than Miami or Buffalo. It's cool, they'll be excited about a top five pick, it'll give them something new to complain about (just like every year).
AFC North
Steelers (10.5) (under/10-6)
Ravens (8) (over/10-6)
Bengals (6.5) (over/7-9)
Browns (5.5) (under/3-13)
(10-6) Ben took a step back last year, not hard to see him take another step back this year. That said, that offense could still be really good. And the defense, too. I don't see them going deep in the playoffs but I think they'll make it.
(10-6) Count me firmly in the crowd that loathes Joe Flacco, that guy had one good playoff run and made a whole career around it (impressive in its way). But I can see him being kinda good this year, if he can be good enough to set up the running game, that D is still good enough to keep them in pretty much every game. (I think this team covers a lot of underdog money) But I still got them behind the Steelers.
(7-9) I gotta feeling the Bengals are the team most like last year. They're the kind of organization that runs like clockwork...dull, uninspiring clockwork.
(3-13) The talent is moving in the right direction, I can see them having a good D line and running game (a la last year's Bears). They'll be in more games and should be more fun to watch, but I don't see them winning games until Coach Hue is gone (got a feeling that in the spring of 2019, this may be the coaching gig that everyone wants).
AFC South
Jags (9) (over/11-5)
Texans (8.5) (over/11-5)
Titans (8) (under/7-9)
Colts (6.5) (under/6-10)
(11-5) The Jags finally had some success after years of being terrible, do they keep it going or revert back to crappy form when they remember that their QB sucks? Ehh, I like that D to keep carrying them and that running game to keep bringing in some W's.
(11-5) If the Texans avoid the crushing injuries they had last year, they could be really really good. I think they stay healthy enough to scare some folks.
(7-9) The Titans are a team I could be totally wrong about. They've got decent talent all over the field, I like Mariotta at QB and you gotta think Mike Vrabel is gonna be a better coach than what they've had over the years. That said, I have to see it first, they look like a 7-9 squad to me.
(6-10) The Colts, too, I may be underrating, but Andrew Luck has been out so long, it's hard to imagine he just rides in and kicks ass. Especially since I thought that roster was bad when Luck was there and didn't improve when he left.
AFC West
Chiefs (8.5) (over/11-5)
Broncos (7) (over/8-8)
(11-5) I think the Chiefs are the most sturdy, reliable team in that division (and I kinda think the rest of the division is soft anyway). If Mahomes is half as good as the hype-sters believe, I think the Chiefs could handily crush that division.
(8-8) They look like a mess but that D-line is still really really good. If they can run the ball, they'll still be in most games.
(7-9) Yes, I know the Chargers are one those teams that everyone has their eye on. But I'm not seeing it. What's gonna happen this year that didn't happen last year? How have they improved? They have a knack for winning games they should lose and losing games they should win, which in this case leads me to think 7 W's at the most.
(4-12) I wasn't a big fan of the Raiders' chances this year anyway but giving away Kahlil Mack (not good enough deal to let go of one of the best players in the league) just finishes them off, no? Not only are they a mediocre roster, figuring out a new coach, now they just gave away their best player right before the season starts...must be crushing that locker room. I have no reason to think Gruden will be any good at all and it seems like he's trying to remold the whole roster on the fly...not good. They might be really really awful (like, really really awful).
NFC East
Eagles (10) (under/9-7)
Redskins (7) (over/9-7)
(9-7) The Eagles are strangely not favored to win a lot of games this year but they do have a tough schedule. I think they're up and down all year but I still like them to win the division.
(9-7) I like the Redskins and I think Alex Smith is kinda perfect for them. I think they're up and down all year and just miss the playoffs.
(7-9) I had the Cowboys playing terrible early on, rallying late but coming up short. Right when you think the Cowboys are brutally bad, they'll go on a late run to sorta seem relevant.
(6-10) I think the Giants have their moments but finish in the bottom of the division (which is probably the worst fate possible for NYG fans).
NFC Central
Vikings (10) (over/13-3)
Packers (10) (over/12-4)
(13-3) This is a classic Vikings squad: killer D-line, killer O-line, pretty good skill players. Randy Moss ain't walking through that door but I like Kirk Cousins to step in and manage that offense just fine. The team runs itself, it's up to Cousins to make it work for him. I like them to kinda dominate the regular season.
(12-4) Rodgers makes all teams good. If he plays 16 games, they'll win at least 10. I like them to win 12 and roll into the playoffs (just like I thought last year).
(6-10) I was kinda impressed with the Bears last year, good RB and good D line, that's a good way for a bad team to get good. I like them to be better this year, especially with Kahlil Mack. But even thought I like Trubisky to take a (mild) step forward, they're in a tough division (2019-2020 could be their time).
(5-11) The Lions, man. They're good for five W's, not an un-fun team to watch, but not a team that's gonna win games.
NFC South
Saints (9.5) (over/11-5)
Panthers (9) (over/10-6)
Falcons (9) (over/10-6)
Bucs (6.5) (under/3-13)
(11-5) It feels crazy to pick the Saints to win 11 games but I dunno, why not? I think they kick ass at home, do well enough on the road and take the division.
(10-6) I thought I liked the Falcons better than the Panthers, but I ended up with Panthers 2nd and not making the playoffs. Ouch!
(10-6) I like to Falcons to have a good bounce back year and not make the playoffs either. Ouch!
(3-13) The day will come when the Bucs are good again, when that D is actually as good at it seems like it oughta be, when the QB troubles finally disappear, when the organization gets back to those days when it they were in the conference finals every year. But I don't think that day comes this year. I just don't see how they keep up in that division.
NFC West
Rams (10) (over/11-5)
Niners (8.5) (over/11-5)
Cards (5.5) (under/5-11)
(11-5) It took me several weeks last season to warm up to the Rams. I did though and I think they're gonna be good again.
(11-5) I'm in on Jimmy G. The way he rolled into that lineup last year and won games--when the team wasn't even trying!--I was impressed right away. That dude's good. (I bet Belichick's been hitting the Pepto hard since that trade) Throw in that the Cards and Seahawks are going in the wrong direction and I like the Niners to kick some ass.
(5-11) Last year they steadily descended into a tired bunch with nothing left to play for. The team deteriorated badly and, though I've always kinda liked Sam Bradford, I don't see how they get better. They got just enough talent to win five-ish games.
(4-12) Last year that offense was Russell Wilson making magic happen--if they'd made the playoffs he'd have been MVP--with no help at the skill positions and a terrible O-line. My guess is another year of that does not get any better and the vaunted D is pretty ordinary now. I can see them being pretty bad.
Playoff Predictions
AFC
Texans over Steelers, Chiefs over Ravens
Pats over Texans, Chiefs over Jags
Chiefs over Pats
NFC
Packers over Eagles, Saints over Niners
Vikings over Saints, Packers over Rams
Packers over Vikings
Super Bowl
Packers over Chiefs (a replay of SB I)
Something about these various numbers don't look right to me and looking back at the end of the season will undoubtedly look bizarre. But, here we are.
AFC East
Pats (11) (over/12-4)
Dolphins (6.5) (over/7-9)
Bills (6) (push/6-10)
Jets (6) (under/2-14)
(12-4) I always kinda assume each year that this is the year it all falls apart for the Pats. Brady and Belichik allow the team to get by on a whole lotta duct tape and the moment something bad happens, that whole team can be pretty bad pretty fast. Is this the year? I don't see why it would be. They're still better than the rest of that division.
(7-9) As for the rest of that division, looks the same as ever to me. Dolphins have nothing at all and win 6-8 games every year. Seven W's seems crazy, but I don't see why not.
(6-10) Buffalo has had O-line problems since the Doug Flutie days (ahh, man, I'd love to have Doug Flutie right now), but usually has a good D, a decent running game and somehow manages to score more than you think possible. This year I don't think they reach their typical 8-8, but not too far off.
(2-14) I'm not buying the Jets, man. They've got their savior, they've finally got a coach that knows what he's doing and the fans are all excited...yeah, do you realize how often that happens? Every year. Every year they're like this. NYC is allergic to winning, the Yanks are still generally good but the rest of the teams have never been good and I don't see that changing any time soon (NYG and the Devils aren't NYC, which is why they are allowed success from time to time, Nets used to have that but they gave it up, *smh*). I bet NYJ isn't any better than Miami or Buffalo. It's cool, they'll be excited about a top five pick, it'll give them something new to complain about (just like every year).
AFC North
Steelers (10.5) (under/10-6)
Ravens (8) (over/10-6)
Bengals (6.5) (over/7-9)
Browns (5.5) (under/3-13)
(10-6) Ben took a step back last year, not hard to see him take another step back this year. That said, that offense could still be really good. And the defense, too. I don't see them going deep in the playoffs but I think they'll make it.
(10-6) Count me firmly in the crowd that loathes Joe Flacco, that guy had one good playoff run and made a whole career around it (impressive in its way). But I can see him being kinda good this year, if he can be good enough to set up the running game, that D is still good enough to keep them in pretty much every game. (I think this team covers a lot of underdog money) But I still got them behind the Steelers.
(7-9) I gotta feeling the Bengals are the team most like last year. They're the kind of organization that runs like clockwork...dull, uninspiring clockwork.
(3-13) The talent is moving in the right direction, I can see them having a good D line and running game (a la last year's Bears). They'll be in more games and should be more fun to watch, but I don't see them winning games until Coach Hue is gone (got a feeling that in the spring of 2019, this may be the coaching gig that everyone wants).
AFC South
Jags (9) (over/11-5)
Texans (8.5) (over/11-5)
Titans (8) (under/7-9)
Colts (6.5) (under/6-10)
(11-5) The Jags finally had some success after years of being terrible, do they keep it going or revert back to crappy form when they remember that their QB sucks? Ehh, I like that D to keep carrying them and that running game to keep bringing in some W's.
(11-5) If the Texans avoid the crushing injuries they had last year, they could be really really good. I think they stay healthy enough to scare some folks.
(7-9) The Titans are a team I could be totally wrong about. They've got decent talent all over the field, I like Mariotta at QB and you gotta think Mike Vrabel is gonna be a better coach than what they've had over the years. That said, I have to see it first, they look like a 7-9 squad to me.
(6-10) The Colts, too, I may be underrating, but Andrew Luck has been out so long, it's hard to imagine he just rides in and kicks ass. Especially since I thought that roster was bad when Luck was there and didn't improve when he left.
AFC West
Chiefs (8.5) (over/11-5)
Broncos (7) (over/8-8)
Chargers (9.5) (under/7-9)
Raiders (8) (under 4-12)
(11-5) I think the Chiefs are the most sturdy, reliable team in that division (and I kinda think the rest of the division is soft anyway). If Mahomes is half as good as the hype-sters believe, I think the Chiefs could handily crush that division.
(8-8) They look like a mess but that D-line is still really really good. If they can run the ball, they'll still be in most games.
(7-9) Yes, I know the Chargers are one those teams that everyone has their eye on. But I'm not seeing it. What's gonna happen this year that didn't happen last year? How have they improved? They have a knack for winning games they should lose and losing games they should win, which in this case leads me to think 7 W's at the most.
(4-12) I wasn't a big fan of the Raiders' chances this year anyway but giving away Kahlil Mack (not good enough deal to let go of one of the best players in the league) just finishes them off, no? Not only are they a mediocre roster, figuring out a new coach, now they just gave away their best player right before the season starts...must be crushing that locker room. I have no reason to think Gruden will be any good at all and it seems like he's trying to remold the whole roster on the fly...not good. They might be really really awful (like, really really awful).
NFC East
Eagles (10) (under/9-7)
Redskins (7) (over/9-7)
Cowboys (8.5) (under/7-9)
Giants (7) (under/6-10)(9-7) The Eagles are strangely not favored to win a lot of games this year but they do have a tough schedule. I think they're up and down all year but I still like them to win the division.
(9-7) I like the Redskins and I think Alex Smith is kinda perfect for them. I think they're up and down all year and just miss the playoffs.
(7-9) I had the Cowboys playing terrible early on, rallying late but coming up short. Right when you think the Cowboys are brutally bad, they'll go on a late run to sorta seem relevant.
(6-10) I think the Giants have their moments but finish in the bottom of the division (which is probably the worst fate possible for NYG fans).
NFC Central
Vikings (10) (over/13-3)
Packers (10) (over/12-4)
Bears (6.5) (under/6-10)
Lions (7.5) (under/5-11)
(13-3) This is a classic Vikings squad: killer D-line, killer O-line, pretty good skill players. Randy Moss ain't walking through that door but I like Kirk Cousins to step in and manage that offense just fine. The team runs itself, it's up to Cousins to make it work for him. I like them to kinda dominate the regular season.
(12-4) Rodgers makes all teams good. If he plays 16 games, they'll win at least 10. I like them to win 12 and roll into the playoffs (just like I thought last year).
(6-10) I was kinda impressed with the Bears last year, good RB and good D line, that's a good way for a bad team to get good. I like them to be better this year, especially with Kahlil Mack. But even thought I like Trubisky to take a (mild) step forward, they're in a tough division (2019-2020 could be their time).
(5-11) The Lions, man. They're good for five W's, not an un-fun team to watch, but not a team that's gonna win games.
NFC South
Saints (9.5) (over/11-5)
Panthers (9) (over/10-6)
Falcons (9) (over/10-6)
Bucs (6.5) (under/3-13)
(11-5) It feels crazy to pick the Saints to win 11 games but I dunno, why not? I think they kick ass at home, do well enough on the road and take the division.
(10-6) I thought I liked the Falcons better than the Panthers, but I ended up with Panthers 2nd and not making the playoffs. Ouch!
(10-6) I like to Falcons to have a good bounce back year and not make the playoffs either. Ouch!
(3-13) The day will come when the Bucs are good again, when that D is actually as good at it seems like it oughta be, when the QB troubles finally disappear, when the organization gets back to those days when it they were in the conference finals every year. But I don't think that day comes this year. I just don't see how they keep up in that division.
NFC West
Rams (10) (over/11-5)
Niners (8.5) (over/11-5)
Cards (5.5) (under/5-11)
Seahawks (8) (under/4-12)
(11-5) It took me several weeks last season to warm up to the Rams. I did though and I think they're gonna be good again.
(11-5) I'm in on Jimmy G. The way he rolled into that lineup last year and won games--when the team wasn't even trying!--I was impressed right away. That dude's good. (I bet Belichick's been hitting the Pepto hard since that trade) Throw in that the Cards and Seahawks are going in the wrong direction and I like the Niners to kick some ass.
(5-11) Last year they steadily descended into a tired bunch with nothing left to play for. The team deteriorated badly and, though I've always kinda liked Sam Bradford, I don't see how they get better. They got just enough talent to win five-ish games.
(4-12) Last year that offense was Russell Wilson making magic happen--if they'd made the playoffs he'd have been MVP--with no help at the skill positions and a terrible O-line. My guess is another year of that does not get any better and the vaunted D is pretty ordinary now. I can see them being pretty bad.
Playoff Predictions
AFC
Texans over Steelers, Chiefs over Ravens
Pats over Texans, Chiefs over Jags
Chiefs over Pats
NFC
Packers over Eagles, Saints over Niners
Vikings over Saints, Packers over Rams
Packers over Vikings
Super Bowl
Packers over Chiefs (a replay of SB I)
Something about these various numbers don't look right to me and looking back at the end of the season will undoubtedly look bizarre. But, here we are.
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
2018-19 NCAA Football (Week 1)
I watched (some of):
Louisville 14-51 (1) Alabama
Frankly Alabama didn't even look like they were trying all that hard and they straight pummeled Louisville. The Cardinals are probably not at their best right now but Bama did not let them get much going.
Furman 7-48 (2) Clemson
Frankly I was reasonably impressed with Furman: they played hard, they did not look intimidated, they even made some plays along the way. This was probably the closest 41 point game I've ever seen. Clemson took a while to get going but the sheer depth of talent eventually won out easily.
Oregon State 31-77 (5) Ohio State
Now follow me: the Buckeyes usually start slow and without Urban Meyer I thought Oregon State had a shot at giving them a game; but instead, without Urban Meyer, the team rallied quicker...? Does that make sense? Well, anyway, the Buckeyes came out fast, got a big lead, kinda coasted after halftime. As for Oregon State, man, how do you score 4 TD's and still lose by 40 points?
(6) Washington 16-21 (9) Auburn
Good game. Both these teams were similar, game went back and forth, both played well, Auburn made the plays down the stretch. This is a good W for Auburn and not a bad L for Washington.
(14) Michigan 17-24 (12) Notre Dame
Good game. Notre Dame made the most of their chances, whereas Michigan kinda fumbled around. I like Michigan's backup QB better than the starter, wonder if that'll be a thing for them this year. Wasn't blown away by either team, thought they were both solid and very similar teams. Notre Dame was able to build a lead, Wolverines couldn't get back into the game. Good W for the Irish.
(17) West Virginia 40-14 Tennessee
I kinda expected UT to get into this game, but it didn't happen. WVU ran it up quick and held the momentum all through the 2nd half. They looked good and Tennessee did not.
(8) Miami 17-33 (25) LSU
Man, the Hurricanes never looked into the game. All last season I was skeptical of the Hurricanes and then they won games down the stretch that I thought they'd lose, so now I don't know what to think of them. But after watching LSU dominate them, I'm nowhere near any kind of Hurricans bandwagon. Not sure if LSU looked as good as Auburn (maybe) or Alabama (probably not) but they look like they're gonna be in the mix in the SEC West.
Top 25
Handled their business
(1) Alabama, (2) Clemson, (3) Georgia, (4) Wisconsin, (5) Ohio State, (7) Oklahoma
(9) Auburn, (12) Notre Dame, (13) Stanford, (15) Southern Cal, (16) TCU, (17) West Virginia, (18) Mississippi State, (20) Virginia Tech, (21) Central Florida, (22) Boise State, (24) Oregon, (25) LSU
Didn't impress but did what they needed to do
(10) Penn State (when will people learn to avoid App State on opening week?)
(11) Michigan State (hmmm...feels like Sparty should've made quicker work of this opening day opponent but Utah State's generally not bad, so perhaps this was a good test for them)
Not good
(8) Miami (could be that LSU is wildly underrated but the Hurricanes were never really in this game and that is seriously disappointing for a top 10 squad)
(19) Florida State (again, could be that Virginia Tech is underrated, but the Seminoles did not look good and that is not good for a veteran squad that has ambitions)
(23) Texas (another year, another disappointing match against Maryland)
Bad beat
(6) Washington (Auburn's good, close game, not a bad loss for the Huskies)
(14) Michigan (thought they were even with the Irish, just came up short; disappointing but not a bad loss)
(Ahhhhhhhh, nice to have college football back)
Louisville 14-51 (1) Alabama
Frankly Alabama didn't even look like they were trying all that hard and they straight pummeled Louisville. The Cardinals are probably not at their best right now but Bama did not let them get much going.
Furman 7-48 (2) Clemson
Frankly I was reasonably impressed with Furman: they played hard, they did not look intimidated, they even made some plays along the way. This was probably the closest 41 point game I've ever seen. Clemson took a while to get going but the sheer depth of talent eventually won out easily.
Oregon State 31-77 (5) Ohio State
Now follow me: the Buckeyes usually start slow and without Urban Meyer I thought Oregon State had a shot at giving them a game; but instead, without Urban Meyer, the team rallied quicker...? Does that make sense? Well, anyway, the Buckeyes came out fast, got a big lead, kinda coasted after halftime. As for Oregon State, man, how do you score 4 TD's and still lose by 40 points?
(6) Washington 16-21 (9) Auburn
Good game. Both these teams were similar, game went back and forth, both played well, Auburn made the plays down the stretch. This is a good W for Auburn and not a bad L for Washington.
(14) Michigan 17-24 (12) Notre Dame
Good game. Notre Dame made the most of their chances, whereas Michigan kinda fumbled around. I like Michigan's backup QB better than the starter, wonder if that'll be a thing for them this year. Wasn't blown away by either team, thought they were both solid and very similar teams. Notre Dame was able to build a lead, Wolverines couldn't get back into the game. Good W for the Irish.
(17) West Virginia 40-14 Tennessee
I kinda expected UT to get into this game, but it didn't happen. WVU ran it up quick and held the momentum all through the 2nd half. They looked good and Tennessee did not.
(8) Miami 17-33 (25) LSU
Man, the Hurricanes never looked into the game. All last season I was skeptical of the Hurricanes and then they won games down the stretch that I thought they'd lose, so now I don't know what to think of them. But after watching LSU dominate them, I'm nowhere near any kind of Hurricans bandwagon. Not sure if LSU looked as good as Auburn (maybe) or Alabama (probably not) but they look like they're gonna be in the mix in the SEC West.
Top 25
Handled their business
(1) Alabama, (2) Clemson, (3) Georgia, (4) Wisconsin, (5) Ohio State, (7) Oklahoma
(9) Auburn, (12) Notre Dame, (13) Stanford, (15) Southern Cal, (16) TCU, (17) West Virginia, (18) Mississippi State, (20) Virginia Tech, (21) Central Florida, (22) Boise State, (24) Oregon, (25) LSU
Didn't impress but did what they needed to do
(10) Penn State (when will people learn to avoid App State on opening week?)
(11) Michigan State (hmmm...feels like Sparty should've made quicker work of this opening day opponent but Utah State's generally not bad, so perhaps this was a good test for them)
Not good
(8) Miami (could be that LSU is wildly underrated but the Hurricanes were never really in this game and that is seriously disappointing for a top 10 squad)
(19) Florida State (again, could be that Virginia Tech is underrated, but the Seminoles did not look good and that is not good for a veteran squad that has ambitions)
(23) Texas (another year, another disappointing match against Maryland)
Bad beat
(6) Washington (Auburn's good, close game, not a bad loss for the Huskies)
(14) Michigan (thought they were even with the Irish, just came up short; disappointing but not a bad loss)
(Ahhhhhhhh, nice to have college football back)
Friday, August 31, 2018
2018 US Open Tennis
Mmmmm....well, this is weird.
This type of bratty meltdown is par for the course for Kyrgios, a massively talented player but clearly a headcase kinda guy (reminds me of Marat Safin). This may look like a 'feel-good' moment but this isn't cool. For the ref to take an interest in one of the players is not part of his mission. I would be surprised if this umpire isn't suspended for at least the rest of this tourney. As for Kyrgios, he needs to get his head together on his own, I doubt he'll find any chair umpires that take this level of interest in him ever again.
This type of bratty meltdown is par for the course for Kyrgios, a massively talented player but clearly a headcase kinda guy (reminds me of Marat Safin). This may look like a 'feel-good' moment but this isn't cool. For the ref to take an interest in one of the players is not part of his mission. I would be surprised if this umpire isn't suspended for at least the rest of this tourney. As for Kyrgios, he needs to get his head together on his own, I doubt he'll find any chair umpires that take this level of interest in him ever again.
Sunday, July 15, 2018
2018 World Cup (Final)
Croatia - France -- France has glided to this point. Watching that semifinal against Belgium was like watching an inter-squad game, the teams were virtually identical in how they possessed, how they moved forward and how they played D. It was like watching twins fist fight, everybody knew the next move. That was a 50/50 game and France won the coin flip. France has as much talent as anyone but their path to this point is a mixed bag: Peru and Australia were not terribly interesting opponents, that France-Denmark game is officially the most boring of the entire tourney, though France-Argentina is perhaps the most exciting, Uruguay without Cavani was pretty toothless, and they got the one perfect strike against Belgium. They've got the skills, they are absolutely capable of striking once, twice even thrice against anyone anywhere at any time. They've got enough defense to keep feeding that offense all day.
I think it's notable that Croatia scored in Extra Time against Russia and England, I think Croatia's game only kicks in after the first 90 minutes. They need to survive and then outlast the opponent. It's worked so far. In Croatia's run, they outworked Nigeria, had more savvy than Argentina, did what needed to be done against Iceland, then wore down Denmark, Russia and England. They never seem dominant, they just hang around, longer they hang, the more likely they are to find a way. They're not overpowering, they're sneaky, pesky, crafty, gritty, gutty, all those John Wayne-type words. They've got veterans and even though it seems like they ought to be worn out, they may be in better shape than everyone else. They're well-practiced now in leaving it all out on the field.
I gotta go with Croatia. Croatia will play the full 90 minutes and be tough to beat even then. I'd give France more of a chance the earlier they score, if they can get an early goal they can relax and go for another, if they can keep Croatia backpedaling for 90 minutes they've got a better chance to pull it out. But Croatia manages to hang on no matter what happens. And they can score, they've got the guile to get PK's, enough size and strength in the box for corners and crosses, enough teamwork and gumption to make plays in the box. They're a cockroach team, France might squish them, but I'll stick with the Croatians.
Belgium 2-0 England. I almost totally forgot about the 3rd place game. Woke up at halftime, caught the 2nd half. Thought Belgium held better possession, looked more dangerous pushing forward, pretty good at keeping England's attack thwarted, not at all surprised they won. My thought going in was that England would be more excited about being there and sneak a W off the Belgians. Belgium is better and they'd already beaten England, they just reminded me of one a those blueblood college football squads that thinks they're gonna get the championship but instead they get shuffled off to the Bluebonnet Bowl and even though they're wildly more talented than their opponent, they end up getting pants-ed by Central Florida because no one gives a fuck about the Bluebonnet Bowl. But once the Belgians got that quick early goal, it gave them the backbone to play hard and just be better than the English, which they were. England had a good run but Croatia and Belgium were better teams, while Sweden and Colombia were not.
I think it's notable that Croatia scored in Extra Time against Russia and England, I think Croatia's game only kicks in after the first 90 minutes. They need to survive and then outlast the opponent. It's worked so far. In Croatia's run, they outworked Nigeria, had more savvy than Argentina, did what needed to be done against Iceland, then wore down Denmark, Russia and England. They never seem dominant, they just hang around, longer they hang, the more likely they are to find a way. They're not overpowering, they're sneaky, pesky, crafty, gritty, gutty, all those John Wayne-type words. They've got veterans and even though it seems like they ought to be worn out, they may be in better shape than everyone else. They're well-practiced now in leaving it all out on the field.
I gotta go with Croatia. Croatia will play the full 90 minutes and be tough to beat even then. I'd give France more of a chance the earlier they score, if they can get an early goal they can relax and go for another, if they can keep Croatia backpedaling for 90 minutes they've got a better chance to pull it out. But Croatia manages to hang on no matter what happens. And they can score, they've got the guile to get PK's, enough size and strength in the box for corners and crosses, enough teamwork and gumption to make plays in the box. They're a cockroach team, France might squish them, but I'll stick with the Croatians.
Belgium 2-0 England. I almost totally forgot about the 3rd place game. Woke up at halftime, caught the 2nd half. Thought Belgium held better possession, looked more dangerous pushing forward, pretty good at keeping England's attack thwarted, not at all surprised they won. My thought going in was that England would be more excited about being there and sneak a W off the Belgians. Belgium is better and they'd already beaten England, they just reminded me of one a those blueblood college football squads that thinks they're gonna get the championship but instead they get shuffled off to the Bluebonnet Bowl and even though they're wildly more talented than their opponent, they end up getting pants-ed by Central Florida because no one gives a fuck about the Bluebonnet Bowl. But once the Belgians got that quick early goal, it gave them the backbone to play hard and just be better than the English, which they were. England had a good run but Croatia and Belgium were better teams, while Sweden and Colombia were not.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
2018 World Cup (Semifinal predictions)
France - Belgium -- Of the four remaining teams Belgium has (to my eye) the best offense and the crappiest defense. If they can push the ball forward they'll crack the French back line but if they get pressed at all, they'll get wrecked. France has a good collection of offensive talent, too, and a stiff back line to go with it. Tough call, the two teams are really similar. Who gets loose? Mbappe or Lukaku? Does de Bryne find Hazard or is it Pogba finding Giroud? And which goalie will make the mistake that gets his team bounced? My gut is Belgium is better...but also worse. I dunno, I'll take Belgium (they've already beaten Brazil and England, there's no one left to scare them).
England - Croatia -- Croatia looked excellent against Nigeria, Argentina and Iceland but then waffled against Denmark and Russia, escaping in shootouts both times. At their best they look like the ideal mix of vets and youth, offense and defense, invention and discipline; at their worst, they look tired and too dependent of Modric (who looks listless on occasion). It feels to me like Croatia should beat England, who are a fine but not superlative side. That said, England has played some crafty football to get to this point and though they don't exactly seem loaded with superstars, well, the World Cup is where superstars get made so it wouldn't be that shocking if two weeks from now this English roster looks like an all-star team. England is smart, they don't mess around and when given the chance, they can make plays up front. But they also seem youthful and perhaps overly exuberant and could be beaten by some veteran linkage. Okay, I'll go with Croatia, it feels like they're gonna have more chances around the goal.
England - Croatia -- Croatia looked excellent against Nigeria, Argentina and Iceland but then waffled against Denmark and Russia, escaping in shootouts both times. At their best they look like the ideal mix of vets and youth, offense and defense, invention and discipline; at their worst, they look tired and too dependent of Modric (who looks listless on occasion). It feels to me like Croatia should beat England, who are a fine but not superlative side. That said, England has played some crafty football to get to this point and though they don't exactly seem loaded with superstars, well, the World Cup is where superstars get made so it wouldn't be that shocking if two weeks from now this English roster looks like an all-star team. England is smart, they don't mess around and when given the chance, they can make plays up front. But they also seem youthful and perhaps overly exuberant and could be beaten by some veteran linkage. Okay, I'll go with Croatia, it feels like they're gonna have more chances around the goal.
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
2018 World Cup (Quarterfinal predictions)
Uruguay - France -- France overpowered Argentina to get here while Uruguay calmly wore down Portugal. Both had amazing goals in their previous game, love to see a few more of those! France coasted through group play but really pulled it together against Argentina: they got a star-making performance out of Mbappe and some promising connection between Pogba and Griezmann, the way they're turning defense to offense is impressive. If they can get Giroud in on the action, too, then I think they'll be too much for Uruguay. As for Uruguay, the buzz now is that Cavani will be unavailable for Uruguay and that is a killer. Cavani and Suarez play like farm cats: you never know where they are and they're always looking for trouble. Without Cavani, Uruguay will lose a great deal of the big play chances, which will put serious pressure on their defense. Suarez is still dangerous but without Cavani, he's been cut in half. I gotta go with France.
Brazil - Belgium -- When Belgium went down 2-0 to Japan with 30 minutes to go, I still thought they'd win. My rationale was this: during the 1st half I was convinced that Belgium would get a goal and that they'd get a penalty. So though the world seemed to be crashing around them, it still felt like they were gonna score goals. I did not see that final goal coming (ouch! What a heart breaker for Japan) but nor was I shocked by it. Kudos to Japan for pressing forward to get the W in regulation, but against a full-on attack like Belgium, you're leaving yourself open for trouble. Belgium has serious offense, man, serious offense. In soccer you typically start with the defense, you have to keep the other team from scoring; Belgium is one of those rare teams that plans on outscoring opponents, they're not winning with defense, which is their Achilles' heel, they're trying to avoid playing defense. As for Brazil, I thought Mexico came out with the right game plan: attack Brazil, get them back pedaling, score a goal and then bunker. That goal never materialized and Brazil was able to gain strength from the Mexican attack. Brazil was kinda lackluster in the group stage but Mexico may have galvanized them. Brazil is one of those teams that gets W's without playing their best, which makes it hard to tell how good they actually are. Obviously they've got plenty of talent (dude, their 4th string could compete just fine in this tournament) but they crumble at times, too. Belgium will either bring out the best in Brazil or the worst. (Gut feeling: winner of this game takes the Cup) If this goes to PK's, I think that favors Belgium; I think Brazil needs to score early. I'll take Brazil because Belgium does have a clear weakness: their wing defense will give Brazil chances. Unless Belgium dominates possession--dominates--then Brazil will get chances to score. And I assume they will. I'll take Brazil...but I also wouldn't be surprised if Belgium wins 3-0.
England - Sweden -- These two teams are here because they simply outlasted their previous opponents. England felt like they had the game against Colombia wrapped up when they gave Colombia an extra 30 minutes and a penalty kick lifeline thanks to a late goal (props to the English on the shootout, the one goal they missed was a legit save on a good shot, so none of those Englishmen whiffed on their chances). Sweden were able to wrap up Switzerland in regulation but the teams were virtually identical: same attack, same defense, same kinds of chances, same kind of goalkeeping, just a lucky goal keeping them from a penalty shootout. I still kinda thought Switzerland was slightly better but they're not in the quarterfinals, so I guess not. England is an interesting crew: some young, some old, but virtually all seem new to this int'l thing because England has been faulty for quite a stretch. And though they're certainly not a dominant side, they feel like a pretty good one, good mix of offense and defense, confidence without arrogance. They're ready to win and they have the skills. Sweden, too, has been out of the int'l game for a while but I don't feel their strengths, they're not gonna make dumb mistakes but I don't see them attacking England with much success. I gotta go with England to move on.
Croatia - Russia -- In the group stage, I thought Croatia was the best team: so strong on midfield possession, plenty of danger up front, very rigid in the back, the right mix of vets and youth, the right attitude and strategy. But they looked so sluggish against Denmark (not one of the more impressive squads of this tourney), even giving Denmark the opportunity to steal the game! So will Croatia stay that sluggish or was that the wake up call they needed? The answer to that question matters because Russia is the classic example of a lesser team that plays will reckless abandon and is capable of stealing a prize from a sleepy opponent. Russia ripped through a soft group and then (thankfully!) put Spain out of their misery. They are not as good as Croatia--indeed, I would comfortably put Russia 8th out of these final 8 teams. But they've got momentum, they've got a huuuuuuuge home field advantage and they're just happy to be here. If Croatia doesn't get their shit together they can lose to Russia, but if they do pull it together, they've got a path to winning the Cup. This is a wild card game, but I've got to go with Croatia because they're the better team.
After watching the tournament thus far I can't help wondering: why isn't Germany here? What the hell happened to those guys? You look at the remaining teams and size up their various strengths and weaknesses and it still feels like Germany has way more of the strengths and none of the weaknesses. They're not too old, they're not struggling with identity or turnover, they aren't over confident, they're not a sloppy team, they don't have internal problems (that I've heard of anyway), they've got top quality talent at every positions and plenty of depth. If they were still here, I'd probably take them as the fave. So why aren't they here?
Brazil - Belgium -- When Belgium went down 2-0 to Japan with 30 minutes to go, I still thought they'd win. My rationale was this: during the 1st half I was convinced that Belgium would get a goal and that they'd get a penalty. So though the world seemed to be crashing around them, it still felt like they were gonna score goals. I did not see that final goal coming (ouch! What a heart breaker for Japan) but nor was I shocked by it. Kudos to Japan for pressing forward to get the W in regulation, but against a full-on attack like Belgium, you're leaving yourself open for trouble. Belgium has serious offense, man, serious offense. In soccer you typically start with the defense, you have to keep the other team from scoring; Belgium is one of those rare teams that plans on outscoring opponents, they're not winning with defense, which is their Achilles' heel, they're trying to avoid playing defense. As for Brazil, I thought Mexico came out with the right game plan: attack Brazil, get them back pedaling, score a goal and then bunker. That goal never materialized and Brazil was able to gain strength from the Mexican attack. Brazil was kinda lackluster in the group stage but Mexico may have galvanized them. Brazil is one of those teams that gets W's without playing their best, which makes it hard to tell how good they actually are. Obviously they've got plenty of talent (dude, their 4th string could compete just fine in this tournament) but they crumble at times, too. Belgium will either bring out the best in Brazil or the worst. (Gut feeling: winner of this game takes the Cup) If this goes to PK's, I think that favors Belgium; I think Brazil needs to score early. I'll take Brazil because Belgium does have a clear weakness: their wing defense will give Brazil chances. Unless Belgium dominates possession--dominates--then Brazil will get chances to score. And I assume they will. I'll take Brazil...but I also wouldn't be surprised if Belgium wins 3-0.
England - Sweden -- These two teams are here because they simply outlasted their previous opponents. England felt like they had the game against Colombia wrapped up when they gave Colombia an extra 30 minutes and a penalty kick lifeline thanks to a late goal (props to the English on the shootout, the one goal they missed was a legit save on a good shot, so none of those Englishmen whiffed on their chances). Sweden were able to wrap up Switzerland in regulation but the teams were virtually identical: same attack, same defense, same kinds of chances, same kind of goalkeeping, just a lucky goal keeping them from a penalty shootout. I still kinda thought Switzerland was slightly better but they're not in the quarterfinals, so I guess not. England is an interesting crew: some young, some old, but virtually all seem new to this int'l thing because England has been faulty for quite a stretch. And though they're certainly not a dominant side, they feel like a pretty good one, good mix of offense and defense, confidence without arrogance. They're ready to win and they have the skills. Sweden, too, has been out of the int'l game for a while but I don't feel their strengths, they're not gonna make dumb mistakes but I don't see them attacking England with much success. I gotta go with England to move on.
Croatia - Russia -- In the group stage, I thought Croatia was the best team: so strong on midfield possession, plenty of danger up front, very rigid in the back, the right mix of vets and youth, the right attitude and strategy. But they looked so sluggish against Denmark (not one of the more impressive squads of this tourney), even giving Denmark the opportunity to steal the game! So will Croatia stay that sluggish or was that the wake up call they needed? The answer to that question matters because Russia is the classic example of a lesser team that plays will reckless abandon and is capable of stealing a prize from a sleepy opponent. Russia ripped through a soft group and then (thankfully!) put Spain out of their misery. They are not as good as Croatia--indeed, I would comfortably put Russia 8th out of these final 8 teams. But they've got momentum, they've got a huuuuuuuge home field advantage and they're just happy to be here. If Croatia doesn't get their shit together they can lose to Russia, but if they do pull it together, they've got a path to winning the Cup. This is a wild card game, but I've got to go with Croatia because they're the better team.
After watching the tournament thus far I can't help wondering: why isn't Germany here? What the hell happened to those guys? You look at the remaining teams and size up their various strengths and weaknesses and it still feels like Germany has way more of the strengths and none of the weaknesses. They're not too old, they're not struggling with identity or turnover, they aren't over confident, they're not a sloppy team, they don't have internal problems (that I've heard of anyway), they've got top quality talent at every positions and plenty of depth. If they were still here, I'd probably take them as the fave. So why aren't they here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
