Field of Dreams 2050

Whether or not you liked the casting of Kevin Costner in the film Field of Dreams, if you like baseball you loved the movie. Purists, rookies and amateurs all can agree they would watch the movie again. Some may have even cried.

When Shoeless Joe asks, Is this Heaven?, everyone knows what he’s asking about. He loved the game. The only thing he wanted to be part of was playing baseball.

It inspires thoughts of America’s greatest past time and takes everyone back to their child hood when all you needed on a hot summer day was a stick and a ball. Everything else just seemed to work itself out.

When the sequel comes out in 50 years… and there WILL be a sequel… who do you think appears out of left field where Shoeless Joe Jackson did?

I support the writters who are placing the induction of Mark McGwire into the Hall of Fame as a non-priority. I think his appearance in the Senate Committe Hearings was poor and his reasoning shaddy. Everyone behind that table is suspect and turned the whole agenda into a circus (Palmiero’s finger pointing – Sosa’s translation chirade).

It will be appropriate that 50 years from now, the past decade will be referred to as “The Steroid” era. And that Bud Selig will be recognized as the worst commissioner of baseball for letting this decade happen.

It would be nice to see if the likes of Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds and Rafael Palmeiro are kept out of the baseball Hall of Fame. I doubt it as the voters will soon forget and cave in on maybe the last vote for each.

Granted Shoeless Joe was given the opportunity despite a scandal he was involved in. But I can’t imagine, and I hope it doesn’t happen, that any players from between the years of 1995 and 2005 are allowed to be resurrected to play in a cornfield baseball diamond in the middle of “heaven”.

In the movie is an exchange between Shoeless Joe and Ray where Shoeless talks about all the guys that wanted to play and that they had to beat ‘em off with a stick.
Hopefully Shoeless Joe will have beat The Clear out of Barry and The Andro out of McGwire when mentioning who wanted to play in 2050.

——————————————————————————–
Dan Patrick at ESPN covers all bases pretty well in his article Baseball, steroids and the truth.

Should the coach stay or go

The end of any football is ripe with rumors and controversy (this is a non-BCS post).
Already begun is the speculation regarding which coach will move to or be fired from.

Today the rumors have started swirling that Mike Stoops is being considered for the Head Coach assignment at ‘Bama and Miami.

I’m all for getting your dues when you feel you’ve earned them. Not saying that Stoops hasn’t, but he still hasn’t gotten to a bowl game yet as a head coach. Sorry, that’s the bitterness talking.

I also appreciate someone who takes a position with the intent to take a job, and move the program to the highest level of success. Not use it as a stepping stone to other venues.

Lute Olsen in my opinion is the epitomy of this example. Having taken the team from subpar to a perrenial title contender. A legacy like that speaks volumes. Otherwise you’re just a Phil Jackson who takes the job with the best possibilities to win without actually having to coach.

BCS/BS Merry-Go-Round

How can anyone say the system is “flawed” when the intent isn’t clear?

What is the intent of any exiting playoff system? It certainly isn’t to match up the two best teams and determine THE best team overall… case in point: St Louis winning the 2006 MLB… George Mason in the 2006 Final Four…

Just because a team wins a tournament, doesn’t necessarily “crown them” the best (a la Dennis Green).

In this year’s debate, pretend a playoff pits Michigan against Ohio State in a rematch. If Michigan wins, the headlines the next day would read… “Who’s #1?” since Ohio State won the first match and both teams only have one loss.

Conversely, without a playoff system, if Ohio State wins a rematch with Michigan, the “could have been” contenders cry foul that they weren’t given a chance to win once when Michigan would have been given two chances at a title.

What was the purpose of bowl games prior to 1998? I don’t know the answer… I’m asking.

In the end… any newly implemented playoff system would still be dependant upon a ranking system as it exists today (“flawed”?). Which means instead of the #3 & #4 teams complaining about their end state, the #5 and #6 teams would whine. I use a little creative license in limiting a playoff to only four teams because someone would be hard pressed to make a case that a #8 team should have a chance to play… and nobody else should try to make that case since no one is making a case for Boise State to be in the championship game today. To through more heat on the fire, if you limit to four, then in this years debacle, USC cries fowl as they are the team with the hardest schedule BY FAR.

Additional cons to a playoff system:

- Who would get the higher seed?

- Do you limit BCS playoff to only Conference Champions? If you let Michigan in this year, then a conference tournament/championship means nothing unless you miss out on a playoff otherwise. The regular season would probably lose much of its importance.

- For those that cry foul about the current system benefiting the colleges monetarily, who do you think benefits more with a playoff system? And who SHOULD benefit most? Your answer should be, the colleges, and not the media/networks which would be the result of a playoff system.

- Who would travel to the remaining (leftover) bowl games?

- Team travel/hotel logistics (see State Fans Nation blog here)

“Can 50K people afford to travel 3 different times in a month to exotic locales?”

- It would be more advantageous for BCS schools to schedule cupcakes than they are now

- If you’re not a fan of a football powerhouse, be ready to be excluded – you won’t be invited.

Again, Just say NO to pre rankings.

———————————————–

The above statements are designed to insite discussion and not violence. I only take pleasure in playing the role of the Devil’s Advocate