Grading ESPN's MegaCast

ESPN got bold Monday night with their coverage of the BCS Championship Game. They went all out. They truly went balls to the wall. And some of their efforts worked, some did not.

The Title Talk on ESPN 2 was atrocious. Imagine watching people watch something. And not like a reaction YouTube video, watching people react to Two Girls and a Cup. This was watching 2-4 astute college football fans watching a game with 3-4 moronic people. "Is the guy who snaps the ball called the snapper?" That was a direct quote from ESPN 2's Title Talk.

Jemele Hill was also there. Remember she was the one who compared rooting for the Boston Celtics to rooting for the Nazis in World War II. She's not too smart, and is habitually prone to hyperbole, which means she's one of ESPN's favorite personalities. Why be smart and appreciated when you can be moronic and controversial? Which one results in more internet hits? That's all that matters for ESPN.

I will grade ESPN's Title Talk program with a D-. It's not a complete fail because it did what it tried to do, and have an inane conversation of ignorance. And I think NESN should learn from it and make a ThinkPink simulcast for Red Sox and Bruins playoff games in the future. The Pink Hats would love it. The rest of the real sports fans will watch the actual game.

The BCS Film Room merits an A-. It was great. Truly great. There were some small problems, like keeping pace with the live feed. However, the coaches and experts were interesting, informative, and honest. As a BC fan I gained new appreciation for Steve Addazio. And it was also cool to listen to thoughts from Texas A&aM's Kevin Sumlin, and Pitt's Paul Chryst.

The only critiques I have for the Film Room coverage is that Matt Millen monopolized conversation. Just let other people talk, man. There was so much college football wisdom and knowledge in that room among 6 people, but Millen spoke more than a third of the words. And the show was somewhat disjointed. Which is typical for the first run of shows. But by and large it was great.

The Sounds of the BCS coverage on ESPN Classic was what it was. The TV broadcast without TV broadcasters. I'll give that a B.

The BCS Command Center on ESPN Goal Line gets an Incomplete because I don't get that channel.

All the features on ESPN3 get a B- because they delivered what they promised and nothing more. And for some reason Comcast Xfinity and my computer and phone have a major disagreement. I'll call it a philosophical misunderstanding. Watching ESPN3 feeds was fun while they lasted.

I thought it worked on some levels. Title Talk wasn't for me. Not at all, not one bit. But the BCS Film Room was fan-fucking-tastic. I mean it was awesome to behold how smart football coaches are, how they can read a play with just a few frames of footage, how they viewed the game in such an holistic way. They were schooling, non-stop.

The only drawback was that Matt Millen seemed to think his contract gave him the rights to 40% of the words, even though three respected college football coaches were in the room, along with two other college football analysts. Maybe in 2015 Matt Millen will get his own channel on MegaCast, and he can dominate his own conversations.

I'd love to see stuff like the Film Room for future big games, maybe for the Super Bowl, the Final Four, the Stanley Cup and NBA Finals, and so on.

R.I.P. BCS, Anyone Who Misses You Is Either a Fool, or Someone You Made Rich

The last BCS Championship game was a classic. But let's not give credit for the quality of the game to the system. Give credit to the players on Florida State and Auburn who busted their asses to play a great game. Great games happen with and without the BCS. Auburn/Alabama was a great game and the BCS had no control over that. It was an SEC game.

The BCS system defiled college football for 16 years. It wasn't just imperfect, it was intentionally flawed. It defied logic, common sense, and fair play. And those are three things that you're supposed to be taught when you attend college.

The BCS believed that out of the 100+ programs in Division I-A football, a formula could be created that would determine the top 2. And those 2 teams would play each other for the national title. The BCS actually believed it could devise a system to make this a reality.

That formula worked exactly one time, when Vince Young and Texas beat USC in early 2005. Every other year there were flaws, and arguments against legitimacy. Undefeated teams sometimes didn't make it to the national title game. Oklahoma once made it despite not winning their own conference. Even this year, Auburn's claim seemed just as good as other 1-loss teams.

Every other college sport uses a playoff system. And every other level of college football uses a playoff system. What prevented the top level of college football from using that system was the fact that money went to good old boys (and their friends) who ran bowl games, and also guaranteed money went to conferences that couldn't always guarantee the best teams (BigTen and Pac-12).

The BCS proliferated for so long because it worked for a select few who undeservedly wielded power over all of college football. And they also collected massive sums of money simply because their predecessors had rented a stadium decades ago.

The BCS wasn't just an imperfect system. Its flaws were an intentional byproduct of its design. It was designed to funnel money and TV contracts to a handful of bowl games, and the conference friends of those games. And the prestige of those games was based on who was friends with who. One hand washes the other.

And now that system is no more. It's been replaced by another system that rewards groups of absurdly wealthy men who get together and rent a stadium in early January. And those men receive millions and billions of dollars for their not-so-risky investment in a sure thing. The system is still just as corrupt and money-driven for those involved, but at least it's more exciting for the fans. At least it's a better system for determining the best team in college football.

If people are going to make money in sketchy ways, they might as well put an entertaining product on the field for all of us to enjoy. The Playoff will be more entertaining than just a one-game BCS Championship.

I'd say good riddance to a bad system, but that bad system lives on and influences the new system.

Texas Hires Charlie Strong, Three Quick Thoughts

1. Texas can't wait a day or two? They have to announce this hiring when the college football world is focused on Florida State and Auburn?

2. Mack Brown + Charlie Strong = Charlie Brown. Good grief.

3. Texas seems to like coaches with short, powerful names. Mack Brown leads to Charlie Strong. Another coach with a short, powerful name: Rex Ryan. Is sexy Rexy next in line for the job in Austin? As an Oklahoma fan, I sure hope so. As a Patriots fan, I hope Rex stays with the Jets for life.

Patriots vs. Colts: The Only Word that Matters Is Execution

We have an entire week to look at weather forecasts, analyze statistics, view highlights and game footage, and generally convince ourselves that we have the slightest idea what kind of football game will be played on Saturday night. The Colts will be in town to play the Patriots and I have no clue what will happen. And I'm fine with that.

This season has been like riding a roller coaster blindfolded, across the NFL but especially in Foxborough. It's been an insane season. The way the Patriots-Saints game ended, the way the Broncos game ended, the way the Browns game ended. On the flip side of insanity, there was also the way the road Jets game and the Panthers game ended.

The only thing crazier than this Patriots season would be trying to predict what happens next.

I could drone on about stats, and about Andrew Luck being a good QB, and the Colts doing well against playoff teams, and the Patriots doing well at home, but also struggling in home playoff games lately. None of it matters.

The winner of this game will be the team that executes better. It's easy to say that, not so easy to do it.

Just look at the Colts. They played two different games against Kansas City. They played a good half and a bad half, and they barely won. They executed better than the Chiefs. The Patriots have been doing that all season long. One horrible half, one great half. So which team can find a way to play well for 35 or 40 minutes instead of just 30 could win this game.

Tom Brady needs to make good throws. Period. He's the best player on the team. He doesn't need to be amazing, but these overthrown and underthrown incompletions need to be reduced. He was 21st this season in completion percentage (60.5%), nestled between Alex Smith and Ryan Tannehill. Some of that was due to lack of talented receivers, lots of that was due to bad throws.

But hey, Andrew Luck was 24th at 60.2%.

The Patriots need to be productive on the ground. Especially if it rains. A good ground game allows the passing game to be more dynamic. It lets you control the clock. It gets you first downs. It lets you chew up a defensive line.

The Pats need to hold on to the ball. Stevan Ridley, I'm looking at you.

The Colts defied football logic and lost the turnover battle against KC but won the game. However the Colts had the second best takeaway-giveaway number in the AFC this year (+13). The Pats were third best (+9). Obviously, whoever wins the turnover battle on Saturday will probably win.

Unless they can't execute in the Red Zone. And that's been an issue for the Gronk-less Patriots all year. Either the offense needs to execute better in the Red Zone, or the defense needs to make some Red Zone stops. The Colts had one of the worst Red Zone defenses in the NFL. They allowed TDs on over 60% of Red Zone possessions. I suppose that's good for the Patriots.

Looks like I did mention a few stats and did some regular season analysis. Sue me. All those stats come with an "if" or a "but" or an "unless," which is why they mean nothing. They're in the past. The Colts allowed 3 touchdowns for every 5 Red Zone possessions their opponents had. Big deal. It's still up to the Patriots to execute on Saturday.

I do think this is the Patriots' game to lose. It's at home, against a dome team, against an inconsistent team. But the Patriots have hardly been consistent this year, they're 8-0 at home but that hasn't been easy. The Bengals were also 8-0 at home and lost there to a team that was 4-4 on the road. So who cares?

If I had to make a prediction, I'd say the Patriots should win 24-20. But predicting this season has been harder than predicting the weather. It's been like trying to predict the weather 20 weeks from now. You might have some general ideas based on past experience, but they mean next to nothing. You don't know. I don't know. Just count down the days and enjoy the show.

Boston Should Bid to Host the World Juniors in 2018

Yesterday Finland beat host and tournament favorite Sweden 3-2 in overtime to win the 2014 World Juniors. It was Finland's first medal in the competition since 2006, when a young Tuukka Rask carried the Finns to a bronze medal

If you don't know what the World Juniors are, it's an Olympic/World Cup style hockey tournament with national teams competing against each other. It's held annually in late December and early January, and all the players are under 20. It's sanctioned by the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF).

The US is going to host the tournament in 2018, and I think the City of Boston should make a serious bid to be the host city.

Boston hosted the World Juniors in 1996 (Jarome Iginla led the competition in scoring and won gold with Canada), and it didn't go well. It was poorly attended. Probably because it was spread out across Massachusetts, not concentrated in Boston. Games were played in Marlborough, Amherst, Springfield, and Worcester. And the finals were played at Boston College, not at the brand new Fleet Center.

Three important things have changed since 1996:

1. The tournament has streamlined its format and now typically only two venues are used (example: Toronto and Montreal will use their NHL rinks when they jointly host the 2015 World Juniors). Boston could use the TD Garden and BU's Agganis Arena. Those are both within the heart of the City, both easily accessible.

2. In the 2000s Boston has once again become a hockey city. Not just with the success of the Bruins, but with the rise in popularity of high school and college hockey. Just look at what we do with Fenway Park this time of year. We turn it into a hockey rink. BC and BU have combined to win 5 NCAA titles in the 2000s. Hockey East, centered in Boston, has become one of the most powerful conferences in college hockey (9 Hockey East players were on Team USA's roster in Sweden).

3. The World Juniors has become a bigger and more well-known event. The US has hosted twice since the 1996 tournament (in Buffalo in 2011 and Grand Forks, ND in 2005) and both were well attended. The tournament being broadcast on TSN in Canada and the NHL Network in the US has contributed to its growth in popularity and prestige. I wouldn't be surprised if by 2018 (or sooner) NBC Sports buys the US broadcast rights.

The tournament would be a good event for Boston to host. No new facilities need to be built, no highways need to be expanded, no dams need to be blown up, no forests need to be torn down. What's required is a hockey rink with lots of seats (TD Garden) and one with a medium number of seats (BU's Agganis Arena is state of the art, holds 6,000, and is right on the Green Line). You also need rinks for teams to practice at (Walter Brown Arena at BU, Matthews Arena at Northeastern, Conte Forum at BC, Tsongas Arena in Lowell, Lawler Arena at Merrimack College). Boston already has the facilities and infrastructure in place to pull off this event.

And Boston is already host to several notable hockey tournaments: the Super 8 high school championship, the Beanpot, and the Hockey East Tournament. The Garden will also host the Frozen Four in 2015.

New England college hockey players have always been a strong part of Team USA in this competition. Team USA had 7 New England college players (and an 8th committed to play at BU) on their roster for the 2014 World Juniors. There were 5 New England natives on the roster.

The event would draw tourists. Thousands of Canadians fly across the world for this tournament. They'll come to Boston, see the City, go out to eat, have a good time. So will friends, family, and fans from Sweden, Russia, Finland, and the rest of the US.

And I'm sure Frozen Fenway would see a boost in attendance. The Canadians that attend the World Juniors are clinically diagnosed hockey addicts. They'll go to Fenway to see some college hockey while they're in town.

The only inconvenience would be to the Bruins and Celtics. They would have to play extended road trips while the tournament occupies the Garden. The 2014 World Juniors started on December 26th and ended on January 5th.

At the same time the Garden, owned by Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs, would be able to open its gates to thousands of concessions buying fans, even with its two teams playing elsewhere. And Agganis Arena is always seeking additional events. They just hosted 22 Disney on Ice performances. The secondary rink in Malmö hosted 14 games for the 2014 World Juniors.

In 2011 Buffalo averaged 10,635 fans per game. For 31 games. How many between period Molsons is that? How many hot dogs and sodas? How many lunches and dinners will be consumed at the bars and restaurants off Causeway Street and on Comm Ave? How many additional tours of the Sam Adams Brewery will there be? (On a trip to Toronto, I learned that Sam Adams is one of the few American beers that Canadians respect)

Other US cities that want to host include Pittsburgh and Tampa. I think Boston is a better city than those two places, and a better hockey town. It's certainly a better hockey town than Tampa.

This is a great annual tournament, and I think Boston would be a great place for it to be held.

2013 BBS Awards: Team of the Year

This goes to the best team in Boston sports for the 2013 calendar year. And for the first time since the inception of the Boston Blood Sox Awards in 2006, this team will be honored by being named Team of the Year. The Patriots won this award in 2007. The Celtics won it in 2008. The Bruins in 2011...

And now in 2013, the winner of Team of the Year are the Boston Red Sox.

Expectations were low for the 2013 Red Sox. Simply finishing above .500 would have been considered progress.

The team was the most likable edition of the Sox since 2007. They were entertaining. They got big hits. They stole bases. They worked counts. They didn't like to lose. They hated losing. They didn't slump. They weren't satisfied with being above .500, or making the playoffs, or winning the division, or winning the AL. If there were another series after the World Series, the Red Sox would want to play, and would play to win.

After two of the most embarrassing seasons in recent Boston sports history in 2011 and 2012, the Red Sox redeemed themselves with one of the best years any Boston team has ever had.

2013 BBS Awards: Athlete of the Year

This award typically goes to the athlete that performed the best on the field/court/ice. Previous winners include David Ortiz, Tom Brady, and Wes Welker. This year there were plenty of strong candidates on the Red Sox, Patriots, Bruins, and Boston College. Not so much the Celtics. But in the City of Boston we saw other teams and other athletes doing amazing things. Things more impressive and more meaningful than throwing a football or hitting a baseball or shooting a puck. Things like carrying an injured person, things like pulling debris away, things like dodging bullets and explosives, things like running toward a hospital to give blood after running a marathon.

This award goes to all the men and women who responded and reacted to the Marathon Bombing, and all those who were involved in the aftermath, and the pursuit of the suspects.

So many people ran toward the explosions. Cops, paramedics, volunteers, runners, spectators. Their athletic exploits were truly meaningful. They were fast, they were strong, they were clutch. And the same goes for the cops who pursued the suspects. They worked on minimal sleep, when the pressure was on, and they got the job done.

All these people were the Athletes of the Year.

2013 BBS Awards: Lifetime Achievement Award

This award goes to someone who has distinguished themselves for more than a year, for more than a few years. It belongs to those who have built a career of achievement. People who you can't stop talking about what they've done. People you tell stories about. Previous winners include Red Auerbach, Jerry York, and Cam Neeley.

This year, this most coveted of awards goes to Pedro Martinez.

Pedro was the most dominant pitcher of his era, an era that was dominated by juiced balls and juiced hitters.

And speaking of PEDs, I think it's safe to say Pedro didn't use them. His muscle mass was too low, he was slow to recover from injury, and his performance deteriorated with age in a natural way.

In the year 2000, in the American League with DHs, off a 10 inch mound, when the league ERA was 4.91, Pedro challenged Bob Gibson's modern era single-season ERA record of 1.12. Pedro finished with a 1.74 ERA.

Pedro won 3 Cy Youngs, and he probably should have won more. He finished second in the 1998 AL voting to Roger Clemens. This is around the time that Clemens had begun to use PEDs. In 2002 Pedro went 20-4, led the AL with a 2.22 ERA, and 239 strikeouts, yet lost the Cy Young to Barry Zito. Zito had 3 more wins than Pedro.

Pedro was also robbed of an MVP Award in 1999, when he finished second in the voting to Ivan Rodriguez. Pedro actually got one more first place vote than I-Rod. He went 23-4 with a 2.07 ERA and 313 strikeouts. But some voters thought a power hitting catcher was more valuable.

Pedro never threw a no-hitter. Technically. On June 3, 1995, pitching for the Expos he threw 9 perfect innings. But it was a 0-0 game after 9 so it went into extra innings. He gave up a hit in the 10th and was relieved. The Expos would win 1-0. He didn't even get credit for the 'W.'

In the 1999 All-Star Game at Fenway Park, Pedro stole the show from the steroid enhanced sluggers. Pedro struck out 5 of the 6 batters he faced: Barry Larkin, Larry Walker, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Jeff Bagwell. Those batters have a combined 2,222 career HRs, by the way.

He led his league in ERA 5 times, in complete games once in 1997, in strikeouts 3 times, in WHIP 6 times, in K/9 5 times, in K/BB 4 times. He was an 8-time All-Star, he has the 6th best win percentage of all-time, the 5th best WHIP of all-time, the 3rd best K/9 of all-time, the 13th most strikeouts, the 3rd best K/BB ratio of all-time.

He was a key part of the 2004 World Series winning Red Sox.

He was an idiot before the Red Sox were Idiots.

He threw at batters when he himself had to bat in the NL (yet another reason he's superior to Roger "shrunken attachments" Clemens).

The day he pitched was an event. It had anticipation to it. The ballpark had a buzz. The City had a buzz. Days Pedro pitched were the most coveted of Red Sox tickets. Before the 2004 World Series run, Pedro was the Red Sox.

I would argue that he's the best pitcher in Red Sox history. He's a certain Hall of Famer, and the number 45 should be immortalized on Fenway's right-field facade.