- 09:49 AM
- 11/05/24
Suppose the 36-hole cut is 144, and there are already 78 players who have made the cut. Of those, 62 of them have shot 143 or better. There is one player left to putt on the 18th, and his total so far is 143. If he makes his putt, he becomes the 79th player to make the cut, but it will be for naught, because 62 is closer to 70 than is 79. Not only will he not play anymore, but all of a sudden, 16 other players will miss out on the rest of the tournament. That really isn't fair. It also raises the possibility of "stroke shaving"--being paid to miss that putt (perhaps more than the prize money of $9K) so the others can continue in the tournament. If the cut is a definite number, with all who make it guaranteed to keep playing, this situation doesn't arise. It's a bad rule.
posted by TerpFan at 10:29 PM on January 14, 2008
...and by establishing a Big Ten champion it will punch at least one BCS ticket If Michigan beats OSU, there is no way a 3-loss Michigan team, with a loss to I-AA App State and a 32-point loss to Oregon (even if the Ducks wind up in the championship game) deserves to play in a BCS game. All the BCS berths should be at-large...no guarantees for conference champions. There have been too many 3 or even 4 loss teams in the BCS (Pitt and Florida State come to mind in recent years) because of guaranteed berths. And a loss to a I-AA team should disqualify a team from the BCS for that season, even if they win their conference.
posted by TerpFan at 10:06 PM on November 11, 2007
In my opinion, testing positive for marijuana (in the offseason!!) is such a non-issue that the NFL shouldn't even care. Marijuana is not a performance-enhancing drug; in fact it probably interferes with performance. If the NFL policy is related to the fact that marijuana is illegal, then isn't the policy hypocritical? Why are players not suspended for DUI or domestic violence but have to sit out a whole YEAR if they smoked pot, which in my view is far less serious than the above mentioned transgressions?
posted by TerpFan at 12:45 AM on May 12, 2007
Totally disgusting. As happens every time mass litigation is possible, the lawyers are licking their chops. I say, put the clamps on the whole damn thing. Keep sports out of the courts or, more accurately, keep lawyers out of sports. As for Leeds, they did what they had to do to stop the bleeding. The humiliation of relegation and administration are quite enough. Starting 10 points down next season could lead to yet another relegation and completely destroy the club.
posted by TerpFan at 10:15 PM on May 04, 2007
I think moving the 3-point line back is a good idea, only it should be moved back to at least 22 feet. With the line where it is now, there are two problems: First, for good shooters, making a 3 is like taking candy from a baby. It's just too easy and good defense often goes unrewarded. Every year, there are a number of players (usually 3-point "specialists" who do very little except trot around the arc waiting for the ball to come their way) who shoot better (sometimes much better) from 3 than from 2. That's a sign that the 3-point line is too close. Second, the short distance tempts lesser shooters into taking (and missing) too many 3s. It's ridiculous that so many guards have overall shooting percentages under 40 percent because they jack up so many 3s and make less than 30 percent of them. If the line were out further, those players would have to think more about sharing the ball. In the end, a made 3 should be a reward for good offensive execution that sets up an open shot, but the team should have to work for it. I remember the title game a few years back when Illinois put up 40 threes against UNC and made only 12. Live by the 3, die by the 3. Of all the phases of the game, long-range shooting is the one most prone to inconsistency, so why do coaches make it such a huge part of their strategy? I've seen many teams shoot themselves right out of a game. As a Maryland fan, I've always liked Gary Williams' philosophy of not relying excessively on outside shooting.
posted by TerpFan at 11:17 PM on May 03, 2007
It's hard to imagine Carolina winning 19 championships in 27 years if Dorrance was "maintaining a hostile environment". Players don't generally perform at their best, let alone win titles, if they're upset all the time. Every coach has his or her style and there will always be some players who can't handle it. What about the coaches who supposedly insult their players' dignity by calling them weak, soft, crybaby, loser, etc? Is this not a "hostile environment" too? Or is it just part of the coach's strategy for motivating players? Definitely the latter--players who can't handle this stuff quietly leave the team, and are generally never heard from again. Pat Summitt can be pretty mean to her players at times, but any player who sued her for creating a hostile environment would be laughed all the way to Pluto. How come all sorts of bullying and belittling of players by coaches is tolerated and even expected, while the moment sex enters the discussion, there is automatically a hostile environment? It's a metaphor for American values: violence--yeah, bring it on!!; sex--Oh my God, the horror!!
posted by TerpFan at 12:20 AM on April 14, 2007
If the prize money is now going to be equal, the women should be playing best of 5 sets. Ever wondered why they only play best of 3? The tacit assumption is that women don't have the endurance to grind out a 5 set match. Why aren't the women players complaining that this assumption is sexist, and demanding that they play best of 5? They're perfectly happy walking off the court after a 60-minute workday, that's why--no 4-hour, 5-set marathons of blood, sweat & tears for these ladies! Does this equal pay system apply to all rounds, or just for the champions? It's tough to stomach the possibility that a woman who loses 6-0, 6-1 in the first round would get as much prize money as a man who loses a first round match by, say, 6-4, 6-7, 5-7, 7-6, 5-7? That's 60 games played for him, 13 for her, but they get the same first-round loser prize money. Yikes!
posted by TerpFan at 11:52 PM on March 19, 2007
What is DEI without Dale Jr? Just like the 49ers have been without Eddie DeBartolo...an afterthought. When an in-law with no real understanding of the company takes control, the results are usually disastrous.
posted by TerpFan at 11:53 PM on February 13, 2007
Of all the premature and hasty coaching changes that have become a regular occurrence in almost every sport, this one takes the cake. How can a coach get fired after a 14-2 season, even if it ends in the first round of the playoffs? The Bolts, with a previously untested QB, overachieved big-time in the regular season, then reality set in when this talented but young team lost to a veteran Pats team that (almost) always finds ways to win. Schottenheimer has had little postseason success, partly due to his conservative coaching style that seems to tighten up the bigger the game is, but also because of plain bad luck. Look at the past two Super Bowl champs. The Colts had a better regular season a year ago, but won it all THIS year. Two years ago, the Steelers went 15-1 but lost in the AFC championship game, and last year, after an up-and-down regular season, they got hot in the postseason and won the SB. Experience does matter. The Chargers might have been ready to make a serious SB run next year, but not now. Blame the front office--not Schottenheimer--for the coordinators leaving. Now with Marty gone too, they'll have to start from scratch. Fools never learn!
posted by TerpFan at 11:42 PM on February 13, 2007
Retire, Tuna, retire... You can't take losing anymore. It gets tougher every year. You haven't won a Super Bowl since you coached the Giants (my team) and then foolishly quit. Then you proceeded to coach three Giants rivals (Patriots, Jets, and now the hated Cowboys), made it to one SB (Patriots), lost it, and it's been downhill for you ever since. Watching you struggle to maintain your sanity with your mediocre Cowboys is great fun...T.O. might just be the last straw that puts you out of your coaching misery. I'm sure the Giants would love to have you back as a senior consultant, though!
posted by TerpFan at 09:23 PM on October 24, 2006
If there's a 'W' that ought to be grounded, it's the one in the White House. Back to this story...maybe UW's lawyer is colorblind! I wouldn't be surprised if these big schools have full-time employees whose job is entirely devoted to scouring the country for logos that might look like theirs.
posted by TerpFan at 08:04 PM on October 18, 2006
I have very different views on how to handle religious issues involving athletes, depending on whether we are talking about professional athletes or Olympians. For professional athletes who sign a contract, they have an obligation to perform to the best of their abilities in all games and practices, and that means keeping themselves properly fed and hydrated. A Muslim athlete who fasts during Ramadan will most likely be unable to perform at peak ability because of the effects of fasting, and that issue should be addressed in the player's contract language. Similarly, any player who refuses to play on certain days of the week should not be given a professional contract. His team needs him to be available to play, no matter when a game is scheduled. In contrast, the Olympics are as much about understanding and respecting other nationalities and cultures as they are about competing. Therefore, an effort should be made to reschedule the 2012 Games so they do not conflict with Ramadan. Holding the events only after sundown is not a practical option, so the entire Olympics should be rescheduled for a different part of the year (maybe during June). The rules for fasting during Ramadan should be changed so that no one ever has to fast for more than 12 hours, no matter how long daylight lasts. When Islam was founded, no one foresaw the possibility that Muslims would ever be living at high latitudes. The world has changed a lot in the last 1400 years--why can't Islam adapt?
posted by TerpFan at 11:20 PM on October 16, 2006
Why the hell would Miami get into a brawl with FIU? FIU isn't going to beat Miami in a million years. The Miami players should have just laughed at being taunted by such an inferior opponent!
posted by TerpFan at 10:50 PM on October 16, 2006
Anyone who gets paid $166,250 per year (for the rest of their life?) for doing absolutely nothing, should be taxed at 50% and have to give another 25% to charity. There are millions of people who WORK for a living and won't see that much cash in five years. Six figures for doing nothing is obscene.
posted by TerpFan at 10:46 PM on October 13, 2006
Is the NBA trying to imitate FIFA, where a player can get a yellow card just for mildly disagreeing with a call? At the highest level of competition, emotions are intense. Not only is the outcome of a game at stake, but sometimes a player's or coach's job is on the line as well. The pressure can be overwhelming. Why do players and coaches complain so strongly about certain calls? Because THEY CARE! Forcing them to swallow their feelings and "keep it all inside" is a bad idea, as anyone who understands human psychology knows. They need a chance to vent, and unless a player resorts to vulgar or insulting language or gestures, I don't think a technical is warranted. Mere dissent is not enough. By the way, the NBA should get rid of that idiotic dress code, too. Who cares what the players are wearing on an airplane or when they're arriving at the arena before a game? Forget all that corporate business crap. If the NBA really understood its customer base, it would let the players wear hip-hop clothing all the time.
posted by TerpFan at 11:10 PM on October 11, 2006
I just love the non-stop soap opera that is Yankees baseball What I love even more is that they haven't won the World Series since 2000 -- OMG! Gee, wouldn't fans of the Cubs, Giants, Indians and a few other teams be overjoyed to be able to say that about their team? The Yanks have won enough WS (26? 27?) to go at least another century without winning one! I feel a little bad for Matsui, but I'd feel quite a bit worse for him if he weren't a Yankee. Now George Swinebrenner is checking his bank accounts to see how much he can pony up to siphon off some other team's best player.
posted by TerpFan at 10:18 PM on May 12, 2006
Did one single play determine Adelman's fate? Kings vs. Lakers, Game 4 of the 2002 Western Conference finals, Kings up 2-1 in the series. Sacramento had blown almost all of a 24-point lead, but still led by 2 in the closing seconds. Kobe Bryant missed a contested layup, Shaq got the rebound and missed on a putback attempt, and Vlade Divac got to the loose ball but couldn't stay in bounds. He tapped the ball back into play, it went straight to Robert Horry, and we all know what happened next. Why didn't Divac just grab the ball while going out of bounds? At least the Lakers would have had to inbound the ball. Better yet, Divac should have tried to punch the ball high in the air, since time might have expired by the time it came back down. Who knows, maybe the Kings still would have lost this series even had they won Game 4. It's more likely, though, that Sacramento would have prevailed, and they would have been favored to beat the Nets for the NBA title.
posted by TerpFan at 10:36 PM on May 10, 2006
Big deal, Michelle Wie made the cut in a tournament with no other noteworthy players in the field. She came awfully close a couple of years back in the Sony Open, which has some of the weakest fields to be found on the PGA Tour. She'll probably make some more cuts in Asian Tour events, and if she plays two great rounds in a PGA event she could make the cut there. But winning a PGA event? Even making the top 10 is a pipe dream. One way to fix this women-playing-in-men's-events controversy is to change the PGA to a men-only tour. There's no law against doing that! The mere existence of the LPGA as a women-only tour implies that women golfers need their own tour to be successful. The alternative to closing the PGA to women is to eliminate the LPGA and make all the women compete on the PGA Tour. Other than (maybe) Michelle Wie and (maybe) Annika Sorenstam, very few (if any) women could ever make the cut in any PGA event.
posted by TerpFan at 11:44 PM on May 05, 2006
Congratulations on a job well done, Hootie. You fought the good fight and won. I'm sorry to see you go. Membership at Augusta National, or any other private organization, is a privelege, not a right. Martha Burk should keep her mouth shut about Augusta and focus on some of the many issues that are a LOT more important to women. Why fight over an issue that is of absolutely no relevance to the millions of women worldwide who suffer poverty, illiteracy, abuse, and exploitation? Billy Payne can't just unilaterally let women into the club. He has the members to deal with. And even if women are able to force their way in, the men will still find ways to do their business deals when the women aren't around (as is their right to do).
posted by TerpFan at 11:17 PM on May 05, 2006
Question: If USC has to give up its 2004 championship win, do the Sooners get to claim it then? As Texas fan, I hope not. I also would hope not, because OU was taken behind the woodshed for an old fashioned butt kicking (55-19). If the championship reverts to another team, it ought to be Auburn, which went 13-0 that year.
posted by TerpFan at 12:26 AM on April 30, 2006
What's unique about tennis is that the women are a bigger draw because of their sex appeal rather than their ability to play at the highest level of the sport. How many tournaments has Anna Kournikova won? How much money has she made? If the women want equal pay in tennis, they should play best of five sets in both singles and doubles. If they want to make more money than male tennis players, they should be part-time supermodels, which some of them already are (e.g. Serena Williams in the SI swimsuit issue!)
posted by TerpFan at 09:35 PM on April 25, 2006
Although Italian law does apply on Italian soil, I think the application of criminal law to athletes caught doping is a very bad idea. The IOC also opposes it. First of all, there are already stiff penalties in place for those caught doping. Secondly, in doping cases, we are not typically dealing with substances that are considered harmful to society (heroin, cocaine, etc.) Many banned drugs are in fact legal substances in any context other than sports. Remember what happened to Romanian gymnast Andreea Raducan in the 2000 Sydney Games? She was stripped of her gold medal because she tested positive for pseudoephedrine, a common over-the-counter decongestant, but at that time it was on the IOC list of banned substances. Now imagine if Australian law had treated Andreea's situation as a criminal offense? That would have been totally reprehensible! Punishment for doping should be imposed in the context of sport, and should be the sole responsibility of the IOC and the governing bodies for the various sports. Criminal law really has no place in the Olympics. When the governments of host countries try to impose their views and values on an international event, it is not a good situation.
posted by TerpFan at 12:25 AM on February 18, 2006
Senator Wants SpyGate Testimony Before Congress
I have a short, stern message for Congress: Get your ugly butts out of sports NOW! Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro, Miguel Tejada, Chuck Knoblauch, Roger Clemens, ... who's next? Will it ever end? What a pathetic waste of time by Congress, when they have far more important things to discuss. The government should not be trying to legislate morality in sports. Enough already!