Drought

Sorry it's been such a long drought on this blog. Unless you read Matt Moseley's blog at ESPN.com, there's really not a whole lot to report or analyze at this point. Moseley's full-time job is to write about all of the relationships going on in the NFC East teams, speculate on who will rise up this season, and everything else. I just blog when something truly interesting happens.

The first offseason power rankings @ ESPN.com

ESPN.com released its first offseason power rankings for 2009 (here). They also put out a nice breakdown of how all the experts voted (here).

The Cowboys are listed at #13, FYI.

And I just have to say, every time ESPN.com posts power rankings (each week during the season, and a few times in the offseason) it attracts more comments than just about anything else on the site. It irritates the heck out of me because everyone has something to say about how their team is ranked way too low, and their rival is ranked way too high. I just want ESPN to write a story called "Don't You People Realize That Our Power Rankings Determine Absolutely NOTHING?!?!" I mean, I think the rankings are fun, and I look at them every week during the season to see how they've changed based on that week's games. But I don't get all bent out of shape when things aren't how I think they should be. Why? Because the Super Bowl winner isn't determined from the opinions of others.

A London Super Bowl

In the last few days I've read two different stories about the possibility of the Super Bowl being played in London within about the next decade. You can find the stories here and here. The first is a debate between two ESPN bloggers on whether or not a London Super Bowl is a good idea. The second is a pretty brief story from SI.com on how much sense the idea makes for the NFL.

I find this idea to be pretty irritating, and the best way I can think to express how bad of an idea it is is to respond to what's said in those two stories from the two guys who support it. I'll repeat some of the arguments from the anti-London Super Bowl blogger, and I'll also respond personally to the main points.

A London Super Bowl would grow the sport economically throughout Europe, and it can't really get any bigger here in the States.

So? A London Super Bowl would also deprive an American city of its own huge economic growth. The movie industry can't really get any bigger here either, and no one's saying we should tear down Hollywood and move Sony Pictures to Oslo.

The people who go to the Super Bowl aren't usually common fans anyway. They're corporate types who can afford outrageously priced tickets.

That's largely true, but this is hardly an argument for exporting the world's biggest sporting event to another continent. The few true fans who do spend their life savings in order to travel to the Super Bowl city and get a ticket would be completely left out. As Paul Kuharsky says, "Is it worth alienating people who buy jerseys and tickets and paint their faces in an attempt to soften up foreign populations?" I don't think so.

Game time could be a compromise: an evening game in London could start about 3:30 pm ET, and people will watch the game on TV no matter when it's played.

People will absolutely watch the game on TV no matter when it's played, but they won't be nearly as happy about an early game time. 3:30 pm ET is half past noon on the west coast. For the party event of the year, that's just not very appealing. By itself maybe it's not a big deal, but added to all of the other little irritations it starts to make some fans pretty bitter.

Londoners are fascinated with all things American, and they're ready to embrace something like this. They may not understand a 3-4 defensive scheme, but they'll come out for a show, and that's what the Super Bowl is.

I guess all I can say here is that just because London is fascinated by the Super Bowl doesn't mean it should be played there.

You have to look at the NFL as a business. It's as big as it can get in the U.S., and the room for growth is across the pond.

Fans look at the NFL as fans. I understand that it's a business, and that Roger Goodell and others would love to see it become a global sport, but none of that affects me, the fan. 32 teams made up of two conferences with four 4-team divisions is perfect. The game is a blast to watch and analyze and cheer for. If Europe and eventually the world ends up with their own leagues that's fine with me too... but it better not interfere with the way I love to watch the game right here at home.

The vast majority of NFL fans in the U.S. wouldn't be affected at all by a London Super Bowl, "assuming issues like weather, field conditions, and kickoff time can be worked out."

Well, those are some pretty big assumptions. That's like saying, "The vast majority of 24 fans in the U.S. wouldn't be affected at all if the show went Japanese, assuming issues like acting, studio time, and English subtitles can be worked out." (This is probably my worst argument here... but I'm saving my big gun quotation for the final comments below. Besides, how do you "work out" an issue like the weather?)

FINAL COMMENTS

Even though it may seem like it, I don't think a London Super Bowl would be the end of the world. In fact, since this wouldn't likely happen in the next five or even ten years it's entirely possible that my mind will completely change before it does, and maybe the arguments in favor of the idea take into account the fact that Americans may be more open to the idea once it finally rolls around.

Having said that, it just seems wrong to me. The biggest reason comes from Paul Kuharsky once again: "Average February weather in London is a high of 47, a low of 36 and the month has an average rainfall of 1.34 inches. If I'm Nashville or Charlotte -- or even New York, Washington, Philadelphia, or Baltimore -- I'm asking why the league's willing to play in that weather outdoors across the pond, but not at home. And I am beginning to clamor for  Super Bowl in my stadium, which was paid for, built and is regularly filled by Americans who buy the tickets and merchandise and provide the TV ratings." So there you have it. London would likely not fall into a list of cities qualified to host a Super Bowl if it were here in the U.S. because of its weather. So it just doesn't seem very fair that it can basically take the game away from U.S. cities. That's all I've got. Feel free to share your own thoughts!

John Madden hangs 'em up

After 30 years as the NFL's greatest game commentator, John Madden is retiring (click here for the story).

Sunday Night Football on NBC just won't be the same. Cris Collinsworth will replace him, which is good, because Collinsworth is very good, but it's still kind of bumming me out. Dallas is inaugurating their new $1.1 Billion stadium on SNF in week 2 against the Giants, and I was really looking forward to Madden's call of the game.

Oh well.

Romo-for-Cutler trade?

When the Broncos announced that they would seek to trade Jay Cutler last Tuesday there was obviously a lot of speculation about where he could go and who would want him. I heard numerous personalities on radio and television, and I read a couple of different sources, that said that trading Tony Romo for Jay Cutler might not be a bad idea for Dallas to consider. Now, of course, the point is moot because Cutler has been traded to the Bears. Still, if you're at all interested, I would encourage you to read this article (click here) by Todd Archer of the Dallas Morning News who argues that Romo-for-Cutler would be a pretty bad idea if you're the Cowboys (or one of their fans).

Jay Cutler

This is one of those posts which in a few months I'll look back on and probably realize how big an idiot I am.

So the big news in Denver, and in the NFL as a whole right now, is Jay Cutler. In case you've not been following here's a brief recap of the situation.

Mike Shanahan got fired as head coach and Cutler was unhappy. Cutler requested to have the majority of the offensive coaching staff stay on (understandably, because he's worked with these guys for a few years now). He didn't get what he wanted. Josh McDaniels was hired as the Broncos new head coach. McDaniels got into some preliminary talks regarding a trade for Matt Cassell (McDaniels was New England's offensive coordinator for the last couple of years, and he has a relationship with Cassell). Cutler went pretty much ballistic that McDaniels would consider trading him, and there was a rift. Since then Cutler has declared that he wants to be traded and he will not be happy as a Bronco and he has not returned phone calls (or apparently other forms of communication) from McDaniels or Broncos Owner Pat Bowlen. Yesterday the Broncos finally came out and said that they'll basically honor Cutler's request and are in the market for a trade.

There are those who think Cutler has a right to be angry and are completely on his side in this issue. There are those who think Cutler is a cry baby and he should get over it and play.

I think this: It's true that Cutler was something like 17-20 in his first 2+ seasons as a starter and didn't get his team to the playoffs once. It's also true that those numbers are somewhat misleading since his defense has STUNK since he's been in Denver. In the games where Denver allowed 21 or fewer points Cutler is 13-1 as a starter. It's true that he is one of (if not THE) the best young quarterbacks in the league, and he would be an upgrade for probably 2/3 of NFL teams at the QB position. I don't fault him for being upset at learning that McDaniels was considering trading him.

But all that's past now. There wasn't a trade, and now Cutler is simply being an immature cry-baby. I hate the entitlement issues with professional athletes. Jay has not attended offseason workouts with the team, or the team's first meeting of the year (with the new coach). As I mentioned, he won't return phone calls to his coach or his team's owner. He's basically pouting until he gets his own way. And unfortunately, Denver's giving in. I don't understand it. Denver can't really win in this situation. There's not a trade out there that will be worth it for them. Draft picks aren't good enough, because the highest-drafted quarterbacks every year have so-so success rates in the NFL (in other words, choosing a quarterback in the first round is a crapshoot). There's no other young quarterback who has shown as much promise as Cutler that will be offered either.

If I were Josh McDaniels I'd pull out a copy of Cutler's contract and point to it saying, "Hey Jay, you see your name right here? You see your signature right here? You owe us three more years. You can be pissed off and play like crap for us, you can sit on the bench and rot for three years (guaranteeing that you'll never get another huge contract with anyone), or you can shut the BEEP up, come to our workouts, make yourself better, and lead this team to the postseason."

Anyway, I hope that one of two things will happen. I hope that either a) Cutler gets dealt to some crappy team and never becomes a winner, or b) he gets dealt to the Vikings and they go to the Super Bowl (not cuz I'm a Cutler fan, but because I like the Vikings and he would be one of the last pieces they need to make such a run).

Overtime: Revisited

In his Monday Morning QB this week Peter King wanted to argue about changing the NFL overtime rules again. Since I started reading his column regularly last season he has been adamant that both teams should get a possession in overtime, and that the coin flip bears much too much weight on deciding overtime games. His three reasons are as follows (summarized, of course):

1. In the last 5 years 39% of overtime games have been decided on the first possession with the losing team not even getting a chance to touch the ball.

2. In the last 5 years 100% of teams winning the coin flip in overtime have selected to receive. This is King's rebuttal to the argument that good defenses can win in overtime too. Teams never elect to kickoff, he argues, "because the winner of the coin flip has a far, far better chance to win the game than the team that doesn't win."

3. Steelers president Art Rooney says that he'd like to see each team get one possession (Yes, that's it. His third argument is actually just someone else agreeing with him).

Now, I'm a Peter King fan, which is why I read his column each week and I'll continue to do so. He might not even be that wrong about his opinion here. But at the end of his overtime discussion he describes how he hopes next year's Super Bowl will go into overtime and the team that wins the coin flip wins on their first possession on a field goal, and after the game the losing coach says to commissioner Goodell, "Championship football games should not end this way." Then King finishes, "Maybe then we could have a sensible debate about overtime."

Seriously Peter? We're not already having a sensible debate? The debate isn't sensible because it doesn't look like the rule is going to change this year. C'mon. Give the NFL some credit.

Also, you know why the team that receives first in overtime has a "far far better chance" to win the game? Because in football, the team on offense has a MUCH higher chance to score than the team on defense.

I don't think I'm irreversibly convinced that the current system is the best possible way to run NFL's overtime, but the reason why I don't think King's solution is any better is because football is about BOTH offense and defense. If you can't stop a team from scoring on its first possession of overtime, improve. It's the same reason why we didn't give the Patriots the Lombardi trophy after going undefeated in the regular season and in their first two postseason games. You have to play the games, and you have to win. Suck it up.