The Lesson of Donald Trump that Art Briles Failed to Heed

Art Briles is a jackass who shouldn't be allowed to coach football again, and any school that hires him should receive the death penalty, or at minimum a loss of scholarships and ban from postseason competition. His transgressions were at best turning a blind eye, and more than likely shielding players from sexual misconduct allegations at Baylor in order to keep them on the field (lawsuits against the school detail instances of victims being told to keep quiet by coaches and possibly being threatened to prevent them from going to the authorities). As such, a scarlet letter should be branded on the members of his coaching staff that were aware/participated in this as well. But the damnedest thing that happened when Briles was released from his position; turned around and filed suit against Baylor.


There's a lot of gumption involved here, and it went even higher. Ken Starr (yes, the same asshole you're thinking of) was Baylor's chancellor and eventually forced to step down due to his complicity. But back to Briles. A Philadelphia law firm hired by the school's Board of Regents concluded that Briles was responsible for creating essentially a black hole of accountability in which "reports of misconduct such as drug use, physical assault, domestic violence, brandishing of guns, indecent exposure and academic fraud disappeared." Delightful. Briles apparently didn't think this was fair, and sued the school for over $1 million because libel because his feelings got a sad.

Funny thing about suing someone for libel, and this is the lesson Trump (may have?) learned about a couple decades ago: your claims become open to investigation and that which you don't want to come out in discovery, comes out. For Trump, he sued an author who claimed Trump wasn't worth much money. Lo and behold, Trump was asked to prove the claim was false, and during discovery it was revealed Trump had grossly inflated his wealth. And this information became public as a matter of court record. (And Trump lost. Because lying.) The lesson: if you're suing someone for contradicting your version of the truth, make sure your version is right. And if your lies will be embarrassing when contradictory evidence comes out, you should probably just stop filing frivolous lawsuits.

Once again, back to Briles. So this fucktard sues Baylor because the school said they couldn't keep a coach that was shielding his rapist players. (And if the media accounts are to be believed, we're talking over 30 rapists in the program, with Briles having personal knowledge of at least one gang rape.) And guess what happens next: the man who sued the school for claiming he shielded rapists has to prove that the school's claim amount to libel, only to have the school provide the evidence that he shielded rapists. Briles dropped his lawsuit today after a small number of text messages and e-mails were released to the public that demonstrated his complicity. Good job: you got what you asked for by having the Regents defend themselves. So once more: if your lies will be embarrassing when contradictory evidence comes out, you should probably just stop filing frivolous lawsuits.

This rambling diatribe is mostly about calling people names to make me feel better about myself, but it also underlines a non-germane point: you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. After one of the gang rapes, Briles commented, "those are some bad dudes. Why was she around those guys?" This is the type of victim-blaming comment that fosters a rape culture, and you've fucked up on so many levels:
1. This completely deflects from the problem at hand. We've all put ourselves in dumb situations that, in hindsight, we shouldn't have. Lock your car doors, don't walk down that dark alley, keep your wits about you, etc. This is advice that should be dispensed. It shouldn't be considered a lesson learned. It's not 1900, and you don't get to blame the woman for being raped. You blame the rapist for being a rapist, and then you put him in jail. It really is that black and white.

2. The rape culture you've now fostered. Collegiate football players already have a certain expectation of leniency, begging the question, "how much can I actually get away with?" You protected rapists from being punished. Which sends a signal to those rapists, as well as their teammates, that you will protect rapists in the future. Unfortunately, legal repercussions are required to deter shitty behavior in some people, and you've removed such deterrence. You've now created an environment that allows rape. You may (acknowledge, may) be directly responsible for any future sexual assault that your players perpetrate. 

In sum, I'm glad this additional information just came out, I'm saddened that the news means victims must continue to relive the trauma they incurred, and I consider Briles lucky that there's no father with a shotgun pissed off enough to eliminate the life of someone who has no further value to provide society. That's not something I'm advocating. Just making the observation.

Also, the Board of Regents considered reinstating Briles last summer before the lawsuit. Those on the reinstatement side are also shitty people.

College Football Playoff Committee Gets Caught in Headlights, Ohio State Wins

Did the oversaturation of dumb sports network talking heads lead to the Big 12's exclusion from the 2014 college playoffs to Ohio State's benefit? Probably. There's a thesis statement in there, but I'm too lazy to rewrite it.

INEXPLICABLE SUBJECT CHANGE

We're still on the subject of the playoff, but I'm jumping to Florida State for a moment. Florida State went undefeated this year and will (rightfully, IMO) be featured in the four-team playoff. The issue isn't their inclusion, but their seeding that interests me. Florida State is the number three seed and will face Oregon in the first round. That's fine and dandy, and everyone is happy.

Consider this scenario: there is no playoff, and America only gets a championship game. The Committee only gets to choose the top two teams in the nation to play each other. In this scenario, Oregon would not be ranked ahead of Florida State. Crazy? Absolutely. Factual? Darn tootin'. 

Alabama is a powerhouse, only lost one game, and beat up on Mizzou to win the SEC. So we collectively acknowledge the Tide's rightful place in the championship game. But who should Alabama play? The Committee collectively believes that Oregon is the better team. It won a better conference, had the better nonconference showing (most notably a win over Michigan State), and is just easier to love than the boys from Tallahassee. But you can't leave out an undefeated team[1]! And the Committee wouldn't leave them out. If it was tasked with simply picking two teams, the fear of backlash would force an Alabama-Florida State game. BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LEAVE AN UNDEFEATED TEAM OUT OF THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. Yet once again, the nation largely agrees that it was appropriate to seed Oregon over Florida State, and Vegas is backing this decision by declaring Oregon a decent favorite. So the perceived best team is influence by the format of the playoff system.

BACK TO OUR THESIS (Blame the Media?)

The above logic, while lacking unassailability, should still leave you nodding your head. And if you believe that Florida State's ranking could be influenced by the playoff format, then we accept that the committee is subject to outside influence (everything is subject to outside influence). And this influence was TCU's downfall.

TCU fielded an excellent team this year, and finished the season 11-1. Its only loss was to another 11-1 team - Baylor. However, due to the circumstances of that game, a superior nonconference schedule, and other factors, the Playoff Committee unapologetically ranked TCU ahead of Baylor for the last month of the season. Which is fine. A worse team can beat a better team. It happens every week. It probably happened in this instance. Subscribing to a head-to-head preference system simply takes you down a transitive property rabbit hole. The Committee's obligation remains to rank the teams in order of best to worst, and it refused to subscribe to the head-to-head fallacy.

The Committee was steadfast until the final rankings, at which time inexplicably dropped TCU from #3 to #5 (even after crushing Iowa State 51-3 despite playing its reserves with extremely conservative playcalling). Florida State, winning a 37-35 nailbiter over Georgia Tech, moved up from #4 to #3. To round out the four-team field, Ohio State's dominance over Wisconsin won it the #4 spot, placing a team from the oft-mocked Big 10(+4) in the inaugural college football playoff. So after being on the outside looking in for so long, Ohio State played itself into the final spot.

Or did it? The week before the final standings were announced, I couldn't listen to sports radio without a talking head relentlessly espouse the head-to-head fallacy. The tide of public opinion was turning, and Baylor's hiring of a lobbyist/PR firm fanned the flames. The Committee was in a no-win situation: placing TCU ahead of Baylor places the nation in an uproar as the head-to-head fallacy has successfully entered the mainstream groupthink. Voting for TCU is now akin to voting for the Affordable Care Act in a district convinced the legislation contains panels of death (this is actually a solid analogy, for while several more factors are at work that should legitimately influence your opinion on the matter, the only thing people latched on to was a lie). 

Yet if the Committee placed Baylor ahead of TCU, where's the rationale? Nothing happened that weekend to justify the move - while TCU rolled, Baylor struggled greatly with a home game against K-State. Solution: leave them both out. No one is focused on the fact that Baylor jumped TCU in the final standing - they're focused on the two Big 12 teams being left out. Except that these are two small schools that play in the Big 12. While the Big 12 remains a better conference than the Pac-12, Big 10, or ACC, it lacks any coastal media presence. Plus, these are small schools! They're not Ohio State! No one actually cares about Baylor!

I'm not alleging any grand conspiracy - these things are often done without conscious devilishness. Yet the outcome remains the same. In the last week of the season, it suddenly became unfashionable to consider TCU better than Baylor. But you couldn't put Baylor in the playoff and leave out TCU. What's a Committee to do? Alabama and Oregon are considered the best two teams, and take seeds #1 and #2. They can't leave Florida State out (undefeated fallacy?). This leaves one spot for two deserving teams, and they offer a damned if you do and damned if you don't option. Unless you give that spot to Ohio State instead. Problem solved. So when Ohio State gets stomped by 20 points, just remember that it should have been TCU and Baylor playing that game. But they can't both play. So it's easier to just put the Buckeyes there.

I started off blaming the media. Maybe I should blame the spinelessness of the committee.

---

[1]  unless it's Baylor or a non-BCS program

The Ratings Say Otherwise

I've been pissy over K-State being passed over for a BCS bowl for awhile now, and I'm about to be vindicated. On New Year's I had the fortune to debate the Sugar Bowl selections ad naseum with the University of Detroit Associate Athletics Director (and, more importantly, a U of M alum). While the idea that K-State fans wouldn't come down to New Orleans has been thoroughly debunked, I had no comeback for the television argument (V. Tech and/or Michigan has more national appeal than a better, higher ranked Wildcat team). The discussion then went to non-BCS conference teams, and how the lack of national interest will always preclude them from consideration of BCS participation as well. Yet let's compare this year's games with last year's:

2012 Orange Bowl (West Virginia over Clemson, 70-33): 5.3 rating
In 2011, the Orange Bowl (Stanford over Virginia Tech 40-12) drew a 7.1

-This game was awful. I'm sure it would've had a better rating if Clemson showed up for more than a quarter of play.

2012 Sugar Bowl (Michigan over Virginia Tech, 23-20 in OT): 7.0 rating.
In 2011, the Sugar Bowl (Ohio State over Arkansas 31-26) drew a 9.5.

- Last year's teams had better resumes and featured Big 10(+2) v. SEC rather than Big 10(+2) v. ACC . Notice: Stanford's blow out of V. Tech last year in the Orange Bowl garnered better ratings than Michigan's OT squeaker over the Hokies this year. A BCS bowl game that goes into OT only getting a 7.0 rating? America obviously didn't care about this game.

2012 Fiesta Bowl (Oklahoma State over Stanford, 41-38 in OT): 9.7 rating.
In 2011, the Fiesta Bowl (Oklahoma over Connecticut 48-20) drew a 7.1 rating.

-The 2012 version was a great game. The 2011 version was an awful game. Once again, notice how an awful game last year generated more viewers than an OT game played this year (UM v. V-Tech). Pattern?

2012 Rose Bowl (Oregon over Wisconsin 45-38): 11.8 rating.
In 2011, the Rose Bowl (TCU over Wisconsin 21-19) drew a 13.1 rating.

-The meat of the issue. I will defend to the death the fascination we have in David v. Goliath. TCU won't get a lot of people excited next year when they join the Big 12(-2 or 3). But as a member of the Mountain West, people tuned in to watch them play Wisconsin. A Wisconsin team that was more exciting in 2011 than 2010 with Russell Wilson at QB. A Wisconsin team that played a much more offensively dynamic team in Oregon this year. A Wisconsin team that once again only lost by a possession.

So there you have it. Americans prefer match-ups with good teams in good games. They also have a fetish for good teams that get consistently snubbed by the powers that be due to conference affiliation. You can argue all you want about national branding and alumni support, but that pudding's baked with proof: nobody cared about a very close Sugar Bowl game this year. K-State (and Boise) deserved to be in that game. Unlike V. Tech and Michigan, those two were actually ranked in the top ten.

-Please don't "better resume" me on this. V. Tech beat every ranked opponent they played in the regular season. That would be one team: Clemson. Who they later lost to 38-10 in the ACC Championship game. Clemson then went on to lose to West Virginia (the Big Least’s best team, for what it’s worth) 70-33. Quality win, what?

Michigan, on the other hand, beat half the ranked teams they played this year. That would also add up to one win against a ranked team: #20 Nebraska. Who finished the season with four losses and likely drops from the rankings following their loss in the Capital One Bowl.

K-State's resume doesn't need defending. They played four ranked teams. They beat two, lost to Okie State by one score, and had a bad loss to Oklahoma. Boise State also beat 1/2 ranked teams it played, putting the hurt on Georgia and dropping one to TCU. Oh, and they beat Tech last year.

In conclusion: two teams with crappy rankings were brought in to play in the Sugar Bowl due to their "intangible catchet." One team couldn't even get its fans to buy tickets for the game (which isn't a surprise, given Virginia Tech fans have failed to support their team the last three BCS games they attended. Probably because they hate watching their team lose, which is almost guaranteed, as the ACC has gone 2-13 in BCS games. Did I mention the Sugar Bowl Committee justified its selection by citing Tech's stellar success in past BCS appearances?).

As such I make this (bold?) prediction: tonight's Cotton Bowl (which sold out w/in a week of being announced, b-dubs) will have a better rating than the Sugar Bowl. If not, I'll eat crow, but I highly doubt this will be the case.

Just Sayin' (as of 1-3-12)...

Conference	Schools	Bowl Record	Win %
Big 12 (8)	Bay, ISU, KState, Mizzou, OU, OklSt, TA&M, Texas	6-1	0.857
C-USA (5)	Houston, Marshall, SMU, SoMiss, Tulsa	3-1	0.75
MAC (5)	NIU, Ohio, Temple, Toledo, WMich	3-1	0.75
SEC (9)	Ala,Ark,Aub,Fla,Geor,LSU,MissSt,SCar,Vandy	4-2	0.667
Big East (5)	Cincy, Lou, Pitt, Rutgers, WVU	2-1	0.667
Sun Belt (3)	ArkSt, FIU, La.-Laf.	1-1	0.5
Ind. (2)	BYU, ND	1-1	0.5
MWC (5)	AF, Boise, SDSU, TCU, Wym	2-3	0.4
Big Ten(10)	Ill,Iowa,Mich,MSU,Neb,N'Wstrn,OSU,PSU,Pur,Wis	3-6	0.333
ACC (8)	Clem, FSU, GT, NC, NCS, Vir, VT, WF	2-4	0.333
Pac-12 (7)	ASU, Cal, Ore, Stan, UCLA, Utah, Wash	2-5	0.286
WAC (3)	LaTech, Nev, UtahSt	0-3	0

Big XII Conference Tournament Scenarios

K-State's blowout of KU gets a little better every day. After this Saturday's win against Mizzou, K-State looks to be in solid position to secure the fourth bye in the Big 12(-2) tournament (the other three going to KU, UT, and A&M). While the victory over Kansas seemed to give K-State the confidence and direction that kicked off their recent resurgence, it's looking like the game will be a major factor down the road. Here's how the tiebreaker scenario breaks down:

Kansas State and Missouri are both sitting at 8-6 in conference with games left against Texas and Iowa State for K-State, while Mizzou finishes at Nebraska and against KU. Smart money would be for both to finish the season 1-1, tying for fourth in the conference at 9-7. The first tiebreaker, head-to-head, was split as both teams held serve at home and bifurcated the season series.

The next tiebreaker is record against divisional opponents. Kansas State is currently 5-4 in the division, with a game left against Iowa State. A win would leave the Wildcats at 6-4. Missouri sits at 5-3. Assuming they beat Nebraska and fall to Kansas, they would also end the season going 6-4 in the division. Another tie.

The next tiebreaker is record against the DIVISIONAL leader(s). If KU beats Missouri, Mizzou would be 0-2 against the Division Leader. K-State finished 1-1 against KU. So although a win against Texas would be awesome given NCAA seeding implications, it may not be necessary to beat out Missouri in conference. Things are looking up*.

A look at season standings at the time of publication:



*Note: If Mizzou beats KU but loses to Nebraska and both schools are 1-1 against Kansas, the next tiebreaker would be record against the next best school in the division, and so on. This looks to be Nebraska or Colorado. K-State went 0-2 against the Buffs and 2-0 against Nebraska. We need Nebraska to place 4th in the Division and CU 5th. These schools finish the season against each other in a matchup of the traitors. As sickening as it may seem, there's a chance we'll be rooting for Big Red on March 5. Assuming there's a benevolent God, this situation will not manifest itself.

180º Role Reversals

The ACC/Big 10(+2) Challenge is officially on, and the Big 12(-2)/Pac 10(+2) Hardwood Series is coming soon. The Big 12(-2) has done pretty well over the course of the four year series - particularly last year when it won 9-3, but let one slip away as A&M fell to Washington following a freak broken leg suffered by guard Derrick Roland (42 seconds in - not for the squeamish).




Unfortunately, this series is coming to an end, though we'll refrain from calling sour grapes resulting from the squabbles of this past summer. What I what to see is a full bore, Big East/SEC challenge. In football and basketball. The Big East would go 1-7 in the fall, with Vanderbilt providing the fodder to prevent a skunk. Then, an equally embarrassing record would befall the SEC's basketball teams on the hardwood.

I do envision one major obstacle to this set up. It's not ratings - people would watch Florida/Georgetown or LSU/UConn. More problematic is getting every SEC school to schedule at least one BCS team in football. Burn.

To Staying Ranked!

Having nothing better to do with my Saturday but lick my ER wounds, I sat down to watch the K-State/Texas game with the intent of attempting an actual report on it. A purely intrinsic pursuit, I thought it might be interesting to try a full write-up, encapsulating the holistic experience much the same way ESPN.com might cover a top-10 matchup with national intrigue.

What happened: I got bored after K-State went up 31-0. When that expanded to 39-0 in the 3rd, I zoned out; casually glancing back to revel in the beat down before becoming bored again and flipping to another channel. (That eight point expansion courtesy a 2-point conversion after Josh Cherry had his PAT blocked, picked it up off the bounce, and ran it in. Beautiful). Yet as embarrassed as Texas was, I'm still trying to grapple with how dominating the performance can be considered.

K-State only completed 2/4 passes for nine yards (2.3 yards/attempt) - yet this was a rushing attack Air Force and Georgia Tech have consistently used to annihilate opponents in the era of spread. As Taylor Martinez has shown, one needn't air it out to score points. UT did outgain K-State in yardage, 412-270. The game summary:

This makes it difficult to gauge the showing. Clean game on both sides, though a couple stupid UT mistakes allowed KSU to continue otherwise stalled drives. We were horrible on 3rd down. But five interceptions is AWESOME, especially against a heralded quarterback. Should we be disturbed that the defense caught 250% more passes than the offense? As of today (Thursday), Snyder still refuses to anoint a starting QB (an historically familiar bugaboo for purple fans). This means Mizzou has no idea what to expect. Carson Coffman had been displaying precision accuracy over his past two games while running for a couple touchdowns. Backup Collin Klein also runs - but with speed. He ran for 127 yards against UT. Mizzou must spend half the week's practice preparing for the option, half on nickel coverage. Which makes me not want to dwell on the past, so much as get really excited for the future.

Tonight's Game of the Week

The Wishbone, the Wildcat, and other offensive innovations all have their moment in the sun before defensive coordinators adapt and a new system must be melded (or simply reintroduced). My hero Gregg Easterbrook has written a bit on how today's prolific spread offenses will meet the same fate, and Oregon's attack will look mortal five years from now. With about four minutes left in the OU/MU game, I got a glimpse of what could help unravel its effectiveness.

On an obvious pass play, Blaine Gabbert drops back and Oklahoma fails to generate much penetration into the backfield. Their D-Line was tired, defeated, and stuck in 2nd gear. But when Gabbert brought his arm forward to throw, the defensive end jumped up and knocked down the football. In a system designed to wear down defenses while relying on dink and dunk passes, there may be a lesson to be taken from this play - particularly as offenses are employing smaller, quicker quarterbacks.

With OU down by nine points and approximately 2:30 to go in the game, Bob Stoops punted on 4th and 10. Oklahoma had no timeouts, and was obviously conceding defeat. WTF? Then I realized - Oklahoma was so backed up, a turnover on downs would've given Missouri the ball in the red zone. Rather than give his team a chance to win, Big Game Stoops's only concern was minimizing the damage in the eyes of the polls - in a bowl game, he would've gone for it. I encourage all voters to drop the Sooners an additional three spots from where you believe they should be ranked as karma for having no spine.

It bears mentioning that yesterday I described Mizzou as a 'legit top ten team' when they were in fact not ranked in the top ten. In order for that to be the case, they would have had to win their game against Oklahoma today. Which they did. Which means I'm simply that good.

Today's loss to Baylor killed a small piece of me. Ditto for this sore throat I've had for five straight days now.

$ Can't Buy Poll Love

Fingers remain pointed surrounding the breakdown of the Big 12(-2) over the summer, with many still keyed on Texas. The big bad bullies down south were too greedy, wanted too much money. CU and Nebraska had no desire to live in a conference of such disparity (for good reason - who will compete with the already dominant program). With that in mind, let's examine the Longhorns' current standings in the polls: ....

That's right, sitting at a sad 3-2, UT finds itself as one of those 'other team receiving votes.' Additionally, preseason BB rankings came out today. And how high does the proud program find itself? Wait - nowhere.

There's a second wrinkle of succulent irony in the preseason rankings. As much of a brouhaha that has been made about the Big 12(-2) North not being able to compete with the South, ESPN suggests otherwise. While 3 North teams are in the top 15, only Baylor (#17) from the South managed to wiggle into the rankings. That's right, the privately funded and low-budget Bears are responsible for representing all the big boys with oil money from Oklahoma and Texas. Is competing in basketball the equivalent to competing in football? No. But in Texas's case, they don't seem to be competing much in either (check games 1 and 4).

Alternative Big XII Scenarios

According to Orangebloods.com, my Wildcats may have a chance of staying in a competitive Big 12(-2) yet. The defections of Nebraska and Colorado threw the conference's future into doubt, and that future runs through Texas. While Texas continues to hold the process hostage, some favorable light shines:

-Colorado was really a parasitic school, and took more money from the Big 12 than it generated.
-The conference gets to renegotiate its TV contract in 2011, and as long as those marquee Texas/Oklahoma match-ups remain, revenues should double.
-That's right, double, putting payouts on par with SEC receipts.
-Texas will be allowed to continue the pursuit of its own college network (a desire that cast a shadow onto the Big XII's future even before the Big 10 mentioned its interest in Mizzou).

So the exodus of the Big XII South and subsequent conference demise may be more exaggerated than first thought. Opportunities for expanding the conference back to 12? The CEO of FedEx is prepared to pay upwards of $10 million a year to a BCS conference that will add Memphis (that's right Texas - even more money!), and the Big XII cements itself at the top of the college basketball world. In my own little fantasy world, we'd either raid Arkansas from the SEC for a second team, or (wait for it)…

take Notre Dame and slap the Big 10(+2) in the face. In examining these options, Arkansas is a natural rivalry and still plays its former Southwest Conference opponents (especially Texas) in pre-conference action regularly. The school also betrayed the SWC in bolting for the SEC in the 90s, demonstrating its willingness to switch sides.

However, I think the Notre Dame option is even more intriguing. It switches from one great basketball conference (Big East) to another, and gets $17-$20 million guaranteed every year for football. The football thing is important, because I don't see NBC resigning a huge contract for a consistent 7-game winner. Additionally, Notre Dame played Washington State in San Antonio in 2009 as a 'home game' in a shameless ploy to enter the fertile recruiting ground of Texas. Joining Texas' conference and establishing a firm pipeline, maybe creating its own TV station, and not having to deal with Big 10 administrators that have been reproving Notre Dame for years? Oh yeah, I think it could happen.