Yesterday the Indianapolis Colts decided to sever their 14 year relationship with quarterback Peyton. The move did not come as a big surprise what with them owing him 28 million if he was still on the roster the following day and not really knowing how he was coming in his recovery despite the grainy footage of him making what appear to be a series of nice looking throws at Duke last week. The question now on everyone's mind is where will Peyton go. I am interested in this as well and will give some thoughts on that maybe tomorrow but for now I want to evaluate the Colts choice to let him go.
I have been paying quite a bit of attention to this story on ESPN over the past several months for several months for multiple reasons. My wife is from Tennessee and Peyton is her all time favorite athlete so by some sort of osmosis I have taken an interest in him throughout his career, I have always fancied myself as a wannabe GM so I find the situation very interesting as to what decision I would make if directing a team, and then finally it's just a huge story for any sports junkie to follow.
The Colts have the number one overall pick in the coming draft and will be all accounts use that pick to take QB Andrew Luck from Stanford who is being hailed as the best prospect in the past 20 years. On the surface the obvious view of this is that you draft Luck as the heir apparent to Peyton. In listening to all of the talking heads on ESPN there was no other option but to draft Luck and let Peyton go regardless of where Peyton was at with his recovery.
I happen to have a different view on this situation. The common belief is that the Colts are a terrible team, which is understandable based on the teams 2-14 record last season. But this same team before this season was 10-6 and coming off a long stretch of consecutive playoff appearances and 10+ win seasons. The swing in record in this one season clearly demonstrates the greatness of Peyton. Maybe the Colts would have fallen off this year and only gone 8-8 even with Peyton as the team does has some obvious holes. But what this season shows is with Peyton they would have always had a fighting chance no matter the other deficiencies on the team.
Now I am going to make a leap and say that an NFL team has two primary goals; win championships and be profitable. Let's assume that with the NFL being one of the businesses that is closest to the US Mint when it comes to the ability to make money that the issue with being profitable is not going to be much of an issue no matter what decision the Colts would have made. So let's take a closer look at the prospect of winning as many games as possible with the goal of that leading to championships.
The Colts were faced with two primary options: keep Peyton while drafting Luck and grooming him for the future or let Peyton go and rebuild around Luck. Had the Colts gone with option one they most likely would have struggled to achieve that 8-8 record even with Peyton at full strength. The team has holes and they would have used the top overall pick on a player not on the field contributing to making that record better. They would have relied on their picks in later rounds to provide help while maybe adding a few free agents to the mix. Assuming an 8-8 record in 2012 they would have been back to drafting in the middle of the first round with a realistic goal of getting back to 10-6, making the playoffs but still probably having too many issues to being a legit title contender. I do not think this approach would have been in the Colts best long term interest.
Let's explore how option two might play out now. Luck will be drafted one overall and be the new face of the franchise. Peyton has been released instead of traded so they get nothing back from his leaving. The franchise has gone into full rebuilding mode and will likely jettison several other veteran free agents who were key players in the teams recent success. They will choose to rebuild through the draft with the top pick in each round. This will be a bad team in 2012, maybe not 2-14, but six wins seems like the ceiling even if Luck delivers a solid rookie season. The key with this approach is Luck's long term prospects. Again, he is touted as the best prospect of the past 20 years, a true can't miss player. That may be, but that being said, how good does that mean he will be? Number one overall picks even with all of their talent are about a 50/50 proposition form NFL success and top QB picks have a very mixed track record. If Luck turns out to be a top 10 NFL quarterback you would have to say he was a good player. Can he be a top 5 NFL quarterback? Maybe, but that is a pretty tough group to crack. Now for the question that I haven't heard been asked, will he be as good as Peyton, the quarterback you already had? I have to assume the answer to this will be no and most likely it won't even be close. Peyton is arguably a top five QB of all time. The odds of Luck being a top five all time QB are hugely stacked against him. Not because of anything wrong with Luck but it is just simple math to say that a player who has never thrown a pass in the league will probably not end up in the discussion with Brady, Montana, Favre, Unitas, Elway, Marino, and, oh yeah, Peyton Manning, due to a variety of reasons including health, supporting talent not to mention how well he can grasp the speed and complexity of the pro game. By 2014 with several years of good draft picks and smart free agent moves this team can be in the position to be a contender again but only if Luck lives up to the hype.
The NFL is a very perverse business. There is so much excitement surrounding the potential of young players as they come through the draft that they get projected into being so much more than what they will likely become and stranger, they become more valued than an existing player who is a proven solid commodity. Within just a few short years this same player is worth pennies on the dollar compared to the next young thing coming out of college. A top 10 overall pick can provide very good production for four years and then be traded for a third round pick just so the team can replace the proven good player with a 21 year old who has never played a down. This is the mentality of a six year old. Just show me the shiny new toy and I will forget all about old reliable which has been there for the past several years.
Now let's examine a third possibility, one that was to crazy to ever consider by reasonable people but in my opinion should have been what the Colts did. This approach relies on a very big assumption and that is that Peyton comes back healthy. the driver to make this decision this past week was the 28 million Peyton had coming to him. Could the Colts not have gone to Peyton and said, "Hey look, we want to keep you but it is pretty tough to hand over 28 million when we don't don't know if you will be fairly healthy. How about we try this. Let's reduce the amount of the bonus and push it back to just prior to the draft. If you are healthy by then we'll increase your base pay for the year. That way we give ourselves more time for this thing to heal."
Think about it. Peyton doesn't really risk anything in this scenario because he isn't going to get the same kind of money now that Colts were willing to give him. Post injury he will still get paid but not like before. he is 36 years old and coming off four neck surgeries. Yes, he is one of the all time greats and if healthy is still one of the best five QB's in the league today. But because of age and injuries he will see diminished financial offerings now that he is on the market. I can see someone giving him maybe $15 million a year for three years but there will be no $28 million bonus like he slated to get.
Ok, so maybe it could have worked out for Peyton to stay and the Colts could have been protected financially. But what does that do for the Colts' future on the field? How do they really get any better and how long can you keep Luck on the bench? That's the key to this approach, you don't keep Luck. Right now teams are tripping over themselves trying to put together a package to move up to the two spot and grab RG3. Just think of the offerings if Luck were available at the top of the draft. The Colts could load up on draft picks and/or quality players and immediately fill a number of the holes they have and with Peyton at the helm be right back in position to be a contending team for the next three years.
But what about the great Andrew Luck? Can you possibly pass on him? Look at the points I mentioned above. Will he be as good as Peyton? I only give that a 1% chance. Also, while everyone talks about locking up a player for 10 years how often does that actually happen? Almost never. Why? Because the NFL is a brutal business and as I said earlier top picks are routinely tossed aside just a couple of years into their career for the next new prospect. The bottom line is that if they were to have stuck with Peyton they would have had a three year window to find another replacement or sign another free agent veteran when Peyton hangs it up on his own terms.
This would have been the best option to put the Colts in a psoition to win titles. Can anyone realistically say that with the direction the Colts have chosen they will be in position to be a contending team within the next three years? The answer is clearly no. I would gladly take my chances for the next three years with Peyton and then roll the dice with what to do after that. Besides we all know how much can change in the NFL in that amount of time.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Rashard Mendenhall
So much for getting this blog off to a roaring start. It only took four months to publish my second post. I did write one earlier but forgot to publish it which is probably for the best as I was previewing the NFL playoffs and was wrong on every game but one. With that out of the way here we go again.
While this isn't the most timely take on this issue as it took place over a week ago but I felt it was necessary. Now let me start by offering full disclosure and say that I am a lifelong Pittsburgh Steelers fan and I believe they would have won the Super Bowl this year had Mendenhall not fumbled in the second half of that game.
Rashard found himself in the middle of a major controversy last week by posting statements on his Twitter account in reaction to the events surrounding Osama Bin Laden's death. Rashard offered up two items that got the bulk of the attention. One had to do with Bin Laden's death itself and Rashard's puzzlement as to why people were taking to the streets in celebration. The second had to do with the event that Bin Laden is credited with masterminding, the tragedy of 9/11, and allusions to a possible conspiracy theory that he might or might not believe in.
Let me first say that I do not believe in the conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 that the government had something to do with the buildings coming down and that it was not solely the result of terrorists. That said, I do not begrudge anyone for having that opinion. We are all entitled to our opinions and expressing those opinions. His statement about 9/11 really isn't that much different than those who think we may not have actually sent someone to the moon or that JFK's assassination was not a solo effort by Lee Harvey Oswald and there are plenty of people who believe in one or several other conspiracies.
While I was glued to the tv like 56 million other Americans to watch the announcement and was relieved to know he had been caught and killed I did not feel the urge to go outside into the cul-de-sac and shout out pro-American chants. I believe I gave a simple fist pump while sitting in my cushy oversized chair. Again, I don't begrudge those who felt compelled to do just that though. I do find it odd that of all the celebrations I can remember taking place in this country over my 40 years none have been the result of a death. I think it is an interesting social phenomenon that took place that night to see how the pain and tragedy of 9/11 and the fear and frustration that have been in place since then released itself in those demonstrations as a result of the death of the symbolic figurehead of 9/11. Rashard was simply observing the reaction as being strange to him and not in line with his beliefs.
In the immediacy of that night and the corresponding high running emotion,s Rashard's views were taken as being un-American and sympathizing with a monster. Upon a closer review of Rashard's comments I don't really see anything he says that reflects that. As a result, Champion has dropped him as a sponsor. That is their right to do just as it was Rashard's right to say what he said. Now while I am a strong believer in the First Amendment right to free speech I also believe that you then have to be willing to deal with any consequences that are a result of that free speech.
While I am disappointed with the initial reaction to Rashard's comments I am pleased to see that after being able to reflect on what happened more people are respecting Rashard's right to say what he said and praising him for not backing down in his beliefs. I fall into this camp as well and am glad he didn't back down. At the same time, I understand Champion letting him go as they have a brand to maintain and this is the downside of those consequences mentioned earlier. What I don't understand at all was the talk I heard about him apologizing to his teammates or being in jeopardy of losing his job as a football player. Have we really gotten to the place as a society where we go after someone who has a religious stance that tries to find some value in life no matter who that person is? I think we all need to just slow down at times and wait for some of the immediate emotion to subside before we pass judgement.
While this isn't the most timely take on this issue as it took place over a week ago but I felt it was necessary. Now let me start by offering full disclosure and say that I am a lifelong Pittsburgh Steelers fan and I believe they would have won the Super Bowl this year had Mendenhall not fumbled in the second half of that game.
Rashard found himself in the middle of a major controversy last week by posting statements on his Twitter account in reaction to the events surrounding Osama Bin Laden's death. Rashard offered up two items that got the bulk of the attention. One had to do with Bin Laden's death itself and Rashard's puzzlement as to why people were taking to the streets in celebration. The second had to do with the event that Bin Laden is credited with masterminding, the tragedy of 9/11, and allusions to a possible conspiracy theory that he might or might not believe in.
Let me first say that I do not believe in the conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 that the government had something to do with the buildings coming down and that it was not solely the result of terrorists. That said, I do not begrudge anyone for having that opinion. We are all entitled to our opinions and expressing those opinions. His statement about 9/11 really isn't that much different than those who think we may not have actually sent someone to the moon or that JFK's assassination was not a solo effort by Lee Harvey Oswald and there are plenty of people who believe in one or several other conspiracies.
While I was glued to the tv like 56 million other Americans to watch the announcement and was relieved to know he had been caught and killed I did not feel the urge to go outside into the cul-de-sac and shout out pro-American chants. I believe I gave a simple fist pump while sitting in my cushy oversized chair. Again, I don't begrudge those who felt compelled to do just that though. I do find it odd that of all the celebrations I can remember taking place in this country over my 40 years none have been the result of a death. I think it is an interesting social phenomenon that took place that night to see how the pain and tragedy of 9/11 and the fear and frustration that have been in place since then released itself in those demonstrations as a result of the death of the symbolic figurehead of 9/11. Rashard was simply observing the reaction as being strange to him and not in line with his beliefs.
In the immediacy of that night and the corresponding high running emotion,s Rashard's views were taken as being un-American and sympathizing with a monster. Upon a closer review of Rashard's comments I don't really see anything he says that reflects that. As a result, Champion has dropped him as a sponsor. That is their right to do just as it was Rashard's right to say what he said. Now while I am a strong believer in the First Amendment right to free speech I also believe that you then have to be willing to deal with any consequences that are a result of that free speech.
While I am disappointed with the initial reaction to Rashard's comments I am pleased to see that after being able to reflect on what happened more people are respecting Rashard's right to say what he said and praising him for not backing down in his beliefs. I fall into this camp as well and am glad he didn't back down. At the same time, I understand Champion letting him go as they have a brand to maintain and this is the downside of those consequences mentioned earlier. What I don't understand at all was the talk I heard about him apologizing to his teammates or being in jeopardy of losing his job as a football player. Have we really gotten to the place as a society where we go after someone who has a religious stance that tries to find some value in life no matter who that person is? I think we all need to just slow down at times and wait for some of the immediate emotion to subside before we pass judgement.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
BCS system or playoff?
Tomorrow night is the culmination of the NCAA football season unless there is one more worthless bowl game yet to be played I am unaware of. This seems like a perfect time for my first true post and an opportunity to spout off about the single biggest issue that needs to be rectified in the world of sports and that is the fact we don't have a major college football playoff.
I will give the BCS credit for the fact that for the most part they do get the top two teams matched up in the final game. There has been plenty of controversy about this in the past and that includes this year where a still undefeated TCU team and their fans can only grow old wondering "what if". That said I think the match up tomorrow night is the right match up but there is that slight doubt in all our heads. Now wouldn't this all just be easier if we had a playoff that left no doubt in any one's mind?
Let's address the issues that are commonly brought up as why this wouldn't work:
1. A playoff would interfere with the kids school work. Not buying it. Kids seem to make it through their classes just fine the rest of the season. What is so special about the extra couple of weeks that would be needed for a playoff? Also, how are the FCS, D2 and D3 kids able to do it and these are the kids that school is actually important to as they most likely do not have a professional future.
2. A playoff would ruin the special mystique of the bowl games. REALLY!? I am mean REALLY!?!?!? Now the BCS games (Orange, Sugar and Rose especially) have a rich tradition of top teams, conference alignments and star players which should continue if possible. But let's not kid ourselves that the following games are beloved traditions where families across the country make a holiday season tradition of gathering in front of the tv to enjoy the pomp and pageantry:
This year there were 35 bowl games, just 10 years ago there were 25 and 20 years ago there were only 19. That means that 10 of these tradition rich games haven't even been around for a decade which I don't think counts for much of a tradition and one of the new games is the BCS Title Game.
And here is the most ludicrous part of this argument. Not one person has ever said that these other bowl games still can't be played in conjunction with a playoff system. No one is saying if we institute an eight team playoff that a 6-6 Louisville and their fans can't travel in mass to cheer on their team in the Beef O'Brady's annual classic. Just don't fool yourselves into thinking that the importance of the Beef O'Brady's Bowl is diminished with a playoff. No offense to the schools playing, the fans, the families of the players and the community hosting the event who do their best to make these games a memorable event in these young men's lives and everyone else involved, but the cold fact is in the overall picture these games already are of little or no importance to anyone outside the groups mentioned above. Again, I am all for these kids continuing to enjoy the Beef O'Brady's Bowl game and events but there is no way that a playoff hurts the game at all.
3. Money. Again, the only response that comes to my mind is REALLY?! While there no doubt is a good amount of money spread around thanks to the bowls this would be dwarfed by the amount of money that would be generated by a playoff system. All of the other bowls could continue to exist and their money would still be there. While the BCS games would have a different look and feel as there would be seven playoff games in an eight team format (my personal bias is that this is the best option) compared to the five that exist today and every single game would have huge implications driving a larger viewing audience. Today, while there might be compelling match ups that people want to watch with the BCS there is only game that has to be watched and that is the title game.
4. The regular season becomes less important. This one might have some slight truth but how much can the regular season mean when TCU doesn't lose a game but can't get a shot? In past seasons Boise St., Utah and Auburn have all been denied a shot at the title in an undefeated season and let's not even get into the debate on who the most desrving one loss team is in those seasons. In This is why you limit the playoff to 8 teams. This will keep the participants most likely limited to undefeated and one loss teams. Expanding to 16 brings too many two loss teams into the picture and I think that should be avoided if possible. I am not a huge proponent of the TCU's and Boise's of the world getting into the existing BCS title game as they don't play the same level of difficult schedule week after week which takes a toll on teams as the season goes on. This is a major factor from teams from the major power conferences to get through their schedules undefeated while battling injuries and hostile crowds to a greater extent than what non-AQ schools do. But, I have no problem giving then a chance in a playoff and see how they do. TCU was very impressive in the Rose Bowl and I would love to see how they would do one week later in a semi-final against Auburn or Oregon.
In the past 10 years we have been robbed of the chance to see matchups of heavyweights like Florida-USC, Florida-Texas, Alabama-Oklahoma, LSU-USC, not to mention giving Utah, Boise St and TCU their chance to see how they measure up. I don't care how they schedule it, either have the quarterfinals on New Years day to bring back the prominence of that day, which by the way is a tradition that has fallen by the wayside, or have the title game be played that day. Make it eight teams and you can still use the BCS process to determine the teams with some small changes. The top 8 are in, no automatic conference qualifying, no dumb limits on teams per conference, just the top 8 teams in the country squaring off to figure out who is best. That would spare us the indignity of having UConn as part of the process this year along with the ACC representative until they get their act together again.
This year could have featured quarterfinal matchups of Auburn-Arkansas, Oregon-Oklahoma, TCU-Ohio St and Stanford-Wisconsin. You could tweak it if needed so that teams from the same conference didn't play first round giving us Auburn-Oklahoma and Oregon-Arkansas instead. Also, if you do the New Years thing these games can be played using the current BCS Bowl games.
The bottom line is that the University Presidents, AD's and conference heads can't get together and figure this out and they need to. There should be plenty of brain power involved in these groups to get this done. It seems like it gets a little closer every year, maybe Obama will make good on his promise to get involved or Mark Cuban can make his scheme work. Regardless, please, someone get this done.
I will give the BCS credit for the fact that for the most part they do get the top two teams matched up in the final game. There has been plenty of controversy about this in the past and that includes this year where a still undefeated TCU team and their fans can only grow old wondering "what if". That said I think the match up tomorrow night is the right match up but there is that slight doubt in all our heads. Now wouldn't this all just be easier if we had a playoff that left no doubt in any one's mind?
Let's address the issues that are commonly brought up as why this wouldn't work:
1. A playoff would interfere with the kids school work. Not buying it. Kids seem to make it through their classes just fine the rest of the season. What is so special about the extra couple of weeks that would be needed for a playoff? Also, how are the FCS, D2 and D3 kids able to do it and these are the kids that school is actually important to as they most likely do not have a professional future.
2. A playoff would ruin the special mystique of the bowl games. REALLY!? I am mean REALLY!?!?!? Now the BCS games (Orange, Sugar and Rose especially) have a rich tradition of top teams, conference alignments and star players which should continue if possible. But let's not kid ourselves that the following games are beloved traditions where families across the country make a holiday season tradition of gathering in front of the tv to enjoy the pomp and pageantry:
- New Mexico Bowl
- uDrove Huminatarian Bowl
- R&L Carriers New Orleans Bowl
- Beef O'Brady's
- Maaco Bowl
- San Diego County Credit Union Poinsetta Bowl
- Little Caesar's Bowl
- Insight bowl
- Military Bowl
- Texas Bowl
- Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl
- Pinstripe Bowl
- Meineke Car Care Bowl
- TicketCity Bowl
- GoDaddy.com Bowl
- And something called the BBVA Compass Bowl
This year there were 35 bowl games, just 10 years ago there were 25 and 20 years ago there were only 19. That means that 10 of these tradition rich games haven't even been around for a decade which I don't think counts for much of a tradition and one of the new games is the BCS Title Game.
And here is the most ludicrous part of this argument. Not one person has ever said that these other bowl games still can't be played in conjunction with a playoff system. No one is saying if we institute an eight team playoff that a 6-6 Louisville and their fans can't travel in mass to cheer on their team in the Beef O'Brady's annual classic. Just don't fool yourselves into thinking that the importance of the Beef O'Brady's Bowl is diminished with a playoff. No offense to the schools playing, the fans, the families of the players and the community hosting the event who do their best to make these games a memorable event in these young men's lives and everyone else involved, but the cold fact is in the overall picture these games already are of little or no importance to anyone outside the groups mentioned above. Again, I am all for these kids continuing to enjoy the Beef O'Brady's Bowl game and events but there is no way that a playoff hurts the game at all.
3. Money. Again, the only response that comes to my mind is REALLY?! While there no doubt is a good amount of money spread around thanks to the bowls this would be dwarfed by the amount of money that would be generated by a playoff system. All of the other bowls could continue to exist and their money would still be there. While the BCS games would have a different look and feel as there would be seven playoff games in an eight team format (my personal bias is that this is the best option) compared to the five that exist today and every single game would have huge implications driving a larger viewing audience. Today, while there might be compelling match ups that people want to watch with the BCS there is only game that has to be watched and that is the title game.
4. The regular season becomes less important. This one might have some slight truth but how much can the regular season mean when TCU doesn't lose a game but can't get a shot? In past seasons Boise St., Utah and Auburn have all been denied a shot at the title in an undefeated season and let's not even get into the debate on who the most desrving one loss team is in those seasons. In This is why you limit the playoff to 8 teams. This will keep the participants most likely limited to undefeated and one loss teams. Expanding to 16 brings too many two loss teams into the picture and I think that should be avoided if possible. I am not a huge proponent of the TCU's and Boise's of the world getting into the existing BCS title game as they don't play the same level of difficult schedule week after week which takes a toll on teams as the season goes on. This is a major factor from teams from the major power conferences to get through their schedules undefeated while battling injuries and hostile crowds to a greater extent than what non-AQ schools do. But, I have no problem giving then a chance in a playoff and see how they do. TCU was very impressive in the Rose Bowl and I would love to see how they would do one week later in a semi-final against Auburn or Oregon.
In the past 10 years we have been robbed of the chance to see matchups of heavyweights like Florida-USC, Florida-Texas, Alabama-Oklahoma, LSU-USC, not to mention giving Utah, Boise St and TCU their chance to see how they measure up. I don't care how they schedule it, either have the quarterfinals on New Years day to bring back the prominence of that day, which by the way is a tradition that has fallen by the wayside, or have the title game be played that day. Make it eight teams and you can still use the BCS process to determine the teams with some small changes. The top 8 are in, no automatic conference qualifying, no dumb limits on teams per conference, just the top 8 teams in the country squaring off to figure out who is best. That would spare us the indignity of having UConn as part of the process this year along with the ACC representative until they get their act together again.
This year could have featured quarterfinal matchups of Auburn-Arkansas, Oregon-Oklahoma, TCU-Ohio St and Stanford-Wisconsin. You could tweak it if needed so that teams from the same conference didn't play first round giving us Auburn-Oklahoma and Oregon-Arkansas instead. Also, if you do the New Years thing these games can be played using the current BCS Bowl games.
The bottom line is that the University Presidents, AD's and conference heads can't get together and figure this out and they need to. There should be plenty of brain power involved in these groups to get this done. It seems like it gets a little closer every year, maybe Obama will make good on his promise to get involved or Mark Cuban can make his scheme work. Regardless, please, someone get this done.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Getting started
So 2011 has started and I have decided to start a blog. It is something I have always to do. My passion is sports and since I don't have a job that relates to it whatsoever I figured this is the next best thing for me to share my opinions on what is going on in the world of sports.
I am just an average guy with no more insight into sports than anyone else who watches games and catches Sports Center several times a week. I don't know anyone in the industry or have any contacts with any teams or athletes. I have a job and a family so this is not my life. I am doing this simply as what will hopefully be a fun outlet. Everything you will read, that is, if anyone actually reads this, is just my take.
I live in Minnesota but will not focus heavily on the local teams. I am more interested in the overall sports scene though there will be occasions where I do focus a post on a local story if it calls for it. My favorite sport is baseball followed by football, both NFL and NCAA, and I assume the posts will follow that. I do enjoy and follow the other sports and will comment periodically on those as well.
Feel free to leave comments and tell me if I am off my rocker or if on the rare chance you think I nailed a situation. The good thing with this media is that it will be permanently recorded so we can see who was right or not as time goes by. With that, welcome and I hope there will be something out here you enjoy.
I am just an average guy with no more insight into sports than anyone else who watches games and catches Sports Center several times a week. I don't know anyone in the industry or have any contacts with any teams or athletes. I have a job and a family so this is not my life. I am doing this simply as what will hopefully be a fun outlet. Everything you will read, that is, if anyone actually reads this, is just my take.
I live in Minnesota but will not focus heavily on the local teams. I am more interested in the overall sports scene though there will be occasions where I do focus a post on a local story if it calls for it. My favorite sport is baseball followed by football, both NFL and NCAA, and I assume the posts will follow that. I do enjoy and follow the other sports and will comment periodically on those as well.
Feel free to leave comments and tell me if I am off my rocker or if on the rare chance you think I nailed a situation. The good thing with this media is that it will be permanently recorded so we can see who was right or not as time goes by. With that, welcome and I hope there will be something out here you enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)