Confidentiality

There is a reason for everything.
 I cant begin to count the number of times I've heard this phrase, most commonly as a rationalization when things go horribly wrong.

 But beyond the religious context in which this phrase is often invoked, there is a secular purpose as well.

Yes, there is a reason for everything. Including confidentiality.

In this age of information, one of the principles that has been thrown aside quite easily is the notion that some things are best kept out of the public eye.

Take Wikileaks: Many of us, myself included, felt somewhat sympathetic toward the perpetrator of the information leak, and especially to the site's operator, a man at one point wanted in three different continents. We feel that, with VERY FEW exceptions, information is best let out into the public, feeling in some innate sense that there should be nothing to hide.

I think right now, while we do not have all of the information yet, this Ryan Braun case is a pretty good example of how wrong we all were.

There are things that are best kept quiet and an ongoing appeal of a positive drug test is one of those.

Given the information that has come to light since ESPN rushed to break the (largely unsubstantiated) story last night, I feel it is safe to say that Braun isnt one of the prototypical "roiders". Whether he is able to fully prove his innocence or not, the latest breaking news that the test was positive not for a PED, but for another banned substance, should fairly well clear that point up.

But if you watched nothing but the almighty ESPN, the bastion of everything sports, you wouldnt know the real story.

That is because ESPN is now caught between a rock and a hard place. Their irresponsible decision to break an incomplete report may have done irreversible damage to Braun, a young star who is not only revered for his talents on the field, but also for his contributions to the Milwaukee community. Innocent or not, Braun's once-unblemished image is now stained forever.

Wherever the story takes us, whether Braun is able to avoid suspension or not, ESPN has proven why confidentiality continues to have a deserving place in our society, even in this age of endless information.

Major League Baseball chose to keep the proceedings private, knowing full well that a report of Braun's initial positive test would not only damage his image, but the game as a whole. That would be unfair to Braun, unfair to the Brewers, and unfair to the game.

Apparently, MLB has done this in the past. In yet another irresponsible piece of reporting, ESPN erroneously reported that no MLB player has ever successfully appealed a positive drug test.

Well, that is not completely correct.

Although ESPN continued to hammer that point home throughout the night, outside reports began to make it fairly clear that there had in fact been prior instances in which a positive test had been successfully appealed. What ESPN failed to realize is that MLB successfully kept these proceedings under wraps and thus the players involved were never subject to the type of unjust media outcry that the "worldwide leader" has brought upon the 2011 NL MVP.

In recent years, ESPN has struggled with how it wants to define itself. Looking at its connections with college athletic departments and sponsors, you would have trouble making the distinction between ESPN and a sports marketing company like IMG. In fact, ESPN has partnered with IMG in several instances and was increasingly becoming the broadcast wing of the Cleveland, Ohio behemoth.

But on the other hand, ESPN also purports to be a true sports news outlet. They break news as an independent outlet (many times failing to disclose the clear interest that they have in the outcome of the story) and provide analysis as any true news organization would.

If that is the case, if ESPN is a news outlet focused on the world of sports, then what they have done is irresponsible. They have broken a story without fully corroborating source material and in the process have tarnish the legacy of a young star who stands for everything that is good with the game of baseball.

But if that is not the case, if ESPN is the sports marketing organization they seem to be becoming, then the ramifications are far worse. Given ESPN's clear interest in keeping MLB supremacy on the coasts, one has to wonder the true intentions behind their breaking of such an incomplete story. One has to wonder why, despite fairly well-known (undisclosed incidents, names unknown) evidence to the contrary, ESPN sought to immediately go from breaking the story of a positive test to making the case for Braun's immediate demonization.

Based upon what has come out today, ESPN was only made privy of a positive test for a banned substance that involved Braun. In their initial reports, the television behemoth tacked on the label of PED to the positive test, further insinuating Braun's guilt. They then erroneously reported that an appeal has never been successful before finishing off the debacle by failing to note that Braun had been re-tested and had passed the re-test.

And just minutes later, they switched the discussion to what should be done with the MVP award, to whether Braun could ever recover his image, and to how the suspension (which they insinuated was a given) would affect the Brewers.

They took an incomplete set of facts, touched them up, reported them, and moved onto analysis immediately. Viewers had no chance to consider whether or not the story itself was fact or fiction, they were already discussing what comes next.

ESPN has failed miserably in this case. They have forever tarnished their reputation as a company and hopefully in the process they have not irreversibly tarnished the legacy of one of our nation's most admirable young professional athletes.

I could be wrong, Ryan Braun could be taking steroids.

But if not, ESPN has a whole lot of explaining to do.

Montee Ball: Heisman Trophy Winner

If only people in this country actually took the time to learn a thing or two about the world around them. I feel like I find myself saying this almost on a daily basis. And while the south certainly has a leg up in its proclivity for ignorance, Americans all across the board have given up their reverence for fact. 

But this isnt about how Herman Cain nearly became the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

No, this is about something much more important: the Heisman Trophy.

Montee Ball has scored 38 touchdowns this season, one touchdown for every 7.24 times that he touches the football. The NCAA record for single-season touchdowns, a record not even sniffed since Barry Sanders set it back in 1988, is 39. Barring unforeseen injury or futility in the Rose Bowl, Montee Ball will hold the record when you wake up on January 3rd. 

But while Ball will likely hold the once-untouchable single-season touchdown record, he will not hold the Heisman trophy. Somehow.

Not only will Ball almost certainly not win the award, he wont even come close. Given that Alabama's Trent Richardson has somehow already been awarded the Doak Walker award given to the nation's best tailback, Ball's chances are virtually nil. 

Why?

Because no one bothered to check the numbers, no one bothered to check the facts and see if Richardson and fellow Heisman frontrunners Andrew Luck of Stanford and Robert Griffin III of Baylor actually had better seasons than the junior running back at Wisconsin.

Reality: They didnt.

First of all, lets assess Luck. Andrew Luck is the best quarterback in the country and will be the top pick in the 2012 NFL draft. After deciding, against the advice of many, to return for his senior year at Stanford, Luck led the Cardinal to an 11-1 regular season and a Fiesta Bowl appearance. Luck's 3170 passing yards and 35 touchdowns are staggering numbers, but he dropped the ball when it counted most, only managing to complete 66% of his passes in the Cardinal's lone loss at home against Oregon. The two interceptions that Luck threw in that game cost Stanford a shot at an undefeated season and ultimately ruined Luck's chances of running away with the Heisman.

Robert Griffin III has a good case to be named the most valuable player in college football. The junior quarterback has single handedly put Baylor football on the map, leading the Bears to a 9-3 finish that included their first-ever win over Big 12 stalwart Oklahoma. But while Griffin's numbers are impressive, 3998 passing yards and 36 touchdowns to go along with another 644 yards and 9 touchdowns on the ground, they come in the offensive-heavy Big 12 conference. The Big 12 is by any statistical measure the “best” conference in college football, but it is not known for its defenses.

And once again, Griffin’s few mistakes came when the Bears could least afford them. His 4^th quarter interception against Kansas State cost Baylor the game and ended their undefeated run after just three games. Against Texas A&M, the nation’s worst pass defense, Griffin did set a school-record with 430 yards through the air, but once again threw a crucial interception and Baylor got blown out. The following week against Oklahoma State, Griffin had his worst game of the season, managing just a 136.0 passer rating despite throwing for another 425 yards on 50 attempts. It was the two interceptions that once again led in part to a lopsided Baylor defeat.

Never mind that Baylor is 9-3, with their lone road win coming in overtime over 2-win Kansas, and headed to the Alamo Bowl. I don’t like the argument of team record or BCS ranking, but if we are going to go there, then Griffin cannot be the way to turn.

Then there is Trent Richardson. After reading through this, you probably wont like the fact that I intend to lob the majority of my disgust at this final supposedly “deserving” Heisman candidate. But that is exactly what I am going to do.

Richardson doesn’t even deserve to be in the conversation. His team coasted through an easy schedule, lost its one big-time matchup at home against LSU, and has somehow rode the wave of SEC bias all the way to a BCS Title game appearance.

And it is that SEC bias that has not only brought Richardson into the conversation, but probably has gotten him the trophy.

First of all lets look at the numbers.

Richardson has rushed for 1583 yards on 263 carries, an average of 6.0 yards per carry. Montee Ball has averaged 6.4 yards per carry.

Richardson has scored 20 touchdowns on the ground. Ball has 32.

Richardson has caught 27 passes for 327 yards and 3 touchdowns. Ball has caught 20 passes for 255 yards and 6 touchdowns.

Against AP-ranked teams, Richardson has 95 carries for 507 yards (5.3 yards per carry) and 4 touchdowns. Ball has 100 carries for 559 yards (5.6 yards per carry).

So much for the SEC schedule being so much more difficult.

Oh, and Ball has scored 12 touchdowns against those ranked teams.

In games decided by less than 15 points, Richardson has just 23 carries for 89 yards, 3.9 yards per carry. And not a single touchdown.

Ball has 100 carries for 561 yards and 7 touchdowns in games decided by less than 15 points.

Six of Ball’s touchdowns have either tied the game or given Wisconsin the lead. Just two for Richardson.

Who is more valuable to their team?

The answer is clear. If you bothered to read the facts.

But the problem is that there is this assumption that SEC players are better, that SEC teams are better, and that SEC schedules are flat out tougher.

Alabama had arguably a far easier schedule than Wisconsin:

Home against Kent State. Automatic.

At Penn State. The Nittany Lions were young and at the time still gelling as a team. Plus the weather was still picture perfect. Try coming to State College in November.

Home against North Texas. Seriously? North Texas went 4-4 in the Sun Belt for crying out loud.

Home against Arkansas. The Razorbacks are a potent team, but not a potent defense. The Hogs gave up an average of 174 yards on the ground in 2011. Richardson had just 126. At home.

At Florida. Another team that, while ranked at the time, was in the top-25 by name only and Richardson torched them for 181 yards and 2 touchdowns. Florida’s defense was still strong and that was probably Richardson’s best performance.

Home against Vandy. 107 yards. Vandy? They are a bowl team this year, but if Vandy is going to be one of the tougher conference matchups, how can you argue the SEC is that good?

At Ole Miss. Richardson picked 203 all-purpose yards. But Ole Miss had just one win over a FBS team this entire season. And they gave up an average of 225 yards on the ground alone. 203 all-purpose doesn’t mean much against the Rebs.

Home against Tennessee. 77 yards and two touchdowns. Not bad. But again, the Vols gave up 163 yards per game on the ground.

Home against LSU. In the greatest sporting event the world has ever seen, the game that every American had a patriotic duty not only to watch, but to enjoy, Richardson managed just 89 yards on 23 carries. No touchdowns. 9-6 loss.

At Mississippi State. 127 and a TD.

Home against Georgia Southern. Not Georgia. Not Georgia Tech. 179 all-purpose yards and 3 touchdowns.

At Auburn. 203 yards on just 27 carries. In the Iron Bowl. The annual “greatest game of the year, no matter what”.

Yeah, don’t mind the fact that Auburn gave up an average of 195 yards per game on the ground and was just 79^th in scoring defense.

That was in the Iron Bowl. Come On!

For all the grief that gets lobbed onto the Badgers and onto Ball’s Heisman candidacy for having a weak schedule, this argument simply doesn’t match up with reality.

In games against UNLV, South Dakota, and Northern Illinois (all 3 non-BCS opponents for Wisconsin), Ball picked up just 242 yards and 7 touchdowns.

In games against Georgia Southern, North Texas, and Kent State, Richardson tallied 379 yards and 8 touchdowns on the ground.

On the other hand, in Wisconsin’s games at Michigan State (5^th in total defense), at Illinois (7^th), and Penn State (10^th), Ball rushed for 495 yards and 7 touchdowns. He also caught 5 passes for 38 yards and another two touchdowns.

Against Michigan State in the Big Ten Championship game Ball rushed for another 137 yards and 3 TDs, all while catching 3 passes for 7 yards and a touchdown and finally throwing one ball for 32 yards passing.

At the same time Ball was doing this, Richardson was sitting at home watching.

Richardson faced just three teams in the top 10 in total defense as well (Georgia and South Carolina are in the SEC, sure, but Alabama got the benefit of skipping them this season). One was LSU. Not exactly his best performance.

The other two were Penn State and Florida.

In addition to the 89-yard dud against the Bayou Bengals, Richardson rushed for 111 yards against the Nittany Lions, a full 45 yards short of the total Ball had against the same defense.

The 181 yard afternoon at Florida was the best performance Richardson had all season, but then again, doesn’t 242 on the ground against the 7^th best defense in the country outdo that?

Total for Richardson against top-10 defenses: 381 yards, 4 touchdowns. Ill give him a slight edge with 11 catches for 128 yards. But again, just the 4 touchdowns on the ground.

Advantage Ball.

The reality is that every number out there suggests that Montee Ball is the nation’s best running back. Not only that, Ball is also the clear most valuable back to his team.

The reason that Richardson is winning this award season is because of the perception that the nation has about the SEC being the dominant conference in college football.

First of all, the computers seem to disagree, with every statistical measure pointing to the Big 12 in terms of conference supremacy. And by a landslide.

But beyond that, Alabama did not play the entire SEC. Alabama was fortunate to have a schedule devoid of games against South Carolina or Georgia, essentially the only two competent football teams in the 6-team SEC east. They faced both LSU and Arkansas at home, with their toughest road test coming against a reeling Florida Gator squad on the first day of October.

That paragraph should not only show you why Alabama has no business being in the BCS Title game (the “no rematch” argument probably won Alabama the rematch after all), but also why Trent Richardson has no business being in the Heisman trophy candidate.

Even the SEC faithful profess that the SEC is a defense-heavy conference. The numbers don’t lie there. But so is the Big Ten.

And if the SEC in general, and Alabama specifically, is so consumed with defense, then why does Richardson become so valuable to Alabama?

Without Montee Ball, Wisconsin is nowhere near the Rose Bowl. Even with Russell Wilson, the Badgers don’t have the type of aerial attack that can overcome a weak running game. And while they have arguably the nation’s best offensive line, that only adds to the argument that Ball and the Wisconsin running game stood out above the rest.

Our country has always had, and the South is home to some of the most egregious offenders, a problem with blind faith.

Faith in god, faith in the word of political leaders, faith in the conventional wisdom.

This is just another case in which faith simply isn’t properly yielding to fact. There is a blind faith across the country in the SEC being the most dominant conference in college football. Each and every Saturday, we witness the dominant performances by Alabama, LSU, and………, well, at least Alabama and LSU and simply assume that those are clear evidence of conference supremacy.

But for every Alabama or LSU there is an Ole Miss and a Kentucky.

Don’t pay attention to the fact that the Big 12 only lost 3 games out of conference (SEC-6) or that the Big Ten has as many teams ranked in the top 25 of the coaches poll as the vaunted SEC.

The SEC has to be dominant.

After all, didn’t they win the last six national championships.

Yes, they did. They won the last six national championship GAMES.

But how about the process that got them six straight national title appearances. Heck, the Big East hasn’t even had one since the BCS started.

Its impressive that the SEC has won the last six title games, but that doesn’t say anything about the strength of the conference as a whole. Sure, they produce top-level teams year-in year-out, but the perception of the SEC as the dominant conference is now becoming part of the reality and that is dangerous.

This year proves it. Two SEC teams? Alabama’s best win was against an Arkansas team that struggled to overcome a halftime deficit against Texas A&M, had to rely on a missed chip-shot field goal to beat Vanderbilt, and scraped out a 5-point win after trailing 17-0 to lowly Ole Miss. Not exactly the greatest 6^th-ranked team in the history of the BCS. Beyond that, Alabama hasnt beaten another top 20 team.

The SEC isn’t that great. Montee Ball is.

It’s a shame that blind faith will cost him the Heisman, but that is what it is.

Ignoring the facts: It’s the American way.

Settling Conference Scores

Last week’s 13th edition of the ACC/Big 10 challenge was just one of many such challenges spread across the world of college basketball throughout the month of December. While most of the teams focus on the individual games themselves and not as much on winning the challenge as a conference, there is no doubt that conference bragging rights are at stake. In the world of college basketball, it is just that, bragging rights. But if there were to be the same type of challenge played on the gridiron, the outcome could give a conference more than just the satisfaction of victory. In fact, it could be the way we finally get to a system that allows the BCS to truly determine a worthy national championship. Anyway, it comes down to the notion that the only way to reasonably determine which conferences are better than others is to put them on the field, with six teams from each conference hosting non-conference games. So lets say we have the Big Ten/ACC Challenge the first week. Right then and there instead of debating whether a 30-point win is enough against a weak opponent like UNLV, we can see for ourselves whether Wisconsin is better than, say, Virginia Tech. But even that wouldn’t be enough. You could pit the SEC against the Big East, the Pac-12 against the Big 12, and the Big Ten against the ACC and still find yourself in the position we are at today, stuck with two teams that many feel are the best two in the nation and a third out in Stillwater, Oklahoma that feels differently. So why not have another series of challenges the second week? In week two, pit the SEC against the Pac-12, the Big East against the ACC, and the Big Ten against the Big 12. But even though we could determine that the SEC and the Big 12 are better from top to bottom than the Big East and ACC, we could still be left with the dilemma we find ourselves in right now. So why not keep it going? Week three you pit the ACC and SEC, the Big Ten and Pac-12, and the Big East and Big 12. Same problem? Week four you could match up the Big 12 with the SEC, the Big Ten with the Big East, and the ACC and Pac-12. 4 weeks. 4 challenges. Figure out which is the best conference. No more argument. What is there to lose? Really the only thing that stands to disappear in this scenario is the irrelevant non-conference game. Sure you wont get an opportunity to see LSU try to put 75 up against Northwestern State or Oklahoma State attempt to throw up a triple digit score against Sam Houston State, but then again would you really miss it? If you are the average college football fan, I guarantee that the answer would be no. And while this wont necessarily avoid the debate, especially in terms of undefeated non-AQ teams, it will make it much more clear come time to set up a championship matchup. Enough with the computer projections, the comparisons of NFL draft picks (honestly, this is the worst argument in favor of SEC supremacy. Am I the only one who realizes that an NFL draft pick no longer plays in the conference they hailed from?), and enough with the entire concept of subjective national champions. I know that a playoff will never happen. Many people try to convince themselves that a playoff will eventually happen, but the reality is that as long as the bowl committees are in bed with the athletic departments at major universities, a college football playoff will never happen. Having non-conference games of consequence would totally change the landscape of college football. First of all, it would take the power of scheduling out of the hands of the teams themselves and into the hands of (at least supposedly) neutral arbitrators. And who wouldn’t want to see Stanford play Oklahoma State to open up the season? Who wouldn’t want to see a late November matchup of Alabama and Oklahoma? From the standpoint of the fan, these challenges would be a welcome respite from having to sit through analysis of Georgia Southern’s visit to Tuscaloosa with a game left in the season. The BCS often talks about how their system ensures that every game matters. But honestly does a game between LSU and Arkansas-Pine Bluff really matter? Pit power conferences against power conferences and then you can honestly say that each and every game matters. It is not a perfect system that I am proposing. The notion of using polls and hypothetical computer rankings to determine the participants in a national championship game is about as arbitrary as it gets in the world of big-time athletics. But it would help out a ton. It would give us a true picture of which conferences truly do reign supreme. It would allow us to point to specific games and specific statistics to argue for the best teams and best players in the vast world that is college football. And in time, it may even give us a true national champion. What do you have to lose?