March Madness

A couple of thoughts about the NCAA basketball tournament selection process:

* Is CBS insane? A 2 hour show to reveal the 68 teams in the tournament. Dear God, the show used to be a half hour long. An hour is plenty. They dragged that thing out forever. No wonder the bracket leaked early. Serves the NCAA and CBS right.

* Speaking of CBS, what was the thinking of completely submarining their regular college commentators and their big moment of maximum national attention in favor of turning over most of the broadcast to the TBS NBA guys - Ernie Johnson, Barkley, Walker, et. al.?  And nothing screams amateurism and college basketball like NBA announcers. 

* Having said that, I thought Barkley was spot on in his assessment of the selection committee. They really didn't want to make Villanova a #1 seed. Heck, I'm not even sure winning the Big East tourney would have made the Wildcats a #1 given that Mich. State was the top #2 seed (in front of Nova).

* It's also hard not to see the 'Nova snub as a slight to smaller schools and the Big East. The NCAA has a habit of doing this to some teams - like Gonzaga. They were an emerging power for years and the NCAA kept screwing them by always giving them an extra hard bracket. And when Gonzaga lost, they would just shrug and say, "see, we told you Gonzaga wasn't ready for prime time." 

That's the way it is looking for Villanova right now after they got moved out of the East and given a second round matchup vs. city rival Temple or Big 10 power Iowa. Pick your poison. Until Villanova can show it can get out of the first weekend expect more draws like this. Oh to be the basketball royalty of Duke, UNC, or Kansas.

* There really should be a limit on the # of teams each power conference can send. The magic of the tournament is David slaying Goliath, not Syracuse trying to upset Dayton. I only wish the mid-majors would at some point rebel against the selection committee's tyranny. (speaking of which, when do you think a mid-major AD will chair the committee? Never?)

For the mid-majors it's Lucy pulling the football from Charlie Brown. Monmouth did everything it was asked to do. Play a hard out of conference schedule - UCLA?! Georgetown. Rutgers. Notre Dame.USC - twice! And yet, when it comes down to it, the selection committee found some nitpicky rationale to deny Monmouth. Because their mid-major in conference losses were just too unfortunate. Give me a break. I'd much rather watch Monmouth play this week than a middling Michigan or Syracuse team. And that doesn't even take into account that entertaining bench! 

As Donald Trump would say, "Sad!"

Chip Kelly's Team

How weird is it that the Titans (and not the Eagles) will now have both Marcus Mariota and DeMarco Murray? Chip Kelly's dream backfield is ready to start 2016 in....Tennessee.

Ochefu

I still haven't seen any coverage much less explanation as to why an obviously lame Daniel Ochefu played - and played significant minutes - vs. Depaul the other night. The announcers at the time rightly explained the nearly invaluable role Ochefu will have in Villanova's tournament success as they were observing his clearly gimpy gait. But there was no information about why Wright put him in the game and kept him in the game, especially against an opponent where he 1) wasn't needed and 2) right befrore the Big East tournament and March Madness. Most frustratingly, there was nothing about in the reports after the game.

Media Love-fest

The least surprising development from last night's debate? The media's hagiographic praise for Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly. The Post's Paul Farhi's big wet kiss of an article complimenting the super hot, super smmart (she's a lawyer Farhi interjects!) is a prime example.

The media loves its own, especially when a mean old politician attacks one of the troops. But has the self-love gotten out of hand? Has the desire to promote Kelly and at the expense of Trump blinded the media to its proper role in the presidential debates much less the campaigns?

Farhi for instance, describes the Kelly-Trump interaction thusly: 

During the primetime debate Thursday night, Kelly landed a series of blows that seemed to leave the GOP's front-runner reeling....
At one point it appeared that the debate was between Kelly and Trump, not among Trump and rivals Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and John Kasich.

Farhi doesn't ask the obvious questions and, indeed, it's not even clear he gave a thought to them. Is it the appropriate role for a moderator/journalist to "land blows" in a candidate debate? Hasn't a debate gone completely off the rails when it appears that the "debate" is not between candidates on stage but a candidate at the podium and a journalist by the cameras? 

These are legitimate questions about the role and responsibility of journalists and news organizations. It's almost laughable that the Post's media reporter doesn't see Kelly's combativeness as a problem worth exploring but the very reason to congratulate her.

Winners?

Gov John kasich and Megyn Kelly's false eyelashes. Curious if Chris cilliza agrees.

Highly Suspcious

If the timing of his accident weren't enough - one day after being indicted - Aubrey McClendon's care "accident" is highly suspicious given that it was a one-car accident, in an obscure area, he wasn't wearing his seat belt and the car burst into flames upon impact. Modern cars rarely "burst into flames" when involved in a one-car straight on collision.. 

Court Consideration

Vox has an article about an issue I raised last week about the SCOTUS political calculations. To wit,the rise of Trump and increasing likelihood of him as the GOP nominee might mean that the Senate GOP strategy of waiting till next year for a new president to fill the vacancy might not be the most prudent course of action to get the most conservative justice elevated.

Kelly for the Court

Love, love, love the idea of Janet Kelly as Obama's possible pick for the Supreme Court. Her stint as a public defender will, finally, bring some real world legal experience to the high falutin court.

Is That All There Is?

If this is the best conservative columnists can muster in terms of convincing Americans that they are better off now - after 40 years of wage stagnation - than they were at the turn of the century, than maybe Trump will win in a romp.

I mean, really? You have to argue that the quality of life is better now than it was at the turn of the 20th Century? That's the best you've got?

Maybe the funniest line showing the stunning lack of awareness about how the current service industry schedules workers is this Samuelson beaut: 

Not only was work more dangerous; it was also more insecure. "Factory-workers hours could be shortened from one day to the next," writes Leon, "leaving workers with a severely reduced paycheck." 

Golly. That never happens in 2016. 

Circular Firing Squad

Vox highlights the circular logic of the Anyone But Trump mentality. 

For most of the campaign, the assumption was that Trump would be a lot weaker and easier to attack once he was locked in one-on-one combat with a single opponent. Now the NeverTrumpers want to keep that from happening. And even as they point out (accurately) that Trump has never been hit with a sustained attack from another candidate, and could very well be vulnerable to one, the brokered convention Voltron fantasy makes it less likely that he'll experience that from another Republican.

 Does the GOP establishment want to winnow the field so that there is a one-on-one matchup vs. Trump in the winner take all primaries to come? Or does it want everyone to stay in to siphon off delegates and prevent Trump from getting to the 1,237? Hard to tell. The argument changes by the day...and hour.

The biggest question is whether they hate Trump so much that they're willing to back the almost equally hated (?) Ted Cruz.

Bradford

So Sammy will be staying in Philly for a while. And by a while, I mean two years. Chipper's trade looks pretty good for the Eagles right now. They got a #1 QB and locked him up for a couple of years and they didn't give up much to get someone of Bradford's caliber. The length of the contract gives the Eagles plenty of flexibility to groom a successor or keep Bradford if he continues to play well. The irony is that while he wasn't a great fit for Chipper's offense, he can be just what the doctor ordered for the Pederson era. Thanks, Chip!

Too Close for Comfort?

Last week's wildly hysterical Washington Post editorial about Donald Trump deserves another look. Is it that the Post is overselling Trump's faults or is it that they have rose-colored glasses on when it comes to the current and immediate past Presidents?

Here's they key part of the Post editorial with some additional context added that is both accurate and telling - both about Trump but also about the state of American politics and the presidency. The bold faced type is the added language.

This is a front-runner with no credible agenda and no suitable experience. He wants the United States to commit war crimes, including torture and the murder of innocent relatives of suspected terrorists, just like the extensive use of waterboarding that occurred under President Bush and the extra-judicial drone strikes that are routinely executed under President Obama's direction in foreign lands. He admires Russian dictator Vladimir Putin in much the same way President Bush did when he looked into the Soviet dictator's eyes to see his soul and then ascribed to him the cutesy "Pooty Poot" nickname and sees no difference between Mr. Putin's victims and people killed in the defense of the United States. He would round up and deport 11 million people continuing the widescale efforts begun by the Obama administration that has resulted in 400,000 deportations per year, a forced movement on a scale not attempted since Stalin or perhaps Pol Pot. He has, during the course of his campaign, denigrated women, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, people with disabilities and many more. He routinely trades in wild falsehoods and doubles down when his lies are exposed on a scale akin to the Bush administration's dubious claims that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, that Iraq was in possession of WMDs, or that the US "does not torture" (i.e., waterboarding) - wild assertions that were all categorically untrue but never repudiated by the President.

OscarsSuchaBummer

Hugely disappointing to not see Sylvester Stallone get the best supporting actor award. I was really looking forward to his speech and the full circle arc of his career Rocky Balboa. Has any actor been nominated for a best actor part and then gotten a second nomination (best or supporting categories) for the very same character? Certainly not forty years apart!

I always thought Creed and Stallone's nomination were the unspoken foundation of the #OscarsSoWhite protest in that the deserving Michael B. Jordan didn't get a nomination but Sly did. The fact that Creed wasn't nominated added insult to injury. I hope Sly's defeat wasn't prompted by the Oscars' protest but I have a sinking feeling it was exactly that reaction from the Academy's voters. What a shame.

Speaking of shame, how ironic that the protest movement against the lack of diversity in the Oscar nominations was itself so lacking in diversity? Chris Rock was hysterical and completely on point in his withering critique. But the protest was #OscarsSoWhite - not #OscarsNotBlackEnough. To hear Rock tell it from the stage, the problem was not enough African-american representation in movies and in the nominations. He completely left out Hispanics and Asians as similarly - and in many cases - even more excluded from Hollywood movies. Highlighting this shocking blindspot was his stereotypical joke about Asians that was made even more awkward and offensive by bringing out Asian children to be the butt of the joke. Talk about awkward and insensitive.

Mamula Retrospective

To coincide with the NFL draft combine, Profootballtalk takes a look back at workout wonder Mike Mamula and tries to dispel some myths about his reputation, college career, and Eagles tenure. 

It's a fair analysis. But it fails to mention the frustration Eagles fans had with Mamula's "just not good enough" play. Sure, his stats looked fine - even pretty good at times viewed at a certain angel. But that distracts from his actual play on the field where Mamula became more known for "almost getting to the QB" and not actually knocking down or God forbid sacking the quarterback. It was so endemic that the nickname "Almost Mamula" organically sprouted up.

But the big takeaway from the view that Mamula was a bust is because the Eagles traded up to get him. Yes, they could have stayed at 12 and gotten Warren Sapp. They also could have stayed at 12 to get Mamula. From a fan's perspective, it's not just your overall draft position that sets the expectations for your play but how you were picked. In Mamula's case, he's held to a higher standard because the Eagles were so aggressive (mistakenly so) in trying to draft him.

So it's not about "gaming" the combine but the draft day dynamics that should be the big lesson in the disappointment over Almost Mamula's career.

V for Valid

A pretty fair and spot on analysis of Villanova's recent tourney flameouts. Notwithstanding their regular season success and the first #1 ranking in school history, the dread about underperforming - again - in March hangs over this team and only grows with every win between now and the tournament.

2015: No. 8 seed NC State 71, No. 1 seed Villanova 68 (round of 32)
2014: No. 7 seed UConn 77, No. 2 seed Villanova 65 (round of 32)
2013: No. 8 seed North Carolina 78, No. 9 seed Villanova 71 (round of 64)
2011: No. 8 seed George Mason 61, No. 9 seed Villanova 57 (round of 64)
2010: No. 10 seed Saint Mary's 75, No. 2 seed Villanova 68 (round of 32)

And this dismal list doesn't even include the near loss to 15th seeded Robert Morris (!) in the 2010 opener nor a game 20009 AU team that played Nova a lot closer than the 80-67 final might suggest.

The irony is that Wright has had high seeds and flamed out early while Rollie Massimino usually squeaked into the tournament each year with a low seed but managed to upset a higher seed at least and regularly made it through to the round of 16.

Washington Post Editors

Hysterical editorial from Washington Post editorial elite demanding GOP elite to stop Donald Trump from being so popular with Republican voters. Does it get any more elite than that?

I'll have plenty more about this ridiculous editorial that somehow got published in one of the nation's (if not the world's) premier newspapers. The entire premise of the editorial is absurd, as is the editorial's analysis of the current political environment and Republican party.

To wit, this nugget:

A political party, after all, isn't meant to be merely a collection of consultants, lobbyists and functionaries angling for jobs. It is supposed to have principles: in the Republican case, at least as we have always understood it, to include a commitment to efficient government, free markets and open debate.

"Open debate?" The Washington Post editors must not be aware that the very Republican leaders they are appealing to - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch just announced that the Senate would not even consider any Obama nominee for the Supreme Court. So much for open debate.

When will the news media like the Post understand that the problem isn't that Donald Trump is out of the Republican mainstream. No, the problem is that he is adhering to the party's principles.. 

Tapper a Phillies Fan

CNN reporter Jake Tapper is a Phillies fan and thinks the team needs pitching to get the World Series. He also thinks Rubio supporters are similarly delusional in touting all the long shot ways their man- and his team - can win it all.

"You guys sound like, I mean I hate to say this, I'm a loyal Philadelphia Phillies fan. You guys sound like Philly fans." - Jake Tapper.

Down Goes #1

You kind of knew it wouldn't be Villanova's night when Phil Booth managed to miss a dunk. And, indeed, Nova missed any number of runners and shots from less than 3 feet. At other times they looked disjointed and disinterested. While the Wildcats will lose the #1 ranking, it's hard to be too upset. They were never going to go undefeated the rest of the season, the Big East tournament, and the NCAAs.

This was a good loss - a competitive game in a hostile environment. They definitely had trouble with Xavier's 1-3-1 defense. And while I had just mentioned to my brother that unlike teams' past, this one was balanced so that no one player going cold would sink them. Alas, they all went cold. Well, except for Kris Jenkins who had the misfortune of fouling out.

Still, they stayed in the game and only lost by 7 on the road to the #5 team that was playing really well and got every bounce. Hopefully it's a learning experience.

Fair and Balanced Revealed?

Ezra Klein's excellent analysis of the state of the GOP includes this revealing nugget about Trump and Fox News:

The first Republican debate featured Fox News — arguably the single most powerful actor in the modern Republican Party — trying to cut Trump's candidacy to shreds. The harsh questioning, which touched on everything from his past heterodoxies to his friendship with Hillary Clinton to his misogyny, kicked off a feud between Fox News and Trump that continues to this day.

The post-debate focus has always been on Megyn Kelly's hemoglobin count. But completely overlooked has been the justification for Trump's anger with her for the provocative and unfair treatment as moderator. Klein suggests he had a point.

Supreme Court Strategery

Word is that the White House is considering Republican Governor Brian Sandoval as a compromise pick to fill Antonin Scalia's vacancy.

Republicans, of course, have insisted the next president will fill Scalia's seat. Which is an interesting strategy given Donald Trump's improving chances of being the GOP nominee. Is Mitch McConnell really willing to let Trump and his proto-libertarian views really pick the next Justice? The alternatives, of course, are Clinton or Sanders which might be only slightly worse - from McConnell's perspective - than Trump.

Then again, on the Democratic side is it worth caving to GOP intransigence and swallowing a "Republican centrist" (whatever that means) now in the form of Gov. Sandoval instead of allowing holding firm, calling the GOP's bluff and allowing - at worst - a President Trump to nominate someone who could very well be more liberal than Sandoval?

Has Trump and his unpredictability so upset the political calculations when it comes to this Supreme Court that Republicans might actually be better off with Obama nominating a Republican judge. And on the flip side, might Democrats be better off letting the GOP run out the clock and having Trump potentially selecting a pro-business liberal for the Court? 

Interesting that in light of Trump's romp in the Nevada caucuses last night for his 3rd straight win that I haven't seen anything about potential Trump judicial candidates.

The Difference

Here's the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to intransigence over filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year (and really this applies generally to all political protocols not just judicial nominations): Democrats talk and threaten and bluster about being obstructionist and running roughshod over decades of well-understood and established political norms and customs. But in the end, they never actually do anything. Republicans, on the other hand, usually do carry out their threats.

So it was with the perpetual gamesmanship about increasing the debt ceiling over the past 30 years. Democrats complain and kvetch but ultimately they vote for it. Republicans draw lines in the sand, don't raise the limit, close the government down, and force US credit downgrades.

So it is with Scalia's replacement. The important thing to remember about then Sen. Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer's nomination comments is that that's all they were...comments. They didn't actually ignore an actual nominee (and I would also argue there's an important time difference between June and February of an election year but that may be splitting hairs too fine) Contrast that with Mitch McConnell and Orrin Hatch who are now not just talking about not considering a nominee but actually doing it.

Crazy.

BS Report

Bill Simmons could have a field day with this Peyton Manning story about lawsuits and allegations of cheating, harassment, and settlements.

1B Coach?

The strange turn of events that has led  Ruben Amaro to become the Red Sox first base coach(?!), just adds to the bizarreness of Amaro's legacy (to say nothing of his judgment) as Phillies GM.

Perhaps the best that can be said about Amaro is that he was never as bad as many made him out to be. And while he did preside over a 102 game winning team and a World Series appearance, this best sums up his record:

Most of the credit for the good times went to his predecessor, Pat Gillick, and most of the blame landed on Amaro. 

To his credit, he did get Cliff Lee in the middle of the 2009 season that helped push the Phils to a second consecutive World Series. And Amaro did acquire Roy Halladay and did assemble the Aces wild starting rotation. But the one trade that still haunts is the bizarre (panic?) move to trade Cliff Lee at the end of the 2009 season immediately after landing Halladay, in an ill-fated attempt to "restock" the farm system. That replenishment - in the form of Phillipe Aumont, JC Ramirez, and Tyson Gillies - was an utter failure. And the whole point of getting Halladay was to bolster the existing rotation. Practically speaking, it became a trade of Halladay for Lee.

To be fair, he was put in the unfortunate situation of having to extend and keep many winning and popular players just as they started to decline in much the same way that Lee Thomas and then Ed Wade kept too many players from the wildly popular 1993 pennant winning team too long. Indeed, at this point we should be so lucky if Amaro is a repeat of Ed Wade who wound up drafting the core of the 2008 Championship team: Burrell, Utley, Howard, and Hamels.

Maybe Amaro would still be GM if he had pulled the trigger on the rebuilding trades he made in 2015 a year earlier. In any case, the bounty of prospects Amaro did stockpile on his way out the door may be his greatest legacy of all.

Come inside these walls

Forget about the debate about the Vatican City's wall as a lame rebuke to the pope's comments about immigration and border security. The more relevant question is how many immigrants or refugees the Vatican - a sovereign state that is a member of the UN - has accepted this year or in the recent past. My bet it is close to if not 0.

It's Not Just Republicans

Interesting take on the Trump phenomenon and how his campaign is highlighting yuuge fissures between rank and file Republicans and the party leaders.

At the same time, the stubborn popularity of Mr. Trump, who defies Republican orthodoxy on issue after issue, shows how deeply the party's elites misjudged the faithfulness of rank-and-file Republicans to conservatism as defined in Washington think tanks and by the party's elected leaders.
The dichotomy is particularly vivid here in South Carolina, the most conservative state on the nominating calendar so far, where Mr. Trump holds a double-digit lead over his closest rivals in the latest polls.
"In a lot of senses Republicans have overestimated how much dedication to ideology was motivating their voters," said Ben Domenech, publisher of The Federalist, a conservative online journal.

Of course, this mismatch between the Republican grassroots and the governing elite is also something Democrats overestimated as well. It's a pity Democrats didn't recognize and try to exploit it before Donald Trump came along. Even more to the point, electorally speaking, it highlights that the threat of the Republican bogeyman voter that will be in lockstep opposition to any Democratic appeal or proposal is more fiction than fact. Indeed, Democrats may have overestimated this electoral force more than Republicans. 

So, for instance, when Democrats in swing states like Manchin in W. Virginia, Tester in Montana, Heitkamp in ND, or Shaheen in NH beg off supporting planks of the party's legislative platform because they need to burnish their conservative bona fides - they're overstating their political challenge and not trying hard enough to persuade all the state's voters of the plan.

Villanova - Temple

I'm getting pretty fired up for tonight's game. I re-watched this classic 1988 Villanova- Temple game (at McGonigle Hall!) last night. At the time, the Owls were the #1 ranked team in the country and Villanova was #20 (before they expanded it to the Top 25). 

Wow, what a game. Many consider it one of if not the best game in City Series history.

Doug West, Mark Plansky, shot blocking and future Sixer Tim Perry, freshman Mark Macon, and Ramon Rivas. It also featured Rodney Taylor who passed away much too soon. For what it's worth, 7', 2" super stiff Tom Greis had a very solid game both offensively and defensively. 

I think both these teams went to the Final 8 that year. If the refs hadn't called a bunch of questionable bogus 5 second calls on Kenny Wilson, Nova could have (should have) knocked off Billy Tubbs' Oklahoma team with Stacey King, Mookie Blaylock, and Harvey Grant.

It was the last time a Big 5 matchup included the #1 team in the land. Until tonight. And as if the rivalry game and top ranking weren't big enough, Villanova can claim the Big 5 title with a win. A Temple win means a three team tie between Villanova, St. Joe's, and Temple all at 3-1. If only it were being played at the Palestra.

Go Nova!

A Dome?

One of the overlooked minor details in the Rams move back to LA is that Stan Kroenke's relocation proposal was for a domed stadium. I'm not sure what the rationale is for a dome in perpetually sunny LA (will it increase the flexibility/utility of using the stadium for other purposes besides football) but it will be a shock to TV viewers who tune into a game only to discover the artificial light and artificial turf of the LA stadium. Showing off my East Coast bias - one of the most aesthetically pleasing things about watching the 4:00 pm (eastern) games in November and December is to see the sunny skies, warm weather, and green grass of games being played in San Diego, San Francisco and Oakland (with the dirt cutout infield). But the LA domed stadium will offer views nothing like that. What a pity.

A Much Different Time

Notre Dame Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Lattner has passed away. His obituary hearkens back to a time long gone - when Heisman Trophy winners would leave the NFL to serve in the military. It is inconceivable that such a thing would happen today - even for players from the service academies -  and as this nation is "at war" with terrorists. And for those that want to cite Pat Tillman, he was not a top college player (in addition to winning the Heisman Lattner was drafted 7th overall), and in fact is the exception that proves the rule.

Who's to Blame?

Did Richard Cohen really blame the police for the hundreds of Middle Eastern refugees who sexually assaulted German women on New Year's Eve in Cologne?

Here's what he wrote:

The Cologne incident, too, while larger in scope, has not — or not yet — been repeated. There, too, the police have learned from their mistakes.

What, pray tell, were the police's mistakes (note the plural Cohen uses)? Not racially profiling MIddle Eastern migrants? Presuming that refugees would tend to be law abiding? Allowing migrants to assemble in large groups? Downplaying the incident initially so as not to draw attention to it?

It''s a pity Cohen doesn't elaborate on this important point.

Whoops, I Did It Again!

Unwitting Ironic Statement of the Night

Marco Rubio finally admitting to and apologizing for his robotic repeating of his talking points during Saturday night's presidential debate.

"So, listen to this: That will never happen again. It will never happen again."

As Chris Christie would say, there it is again! The repetitious talking point! Even when he's apologizing for repeating his same points over and over....he's repeating his same points over and over.

Super Bowl Post-Mortem

Wow, didn't see that outcome happening. Not the meager Denver offense, which was as mediocre as expected. It was the complete inability of the Panthers offensive line to stop a rampaging Von Miller and Demarcus Ware. I understood why a depleted Patriots line with undrafted players and free agent castoffs couldn't stop Ware and especially Miller. But I never saw coming Newton geting so teed off on. 

Honestly, the Panthers looked out of sync and sorts all game. From the penalties to the missed field goal, to the dropped passes, to the lack of execution they just looked off.

Other random thoughts:

* Forget all the inane questions about whether Roger Goodell would let his sons play football. What do you think his answer will be when his multibillion business is predicated on negligent and safety-averse parents letting their children play youth football. The more relevant question in the lead up to the big game would have been what he thought about the propriety of NFL teams taking money from the DoD to "honor" military veterans and promote the armed forces. It came to mind after the repeated shots of the US soldiers in Afghanistan, the flyover, and the presenting of the colors.

* The kids spawned in the euphoria of past super bowl victories was at first interesting from a statistical point but quickly got very, very creepy. Is this part of the Goodell plan to breed/rely on the next generation of football participating children?

* Forget yellow and red cards and 2 personal fouls getting a player ejected. How about eliminating the bizarre rule where a personal foul inside the 15 yard line only results in a half the distance to the goal penalty. Talib's face mask penalty was one of the more vicious you'll see, made worse by his admission that he did it on purpose knowing that it was only going to cost him about a yard or two. Contrast that with the Panthers' grasping defensive holding penalty on third down at the end of the game that gave the Broncos an automatic first down that they then converted into a TD. What was the more dangerous and egregious play? And yet, which was a more substantive consequence?

* Poor Coldplay.

* Was it a conspiracy or sympathy? I don't recall CBS ever showing a graphic of Peyton Manning's Dilfer like stats: 13-23, 144 yards. 

* Speaking of which, while CBS was showing graphics of Manning's historical records, viewers at home did not see the final play of the game. Which Nantz described as a "merciful" end, which is funny because with about 5 minutes to go the Panthers had the ball for what could have been a game winning drive - so I'm not sure what game Nantz was watching.

* Aside from the expected early game jitters and overexcitement, something did not quite look right with Newton. He appeared to be constantly out of breath and experiencing pain in his non-throwing shoulder. Did anyone else notice? the CBS crew certainly didn't.

* Petulant, petty, front-running Cam Newton re-emerged yesterday which is too bad. He could have handled the post-game press conference a little better, but if i'm a Panthers' fan I want my QB to be sullen and pissed off after a Super Bowl loss. At least you know he cares. And you know Josh Norman cares.

* John Elway's heavy bet to go all in after the Broncos' Super Bowl loss to the Seahawks and make a series of championship runs during the fast closing window of opportunity with Peyton Manning paid off. Sure, they'll be in salary cap hell for the next three years but at least they got the ring.

* Midway through the second half didn't it just feel like a regular Sunday night game? Or worse, a Thursday night game?

* Even without a fair catch, defenders have to give punt returners a bit of space to catch the ball which is why i don't understand why they didn't call a penalty on the Panther who touched Sanders right before he caught his big punt return.

* I must have read at least four long articles in the Times, ESPN, the Post, etc. on the specially grown and installed turf at Levi's Field. And yet all I heard during the game was how terrible the field and the footing was. How does that happen?

* Glad to see referee Clete Blakeman got the league memo on calling penalties on helmet to helmet hits no matter what you have to do. Denver's Malik Jackson hit helmet to helmet with Cam Newton. But since Newton was a runner he's not "defenseless" so that can't be called (i.e., the Ryan Shazier rule). Instead, he  got called for an unnecessary roughness "late hit." To be fair to Jackson, it was a bang bang play and Newton wasn't down when Jackson went to hit him and maybe not even when he did make contact. Still, the NFL doesn't want Nantz and Simms explaining a la the Steelers-Broncos game why helmet to helmet hits are still legal in today's NFL. We'll know when the NFL's neurologists and spotters are actually doing their job when they buzz down to take a look at Cam Newton after a hit to the head like he suffered. Until then, we'll all pretend the NFL is getting serious about head trauma.

* How reluctant was CBS to report that Philly Brown was out of the game with a concussion? Is it better to deliver news like that, or pretend that players like Julian Edelman don't have concussions and are continuing to play?

* is there any irony that Broncos owner Pat Bowlen is suffering from Alzheimer's?

A FIRST In School History

Prediction

Panthers 41

Broncos 14

TO

On Super Bowl Sunday and in the wake of his falling short in the HOF balloting, it's worth remembering what Terrell Owens did in Super Bowl XXXIX.

As Mike Florio notes,

At times, Owens was indeed disruptive, for various reasons. But did Owens really make his teams worse? He returned from a broken ankle to be arguably the best player on the field in Super Bowl XXXIX, and the Eagles lost that game to the Patriots not because of anything T.O. did but despite an effort that everyone who was paying attention recognized as heroic and memorable.

 

Only after the Eagles refused to acknowledge those contributions with a contract providing him greater compensation and protections did he decide to provoke a trade or release in 2005. Was it an ill-advised, selfish move? Yes, but it was compelled by a system that allows teams to rip up contracts when a player underperforms but prevents players from doing the same when they overdeliver.

 

A decade later, media and fans seem to better understand that, when players choose to act like owners, players shouldn't automatically be vilified the way Owens was.

First off, Owens was outstanding vs. the Patriots. He led the team in receptions (9) and yards (122). And he did it on a broken ankle.

But the behavior of Jeffrey Lurie and his management team may even be worse than what Florio blandly describes. There are rumors that TO asked to have his contract guaranteed before the game so that if he reinjured himself - playing as he was on a not fully healed broken ankle - he would be taken care of. Lurie et. al said no. TO played anyway, and played great. It was this refusal and the realization that TO's big numbered contract was actually not as lucrative nor as long as he thought  prompted him to try to renegotiate it after the Super Bowl.

I recall it being clear at the time that TO's contract was very team-friendly and a heap of abuse was dumped on TO for wanting to re-do a year after he signed it. Florio is right that fans are more savvy about player contracts than at that time and (slightly) more understanding of player efforts to renegotiate. Where TO lost the fans (and his teammates) was with the disruptive way he went about sabotaging the team on the field and in the locker room as a reprisal.

Rubio's Petard

There's a delicious irony in Marco Rubio getting pounded last night by Chris Christie over his "25 second memorization" critique of Rubios' super-scripted debate responses. The attack is a meta-critique of debate prep and process in the exact same way Rubio blasted Jeb Bush in a debate several months ago that criticized Bush not for the accusation he made but that his advisors told him to say it to score a political point. In both instances, the substance of the point isn't the issue but about how practiced and inauthentic the candidate really is. In the case of Rubio, it's a devastating line of attack since his biggest claim to fame during the campaign so far has been his supposed eloquence and ability to deliver a message - and not about the content of the message itself. That it was delivered by a governor against a senator is a bonus in that it reminds voters that Washington politicians (as opposed to state chief executives) talk a great deal but get very little gets done.

Props

Here are a number of interesting prop bets that I like for today's game

* Any total passing yards option for Manning that is under 200 yards total.

* Under 35.5 passes attempted by Manning.

* Over 1.5 interceptions

* Cam Newtown for MVP (-140)

* No missed PAT (-360)

* Under 34 yards for longest completion by Manning

* Broncos score in all 4 quarters (No -360)

Obviously I like the Panthers to win the game based on these picks.

Cool Fan Protest

I don't know the particulars of what the Liverpool fans are protesting with respect to new ticket prices or American ownership, but I'm very impressed that they were able to organize a sizeable number of fans to walkout during the 77th minute of the match. How cool would it be if American fans could or would do something with one of the professional sports teams.

A Question and an Impossibility

Here's an interesting question that no one from the NFL or Broncos wants to talk about. How much and in which direction would the line move if the Gary Kubiak announced that Brock Osweiler was going to start tomorrow's Super Bowl instead of Peyton Manning? Currently the line is -5.5 for the Panthers. My guess is that it would move in the Broncos favor---at least a half point and maybe even a full point to -4.5. 

This all was prompted by the prop bet i heard about that was the over/under of the number of players who threw passes in the big game. The line is 2.5 passers and the over is +175. Now maybe this is all about whether Emmanuel Sanders or Mike Tolbert toss a pass on some trick play. But I was thinking of whether Osweiler would come in for a struggling Manning.

Here's the thing. Manning isn't coming out of tomorrow's game, no matter how dreadful he is. I fully understand it. On the biggest stage and in what could be the last game of his first ballot Hall of Fame career, Kubiak is going to stick with Manning no matter what. Even if that "what" is a struggling offense with no first downs, and 3 INTs before halftime. Unfortunately - and let's face it - that scenario is a definite possibility given Manning's history in the playoffs and especially in the Super Bowl.

All of which makes me think that while I think the Panthers will win, they could win very big. There may come a time during the game where the Broncos and Manning are struggling but the game is still within reach. I don't expect to see Osweiler even if it makes sense. Kubiak will continue to throw Manning out there and for that I think the game could get out of reach shortly afterward.

Josh Norman should take away the deep ball and with Manning's weak arm strength these days, the Panthers' elite set of LBs seem uniquely suited to stopping his short and intermediate throws.

Again, writing this gives me no pleasure. But it is the reality as Manning did not have a good year and is at the very tail end of his career. The Broncos D has carried this team most of the season (though Osweiler was 5-2 as the starter) and especially in the playoffs. Indeed, Manning only threw for 17 completions and 176 yards vs. the Patriots in the AFC Championship.

But it's sad to realize that for as great Manning has been, him not playing and a second round pick out of ASU named Brock Osweiler may give the Broncos a better chance of winning the pro championship.

Media's GOP Double Standard Bigotry Problem

It's easy enough for the media to lampoon Donald Trump as narrow-minded and mean-spirited for wanting to enforce immigration laws and to suspend Muslim migration from the Middle East to the US. But there's finally an article that highlights that these views aren't held just by Trump among current presidential contenders. The big problem according to Max Fisher is the media's double standard when it comes to reporting on Islamaphobia by Trump vs. the rest of the GOP field.

The key points:

But what is really striking to me about Rubio's comments is the media's reaction, which has been fairly muted in contrast to how it covered Islamophobic comments from Donald Trump. That's not to say that the media is endorsing or ignoring Rubio here, but the pretty clear distinction in coverage shows how an establishment candidate like Rubio can navigate the media's unwritten rules and get away with participating in the tide of Islamophobia that has already become violent.

He goes on to note:

What Rubio has revealed here, intentionally or not, is how a major political candidate can slip at least seemingly Islamophobic comments past the media without generating the same level of scrutiny and adversarial coverage that Trump has drawn...
This double standard became particularly transparent in December, when Trump praised Russian President Vladimir Putin. The media, again, heaped open scorn on Trump — how dare he praise a murderous dictator and American adversary? And, indeed, it was deplorable...
But mainstream political figures had been praising Putin for years, often in the very same language, and it never drew the same media condemnation. But the media treated those comments, though substantially identical, as acceptable.

It's what happened when South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley took issue with Trump's strident immigration stances (unnamed) while at the same time she was refusing to let Syrian refugees settle in her state and joined with 26 other states trying to over turn the Obama administration's immigration actions.

It's easy for the media to call out the prejudices of the marginalized, and much harder for those actually in power. Of course, it's just two institutional establishments winking and nodding at each other at the expense of the downtrodden.

 

The Walmart Strategy

The key paragraph from this Dallas Uber driver revolt story:

The experience of the Dallas UberBlack drivers is telling. When Uber entered Dallas in 2012, many of the drivers were either independent hired-car operators or contractors for limousine companies who bought or leased their own cars...
The drivers formed a tactical alliance with the company to help it gain the city's approval, which local cab operators resisted.
But the relationship began to sour in 2014, when the company decreed that drivers with cars made before 2008 would no longer be able to participate in UberBlack...
By the time Uber handed down its UberX directive in September, the drivers had long since recognized that they were at the company's beck and call. Because of Uber's popularity, almost all their other sources of business had dried up. And Uber had earned the imprimatur of the City Council, which made the drivers politically expendable, too.

So the story goes use non-cab drivers to champion your illegal/non-regulatory entry into a market with policymakers. In turn, the start up's success eliminates all of the competition. When Uber's pricing power is near monopolistic, it starts in on the former champions now current drivers - who have no recourse since all the no alternative options have been driven from the market.

It's a similar refrain to Walmart's low-cost producers. They are enticed into agreements with Walmart by the allure of massive selling volume. Walmart insists on razor thin margins for whatever product is being provided. In order to provide the sheer amount of product, a company foregoes all other customers and focuses exclusively on its Walmart account. As the sole customer, Walmart then insists on even lower prices, which the vendor has to accede to since they don't have any other customers and have increased investments in ever larger capacities.

The Snake and CTE

The news isn't surprising but it must be haunting to learn that Ken Stabler had stage 3 CTE. Stabler's status highlights some key lessons about football and brain trauma. The more you play, the more likely and more severe the damage. No position is immune from the scourge - even QBs. And the fact that they're finding it in players from the days of yore - before the speed, size and hits of the game truly amped up in the 90s and 00s - should be terrifying for the health prospects for players in that more recent era.

And I also wonder what Stabler's liver looked like!

What?

Two surprises from this interview:

1. Former Buckeye coach Jim Tressel is president of Youngstown State University?

2. Former Eagle Kurt Coleman paralyzed someone on the football field?

182

Here's some news that is very hard if not impossible to find on the NFL website. The number of concussions in the 2015 season.

PFT has the number at 182 - or more than 10 per week in the 17 week/16 game season. It's a stunning 32% increase over last year's number! And as an indication of the opaqueness of the NFL stats as well as the whole process of diagnosing and counting concussions, it's not clear whether Case Keenum's Nov. 22 head injury was included in the count. 

In fact, the NFL's Dr. Ellenbogen attributed to the spike in concussions to "lower threshold for diagnosis." The Keenum case would seem to directly contradict that statement and suggest that that the NFL and its hired medical personnel are still in denial about the extent and severity of its head trauma crisis.

It also would be interesting to see the numbers for the playoffs. Off the top of my head, there were 2 concussions in the Steelers-Bengals game (Bernard and Brown). How many others? 

Also, in a weird way the concussion count distracts attention from the more serious and much more prevalent problem of sub-concussive blows to the head that are a primary cause of CTE. In that respect, 182 should be considered a floor and not a celebratory ceiling.

Who Works for You?

"Enforcement isn't about big government or small government. It's about whether government works and who it works for." - Elizabeth Warren.

A Queen is Crowned?

Good grief. Not content to merely declare Megyn Kelly one of the winners of Thursday night's GOP presidential debate, the Washington Post now calls her "the start of the show."

What happened to the journalistic principles of not making the reporter or news organization part of the story, much less the centerpiece? Or is this a way to demean the rest of the Republican field who couldn't outshine the white, blonde, bombshell who was asking them questions? The focus on Kelly also has the fortunate side effect of brushing off uncomfortable questions about the appropriateness of Fox News' press releases mocking Donald Trump or exploring legitimate questions as to whether Fox moderators ask harder questions (or at least more incendiary) of certain candidates.

Maybe Megyn Kelly should throw her hat in the ring. She's got the full support of the national press.

Ertz Extension

Since he came into the league three years ago, Eagles TE Zach Ertz seems to be more known for what he could be rather than what he is. So it is with the five year extension Howie Roseman signed him to this week that will make him one of the highest-paid TEs in the league.

Certainly, by most stats Ertz is in the top quarter of TEs. This past season he was 6th in catches, 7th in yards, and 7th in yards/game. But with 3 less catches, he would have dropped to 9th in that category and he only scored two TDs, ranking him 33rd! among his peers.

Ertz is a decent TE. But he is hardly an elite TE. Indeed, he's perhaps only the 3rd best TE in the division (behind Witten and Reed). The deal is fair - $20 million guaranteed! - and gives the Eagles some outs in the later years. But until he starts producing like a premier TE, let's not project what Ertz could do as the basis for measuring him, but what he has actually done.

Paging Dr. Paul

The killing of one of the protesters in the Oregon refuge occupier was captured by FBI video surveillance and has been released to the public to show that the shooting was justified. What's interesting is that the FBI says that the video was taken from an "airplane." What's not clear is if in this instance "airplane" means "drone," which the FBI has admitted to operating on occasion in the US. It's a question that needs to be resolved one way or another. And even if it is a plane, the surprising surveillance capabilities of the FBI air force should be made clear to the public. Indeed, during the riots in Baltimore last year FBI air surveillance was using thermal imaging and electronics that allowed them to see through walls and roofs.

AC and Fantasy Sports

Atlantic City is a disaster and especially so since Pennsylvania and Maryland legalized table games. And let's be honest, even before that AC was tolerable at best - and that's if you were careful enough not to stray more than a block from the Boardwalk casinos.

I sympathize with Chris Christie's failed efforts to revitalize the city. To me, the opportunity to provide sports book betting - a la Las Vegas - is the most feasible and sensible strategy to differentiate AC from its eastern gambling competitors and give it a shot at redemption. I also understand that federal law precludes New Jersey and AC from doing this - which deserves its own investigation as to why Las Vegas- and Las Vegas alone - gets this betting monopoly.

In any case, after all of these other failed strategies I'm prompted to wonder why Christie and city leaders don't pursue the fantasy sports sites to operate in the state, specifically Atlantic City. Fan Duel and DraftKings are being besieged by regulators in other states but they would seem to be a natural fit for AC. 

It's pseudo-betting (sponsored by the professional sports leagues no less), would provide a safe haven to the businesses, is a starting point to expand fantasy sports (League Draft Weekend Packages!), and is a foot in the door to possible expanded professional sports betting down the road. At the very least, it's a placeholder.

And really, at this point what has Atlantic City and New Jersey have to lose?

Winning?

Can a moderator "win" a debate? They can if her name is Megyn Kelly, whose awesomeness is so great that she Chris Cilliza identified her as one of last night's debate "winners" (does she even know she was a candidate?). 

Though in damning her in a faint praise kind of way, Cilliza says "She was pointed, tough and well versed on the issues.... That she performed so well with so many eyes on her speaks incredibly highly of her abilities."

Wow. A TV news anchor making millions of dollars per year, is the face of one of the premier news networks, and moderating (her second!) presidential debate was "well-versed on the issues" and performed well in front of a large TV audience. Sounds to me that she was just doing her job. But if Trump doesn't like her than she must be good.

Of course, the media's praise (defense?) of Megyn Kelly is probably the most predictable part of the debate. Nobody except for perhaps the Buffalo Bills circles the wagons to protect their own like the national mainstream media.

As Politico reports:

Kelly, showing she wasn't intimidated by Trump, was far and away praised for her tough questions and follow-ups.

 

"Megyn Kelly is throwing fastballs tonight," wrote New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman.

 

"This is a brilliant part of the debate. Megyn Kelly's accountability project," wrote radio host Erick Erickson.

 

"Just gonna say it: Megyn Kelly's a badass," Time Magazine's Dan Hirschhorn wrote.

Crazy Times 2

Donald J. Trump is crazy. But lost amidst his latest gambit (feud?) with Fox News and Megyn Kelly is the fact that no legitimate news organization would issue a press statement like Fox News did in mocking a presidential candidate (Republican or Democrat), and especially a front runner.  Try to imagine the NY Times or CBS News or 60 Minutes suggesting a president would replace his cabinet with Twitter followers.

Say what you want about the Trump-Kelly spat, but statements like that out of a supposed "news organization" really do call into question its objectivity, fairness, and balance.

This is likely all part of a Trump plan to "work the refs" prior to the debate. And it will likely work to an extent as their is a nugget of truth in what Trump is saying.

Immigration in Reverse?

That is the title of yesterday's Washington Post editorial (sans the question mark) about recent trends in illegal immigration. As with many WaPo editorials these days - particularly on education and illegal immigration - this one is borderline non-sensical and is chock full of big numbers that only serve to confuse the issue and gloss over the big problems the editorials purport are solved.

To wit,only WaPo editors could think that the current level of 10.9 million illegal immigrants is an indication that "in fact the border is more tightly patrolled than ever." If that is well guarded, I'd hate to see what a porous border looks like!

Indeed, as the editorial itself notes, "some 11.7 million Mexican-born immigrants, roughly half of them undocumented, are now in this country, down from 12.8 million in 2007 . Most of those who have left have done so of their own accord; comparatively few were deported." In short,the editorial admits that the declining level of illegal immigration isn't because of robust enforcement or vigorous border patrol but of the illegal immigrants' own volition.

The editorial then cites a recent Pew study and bandies about a bunch of large numbers that seem impressive upon first blush but when even moderately scrutinized are middling at best. "Iin the five years ending in 2014, more than 1 million Mexicans (including 100,000 children born in the United States with dual citizenship) returned from the United States to live in Mexico, while 870,000 Mexicans entered the United States, many or most of them illegally," declares the editorial.

Doing some quick math, the supposedly positive sign is hardly a sign at all. Net Mexican immigration has fallen by only 130,000. But that's over the past five years. On an annual basis, the great immigration victory touted by the Post is only 26,000 less illegal Mexicans each year (over the past five years). And as the Post notes but does not highlght, "many or most of them [Mexicans] [entered] illegally." Hardly the stuff of inspiration.

But I always love the WaPo editorials that are wrapped in compassionate liberalism for illegal immigrants but come with a dash of raw capitalism. So it is with the Post's concern that "the U.S. economy, like other Western economies, cannot function without low-wage, low-skill labor, which Mexico has supplied." 

What would a concern about illegal immigration be without a not so subtle nod to the need to exploit this "low-wage, low-skill labor" for the benefit of American companies and consumers.

Return of the Empire?

With populism ascendant in both parties, a plutocrat readies a run to fix that.

Deflategate vs. Spygate

Why is it that Deflategate continues to garner so much media attention. Experiments with footballs, scientific explanations of the Ideal Gas Law, the bitterness the Patriots' organization feels at the NFL's "betrayal," Tom Brady's legal fight. New England fans can complain all they want about broken PSI gauges, etc. But nowhere have a I seen any good explanation as to why the Pats' equipment manager made a bathroom pit stop with the balls just before the game or the weird texts Brady sent the equipment guys after the investigation started. 

And yet, the Spygate incident just gets a passing mention in all of these stories without further elaboration. Why did Roger Goodell destroy all the videotapes? What was on them? His reason for destroying them made no sense. Were some of the games on those tapes the Super Bowl games? It's a curious lack of curiousity about not only what the Patriots did but what and why Goodell and the league did what it did in terms of the investigation and evidence.

Here's an easy way to resolve all this. Convene a public Senate or House hearing and get the principles to testify under oath. Problem solved. Oh right, Congress can't "waste its time" looking into an $11 billion/year industry that is the most popular in the land.

Tolerance

How inconvenient for all the admirers of SC Gov. Nikki Haley's call for "tolerance" amid "angry" voices that South Carolina is one of the 26 states suing the Obama administration about its deportation pause. But hey, as long as Darling Nikki says she's tolerant pay no attention to what her state is actually doing otherwise.

TDS NY Times' Style

Somehow the NY Times manages a Donald Trump reference in an editorial about a Supreme Court decision to hear a case brougtht by 26 states against the President's executive authority over immigration enforcement. And the Times' assertion that "No one, besides Donald Trump, believes the nation has the resources, or the will, to deport them all" is not altogether accurate. It is might have been better to write, No one on our editorial board believes the nation has the resources, or the will, to deport them all." In the Times' view, illegal immigration has just gotten to be too much of a problem to solve or even attempt to solve.

Certainly, the case could be made that the current president doesn't believe the Times' assertion as he has overseen the deportation of 400,000 illegal immigrants per year by then end of his first term according to the Washington Post.

Two for the Niners

Rich Hoffman and my brother are of the same mind that Chip Kelly is a good football coach and a very smart man who learns from his experiences and mistakes. Count me in that column too.

Vindication for #5

Different team, same opponent and the same slow, methodical clock-ignoring drive down the field.

The final, less than urgent scoring drive of Andy Reid's Chiefs (down by two scores) in Saturday's playoff game immediately brought to mind the Eagles last scoring drive in the Super Bowl vs. the same Bill Belichick coached Patriots.

Donovan McNabb got quite a bit of grief in that now infamous Super Bowl situation. In fact, that scoring drive generated quite the controversy with Terrell Owens alleging that McNabb threw up in the huddle and couldn't catch his breath (the implication being that he was out of shape) and the suggestion that McNabb was the reason the Eagles offense wasn't moving with more speed.

The Chiefs' drive - with Andy Reid calling the plays - would appear to absolve McNabb of most if not all of the blame for the molasses like offensive tempo in the waning minutes of the Super Bowl. Andy Reid was the problem, not McNabb.

More TDS

Today's example of the media's Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), is Dana Milbank's Sunday Post column. He calls Gov. Nikki Haley's State of the Union response brave and "noble" and laments that the rest of the GOP field has enabled him and his severe proposals.

Not sure that calling on Americans to avoid angry voices is that brave. Nor is Haley's call for tolerance that "noble" when she is refuses to settle Syrian refugees in her state. But hey, if she denounces Trump, subtly without mentioning his name, then all is forgiven, actual government-sponsored intolerance be damned.

2 Oldies But Goodies

Legendary Philly sportswriter Bill Lyon pens a mash note to basketball's Mecca, the Palestra.

70/30

So Jeff Lurie is trying to recreate the Andy Reid magic by hiring one of his proteges. Not much to say. Pederson appears to have been the coach targeted by the Eagles all along (sorry for the charade of courtesy interviews Pat and Duce). Pederson is definitely not the "sexy" pick like Gase - which is not necessarily a bad thing. But here's hoping we won't be seeing 70/30 pass/run ratios again at the Linc. Or empty backfield 3rd and 1s. Or timeouts coming out of commercial breaks. Or phlegmatic press conferences. 

A Fine NFL

My initial reaction to the news about the fines handed out for last Saturday's Stealers-Bengals game (sic) was that the fine, at least for Porter, is a tacit admission by the league that its refs screwed up by either not calling a penalty on Porter for being on the field at the time or for not providing an offsetting penalty for the flag they threw on Jones (that Porter instigated).

But now comes word that Pacman Jones is being fined $29,000 fine for unsportsmanlike conduct as a result of the contact he made with a ref. In that context, it's hard to see what the league's rationale was for such a heavy fine for Jones as compared to Porter, or that the Porter fine is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. To add insult to injury, Pacman's penalty was game-deciding call and Porter and the Steelers are happy to pay $10,000 for the privilege of advancing to the next playoff round.

Pacman's actions were adjudicated on the field and to the extent he made "contact" with a ref it was because Porter instigated it and for which he wasn't penalized at the time. But Porter's field presence only merits $10k and sideline hair pulling by a coach also only gets $10k. That to me is the egregious foul - the hair pulling - that should have been a lot more and certainly more relative to what Jones got hit for.

Just another reminder that the league office is more interested in protecting its officials than it is about its players.

Trump Derangement Syndrome

Obama Derangement Syndrome is a well-known malady afflicting many in the GOP, and especially its conservative Tea Party wing. Whatever Obama does can never be viewed in a positive light, no matter how ill-considered or irrational the result.

It appears that the media has a similar Trump Derangement Syndrome where whatever comes out of the bombastic candidate's mouth is reflexively mocked no matter the underlying substance of the issue or point. And it's been funny to see the media tie itself up in knots to razz the Republican front runner while taking pains to excuse like-minded actions by actual high-ranking government officials.

So it is with the Washington Post's laudatory editorial praising SC Gov. Nikki Haley's Republican response to the President's State of the Union address as a counterweight to Trump's "noxious brand of nativism." 

With little embarrassment and no sense of irony, the editorial notes Haley's well-documented history in signing Arizona-style "papers, please" immigration laws, joined a lawsuit to stop the administration from pausing deportations, and opposed Syrian refugees from settling in South Carolina. 

But in the Post's eyes, so long as she makes a speech against Trump's immigration stance she's a paragon of "tolerance."

Again, it's comical for the Post to denounce Trump's temporary ban on Muslims form entering the country while at the very same time excusing Haley's attempts to prevent Syrians refugees from entering her state. The only difference being Trump isn't an elected official (yet) and so his call plan is only a proposal, while Haley is a state governor and is actually enforcing a ban on immigrants/refugees that runs directly and so obviously counter to her claim of country/state that welcomes legal migrants. But hey, as long as she is taking aim at Trump, all is forgiven in the eye of the Post editorial board.

RIP L. Phillips

A very sad end for a troubled player.

Stoogery

A delicious Deadspin takedown of Peter King's ludicrous open letter to NFL players in the wake of Saturday night's Stealers-Bengals (sic) game. Both pieces highlight the Stockholm Syndrome nature of NFL reporting as well as the access (crony?) journalism that is so much a part of covering professional sports - especially football.

Now They Tell Us?

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the NFL's suspension and fine of Vontaze Burfict for his hit on Antonio Brown in Saturday's Steelers-Bengals game is the odd news released at the same time that Burfict was also being fined $50,000 for a hit on Ravens' TE Maxx Williams in week 17.

A fine being issued two weeks after the fact for an on-field violation is unusual itself, but doubly so given that it comes amid the announcement of a 3 game suspension for a hit in a subsequent game.Iindeed, the speed with which the NFL issued its discipline and fine after the playoff game is in sharp contrast to the laggardly way they handled the punishment for the end of regular season contest.

Burfict's double secret probation after the Williams hit is sure to re-inflame Cincinatti ' fans who think the league and its refs have it out for the Bengals.

Fine or Delusional?

Steelers' beat writer is reporting that Big Ben and Brown are "fine" and both are expected to play on Sunday.

Either the NFL concussion protocol is meaningless or maybe Pacman Jones was right that Brown was faking it on Saturday. It's hard to believe that 36 hours after being knocked unconscious that he is ready to practice this week.

Which Team Out of Control

Somehow I missed Steelers' assistant coach Mike Munchak yanking Bengals' Reggie Nelson's hair on the sidelines during yesterday's chippy playoff game. It gives lie to the now dominant story line that it was the Bengals who were "out of control."

Yes, Munchak was called for a penalty. But how was he not ejected from the game? And with the Munchak penalty already on the books, why/how were the refs not more attuned to and vigilant about other Steelers coaches committing similar fouls. You know, like Joey Porter illegally coming onto the field and into the Bengals defensive huddle to "cuss out" the Bengals players?

It's funny to read how the same referee crew that worked the last Steelers-Bengals regular season game was somehow extra ready not to let the rematch playoff game get out of control (they stood at the 50 during warmups! woo hoo), let the game get out of control. If this is the NFL's idea of strict enforcement of the rules and player - and coach - conduct then they failed miserably.

The Refs Did It

The media narrative out of last night's Steelers-Bengals game is that the Bengals lost their cool and blew the game because they're undisciplined. As exhibit A, these journalists note the hit Vontaze Burfict laid on Antonio Brown and then the subsequent personal foul that Adam Jones was called for for jawing with Steelers LB Coach Joey Porter. 

Let's stipulate at the outset that Burfict's hit on Brown was vicious. It was appropriately called a penalty and he is expected to be fined and suspended to start next season. Interestingly, Deion Sanders on the NFL Network last night was vehemently defending Burfict's hit and contending that Burfict actually shied a away from contact and only caught Brown with his shoulder pad (yes, it was a shoulder pad to the head but...).

Was the hit made worse by the fact that Brown appeared to be knocked unconscious? Perhaps. Or that it was delivered to a NFL star? Maybe.

The decisive penalty, however, was the 15 yards assessed Jones while Brown was being attended to. Why in the world was a Steelers defensive coach on the field (the Steelers were on offense) and why was he allowed to be insert himself into the Bengals defensive huddle (i.e., no where near Antonio Brown, the injured player he should have been attending to and, indeed, the only reason assistant coaches are allowed on the field).

Interestingly, it is still unclear a day later as to what exactly Jones did to earn the penalty. Abusive language toward Porter? Did he make contact with an official? It's still a mystery and an inexplicable one since the 15 yards assessed turned a dicey field goal attempt from the edge of the kicker's range - in rain to boot- into a chip shot 3 pointer. For what it's worth, the Bengals defensive players contend that Porter was "cussing" them, so it is entirely possible that Porter instigated the situation. It's also unclear as to why the officials didn't call an offsetting Porter for his words (if any, again neither the refs nor league have commented) or penalizing him for coming onto the field.

Finally, amid all the coverage about the game and late game penalties last night - including multiple concerns about Brown's health - is the complete omission of any mention or discussion about the health of Giovanni Bernard who was knocked out of the game by Ryan Shazier on an equally vicious helmet to helmet hit. To the media, it's like Bernard doesn't exist.

Incredibly, no penalty was called and the dynamic dunces of Jim Nance and Phil Simms - aided and abetted by former ref Mike Carey - focused solely on whether Bernard was a "defenseless receiver" or was a "runner" when Shazier lowered his head and launched himself and the crown of his helmet into Bernard's face.

If the NFL rules and concussion prevention mandates mean anything, it is inexplicable how Shazier's hit wasn't a penalty in some way: unnecessary roughness? Spearing? To add insult to injury, Bernard fumbled on the hit as he was concussed and possession of the ball was awarded to the Steelers.

Make no mistake, the lack of any call enraged the Bengals and the home team fans, deservedly so. It's telling that no one is talking about a fine or suspension for Shazier. But you simply can't talk or consider the Burfict hit without acknowledging the connection with the Shazier hit.

in coaches are only alloe

Gang of 500

You know you are the media elite and a charter member of Mike Allen's "Gang of 500" when you can dash off a line like the one in his column today about whether Ted Cruz meets constitutional qualifications to be president with the assertion, in effect, of "My buddy Neal Katyal says it's ok, so it's toally cool."

Of course, this inside-the-beltway groupthink is nothing new. Many of the same journalists somehow thougth a non-binding Senate resolution was the defining word on John McCain's birth questions.

For the record, the Congressional Research Service suggests that Cruz "most likely" meets the requirements, but the decision is clearly not a slam dunk and potetnially still up for consideration.

Jeff Lurie's Management Style

We all know that the pashas that own NFL teams fancy themselves as brilliant businessmen and organizational management experts. After all, how did they get rich enough to buy a NFL team in the first place. (Let's ignore for now the reality that buying a team is guaranteed way to make millions - literally millions - of dollars that requires absolutely no business acumen (I'm looking at you Jim Irsay).

So it is too with Eagles owner Jeff Lurie who, notwithstanding producing a few movies, more inherited his fortune than making it.

So it was funny to see Lurie's press conference trying to explain why he fired Chip Kelly and what he was looking for in a new head coach (someone with an "open heart" and is liked by Howie Roseman, apparently).

Lurie explained that Kelly was being judged on the totality of his three years as head coach. Left unexplained in Lurie's monologue was why after two years of watching Chip Kelly up close and personal he was so impressed by the Chipper that he promoted him to Head Coach AND GM. And yet, less than a year later from that promotion, Lurie sacked him. 

Contrary to the widely held belief, this is not how things are done in business and certainly not in high function organizations. So Lurie never counseled Chip over the course of the year about his aloofness? Never suggested he work on his interpersonal skills? You simply don't promote a high-ranking executive and then summarily fire him. I'm not sure Lurie is self-aware enough to understand how poorly this reflects on him and not Chipper. If he had issues with Kelly, and with two years left on his contract, why not require him to take some proactive steps (sensitivity training?) to address his deficiencies rather than severing him completely?

Coincidentally, Harvard Business Review has a new article out about "Letting Good People Go When It's Time." It's something Jeff Lurie should look at.

Piazza's Telling Omission

It seems to be a conspicuous absence that Tom Boswell's column praising "clean" Ken Griffey, Jr's election to the Baseball Hall of Fame makes absolutely no mention of the other player elected along with Griffey, Mike Piazza.

Piazza has long been suspected but never been proven of taking PEDs. I guess we know what Boswell thinks of the rumors since he appears to have gone out of his way to exclude any mention of Piazza in the piece.

Little Outrage

Little to no outrage about the NYPD spying on mosques, or, incredible designating them terrorism enterprises. (which police and city leaders still don't see anything wrong with). Is that because Donald Trump didn't first propose it?

Deja Vu?

David Murphy writes a great column (notwithstanding his attempt to popularize a surely pending trademark for "OPDJ" or Offensive Playcaller Du Jour) by the sheer fact of directing readers to this awesome time capsule story by Jason La Canfora about the last Eagles' head coaching job search.

Murphy calls the look back in time tragedy plus time not equaling humor.

I call it horrifying, especially because of all the bizarre circumstances and names - Doug Marrone?! - that are popping up again like a bad Groundhog Day.

What's the common thread? Howie Roseman, of course.

I've highlighted bits from La Canfora's 2013 account, and tell me if most (all?) of this doesn't sound eerily familiar. 

The last two seasons, culminating with Roseman's rise to power in Philadelphia, have been marred with horror signings like Nnamdi Asomugha, the firing of coordinators and assistants in-season, some pretty obvious situations where the personnel didn't fit the scheme, the demise of Reid. Jason Babin being waived in-season a year after challenging the single-season sack record pretty much sums up the Roseman Era. Some strange front office firings mixed in there too.

Wait, are we sure it was Kelly's idea to trade McCoy and Foles for Alonso and Bradford - and to sign Demarco Murray?

 And, no longer are there out-sized characters around, like Reid and Banner, to take all the bullets when things fail. It's all on Roseman now. No more whispers about, oh, that wasn't Howie's guy, that wasn't Howie's signing, he never wanted him here in the first place.

You could rewrite that sentence to make it current with "And, no longer are there out-sized characters around, like Kelly, to take all the bullets when things fail."

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone told me one esteemed coach or another advised one of the Eagles' top candidates not to take the job precisely because of Roseman's presence there. Roseman isn't the general manager they should tie their wagon to. It's clear Chip Kelly wasn't leaving Oregon for anywhere unless he had a large measure of control over the organization, and owner Jeffrey Lurie has already entrusted that to Roseman. There has been trepidation by some candidates to go all-in given the questions about this existing power structure.

The last Eagles search lasted more than 3 weeks. I'll give Lurie and Roseman a break because the regular season just ended four days ago. But technically, they've been looking for a coach since they fired Kelly a week and a half ago. Time does fly.

The rumblings about Roseman lacking nuance and foresight, about him turning people off with how drunk with power he's become, only grow louder as his coaching search grows stranger.

So when Kelly isn't drunk with power, Roseman is?

All of this adds up to a strange sense of deja vu. We'll see what the coaching interviews bring and who the Eagles settle on. But perhaps the bigger more important question is who the Eagles will hire as a GM/Player Personnel Director.

Trump, Cruz, McCain and Birthplace

The media just loves to hype "controversies" about "outlandish" Trump statements, even if the comments contain more than a nugget of truth.

So it is now with Donald Trump's questions about whether Ted Cruz meets the constitutional requirements for a natural born citizen to be president.

Of course, this is catnip to journalists, especially with Trump's previous "birther" claims about President Obama's birth certificate.

Unfortunately- and this is a recurring theme with the media coverage of Trump - the effort to portray him and his statements as outlandish overlooks the legitimate issues it raises.

Take, for instance, this Robert Costa article in today's Washington Post. All the elements are there: Trump's claim, the Obama birther issue, and a quick dismissal of the point. There's a quick mention former GOP presidential candidate John McCain being in a similar situation since he was born in the Panama Canal zone.

Reading this article, you would never know that there was a significant debate about whether John McCain met the same Cruz-related constitutional requirement.

Articles in the Washington Post and New York Times (here, here and here) at the time make it clear that the issue, at least for McCain, was not so clear cut. So, in short, if the WaPo and the NYTimes explore in issue it is worthy of debate and inspection. If Donald Trump says it should be dismissed or mocked out of hand.

Rooney Candidate

So is Teryl Austin the Eagles' Rooney Rule candidate? Or are we not supposed to speculate or talk about this league mandate until after the search is over?