(Bonus points for whoever knows what pop-culture phenomenon I'm referencing with the choo-choo-choose remark.)

Are you ready, kids?  It's that time again.  It's time for a sing-along with your good pal, Uncle Manrub!

Why is that strong safety in the doghouse? (arf! arf!)

The one banking thirty-five mil

Why is that strong safety in the doghouse? (arf! arf!)

Dan Snyder surely isn't thrilled.

That little ditty sums up Adam Archuleta's current status with the Washington Redskins.  It has been several weeks since Archuleta, a safety known primarily for his hard-hitting style, has played a down on defense.  Joe Gibbs, Dan Snyder and Adam Archuleta were certainly dreaming of a great future when Archuleta inked a 7-year, $35 million contract this past offseason, the richest ever for a safety.  Synder and Gibbs believed that they had a player capable of greatly improving their secondary, and Archuleta believed he was joining a team that could possibly win the Super Bowl.  Rosy dreams quickly deteriorated into terrible nightmares, however, and Archuleta was benched with little or no public explanation.

Adam Archuleta himself hasn't had an explanation as to why he was benched, and he is understandably a little irked about the situation.  Says Archuleta, "Do I deserve an explanation?  I don't know if an explanation matters anymore because what's done is done. I pretty much know what's going on. I pretty much know what it all stems from."  Archuleta declined to elaborate on that specific comment, but it's obvious that, in his opinion, there is a clear-cut reason for his lack of playing time.   

Although nobody from the Redskins has commented regarding Archuleta's benching, it is my belief that there is a reason behind the action.  Adam Archuleta was likely the scapegoat for the defensive struggles of the Redskins this season.  The Redskins rank 30th in the league in total defense this season, 29th against the pass.  The defense is dead last in takeaways, with a measly 12 turnovers forced all season.  To top it off, Washington has allowed more passes of over 20 yards than any other team in the NFL this season.  Compared to last season, when Washington ranked 9th in total defense and forced 28 turnovers, this season has been a colossal failure.  While the blame should be shared among all members of the defense, it's clear that the Redskins coaching staff has placed much of the blame on Archuleta.

Is it really Archuleta's fault that the Redskins are in this mess?

Is it possibly somebody else's fault?

In my humble opinion, Adam Archuleta is not at fault for his benching.  When the Redskins signed him this past offseason, they should have known what they were getting.  Adam Archuleta is a hard-hitting run stopper with serious deficiencies in pass coverage.  In five previous seasons, the man had managed a total of three interceptions, a number that doesn't exactly conjure up thoughts of excellent pass defense.  Archuleta's best chance of stopping a pass play may be on the safety blitz, for he entered the season with 15 career sacks.  It's silly to expect a player to excel in an area in which they had always struggled, especially when you've just given that player $35 million.  It's beyond my comprehension to even begin to understand why the Redskins were disappointed in his cover skills, especially since he hadn't shown alot of cover skills in the past.  Adam Archuleta failed to reach the expectations of the Washington Redskins, but certainly hasn't failed to achieve any expectations dictated by common sense.

Maybe this will be the straw that finally breaks that camel's back that is Dan Snyder's free-spending ways.  In the past, Snyder has wasted wads of money on players such as Deion Sanders, Chad Morton, John Hall, David Patten, and Todd Collins (how he merits anything above the minimum is beyond me).  With Archuleta's certain release and the salary cap hit that comes with it, the Redskins may be forced to use a more conservative approach in the free agent market.  Instead of signing big names, the Redskins should focus on signing talented players that fit their offensive and defensive schemes.  By doing that, they can avoid the embarassing fallout of situations like the Adam Archuleta situation in the future.

On Tuesday, the NFL announced the eighty-four men that have been selected to represent their conference in the Pro Bowl game in February.  Being selected as one of the best players in the best football league in the world is truly an honor, and I congratulate those chosen by the league's players, coaches and fans.  One fact about this year's Pro Bowl roster that has many New England fans a little upset is that only one Patriot, defensive lineman Richard Seymour, was chosen for the squad.  (Oddly, Seymour was chosen as a defensive tackle, even though he predominantly plays end.)  I agree with many Patriots fans that two deserving players, namely defensive end Ty Warren and cornerback Asante Samuel, were snubbed from the Pro Bowl.  A compelling case can be made for the inclusion of both players on the roster: 

Asante Samuel

By any statistical measure, Asante Samuel is having a career year at cornerback.  Through 13 games this season, Asante has amassed a career-high 55 solo tackles and has been credited with 11 passes defensed.  The most impressive stat that Samuel has posted this season is his eight interceptions, which currently has him tied with Denver's Champ Bailey for the league lead.

Ty Warren

Like Samuel, Warren is also enjoying a career-best season for the Patriots.  Alternately listed as a defensive end and a defensive tackle (again, this despite primarily playing end), Warren has amassed 48 solo tackles this season along with 6.5 sacks.  While the sacks total is not overwhelming, his 48 tackles are tied for fifth among all NFL defensive linemen.  Most importantly, Warren has come up with several huge tackles this season when the Patriots badly needed a defensive stop.

*************************************

You may have noticed that I did not mention the most prominent Patriot of them all, Bridget Moynahan's ex-boyfriend Tom Brady.  While locally there has been a lot of belly-aching regarding Brady's exclusion from the Pro Bowl, I simply don't see a reason for him to be included on this year's roster.  The Pro Bowl isn't a lifetime achievement game, it is intended to honor the top individual performers of a particular season.  It is my opinion that Brady simply isn't among the top quarterbacks this season.

I believe there is a rather simple explanation for the exclusion of certain Patriots players from the Pro Bowl roster.  I don't believe that the snubs are some sort of anti-Patriots statement, nor do I believe that woting procedure is flawed.  The reason that Ty Warren and Asante Samuel didn't make the Pro Bowl roster has more to do with the culture surrounding the New England Patriots.

It would be a gross understatement to say that the Patriots emphasize a team-first approach.  The New England Patriots are a team-first, team-last, and team-only franchise.  Stars are not made in New England.  Players rarely give non-scripted answers to interviewers' questions.  Injured players don't talk to the media at all.  Even assistant coaches are restrained from granting interview requests.  The one and only face of the franchise is Bill Belichick.  With such in-depth interview answers as "He's coming along" and "The injury report comes out on Wednesday", Belichick isn't exactly a media darling. 

The effects of the secretice, team-first approach are evident  whenver one watches the old boob tube (slang for TV for the young'ns).  You can't turn on the TV without seeing Peyton Manning hawking DirectTV or MasterCard.  Beisdes Tom Brady's Visa commercials with the offensive line last year, I can't think of one other Patriots player in a for-profit commercial.  New England players are not in demand for commercials because they simply aren't marketable nationally.  Joe Couch Potato in Denver isn't going to be urged to apply for a MasterCard by seeing Tedy Bruschi's smiling mug on TV.

The sports media also gets caught up in the aura of Belichick.  When the Patriots won Super Bowl 36 with a cast of no-names, nobodys and rejects, it became evident that the Patriots succeeded largely due to the schemes developed by Belichick's staff.  It was assumed that the Patriots won in spite of players like Matt Stevens and Anthony Pleasent, and not because of them.  It was largely ignored in the media that the players on the Patriots had to execute and make plays.  The Super Bowl win was primarily credited to Bill Belichick, and the Belichick mystique was born. 

With the Belichick mystique comes the unfair assumption that any player can succeed in the New England system.  That belief is completely false.  For every David Patten, Bobby Hamilton and Mike Vrabel that has succeeded in New England there has been a Donald Hayes, Steve Martin and Monty Beisel that has been a complete flop.  Crediting the player's success solely to the Patriots' offensive and defensive schemes is erroneous, for the players still must execute and make plays.  This assumption enters the minds of the players, fans and coaches, all of whom are more focused Bill Belichick than any individual player.

Is there a way to fix the dilemma of underappreciated New England players?  In a word, no.  The Patriots have won three of the last five Super Bowls, and any changes to the team's philosophy at this point would be ludicrous.  As a fan, I wouldn't want to sacrifice success for the sake of having a few more stars.  While it's an unfortunate situation for the New England players, many of whom miss out on contract bonuses for Pro Bowl recognition, I'm sure it's a circumstance that many will gladly live with for as long as the team continues to win.

Jim E. Mora and Jim L. Mora are proof positive that the apple doens't fall far from the tree.  The two coaches, whom I will refer to as Big Jim and Young Jim (which sounds like the name of the next Chinese speed skating champion), respectively, simply don't know when to keep their mouths shut.  Their bizarre quotes, as well as their mediocre coaching track record, solidify their place as the dumbest father-son coaching duo in the history of recorded time.  The following is a summary of their idiocy:

Big Jim (Unflattering image courtesy cnnsi.com)

* Famously stated, "We couldn't do diddly-poo offensively.  We couldn't make a first down.  We didn't run the ball.  We didn't try to run the ball.  We couldn't complete a pass.  We sucked."  This memorable quote from a 1996 postgame press conference has been overshadowed in recent years by another famous meltdown, but it will live in sports infamy forever.  It also gave bloggers a way to get around that stupid censorship that you have to turn off if you ever want to see curse words.

* As I just mentioned, there was another, perhaps greater, postgame meltdown.  Following a loss in 2001, Big Jim was so incensed that he blurted out, "We threw that game.  We gave that game away.  We gave them the friggin' game.  In my opinion, that sucked."  One quickly notices Mora has a proclivity towards ending his sentences in the work "sucked".  If that wasn't enough, after the very same game, responding to a reporter's questions about his team's playoff chances, Big Jim famously blurted out, "Playoffs!  You talk about PLAYOFFS?!!?  Playoffs, with this team?  We'll be lucky if we win a game!"  Way to inspire the troops, coach

* A month or so back, the Big Jim hit parade continued with his comments regarding Falcons quarterback Mike Vick, whom Young Jim coaches.  During a segment on a radio show, Big Jim referred to Vick as a "coach killer" and expressed worry that Vick's play may cost his son a job.  Given the family tie-in, the comments about Vick were completely out of line.

* All this idiocy, and a (admittedly respectable) 125-106 career regular season record, with a pathetic 0-6 postseason mark.

Young Jim (Equally unflattering image courtesy nfl.com)

* During the final 2005 regular-season game, Young Jim was spotted using a cell phone on the sidelines.  Mora claims that he was attempting to contact the NFL to determine playoff scenarios should the game end in a tie.  Following that same game, Mora was asked in a postgame interview about a coaching decision during the game.  Mora answered the question, and then slammed down the microphone and ended the interview.  Perhaps if Mora was paying more attention to the game, and less attention to the hottie on line one, he wouldn't have even made the questionable decision.

* Also in 2005, Young Jim was asked about his policy of not allowing Falcon lineman to speak with reporters in postgame interviews.  Mora responded that the Falcons used to allow lineman to speak out in public, but this practice never led to a Super Bowl win.  Mora specifically mentioned a few linemen, namely Mike Kenn and Jeff Van Note.  Many Atlanta fans saw this as an insult to two legendary former Falcons.  I doubt talking to the media had anything to do with not winning a Super Bowl

* Just today Young Jim has had to do damage control on another incidence of stupidity.  When asked in an interview with a Seattle radio station about ever taking the University of Washington job, Mora replied, "If that job's open you'll find me at the friggin' head of the line with my resume in my hand ready to take that job."  Mora follwed up by saying that he would accept the job whether he was availible or not, even going as far as to say "I don't care if I'm in the middle of a playoff run, I'm packing my stuff and coming back to Seattle."  Mora has claimed that these comments were jokes, but most jokes don't go into that much detail.  I'm not sensing a lot of loyalty there.

* Due to a small sample size, it's not fair to judge Mora's record as it stands right now besides stating it's "less than stellar".

As you can see, the Moras are clearly Grade A Idiots.  They both have a very hard time understanding the appropriate time to make certain comments (note to Mora's: say controvesial things privately).  On top of the comments, the unadvisable actions of the younger Mora are the icing on this dunce cake.  I find it amazing that both of these men are still considered by many to be positive forces in the NFL. 

You can read Part One in the second half of yesterday's post

I'm a man of my word.  Even though approximately zero people read The Manrub Plan for a college football playoff, I'm still following through with an analysis of why my plan would be beneficial to all parties involved. 

Before I present my analysis, I would like to present a few crucial modification to one of the elements I presented yesterday.  In yesterday's post, I had stated that the six BCS conference champions would be guaranteed home games.  I originally included that clause to appease the BCS member conferences by increasing the probability that thier champions would advance to the quarterfinals.  Upon further examination, and using the NCAA Basketball tournament as a model, I have determined that the top 8 qualifying teams in the BCS rankings will receive home games, regardless of whether or not the team won its conference championship.  Holy Cross doesn't receive a favorable seed when it wins the Patriot League, nor should a football champion if it is not deserving.

Another change I would like to make concerns the number of games in the season.  Currently, the NCAA allows for 12 regular-season games, plus a conference championship in larger (12-plus team) conferences.  I propose trimming the regular season back to eleven games, and affording every conference, regardless of size, the opportunity to have a championship game.  In smaller conferences such as the Big East, the first and second place team could simply play each other for the championship.

I have one more change.  Any undefeated team is automatically in the tournament, no questions asked.  If Middle Tennesee State has a powerhouse one year, they should not be penalized for playing in the Sun Belt Conference.

Several groups would benefit from the Manrub Plan (which does need a better name).  For your reading pleasure, here they are, with a brief analysis of why these groups would benefit:

BCS Member Conferences: The BCS system is currently a major cash cow for the ACC, Big East, Big XII, Big 10, Pac 10 and SEC Conferences.  Under this system, there would be opportunities for increased BCS payouts, as more teams are involved in the tournament.  Also, the additional rule of allowing a championship game in all conferences would be a cash windfall for the Big East, Big 10 and Pac 10.

Non-BCS Conferences: It's rare that a non-BCS school gets into a BCS bowl game.  The non-BCS conferences would go from having no guaranteed BCS tie-in to at least two per season.  The idea of two of these smaller conferences getting a slice of the BCS pie annually has to be appealing to the conferences.

The BCS Mathemageniuses: The math wizards that devised the BCS haven't had a happy holiday season since the advent of the ranking system.  My proposal would give the BCS more of an RPI feel.  While, unlike the RPI, the BCS would be the sole factor determining at-large berths, the role of the BCS would be changed to determining who the most tournament-worthy teams are, rather than outright choosing the best two.  Additionally, the system that many people have worked on perfecting for years would be salvaged.

BCS Bowls: The two games out of the four major BCS games (Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta) that happen to land the semifinal games in a particular year just got a whole lot more important.  The added importance of those two games should boost revenues and television ratings, while the two games hosting the losing quarterfinal teams in alternate years wouldn't see a big drop-off in interest from where they are at currently, for the four BCS bowls are currently meaningless in the national title picture.

The New Tier 2 BCS Bowls: The four bowls that are invited to become Tier 2 BCS games could potentially receive the largest benefit of any stakeholder involved.  Imagine if the top-ranked team lost their opening game and was sent to play in the Holiday Bowl.  The attention and revenues from hosting a popular team such as Ohio State could do wonders for these games

Lesser Bowls: Okay, the lesser bowls don't really benefit from my plan.  Generally speaking, only fans of participating schools and football junkies pay attention to games such as the Music City Bowl and the Las Vegas Bowl anyway, and the same people would still have an interest in these games.

Television Networks: A sixteen team playoff?  Additional meaningful games?  Does this need explanation?

Joe Student Athlete: The more kids that get a chance to play for a national championship, the better the system.  Also, I don't see where a potential for sixteen total games (which would be the total for teams that make the championship) is really that much of a detriment to the student-athletes.  Division 1-AA teams that make the championship game already play fifteen games, and nobody seems to be complaining about that.  I doubt the sixteenth game will be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Joe Six Pack: The fans are the biggest winners in this scenario.  The bowl games are preserved, and we have a tournament to crown a true national champion.  What's better than that?

Given this scenario, a Division 1-A College Football playoff is feasible and beneficial to many parties.  While you wait for the bowls to start, chew on these potential opening-round matchups that you could be watching this weekend (note: maximium 2 at-large teams per conference, sorry Arkansas)...

• (16) Brigham Young at (1) Ohio State
• (15) Rutgers at (2) Florida
• (14) Virginia Tech at (3) Michigan
• (13) Wake Forest at (4) LSU
• (12) West Virginia at (5) USC
• (11) Notre Dame at (6) Louisville
• (10) Oklahoma at (7) Wisconsin
• (9) Auburn at (8) Boise State

Note: This entry is a bit long-winded.  I recommend getting a snack to hold you over until you are finished reading.  If you'd like, you can skip the beginning section and move on to my discussion of college football.

It's true.  It's damn true.

I'm back on the blogging bandwagon.  I took a 5-plus month hiatus that stretched from late June until now.  My last post seems like it was decades ago.  As my two or three loyal readers may remember, I often wrote about timely subjects with a light-hearted, fun-loving approach.  Usually I updated my blog a couple of times a week.  Then, one day, I was gone, seemingly vanishing into thin air.  Why was I gone?  Here are three choices, try and guess which one is correct:

A. I was killed in an accident involving dynamite, Everclear, and Paris Hilton's little-worn panties, and my ghost is actually writing right now.

B. I was working as Ron Jeremy's body double, appearing on camera in Dirty Debutantes 113 and even accepting a lifetime achievement award at the AVN awards.

C. I was just a little bit burned out, and besides, it was summer.

Thankfully, the correct choice isn't option A, nor is it, regretfully, option B.  Yup, that's right, I was just being a little wuss that was too lazy to update his blog.  I spent my free time thinking about my future, which led me to come up with three observations about my life that shall become my guiding principles for living.

1. A career in the banking/finance industry SUCKS.  My next job will not be for a finance company.  There's simply no way.  People are either pissed at you because they owe your company money, or they're pissed at you because they didn't meet your company's standards to borrow money.  NOBODY likes the company that provides their loans.

2. It's time to lose the Ron Jeremy physique.  I'm reaching my mid-20s.  It's time to get myself in shape.  If I don't, I'll be deader than the Royals 2007 World Series chances by the time I'm 50. (Seriously, Gil Meche?  Was Aaron Sele already taken?)

3. Just blog, baby.  I'm a creative guy.  I like sports.  I like writing.  Simple math states (love of sports) + (love of writing) = (love of sports writing).  I should be updating two or three times a week for the forseeable future.  Additionally, I'm going to start a separate blog where I'll share my views on non-sports matters, such as Real World Denver and the awesomeness that is The Phenomonal AJ Styles.  When I start it up, I'll share the link.

Now, on to sports (Part One)...

Chesnuts roasting on an open fire.  Turkey with all the fixings.  The BCS.  What do these three things have in common?  They're all reminders of the holiday season.  Every December, arguments about the BCS are everywhere you turn.  Johnny at the corner deli thinks the BCS is importnat because it both crowns a national champion and keeps the traditional bowls intact.  Stuart in accounting hates the BCS and wants to abolish the system altogether, replacing it with a playoff.  Everybody has an opinion, and most of them are on one end of the perspective or the other.

Why can't there be a middle ground?

Most of the pundits, in their race to become the loudest, most obnoxious sports commentator on television, completely ignore the fact that a compromise can be reached.  The purists can have their bowl games, while those obsessed with determining which team is the best can have their playoff.  Most importantly, the precious egos of the mathemageniuses that devised the BCS formula can be spared as well.  How is this possible?  With the Manrub Plan, a postseason setup that takes the wishes of all parties into account and attempts to create a best of both worlds scenario.  The plan is outlined as follows

1. The four BCS games remain in tact as Tier 1 games, while four existing bowls become Tier 2 BCS games.  Four possible games may include the Chick-Fil-A, Cotton, Gator and Holiday Bowls.

2. The 6 BCS conference champions are invited into a 16-team tournament, with those six champions being guaranteed home games in the first round of the playoffs.

3. The 2 non-BCS conference champions with the best BCS rankings are invited to the tournament, but are NOT guaranteed home games.

3. Eight at-large teams are chosen based on the top 8 teams in the BCS standings not already in the tournament (maximum 2 at-large teams per conference).

4. First round games are played on campus sites.  The games start the weekend following the conference championship games  The 8 winners advance to the quarterfinals, and the 8 losers are assigned to Tier 2 BCS games.

5. Quarterfinals are played on campus sites.  The four winners will advance to the semifinals, which will be rotated annually to two of the four Tier 1 BCS games.  The four losers advance to the remaining two BCS games.

6. The semifinal winners advance to the National Championship, which is played one week after the other BCS games.

Under my plan, all parties involved can emerge as winners.  Tomorrow, I will post a second part of this plan, outlining how exactly every stakeholder in my proposal can benefit from such a plan.  Until then, feedback is welcome, and I will try to clarify any questions that do arise.