On Friday afternoon, the guys who write opinions for sites like ESPN or Yahoo! usually take off early. Their job is over for the week. Not this Friday. No, this Friday had two huge sports stories. One completely overshadowed the other, and understandably so. The one that got more coverage was the NFL report (which literally is 50,000 pages. I thought at first that that was a joke when I heard it, but honestly - 50,000 Pages? Is it possible to right that much about anything) on the Saints' placing $1,000 bounties on injuring opposing players for three years. The other was baseball implementing a 2nd Wild Card team for 2012. One was expected, but maybe not this soon. The other was a total shock which snowballed even on day one. Let's go one-by-one.
1.) Baseball will have 2 Wild Card teams and a 1-game playoff between the two Wild Card teams.
The idea of adding a Wild Card team I like. The percentage of baseball teams that make the playoffs are way too low (8/30). This adds a real chance for more cities to get playoff baseball, and honestly, allows for a better chance for teams like the Red Sox to get into the playoffs on down years. Adding another Wild Card makes sense. There is really no downside to expanding the playoffs by one other than it ruining "the sanctity of baseball." The percentage of teams making the playoffs (10/30) is still the lowest of any major sport in the US. The field isn't diluted that much. The only other negative is baseball might lose days like last year's day of Game 162s. I call bunk. There is still a chance that the 2nd Wild Card will come down to the last day. It will just be a competition of two lesser teams. Also, division races will be tighter. It also adds the chances of even more one-game playoffs because divisions can't be decided under head-to-head in the new format given the vast advantage in winning a division. Avoiding having to use your ace in a one-game playoff is a huge edge. The weirder part of the move is that for 2012 at least, the division series will have the first two games at the home of the team with the worse record, and the next three at the home of the team of the better record. Apparently, this is how the DS format was in the first three years of the Wild Card, but I find it really an advantage for the team with the worse record, other than the fact that now they would HAVE to clinch on the road.
Anyway, the part of the new setup that I vehemently dislike is the fact that this is a 1-game playoff. That is just too small a series to decide who should advance in a playoff tournament, especially for a sport 162 games long. Yes, that's how March Madness and the NFL playoffs does it, but they play about 30 and 16 games respectively. This is 162 games coming down to one game. The worst part is that there could easily be a year where one Wild Card team wins a lot more games than the other but could get knocked off in one game. To me, that is patently unfair. I think it should be at least best of 3. I realize that there are a lot of issues trying to fit the schedule in, but honestly, just start the season one week earlier. I don't think anyone will care if baseball is being played March 20th. Overall, I like the move for a 2nd Wild Card, but hate the way it is being implemented. My guess is it will change at some point, but as of now, I don't like it.
2.) The Saints were apparently paying players's bonuses to injure opponents.
This is big. This is huge. This is probably the biggest on-the-field scandal since Spygate. I honestly think that this is an uglier situation. This is criminal. As Jay Feely so rightly tweeted, people that are paid to injure others are committing a criminal offense. The bigger issue is that the NFL knew about this, told the owner, who told the GM and nothing was done. Sean Payton apparently knew and did nothing. Gregg Williams was apparently putting up money out of his own pocket to this "fund" that went out and paid players if they hurt opponents. We all know the details by now. The lies that the Saints conveyed to the league. The blind eye that GM Mickey Loomis and Head Coach Sean Payton turned to this issue. The ridiculous 10 large that Jonathan Vilma put up to go to the player who knocks Favre out of the 2009 NFC Championship Game. It is an ugly situation, and it will only get uglier. Given how player safety has become such a huge issue for the league, I expect Roger Goodell to spare no expense in giving the Saints a huge punishment. Considering this is a man who has on multiple occasions suspended players multiple games for essentially being jackasses, if he doesn't suspend Gregg Williams, it will be a disappointment. This could get ugly.
Overall, I am sure there is some motivation for guys going into games to hurt the opponent, injure the opponent. I am sure some coaches might have encouraged it. I doubt many other teams have put this much money on it. People talked about Buddy Ryan putting a bounty on Troy Aikman. That was 200 dollars. This was thousands. This was continual. This was the Saints doing it in their title run, and then continuing to do it after being warned by Goodell. Gregg Williams apparently had this same system in Washington. There are reports he had it in Tennessee. He's showing remorse now, but that shouldn't be enough. I would not be shocked by, nor be against, a lifetime ban for Gregg Williams.
There is something personal here. A lot of Colts fans now believe that Peyton Manning's neck problems started on a late hit shown here:
\
See Manning reach for his neck right after the hit. It was a late hit. It should have been flagged. Phillip Daniels was fined 5,000 for the hit. Tony Dungy has said his neck problems started then. What ties this together, is not only the fact that Gregg Williams was the DC of the Redskins at the time, but also that Phillip Daniels was the only player to put his name on the fact the bounty system was there in Washington. The fact that this happened makes me, as well as a lot of Colts fans, more angry about this whole Williams bounty thing. Add into that the fact the Saints beat the Colts in Super Bowl XLIV.
This whole thing apparently started with the fact that Favre was battered like a ham in the 2009 NFC Title Game. My Mom watched the game and many times said how mad she was that the Saints were hitting Favre late, hitting him low, hitting him at any opportunity. I tried to tell her it was just good, hard football, but I knew it went a little extreme then. I feel that more know. It is hard to watch that, or the Titans defense against Kurt Warner in Super Bowl XXXIV the same way.
This will be a mess. The fact that there is no real football going on will probably give this story a lot more staying power than if there was a game next Sunday. It is far enough from the draft that even the draft won't take too much attention away from this story. I feel like Goodell will take full advantage of this opportunity to lay down the law, to send shockwaves to every other team that this cannot happen again. Goodell better because he's shown no shame in dropping suspensions to players for injuring opponents with unsafe hits. Now he has a coach who is basically paying players to go and try to injure another player. This is a problem that is a lot more pointed now given the concussion issues that have been a huge bane to the league over the past year and a half. Goodell will hopefully throw down with all his might.
Update:
There was another bit of news that was released well into the wee hours of Friday.
3.) Video of Peyton Manning throwing at Duke surfaces
My God. This actually (especially in Colts land) was able to upstage the Saints mess. This is the worst thing that could have happened to Jim Irsay's plan for a new era. He cannot cut a healthy Peyton Manning. He just can't. Forget the fact that he already said if Peyton is healthy by March he will be a Colt. If Manning wasn't healthy yet (but would be healthy come August) Irsay can get away with it. He would be skewered if Manning went to another city and performed well, but at least he can put up some defense. If Manning is already noticeably improving, that defense disappears.
I have avoided talking about Le Affair Manning (especially the soap-opera that were all the releases and interviews during the Super Bowl weeks) because it was ridiculous, and frankly, embarrassing. Both sides were trying to win a war that only one side can really win (if Irsay really thinks he can out-pr Manning, he's delusional). I was scared by the spate of "Peyton will retire" tweets from the Super Bowl (I dismissed Rob Lowe, but was scared about all the others). I didn't know who or what to believe. The first time I actually believed anything was when Bill Polian said Peyton was improving. Everything else was biased, was editted, was pointed. Manning's interview with Trey Wingo. The "sources" saying Manning's nerve re-generation had 'plateaued'. The "sources" saying it hadn't. The reports from Archie and Cooper Manning. The reports from Bob Kravitz that Peyton had a "noodle arm" and his later admission he vastly exaggerated that. I listened to Polian because he, while definitely having an ax to grind with Irsay, wouldn't openly lie. I don't know why I believed Polian, a man who has definitely lied to the fans and media during his time as GM, but I did. My faith was proven right.
This video doesn't prove much other than Manning can throw left, can turn his body, and can throw over 25 yards. All things that reports from sources in the past said Manning could not do. With the reports from everywhere saying Manning was improving greatly, I started to believe, but this was some sort of solid proof. Of course, this doesn't mean I buy he can go out today and be Peyton, but there's definitely a great chance that he plays in 2012. That means that Irsay is in one huge pickle.
All along, I have felt that Jim Irsay definitely overreacted to one bad season. This team won 10, 12, 12, 14, 12, 13, 12, 14 and 10 games in their previous nine years. One bad year where they lost probably the most important player to any team ever was not enough to out-do all of that. I think Irsay saw this as his chance to take back his team from Polian, who had grown increasingly dictatorial ever since Week 16 of 2009. Irsay saw this as his chance to make his team likable (missing the fact that winning made the team likable). He got Polian out. He got Polian's puppet Caldwell out (who definitely was well-liked by the players, but I thought had to go since he couldn't manage a game for his life). He hired his guys, expressed a desire to create a 'new era' and under the banner of a whole new QB. He was literally trying to replay everything that happened in 1998. The one part of his plan that made it all make sense was that there was serious doubt Peyton Manning would ever play again. That doubt is far, far less now.
My worst fear all along, other than Manning being forced to retire, was that Irsay decides to keep Manning and still draft Luck. If this happens, other than Peyton Manning turning into Barry Bonds 2001-2004 (without the roids) and single-handidly winning games, there is no good outcome. That would be committing 51 million to the QB position for 2012, with the knowledge that one of those two guys would not play. Luck should start from day 1. Peyton should play. Both cannot happen on the Colts. The best case scenario would be that Irsay realizes this, keeps Manning and trades that #1 pick for a Herschel Walker style bounty. But I was scared that Irsay would never consider that option. He doesn't want to pass the opportunity to lock down Andrew Luck. He doesn't want to lose Peyton Manning. He would have been fine if Manning just had to retire. Manning doesn't have to, and Irsay is screwed.
I know in my head there is no way Irsay sees the light (assuming the video, and all the reports, are true and Manning will be more than ready come September, 2012) and trades that #1 pick. I know this. But now I know there is a chance that Peyton Manning can wear the horse-shoe next year. Yes, I had grown to accept the fact that Manning could wear something other than Colts' blue in 2012. I had even grown to be excited by the idea of him in the desert or in Seattle (not in Miami, though). I actually grew to think those were places where Manning could more easily win a Super Bowl than in Indy. But God, will I be able to talk myself into Indy if they keep him. I mean, the AFC isn't that strong right now. They could bring Reggie back. With a lead that defense plays a lot better. Pagano's a good coach. Anything could happen. But I know none of that matters. This is the perfect case of 'head vs. heart'. My head says Manning is better off in a different city where he can win that 2nd Super Bowl that he deserves, the one that could gloriously shut all the mouths' of the people that have so foolishly slammed him. But my heart wants him on that damn blue uniform. My heart wants more moments in The Luke. It's a really tough question to answer, and it is only that much tougher now for Jim Irsay.
1.) Baseball will have 2 Wild Card teams and a 1-game playoff between the two Wild Card teams.
The idea of adding a Wild Card team I like. The percentage of baseball teams that make the playoffs are way too low (8/30). This adds a real chance for more cities to get playoff baseball, and honestly, allows for a better chance for teams like the Red Sox to get into the playoffs on down years. Adding another Wild Card makes sense. There is really no downside to expanding the playoffs by one other than it ruining "the sanctity of baseball." The percentage of teams making the playoffs (10/30) is still the lowest of any major sport in the US. The field isn't diluted that much. The only other negative is baseball might lose days like last year's day of Game 162s. I call bunk. There is still a chance that the 2nd Wild Card will come down to the last day. It will just be a competition of two lesser teams. Also, division races will be tighter. It also adds the chances of even more one-game playoffs because divisions can't be decided under head-to-head in the new format given the vast advantage in winning a division. Avoiding having to use your ace in a one-game playoff is a huge edge. The weirder part of the move is that for 2012 at least, the division series will have the first two games at the home of the team with the worse record, and the next three at the home of the team of the better record. Apparently, this is how the DS format was in the first three years of the Wild Card, but I find it really an advantage for the team with the worse record, other than the fact that now they would HAVE to clinch on the road.
Anyway, the part of the new setup that I vehemently dislike is the fact that this is a 1-game playoff. That is just too small a series to decide who should advance in a playoff tournament, especially for a sport 162 games long. Yes, that's how March Madness and the NFL playoffs does it, but they play about 30 and 16 games respectively. This is 162 games coming down to one game. The worst part is that there could easily be a year where one Wild Card team wins a lot more games than the other but could get knocked off in one game. To me, that is patently unfair. I think it should be at least best of 3. I realize that there are a lot of issues trying to fit the schedule in, but honestly, just start the season one week earlier. I don't think anyone will care if baseball is being played March 20th. Overall, I like the move for a 2nd Wild Card, but hate the way it is being implemented. My guess is it will change at some point, but as of now, I don't like it.
2.) The Saints were apparently paying players's bonuses to injure opponents.
This is big. This is huge. This is probably the biggest on-the-field scandal since Spygate. I honestly think that this is an uglier situation. This is criminal. As Jay Feely so rightly tweeted, people that are paid to injure others are committing a criminal offense. The bigger issue is that the NFL knew about this, told the owner, who told the GM and nothing was done. Sean Payton apparently knew and did nothing. Gregg Williams was apparently putting up money out of his own pocket to this "fund" that went out and paid players if they hurt opponents. We all know the details by now. The lies that the Saints conveyed to the league. The blind eye that GM Mickey Loomis and Head Coach Sean Payton turned to this issue. The ridiculous 10 large that Jonathan Vilma put up to go to the player who knocks Favre out of the 2009 NFC Championship Game. It is an ugly situation, and it will only get uglier. Given how player safety has become such a huge issue for the league, I expect Roger Goodell to spare no expense in giving the Saints a huge punishment. Considering this is a man who has on multiple occasions suspended players multiple games for essentially being jackasses, if he doesn't suspend Gregg Williams, it will be a disappointment. This could get ugly.
Overall, I am sure there is some motivation for guys going into games to hurt the opponent, injure the opponent. I am sure some coaches might have encouraged it. I doubt many other teams have put this much money on it. People talked about Buddy Ryan putting a bounty on Troy Aikman. That was 200 dollars. This was thousands. This was continual. This was the Saints doing it in their title run, and then continuing to do it after being warned by Goodell. Gregg Williams apparently had this same system in Washington. There are reports he had it in Tennessee. He's showing remorse now, but that shouldn't be enough. I would not be shocked by, nor be against, a lifetime ban for Gregg Williams.
\
See Manning reach for his neck right after the hit. It was a late hit. It should have been flagged. Phillip Daniels was fined 5,000 for the hit. Tony Dungy has said his neck problems started then. What ties this together, is not only the fact that Gregg Williams was the DC of the Redskins at the time, but also that Phillip Daniels was the only player to put his name on the fact the bounty system was there in Washington. The fact that this happened makes me, as well as a lot of Colts fans, more angry about this whole Williams bounty thing. Add into that the fact the Saints beat the Colts in Super Bowl XLIV.
This whole thing apparently started with the fact that Favre was battered like a ham in the 2009 NFC Title Game. My Mom watched the game and many times said how mad she was that the Saints were hitting Favre late, hitting him low, hitting him at any opportunity. I tried to tell her it was just good, hard football, but I knew it went a little extreme then. I feel that more know. It is hard to watch that, or the Titans defense against Kurt Warner in Super Bowl XXXIV the same way.
This will be a mess. The fact that there is no real football going on will probably give this story a lot more staying power than if there was a game next Sunday. It is far enough from the draft that even the draft won't take too much attention away from this story. I feel like Goodell will take full advantage of this opportunity to lay down the law, to send shockwaves to every other team that this cannot happen again. Goodell better because he's shown no shame in dropping suspensions to players for injuring opponents with unsafe hits. Now he has a coach who is basically paying players to go and try to injure another player. This is a problem that is a lot more pointed now given the concussion issues that have been a huge bane to the league over the past year and a half. Goodell will hopefully throw down with all his might.
Update:
There was another bit of news that was released well into the wee hours of Friday.
3.) Video of Peyton Manning throwing at Duke surfaces
My God. This actually (especially in Colts land) was able to upstage the Saints mess. This is the worst thing that could have happened to Jim Irsay's plan for a new era. He cannot cut a healthy Peyton Manning. He just can't. Forget the fact that he already said if Peyton is healthy by March he will be a Colt. If Manning wasn't healthy yet (but would be healthy come August) Irsay can get away with it. He would be skewered if Manning went to another city and performed well, but at least he can put up some defense. If Manning is already noticeably improving, that defense disappears.
I have avoided talking about Le Affair Manning (especially the soap-opera that were all the releases and interviews during the Super Bowl weeks) because it was ridiculous, and frankly, embarrassing. Both sides were trying to win a war that only one side can really win (if Irsay really thinks he can out-pr Manning, he's delusional). I was scared by the spate of "Peyton will retire" tweets from the Super Bowl (I dismissed Rob Lowe, but was scared about all the others). I didn't know who or what to believe. The first time I actually believed anything was when Bill Polian said Peyton was improving. Everything else was biased, was editted, was pointed. Manning's interview with Trey Wingo. The "sources" saying Manning's nerve re-generation had 'plateaued'. The "sources" saying it hadn't. The reports from Archie and Cooper Manning. The reports from Bob Kravitz that Peyton had a "noodle arm" and his later admission he vastly exaggerated that. I listened to Polian because he, while definitely having an ax to grind with Irsay, wouldn't openly lie. I don't know why I believed Polian, a man who has definitely lied to the fans and media during his time as GM, but I did. My faith was proven right.
This video doesn't prove much other than Manning can throw left, can turn his body, and can throw over 25 yards. All things that reports from sources in the past said Manning could not do. With the reports from everywhere saying Manning was improving greatly, I started to believe, but this was some sort of solid proof. Of course, this doesn't mean I buy he can go out today and be Peyton, but there's definitely a great chance that he plays in 2012. That means that Irsay is in one huge pickle.
All along, I have felt that Jim Irsay definitely overreacted to one bad season. This team won 10, 12, 12, 14, 12, 13, 12, 14 and 10 games in their previous nine years. One bad year where they lost probably the most important player to any team ever was not enough to out-do all of that. I think Irsay saw this as his chance to take back his team from Polian, who had grown increasingly dictatorial ever since Week 16 of 2009. Irsay saw this as his chance to make his team likable (missing the fact that winning made the team likable). He got Polian out. He got Polian's puppet Caldwell out (who definitely was well-liked by the players, but I thought had to go since he couldn't manage a game for his life). He hired his guys, expressed a desire to create a 'new era' and under the banner of a whole new QB. He was literally trying to replay everything that happened in 1998. The one part of his plan that made it all make sense was that there was serious doubt Peyton Manning would ever play again. That doubt is far, far less now.
My worst fear all along, other than Manning being forced to retire, was that Irsay decides to keep Manning and still draft Luck. If this happens, other than Peyton Manning turning into Barry Bonds 2001-2004 (without the roids) and single-handidly winning games, there is no good outcome. That would be committing 51 million to the QB position for 2012, with the knowledge that one of those two guys would not play. Luck should start from day 1. Peyton should play. Both cannot happen on the Colts. The best case scenario would be that Irsay realizes this, keeps Manning and trades that #1 pick for a Herschel Walker style bounty. But I was scared that Irsay would never consider that option. He doesn't want to pass the opportunity to lock down Andrew Luck. He doesn't want to lose Peyton Manning. He would have been fine if Manning just had to retire. Manning doesn't have to, and Irsay is screwed.
I know in my head there is no way Irsay sees the light (assuming the video, and all the reports, are true and Manning will be more than ready come September, 2012) and trades that #1 pick. I know this. But now I know there is a chance that Peyton Manning can wear the horse-shoe next year. Yes, I had grown to accept the fact that Manning could wear something other than Colts' blue in 2012. I had even grown to be excited by the idea of him in the desert or in Seattle (not in Miami, though). I actually grew to think those were places where Manning could more easily win a Super Bowl than in Indy. But God, will I be able to talk myself into Indy if they keep him. I mean, the AFC isn't that strong right now. They could bring Reggie back. With a lead that defense plays a lot better. Pagano's a good coach. Anything could happen. But I know none of that matters. This is the perfect case of 'head vs. heart'. My head says Manning is better off in a different city where he can win that 2nd Super Bowl that he deserves, the one that could gloriously shut all the mouths' of the people that have so foolishly slammed him. But my heart wants him on that damn blue uniform. My heart wants more moments in The Luke. It's a really tough question to answer, and it is only that much tougher now for Jim Irsay.
