The B1G Future

     We're a little over a month from College Football kicking off, but in the news cycle of the last week there was a huge story that was leaked. Texas and Oklahoma are looking to leave the Big 12 and join the SEC, creating the first 16 team Superconference. This news has sent shockwaves through the sport, the speculation about what's true and not true has been flowing. There are questions about who goes where, what conference collapses? Does the Big 12 reach out to schools from the American? Does the SEC have eyes for more than the two biggest fish? Of course what does this mean for Notre Dame? Living in B1G territory we automatically think of ourselves and wonder what the B1G will do. I have an idea that may seem strange to you, but after I explain it you may find yourself in agreement with me. I think the B1G and the Pac-12 should join forces. They need to add a few more teams, which I'll get into, but we'll get there.

   First of all this isn't entirely my idea, I must give credit to Jon Miller, an Iowa podcast host and former radio guy in the Des Moines area. He put this seed in my head and since then I've ran with it. The B16 and Pac-16 will look like this. B16 invite Iowa State and Kansas, the Pac-16 invite Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and one of Boise State, BYU, TCU, or Baylor. I believe the Pac-12 isn't thrilled with the prospect of religious schools in the conference so BYU, TCU, and Baylor are hard sells. West Viriginia can go join the ACC where they belong so they can play Pittsburgh.

   Once the B16 is formed, we build 4 pods. The pods are for football only, you play the 4 teams in your pod every year and play 2 teams from the other 3 pods each year and switch off. That way in a 4 year span you'll have played at home/away vs every school in the conference. The other 3 games come from the alliance with the Pac-16. Kansas and Kansas State want to play, go for it. Ohio State and USC, sign me up. Colorado vs Nebraska, SURE. That's your 12 game schedule, 9 conference games 3 non-con games vs the other conference. The beauty of this plan is, all the money stays in the leagues, no paying someone a million dollars. Plus Fox will own all the broadcast rights for both leagues so we can play 3 nights a week and maybe a double header Friday night. 

  The B16 pods will be as follows. Pod 1: Maryland, Michigan State, Penn State, and Rutgers. Pod 2 Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, and Purdue. Pod 3 Illinois, Minnesota, jNorthwestern, and Wisconsin. Pod 4 Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas State, and Nebraska. Best 2 records play in the B16 title game. Then whomever wins the B16 Title Game goes to Pasadena to play vs the Pac-16 Champion in the Rose Bowl. Winner of that game goes and plays vs the SEC/ACC Sugar Bowl winner for a chance at the National Title. It's basically NFC vs AFC. You get the traditional bowl game and you get a clear National Champion, it's perfect. No selection committees, no schools that don't belong, and hopefully no blowouts.

    I understand that this leaves out the little guys of college football and for that I'm sorry. But you don't see the SEC asking UCF and Memphis to join they are asking Texas and OU. The sport is going to become more elite and sadly the rich are going to continue to get richer. Perhaps the G5 schools can come up with their own version of this playoff format. There will be no relegation as much as people want it, these are state run schools with state approved budgets, they will never agree to take less money. 

   If the B1G and Pac-12, along with Fox can somehow come to an agreement like I outlined above I think it will be the perfect plan to fight the SEC and ESPN who are working together to create this Superconference. If the Big Ten wants to be 2nd best, which they haven't been in revenue for a long time they will think outside the box and try something drastic. Let me know your thoughts, hit me up on twitter @derekbredeson.

Super Bowl LX: Tale of the Tape

     It's the most anticipated sporting event of the year and it's accompanied by the most anticipated blog post here at the Brady Blog. The Super Bowl is days away, but tonight the Super Bowl Tale of the Tape is here. We go position by position and see which team, the Kansas City Chiefs or Tampa Bay Buccaneers will come out victorious this Sunday. Let's break it down.

Quarterback: How do you judge this match up, yes Patrick Mahomes is probably the best QB in the league right now, but Tom Brady is the best QB in the league ever. I almost gave the edge to Kansas City, but you can't ever count Brady out, ever. You also can't give the advantage to Tampa because Mahomes is on a trajectory never seen before. So instead we push. Brady made a few to many mistakes vs Green Bay, but Mahomes wasn't crazy amazing until Buffalo. Excellent quarterback battle that I'm excited for, the GOAT vs The Kid. Advantage: Push

Running Back: Tampa has the advantage RB with Ronald Jones and a fresh/resurgent Leonard Fournette. The Chiefs will be welcoming back Clyde Edwards-Helaire who played in the AFC Championship game but wasn't all the way healthy. They also have Darrel Williams and Le'veon Bell, but the Chiefs backs don't produce like the Bucs backs. Fournette in 3 playoff games has 211 yards rushing, 102 yards receiving and 3 touchdowns. Those numbers are more than half of his production from the regular season. The Bucs have had to use him since Jones has been hampered with a quad injury, but has played the last 2 games. I don't think either team wants to lean on their running game, but if they have to Tampa will have an easier time using clock with theirs. Advantage: Buccaneers

Wide Receivers: Tyreek Hill will be the best playmaker on the field on Sunday, but the Tampa quartet of Mike Evans, Chris Godwin, Scotty Miller, and Antonio Brown are more lethal than the group of Chiefs receivers after Hill. The Chiefs should have Sammy Watkins full go, plus Mecole Hardman, who made a big play in the AFC Championship game. I don't envy either secondary because trying to cover these guys, plus the dudes next is going to be impossible. If Evans and Godwin can stay synced up with Tom Brady I see a long night for the Chiefs defense. Advantage: Buccaneers

Tight Ends: Travis Kelce is either the best of 2nd best TE in the game, I myself am partial to George Kittle, but Kelce has done it longer and has the numbers. On the other side Tampa has Gronk, who is arguably the best ever at the position, but he isn't 2012 Gronk. Cameron Brate is also a target for Brady, but he doesn't measure up to Kelce. Kelce put up 1400 yards and 11 TDs this year, both career highs. If Kansas City keeps him active in the offense, which they will, he will be the difference if they win or lose. He can control the middle of the field, move the sticks and is always there when Mahomes needs him. He's just a match up nightmare, I'm not sure what Tampa does to stop him. Advantage: Chiefs

Offensive Line: This would be close but Kansas City is limping into this game, they are without both starting tackles. Meanwhile the Bucs got the steal of the draft in Tristan Wirfs at RT, the rookie has been stone walling defensive ends all year. The entire line has kept Brady clean and upright all season. That is much more important for them than it is for KC, Mahomes can move and make his own space, Brady can't as much. He's 43 and scrambling or throwing on the run aren't in he repertoire anymore. If either line can get a push running the ball, that could also be a difference. Advantage: Buccaneers 

Defensive Line: Tampa Bay has a stout defensive line, Jason Pierre-Paul and Ndamukong Suh are both long in the tooth but make plays. Vita Vea and Shaq Barrett help round out the line that sacked Aaron Rodgers 5 times in the NFC Championship game. The Chiefs have a bunch of guys I've never heard of, now I don't watch a lot of football, but these guys don't jump out to me. The Chiefs were 19th in the NFL with 32 sacks where the Bucs were tied for 4th with 48. From what little I've seen of the Chiefs they don't create a lot of pressure where the Buccaneers can get it with their 4 lineman. Advantage: Buccaneers

Linebackers: Kansas City usually only plays with 2 linebackers, but they rotate them based on situations. They use Anthony Hitchens and Damien Wilson the most, but Ben Niemann and Willie Gay also play a lot. They work a lot in coverage and have to get sideline to sideline. The Buccaneers have Levonte David and Devin White who wreck shop. White had 15 tackles vs Green Bay. The problem for Tampa will be covering Travis Kelce with these Linebackers, do they have the size and quickness to cover? I think Andy Reid exploits the match up. Advantage: Chiefs

Secondary: Tampa Bay missed both safeties in the NFC championship game for a time. Antoine Winfield Jr. is supposed to play in the Super Bowl, they will need him to make plays. The kid has a nose for the ball. The Kansas City safeties of the Honey Badger and Daniel Sorenson are always in the mix. Sorenson is often another linebacker it seems. At corner, it's the hardest position to play in the NFL and neither team has the shutdown corner that some teams have. With the weapons these offenses employ, whatever secondary can tackle or create a turnover will be a difference maker. The Kansas City secondary seems healthier and have more experience. Advantage: Chiefs.

Special Teams: Jaydon Mickens for Tampa was a huge game changer vs Green Bay he set the Bucs up with great field position multiple times, and in key situations. BUT he ain't Tyreek, and Tyreek can flip a field in a minute. Advantage: Chiefs.

Coach: Both these coaches have rings, Bruce Arians as a coordinator and Andy Reid got his last year as a head coach. I love Bruce Arians but with Mahomes Andy Reid is on another level. He's shaken the stigma of being a poor big game coach. He's one of the best regular season coaches ever and now he's cementing his legacy as an offensive genius. Advantage: Chiefs

Final Score: Chiefs 5 Buccaneers 4 I think that's how the game goes as well. I'll predict 45-42 Kansas City. I will be rooting for Tom Brady obviously but I think the Chiefs win. I hope we have a good game, follow me on twitter @derekbredeson during the game for my thoughts, and I'll have a reaction post next week.

Are You Worthy?

    This week was my annual yell at the BBWAA on social media event. It's the one event that every year you know everyone will be mad, nobody is ever happy after the MLB Hall of Fame announcement. It's the one day we can all agree to disagree with the decision makers. I wrote about this last year and have wasted countless brain cells on trying to figure out the perfect solution for the Baseball Hall of Fame, and honestly other Halls of Fame. This week though a question was posed, what is your criteria for someone to get into the hall of fame? So let's explore what is a hall of fame player.

    To me there are few things in MLB that make you an automatic qualifier. Those are, 3,000 hits or 500 home runs for hitters and 3,000 strikeouts or 300 wins for pitchers, (yes I know I don't think pitcher wins matter but if you get 300 you did something right and you were great, plus you probably finished your games and didn't have a bullpen blow it for you. Also, we may have to lower it to 200 wins for guys who debuted after 2000, but again if they are that dominate than 3,000 Ks is probably withing distance for them.) Those are just the automatics, they should be first ballot guys, no questions asked, if you hit any of those milestones you did enough in the game to be considered in top of the top. And enough of calling guys "compilers," you can't measure guys by stats but then say they only stuck around long enough to compile stats, that's the point of the game, dummy.

     If you don't hit any of those milestones, my next criteria would be, were you dominate. Sometimes guys dominate for only 5-7 years, and then get hurt, or flame out. My example is Johan Santana, from 2002-2008 he put up seasons that are just unbelievable, he won 2 Cy Young awards, finished top 7 in voting every year. That's a dominate 6 years, plus throw in another year he had a 7 year peak of 45.0 WAR. Granted outside those 6 years there isn't much, but in terms of WAR Johan Santana put up 51.7 WAR in 12 season and Sandy Koufax put up 48.9 WAR in 12 years, Koufax won 3 Cy Youngs to Santana's 2, but Koufax didn't face guys with PEDs pumping through their bodies. To me Johan Santana belongs in the Hall of Fame, and no he isn't better than Sandy Koufax, you would be hard pressed to find anyone better than Sandy, but you can make a case for Santana getting another look in a short career. 

    Another thing that should get you in is a dominate Postseason performance. In Game 7 of the 1991 World Series Jack Morris for the Minnesota Twins went 10 innings, gave up 0 runs on 7 hits, 2 walks and 8 strikeouts, before his Twins scored the series winning run in the bottom of the 10th for a World Series title. That performance when added to Jack's career #'s, 254 Wins 3.90 ERA, and 2,478 strikeouts, should have made him a shoe in for the hall of fame. Sure he never won a Cy Young but nobody else went 10 innings of shutout ball in a Game 7. Madison Bumgarner could be going down the Jack Morris road, he has been an ok regular season pitcher but his postseason numbers, especially 2014 have made his a fringe candidate for Cooperstown. In 16 career Postseason games Bum has a line of 102 1/3 innings pitched, 8 wins 3 losses 1 save (oh what a save it was) 2.11 ERA, 3 shutouts, 87 Ks to 18 walks and 0.899 WHIP. I personally don't think Bum is there yet, but he will have a case if he can get about 700 more Ks, which at his pace would take 3-5 more years. It is compelling.

     I'm not sure I'm right on these criteria, but honestly it's a Hall of Fame. What's it matter if 1 guy who is enshrined maybe is the worst player in the building, someone has to be. To me the Hall of Fame should be a way to celebrate the game, celebrate your childhood, and a destination you take your family and tell them stories from before their time. I would love to go and have someone tell me what it was like to watch Willie and Hank play the outfield and hit the snot out of the ball. I would also love to take my kids to Cooperstown and wax poetically about Barry Bonds, Ken Griffey Jr. Randy Johnson, and Roger Clemens, but sadly since it's harder to get into the Hall of Fame than ever I don't think I'll ever have the urge to make that trip. While we're at it keep politics out of it as well, Curt Schilling may be a dirtball in his personal life has nothing to do with his baseball acumen. I can't stand the guy but he belongs in those halls, the bloody sock alone falls into my 3rd criteria, not to mention 2001 when Arizona shocked the Yankees. It's a museum not heaven and I think some people forget that. I'm for a big hall of fame, and would rather debate someone's inclusion than their exclusion. 

@derekbredeson on twitter, come back next week for the Super Bowl Tale of the Tape, my favorite yearly post.