The Blatant Homer(isim)

I recently ran across a blog called Blatant Homerisim.  In the 'about' section of the website you will find the following:

Blatant Homerism follows the college football world at large, with an emphasis on its most prestigious program, the Oklahoma Sooners. Don't look for any "journalism" here – just some of the finest college football writing around...

  

I found this blog a most fabulous read, and most enjoyable, and encourage all of my readers to go and take a peek.  Even had I set out to despise a blog of OU Homerisim, upon reading the Constitution of Blatant Homerism, particularly the take on the BCS, I pretty much decided Adventures of a Football Girl and Blatant Homerisim were blog soulmates. 

Maybe someday, little Football-Girl-Homerisim-Blog-Babies will run freely through the midway at the State Fair of Texas, eating corny dogs and playing football toss to it's little heart's content.

I digress. 

I did find issue with one itty-bitty point (okay, two itty-bitty points), which I will now counter for the world (by world, I mean all 12 of my followers) to see.

In the much enjoyable post  Red River Shootout: Arguing With a Longhorn 101, Homer makes a list of common trash talk a Longhorn might present during the Red River Shootout, and presents the proper way to address each point.  (*Note that since the article was posted, OU has acquired an additional win in the series.)

The post reminds me of my own artcle, Stuff I've Learned From Rival Football Fans.

Go there, enjoy, read.  But while reading, keep in mind my two items of note:

*We have more head-to-head wins.

This is the most common argument. It's funny to note that the current difference in wins (18) can be solely attributed to a period when football resembled quidditch more than the game we enjoy today. Leather helmets were no longer used in collegiate football sometime in the 1940s.

OU's head-to-head record through 1947: 11-29-2. Since then: 30-30-3. But, by all means, keep your poster of Bobby Layne on your wall.

Look, I get what the writer is saying here - but... I have to wonder if he would be so quick to take the pre-'48 wins out of the equation if OU, say, had won more of them?  Reading this 'answer' immediately makes me think of those poor Aggies, who argue W/L statistics by extracting random timeframes within the series to suit their position.  It's always kind of ooged me out. I mean, it's not like the Sooners were wearing leather helmets and the Lonhorns were wearing viking hats and flying shoes...so I'm gonna stick with the head-to-head record as...the actual head-to-head record Texas 59 / OU 41* & 5 ties.

Also, yes, Bobby Layne was rad.  As proved by a deck of Texas propoganda playing cards.

*Screw you trailer trash!

Texas has the third-highest number of mobile homes in the nation, four times more than Oklahoma.

Okay, Sooner, I see what you did here.  But here's the deal: in a previous portion of the post, he made mention of the fact that while yes, Texas has won more games than OU, Texas has also played more games than OU, then busts out the winning percentages of both schools, thus knocking down the Longhorn's point that Texas has more wins.

And I'm totally good with that....I think it's fair.  I'm a big fan of taking it down to the nitty-gritty of the statistics.  Since Blatant Homerisim and I both agree that this is the fair way to fight with statistics, I need to comment on the whole trailer trash thing. 

First off, this does sound like a crappy thing that a Longhorn might say at OU weekend.  I'd prefer we make valid, football related arguments, but....eh - it's a heated rivalry.

Secondly, if we're playing by Blatant Homerisims rules, the Lonhorn's argument, however pathetic, stands:

Yes, BH did find a Census Bereau brief noting 1980 and 1990 data regarding mobile homes.  Considering there have been two complete census polls completed since then, I thought I'd go full out on some research.

So, by BH's own rules of statistics by percentage (to be fair...):

Consistently, from 1980-2010, it is indeed true that Texas has more that four times as many mobile homes as Oklahoma.  In that time frame, Texas also has six times as many people as Oklahoma.  So...there's something.  The kicker, according to the censi, as confirmed by the document, linked in Blatant Homerisim's blog and the same tables for 2000 & 2010, Oklahoma during this time frame has a higher percentage of mobile homes than Texas, ranking higher in every poll.

Petty, I know, but important.  Considering recent history and OU's recent (I'm talking Stoops/Brown) domination of the series, it's possible as Longhorns, we will have to resort to this remedial argument with Sooners because it's all we've got. 

But if we must, then by God, we at least need to be ready with our statistics so we can actually win one. 

Probably also, we should point out that Sooners are just jealous that they don't have these awesome monolithic domes like we do in Texas.

 

The Perfect Fit

Looks like former Miami head coach has found a new home…at TCU.  Randy Shannon has joined the Frogs as the Linebackers coach, and has, admittedly a tough road ahead – the TCU defensive line took a hit in the off season, most notably when Tanner Brock and Deryck Gildon were dismissed for their involvement in a drug dealing sting at the University.

I don’t know much about Shannon – in his four years at Miami he was 28-22, 0-2 in post season bowls and 16-16 in the ACC.

Even knowing very little about Randy Shannon, I think he’ll fit right in at TCU with Gary Patterson.  He’s already got the lingo down. 

"The receiver blew it, to be honest with you," Shannon said after losing to Ohio State, referring to Travis Benjamin.  Yeah, Travis really blew it as the 2010 team’s 2^nd leading receiver with 43 catches for 743 yards and three touchdowns.  In the very game Shannon called him out for, Benjamin took a punt return 79 yards for a touchdown.

Shannon went after Benjamin again the next week in the game against Pitt, blaming two interceptions on the 5 foot 10 receiver noting that “he didn’t go after the ball hard enough.”

Yeah, all six of those interceptions thrown by Jacory Harris in two games were definitely Benjamin’s fault.  Maybe all of Harris’ incompletions (he was 148-270) and interceptions (15 total, compared to 14 TD passes) in 2010 with were Benjamin’s fault.  I can’t imagine a reason the blame would fall to Randy Shannon and the coaching staff.

Birds of a feather blame their players together…

The Sad Head Coach

I'm in no way prepared to write about the scandal or sanctions that have recently rocked Penn State.  I have mixed emotions and haven't done anywhere near enough research to have anything productive or thought provoking to say. 

What happened at Penn State is horrific on so many levels.  I almost ashamed of myself that I found a Penn State related story which absolutely made me snort-giggle. 

Almost ashamed.

The target of my LOL'ing?  This statement from Lane Kiffin comparing the challenges Bill O'Brien, the new head coach at Penn State is facing, to his own:

"I do think the cases are similar in that regard, and I do feel for their coaching staff. You're dealing with a head coach who wasn't there and has nothing to do with it and players who weren't there, either.  They're paying the price even though they had nothing to do with it, which is obviously similar to what we went through."

Yo Lane, I'm feelin real sad for you, Imma let you finish, but you and O'Brien ain't the same.

I read this quote in three different articles.  All three articles detailed both the sanctions handed down to USC in 2010 for violations from 2004 & 2005, and the ones given to Penn State this week for violations from...well, decades.  While Penn State is certainly facing more severe penalties, the punishments were admittedly harsh for both schools, and similar in nature including vacating of losses, ban on multiple years of post season play, probation and loss of scholarships over recurring years.  One difference of note is that any Penn State player is allowed to transfer to another school without penalty, whereas at USC*, only juniors and seniors were afforded that option.

Both Lane Kiffin and Bill O'Brien essentially took over their respective head coaching positions as the sanctions were handed down.  Kiffin made the aforementioned sympathetic statement representing himself as a man who was plunged helplessly into a situation like O'Brien's and is doing best to run a successful program despite that.

Uhhhh...What I didn't see noted in any of the articles? Lane Kiffin was a member of the coaching staff in place during the violations that earned sanctions for "lack of institutional control" at USC. 

Rewind:  Lane Kiffin was a member of the coaching staff in place during the violations that earned sanctions for "lack of institutional control" at USC.

So yes, Kiffin did come on as head coach at USC just as the sanctions were handed down, but....from 2001-2006 he was a USC Football staff member, then the wide receivers coach, then he was the passing game coordinator, then he was promoted to offensive coordinator.  Also during that time he was the recruiting coordinator. I'm gonna say, you know, he was pretty involved with the program.  During all these roles in the football program, Kiffin, along with EVERYONE ELSE at USC failed to notice Reggie Bush rolling around on dubs, hanging out with agents, wearing bling worthy of Lindsay Lohan and Dez Bryant and chillin' at his parents new house. 

Too bad he wasn't more observant back in the mid-aughts.  Had he been a little more vigilant he wouldn't have to feel sad for himself that now he has to clean up his own mess.  Yes, it is technically true that Kiffin is paying the price for sanctions handed down when he was not the head coach, but it's not particularly honest to make the innuendo that he is an innocent, dealing with circumstances he wasn't involved in and that were out of his control.

"You are fulfilling your destiny, Anakin Lane."

If I were Bill O'Brien, I'd go ahead and ignore Kiffin's offer to advise him on his scholarship reductions and postseason ban because he wishes "there had been someone for me to do that with. There really wasn’t.”

Yeah...it sucks when there's no one to show you how to lie in that big boy bed you made.

As for likening himself to O'Brien, who comes to Penn State fresh, with no prior relationship or history with the university?  An insult to Bill O'Brien. 

...and worthy of a snot-giggle.  LOL.





* Kiffin criticized the no-penalty release of these upperclassmen as "free agency."  I guess he's over it based on rehearsed sounding remarks regarding his problems with a lack of depth at tailback (it's widely believed he is specifically targeting Penn State junior Salis Redd) interlaced with the statement "Those players are open to go to any program, so I don’t really think it’s a big deal if a player were to come to USC because players have left our program.”   

Hey, I get it Lane.  Free Agency is much more appealing when you're on the receiving end.  At least this time you managed not to say the kid's name.**

** Remember that one time when Lane Kiffin was the Head Coach at Tennessee, and he tried to throw Florida Head Coach Urban Meyer under the bus for recruiting violations?  And then it turns out Meyer hadn't broken any recruiting rules?  And while falsely tattling on Florida and Meyer, Kiffin accidentally ended up breaking SEC recruiting rules by mentioning the name of the recruit, Nu'Keese Richardson?  And how he just had to put the  snap down hard on Meyer with the snarky comment "I love the fact that Urban had to cheat and still didn't get him" even though he ended up being the cheater and Urban Meyer hadn't cheated?  And the Florida Athletic Director demanded an apology?  Just be cause he could?  And Kiffin had to issue an apology statement that said "In my enthusiasm for our recruiting class, I made some statements that were meant solely to excite those at the breakfast. If I offended anyone at the University of Florida, including Mr. Foley and Urban Meyer, I sincerely apologize. That was not my intention."?

I remember that. It was funny.

The Blade Runner

“Michael Johnson opens mouth again, calls out Oscar Pistorius”

This is the headline that caught my attention on the interwebs last night. Since I find local news difficult to watch, I prefer to read actual articles about current events. Is it just me, or is it hard to find articles to read online these days. Everything is a video, or a podcast or a slideshow. What happened to reading?! 

Yeah, yeah, I know. Get a newspaper. But newspapers are ginormous and inconvenient to read. 

And they smell weird.

This header had me completely intrigued. So many questions:

What does Michael Johnson have against the Oscars?
Has his jaw been wired shut?! Is opening it heroic? *

How is Pistorius pronounced?

Is a Pistorius a dinosaur?

   

Basically, prior to reading the article I had decided that Michael Johnson had jaw surgery, and upon finally being able to re-open his mouth, chose to call up and chat with a Jurassic version of the Academy Awards. 

Yeah, yeah, I know. I get stupider every day.

The “article” was actually a post on an Olympic Blog for Yahoo!News. Hey, much love for bloggers…as, obviously, I am one. To summarize, Michael Johnson feels that Oscar Pistorius has an unfair advantage and should not be allowed to compete in the track & field portion of the Olympics. Okay….do you need a little more background?!

Turns out that Oscar Pistorius is a South African sprinter and (wait for it…) a double amputee. 

Say whaaa? Yes, initial thoughts on this new information are likely scattered all over the place. Take a moment to ponder those scattered thoughts, then note this new information: Pistorius runs on artificial legs called Cheetah Flex-Foot Blades, which are carbon fiber, 16 inch J-shaped limbs weighing in at just over a pound each.

And now we’re kind of getting to the point. Johnson believes that Pistorius’ “blades” give him an advantage over athletes with non-prosthetic legs. I’m not sure I disagree with him. Apparently, in 2008, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) absolutely did agree with him, as Pistorius was disqualified from the Olympic Games that year for having unfair advantage.

Some have speculated that the IAAF intentionally hired a biased specialist for their investigation preceding the disqualification of Pistorius, one who only looked at the advantages, rather than the whole picture. Pistorius appealed the decision, but it was not until the 2012 Games that became eligible.

After doing a minimal amount of research, I learned that these Flex-Foot Blades are designed to spring off the ground, giving a return on energy of up to 95%, while a human ankle maxes out at around 60%. Additionally, Pistorius (aka Blade Runner**) will use 25% less energy to run on his prosthesis than an able bodied runner. There was also a lot of sciencey stuff that I kind of blanked out on.

It is also true, that these blades don’t have actual muscles in them, so the athlete must rely more on hip muscles to, specifically, make turns on the track. I will point out that, from what I understand, the Blade Runner’s event utilizes a small portion of curved track at the very beginning of the race.

Additionally, Pistoruis’ blades create less up and down bouncing when he runs, which means his stride is more mechanically efficient than that of a runner on their own legs.  

Of course I also feel there is less freedom when you are running on legs who’s interior stuff (I don’t know…muscles, joints and tendons ?) can’t be controlled by your mind. (Not like, in a Jedi way…but you get what I mean.)

Also, I'm certain that my legs, which have very little muscle, weigh more than one pound each...to go all theoretical, I'd imagine that since muscle weighs more than fat, most sprinters' legs weigh more than one pound.  When they are born.

Clearly, I am no expert on the matter. My initial response is that he does have an unfair advantage in this arena, but I could be proven wrong. 

Even if I could take the technical stuff (facts…whatever) out of it, I can’t help but feel like athletes run in such a way as to limit injury. An ankle injury could put a runner out indefinitely, and an Olympic athlete competing in, say three events would be finit-o on all of them if they suffered an injury in the first event. In theory, if Pistoruis broke a blade, he could toss it out and attach a new one, with no delay in return to competition. While yes, Pistoruis could sustain an injury to another part of his leg or body, he is not susceptible to three of the five most common injuries (Knee Injuries, Shin Splints, Ankle Sprains, Foot Injuries and Hip Bursitis) of athletes competing in his event: sprinting. 

If an athlete is not capable of sustaining as many injuries, I feel that absolutely he has an advantage in his ability to push to limits others don’t for risk of damaging or ending their careers.  

Think of it this way: When you were a young and fearless child, before you really understood about injury, or kids getting snatched, or whatever, you were probably faster and more daring, pushing limits, exploring and doing things that as an adult seem just plain risky. Because in your niave, child-brain, there was no risk.

Of course, because I’m a skeptic, I immediately began to think of all the ways that allowing this runner to compete opens doors to all kinds of madness. To be extreme, what if, say, as a child I lost my feet in a tragic tonka-truck accident and when having prosthetics created, I decided to have flipper-fins built into my bionic feet so one day I could be the fastest swimmer this side of sea level. Would I be allowed to compete?   Don't get me wrong...I would lose.  In order to accomplish that, something would have had to have been done about my extreme lack of coordination and/or athletic ability. But still….

I’m also confused. Didn’t the IAAF ban a certain type of swimsuit because it created an unfair advantage?

Still, the weirdest thing about the entire article was the unnecessary implication that Michael Johnson was just being a total jerkface, spouting off some kind of trash talk. Clearly, this is a highly controversial topic. I think an Olympic Gold Medalist is fully justified in weighing in on the topics of his sport. His comments were not inflammatory:

“I consider Oscar a friend of mine, but he knows I am against him running, because this is not about Oscar; it's not about him as an individual, it is about the rules you will make and put in place for the sport which will apply to anyone, and not just Oscar."

Uh…that seems totally reasonable and appropriate to me, yet the blogger rips into Johnson for his remarks. He admits that Oscar Pistorius’ Olympic berth is a controversial topic, but also notes that “It is also a compelling reason for Johnson to open his mouth.” Erm…okay.

Before I can get a cold shower going to chill this guy out, the writer goes on to say:

Never, ever mock a
man's shoes.

“A track diva if there ever was one, Johnson was one of the first runners to wear gold cleats in competition. Now, with the spotlight moved firmly to the likes of Pistorius and Usain Bolt, maybe Johnson misses all the attention he got while collecting gold medals in Atlanta. Maybe he's worried about a disabled athlete overtaking his world record down the line.

Either way, we can't wait to hear what he has to say next. Whenever the next track controversy pops up, we'll surely hear his opinion. If there isn't one, he'll probably make up his own.

And when it happens, we'll be listening. Thank you, Michael.”

This blogger must have a deep seeded disgust for Johnson that began brewing long before he made these statements. For a dude, he seems to hold a grudge as well as a woman would. (I can say that, I’m a woman.) There’s not many other explanations for why the writer would take the widely accepted opinions of a veteran of the sport and stage them as jealous and attention seeking, not to mention implying that he is so attention seeking that he will create controversy just to have an opinion on it.

Look, I wasn’t there, so I’m not sure how the issue came up. Did Johnson hold a press conference and invite the media so he could present his opinion on the use of prosthetics in the Olympics? Was he responding to a reporter’s question? It doesn’t really matter.

I suppose the blogger knew his catchy headline would produce hits to his post, which it did…though most people likely went looking for a Michael Johnson scandal, rather than my quest for closure on the Michael Johnson had jaw surgery, and upon finally being able to re-open his mouth, chose to call up and chat with a Jurassic version of the Academy Awards issue.

In an eerie turn of events, it appears that this writer has fulfilled a blog-prophecy of sorts with his launch against Johnson by “making up his own controversy where there isn’t one."

Spooooooky.

* When I was 18 I had my wisdom teeth removed, and the oral surgeon severed a nerve in my jaw. This caused elephant-man like swelling, causing my jaw to barely open, and eventually, the permanent inability to taste or feel the right side of my mouth. The high tech physical therapy the surgeon prescribed? Put two tongue depressors between my upper and lower teeth and then start sliding more tongue depressors between the original two until my jaw opened all the way. Uh…okay? This was not fun.

** Have you seen the movie Blade Runner? Probably, so I’m not going to go into the strangeness of the movie or the unfounded terror that I am actually a Nexus-6 model Replicant who thinks I’m human and will eventually be hunted down and “retired” by Harrison Ford. I do want to note the movie was made in the year 1982 and based in 2019, and the future is not looking the way Blade Runner promised it would be. There’s no android population, or colonies on Mars, or flying police cars. I don’t think 37 years was far enough into the future for this concept.  I guess in all fairness, today we do have origami unicorns and eyeball factories (probably)…so that’s something.

The Slap: Addendum A

In the spirit of journalistic integrity, I have a confession to make.  I’ve been procrastinating making this confession for quite some time, and like most secrets the longer I have kept it, the more it has eaten away at me.  It is finally time to set the record straight.

About a year ago, I wrote a blog post called The Slap, regarding Matt Nordgren of the reality TV show Dallas Most Eligible.  What I wrote was based solely on what I had seen on the show.  I had never met Matt or his other co-stars.  Re-reading the post now, it seems ... eh....harsh.

If you’re an active reader of my blog, you may be thinking that this seems out of character.  Most people that know me personally or read my blog probably know that I usually say what I’m thinking.  It’s kind of a joke around my office – I feel like transparency is the key, so I generally don’t hold back on information, even if it means exposing something that I may not have handled ideally.  I figure eventually everything will be on the table, so there is no reason to play my cards close to my chest.

Here’s the deal.  I ended up meeting Matt a few months ago at fundraising event his charity The Leadership Foundation, was hosting with The Vince Young Foundation here in Dallas.  I was a little late pulling money together for the event, and Matt was very accommodating, making sure to be available for me to bring in payment the day before. I was past the deadline, forcing a hand delivery, which was an atypical way to make a payment. 

Since then, I began randomly running into Matt around town.  He has always been so friendly, and eventually I reached out to him and his firm to do some consulting at a few of my properties.  While visiting my office, he chatted with everyone I introduced him to, genuinely interested in wherever the conversations led.   Matt and a colleague of his recently came to my company’s fundraising event for the Red Cross, and he has been so sweet in checking up on me in the few weeks since my ACL/knee surgery.

I always enjoy our conversations as well as his company, as he just a sincerely nice guy.  So basically since May, I’ve felt like a total jerkface.  

In recent weeks, I have considered taking the post down, but decided that wouldn’t really solve anything.  In fact, I think it would be unfair, as the only purpose it would serve is to make me feel better about myself, and it seems like kind of a cop-out.  I don’t feel the need to defend The Slap - I was writing about information as it was presented to me, but I can admit that the judgment I made last year is not in line with the opinion I hold today. 

In short, The Slap is not my finest piece.  If I were to present an upside to this whole mess, it’s that I know moving forward I will take a moment before sending my musings in to cyberspace.  The internet is forever, maybe a second glance at things isn’t a bad idea.  And when I’ve been proven wrong, or, as in this case, have a change of heart, I know I’ll have the courage to, pardon the pun, write that wrong.   

Don't give me too much credit, though. I'd still really like to slap Chris Simms.