Bleacher Report - Articles by robert carola

Big East Is Still the BEAST

robert carola — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:39:51 -0500

Big East is still the beast in spite of Texas' win against Villanova. Texas is the top team in their league, and 'Nova is ranked 12th but is a second tier team in Big East. Pitt, UConn, Louisville, or G'town would have given Texas a better game. 'Nova still hung in there 'til the end, and that tells me that Texas is all hype and is vulnerable to any top tier Big East team.

Texas and other top tier teams from other conferences need to schedule top tier programs in order to get a fair gauge as to how strong their team is comparatively. I'm tired of big programs playing poor quality teams by avoiding fair matchups between equal opponents.

The other conferences should be begging to play UConn, Pitt, Louisville, Marquette, and G'town to get credibility for potential recruits. The Big East is monopolizing the talent pool, and if other programs do not try to prove that they can compete with these programs, then the disparity will widen.

It is imperative for intercollegiate basketball to remain competitive by eliminating the cream puff out of conference scheduling by keeping programs from dancing due to poor OCS. TV rights have become too lucrative for the NCAA and for other conferences to ignore this fact, and this poor scheduling hurts the competitiveness of the sport.

The NCAA needs to emphasize the importance of out of conference scheduling by putting together a criteria for scheduling out of conference games and using a formula that helps navigate the NCAA bid process. The NCAA selection committee needs to have specific guidelines that must be adhered to in order to promote a better out of conference schedule.

Big Ten Needs to Forfeit Iowa Win Due to Cheating

robert carola — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 14:48:50 -0500

Cheating: to deceive. Iowa gets an unfair competitive advantage by adding heaters to their sidelines during games. This in turn leaves Penn State to fend for themselves against the odds.

I already know some of you will say there is not a rule specifically stating how home teams must provide the same equipment to visitors, but there is in the pros.

This argument can be proven wrong on two different accounts. First of all, there are specific rules laid out about sportsmanship, and this act by Iowa violated every aspect of "good" sportsmanship. Therefore, it should be grounds for a forfeit.

Secondly, just because it's not a specific rule, does not make it right by any means. When a team acts in a manner that gives their own side an unfair advantage, it is outrageous and wrong. There is such a creed at the collegiate level called a "gentleman's honor" and Iowa should be embarrassed because theirs is tarnished.

The premeditated decision to alter the game based on protecting one team from the elements while exposing the other team is plain cheating. I cannot even come up with a euphemism to describe this situation.

The Coach and Athletic Director should be reprimanded and embarrassed publicly for cheating. It's wrong and it's time people are held accountable for their actions.

I would like someone to explain to me why this behavior by Iowa is appropriate even though it's so apparent that it gave an unfair advantage to the home team. I am okay with a loss, but it's the way it came about and how the elements were a factor, and Iowa willfully made it more difficult.

The reason teams switch sides at half-time is so one team doesn't get an advantage over the other, so why would this situation be any different?

Style Points Equate To Zero Class for All Institutions of Higher Learning

robert carola — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:04:55 -0500

Joe Paterno and Bobby Bowden appear to be similar when looking up their winning records, age, and longevity of coaching D-1 football, but in reality they are two polar opposites.

These two coaches have totally different coaching styles and philosophies, but in spite of this fact, they are usually in the hunt for a BCS bowl.

Bobby Bowden approves of running up a score to ensure style points, and Joe Paterno frowns on the practice as being unnecessary and morally wrong.

Winning and losing is a part of life, and everyone must deal with both aspects in order to achieve an inner balance of peace. Individual philosophies on winning and losing vary, based on one's perspective and environment.

There is no right or wrong answer about how one should win but almost everyone agrees that one should never be a sore loser. Is it not more socially responsible to be a better winner by being perceived as humble as a way of the winner displaying honor?

The question of how to win is debated at a minimum, because the football culture is dominated by programs that think if you win big, your stats are inflated and appear to be a better program on paper.

Coaches have a lot of pressure to win, but there seems to be a mantra among bigger programs that they must win at all costs. The use of the style points sends a bad message to our society that suggests how one wins is of no real consequence or of importance, as long as you win.

Universities seem to encourage the lopsided scores to help ensure a bigger purse at the end of the year when BCS bowls are decided. Universities ignore style points, and their silence is a form of consenting. They are directly responsible for allowing this crude winning philosophy to continue.

No other coach feels the pressure to win more than Joe Paterno, and yet he never sacrifices his core beliefs or values by drubbing a team unmercifully to the point of embarrassing an opponent.

When Penn State wins, it is seldom that the final score is lopsided due to the intentionally conservative play-calling by Paterno. If the rankings system cannot tell the difference, then it needs to be changed.

I have watched the Switzers, Jimmy Johnsons, Spurriers, Bowdens, and others run up scores. It is classless and it shows a lack of self confidence of a coach's desire to inflate their stats.

The message that running up a score sends to the players and fans is there is no need to be gracious as long as you win. That attitude erodes our nation's moral character and hurts us as a society.

There are certain scenarios that I have seen over the last few years that seem extreme and unsportsmanlike but are becoming commonplace.

Where is the moral compass among our teachers of the game to question the practice of running up the score. Is Joe Paterno the only one? SAD!

Is it so wrong to win a game without having to keep the starters in, when up by 24 points in the fourth quarter? Is it so necessary to throw on first down, when up by 24 points late in the fourth quarter?

Is it so important to go for it on fourth-and-2 on the 35-yard line and your team is up by 24 points with two minutes to go in the game? Is it so important for a team to go for a two-point conversion to beat a team by 30 points, as opposed to 29 points?

Penn State has appeared to be penalized for showing discretion and class by not running up the score to get "style points." That is unacceptable.

The fact that Joe Paterno knows that a National Championship is at stake by not running up the score should be examined at length by a NCAA sportsmanship committee.

Paterno, true to form, like a rock, refuses to give in to the notion that style points are necessary or good for the game.

Paterno is 81, and his 50-plus years of coaching is largely about teaching his players lessons that will last a lifetime.

These lessons will continue to be taught to future generations because his current and former players keep this philosophy and spirit going in their everyday lives.

His altruistic approach to winning is refreshing. His personal ethics and moral code will never waver for personal gain, and that attitude already makes him and his team CHAMPIONS!

When any entity is mighty, it should never be viewed as a weakness when that entity shows class and respect towards an opponent by not running up the score.

I have heard some say that the losing programs should work harder not to be embarrassed and that it is not the winning teams responsibility to keep the score from getting out of hand.

This attitude appears to be hardcore due to the fact that some programs have severe advantages that create an uneven playing field and that fact appears to be ignored in the quest for supremacy.

Why should any institution playing in a friendly sports contest, where a code of honor, based on gentleman's principals, which are at the core and the foundation for which the NCAA says it instills, fear that they could be embarrassed by a mean spirited lopsided loss?

NCAA Should Be on Wall Street: They Both Sell Short and Cheat the Base

robert carola — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 05:19:37 -0400

I liked Lisa's article on the polls and respect her position but disagree with her premise that journalists are unbiased. I disagree mainly for the lack of independent stations and newspapers that can challenge the current system. I truly believe that newspapers are a dying media institution because the Internet is far more accessible.

I am left waiting for the day that blogs and independent Internet news companies start popping up that can challenge the money making institutions like ESPN and FOX, from only representing the power brokers of College Sports. These current institutions do not represent the best interests of the game, as proof by lack of playoff system.

I also would like to see some call for better scheduling rules so that schools like TT get penalized for poor scheduling. The disparity in scheduling seems to be less and less of a topic and when Bowls pay so much money it is imperative that the NCAA level the playing field as much as possible to represent all interests of every program. Aren't college sports supposed to be above the fray when it comes to corporate cheating or the corporate winky wink syndrome that has caused major economic fallout.

Institutions of higher learning are supposed to be the example of fair play by using restraint when questions of greed and power are introduced. These institutions of higher learning were created to be our countries moral compass and they have failed miserably over the last 25 years.

These institutions are largely to blame for our systematic economic fallout based on greed and power. Had these institutions been mindful of the true costs of the monetary gifts that they received for "research" and other financial endeavors then perhaps their professors would have been free to challenge some unethical laws that were passed that totally brought down our system.

The entire University system has allowed itself to be the willing participant of being manipulated based on their alliance with fascist and government organizations to ensure that free thinkers are squelched. Look at the marriage that corporate America and the federal government have forged with Universities to prevent another era of the 1960's.

Universities in a free society should be independent of government and corporate influence and this is the true crux of the problem that has reared its head into collegiate athletics and we are all to blame.

I will know when the ideals for which intercollegiate sports were founded on are renewed, when I see professors and Presidents start questioning the current system. Questions must be first asked in order to change the game for which it was created as a fair athletic contest.

Football was not created to be used as an extension of a persons soul. Football should be enjoyed as entertainment but not as a fanatical response to an unfulfilled and uneventful life. Too many people have personalized this sport in a way that is unhealthy and has led to a corrupt system.