Bleacher Report - Articles by Martin Weinberg

The Progressive Electorate Bracket Challenge: Beat the President

Martin Weinberg — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:50:40 -0400

Yesterday, the President announced his picks. We are having a our first annual challenge to see if we can beat his picks.

This is being sponsored by our political blog—The Progressive Electorate

Oh and unlike the $5 office pool or the $10 college buddies pool, this one is completely free. Over at the Progressive Electorate we often talk about our love of sports and especially March Madness. I can't wait until tipoff in just a few hours.

I'm sure I will have plenty to talk about once we start seeing the likes of a Cleveland State or a Utah State come through with a big upset. Of course we are also likely to see the favorites progress through to see another day.

The Dukes, The Louisvilles, The Rock Chalk Jayhawks, and the Carolina Blue will all likely advance rather easily. But there is always that chance we will see a MEAC team take down a BCS powerhouse. That's what is so great about this tournament.

Enter our free March Madness challenge for bragging rights and the right to win prizes. 1. Go to the Link two. Group ID: 181582, group name Progressive Electorate Pick Em 3. Password: aigbonus. We will see you on the court.

Why Mike Anderson Is the Coach Alabama Needs to Hire

Martin Weinberg — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:40:08 -0500

Just a few weeks ago, the University of Alabama ended the Mark Gottfried era. The team has continued to struggle under interim coach Phillip Pearson. I'm not sure anyone had an illusion, Pearson included, that this would be a permanent decision.

A number of names have been mentioned as taking over the reins as Nick Saban's counterpart. Bobby Knight's name has been floated around, as has Anthony Grant's. Imagine Saban and Knight on the same campus. Anthony Grant's name gets tossed around for every job from coast to coast.

Mike Anderson's name has been mentioned as well, and that is the direction I think Bama should take. I've always been a big Mike Anderson fan, noticing him as a top-notch assistant under Nolan Richardson at Arkansas.

Mike Anderson, in his head coaching debut, went to three out of four NCAA tournaments at UAB. Anderson had perhaps the biggest win in UAB history with a win over No. 1 seed Kentucky in 2004. His 40 minutes of Hell basketball style attracts fans and players alike.

After watching Anderson's Mizzou Tigers battle back from a 14-point lead and dismal 16-point first half against Kansas tonight to win at the end, I am convinced that Alabama should just open the checkbook and bring Anderson back to his home state.

I know Mizzou fans would hate to lose Mike Anderson, but Bama fans would love to have him.

The Future of the BCS: To Have or Not Have a Playoff

Martin Weinberg — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:36:48 -0500

The Never-ending Debate: College Football Playoff

I can say those three words anywhere in this country and immediately get an opinion. Most college football fans initially respond that it is a must to ensure that America has a true college football champion. Oftentimes the end of college football ends with a debate on who is really the national championship.

Of course, we now have a Bowl Championship Series that measures the top two teams in a combination of human and computer polls.

A 16-team or even an eight-team provides a number of logistical solutions. Of course there have been proposed solutions to this conundrum, like a plus one playoff. This year we've even seen threatened legal action unless the BCS changes its formula for selection or somehow comes up with a playoff system.

What are the benefits of the current BCS system?

1. A playoff atmosphere is cultivated each week. We saw a number of key games this year where teams were essentially eliminated from the title game. Think of all the important Big 12 games, like Oklahoma vs. Texas, Texas vs. Texas Tech, etc., or how Florida ended Alabama's title game hopes in the SEC Championship.

2. The traditional bowl games remain intact. Of course there is the proposal that the major bowl games like the Rose, Orange, and Sugar host the playoff games. But that kind of interferes with the tradition of Big Ten and Pac-10 in the Rose or the SEC in the Sugar. What would college football be without the continuance?

3. It's in line with the current academic structure. Yes Virginia, we are still talking about student-athletes. Lengthening the season through a college playoff would interfere with exam schedules and the general academic structure.

4. It allows a number of teams and conferences to benefit from the BCS payouts.

What would be the benefits of a college football playoff?

1. We would see unprecedented buzz and expectations, perhaps rivaling that of College Basketball's March Madness.

2. Head to head, mano y mano competition decides the true national championship, not somebody punching keys on a computer.

3. It would generate millions of dollars for universities, although I'm not convinced it would generate more than is being generated from bowl games. I've yet to see an economic study that would show that. Perhaps somebody would do that now that we appear closer.

4. A majority of fans support a playoff system. What is college football without the fans?

I'm not convinced that an eight-team or 16-team playoff would eliminate all controversy. I've yet to see an argument about how a 16-team playoff would work. We would have discussions instead on whether the eighth team should be Boise State or Texas Tech.

I'm also not convinced about how shortening the length of regular season would be beneficial to all schools. We are talking about eliminating the conference championships, which I personally like, and taking away a game or two away from schools that would never been in the BCS playoff.

Those schools need the revenue generated by an extra one or two football games to support all the other sports their school offers.

Alabama Linemen Headline AP All-American First Team

Martin Weinberg — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:21:18 -0500

The Alabama Crimson Tide football team was loaded with stars this year. These stars led Alabama to a phenomenal record in head coach Nick Saban's second season.

However, you may not have even heard of these folks because they did not line up at positions that garner rock star status. Nonetheless, Alabama put three players on the AP's All-American First Team.

And all three of these guys are linemen: offensive tackle Andre Smith, center Antoine Caldwell, and nose guard Terrence "Mount" Cody. All three of these guys should be playing football on Sundays for a long time to come.

The Alabama football team has some future offensive weapons in wide receiver Julio Jones and running back Mark Ingram, who will surely earn some national recognition over the next few years.

However, much of the success of this year's team should be owed to Smith, Caldwell, and Cody.

Was Race The Biggest Factor In Auburn's Coaching Search?

Martin Weinberg — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:09:24 -0500

Auburn University officials have received, perhaps not even their fair share of criticism, for their handling of firing football coach Tommy Tuberville and hiring Gene Chizik.

Most Auburn fans that I've talked to and those that I've listened to on local sports talk radio believe that Chizik comes far from qualified after a 5-19 record in his two years of head coaching at Iowa State.

Other potential hires such as Turner Gill, who would have been the first African-American football coach at Auburn, would have been much more popular with fans and alumni.

The outspoken Charles Barkley, who also might be the most famous alumnus of Auburn, says that his school did not hire Gill because of race. I wrote about this issue in depth last week as related to, well-qualified University of Florida defensive coordinator, Charlie Strong *Also please vote in my online poll

Barkley speaks directly to this search coming down to Chizik and Gill.

"I think race was the No. 1 factor," said Barkley, who played basketball for three seasons at Auburn during the early 1980s. "You can say it's not about race, but you can't compare the two resumes and say [Chizik] deserved the job. Out of all the coaches they interviewed, Chizik probably had the worst resume."

Barkley like others that have been discussing this topic today have said that not only was Gill's race a factor, but the race of his wife was a factor.

"We talked about the whole race thing in Alabama," Barkley said. "I told him it's there and it's going to be anywhere you go. I told him you can't not take the job because of racism. He was worried about being nothing more than a token interview. He was concerned about having a white wife. It's just very disappointing to me."

On Paul Finebaum's popular radio show today, a clip was played where Mark Schlabach, who wrote the Barkley article, said that he learned Gill would not be hired because he has a white wife.

I agree with Schlabach and Barkley and others that if this comes down to Gill and Chizik, it does not take a rocket scientist (or even an average college graduate, not named Auburn AD Jay Jacobs) to figure out who is the more qualified.

In all seriousness, from what I have learned today, this hire was the result of meddling by former Auburn coach Pat Dye and the Auburn board of trustee. Heck the President of Auburn University, Jay Googe, did not even attend today's press conference.

I'm a lifelong Alabama fan, but I never like to see Auburn down. This decision to forgo Gill and hire Chizik definitely will be perceived as racist by the national media and civil rights activists.

Therefore the school, the state, and perhaps the SEC as a whole will suffer. I think had Auburn selected a winning coach like TCU's Gary Patterson or Georgia Tech's Paul Johnson they could have avoided such embarrassment.

I think Auburn made a horrible choice in Chizik. I'm not so much the decision is a result of specific racism, but more a result of institutional racism. Institutional racism cuts a lot deeper than just this one example of one man being passed over for one job. This racism perhaps not only comes in the form of judging a man by the color of his skin, but also the color of skin of his wife.