Bleacher Report - Articles by Kreskin Annihilation

Picking the First Round of the NHL Playoffs: Steve Mason Will Be a Hero

Kreskin Annihilation — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:52:32 -0400

Here are my picks for the opening round of the NHL playoffs.

Eastern Conference

1 Boston Bruins vs. 8 Montreal Canadiens
The Bruins are my pick to win the East. They look amazing. They are fast on the trigger, super-smooth in transition, and they have a sharp netminder. Montreal looks defeated, sloppy, and smelly.
Bruins in Five

2 Washington Capitals vs. 7 New York Rangers
This isn't 2008. The Caps play everyone hard, and the Rangers only play well when it doesn't matter. Washington won't allow that fool Avery to get into their heads like he did with NJ last year.
Caps in Six

3 New Jersey Devils vs. 6 Carolina Hurricanes
I would pick the Devils against every team except for the Bruins, and this one. Before you cry foul, remember that NJ has lost two of the last three series against Carolina. Still, this one won't be over quickly.
'Canes in Six

4 Pittsburgh Penguins vs. 5 Philadelphia Flyers
This is a joke of a matchup. While Pittsburgh isn't as good as they were last year, neither is Philly! The Flyers are still looking for a netminder, and it spells their doom once again. the Flyers find enough in their sack to eke out a sole win. I don't believe that, truly, I'm just being generous. That, and four-game sweeps are still too rare to bet on.
Pens in Five

Western Conference

1 San Jose Sharks vs. 8 Anaheim Ducks
This is San Jose's year to shine. They are awesome, top to bottom. The Ducks, while often problematic, only got into the Second Season because of math-based attrition. A brewing goaltender controversy is also in the works over in Arrowhead, and that won't help.
Sharks in Five

2 Detroit Red Wings vs. No. 7 Columbus Blue Jackets
There is always one huge upset during the year, and this is it: Osgood looks like he should be playing shuffleboard in Miami, and Mason looks like a freaking Vezina winner.
Jackets in Six

3 Vancouver Canucks vs. 6 St. Louis Blues
This is another series that might end up with another lower seed making the big boys sweat. The Blues want to prove something to the world, but I gotta take the Canucks this year.
Vancouver in Five

4 Chicago Blackhawks vs. 5 Calgary Flames
Proof positive that good ownership makes all of the difference in the world. While I admire Calgary and many of their players, They don't have enough to withstand a 'Hawks team that looks like they are going to make it into the WCF. Kiprusoff will keep them honest, but in the end...
Birds in Seven

Lane Kiffin and Pat Summitt: The Yin and Yang of Tennessee Athletics

Kreskin Annihilation — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:43:19 -0500

Earlier today, I was rolling my eyes while reading the latest article describing yet another formal apology from Lane Kiffin: The Boy Who Would Be Coach at the University of Tennessee.

It seems that coach Kiffin, in the midst of what must now be the most well-known booster meeting in a decade, slung some spiteful arrows towards the staff of Pahokee High.

I won't go into the details, as they are bouncing around the web ad infinitum, and have likely seared your retinas by now—but suffice it to say that he accused them of being everything from stupid to downright treacherous.

Compare Kiffin's actions to date with a coaching legend who also calls Knoxville home: Pat Summitt.

Pat Summitt is one of the greatest coaches ever, in any sport. To quote an earlier comment of mine, she could lead a team of snowmen into Hades and bring back ice cream. She has set the finest example of class, leadership, and dignity possible, and I daresay that anyone would be proud to claim her as one of their own.

Given that, I have one question for the Tennessee Nation: If you honor and respect Pat Summitt, how can you not condemn and deplore Lane Kiffin?

Arguments could be made for supporting your university's coaches, regardless of how they act, at all costs. However, that sort of loyalty should be saved when the person in question has earned trust and respect, not for a Johnny-come-lately who has written a verbal check large enough to put a dent in the national deficit.

Backing an immature, verbally incontinent baboon like Kiffin, at the cost of the university's reputation, isn't something that anyone should be a part of.

Honor and integrity should never take a back seat to hyperbole and rhetoric. I, for one, lament the fact that the trustees and the administration of the University of Tennessee have allowed this huckster, this charlatan, to sully the good name of the Volunteer Nation.

Survival of the Fittest: Adding the Mountain West Conference

Kreskin Annihilation — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:47:36 -0500

As many fans of college football know, there has been a lively discussion regarding the Mountain West Conference being given official recognition as a BCS Conference.

Some groups have ridiculed the idea, asserting that the MWC has not earned their stripes over a period of time. Others have called for realignment as a solution, as in adding the WAC.

I prefer a more primal, cut and dried method for adding the MWC, which is as ancient as the laws of nature itself: survival of the fittest.

I say that we keep the current number of BCS conferences (six) and implement a three-year term of membership.

After one term expires, we sort them according to their bowl records over said period. Whomever ends up at the bottom of the list gets voted off of the island, so to speak, by having their BCS membership terminated.

This opens the door for schools like Utah, who beat Alabama, to earn their way in. Incidentally, it gives their conference a boost with a bowl win and a better figure at the end of the year when membership is being reviewed.

And yes, this also means that Notre Dame would have to join a conference.

The remaining FBS conferences (not to be confused with Div. II-now-FCS schools) would then have their overall records compiled over the same three-year term. Whomever has the best record gets the recently-vacated BCS rank for the next three years.

The BCS officials, given their use of statistics and arcane formulas, could even add a multiplier to boost non-conference wins, especially if a victory comes against a current BCS school, to stave off any grievances regarding "better" wins and "good" losses.

This approach addresses several of the current problems:

1) It keeps things honest by blending the votes and on-the-field results. One big upset, or a winter hot streak won't be enough to game the system. Everyone must perform at a high level in the regular season to earn a bowl bid. By the same token, one down year won't be the end of the world for a team or conference.

2) The regular season drama stays, and pageantry is honored. The voters are still involved, upsets will inevitably move mountains, frauds will be exposed, champions will be forged: to top it all off, everyone controls their share of destiny, and can still contribute in the end with a bowl win.

3) All bowl games become more relevant. Each and every bowl game is validated as never before, with every win and loss counting towards each given conference's final tally. The Gordon's Fish Sticks bowl that is just as important for schools and conferences trying to get into the big party.

4) Consistency and excellence on the gridiron is rewarded. Teams will be rewarded, eventually, if they can keep the pace up. Teams that make a habit of beating the big boys will become one of them by their own hand. Teams that work to dominate their opponents will stay at the top.

5) The little guy gets a shot, and redemption is never too far away. Since the last-place team is given a gold watch and a clock after three years, we get a fresh injection of schools, talent, and coaching on a regular basis. There is also a permanent chance at redemption for any conference that has fallen out of the rankings.

In conclusion, we need evolution, not revolution, to form a more fair solution for college football. Honoring the pageantry while rewarding on-the-field results is necessary for college football to evolve beyond where we stand.

Nick Saban Pickpockets Auburn's Linebacker Coach, James Willis

Kreskin Annihilation — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:03:41 -0500

You can love him or hate him, but when it comes down to brass tacks, having a man like Nick Saban on your side brings excellent benefits.

We lost Lance Thompson to Tennessee, and for a moment I was concerned. We already have our own share of issues to deal with, and we didn't need to add more, especially after coach Steele left for Clemson.

What does Nick Saban do about it?

He delivers an upgrade for the Crimson Tide by going to Auburn's house and hiring away one of their best assets to coach our linebackers. That's right, James Willis, an AU alumni to boot, has decided to head west to Tuscaloosa, after barely a months' time under Gene Chizik.

Auburn's one current strength IS their defense, especially that linebacker corps. To bring in a guy of Willis' talent is one thing, but to deliver a George St. Pierre-style knee to Auburn's face in the process is nothing short of excellent.

You can't do any more than bettering yourself and injuring your opponent at the same time.

So, say what you will about Alabama's potential issues, or a possible letdown after a 12-2 season, but know this: Nick Saban is here to play ball, and he is going to do whatever it takes to keep the Crimson Tide going strong.

USC, Utah, SEC, Etc. Fans Disenfranchised By Apathetic Voters

Kreskin Annihilation — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:30:06 -0500

It's not difficult to understand why the voters who determine college football rankings cannot watch every single game.

Even if you assume that they somehow have access to all of them, how would a regular person find the time to watch them all? In fact, who would WANT to? I wouldn't.

As much as I love the game, there's no way I'd agree to it.

However, the fact of the matter is that these people do have a responsibility to be as informed as possible when determining the pecking order. I cannot shake the nagging feeling that they don't do any more than watch a regional game or two and review whatever highlights on ESPN are available.

Once that's done, I would presume that they have a decent idea on who the top 10 or 12 schools might be. After that, you have to figure that, lacking information, they sorta pick and choose by what they recall, as in, "Hmmm...I guess I'll put, oh...Arkansas @ No. 13. Huh. Isn't their coach the one who bailed on the Falcons? That guy's a jerk, I'm sticking them at No. 21 instead."

That scenario isn't much of a stretch, is it?

If you said yes, I'll still say no to you, and here's why: People are like water in that they follow the path of least resistance. At one time or another, everyone has taken a lazy shortcut or has said, "Ahhh, that's good enough."

Right or wrong, any non-empirical human process is at risk for a subjective slant. They're also prone to use subjective analysis in favor of objective observation.

Shocking, I know.

It stands to reason, as a result, that the polls are inherently flawed. If you've had a long weekend due to an extended stay by the in-laws, or as a result of tearing the house apart looking for tax papers, discerning the nuances & merits of placing Northwestern above Ball State is just not on the radar.

Of course, this is exactly why the dreaded "style points" problem has arisen. Given this facet, it is patently clear why teams should try to run up the score. It is easily the most direct path to grabbing a high ranking: Lazy voters will only look at the final points in the box...therefore, the bigger the win, the better.

If you're expecting me to deliver a shiny, neat resolution, well...sorry. I don't have one.

The fact is that I don't know how I would begin to solve this thorny issue. Hiring professional evaluators/"voters" is risky, because then you might get the wrong person in there, someone who could be persuaded in a less than ethical way to boost a certain school or conference. Besides, who would do the hiring?

Elected officials with specific terms or service might help, but there again, how would you develop the candidates? Would they have to campaign? You'd certainly have to monitor donations if that were the case, and I'm thinking that everyone is at their saturation level in terms of politicking.

I regret ending this in a Hitchcock-esque fashion, in terms of leaving you, the ever faithful Reader, to determine how this should end. However, I tend to believe that we could have interesting dialogue as a result. So please, by all means, share your thoughts with me.

How Is It That Oklahoma Doesn't Get the Hate That Ohio State Does for Losing?

Kreskin Annihilation — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 05:39:22 -0500

The last time I wrote an article, I defended Auburn...As an Alabama fan.

Forgive the appearance of such, but I don't plan on playing Captain Save-A-School with everything I write. However, a friend mentioned this particular issue to me earlier today, and I found his question to be fairly profound. That may or may not indicate my education level where football is concerned, but that's for another article.

Let's get to the subject at hand.

Ohio State has lost two BCS championship games in a row, and they lost to Texas in this year's Fiesta Bowl. Yes, they've recently suffered two high-profile regular season losses (USC and Penn State), but in the strictest of terms, have lost three bowl games in a row.

That sort of record when the lights are brightest would make any fan sad in the pants, but consider this: The Sooners have lost four straight bowl games: FOUR. And yet, no one ever talks about it.

At least, I never see people laying down the hammer on those guys like they do the Buckeyes. To hear the Anti-Buckeye people speak, you'd think that Ohio State was at fault for everything from the annual BCS drama to the holes in your socks. People seem to ENJOY bashing Ohio State, regardless of whom they cheer for.

How does one explain this phenomena?

Before 2002, OSU didn't have a whole lot to brag about. It's not like they were the Yankees of CFB. And maybe part of the answer lies there...Oklahoma has to be considered one of the all-time best schools, along with USC, Notre Dame, Texas, Alabama, Michigan, Penn State...Are they, subconsciously, a sacred cow in the minds of the typical fan?

Even if that's the case, let's face the facts. Even the numbers are more appropriate for Oklahoma to be called the Buffalo Bills of College Football, as opposed to Ohio State. In bowl games they're 0-4, straight. And hell, that record has a chance to hit 0-5 tomorrow night.

So, I ask you, readers of Bleacher Report: Why do the Sooners get a pass for several straight losses in big bowl games while the Buckeyes do not?

Enough With Auburn Being Racist Already

Kreskin Annihilation — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:14:12 -0500

I'm writing this in response to the never-ending articles I see that are questioning Auburn's hire of Chizik over Gill: specifically, that the decision was driven by racism.

You know things are sad when a dyed-in-the-wool Alabama fan has to come to the defense of Auburn. However, I am sick and tired of seeing my fellow SEC school (and by proxy, Southerners in general) get trashed in this fashion.

Do I think that Gill is a better coach than Chizik? Most definitely. I think that, with time, he could take Auburn further than Tuberville or Dye did. Be that as it may, Gill wasn't hired for three reasons:

1) He doesn't have the connections necessary to recruit in the South. More to the point, think about the beast that he would be going head-to-head with. Pat Dye specifically named poor recruiting as a major problem for Auburn on Finebaum's radio show.

If Tuberville, who is widely respected by high school coaches in this region, went 0-for-Alabama in terms of getting the best in-state recruits, what on earth would make anyone think that coach Gill could do a better job versus coach Saban?

2) The AD & the BoT want the offense to be run the "Auburn Way" (again, something Dye alluded to on the radio last week), and they could not do that if they brought in Gill's conglomeration of option-meets-West-Coast offense.

I have no doubt that coach Gill could get his hybrid system running in a couple of years, but Auburn's powers that be aren't willing to wait more than absolutely necessary. As it stands, Auburn is at least one recruiting class behind, seeing as how they got spread players in the last class.

They are going to have to boil it down to basics and rebuild with what they have.

3) This brings me to the third item, which is the most crucial...time. Auburn cannot afford to take a chance on someone who is so new to the area.

Nutt has made a massive splash next door. Miles will surely be pulling out all stops to get LSU back to where he wants it. Petrino is going to unleash a monster offense next year with Mallett. Saban has already reclaimed the state title of Resident Badass. Richt is going to be hot and heavy to get his Dawgs back on their feet, and he will be pulling out all of the stops. And let's not forget the magic of Meyer down in Florida.

Does this sound like an ideal environment for a classic "fish out of water" story to you?

This is where "Five and Nineteen Gene" has the upper hand. Chizik has far more experience in terms of what is expected from Auburn teams (tough D, power running) and the lay of the land in terms of recruiting.

He will be able to pick up his old connections and find a lot of help from the University in getting things done. He's not going to challenge the Powers That Be, and that is no small matter.

He is in a pickle in terms of an OC though, because he will have to find a damned good one that can at least plug the holes and ease the boat through the coming storm.

Make no mistake: Chizik wasn't the best coach, but he was the best fit for Auburn in terms of what they need right away: familiarity, roots, and to be honest, passivity towards the AD & the BoT.