The Definition of Great Debate, College Football Edition – Turn On the Swag

Read Bleacher Fan’s argument that professional success defines college team greatness and Sport Geek’s argument that great is determined by statistical dominance.

First off, thanks to our friends at the Orlando Sentinel for indirectly giving us the idea to debate the definition of greatness for a college football team. Andrea Adelson wrote an article about the 2001 Miami Hurricanes defining them as the Team of the Decade. That got The Sports Debates thinking (I know what you’re thinking… here we go again). What defines the greatness of a college football team?

I really struggled with this topic. I knew immediately that I wasn’t going to argue that greatness is defined solely by the number of NFL players on the team. There are so many variables that go into that, so I could not really agree with arguing that. I think the two-headed monster of Chris Leak and Tim Tebow at quarterback for the 2006 Florida Gators was the key to that team winning the championship. But, Leak is not in the NFL (he actually plays in the Canadian Football League), and who knows what the future holds for Mr. Tebow.

I believe that the greatness of a team is defined by the attitude/swagger it shows while performing on the field. The great teams already have a big advantage over their opponents because they can intimidate them. To borrow a phrase from Bleacher Fan, “It is not what you win, but how you win it, that qualifies you for greatness!” Perhaps that quote defines greatness in college football. It apparently defines it in tennis! Maybe these “great” football teams are hard hitting and extra physical. Maybe they are explosive. Their dominance is evident when they walk on the field – while they walk on the field. Let’s take a look at some national championship teams over the past 20 years.

The 2001 Miami Hurricanes, which Ms. Adelson discussed in her article, were great. Why were they great? They had swagger. The “U” had an aura. Sure, they had nice guys on their team like Ken Dorsey, but they also had strong figures on the team like Jeremy Shockey, Jonathan Vilma, Ed Reed, and Phillip Buchanan. That was a dominant team with strong personalities on both sides of the ball.

The 2004 USC Trojans had swagger also, but in a different way. They were so explosive that they could make another team believe they had a two touchdown deficit before they even walked on the field. Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, and then-freshman Dwayne Jarrett, led the quick strike offense. The Trojans were always a serious threat to score from anywhere on the field. Looking back, the 55-19 dismantling of the Jason White-Adrian Peterson Oklahoma team in the Orange Bowl helped build this team’s reputation.

Perhaps the most impressive team Loyal Homer saw growing up was the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers. I recall them steamrolling everyone they played, including an 62-24 thrashing of the Florida Gators in the championship game. Tommy Frazier was the driving force behind this team with Tom Osborne’s powerful option-rushing attack. Remember Frazier? I sure do. I bet Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan do as well. This team was dominant. They averaged over 53 points and 400 yards rushing per game. They beat four teams who finished ranked in the top ten that year by an average score of 49-18. Wow! Their smallest margin of victory all year was a 14 point victory over Washington State. That team definitely had swagger!

These are three championship winning teams I remember vividly from the last 20 years. And looking at all three, I remember them because they had the “IT” factor. These three teams defined their greatness with their swagger! They turned their swag on!

The Definition of Great Debate, College Football Edition – Made From the Best Stuff on Earth

Read Loyal Homer’s argument that swagger defines great and Sports Geek’s argument that statistical dominance defines great.

Recently, our friend Andrea Adelson at the Orlando Sentinel posed a question to her readers: Which college football team in the last nine years would currently ranks as the “Team of the Decade?”

There have been some outstanding teams over the past nine years, including the 2005 Texas Longhorns, the 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes, the 2004 USC Trojans, and Adelson’s pick, the 2001 Miami Hurricanes.

During our production meeting last week we here at TSD discussed the merits of her list, and out of that discussion came an interesting debate topic for us…

What is the best criteria by which to measure the success of a college football team?

Sports Geek will argue that statistical dominance is the key (big surprise), and Loyal Homer will argue that swagger and attitude are what separates the men from the boys.

For me the answer is much simpler than stats or attitude. It all boils down to talent and success of the players at the next level, the NFL.

Keep in mind, we’re not debating what it takes to be a good college player, we are talking about choosing the “BEST” team, and just like gourmet meals are made from the best ingredients, the best team is made up of the best players.

Statistics and swagger are good, but they are merely by-products of talent, and they don’t always tell a true story. For example, the 2004 National Champion USC Trojans didn’t even crack the top-10 in total offense. You know who did? The Toledo Rockets and the Bowling Green Falcons, both out of the Mid-American Conference. Does that mean that the MAC actually had two schools that were better than USC that year? I don’t think so.

As another example, who was the best running back from the class of 2005? I bet you said Heisman Trophy winner Reggie Bush, didn’t you? (That’s okay, so did I.) But, he wasn’t statistically the top rusher of the year. He was actually third behind DeAngelo Williams of Memphis and Jerome Harrison of Washington State.

Surely, then, he was at least the top scorer of 2005, right?! Wrong again. In this little statistic, he doesn’t show up until eighth on the list. In fact, he wasn’t even the top scoring running back for his own school! That title actually belonged to LenDale White.

My point here is that statistics can be misleading, or that quality is more important than quantity. What is not misleading is the ability for a player (or a group of players) to consistently do what needs to be done in order to remain competitive for extended periods of time, at ANY level of competition.

Think about the teams I mentioned above as some of the best from the past decade. What made them all great was the fact that they were populated by the best players of that time. The 2001 Hurricanes had Ed Reed, Jeremy Shockey, Andre Johnson, Clinton Portis, and Kellen Winslow Jr. The 2002 Buckeyes had Maurice Clarett (ahh, what could have been), A.J. Hawk, Michael Jenkins, Chris Gamble, Mike Doss, and Will Smith. The 2004 Trojans had Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, Lofa Tatupu, LenDale White, and Eric Wright. The 2005 Longhorns had Vince Young, Selvin Young, Limas Sweed, Brian Orakpo, and Justin Blalock.

These players dominated in college, and (with the exception of Clarett) moved on to successful NFL careers as well, and those names only make up a fraction of the total number of NFL caliber players who contributed to the success of those respective teams. In fact, as Adelson point, the ’01 Hurricanes actually sent 38 players from the roster to the NFL, including 17 first-round picks! It’s no accident that this team became National Champions.

It isn’t about blowing out an opponent by 50 points, dominating total passing yardage, or having the flashiest plays. The one common thread that each of these teams shared is TALENT. They had the best players in the right positions to make the plays needed to win.

Think about the Texas vs. Ohio State game of 2005. In that game, The Ohio State Buckeyes were driving late in the game and were ready to go ahead by 10 points. Unfortunately for the Buckeye faithful, Tight End Ryan Hamby (who?) ended up dropping a sure touchdown pass from Quarterback Justin Zwick (who?) in the endzone, and the Buckeyes had to settle for a field goal, giving them only a six point lead.

In response, the Longhorns (led by the superior talent named above) were able to march down the field and take the lead from Ohio State with only 2 minutes left in the game, thanks to a TD pass from Vince Young to Limas Sweed. That touchdown ended up being the difference maker as the Longhorns would close out that game and go on to defeat the USC Trojans in the National Championship game later that year.

What made the difference? The Longhorn talent was able to execute under pressure where the Buckeye players could not. Texas didn’t dominate the game statistically, they just did enough to win the game, and at the end of the day, that’s ALL that matters.

The best teams are the ones that are made up of the best players… end of debate!

The NBA Replay Debate – Should Replay Be To Avoid Controversial Endings?

Please read the site note at the bottom of the page.

As I have moved my record to a robust 2-0 in Court Room style debates, I have also earned the right to introduce and judge yet another timely topic involving the 2009 NBA Finals (side note – how are Laker fans getting out-voted by Magic fans?).

As I see it, NBA Commissioner David Stern may find himself in an off-season conundrum. Should the NBA change their famous Rule #13 (instant replay) to include a number of traditionally non-reviewable aspects, solely to ensure fairness for any last second shot that takes place as time expires?

Here’s the scenario. The Orlando Magic, their fans, and their media (including our friends at the Orlando Sentinel) have contested that there is a chance Los Angeles Lakers power forward Pau Gasol committed goaltending on Magic shooting guard Courtney Lee’s attempt to hammer home a lob pass as time expired in regulation during Game 2 of the 2009 NBA Finals.

Let’s not worry about whether the refs cheated the Magic. Instead, the compelling question for me is the following: How involved should the NBA get in controversial, potentially game-changing plays as time expires in regulation or overtime?

Consider the end of Game 2 of this year’s Finals as the key example. The game clock expired as Lee’s shot missed. However, there is some controversy surrounding whether Gasol caused the rim to move, or hit the ball after it had already touched the backboard. In situations like this, regardless of the normal process governing when a play can or cannot be replayed, should the NBA mandate that a close play at the end of a game – a play that could change the game’s outcome – be reviewed to ensure fairness and accuracy, not just time-remaining when the ball was released.

Currently, the rules surrounding what constitutes a reviewable play – and what doesn’t – are clear. Replays may occur only when issues involving time remaining on the clock, the severity of a flagrant foul, or the players involved in an altercation are in question. (You can read the entire rule book online. It’s a real page turner. Rule #13 is on page 50, if you’re curious.).

Here’s the debate. The NBA must use replay to review a close play at the end of regulation that may change the game’s outcome, including potential foul calls (only shooting fouls), goaltending, traveling, charging, and all ‘player control fouls.’

Loyal Homer will argue that the NBA must amend the rule book and expand the definition of replay at the end of a game to ensure the utmost fairness and accuracy of its referees.

Bleacher Fan will argue that the NBA should in no way amend their Rule #13, and that instant replay should remain intact after the slight alterations made to it last off-season.

I think there are several interesting points to be made in this debate, including how much oversight NBA referees should have when making big judgments (on the court, not in the casinos, Tim Donaghy). Let the debate commence!

Read the opening arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

The LeBron James Handshake Snub Debate – Who’s the King of the Hill?

All of us at The Sports Debates would like to send a thank you and a big shout out to all of our friends over at the Orlando Sentinel for suggesting this debate topic to us via a direct message on Twitter. If you haven’t checked out their blog section, make sure you do… it’s all very well-written, and very entertaining! (especially if you are a Florida sports fan!).

Outside the city of Orlando, if you are a fan of the NBA you were most likely surprised by the way the Orlando Magic dismantled “King” James and his Cleveland Cavaliers (I know I was).

Equally surprising were the actions of LeBron following the Cavaliers defeat after game 6 of the 2009 Eastern Conference Finals in Orlando. When the clock ticked to 0:00, and the Cavs season officially ended, LeBron stalked off to the locker room without congratulating anyone or shaking the hands of any Magic players and coaches. The Orlando Magic personnel were not alone, though. LeBron also snubbed the media following the game by refusing to appear for the post-game press conference.

While there has been a large media backlash regarding LeBron’s lack of sportsmanship, NBA Commissioner David Stern, who publicly disapproved of James’ post-game behavior, did not feel that LeBron’s actions warranted a fine, and announced yesterday that he would “reserve his judgment” until after he’s had a chance to speak with LeBron directly.

Cue The Sports Debates!

If David Stern is unwilling to discuss the situation, or to render a judgment on LeBron’s actions, we are more than happy to do so in his stead! We’ll even let you fans issue your judgment of LeBron’s behavior!

The terms for this debate are:

• The winner determined by fan votes.
• The question – Was LeBron James justified in his decision to not shake hands with the Orlando Magic personnel AND in his decision to avoid meeting with the press after the game?
• I, Bleacher Fan, as the winner of the previous debate, will debate that LeBron was justified in snubbing both the Magic and the Press.
• Sports Geek will be responsible for debating that LeBron was wrong on both instances, and that he should have shaken hands with the Magic, as well as attended the post-game press conference.
• Last, Loyal Homer will argue that he was right in not meeting with the press, but he still should have shaken the hands of the team that beat him.

Each position will be posted for you to read and weigh in on with your own thoughts and opinions. Once all three sides have been presented, you will have the opportunity to cast your vote for who you think won the debate, and what you think of LeBron’s actions.

And now… the debate begins!