Facts matter. Providing them matters more.

I promise this will be the last sports-related post today, but I want to comment on this column by Michael Wilbon in today’s Washington Post. Mr. Wilbon is one of two sports columnists I look forward to reading when any significant topic (to me) occurs in the sports world. I can always count on Mr. Wilbon to offer an insightful, well-written editorial. Reading today’s column on Redskins safety Sean Taylor spitting in the face of Michael Pittman, I figured I’d get the same, since a $17,000 fine is ridiculously low. The column started out well, comparing Taylor’s fine with the $20,000 fine running back Clinton Portis received for wearing non-regulation socks. So far, so good. It’s when Mr. Wilbon got to the example of Marcus Vick as further proof. I agree that Vick is a useful comparison, but there are two serious issues I have with how far Mr. Wilbon takes the argument. Both exist in this paragraph. Consider:

So you’ll pardon me if I’m not going to give school and athletic department officials a standing ovation for throwing his butt out of school . . . eventually. He should have been thrown out months earlier. And university officials, if they have the guts, ought to be taking a serious look at the entire football program because there’s way too much trouble involving the football players on that campus.

As for Virginia Tech “throwing his butt out of school,” this is the second time Mr. Wilbon mentioned this. Unfortunately, it’s not true. Virginia Tech dismissed Marcus Vick from the football team, not from Virginia Tech. Vick did nothing to help himself in the last week, but there’s a difference. But that’s more a trivial complaint than anything.

More disturbing is the last part of that paragraph. With the phrase “way too much trouble involving the football players on that campus,” Mr. Wilbon presents the Virginia Tech football team as a troubled program, one that coddles thugs and criminals while putting only money as a priority. Maybe that’s true; I’ve heard such statements in abundance over the last week, so I’m not surprised. I expect proof with a statement like that, though. Simply stating something does not make it true.

Without facts, it diminishes our reputation with people who are paying only marginal attention to our program. It implies that we care only about athletics and victories, with academics of little consequence. If that’s true, Mr. Wilbon should provide support for statements like that. If it’s not, he should understand that making such throwaway lines for hyperbole hurts Virginia Tech unfairly with potential students, as well as athletic recruits, because his words have influence. Whichever impression the facts support, I can accept it. I can’t accept that Marcus Vick alone is an indictment of the entire program, not without more proof.

The referee weighs in on Vick

Steve Usecheck, the referee from Monday’s Gator Bowl, responded to the Marcus Vick incident:

“We missed that, and I’m sorry we did,” [Big 12 Conference official] Usecheck told the Newport News Daily Press from his Colorado home. “The TV, everybody saw it but us. I wish we had the opportunity to talk to (Vick) because that was complete (expletive). You bet I would have thrown his ass out.”

Usecheck said he has not seen a replay of the Vick incident but that purposely stomping a defenseless opponent warrants ejection. …

“I was really disappointed,” Usecheck said. “We don’t see football like that (in the Big 12). Those kids were just completely out of control. Louisville wasn’t as bad. Virginia Tech was brutal.”

I have two words for Mr. Usecheck: shut up. He didn’t see the play when it happened. He hasn’t seen it on replay. Those of us who saw it know what the proper action should’ve been. There’s nothing more gained from Mr. Usecheck’s input.

Specifically, those quotes confirm exactly what I screamed at my television on Monday. The officials missed most of the game. They didn’t see Vick’s deplorable step. They didn’t see other penalties, on both teams, that should’ve been obvious. They saw penalties, again, on both teams, that simply never happened. Mr. Usecheck also seemed to take glee in calling penalties on Virginia Tech. It was a pathetic job from kickoff until the final ticks.

Mr. Usecheck shouldn’t perpetuate that by babbling about something he can’t be bothered to see at least once.

What to do when excuses run out

Watching Monday’s Annual Virginia Tech Invitational Gator Bowl, Marcus Vick’s disgusting behavior, intentionally stepping on Elvis Dumervil’s knee after a play ended, angered me. At Virginia Tech, we do not condone or engage such thuggery. I expect our Athletics Director, Jim Weaver, to deal with this harshly. Giving the finger to WVU fans earlier in the season was inappropriate, but mostly funny. For this, Vick should be suspended.

I assume Mr. Weaver will suspect Vick for the first game of next year’s season, but I’d be just as content if he suspended Vick for next season. Given that Vick only has one more year of eligibility, that would mean he’d have to declare for the NFL draft in April. Let’s see how well that kind of nonsense is rewarded, especially after including Vick’s prior off-field incidents and his poor play in the two big games he played as a starter this season. I’ve defended him through everything, and even believed he’d matured because he spent last season with his brother in Atlanta. I’ll never abandon a Hokie for poor play, but this is unacceptable and pisses me off. Ass.

Ding dong ding dong .. mmmkay

By now everyone knows that Denver residents approved Initiative 100, legalizing possession of up to one ounce of marijuana within the city limits. This is, of course, mostly symbolic since state laws against possession will still trump Initiative 100. We all know how the “Drugs are bad, mmmmkay” nanny statists will view this, so shock at continuing arrests and disregard for this message from the voters would be pointless. Remember, it’s all about the will of the people unless the will of the people don’t do what’s in their best interests. The people don’t get to offer input into what’s in their best interest, either, but no matter. “Drugs are bad, mmmmkay” continues.

Personally, I agree with the gist of the “Drugs are bad, mmmmkay” message, although I’d change it to reflect that I merely don’t get the fascination with drugs, or even alcohol. That doesn’t mean I expect to deny it to you. As long as you don’t endanger me, I don’t care, so I think drugs should be legal and would’ve voted for Initiative 100. With all the issues facing our society, prohibition laws make no sense. Possession of one ounce of marijuana is trivial when considering other dangers. Legalize all of it and end the nonsensical battle.

While in Blacksburg over the weekend, I read the student newspaper, The Collegiate Times, for a bit of nostalgia. I always do this and I’m always amused at how bad it is. It was awful when I was a student. A reporter interviewed me for a story on a student organization I was involved in at the time and misquoted me after I e-mailed my response to her questions. Seemingly everyone involved was some combination of lazy and/or incompetent. Now, more than seven years later, nothing has changed. From Friday’s edition, this editorial tackles the passage of Initiative 100 in Denver. Consider [sic’s everywhere]:

News of such a measure brings about issues of legalizing marijuana in general. Denver should not have allowed such a measure to pass, even its mayor and the state of Colorado agree with that. The new procedure essentially stops people in Denver from being punished for carrying small amounts of marijuana. State law still allows for fines and speaks nothing to buying, selling or smoking the drug that has been known as a gateway drug to other addictive ones.

By passing such a procedure, the city of Denver may have gotten more than it bargained for. Then again, perhaps they really are attempting to become the next Amsterdam. If possession of marijuana becomes legal, what is to stop arguments of legalization of prostitution, heroin or any other illegal drugs?

In a country full of people who cannot even handle alcohol, legalizing marijuana is ludicrous. The United States arguably has some of the strictest laws pertaining to alcohol; however, drunken driving statistics are higher than those of most other countries, if not all.

What all of this boils down to is this: Making a vice more accessible, even legal, only ensures that it will become more harmful. Allowing people in one city to carry less than an ounce of marijuana literally removes the deterrence of carrying drugs in general. Not only that but a measure such as the one that has just passed in Denver, push the movement of legalizing marijuana in general.

That seriously could be the only reason something such as this has happened. In Telluride, Colo., the same measure as in Denver was narrowly turned down. It seems as though the purpose of introducing these procedures in localities that are so close to one another can only be to eventually challenge the state law itself.

The United States simply isn’t ready for the legalization of marijuana. This country cannot handle the inhibitions that exist from alcohol, how can citizens expect to be able to handle marijuana? While it seems as though state law may trump the measures being taken in Denver, the overall effects of such things are the real problem. Legalizing possession in Denver pushes the movement towards general legalization in Colorado and basically paves the way for legalized marijuana all over the United States. Without a doubt the road the followers of this movement are headed on must be stopped.

I’m ashamed that poorly reasoned, grammatically ignorant screeds pass for thinking at Virginia Tech. There are so many lapses of logic that it’s hard to decide where to begin. Is it the ridiculous notion that government officials are a better arbiter of standards than the governed? Could it be that the editors invoked the “slippery slope” argument without providing any justification for how that would happen, or even why it’s a “bad” outcome?

No. It’s the low level of intelligence needed to believe that “strictest laws pertaining to alcohol/drunken driving statistics are higher than those of most other countries” forms a strong pretext to criminalize drugs more until the people finally get it that drugs. are. bad. and they can’t be trusted to make good decisions, so Thank God the government is looking out for them. The editors provide no support for their generalizations. No statistics, no theories, no anecdotal evidence. They offer nanny statism at its core: if we give you freedom, you’ll only fuck it up, so trust us that we know better. No, thanks.

Yet, the editors don’t stop there. Somehow America cannot handle the inhibitions that exist from alcohol, so how can citizens be able to handle marijuana? First, prove that Americans can’t handle alcohol. I might agree generically, although I come to the conclusion that allowing Americans to drink earlier, where parents and society can teach moderation, would be more effective than “protecting” them from themselves with strict laws. I don’t agree, though, that a blanket statement of fact is sufficient in this argument. Prove it with at least one fact. Surely one is available.

More importantly, the editors failed to prove that marijuana is worse than alcohol. Again, prove it. State at least one fact indicating that legalization of alcohol is reasonable but legalization of marijuana is not. It can’t be the gateway drug nonsense, either, unless you prove that, too. Wishing it so doesn’t it make it true. Cause and effect.

Finally, what kind of government do the editors believe we have? Granted, that’s mostly rhetorical because the clear implication in that editorial is that the federal government mandates best. But consider the federal part of federal government. Isn’t it reasonable to allow a locality to decide that it wants to try this experiment? If it doesn’t work, it’ll stop and presumably won’t spread to other places. If it succeeds, the next locality has proof that it can be done without destroying society. In that regard, the editors are correct in assuming that it could spread all over America, but that’s not a bad outcome if the experiment proves a success. But that’s just my crazy notion that I’ll err on the side of freedom unless the facts reveal that as unwise.

Nouns are important

Danielle and I have tickets to THE game tomorrow, Virginia Tech vs. Miami. (Go Hokies!!) We’re driving to Blacksburg late tonight, so we’ll miss this invitation from the Athletic Department. I do wish we could be there, though.

Fans are invited to Hokie Sendoff at 6:45 p.m. Friday night at Cassell Coliseum.

The sendoff, a rally for the Virginia Tech football team as they depart campus in preparation for their game Saturday with the University of Miami, will occur on the court…

… Come out and wish the football well…

I wish I could be there to wish the football well.

You did catch that right? The Athletic Department invited everyone to come out and wish the football well. I wish the team well, but if this is helpful, we should all do whatever it takes.

Go Hokies!

I can’t wait to hear the Eagles scream

Virginia Tech battles Boston College tonight on ESPN. I’ll watch from my sofa because I don’t have tickets, but if I did, I’d invoke this logic:

Some colleges have been reluctant to play on Thursday night because administrators feel the midweek games put too much of a burden on fans who travel from far away to attend the games. There are a limited number of hotel rooms in Blacksburg, and many fans have to take Friday off work.

“The special thing about it is it’s a prime-time game,” guard Will Montgomery said. “You get so many vacation days, so you might as well use one on this game. It’s as good of a reason as any.”

“I think with our fans, taking that next day off is the least of their worries,” Beamer said. “They’re loyal fans, and they’ll be ready for Thursday night.”

The forecast is for cold, clear skies. There are fans who would let an “inconvenience” like that stop them from going, but Hokies aren’t like that. I know this for a fact because even my grandmother stood in Lane Stadium for more than three hours during this:

Hokies fans proved how rabid and loyal they were when Virginia Tech beat Texas A&M, 35-19, on a Thursday night in September 2003. With Hurricane Isabel knocking out electricity to more than 1 million people in Virginia, a crowd of 65,115 still showed up at Lane Stadium and withstood a downpour and 37-mph winds. “The atmosphere is just wild and crazy on Thursday nights,” Lewis said. “It’s hard for the quarterback to make audibles and calls. You’ll see him walk up to the line and get in everybody’s ears because they can’t hear him. I think the crowd makes it a bigger game. That’s why Thursday night games are so big here because the stadium gets so loud.”

Game on.

My analysis also applies to the 2005 NFC East

The Bowl Championship Series rankings provided a nice shock to the college football world yesterday. I didn’t notice it until late in the day because I already assumed correctly that Virginia Tech would be third in the rankings, as we were last week. Since there are five weeks left in the season, it’s late but still too early to worry too much about the final rankings. The system may be flawed as many are reasonably arguing. I believe college football should figure out a playoff system and let the championship be decided on the field. I’m not in the minority on that, but I don’t control the millions of dollars involved in the current Bowl system. It’ll be around for awhile.

Because the rankings are what they are, they provide sports journalists the opportunity to write about the minutiae as if it mattered in October. Michael Wilbon, who I really like as a writer, discusses the latest rankings in his column today. I disagree with his analysis, but only because it’s a fundamental flaw everyone is making. In analyzing the USC/Texas conundrum brought about by the BCS, Mr. Wilbon highlights a point, that if put into another context (as I’m going to do), we’d laugh at the absurdity. Somehow we accept it in sports. Consider:

Texas shouldn’t be first in the BCS ratings. No one should be ahead of Southern Cal. The Trojans are two-time national champs. They’ve won 29 straight and counting. While Texas beat one ranked opponent on the road in the Buckeyes, USC defeated then-ranked Arizona State in Tempe and Notre Dame in South Bend. Excuse me, but nothing on Texas’s rsum matches winning at Notre Dame. And while Young can carry a team, he’s not as impressive as reigning Heisman winner Matt Leinart, all-American Reggie Bush and all-American candidate LenDale White.

The point is, any system that makes it possible, no matter how remotely, that an undefeated Southern Cal team could be left out of the Rose Bowl is too stupid to live with. People (mostly college presidents) who defend this system and argue against a playoff shouldn’t be able to wake up with a clear conscience.

I agree that USC’s consecutive wins streak (29, I think) is impressive. I’m even willing to ignore the last-second, come-from-behind win they had against Notre Dame two weekends ago, winning because the officials blew two calls in USC’s favor in the last three seconds of the game. (I will not, however, ignore the crap officiating that cost the Hokies a chance to beat the Trojans in last season’s kickoff game at FedEx Field Jack Kent Cooke Stadium. No, I will never ignore that.) USC is a great team on a tremendous run.

But there is a flaw in Mr. Wilbon’s logic, as I said. If this weren’t college football, but auto manufacturing instead, we’d never accept the idea that past years are as important in determining the best cars in the current model year. Just because USC has won the last two championships doesn’t mean this year’s team should face an easier judgment. The humans voting in the AP and USA Today polls are certainly capable of arriving at different conclusions but it should be based on this year’s teams. If the voters believe Vince Young and Texas would out duel Matt Leinart and USC, they should vote Texas #1. Even the computers will compare them based on what happened on the field this season. The problem is, the BCS uses the artificial measures of human voting and computer data models to judge what can’t easily be judged without an on-the-field matchup. Subjective analysis is inevitable, but it shouldn’t be applied haphazardly in a way that compounds the artificial mess that is the BCS. Seniority, which is what voting based on the winning streak constitutes, is no match for merit, which is what Saturdays are for in the college football world. Maybe those measures will come up with the right answer, maybe not. Without a playoff system, it’s mostly speculation. But those measures should only consider what’s happening this season.

I’ll defend that into January if the Hokies face either USC or Texas in the Rose Bowl for the National Championship.

Why do you need to wreck this company?

I’ve jumped into the media bias argument before. Usually, I explain it with a rant about media being a business determined to make a profit. If there’s a slant, it’s because the business people within the media organization think they can make a profit from it. (Either that, or they’re bad business people. I leave that option open.) If you, as the consumer of that media bias, don’t like it, stop buying. Flip the channel, put your money in another newspaper box, whatever action makes you no longer a consumer of the bias you don’t like. It’s that simple, really. Especially in the age of the Internets, where there’s a web site for everything. It’s not complicated.

Yet, some still wish to pretend like it’s more. Consider this question from a college football chat hosted by The Washington Post:

Silver Spring, Md.: So since Virginia Tech fans alway [sic] come on here and whines [sic] about coverage in the paper, do you think they are happy with the number of stories in there the last few days while Maryland has received little coverage. And on that note, since Philadelphia and New York City are closer to D.C. then [sic] Blacksburg, I was wondering when the Post was going to start covering Delaware, Penn State, West Virginia, Pitt, Temple, Towson, St. Joe’s, Rutgers and St. Johns as hometown schools, too.

The individual has a point in the “MSM is biased” worldview. Unfortunately, the facts don’t hold up to scrutiny when scrubbed with that nonsense. I could offer my own analysis with wonderful wordplay, but I’ll just leave it to the reporter’s response. Enjoy:

Dan Steinberg: The Rutgers-UConn tilt will likely lead the sports section on Sunday.

No, actually, we’ve answered this before but are happy to answer it again. We cover Tech not because of their proximity to D.C. but because of the large and rabid fan base that lives in our readership area, which we judge in part by our readership surveys. For further evidence, check out the stands in Byrd on Thursday night. It’s unfortunate that people in Maryland might have to read Tech stories that don’t interest them, but it’s the challenge of putting out a paper in this market, and we try to be as diverse as possible based on reader interest. Tomorrow’s game preview story will be about the quarterbacks Ralph Friedgen and Charlie Taaffe have produced over the years.

Also, I think you forgot to demand more Delaware State coverage.

It really is that simple. There are many Hokies in the D.C. metro area. They want to read about the Hokies. They have quarters. The Washington Post knows that Hokies will insert quarters into the coin slots of newspaper boxes throughout the region. The Washington Post has a preference for which newspaper boxes receive those quarters. So they cover Virginia Tech football. (As well as Maryland, Virginia, and Navy.) You say bias, I say economics.

Yes, I know I offered my own analysis with wonderful wordplay after I said I wouldn’t. So what? Go Hokies!

Cannons destroy muskets

In preparation for Saturday’s Virginia Tech game against West Virginia, in Morgantown, WVa, I present to you a fine explanation of the joy that is West Virginia football. Behold:

Fire officials have ordered the removal of all upholstered furniture, debris and flammable objects from porches in neighborhoods with high student populations in an effort to put a damper on the outdoor furniture blazes that have become a tradition.

The move comes as the city, known as the couch-burning capital of college football, prepares for the West Virginia-Virginia Tech football game on Saturday.

“The reason for the order is based upon statistical fire data gathered following major rival football games or other sporting events,” Morgantown Fire Chief Dave Fetty said Monday. “Data says there are particular areas within the city where we can expect to have illegal street fires.”

Students celebrating victories by the Mountaineers have a long tradition of setting fires in the streets, often with cheap furniture dragged from their rental homes.

Morgantown led the nation in the number of intentional street fires between 1997 and 2003, with a total of 1,129 set.

“Officers plan to go door to door posting written, typed-up orders on each house or putting them in mailboxes,” Fetty said. “The notice states all indoor furniture that has been placed outside, along with other debris in specified areas, must be put elsewhere.”

Do I really need to write any sort of punchline?

I didn’t eat hot dogs from Wawa

This is all it takes to set a world record?

Suresh Joachim broke the Guinness world record for the longest time spent watching TV. He finished Friday with 69 hours and 48 minutes.

There are so many (lame) jokes inherent in that setup, but I’m not going after any of them. I just want to ask the very real question of how an individual remains awake for almost 70 hours straight and absorbs anything. Shouldn’t there be some criteria stronger than just “constantly looking at the screen”? Any fool can stay awake for 70 hours, but can he be coherent?

I went to Blacksburg to see the Hokies pound Ohio. After driving four hours Friday, staying out until 3:45 am, getting up at 7:30, standing in the sun for ten of the next fourteen hours, and finally driving another four hours home on Saturday evening, I understood a little about insufficient sleep. I assume Mr. Joachim did, too, but I jammed 70 hours of fun into 27. Fifteen miles from home on Saturday night, I had to pull over and let my brother drive because little men ran across the highway. I don’t mean that as an exaggeration, either. I hallucinated little men running across the highway, little men who weren’t there.

But at least I earned my hallucination by doing more than just sitting on my ass, watching beams of light bounce across a television screen. To you, Mr. Joachim, I say “Big whoop.” I saw little men. What did you see?