Sunday Night Football Flex Scheduling Watch: Week 10

by

NBC’s Sunday Night Football package gives it flexible scheduling. For the last seven weeks of the season, the games are determined on 12-day notice, 6-day notice for Week 17.

The first year, no game was listed in the Sunday Night slot, only a notation that one game could move there. Now, NBC lists the game it “tentatively” schedules for each night. However, the NFL is in charge of moving games to prime time.

Here are the rules from the NFL web site (note that this was written with the 2007 season in mind):

  • Begins Sunday of Week 11
  • In effect during Weeks 11-17
  • Only Sunday afternoon games are subject to being moved into the Sunday night window.
  • The game that has been tentatively scheduled for Sunday night during flex weeks will be listed at 8:20 p.m. ET.
  • The majority of games on Sundays will be listed at 1:00 p.m. ET during flex weeks except for games played in Pacific or Mountain Time zones which will be listed at 4:05 or 4:15 p.m. ET.
  • No impact on Thursday, Saturday or Monday night games.
  • The NFL will decide (after consultation with CBS, FOX, NBC) and announce as early as possible the game being played at 8:20 p.m. ET. The announcement will come no later than 12 days prior to the game. The NFL may also announce games moving to 4:05 p.m. ET and 4:15 p.m. ET.
  • Week 17 start time changes could be decided on 6 days notice to ensure a game with playoff implications.
  • The NBC Sunday night time slot in “flex” weeks will list the game that has been tentatively scheduled for Sunday night.
  • Fans and ticket holders must be aware that NFL games in flex weeks are subject to change 12 days in advance (6 days in Week 17) and should plan accordingly.
  • NFL schedules all games.
  • Teams will be informed as soon as they are no longer under consideration or eligible for a move to Sunday night.
  • Rules NOT listed on NFL web site but pertinent to flex schedule selection: CBS and Fox each protect games in five out of six weeks, and cannot protect any games Week 17. Games were protected after Week 4 the first year of flexible scheduling, but are now protected after Week 5.
  • Three teams can appear a maximum of six games in primetime on NBC, ESPN or NFL Network (everyone else gets five) and no team may appear more than four times on NBC. At this writing, no team is completely tapped out at any measure, although the Jets have five primetime appearances and can’t be flexed out of any of them, which is a problem since five other teams also have five primetime appearances and can be flexed out of them. (So naturally this turned into the Year of Parity!) A list of all teams’ number of appearances is in my Week 5 post.
  • A rule that may have come to light late 2008 but that, given its restrictiveness and lateness in coming to light, I’m having trouble accepting, is that the balance of primetime games taken from FOX and CBS can’t go beyond 22-20 one way or the other. The current tally is FOX 18, CBS 17; with tentative games, the tally is FOX 21, CBS 20. With this rule in place, Weeks 12, 13, and 16 cannot be flexed away from AFC road games without making up for it in Weeks 11, 14, 15, and 17.

Here are the current tentatively-scheduled games and my predictions:

Week 11 (November 21):

  • Selected game: NY Giants @ Philadelphia.

Week 12 (November 28):

  • Selected game: San Diego @ Indianapolis. (With Eagles-Bears the Fox late game instead of Packers-Falcons for some reason…)

Week 13 (December 5):

  • Tentative game: Pittsburgh @ Baltimore
  • Prospects: 6-3 v. 6-3, probably deciding the AFC North. Extremely good chance of keeping its spot.
  • Protected games: Cowboys-Colts (FOX).
  • Other possible games: Falcons-Bucs at the moment is the only serious flex candidate at 7-2 v. 6-3, and the perfect storm it could need to pass Steelers-Ravens may be brewing; based on records, it’s actually now a better game, but it still needs help (see below). Redskins-Giants and Rams-Cardinals are out. Jags-Titans and Raiders-Chargers don’t involve any teams above 5-4, so they can’t pass Falcons-Bucs.
  • Analysis: Falcons-Bucs needs to overcome the NFL’s tentative-game bias, the fact that people don’t trust the Bucs, and how obvious a big playoff-determining game Steelers-Ravens is. All that means they probably need to both win and the Steelers and Ravens need to both lose, and the Steelers and Ravens are both playing weak teams. But if all that happens, it becomes 8-2 v. 7-3, as opposed to a game at 6-4 v. 6-4, and the Steelers and Ravens might not be fighting for a first-round bye anymore, and people may start wondering if they’re starting to collapse, and the NFL may start wondering if they’re showing a stinker. Even then, though, it would be the equivalent of Cowboys-Vikings on Fox earlier in the season, except with the Ravens being a smaller-name team. I don’t want to make an early prediction after the perfect storm was played to perfection this week, but the cincher may be that it would be moving from a CBS game to a Fox game, same as last week.
  • Final prediction: Pittsburgh Steelers @ Baltimore Ravens (no change).

Week 14 (December 12):

  • Tentative game: Philadelphia @ Dallas
  • Prospects: 6-3 v. 2-7; time will tell if the Cowboys are starting a Chargers-esque hard charge. An NFC East game always = ratings, and this is NBC’s only shot at a Cowboys game during the flex scheduling period, but they need to go on a historic tear with Garrett at the helm to have a shot; even then its only shot at keeping its spot may be if it’s the game Romo comes back in, and that probably won’t be known 12 days in advance. No matter how hard a charge they make, they’d be 5-7 by the time the NFL would have to make the flex decision, still a little lopsided unless the Eagles collapse. On the other hand, look at the alternatives…
  • Protected games: Patriots-Bears (CBS).
  • Other possible games: Jags-Raiders is the only game involving nothing but teams above .500… and it’s 5-4 v. 5-4. Bucs-Redskins and Rams-Saints are both 6-3 v. 4-5; Chiefs-Chargers is worse at 5-4 v. 4-5, but its prospects may be the strongest if the Chargers continue their annual hard charge (they could even lead the division by the time comes to make the flex). A lot depends upon what those .500 teams do, but this could have a pretty good chance of moving from a Fox to a CBS game, possibly allowing the reverse to happen in other weeks.

Week 15 (December 19):

  • Tentative game: Green Bay @ New England
  • Prospects: 7-2 v. 6-3, a potential Super Bowl preview. Extremely good chance to keep its spot.
  • Protected games: Jets-Patriots (CBS) and Eagles-Giants (FOX).
  • Other possible games: Saints-Ravens at 6-3 v. 6-3 is the only serious flex candidate but even it has to be considered a long shot. Jags-Colts and Falcons-Seahawks are also options, while Texans-Titans and Chiefs-Rams fading.

Week 16 (December 26)

  • Tentative game: San Diego @ Cincinnati
  • Prospects: 2-7 v. 4-5; it looks like the T.Ocho experiment isn’t working out, meaning the Chargers’ late-season surge will only serve to make this game lopsided, especially since, even if the Bengals go on a run of their own, they can’t break past the Ravens and Steelers.
  • Protected games: Jets-Bears (CBS) and Giants-Packers (FOX).
  • Other possible games: Chiefs-Titans, Colts-Raiders, and Seahawks-Bucs all involve two teams above .500. Redskins-Jaguars is a big dark horse and came within a hail mary of being almost completely out this week. Colts-Raiders seems most likely, but it would max the Colts out, and Titans-Colts Week 17 could be important. We’ll wait and see how things shake out, I guess.

Week 17 (January 3 Playoff Positioning Watch):

AFC Playoff Picture
DIVISION LEADERS WILD CARD WAITING IN THE WINGS (4-5)
WEST
45-4		 57-2
5-4
SOUTH
36-3		 66-3
2 tied at 5-4
NORTH
26-3		 5-4
6-3 5-4
EAST
17-2		 5-4
7-2 5-4
  • I’m tweaking the format of the Playoff Positioning Watch this year to take advantage of the NFL scheduling all divisional matchups Week 17. Next to each division is that division’s Week 17 matchups in parenthesis.
  • AFC East (Bills-Jets, Dolphins-Patriots): Jets and Patriots are tied for the division lead, with the Dolphins two back. The Bills are still alive… barely.
  • AFC North (Steelers-Browns, Bengals-Ravens): It’s basically a two-horse race between the Ravens and Steelers, with the Browns three back and the Bengals four back.
  • AFC South (Titans-Colts, Jags-Texans): Colts lead, Titans and Jags a game back, Texans two back.
  • AFC West (Raiders-Chiefs, Chargers-Broncos): Raiders and Chiefs tied for the division lead, Chargers a game back, Broncos another game behind that.
  • AFC Wild Card: The East and North losers would get the nod if the season ended today, with the West loser, Dolphins, Titans, and Jags a game back. The Chargers and Texans are waiting in the wings. Today, Titans-Colts and Raiders-Chiefs are appealing games with the losers likely not to make the playoffs, with Dolphins-Patriots and Jags-Texans moving up.
NFC Playoff Picture
DIVISION LEADERS WILD CARD WAITING IN THE WINGS (4-5)
WEST
45-4		 56-3
4-5
NORTH
36-3		 66-3
6-3
EAST
26-3		 6-3
6-3 6-3
SOUTH
17-2
2 tied at 6-3
  • NFC East (Giants-Redskins, Cowboys-Eagles): Giants and Eagles tied for the lead, Redskins two back, Cowboys four back.
  • NFC North (Bears-Packers, Vikings-Lions): Bears and Packers lead with the Vikings three games back and the Lions a game behind that.
  • NFC South (Panthers-Falcons, Bucs-Saints): Falcons lead, Saints and Bucs a game back, ignore the Panthers.
  • NFC West (Rams-Seahawks, Cardinals-49ers): Seahawks lead, Rams a game back, Cardinals and Niners two back.
  • NFC Wild Card: The Saints, Bucs, and losers of the East and North are all at 6-3; the Rams and Redskins are two games behind them. Wide open, with only the Lions, Cowboys, and Panthers more than three games out of the playoffs in the NFC. Keep an eye on Rams-Seahawks, Bucs-Saints, Bears-Packers, and Giants-Redskins. With no one leading a division by more than a game in either conference, and only three divisions not tied, NBC could have no shortage of good choices Week 17.

Last-Minute Remarks on SNF Week 12 Picks

by

Week 12 (November 28):

  • Tentative game: San Diego @ Indianapolis
  • Prospects: 6-3 v. 4-5; the Chargers’ win over the Texans potentially put the NFL in a difficult situation. They had a bye this week, so they couldn’t make it back to .500, but they’re close enough, and have enough upward momentum that history suggests will continue, that the NFL will have to weigh its tentative game bias against the present iffy state of the game and the strength of the alternatives. 6-3 v. 4-5 still isn’t so lopsided to rule the game out.
  • Protected games: Eagles-Bears (FOX) and Jags-Giants (CBS).
  • Other possible games mentioned on last week’s Watch and their records: Titans (5-4)-Texans (4-5), Chiefs (5-4)-Seahawks (5-4), Packers (6-3)-Falcons (7-2), and Bucs (6-3)-Ravens (6-3).
  • Impact of Monday Night Football: None.
  • Analysis: I said last week that the best situation for Colts-Chargers left Packers-Falcons at 6-3 v. 6-3 and Colts-Chargers at 6-3 v. 4-5, but that the same situation could very easily coincide with Bucs-Ravens being 6-3 v. 7-2, but even then Packers-Falcons could get the nod based on name teams and people’s general feeling that the Bucs are beneficiaries of a weak schedule. I felt the Ravens needed to win on Thursday night to have any shot at the flex at all. Not only did that not happen, it’s now very difficult for the NFL to pass up a battle between two teams that might be the best two in the NFC. Worth noting that both of these would be moves from a CBS game to a Fox game, with a Fox-to-CBS move unlikely in the remaining weeks to force Week 17 to go to a CBS game, and Green Bay would be maxed out on NBC appearances with Packers-Patriots unlikely to be flexed out, and a potential huge Week 17 game with the Bears. Would the NFL keep a 6-3 v. 4-5 game with a 6-3 v. 7-2 game available of this caliber? One need only look to this same week, and this same Colts-Chargers game, two years ago. But 7-2 wasn’t the best record in the league then…
  • Final prediction: Indianapolis Colts @ San Diego Chargers (no change), but a flex would not surprise me one iota. (Lack of announcement is probably to see if Eagles-Bears at 5-3 v. 6-3 is worthy of Fox late game vis-a-vis Bucs-Ravens, which may be a good sign for flexing in Packers-Falcons.)

Sunday Night Football Flex Scheduling Watch: Week 9

by

NBC’s Sunday Night Football package gives it flexible scheduling. For the last seven weeks of the season, the games are determined on 12-day notice, 6-day notice for Week 17.

The first year, no game was listed in the Sunday Night slot, only a notation that one game could move there. Now, NBC lists the game it “tentatively” schedules for each night. However, the NFL is in charge of moving games to prime time.

Here are the rules from the NFL web site (note that this was written with the 2007 season in mind):

  • Begins Sunday of Week 11
  • In effect during Weeks 11-17
  • Only Sunday afternoon games are subject to being moved into the Sunday night window.
  • The game that has been tentatively scheduled for Sunday night during flex weeks will be listed at 8:20 p.m. ET.
  • The majority of games on Sundays will be listed at 1:00 p.m. ET during flex weeks except for games played in Pacific or Mountain Time zones which will be listed at 4:05 or 4:15 p.m. ET.
  • No impact on Thursday, Saturday or Monday night games.
  • The NFL will decide (after consultation with CBS, FOX, NBC) and announce as early as possible the game being played at 8:20 p.m. ET. The announcement will come no later than 12 days prior to the game. The NFL may also announce games moving to 4:05 p.m. ET and 4:15 p.m. ET.
  • Week 17 start time changes could be decided on 6 days notice to ensure a game with playoff implications.
  • The NBC Sunday night time slot in “flex” weeks will list the game that has been tentatively scheduled for Sunday night.
  • Fans and ticket holders must be aware that NFL games in flex weeks are subject to change 12 days in advance (6 days in Week 17) and should plan accordingly.
  • NFL schedules all games.
  • Teams will be informed as soon as they are no longer under consideration or eligible for a move to Sunday night.
  • Rules NOT listed on NFL web site but pertinent to flex schedule selection: CBS and Fox each protect games in five out of six weeks, and cannot protect any games Week 17. Games were protected after Week 4 the first year of flexible scheduling, but are now protected after Week 5.
  • Three teams can appear a maximum of six games in primetime on NBC, ESPN or NFL Network (everyone else gets five) and no team may appear more than four times on NBC. At this writing, no team is completely tapped out at any measure, although the Jets have five primetime appearances and can’t be flexed out of any of them, which is a problem since five other teams also have five primetime appearances and can be flexed out of them. (So naturally this turned into the Year of Parity!) A list of all teams’ number of appearances is in my Week 5 post.
  • A rule that may have come to light late 2008 but that, given its restrictiveness and lateness in coming to light, I’m having trouble accepting, is that the balance of primetime games taken from FOX and CBS can’t go beyond 22-20 one way or the other. The current tally is FOX 18, CBS 17; with tentative games, the tally is FOX 21, CBS 20. With this rule in place, Weeks 12, 13, and 16 cannot be flexed away from AFC road games without making up for it in Weeks 11, 14, 15, and 17.

Here are the current tentatively-scheduled games and my predictions:

Week 11 (November 21):

  • Selected game: NY Giants @ Philadelphia.

Week 12 (November 28):

  • Tentative game: San Diego @ Indianapolis
  • Prospects: 5-3 v. 4-5; the Chargers’ win over the Texans potentially puts the NFL in a difficult situation, and the Eagles may have granted the Chargers’ prayers. They have a bye this week, so they can’t make it back to .500, but they’re close enough, and have enough upward momentum that history suggests will continue, that the NFL will have to weigh its tentative game bias against the present iffy state of the game and the strength of the alternatives. 6-3 v. 4-5 still isn’t so lopsided to rule the game out.
  • Protected games: Eagles-Bears (FOX) and Jags-Giants (CBS).
  • Other possible games: Thanksgiving Weekend usually means a paucity of good games, but sadly for Colts-Chargers, not this year, especially with the Cowboys’ struggles. The good news for Colts-Chargers is that Titans-Texans and Chiefs-Seahawks both went to 5-3 v. 4-4; the bad news is that still has a chance to beat the tentative, and Packers-Falcons at 6-3 v. 6-2 and Bucs-Ravens at 5-3 v. 6-2 remain very strong.
  • Analysis: Packers-Falcons is the key game; all of the alternatives involve iffy markets, so the Packers’ name-team status bolsters its status as a battle of six-win teams. The Packers have a bye week like the Chargers, so the games that will play the biggest role for determining the flex are Bengals-Colts and the Thursday night Ravens-Falcons game; also keep an eye on Panthers-Bucs. The best situation for Colts-Chargers leaves Packers-Falcons at 6-3 v. 6-3 and Colts-Chargers at 6-3 v. 4-5, so if the NFL sticks with Colts-Chargers it will be because of the tentative-game bias and feeling that the Chargers are on their annual hard charge. On the other hand, the same situation could very easily coincide with Bucs-Ravens being 6-3 v. 7-2, but even then Packers-Falcons could get the nod based on name teams and people’s general feeling that the Bucs are beneficiaries of a weak schedule; needless to say, the Ravens need to win on Thursday night to have any shot for the flex at all. Worth noting that both of these would be moves from a CBS game to a Fox game, with a Fox-to-CBS move unlikely in the remaining weeks to force Week 17 to go to a CBS game, and Green Bay would be maxed out on NBC appearances with Packers-Patriots unlikely to be flexed out, and a potential huge Week 17 game with the Bears. Still, can the NFL really keep a 5-4 v. 4-5 game with a 6-3 v. 7-2 game available (from either of these games)?

Week 13 (December 5):

  • Tentative game: Pittsburgh @ Baltimore
  • Prospects: 6-2 v. 6-2, probably deciding the AFC North. Extremely good chance of keeping its spot.
  • Protected games: Cowboys-Colts (FOX).
  • Other possible games: Falcons-Bucs at the moment is the only serious flex candidate at 6-2 v. 5-3, but even it could need a perfect storm, like the Steelers and Ravens going on losing streaks the next two weeks. Redskins-Giants, Jags-Titans, and Rams-Cardinals all involve 4-4 teams. Raiders-Chargers is an emerging, but massive, long shot.

Week 14 (December 12):

  • Tentative game: Philadelphia @ Dallas
  • Prospects: 5-3 v. 1-7; an NFC East game always = ratings, but the Cowboys’ struggles are becoming hard to watch. This is NBC’s only shot at a Cowboys game during the flex scheduling period, but they need to go on a historic tear with Garrett at the helm to have a shot; even then its only shot at keeping its spot may be if it’s the game Romo comes back in, and that probably won’t be known 12 days in advance. On the other hand, look at the alternatives…
  • Protected games: Patriots-Bears (CBS).
  • Other possible games: Bucs-Redskins, Rams-Saints, and Jags-Raiders all involve teams at .500, but they’re the best games you have. A lot depends upon what those .500 teams do, but I’m not optimistic about the Jags. Is Chiefs-Chargers worth pinning your hopes on?

Week 15 (December 19):

  • Tentative game: Green Bay @ New England
  • Prospects: 6-2 v. 6-3, a potential Super Bowl preview. Extremely good chance to keep its spot.
  • Protected games: Jets-Patriots (CBS) and Eagles-Giants (FOX).
  • Other possible games: Saints-Ravens now has an identical pair of records; it’s the only serious flex candidate but even it has to be considered a long shot. Jags-Colts, Texans-Titans, Falcons-Seahawks, and Chiefs-Rams are dark horses.

Week 16 (December 26)

  • Tentative game: San Diego @ Cincinnati
  • Prospects: 2-6 v. 4-5; it looks like the T.Ocho experiment isn’t working out, meaning the Chargers’ late-season surge will only serve to make this game lopsided, especially since, even if the Bengals go on a run of their own, they can’t break past the Ravens and Steelers.
  • Protected games: Jets-Bears (CBS) and Giants-Packers (FOX).
  • Other possible games: Chiefs-Titans and Colts-Raiders both involve two teams above .500. Seahawks-Bucs and Redskins-Jaguars are dark horses. Colts-Raiders seems most likely, but it would max the Colts out, and Titans-Colts Week 17 could be important. We’ll wait and see how things shake out, I guess, but it could affect whether Colts-Chargers Week 12 gets flexed out.

Week 17 (January 3 Playoff Positioning Watch):

AFC Playoff Picture
DIVISION LEADERS WILD CARD WAITING IN THE WINGS
SOUTH
45-3		 56-2 4-4
5-3 4-4
WEST
35-3		 66-2 4-4
5-4 4-5
EAST
26-2		 5-3
6-2 5-4
NORTH
16-2
6-2
  • I’m tweaking the format of the Playoff Positioning Watch this year to take advantage of the NFL scheduling all divisional matchups Week 17. Next to each division is that division’s Week 17 matchups in parenthesis.
  • AFC East (Bills-Jets, Dolphins-Patriots): Jets and Patriots are tied for the division lead, with the Dolphins two back. The Bills could be reduced to tiebreakers this week.
  • AFC North (Steelers-Browns, Bengals-Ravens): It’s basically a two-horse race between the Ravens and Steelers, with the Browns three back and the Bengals four back.
  • AFC South (Titans-Colts, Jags-Texans): Titans and Colts tied for the division lead with the Jags and Texans a game back.
  • AFC West (Raiders-Chiefs, Chargers-Broncos): Chiefs lead, Raiders a half-game back, Chargers another game behind that, Broncos another game-and-a-half behind that.
  • AFC Wild Card: The East and North losers would get the nod if the season ended today, with the South loser a game back and the Raiders a half-game behind that. The Dolphins, Jags, and Texans are waiting in the wings, with the Chargers a half-game behind them. Today, Titans-Colts and Raiders-Chiefs are appealing games with the losers likely not to make the playoffs, with Dolphins-Patriots and Jags-Texans long shots.
NFC Playoff Picture
DIVISION LEADERS WILD CARD WAITING IN THE WINGS (3-5)
WEST
44-4		 56-3
4-4
NORTH
36-3		 65-3
5-3
SOUTH
26-2		 5-3
6-3 5-3
EAST
16-2		 4-4
5-3 4-4
  • NFC East (Giants-Redskins, Cowboys-Eagles): Giants lead, Eagles a game back, Redskins a game behind that, Cowboys not worth mentioning.
  • NFC North (Bears-Packers, Vikings-Lions): Packers lead, Bears a half-game back, Vikings two games behind that, Lions a game behind that.
  • NFC South (Panthers-Falcons, Bucs-Saints): Falcons lead, Saints a half-game back, Bucs a half-game behind that, ignore the Panthers.
  • NFC West (Rams-Seahawks, Cardinals-49ers): Rams and Seahawks tied for the division lead, with the Cardinals a game back and the Niners a game behind that.
  • NFC Wild Card: Saints and either the Bears, Eagles, or Bucs would get the nod if the season ended today, with the Redskins and, believe it or not, the West loser a game back, and the Vikings and Cardinals a game behind that. Wide open, with only the Lions, Cowboys, and Panthers more than three games out of the playoffs in the NFC. Keep an eye on Rams-Seahawks, Bucs-Saints, Bears-Packers, and Giants-Redskins. With no one leading a division by more than a game in either conference, NBC could have no shortage of good choices Week 17.

2010 College Football Rankings – Week 10

by

A TCU-#2 Boise State national championship game?

That’s what the C Ratings seem to be suggesting. TCU was already ; beating up on Utah just means they’re building an insurmountable lead. But Boise State beat up on a good Hawaii team, while Oregon beat up on a Washington team that will probably not deliver Jake Locker to a bowl.

The difference in strength of schedule means the C Ratings are vouching for the battle of non-BCS teams. We’ll probably get Auburn-Oregon instead, of course, but TCU and Boise have proven their bona fides over the course of the season. Boise is still haunted by V-Tech’s loss to James Madison, but the loss coming to a I-AA school isn’t really affected in V-Tech’s ratings, let alone Boise’s, but that is a very tough nut to crack while continuing to use Access to calculate the ratings. Both TCU and Boise have beaten enough good teams to show they deserve a shot – and TCU, at least, looks likely to get one if one of the BCS unbeatens loses.

Does it help TCU’s case to see the most likely 1-loss team in the way, Alabama, go down to #15 LSU? Not necessarily: now people are suggesting Auburn itself could go to the BCS Title Game with one loss. But if that happens, the wailing and gnashing of teeth could reach a whole new level. (And meanwhile, Ohio State continues plugging along, hoping for a Wisconsin loss…)

Other notes on this week’s C Ratings:

  • Oklahoma State catapults up the ratings, benefitting from Oklahoma’s loss and Nebraska’s OT win to become the Big 12 leader, and likely South representative in the title game. A national championship trip seems a long shot, but like Ohio State, they are top ten in the BCS.
  • From what I understand, if Oregon plays in the BCS Title Game the Rose Bowl HAS to select TCU or Boise, not Stanford. Someone else getting screwed by the BCS rules! The one year it’s not an Illinois… On the other hand, Stanford has a pretty good shot of going to my simulated Golden Bowl Playoffs as an at-large.
  • Nevada is knocking on the door of the top 10. The six-point loss to Hawaii will keep them out of BCS bowl contention; take that away, and I would be arguing that if they beat Boise State, they should be considered at least as much in the national championship consideration as Boise was.
  • How the mighty have fallen! Losing to Nebraska was one thing, but losing to lowly Texas Tech? It wasn’t too long ago that #14 Missouri was in the thick of the national championship consideration, but now they’d need Nebraska to really collapse to get more than a trip to a mid-pack bowl. And if they want to get their season back on track, they need to do it against a K-State team ranked in the BCS (but not in positive B Points). Fortunately, they’re still unbeaten at home.
  • As I mentioned last week, all that matters to #25 South Carolina in terms of clinching the division is winning the Spurrier Bowl this week. Arkansas, on the other hand, is mired in the SEC West where Auburn, Alabama, and LSU reign – but the loss to Alabama was very tight. With LSU at home still to come in the schedule, an LSU team that’s the top one-loss team in the BCS but only one spot ahead of the Hogs in the C Ratings because of the BCS’ no-MoV rule, look for Arkansas to potentially pull the upset there, establishing themselves as the third-best team in the West. Meanwhile, #22 Florida returns to the BCS and now outrates South Carolina in the C Ratings…
  • When it looks at the C Ratings, must #18 Iowa be cursing itself for its one-point loss to Wisconsin? You know Ohio State must be cursing it, because that was the best chance for a Wisconsin loss all year, aside from the actual loss to #20 Michigan State.
  • #19 Arizona takes a tumble after the Stanford loss, and #23 USC falls out of the top 20 for the first time all year.
  • #21 Navy is at one of the highest positions in the C Ratings I’ve ever seen from them. Give the credit to demolishing an East Carolina team that knows how to work the score ratio. Also note that two of their losses are to good teams and they beat Notre Dame pretty handily as well.
  • Other than #12 Virginia Tech, NC State is the only other ACC team in the Top 25 – and NC State just lost to Clemson! Nonetheless, both teams control their own destiny to the ACC Title Game, since NC State beat Florida State and still has Maryland on the schedule. V-Tech cleared the first hurdle and now just needs to win two of the remaining three.
  • Once again, the Top 25 is deserted of Big East teams, though both Pitt and West Virginia are just barely on the outside looking in. Right behind them is Oregon State – what would it say about TCU and Boise if they were to enter the Top 25? Texas A&M’s upset of Oklahoma has them ranked in the BCS, but it’s not quite enough to crack the top 25 of the C Ratings.

Best game of week: San Diego State @ TCU, 4pm ET, VS.
Complete C Ratings

Last-Minute Remarks on SNF Week 11 Picks

by

Week 11 (November 21):

  • Tentative game: NY Giants @ Philadelphia
  • Prospects: 6-2 v. 5-3, with the Giants leading the most attractive division in the league and the Eagles a game back.
  • Protected games according to this: Packers-Vikings (FOX) and Colts-Patriots (CBS).
  • Other possible games mentioned on last week’s Watch and their records: Jets (6-2)-Texans (4-4), Saints (6-3)-Seahawks (4-4), Falcons (6-2)-Rams (4-4), and Raiders (5-4)-Steelers (5-2).
  • Impact of Monday Night Football: The Steelers are involved in the only alternate game involving two teams with winning records, but it won’t matter because…
  • Analysis: …I said last week that the Eagles would have to lose for any flex to happen, and not only did they and the Giants win, everything that happened was generally catastrophic for a flex, although an Eagles loss might still have opened the door for Raiders-Steelers. As is, though, the Steelers can only match the Giants’ record while the Raiders have one more loss than the Eagles, so…
  • Final prediction: New York Giants @ Philadelphia Eagles (no change).
  • Actual selection: New York Giants @ Philadelphia Eagles (matches prediction, no change).

The NFL Lineal Title has been updated as well, with the shocker of the Browns claiming the main title. I predicted after their hard charges last season that one of the Browns or Raiders would make the playoffs this year, and the Raiders are making me look smart, while the Browns, despite starting slow, could yet go on a hard charge… and have zero shot of cracking the Ravens-Steelers-AFC-East-Loser oligarchy.

Sunday Night Football Flex Scheduling Watch: Week 8

by

NBC’s Sunday Night Football package gives it flexible scheduling. For the last seven weeks of the season, the games are determined on 12-day notice, 6-day notice for Week 17.

The first year, no game was listed in the Sunday Night slot, only a notation that one game could move there. Now, NBC lists the game it “tentatively” schedules for each night. However, the NFL is in charge of moving games to prime time.

Here are the rules from the NFL web site (note that this was written with the 2007 season in mind):

  • Begins Sunday of Week 11
  • In effect during Weeks 11-17
  • Only Sunday afternoon games are subject to being moved into the Sunday night window.
  • The game that has been tentatively scheduled for Sunday night during flex weeks will be listed at 8:20 p.m. ET.
  • The majority of games on Sundays will be listed at 1:00 p.m. ET during flex weeks except for games played in Pacific or Mountain Time zones which will be listed at 4:05 or 4:15 p.m. ET.
  • No impact on Thursday, Saturday or Monday night games.
  • The NFL will decide (after consultation with CBS, FOX, NBC) and announce as early as possible the game being played at 8:20 p.m. ET. The announcement will come no later than 12 days prior to the game. The NFL may also announce games moving to 4:05 p.m. ET and 4:15 p.m. ET.
  • Week 17 start time changes could be decided on 6 days notice to ensure a game with playoff implications.
  • The NBC Sunday night time slot in “flex” weeks will list the game that has been tentatively scheduled for Sunday night.
  • Fans and ticket holders must be aware that NFL games in flex weeks are subject to change 12 days in advance (6 days in Week 17) and should plan accordingly.
  • NFL schedules all games.
  • Teams will be informed as soon as they are no longer under consideration or eligible for a move to Sunday night.
  • Rules NOT listed on NFL web site but pertinent to flex schedule selection: CBS and Fox each protect games in five out of six weeks, and cannot protect any games Week 17. Games were protected after Week 4 the first year of flexible scheduling, but are now protected after Week 5.
  • Three teams can appear a maximum of six games in primetime on NBC, ESPN or NFL Network (everyone else gets five) and no team may appear more than four times on NBC. At this writing, no team is completely tapped out at any measure, although the Jets have five primetime appearances and can’t be flexed out of any of them, which is a problem since five other teams also have five primetime appearances and can be flexed out of them. (So naturally this turned into the Year of Parity!) A list of all teams’ number of appearances is in my Week 5 post.
  • A rule that may have come to light late 2008 but that, given its restrictiveness and lateness in coming to light, I’m having trouble accepting, is that the balance of primetime games taken from FOX and CBS can’t go beyond 22-20 one way or the other. The current tally is FOX 18, CBS 17; with tentative games, the tally is FOX 21, CBS 20. With this rule in place, Weeks 12, 13, and 16 cannot be flexed away from AFC road games without making up for it in Weeks 11, 14, 15, and 17.

Here are the current tentatively-scheduled games and my predictions:

Week 11 (November 21):

  • Tentative game: NY Giants @ Philadelphia
  • Prospects: 5-2 v. 4-3, with the Giants leading the most attractive division in the league and the Eagles a game back. Extremely good chance to keep its spot, but the NFL may want to think twice if the Eagles fall to .500, tied at second with the Redskins.
  • Protected games according to this: Packers-Vikings (FOX) and Colts-Patriots (CBS).
  • Other possible games: Jets-Texans saw both teams lose to fall to 5-2 v. 4-3, which can’t overcome the tentative-game bias. Chiefs-Cardinals is out with the Cardinals falling below .500. A few long shots: Redskins-Titans at 5-3 v. 4-4, Saints-Seahawks at 5-3 v. 4-3, Falcons-Rams at 5-2 v. 4-4, and Raiders-Steelers at 5-2 v. 4-4.
  • Analysis: It’ll be very difficult for any game to steal the spot. The Seahawks can help their own case by beating the Giants, but a Giants win might be better for flexing in general by making the game lopsided. Any flex depends on the Eagles losing, but that would shrink them down to .500, throwing the doors open. Jets-Texans CAN make the flex look attractive if both teams win; even a Texans win and a Jets loss could be tempting, but it might not be enough to overcome the tentative game bias and the name team factor. (Locking the Jets out the rest of the year shouldn’t be a problem; there are no other good available games the rest of the way, and it’s doubtful they’ll need to beat the lowly Bills Week 17.) Both Redskins and Titans have a bye, so they’re out since Giants-Eagles can only match them, not fall behind. If Seahawks and Saints win, will the NFL be tempted by 6-3 v. 5-3 vis-a-vis 5-3 v. 4-4? Rams have a bye, so either Falcons-Rams becomes lopsided (6-2 v. 4-4, and Giants-Eagles would still have division implications), inferior, or equivalent, and therefore out. Raiders-Steelers may be too lopsided already, and the Steelers don’t play until Monday; 5-3 v. 5-4 wouldn’t be lopsided, and slightly better than Giants-Eagles, but have the Raiders’ decade of mediocrity sullied their name-team status? (As with the Jets, locking the Steelers out of future NBC appearances, setting aside the VERY unlikely “let’s flex out of Steelers-Ravens” scenario, doesn’t lock them out of any good games or any potential playoff-deciding game with the Browns Week 17.) I reiterate that there’s a very slim chance of any flex at all, but a 4-4 Eagles squad has to make the NFL at least consider the flex.

Week 12 (November 28):

  • Tentative game: San Diego @ Indianapolis
  • Prospects: 5-2 v. 3-5; time will tell if Sunday’s win was the start of the annual Chargers charge, but they may be desperate for at least one Colts loss to keep the game from looking lopsided. They have a bye Week 10, so they can’t make it back to .500 and absolutely have to beat the Texans this week for this game to have a chance to keep its spot.
  • Protected games: Eagles-Bears (FOX) and Jags-Giants (CBS).
  • Other possible games: Thanksgiving Weekend usually means a paucity of good games, but sadly for Colts-Chargers, not this year, especially with the Cowboys’ struggles. Four games currently involve only teams with three or fewer losses: Titans-Texans at 5-3 v. 4-3, Packers-Falcons at 5-3 v. 5-2, Bucs-Ravens at 5-2 v. 5-2, and Chiefs-Seahawks at 5-2 v. 4-3. All involve iffy markets, so the name team Packers are in good shape, but Bucs-Ravens remains a battle of two-loss teams. As for how Colts-Chargers can keep its spot? It’ll be difficult: Bucs-Ravens can get to 5-4 v. 5-4 at worst and Colts-Chargers 5-4 v. 4-5 at its least lopsided, which might mean the tentative-game bias, name team factor, and feeling the Chargers are on their hard charge would work in their favor… if the other games cooperate.

Week 13 (December 5):

  • Tentative game: Pittsburgh @ Baltimore
  • Prospects: 5-2 v. 5-2, potentially deciding the AFC North. Extremely good chance of keeping its spot.
  • Protected games: Cowboys-Colts (FOX). This week has only one good CBS game but a better tentative compared to the other CBS unprotected candidate last week.
  • Other possible games: Falcons-Bucs involves two teams with the same records as Steelers-Ravens, and at the moment is the only serious flex candidate, but even it could need a perfect storm. Redskins-Giants, Jags-Titans, and Rams-Cardinals all involve 4-4 teams.

Week 14 (December 12):

  • Tentative game: Philadelphia @ Dallas
  • Prospects: 4-3 v. 1-6; an NFC East game always = ratings, but the Cowboys’ struggles are becoming hard to watch. This is NBC’s only shot at a Cowboys game during the flex scheduling period, but they could come in to this game 3-9 or something gruesome like that, maybe already mathematically out of the playoffs; its only shot at keeping its spot may be if it’s the game Romo comes back in, and that probably won’t be known 12 days in advance. On the other hand, look at the alternatives…
  • Protected games: Patriots-Bears (CBS).
  • Other possible games: Bucs-Redskins, Rams-Saints, and Jags-Raiders all involve teams at .500, but they’re the best games you have. A lot depends upon what those .500 teams do, but I’m not optimistic about the Jags.

Week 15 (December 19):

  • Tentative game: Green Bay @ New England
  • Prospects: 6-1 v. 5-3, a bit lopsided but both teams have sole possession of their respective division leads and are within a half-game of the best record in their respective conferences, so you have the Super Bowl Preview angle.
  • Protected games: Jets-Patriots (CBS) and Eagles-Giants (FOX).
  • Other possible games: Saints-Ravens involves two teams within one game of the best record in their respective conferences and a half-game of the division lead. Texans-Titans and Falcons-Seahawks are also options, with Jags-Colts and Chiefs-Rams as dark horses.

Week 16 (December 26)

  • Tentative game: San Diego @ Cincinnati
  • Prospects: 2-5 v. 3-5; it looks like the T.Ocho experiment isn’t working out, meaning the Chargers’ late-season surge will only serve to make this game lopsided, especially since, even if the Bengals go on a run of their own, they can’t break past the Ravens and Steelers.
  • Protected games: Jets-Bears (CBS) and Giants-Packers (FOX).
  • Other possible games: Chiefs-Titans and Seahawks-Bucs both involve two teams above .500. Colts-Raiders and Redskins-Jaguars are also options.

Week 17 (January 3):

  • Playoff positioning watch begins Week 9.

2010 College Football Rankings – Week 9

by

Both lineal titles are updated… and with the fall of #18 Michigan State and Missouri, the BCS Title picture has dramatically clarified.

There are exactly two BCS conference unbeaten teams, and much as Boise State and TCU, which expected to benefit from Alabama and Ohio State losses, don’t like it, if they win out they can punch their ticket to the national title game. Neither has a lineal title at the moment, though there is a very good chance Florida’s Princeton-Yale Title could find itself at stake in the SEC title game. (Florida is just barely outside the Top 25 this week.)

If Auburn or Oregon lose, that’s when all hell will break loose. Boise and TCU will claim they deserve to get in (assuming TCU gets past Utah this week), but Alabama, the Big 12 Title winner, and based on the C Ratings, Ohio State will have very legitimate claims. We could be in for another BCS Mess.

Other thoughts on the new C Ratings:

  • Alabama, as far as most people are concerned, is consolidating their position as the best 1-loss team. How much of that is starting the season in the country? As noted above, they’ll have a legit case if they win out and they will be a trap game for their rival, but they might be overrated at the moment. Ohio State continues to be ranked behind #23 Wisconsin in the BCS, restraining their ranking, as people continue to read too much into the outcome of one game (a road loss to a team that beat their best non-conference opponent, mediocre Arizona State, by one point at home). Arizona continues to be underrated and behind Stanford… but as Rece Davis pointed out on “BCS Countdown”, that could change in a hurry if they beat the other elite Pac-10 teams, starting with Stanford this week. If it weren’t for their already-lofty C Rating, I’d think that would lead to people overreacting to a few games. What motivation does #21 USC have the rest of the way.
  • Baylor-#12 Oklahoma State will be for at least a share of the Big 12 South lead. Yes, BAYLOR is your current Big 12 South leader. Meanwhile, Nebraska is at least as good as Oklahoma. The last year of the Big 12 as we knew it suddenly flip-flopped the roles of the divisions. (Baylor has a terrible SoS and neither Baylor nor Oklahoma State has played the Sooners, which could be an effective Big 12 South title game.)
  • ACC Madness: #14 Virginia Tech leads the Coastal by two games, unbeaten in conference while everyone else has two conference losses. V-Tech hasn’t played any of the two-loss teams yet, though, so two losses could take it all away; they play all three in a row starting with G-Tech Thursday night, but Miami (FL) at the end of the string is the only one in positive B Points. #20 NC State’s win over #22 Florida State earned them respect in the BCS Standings; the Atlantic is anyone’s guess between those two and Maryland, who hasn’t played either yet. Clemson, of all teams, is the only ACC team not already noted in positive B Points.
  • What are the chances the Princeton-Yale Title is on the line in the SEC Title game? Pretty good; #15 South Carolina is in the lead in the East in the standings, the BCS, and the C Ratings, and the Spurrier Bowl is the only game that matters to them in terms of clinching the division. Troy and Clemson afterwards are trap games, though, both on the first page. Florida has one more conference loss and so need to avoid a loss to Vanderbilt to make the Spurrier Bowl a true effective East title game; otherwise it lets Georgia and Vandy back in it if South Carolina loses to Arkansas and Florida. LSU could sneak away with the SEC West if they upset ‘Bama and Auburn loses to both Georgia and ‘Bama; if that chain of events lands them in the national title game a LOT of people will throw fits.
  • Iowa skyrocketed onto the top 25 with their win over Michigan State. I think they were in negative B Points last week. Fresno State could be a trap game for #19 Nevada. Hawaii makes three WAC teams in the Top 25, which seems unprecedented, just in time for the big Boise State game (also for the Broncos’ lineal title). The WAC’s conference rating is better than the Mountain West and they have more Top 25 teams. Does Boise State actually deserve more benefit of the doubt for their conference this year than TCU? Can Nevada keep this up and keep the Mountain West a Big 3 post-realignment?
  • #25 Pitt once again populates the Top 25 with a Big East team. The BCS, on the other hand, is deserted of Big East teams, probably because of the Notre Dame loss. But the Big East has a lot of parity, and no team has more than two conference losses, so their task is far from over. But they’ve already beaten Syracuse, so they can take one loss to any team and still punch a ticket to the BCS. West Virginia is STILL not that far outside the Top 25.

Best game of week: TCU @ Utah, 3:30pm ET, CBS CS (do not get me started, even with a free preview!)
Complete C Ratings

Finding Common Ground and Starting the Debate

by

We’ve seen two different viewpoints, two very different perspectives, on the current state of the union. You can see from today’s posts how heated and diametrically opposed the two sides are in our present political climate, and honestly, I don’t actually believe the posts I wrote would do much to convince someone on either side.

And yet, there actually is some common ground between the two sides, although some of this common ground may be believed more by one side than the other, and each side holds similar views of their own and the other side. Both state their faith in the greatness of America as the beacon of hope in the world, as a place where you can be anything you want to be, though Republicans are more adamant about it (and tend to deny the opposition their similar belief). Both sides claim that the opposition’s policies are bad for the economy; both want to protect against terrorism in different ways. Both accuse their opposition of needing to wake up to the “real world”, and implicitly, that their own position is rational while the opposition’s is emotional. (On the one hand, Democrats are emotionally attached to the plight of the poor while Republicans see the poor as a necessary side effect of capitalism; Republicans are emotionally attached to their limited-government, free-market principles while being allegedly blinded to their limitations.)

Both sides claim to have America on their side, claiming that most Americans believe in their principles (though the Republicans seem to have more credibility) and that they have America’s best interests at heart, and accuse the other side of being pushed by interests out to squash the message of their own side by spreading misinformation – “big corporations” in the case of the left and the “liberal media” in the case of the right – and this explains the focus on media bias, since if the media weren’t biased everyone would obviously believe their own side.

But perhaps most importantly, the difference between the parties comes down to a difference in priorities, and at least at first glance, these priorities aren’t incompatible with one another. Republicans are concerned with limiting the size of government and maximizing the freedom of business to serve as the engine of the economy; Democrats are concerned with ending poverty and the equitable distribution of the wealth. You will even see Democrats claim that their desire to reduce the influence of the military is partly a reflection of limited-government principles, and Republicans claim that unrestrained capitalism will actually make the poor better off (the familiar “trickle-down economics”). Both sides do recognize the force of the other’s priorities, at least under certain circumstances; they just differ on which to side with when there’s a conflict. Democrats claim that helping the poor is a moral prerogative while one can’t be dogmatically opposed to all government; Republicans claim that the total amount of wealth in the system is more important than how it’s distributed.

Here’s where the conflict comes. At least in theory, the Republicans are right to claim that, if the wealth were perfectly evenly distributed, no one would have any incentive to work because they couldn’t get ahead of anyone else. (There are a few problems with this theory, but we’ll assume it for now.) Similarly, if the government took 100% of your income, you wouldn’t have any incentive to work because no matter how much you earned, all of it would go to the government. (This is a simplified version of the problem with applied communism.) Therefore, any wealth inequity produced by capitalism should be allowed to stand, or else you’re robbing the capitalists’ incentive to keep producing more wealth. Any effort to smooth out wealth inequities results in a reduction of the total wealth coming out of the system, although Democrats deny this. Further, any government interference, such as a tax, in the machinery of capitalism reduces the profits earned by the firm producing goods, and accordingly, reduces the amount of product produced by the firm.

So a limited government, in this model, is a precondition to the smooth workings of business, which may or may not naturally create a gap between rich and poor. A gap between rich and poor is, therefore, one possible consequence of limited government, or at least limited government in certain areas. (The argument applies more broadly when you argue, as Republicans are wont to do, that in general, people following their natural inclinations without government interference, only government protection, results in the best overall outcome for the economy.)

It does not follow, however, that the converse is true, that closing the gap between rich and poor requires a governmental solution. At least in theory, even the free market can solve some problems of wealth inequality, even if you don’t agree with trickle-down economics per se, so Republicans may be excused if they’re skeptical about Democrats’ belief in small government and their claim that government involvement is just what works to help the poor. You will sometimes even see Republicans claim that government interference itself is actually a cause, or even the cause, of wealth inequality. On the other hand, Democrats argue that, if closing the gap between rich and poor creates more consumers, it could have a positive effect on the economy that outweighs the negative effect. Now that we’ve reached this point in the debate, Democrats and Republicans could start brandishing numbers and studies backing their respective viewpoints, arguing over whether it’s better to limit government or help the poor, but they can also start debating ideas that synthesize both their priorities, rendering such debate over priorities unnecessary. (One is at the above link.)

We agree that America is the best country on Earth, the symbol for the ideals of democracy and freedom around the world, and a place where the lowliest of children, at least ideally, can grow up to become a titan of industry, though we may disagree on how realistic that is. We agree that we need to be attuned to the way the real world works and not become overly attached to our principles, and work to achieve what is best for America. We agree that, necessity aside, too much government can strip us of our freedoms and make us less happy and less prosperous, that absolute power corrupts absolutely, that even at low levels it leads to confusing and expensive bureaucracy, and that this has been proven in the past. We agree that, necessity aside, the gap between rich and poor and the existence of poverty is not something we like.

If we all admit that we are all in agreement on these four principles, it will not necessarily be easy to extend the common ground from there, especially when we are prone to disagree on basic facts, but if we focus on these principles we can use them as a framework to find solutions to our problems and disagreements that we can agree on. Some of these solutions may not be comfortable for one side or the other; they may represent a major concession. Then the question becomes to find out why one side or the other is uncomfortable, and either to explain why such things are not problems, or to find some other solution that takes those problems into account. Sometimes Republicans may have to accept a governmental solution because the cost for some group of people is too much; Democrats may have to accept a less equitable solution because the cost in government control is too much. And sometimes, we won’t be able to find a middle ground in this calculus because the difference in the proposed solutions comes down to the difference in priorities, and neither can be said to totally outweigh the other. Hopefully this last class will turn out to be smaller than it now seems.

Over the next few days, weeks, and months (I originally intended this past week but was stupid and procrastinated for two weeks, just as I’ve been procrastinating on this whole series all summer), I’ll be making several posts intended to illustrate how we can debate the issues by laying out our positions and trying to adjudicate between them. Rather than yelling and name-calling, I will model how we can have a civil debate by focusing on the issues themselves, recognizing our opponents’ concerns and reacting to them rather than dismissing them out of hand, and always keeping in mind our agreement on the four principles – and potentially more that will come out over the course of the debate. I can’t say that we will come to an absolute best solution for every problem, or that if we do it’ll be the right one, but I hope to bring each side to an understanding of their opposition and either a moderation of their perspective or at least a clarification of it through the perspective of the opposition. In short, rather than merely calling to “restore sanity” as Jon Stewart will do on Saturday, I’ll be trying to show how we can actually do it.

It won’t be easy, it won’t be pretty (these will still be emotionally charged debates), I can’t guarantee any sort of success, and I certainly can’t guarantee that I’ll singlehandedly heal the rift between left and right in this country, certainly not before the election, but someone needs to start the dialogue. And it needs to start by doing what I’ve tried to do: explain each side’s position in terms explicable to the other. Even if the dialogue is just me publishing the debate going on in my own head, an abstract liberal and conservative talking to each other is better than nothing. My hope is that real liberals and conservatives will take up where I leave off and continue it – and maybe then we can start to heal the rift.

The Liberal Case to a Conservative

by

Click here to find out what this is all about.

Sometimes I wonder how a Republican can stand by, in good conscience, and support some of the things he supports, oppose some of the things he opposes.

How can you stand by and watch as millions of Americans suffer in poverty, without health insurance, without jobs? How can you stand by and watch as the top 5% hoard more than half of the wealth and live in opulence while millions go hungry? How can you stand by and do nothing as big corporate CEOs practically get away with murder at the expense of the American people? How can you let children of poor families go to school in dilapidated, worn-down schoolhouses and living in dangerous neighborhoods where they’re constantly exposed to drugs and crime while children of rich families get every privledge imaginable, sent to the best schools and isolated from the real world? For all your Christian rhetoric, how can you call yourselves Christians and let all this happen?

It’s wrong, it’s unfair, and it’s – dare I say it – un-American. I completely agree that America is – or at least should be – the greatest nation on Earth. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, where even a humble little boy from a small town can grow up to become President of the United States. “Give us your tired, your hungry, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” But I don’t dogmatically and religiously believe that just because we say it’s so necessarily makes it true, and right now, for millions of Americans, that American dream is just that: a dream. (And when the dream does come true, it’s not exclusive to America.) They’re trapped in misery and feel powerless to escape, not even having a chance to win, because powerful forces want them to stay where they are. How can we live up to our ideals if we don’t give them what they need?

But you don’t care about that. America can go ahead and suffer for all you care, so long as you get to keep your sacred cows of “limited government” and “unrestrained capitalism”. Well, it’s time to wake up and see the real world, because all it’s gotten us is increased concentration of the wealth and naked greed – greed, incidentially, that isn’t good for the economy, and neither is poverty where people don’t have money to put into the economy. We’ve tried trickle-down economics, we’ve passed huge tax cuts for the rich, and it doesn’t work. Big corporations and rich people don’t care about America as a whole, only their own bottom line. How can anyone honestly feel admiration rather than shame and outrage at the obscenely wealthy? In this context, fears of “expanding government” seem trivial and petty. Government is not the problem, but misuse of governmental power; in this country, “big government” is a myth. We are a democracy, and government is supposed to work for all of us, and it can be a powerful ally.

And Republicans don’t “reduce the size of government” like they’re always talking about anyway. Every time Republicans come to power, they slash funding for services Americans need (they even tell you they’re going to repeal health care reform!), they privatize others to companies that only care about the almighty dollar, but then they turn around and spend, spend, spend on the military. Reagan and the Bushes, they all saw ballooning deficits, while we actually saw a surplus under Clinton. We saw Bush II send our young men to fight and die in Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, to follow the imperial dreams of the neocons. It’s a policy that has led us to be hated around the world; we were once seen as the beacon of freedom around it, but policies like these are why the terrorists hate us.

America spends many times more on its military than any other nation; in fact we spend twice as much per person than the total income of two-thirds of the world’s population. We need to be united by our common humanity; America is just antagonizing the other nations of the world, even our alleged allies, and it’s ultimately making America less safe, not more. America can’t keep being the policeman of the world. Let’s stop fighting each other and start loving each other; let’s stop the killing and bombing and start the feeding and caring.

But no. Big, moneyed interests support the status quo, and money talks. It’s these big corporations with an interest in the status quo that own the big news networks; the notion of a “liberal media” is just cover for how they push their conservative agenda. Journalists may be liberal, but that’s because they see everything that’s happening around the world; the organization they work for won’t publish anything the boss won’t allow. And the big corporations spend billions of dollars spreading misinformation, trying to convince you they really do have your best interests at heart, even though they’ve proved time and time again that they don’t. Just because everyone believes something doesn’t make it true, and there are a lot of people who have spent many years trying to figure out the best way to do things. Most Americans would be on board with the progressive agenda in a heartbeat once they knew what it was, but the big corporations want to make sure you remain in the dark, and just demonize it as the work of “liberal elitists”.

And it’s not just the big corporations keeping ordinary Americans down. There are forces out to take away a woman’s right to choose and take away her control over her own body, to take away the right of gays to serve in the military or to enjoy the same protections given to any other loving relationship, to make non-Christians, especially Muslims, feel unwelcome, to make a particular religious agenda, often a disturbingly hateful one, the national agenda over the objections of those it hurts and offends, to keep guns on the streets and Americans unsafe.

It seems Republicans’ respect for the Constitution doesn’t include the Bill of Rights (except the Second Amendment of course!), and “freedom” just means the freedom for corporations to lead us all into the ditch, especially with all the spying on Americans the last decade, not that you heard the corporate media talk much about that either. It’s funny to hear the Tea Partiers talk about comparing Obama to Hitler or Stalin and preaching about “government interference in people’s lives” when we really did flirt with Orwellian totalitarianism under Bush. Do you really think his party has changed? Or is the old saying really true: “fool me once…”

It’s time to wake up to reality and come together to solve America’s problems, not turn a blind eye to them and go around thinking everything is just hunky-dory when it’s not.

The Conservative Case to a Liberal

by

Click here to find out what this is all about.

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they created this country and its constitution.

They had just seen first-hand what happens when people get too much power. They had just fought a war to free themselves from the tyrrany of King George. They knew they had to do something to make sure America never had to suffer like that again. They knew the power of government had to be limited to keep from interfering in the lives of ordinary Americans, because when Americans are left to their own devices, they have proven time and again that they can do some wonderful things. So they set out to create the freest nation on Earth, one that would be the envy of the world, a beacon of hope for oppressed peoples the world over, a place where anyone, with hard work and determination, could be anything they wanted to be.

For over two centuries that was exactly what America was, the greatest nation in the world. In the 1940s, when Nazi totalitarianism threatened to enslave the world, America made sure the world remained free. In the next half-century, when the threat of Communism threatened to spread all over the world, America remained the haven of free enterprise and took the lead at halting the spread of socialism and communism, culminating in the fall of the Berlin Wall and of the Soviet Union itself.

And yet, now, after America’s greatest triumph, liberal elitists like you want to turn America into its opposite. You want to reach the tentacles of government to every part of American lives, to make each and every one of us dependent on our government, to impose socialism – the very ideology we spent half a century fighting – right here in the USA, here, in the greatest stronghold for free enterprise in all the world! And they have the gall to claim to know better than most Americans because we won’t go along with their America-destroying ideas – as though we’re just a bunch of stupid morons who should stay in their place and let the smart people run things. We’ve seen what happens when government gets absolute power, but I suppose the liberal elitists never studied history while getting their fancy-schmancy college educations.

Or economics. Because as much as you’ve demonized so-called “Big Corporations”, the fact remains that capitalism is the greatest economic system in the world. Competition, free enterprise, these things are more powerful forces than the liberals realize. They put money in people’s pockets and allow a rising tide to lift all boats. Other countries have tried socialism; the Soviet Union is dead, China has moved towards capitalism (because they recognize what the liberal elitists don’t), and Europe takes all your money, crippling life and the economy. We don’t need an Europe-style welfare state where everyone is coddled and pampered. Private business knows what’s best for America, because their task is to get the most out of their money, and they don’t need government regulation mucking things up. Even when it’s benign, government doesn’t have any motivation to provide the best service, since it has a monopoly; private business has to compete, so it does have to provide the best service for the money.

I know how sad you are to see poor people out there, but it’s time to wake up to reality. If you put everyone on a level playing field, if you give people wealth without work, no one will have any incentive to work because no one will be able to get ahead. Success through hard work is the most fulfilling kind of success; the American dream isn’t “the government will magically make you rich”. You can’t make everyone mediocre; you need to free people to aspire to wealth, and that means you need to have wealthy people for them to aspire to. Otherwise, the economy stagnates, and we get passed by China and India.

And on top of that, you want to cripple our military? That hippie pacifist crap went out with the 60s. You want to know why those European socialist countries don’t have any military? It’s because they rely on the United States military, finest in the world, to protect them for them. It’s the US military that protects freedom from those who would destroy it. I’m not going to defend Bush’s intelligence tactics, much as he was slandered by the media – apparently Democrats got the wrong message when the voters rejected his expansion of government into people’s lives – but don’t deny the continued threat of al-Qaeda and other enemies of America. You gut the military, and who will keep America – and the world – safe from terrorists and rogue states who want to hold the world hostage with nuclear weapons? You want to live at their mercy, or would you rather go move there and coddle them and give in to their every demand? But that’s not all; you also want to take away guns from private citizens, leaving us defenseless (except for the government’s police of course!) against petty criminals and especially against our own government?

But – as if all that weren’t enough – to complete the socialist takeover, you want to take away God from our lives. You want to turn doctors into murderers, you want to undermine the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman (because what’s the point of marriage if it can’t produce a child?), and most of all, you want to deny the Christian foundation of this country and turn it into a godless, atheist place. It’s one thing to destroy America, it’s another to guarantee yourself a place in hell and drag America down with it by offending God, much as you want to deny His existence. Yeah, try denying His existence when you’re burning in hell; pretending He isn’t there doesn’t make it so.

This is all common sense. So how come it’s now legitimate to talk about a complete government takeover of the health care industry, about expanding government to solve all our problems, about crippling this nation’s ability to defend itself and spread the message of freedom, about destroying the foundation of marriage and offending all God’s morals, and how come anyone who talks about how all this will destroy America – which is to say most Americans – is shouted down and insulted? It’s because the liberal media won’t tell the truth. Whenever the liberal media talks about businesses and their leaders, they always insult them and paint them as corrupt con-men. Apparently all the good business leaders give all their money away so the poor get a free ride. And all they ever talk about is the military killing people or committing some atrocity; they never talk about all the good the United States military does around the world, and in general all they talk about is what’s wrong with the world, not what’s right. In fact, anyone who so much as tells the truth or talks sense with Americans is slandered and painted as some extremist. And there is a liberal media; actual academic studies have proven it.

Well, America’s not going to take it anymore. America is a center-right nation, and it’s time to climb down from the ivory towers, stop looking at your beautiful abstract models that blind you to the real world, stop deluding yourselves into thinking Americans just need to know more about your little plot, and stop trying to lead America in a direction we see very well and don’t want to go. We’ve had enough of “change”. We like things just the way they are, thank you very much.