Well, I missed that one. I expected Oregon to dominate OSU for an entire game, rather than just a half. At least it was during the second half, when it counted.
Over on the OSU boards, they're whining about the officials (who apparently scored 42 points on them, while beating the snot out of their quarterback and holding them to 31 points) and claiming (and I'm not making this up) that "the better team lost." Seriously. Blaming the officials is the last refuge of the genuine loser. You're not good enough to win. You're not good enough to even be on the same field. So it must be the refs' fault.
This game wasn't even close. Okie State lacked the athletes to compete with Oregon for four quarters. They lacked the coaching to overcome the absence of their one playmaker. They lacked the conditioning to stand up to a brand of speed and physicallity that is virtually unknown in the big-12 (little "b" intentional).
I have said it all year long - the only team that can stop Oregon is Oregon. The first half was evidence of this as Oregon was unable to capitalize on big plays - not because of OSU's defense, but because of misfires on offense. OSU's defense didn't change in the second half. Rather, Oregon's execution simply improved. Truly (and I know it's politically incorrect to say this about any opponent, but ...) OSU did not belong on the same field as Oregon.
I would have so preferred to see Oregon v. Oklahoma, and Florida v. Texas. Oh well.
Good win by Oregon. Nice to see Masoli lower the boom on defenders who think they're gonna make an easy pop on a QB. I always get worried when Blount hurdles somebody - he's gonna break his ankle doing that someday - but damn it makes for good highlights. Next year looks promising. (And to think, we've all been whining about how un-good Oregon's been this year. We suck).
Go Ducks!!
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Oregon v. Oklahoma State
Today's the day, finally, for the Pac-10 to demonstrate to the Big-12 what real football is all about. Or, today is the day that the Big-10 punches the Pac-10 square in the mouth. My hunch is that it will be the former.
Oregon faces off against Okalahoma State in the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl tonight at 5:00 PM (PST) (ESPN). Almost universally the prognosticators are calling for a shootout, apparently believing that neither team will bother to field a defense.
After some lame and probably ill-informed analysis, I have determined that Oregon will win this going away. It will won't be a shootout - it'll be a turkey shoot. But only IF Oregon's defense shows up. When it does (see, first half of the Arizona game), it's like the Terminator, getting the opposing offense in its sights and then brutally, methodically, dismembering it. The Oregon defense is faster and stronger than the Oklahoma State D. Oregon D-lineman Nick Reed alone has more sacks than the entire Okalahoma State defense for the season.
On the other hand, if the Oregon D does NOT show up, (see, most of the second half of the Arizona game), then Okie State will run wild through the air. Oregon's weakness is, as always, its secondary, which plays a good two yards off every receiver. Oregon has a defensive philosophy that it's okay for the opposing team to catch the ball, it's just not okay for the receiver to gain yards after the catch. Thus, a smart offense can move on Oregon by playing toss-and-catch for 4-6 yards all day. You never need to run another play.
Fortunately, even if the Oregon secondary stinks, OK State will make the mistake that other offenses make by feeling an inexplicable need to "balance" the offense. In fact, the one "rave" I hear about the Cowboys' offense is how "balanced" it is. OSU will not run the ball against Oregon with any success, and that will put pressure on its passing game - unless they go for 4-6 yard short gains every play. Oregon gives those up like it was passing out Halloween candy.
My money is on the Oregon D, and in particular the secondary, showing up - they have a lot to atone for this season and with great seniors like Reed and Patrick Chung playing their last game, expect some bloodied-up Cowboy parts lying on the field by game's end.
On the other side of the ball, OSU can't stop Oregon's offense. It's just that simple.
I know OSU fans like to mention how their team's only losses came to teams ranked, at the time, #1, #2, and #3. But the rankings had those teams (except maybe Texas) ranked way, way too high. As if there was any question about that, see Missouri's need for overtime to beat Northwestern - yes, Northwestern, one of the Big-10's perennial doormats. I was unaware they even still played football at Northwestern.
Of course, Oklahoma is going to get butchered by Florida, while Texas manhandles an Ohio State team whose great accomplishment is to be a pretty good team in a very bad conference. (I would have preferred to see a Texas-Florida matchup - now THAT would be some football).
Anyhow, OSU, in those hideous orange-and-black Great Pumpkin costumes, is about to be brought back to reality. (Reality = Pac-10 > Big-12, even in a supposed "down" year).
Prediction: Oregon 62, OSU 27.
Oregon faces off against Okalahoma State in the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl tonight at 5:00 PM (PST) (ESPN). Almost universally the prognosticators are calling for a shootout, apparently believing that neither team will bother to field a defense.
After some lame and probably ill-informed analysis, I have determined that Oregon will win this going away. It will won't be a shootout - it'll be a turkey shoot. But only IF Oregon's defense shows up. When it does (see, first half of the Arizona game), it's like the Terminator, getting the opposing offense in its sights and then brutally, methodically, dismembering it. The Oregon defense is faster and stronger than the Oklahoma State D. Oregon D-lineman Nick Reed alone has more sacks than the entire Okalahoma State defense for the season.
On the other hand, if the Oregon D does NOT show up, (see, most of the second half of the Arizona game), then Okie State will run wild through the air. Oregon's weakness is, as always, its secondary, which plays a good two yards off every receiver. Oregon has a defensive philosophy that it's okay for the opposing team to catch the ball, it's just not okay for the receiver to gain yards after the catch. Thus, a smart offense can move on Oregon by playing toss-and-catch for 4-6 yards all day. You never need to run another play.
Fortunately, even if the Oregon secondary stinks, OK State will make the mistake that other offenses make by feeling an inexplicable need to "balance" the offense. In fact, the one "rave" I hear about the Cowboys' offense is how "balanced" it is. OSU will not run the ball against Oregon with any success, and that will put pressure on its passing game - unless they go for 4-6 yard short gains every play. Oregon gives those up like it was passing out Halloween candy.
My money is on the Oregon D, and in particular the secondary, showing up - they have a lot to atone for this season and with great seniors like Reed and Patrick Chung playing their last game, expect some bloodied-up Cowboy parts lying on the field by game's end.
On the other side of the ball, OSU can't stop Oregon's offense. It's just that simple.
I know OSU fans like to mention how their team's only losses came to teams ranked, at the time, #1, #2, and #3. But the rankings had those teams (except maybe Texas) ranked way, way too high. As if there was any question about that, see Missouri's need for overtime to beat Northwestern - yes, Northwestern, one of the Big-10's perennial doormats. I was unaware they even still played football at Northwestern.
Of course, Oklahoma is going to get butchered by Florida, while Texas manhandles an Ohio State team whose great accomplishment is to be a pretty good team in a very bad conference. (I would have preferred to see a Texas-Florida matchup - now THAT would be some football).
Anyhow, OSU, in those hideous orange-and-black Great Pumpkin costumes, is about to be brought back to reality. (Reality = Pac-10 > Big-12, even in a supposed "down" year).
Prediction: Oregon 62, OSU 27.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Because just losing the election was not enough.
In an attempt to secure the final and complete alienation of the Republican party from mainstream American politics for at least a generation, Chip Saltzman, the former bumble-fuck of a campaign manager for Mike Huckabee, is now running for chairmanship of the RNC and trying to woo supporters by sending them a CD with the song "Barack the Magic Negro."
Apparently, Mr. Saltzman, who's sole credential seems to be that he comes from a rich Tennessee family, thought it would be funny, and that Republicans would get the joke.
It's precisely that insularity, that belief that GOP insiders think racism is funny and that the rest of the world simply hasn't caught on yet, that is responsible for its drubbing in the past two national elections. If the GOP fails to understand that the basis for its failure is not the lack of conservatism on the part of its candidates, but rather its dogged adherence to failed and rejected conservative principles, it will not only fail to regain the power it's lost, but may relegate itself to the margins of American politics for a generation.
Those who doubt the truth of this need only look to the Oregon Republican Party, and its failure to mount a credible major-office candidate state-wide in 20 years. The Oregon GOP went far right in the 80s, and has never recovered, deciding that it would rather field candiates that would remain true to far-right dogma and lose, than move to the governable center and win.
Apparently, Mr. Saltzman, who's sole credential seems to be that he comes from a rich Tennessee family, thought it would be funny, and that Republicans would get the joke.
It's precisely that insularity, that belief that GOP insiders think racism is funny and that the rest of the world simply hasn't caught on yet, that is responsible for its drubbing in the past two national elections. If the GOP fails to understand that the basis for its failure is not the lack of conservatism on the part of its candidates, but rather its dogged adherence to failed and rejected conservative principles, it will not only fail to regain the power it's lost, but may relegate itself to the margins of American politics for a generation.
Those who doubt the truth of this need only look to the Oregon Republican Party, and its failure to mount a credible major-office candidate state-wide in 20 years. The Oregon GOP went far right in the 80s, and has never recovered, deciding that it would rather field candiates that would remain true to far-right dogma and lose, than move to the governable center and win.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Clinton's Emolument (Non) Problem
God help the internet but it creates such fodder for crazy people. The latest cyber-craze is the argument that Sen. Hillary Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State.
Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in pertinent part:
CNN ran a little segment on this story, but even their legal analyst, Jeffery Toobin, misses the more fundamental point:
The clause in question applies to Senators and Representatives. If the drafters had intended the clause to apply to former Senators and Representatives, they would have said so. They did not. Consequently, the clause does nothing more than bar a sitting Senator or Representative from moving directly into an appointed office for which they have previously voted a pay increase, and then only during the current term.
There is a line of arguments being made online (here, for example) that the "during the time for which he was elected" means that the ban extends to a Senator or Representative who retires before the expiration of his or her term. The argument then goes, in order for those words to mean something, they have to mean that it extends the ban for the duration of a current-term retirement.
The rules of constitutional/statutory construction do not permit such a simplistic analysis. The goal of interpreting the constitution is to give full effect to the entire clause, without parsing, whenver possible. It is also to not insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted.
Applying the clause to former members of congress necessarily inserts words that were not included by the drafters. Moreover, the "during the time" clause does not require an expansion of the ban to post-resignation periods. Rather, it recognizes the fact that members of congress are re-elected. Consequently, if during a Senator's first term he or she votes for a pay raise for the Secretary of State, then during the remainder of his or her term that Senator cannot move directly into that office. However, if that Senator is re-elected, then immediately upon the beginning of the new term of office, that Senator can then move into the Secretary of State office, because they have not voted for a pay raise during that term. Thus, the clause can be harmonized without expanding its scope by inserting new words.
Clinton has no emolument problem.
Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in pertinent part:
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time[.]"An "emolument" is basically the compensation paid to a public official. Thus, the argument goes, because Clinton voted on budgets that included pay increases for the office of the Secretary of State, she cannot now serve in that office.
CNN ran a little segment on this story, but even their legal analyst, Jeffery Toobin, misses the more fundamental point:
The clause in question applies to Senators and Representatives. If the drafters had intended the clause to apply to former Senators and Representatives, they would have said so. They did not. Consequently, the clause does nothing more than bar a sitting Senator or Representative from moving directly into an appointed office for which they have previously voted a pay increase, and then only during the current term.
There is a line of arguments being made online (here, for example) that the "during the time for which he was elected" means that the ban extends to a Senator or Representative who retires before the expiration of his or her term. The argument then goes, in order for those words to mean something, they have to mean that it extends the ban for the duration of a current-term retirement.
The rules of constitutional/statutory construction do not permit such a simplistic analysis. The goal of interpreting the constitution is to give full effect to the entire clause, without parsing, whenver possible. It is also to not insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted.
Applying the clause to former members of congress necessarily inserts words that were not included by the drafters. Moreover, the "during the time" clause does not require an expansion of the ban to post-resignation periods. Rather, it recognizes the fact that members of congress are re-elected. Consequently, if during a Senator's first term he or she votes for a pay raise for the Secretary of State, then during the remainder of his or her term that Senator cannot move directly into that office. However, if that Senator is re-elected, then immediately upon the beginning of the new term of office, that Senator can then move into the Secretary of State office, because they have not voted for a pay raise during that term. Thus, the clause can be harmonized without expanding its scope by inserting new words.
Clinton has no emolument problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
