The best night of college football

"Who is writing this stuff?!"
--Ian Darke, May 13th 2012, as Manchester City won the EPL title at the last second

Tonight ranks among the best sport nights of my entire life. I do not say this lightly. The last time I have felt this way was when Chelsea won the Champions League in May 2012. This is different, and yet the strength of the emotion is very similar.

Rather than my team winning a major trophy, tonight was a convergence of some amazing games, topped off by what is certainly the single best game finish in college football history. I am still far too swept by emotion to recount it in as much detail as it deserved. Suffice it to say that within the span of a few hours, Ohio State and Michigan battled it out in one of their best rivalry games to date; Virginia Tech beat Virginia for the tenth straight year; and Auburn defeated top-ranked Alabama in a glorious apotheosis thanks to an unbelievable sequence of plays in the last few seconds.

When Chris Davis returned the missed field goal, I could not believe my eyes. I kept thinking, "surely he can't expect to go far... I mean... wait... there must be a flag... oh god... oh please... NO FUCKING WAY!"

And then, just as when Chelsea won the UCL, I screamed and ran across the room like a man possessed. In the last few years of slowly becoming educated in the ways of American college football, I've hated no team more than Alabama, for the sole reason that they have been winning easy, far, and wide for as long as I have been into this sport -- and winners suck. And as I also often root for the underdog, supporting Auburn in this Iron Bowl was a no-brainer. I had been bragging all day that the Tigers would win, but I didn't really believe it. Not until that very last second. And even now it feels weird. I can only imagine what's going on right now, both in Auburn and in Tuscaloosa.

I don't have it in me yet to describe the game exactly, so I will just post a video of the final play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t9nNiH8g4A

But there is much more to say, of course. Another time.

Five controversies on Sochi 2014 and major sporting events in general

Brazilian unionists protest the privatization of public transport for the World Cup.

Much controversy has surrounded the preparations for the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. By itself that is remarkably unremarkable, as controversy always surrounds major global sporting events. Here I want to attempt to break down five sources of debate, some of which also apply to sports in general rather than to specific one-off events.

• THE HOSTS SUCK. To some extent, this objection is leveled to every venue for every event: Moscow in 1980 was communist, Atlanta 1996 was bought by Coca-Cola, South Africa in 2010 was dangerous, Brazil 2014 exploits poor workers, and so forth, all the way back to the most infamous, Berlin 1936. Now the latest is that Russia hates gays. No one place is immune from such social criticism... nor should it be, because the critics are usually right: most places do in fact suck, some worse than others. Hitler sucked worse than Putin; Putin worse than Roussef; etc. If we wait for morally irreprehensible venues, the next Olympics would be on the moon. Some might say that this just one more reason to give up on sports, but see my next point. (More subjectively, I am also deaf from that ear: whenever extremists like Italian journalist Bruno Vespa claim that we should shut down all the pro leagues, I just tune them out). If anything, major sporting events are occasions to highlight political issues and make them visible to the world at large. This can be done by participation, or by boycott, or by media attention, or in many other ways. Jesse Owens did it by winning. The USA in 1980 did it by boycotting. As no one is expected to boycott Sochi 2014, and given that human rights are a hot topic in the West right now, I expect there to be major media coverage of Russia's disgusting discrimination. This, too, is one of the functions of sport (think about the World Cup in Brazil 1950, or what the Seoul Olympics did for the North-South divide).

• Edit. Let me be very clear here. I am not trying to silence critics. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am saying that if you don't like the host country, your only options are not to either submit or to call for the cancellation of the event. You don't like that Russia is criminalizing homosexuality? Neither do I. Let's write about it, scream about it, make a lot of noise, take to the streets, and put the money where the mouth is. All of those forms of protest are completely compatible with watching the actual the Games and enjoying them as sports. If you think that people shouldn't even watch them because it would constitute hypocrisy, or a betrayal of your commitments, I disagree with you. At most that's a boycott of your living room, not of the Games. (I am looking at you, George Takei). You, as a viewer, are not in a position to boycott anything, save for the advertisers who sponsor the Olympics. Athletes and federations are, instead, so what you can do is make a lot of noise about it to them. Or you can criticize the IOC for choosing to award the Olympics to such a rogue country, but again, no countries are saints, and not having sports is just not an option.

• TOO MUCH MONEY. The event vacuums in funds that could be used elsewhere, such as for social programs. I find this one ludicrous. It is the same argument that some raise against space exploration, high-tech research, etc. Sporting events are public goods that are enjoyed by and valuable to large slices of the population, and which, when adequately planned, greatly stimulate an economy. Very few people's interests are served by gutting them. If anything, the following two criticisms make sense. For one, major sporting events must not be occasions to exploit workers. When exploitation happens, the media coverage is once again useful to highlight and evidence it, because that sort of injustice probably exists in the host country quite apart from the sporting event: if the powers that be are quick to exploit workers to meet IOC deadlines, chances are that they are quick to exploit them every other day too. Second, there needs to be less money in sports, but it has to come out of the salaries of star athletes and a reduction in the bullying preponderance of ad revenues. The problem is not the $51 billion spent on Sochi, but the $51 billion that the world's top ten soccer stars make in a lifetime. The world needs sports, but no player needs the world.

• TOO MUCH ATTENTION. "While a major sporting event is going on, there is little room in the news for anything else." For one, it is not true. Sports coverage is relegated to either special newscasts (sports broadcasters in the US) or to the middle or bottom of a news run schedule. Exceptions are very rare, and they are usually made for one-day events (the Super Bowl in the US or the Champions League final in the EU) or to cover a unique event (Michael Phelps or Wilma Rudolph). Even during the Olympics, which are arguably the most followed two-week sporting event in the world, the coverage of non-sports newscasts and newspaper is negligible. Finally, even assuming that this were true -- is it really such a bad thing? Must we talk about injustice, war, and famine all day every day? I am fully aware that the current world demands that we not be distracted from the fundamental injustice that afflicts us. But those who claim that sports "takes attention away" from "serious things" seem to me to need a major dose of lightening up. You can be 90% obsessed with your cause, as opposed to 100%, and that will be plenty enough! ;-)

• INEQUALITY. There is no denying that sports are male-dominated affairs. Even in the US, which is one of the world's most progressive countries in this sense, Title IX has done little more than institutionalize a female presence in sports, without a corresponding shift in the prevailing social attitudes -- when is the last time you saw women's sports in prime time? And some of the world's most followed sporting events, such as the World Cup and the Champions League final, are male exclusives. I agree with this criticism completely, though of course it is less applicable to the Olympics, which are more equal sex-wise. Until 40-50 years ago, women's Olympic sports were still poorly attended and poorly funded, but that has not been the case for a long time now. Also, and related to the previous points, major sporting events are excellent occasions to promote equality at all levels. The very "men and women" categorical divide in sports has been repeatedly challenged in the last few years (Caster Semenya), as has been the ableism that sport is sometimes seen to promote (Oscar Pistorius). And of course racism is no longer a significant issue in world sports, not as much as it is in local leagues such as the Premier League and the NFL. Recall the joke: "if sport isn't racist, then why does the black guy always win?"

• COMPETITION IS BAD. Every time that there is a major sporting event, someone inevitably pulls the "we should encourage collaboration, not competition" card. I am tired of hearing about it and of rebutting it. Instead, I will link to an old piece that I wrote about the ethics of lopsided victories, which contains observations about the very nature of competition. In short: (1) competition and antagonism aren't the same thing; (2) competition in sport engenders collaboration outside of sports; (3) most people who say that they hate competition in sports hypocritically cherish it elsewhere in life; and (4) those who are truly afraid of all competition anywhere could use with a little perspective. At most, the following argument can be made, by rejecting #2: that sport encourages tribalism and factions and divides more than it unites. I partially agree with this problem, which I address in a forthcoming piece. The short of it is: sport does increase tribalism, but it also lessens it, depending on application and preexisting social circumstances. Sometimes sport acts as a mirror, while others it is a catalyst. I think that it is the former far more often than the latter, but it is definitely the latter as well, and that needs to be addressed (but of course you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, etc etc etc -- again, I am deaf to those who argue for the dissolution of all pro sports).

Rivalry week!

This part of my schedule for today's games. I have a three-screen setup but I don't know that I'll be able to stay awake through it all. LOL.

Damn, I love college football. It's even more awesome the last week of regular season.

By the way, the pic is from my comprehensive schedule, which I print every week. I might post all of it at some point in the future...

Champions League round of 16 qualification scenarios

Five match days down, one to go. With one game left, most teams still have a shot, and thankfully no groups are already completely decided, so it should be fun to follow. Groups A-D play on December 10 and groups F-H play on December 11. Below is the group-by-group analysis. Standings and pictures from UEFA.

---

---

Matchday 6: Sociedad-Leverkusen, Manchester-Donetsk. United are already through and Real are already out from everything. Shakhtar control their own fate, but it will be hard to pull off more than a point at Old Trafford. So Bayer has a golden chance. Two possible ties. If Shakhtar and Bayer both end up with 8 points, Bayer advance (4-0, 0-0 against Shakhtar) and Shakhtar are in the Europa League. If Shakhtar and Man Utd both end up with 11 points, Shakhtar win the group, Man Utd advance as second (previous meeting was 0-0), and Bayer are in the Europa League.

---

Matchday 6: Kobenhavn-Real, Galatasaray-Juventus. Real are through. Kobenhavn are out of the CL but still running for a Europa spot. Between Juventus and Galatasaray, the Italians have it easier. If Gala win, they advance no matter what Kobenhavn does (goal difference in previous meetings: 3-1, 0-1). In that case, Kobenhavn will go to Europa with a win, and forfeit that to Juve with a draw or loss. If Juve win or draw in Istanbul, they advance even if Kobenhavn win (1-1, 3-1 against them previously). Should both Galatasaray and Kobenhavn lose, Gala will take the Europa spot by the same criterion as above (goal difference). This is one of three groups (with E and H) where the two teams who can still advance to the R16 square off directly on the final day, so it will be exciting.

---

Matchday 6: Olympiacos-Anderlecht, Benfica-PSG. Olympiacos and Benfica will battle at a distance as they both host teams that have nothing to say. Should they both win, both draw, or both lose, Olympiacos will advance (1-1, 1-0 in previous meetings) and Benfica will go to the Europa League. This is among the simplest groups, as no other ties are possible.

---

Matchday 6: Plzen-CSKA, Bayern-City. Despite the very uneven group, not all is already said and done. The Europa league spot is still open, and City and Bayern can still contest the top spot. The tiebreakers are somewhat complex, as usual. Group winner race. If City beat Bayern, top spot will be determined by goal difference between them. Bayern won their previous game 1-3, so currently Bayern +2 and City -2, so City advance as first if they win by 3+ goals and as second if they lose, draw, or win by 1 goal. If City win by 2 goals, whoever will have scored the most goals advances as first: City with a win of at least 2-4 and Bayern otherwise. Should City win exactly 1-3, goals scored will fail to break (as both wins will have been with the same score) and so will most away goals (as both wins will have been away). In that case, Bayern advances as first on overall group goal difference, which will be +11 versus +9 for Man City. Europa League race. CSKA beat Viktoria 3-2, so Viktoria's only chance now is to beat CSKA by 2+ goals and advance by goal difference. If they beat them by 1 goal and score fewer than 3 (either 2-1 or 1-0), CSKA still advances on most goals scored. If they beat them exactly 3-2, CSKA advance on overall group goal difference, which will be -9 to -11... ironically the same numbers as Bayern and Man City, but in reverse!

---

Matchday 6: Chelsea-Steaua, Schalke-Basel. Chelsea are through, though not necessarily as first, and Steaua are out from everything. The cutthroat game to watch is of course Schalke-Basel. If Schalke win and Chelsea draw, Chelsea are first on points (twice 3-0 to Schalke), Schalke advance as second, and Basel go to Europa. If Chelsea lose and Schalke-Basel draw, Basel are first on points (2-1, 1-0 to Chelsea), Chelsea advance as second, and Schalke go to Europa. Finally, if Basel win there are no possible ties: they advance as second with a Chelsea win and as first with a Chelsea loss or draw, and either way Schalke go to Europa.

---

Matchday 6: Napoli-Arsenal, Marseille-Borussia. This group is complex. Napoli hope that Borussia either lose (Napoli advance with a win or a draw) or draw (Napoli advance with a win), which will send the Italians to the CL R16 and the Germans to Europa. Instead, if Borussia and Napoli both draw or both lose, Borussia advance on goal difference between them (lost 1-2 but won 3-1) and Napoli goes to Europa. And if both Borussia and Napoli win, there will be a three-way tie at the top! In that case, the second possible tiebreaker is assured to break it. As Marseille are already out, the list below assumes that the team that fails to advance among these three will clinch the Europa spot:

• Higher points among tied teams. This will fail to break the tie: Napoli 6, Arsenal 6, Borussia 6.
• Goal difference among tied teams. Currently it is Arsenal +2, Borussia +1, Napoli -3. Borussia's game against Marseille does not count, so they stay at +1. The size of Napoli's win against Arsenal matters.
• If Napoli win by 3+ goals: Borussia and Napoli advance: Borussia +1, Napoli ≥0, Arsenal ≤-1.
• If Napoli win by 2 goals: Arsenal and Borussia advance: Borussia +1, Arsenal 0, Napoli -1.
• If Napoli win by 1 goal: Arsenal and Borussia advance: Borussia +1, Arsenal +1, Napoli -2.
• In this scenario, Borussia advance as first for having scored more away goals (1-2 win in London, vs. Arsenal's 0-1 win in Dortmund) and Arsenal advance as second.

---

Matchday 6: Atletico-Porto, Austria-Zenit. Porto and Zenit are still running and both play away to teams that are already done. One possible tie happens if Zenit lose and Porto draw. In that case, Zenit advance on higher points and Porto go to Europa, as Zenit beat Porto once and drew the other. Austria Wien is out of the Europa as well, because even if they win and Porto lose, Porto beat them once and drew the other. So, at worst, the loser of the R16 race between Porto and Zenit is still guaranteed a spot in the Europa.

---

Matchday 6: Milan-Ajax, Barcelona-Celtic. Barcelona are through and Celtic are out; the rest is open. As Barcelona are expected to dispose of the Scots, whoever wins between Milan and Ajax advances; or, if they draw, Milan advance. The only possible tie is if Ajax beat Milan and Barcelona lose to Celtic. In that case, Barcelona advance as first (beat Ajax 4-0 and lost 1-2). Barcelona can only advance as second in the group by losing to Celtic and if Milan defeat Ajax. Needless to say, since Celtic are already out, whoever loses the R16 race between Milan and Ajax is guaranteed to clinch the Europa League spot.

---

Mou's face is always relevant, so there.

Deadly accident Itaquerao stadium in Sao Paulo

This is the stadium that is set to host the opening match of the 2014 World Cup between Brazil and one of the teams drawn into its group. Apparently a large crane collapsed, taking with it part of the seat covering, which took the lives of three workers. It is still unclear what happened exactly.

See reports here, here, and here. Pictures below this post.

I am not sure if this was a "genuine" accident or the result of poor worker safety. Certainly the labor disputes in Brazil have been making headlines for close to two years now, and with FIFA deadlines for venue completion fast approaching (end of December) there is enormous pressure on the organization to get stuff done quickly... so it would not surprise me if worker safety was compromised.

That would be damn unfortunate and extremely upsetting. I am ridiculously excited for this World Cup, but I'll bet that so were the three guys whose wives' and children's lives just changed forever. If foul play or sloppiness were involved, and if those were ultimately caused by corporate interests, it will put a significant moral damper on the World Cup.

Of course, similar debates can be had about the vast majority of large public events, from music concerts to political rallies, so I certainly would not endorse the ridiculous cries of anti-sports fanatics who want to shut the whole thing down forever. But it does remain unsettling and I hope that it continues to be talked about.

This February, Sochi will be a taste of what a majorly contested sporting event looks like. That has not happened since Munich 1972, and even then that was different. I look forward to that debate (though not to those radicals who cry for boycotts because they have this fantasy that sports culture is an enemy of justice and progress; they sure will be unbearable come February, but I am sure that I am just as unbearable in their eyes).

"Harvard Beats Yale 29-29"

is one of the best sports documentaries I've ever seen, despite the low budget. Delightfully intertwines the social milieu, the human stories, and the game into an entertaining short feature film. Warmly recommended. No knowledge of or passion for football required. 

You can watch the movie for free at Hulu: http://www.hulu.com/watch/189206

World Cup 2014: Top 11 for the Top 10

It's normal for the world's best to play in the World Cup: that's kinda the point. This year has no more talent than usual, but it is distributed differently as many nations are in the middle of the generational transition. This should result in fewer powerhouses and a less predictable tournament.

Below is what I take to be the top 11 (players) for the top 10 (teams). Of course, who actually starts or sits in six months is ultimately decided by the coach depending on fitness, health, opponents, and what happens in practice day in and day out, so consider these to be "best case scenario" selections.

~~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~~

BRAZIL

Starting 11: Julio Cesar;  Luiz, Dante, Dani Alves;  Ramires, Oscar, Paulinho, Hernanes;  Robinho, Neymar, Hulk.

Also: Thiago Silva, Maicon, Leiva, Jo, Kaka, Pato.

SPAIN

Starting 11: Casillas;  Ramos, Arbeloa, Albiol;  Iniesta, Xavi, Alonso, Fabregas; Torres, Villa, Pedro.

Also: Pique, Alba, Navas, Mata, Llorente.

GERMANY

Starting 11: Neuer;  Hummels, Mertesacker, Boateng, Lahm;  Ozil, Khedira, Schweinsteiger;  Muller, Kroos, Gotze.

Also: Westermann, Bender, Schurrle, Reus, Podolski, Gundogan, Klose, Gomez.

ARGENTINA

Starting 11: Romero;  Zabaleta, Coloccini, Campagnaro;  Mascherano, Maxi Rodriguez, Lamela;  Aguero, Messi, Higuain, Lavezzi.

Also: Garay, Otamendi, di Maria, Alvarez, Palacio.

ENGLAND

Starting 11: Hart;  Cole, Baines, Lescott, Cahill;  Gerrard, Lampard, Milner; Rooney, Defoe, Sturridge.

Also: Young, Carrick, Welbeck, Walcott, Carroll.

ITALY

Starting 11: Buffon;  Chiellini, Barzagli, Bonucci, Maggio;  De Rossi, Pirlo, Montolivo, Marchisio;  Balotelli, Rossi.

Also: Balzaretti, Ranocchia, Aquilani, Florenzi, Gilardino, Giovinco, Toni?, Totti?

FRANCE

Starting 11: Lloris;  Debuchy, Evra, Sakho, Koscielny;  Ribery, Valbuena, Nasri, Sissoko;  Benzema, Giroud.

Also: Sagna, Rami, Abidal, Gourcouff, Menez.

BELGIUM

Starting 11: Mignolet;  Van Buyten, Vermaelen, Vertonghen, Kompany;  Dembele, Fellaini, Hazard;  Mirallas, Lukaku, Benteke.

Also: Lombaerts, Simons, Witsel, De Bruyne, Mertens.

NETHERLANDS

Starting 11: Stekelenburg;  van der Wiel, Heitinga, Janmaat;  Strootman, de Jong, van der Vaart, de Guzman;  van Persie, Robben, Lens.

Also: not many quality alternatives...

URUGUAY

Starting 11: Muslera;  Lugano, Godin, M. Pereira;  Gargano, A. Pereira, Rodriguez, C. Rodriguez;  Forlan, Cavani, Suarez.

Also: not many quality alternatives...

~~~*~*~*~*~*~~~

Finally, here is the top 11 of those who will be watching the World Cup on TV because their national teams failed to qualify...

Cech (Czech Republic);  Vidic (Serbia), Subotic (Serbia), Alaba (Austria), Piszczek (Poland);  Hamsik (Slovakia), Ramsey (Wales), Bale (Wales), Jovetic (Montenegro);  Lewandowski (Poland), Ibrahimovic (Sweden).

This is a very competitive team!

2014 World Cup seedings, draws, and "groups of death"

(Un)fortunately, FIFA's new seeding rules closely resemble those of the NFL, where undue prominence is given to division leaders that may not even have a winning record, while teams with the third-best record in the nation may have to scrape through in the wild card round. Likewise, here many good teams are relegated to the second tier, while teams who won relatively easy qualification groups get top-tier seeds.

On the one hand, this is purely meritocratic, which makes sense, and it could spice things up at the group stage, which is fun. On the other, it can severely diminish the quality of the spectacle at the knockout stage, which is definitely not fun. It's a trade-off. As one of FIFA's main goals lately is to increase the visibility and opportunity of historically lesser teams (a "sports affirmative action" of sorts), that seems sensible after all... I often prefer unpredictability to tradition, after all.

Here are the likely seeding pots going into the final stage draw on December 6:

One thing that jumps out is the possibility of a group with three previous Cup winners, as England and Italy are in the second tier and France is in the third. A group with Brazil, Italy, and France and a group with Argentina, England, and France are "groups of death" by any standards -- so much historical rivalry! And it is only because of the rule that no more than two European teams can be drawn into the same group that we will avoid groups like Germany, Italy, and France (can you imagine that?).

More possible groups of death, for the fun of it:
Brazil, Netherlands, Ivory Coast, Japan
Germany, Netherlands, Ghana, Japan
Argentina, Portugal, Ivory Coast, USA
Spain, England, Nigeria, Mexico

Not all of these are horrible. Perhaps the worst of all is the group with Brazil, Italy, France, and Japan, which is arguably best team from the fourth tier. That group would be three-fourths of group B at the latest Confederations Cup that gave rise to highly spectacular matches.

Now for some easy groups, that is, the groups that second-tier European teams are really hoping for:

Switzerland, Italy, Algeria, Honduras -- the Italians' wet dream
Colombia, Netherlands, Ecuador, Iran -- nice 'n easy for the oranje
Belgium, England, Cameroon, Australia -- not exactly easy, but I'd love to see this for the precedents

In general, everyone wants to get Colombia, Switzerland, Ecuador, and Algeria. Not that these are easy, because remember, there are no easy teams: this has been a cutthroat qualifying season full of talent. But surely there are more affordable groups. Belgium, as is clear by now, will be a major outsider, and if they live up to expectations they could go a very long way.

There is also the following observation. Having an easy group is not necessarily great. Some teams, such as Italy and Uruguay, typically exalt themselves when they play big teams, and especially their historical rivals, and tend to struggle against the underdogs. In this sense, perhaps most great teams prefer a balanced group over an easy one. And given FIFA's new seeding, that is almost guaranteed to happen.

World Cup 2014 qualified teams

Assuming no upsets in the last round of (inter-federation tiebreakers), here are the 32 qualified teams for the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil and some fun stats to go with that:

EUROPE: Germany, Spain, Italy, England, Netherlands, France, Portugal, Belgium, Switzerland, Russia, Greece, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia.
SOUTH AMERICA: Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador.
NORTH/CENTRAL AMERICA: Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras, USA.
AFRICA: Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Ghana, Algeria.
ASIA: Japan, Iran, South Korea, Australia.

Bosnia-Herzegovina qualify for their first-ever World Cup. Hooray! ALL previous Cup winners have qualified: Uruguay, Italy, Brazil, England, Germany, France, Argentina, and Spain. Surprisingly, this is only the second time in the last six editions that this has happened.

The most notable absences given previous World Cup records are Sweden (one final and two third places) and the Czech Republic (two finals). Burkina Faso barely missed qualification, which would have been their first. They would also have been the country with the lowest GDP to ever qualify for a World Cup.

South America has by far the best qualification record: 6 qualified nations out of 10, followed by Europe (13-53), Africa (5-52), Asia (4-43), and North-Central America (3-35). Oceania qualifies 0 nations out of 11, for the 18th time in 20 World Cups.

The draw for the group stage, host city assignments, and knockout-stage pairings will be held Saturday, December 6 in Costa do Sauipe, Bahia, at 12/noon EST. The World Cup is June 12-July 13.

(Sources: FIFA, UEFA, Goal, Wikipedia).