Winners and Losers of the NFL

Of course in every sporting event, there must be a winner and a loser... except for stupid soccer. But I am a strong believer that some teams and players will never win championships and will always find a way to lose when it matters the most. As I have watched sports my entire life, I have come to the realization that the regular season means next to nothing in all sports other than baseball.

There is an ongoing list of great players who have never won a championship during their careers. Despite the outstanding numbers put up by Dan Marino, he never won a championship. So am I writing off Marino as a bad player? Absolutely not, but I do want to make the point that a superstar player can be a loser, but still be a superstar. There is a difference between being an amazing athlete and being a winner; the two do not always go hand and hand.

Old school.

I find that the two easiest sports where you can separate the winners from the losers are in football and basketball. In football, however, the only position where you can easily decipher who is a winner and who is a loser, is the quarterback. Obviously, this makes sense because the quarterback touches the ball on 99% of the plays on offense and is the most important player on the team.

When I think of losers in the NFL, my mind immediately links to Tony Romo, Philip Rivers and Jay Cutler. These are great NFL quarterbacks, do not get me wrong, but they will never win the Super Bowl because they are losers. Whether it is Romo muffing a hold in the playoffs, Rivers and the Chargers always finding a way to fold in the postseason, or Cutler always ending up throwing countless picks on the way to a disappointing year, these players always find a way to lose when it matters most.

Don't eat buttered popcorn during a game. Idiot.

On the flip side, there are winners in the NFL, too. A few players come to mind, like Tom Brady and Ben Roethlisberger, but where do you draw the line? Obviously, Roethlisberger and Brady have won multiple Super Bowls, but what about the quarterbacks who have just won one? Or the ones who have come close but never sealed the deal? I am thinking of players such as Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Brett Favre and Donovan McNabb. For these players, it is difficult to decide what to label them; winner or loser.

Peyton Manning has won a Super Bowl, but it was over Rex Grossman, who is... Rex Grossman. Otherwise, he has lost in the playoffs to the Patriots, Steelers and Saints in recent years when the Colts were the favored team. But I see Manning as a John Elway type quarterback who will win one or two more championships towards the end of his career.

Brees is the kind of guy who was stuck in a losing environment in San Diego and then led the Saints to a Super Bowl in just a few years down in Louisiana. Now that I have mentioned San Diego as a losing environment, it brings up the question if Rivers is truly a loser or just stuck in Loserville. Honestly, we will never know until he either win a Super Bowl as a Charger or leaves to try his chances elsewhere. Because Rivers is a legitimately good quarterback, if he is not really a loser, he will ultimately prove himself a winner.

After all, he is the Lord of No Rings.

I think Favre's situation was that he is so good, it was inevitable that he would win one championship. But other than Super Bowl 31, he has habitually folded in the playoffs and in big games. It is also possible that Peyton Manning falls under this category if he fails to win another Super Bowl for the rest of his career, because he would pretty much be in the same situation as Favre.

At last we come to Donovan McNabb. Some would say he is a loser because he always choked in the playoffs and lost in the Super Bowl, but in all reality, he took the Eagles to places they had never been before. I would also argue that without McNabb, Philly would never have made it to four consecutive NFC conference championship games at all. And, in all reality, the Eagles were never an elite team while McNabb was at the helm. It is hard to believe McNabb could win anything with the Redskins at this point, but he should continue to have a productive career, just not achieve that championship season any time soon. Also, you have to wonder if Philadelphia is a losing franchise, like San Diego, and will just never win a Super Bowl, regardless of the quarterback or any other players.

Well, I do have a bizarre man crush on Donvan McNabb.

For all you oldies out there, some historic NFL losers include: Jim Kelly and Dan Marino. On the flip side, some NFL winners include: Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, Steve Young and Troy Aikman. For obvious reasons, the winners won Super Bowls and the losers never did. Kelly was there for four straight years and never pulled out the win while Marino has some of the best passing statistics of all time, but no rings. Clearly, I do not have the credentials to say much more about quarterbacks before the 90s but I cannot think of any more blatant examples.

Joe Namath is still a stooge.

Come back to find out my winners and losers from other sports!

The Prudent-Athlete

Black and white. North and South. Hot and cold. Sports and education.

The days where "student-athletes" exist in mainstream society are all but over. Today the relationship between an NCAA athlete and the classroom is as far away as it has ever been. However, the question here is not "Who is to blame?" but instead "Is this a bad thing at all?"

The problem is not that kids would rather pursue a professional sports career than a college degree; it is that no one will admit these intentions. The NBA instituted its "one-and-done" rule a few years ago to protect 18-year old high school kids who think they are hot stuff (see: Sebastian Telfair) from ruining their professional chances in the long run. Now, players like Kevin Durant, John Wall and Kevin Love are forced to play in the NCAA for a year before they are draft eligible. These players are then forced to go to classes in which they have little to no interest and then proceed to make a mockery out of the college or university's educational system.

It was kind of fun to watch him crap on people though...

I say that if a basketball player wants to hire an agent out of high school and declare for the draft, then let him. if they are stupid enough to think they are good enough to get drafted, when in reality they are not, then they do not deserve any sympathy. They deserve to fail, especially in a system where it is basically a paved road for them to succeed in some way, on the court or in the classroom. Unless you are the real deal and everyone knows it (see: LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett) college is the no-brainer here.

Of course, the fans and media around these college kids are just enabling the athletes' pursuit of professional sports. After a player has a good basketball season, people do not say, "Man, I can't wait until next year." Instead, we say, "Man, his draft stock couldn't be higher right now, he should leave for the draft." Again, is this a problem? Of course not, the main reason the majority of these kids have for going to college to play sports in the first place is to get noticed by scouts and have the opportunity to make money by getting drafted in the pros.

Whoa! What did I just say? Athletes do not go to college for the education? How could that be? I know you have seen the commercials of the kid who is half juggling a soccer ball and half working on a chemistry set, with the line: "Most NCAA athletes will go pro in something other than sports." Well, that is true, being that there are thousands of athletes who play collegiate sports while, in the NBA for instance, there are only 60 players drafted each year, some of which are international players. Then why don't we hear about these "student-athletes" who are in the NCAA for the education and the sport, rather than just using it as a bridge to the NBA or NFL?

There you go, random guy from random college!

Oh yeah I forgot! The fact that a fifth-string wide receiver for Vanderbilt has a 3.9 GPA does not put fans in the seats, does not get on SportsCenter to create more attention for the program and does not attract more high school superstars to come to the school to continue the process. The only time when you hear about anything "student oriented" during an NCAA football or basketball game is when the players' majors are listed under their names and class during starting lineup introductions. A player who earns Academic All-America honors does not produce nearly enough attention or money compared to a player who earns Athletic All-America honors.

To be honest, I cannot tell you who was an Academic All-American last year, but I could tell you Mark Ingram won the Heisman trophy, and that is because I do not really care what your GPA is, as long as you can perform on the field. Sports is entertainment to me and I see the NCAA as a borderline professional league anyway, but I will get to that later...

My problem is that the NCAA, the conferences and the schools all pretend to care about how these kids do in the classroom but, in all reality, could care less as long as they are making their money. If the NCAA is going to continue with its belief that the "student-athlete" is important, then they need to show the fans, and the media needs to help the cause. Obviously we will still want to hear who is going to win the Heisman, but just take a few minutes on every broadcast or news story to give a shout-out to a no-name player who excels in the classroom. Or start highlighting the Academic All-American awards with an hour-long television special at the end of the season. Would that be so bad?

The NCAA basketball tournament and the respective conference tournaments make the NCAA and its partners billions of dollars every year while "student-athletes" are missing days and weeks of class time with no issues. But when the idea comes up to change the BCS system (which makes the NCAA and its partners billions of dollars) to a playoff system that would be a better determiner of a champion (in a sports sense) the NCAA makes the point that students would be out of class more often. Give me a break! Do you think the Alabama players were studying intently from the time the SEC Championship ended to the time the National Championship game began? Maybe, but I would say it is more likely that they spent more time practicing and going over strategy for their matchup versus Texas.

Well good thing they did because they freaking killed Texas!

Do I think it is ridiculous that "student-athletes" can maintain a minuscule GPAs and still play? Yes, but rules are rules, and if all you need to do in order to play the sport you love is the bare minimum, then go for it. Every once and a while you see a stat with the average graduation rate of NCAA football players, or the GPA of a specific basketball team, and it is really depressing. But nothing is going to change that fact until people start caring about the academics more than the sports... which will never ever happen.

But wait; there are more NCAA sports besides football and basketball, right? Oh yeah, there are tons! I just forgot to mention them because they are never mentioned in a breath of the media unless it is the sport's championship game or tournament. Why is that? Because those teams do not make as much money as basketball and football. How about FCS programs and teams not in Division 1-A? Well, they are pretty much in the same boat as the small sports at major schools; no one cares about them unless they are playing for a championship or upset an FBS school.

Seriously, had anyone heard of Appalachian St. before they beat Michigan?

Now these athletes are the ones who really care about the academics just as much as the athletics. Why is that? Because the chances of NCAA athletes going pro in a sport not names football or basketball are very slim, therefore these kids have a greater need for a college degree. These are the real "student-athletes" but they are not being pushed into the spotlight they deserve. Notice you never hear bout a Minnesota ice hockey player who has a 4.0 GPA, but when a "superstar" like John Wall is in Sports Illustrated, it is a big deal that he earned a 3.2 GPA. Do not get me wrong, that is great for John Wall, but how about all of the other "student-athletes" who work hard in class? Shouldn't they be commended for their hard work in the classroom? No, because the media's priorities are not laid out correctly.

So how does this issue get resolved? First of all, erase the NBA "one-and-done" rule. If an 18-year old high school hoop star want to bypass the NCAA to put his name in the draft, let him. This has to be done, regardless of how you feel about GPA, BCS, AARP or any kind of acronym. Obviously, people have expressed the idea of paying college athletes, but that is such a slippery slope, it would cloud the entire issue even further, or eliminate the "student-athlete" completely. I still love college sports, but it is kind of sad that, at least in basketball and football, the NCAA has become almost the minor leagues for the NBA and NFL. Who knows what things will be like in five-ten years? But all I know is that even though the talent level in the NCAA has grown exponentially in recent years, that special "something" about college sports is decreasing just as sharply.