2007 Pac-10 Preview

Finally, it's football season again! For those of us on the left coast, it means watcing the most exciting conference in college football take the field every Saturday afternoon. Only in the Pac-10 does nearly every team have a shot at the league title. Southern Cal looks as tough as ever, but the conference is stacked in the middle with Cal, UCLA, Oregon, OSU, and Arizona State returning enough firepower to challenge the mighty Trojans. Wazzu and Arizona are longshots, but are loaded with enough talent to ruin anyone's season. Only Washington and Stanford appear to have no chance; Washington because of its brutal schedule and Stanford because of its utter lack of talent. So here are my predictions for how they'll finish.

10. Stanford

Despite some talent at QB and receiver, new coach Jim Harbaugh won't be able to pull the Cardinal out of the cellar where they've been since Tyrone Willingham left the program in 2002.

9. Washington

With highly touted recruit Jake Locker at QB, the Huskies have the potential to be good, but not good enough to overcome perhaps the toughest schedule in the country. Too bad, it's so much easier to hate the Huskies when they're good.

8. Washington State

As usual, WSU will put up a lot of points with quarterback Alex Brink and wideout Michael Bumpus running the offense. Defensively, they will give up too many points to compete in the upper half of the league.

7. Arizona
You would expect a team that returns 18 starters to finish higher, but the Wildcats have yet to prove they can field a consistent offense. A healthy Willie Tuitama at QB and new offensive coordinator Sonny Dykes from high-powered Texas Tech will go along way to solve that problem. And they'll get plent of help from a veteran defense led by All-conference corner Antoine Cason that will wreak havoc in Pac-10.

6. Oregon State

The Beavers would be higher, but they recently lost three key players for the season: cornerback Coye Francies, punter Kyle Loomis, and most painful - All-league wideout and kick returner Sammie Straughter. The Beavers will counter this adversity by fielding an outstanding defense led by senior linebackers Derrick Doggett, Alan Darlin, and Joey LaRocque. And even without Stroughter, the offense returns a deep receiving corps, an all-conference tailback, and arguably the best offensive line in the Pac-10. Unfortunately, they will still have to overcome a new quarterback and road games against the league's best teams.

5. Arizona State

New coach Dennis Erickson will give the 'Devils some much needed attitude and swagger. I expect an immediate improvement on defense. The offense will be OK with quality QB Rudy Carpenter and surprise talent Ryan Torain at tailback. The biggest help, however, will be a schedule that includes 8 home games, with the first four at home and the fifth against hapless Stanford. They may start 5-0, oozing with confidence.

4. Oregon

The Ducks head into 2007 absolutely loaded on offense. Unfortunately, they are also loaded with unanswered questions. Dennis Dixon is a senior and the unquestioned starter at quarterback, but will he collapse into a turnover machine like he did in second half of the season? Junior running back Jonathan Stewart is an uncanny blend of power and speed, but can he stay healthy? The receiving corps is deep and talented led by Jr. Jaison Williams, but will they play more consistently and cut down on the drops? New offensive coordinator and spread offense guru Chip Kelly will try and improve a unit that led the league in total offense, but can he keep them from collapsing and embarassing themselves midway through the season?

Defensively, there are more questions. The secondary is the strength of a unit that led the Pac-10 in pass defense last year, but can they stop the run? The D-line is thin and the linebackers unproven.

If the Ducks answer these questions, they are talented enough to challenge USC. But unless they can finally display the kind mental toughness that characterized the great Duck teams of the past, this team will flounder in mediocrity.

3. UCLA

The Bruins return an unbelievable 20 starters. The offense will be solid, not spectacular. Ben Olson gets the nod at QB over Patrick Cowan who played most of year replacing the injured Olson. He'll have a lot of fast, experienced receivers to throw to. And Chris Markey is a tough, versatile back who will give them another 1,000 yard season behind a veterean offensive line.

The strength of this team will be its defense. Coordinator DeWayne Walker transformed this unit into one of the nation's best last year, culminating in a 13-9 win over rival USC. UCLA has always had tons of talent but has yet to put it all together in recent years, which speaks to coaching, so I have a hard time picking them higher.

2. Cal

With only 12 starters returning (just 5 on defense), you wouldn't expect Cal to be a top ten team. But you'd be wrong. Aside from great coaching, they have a sharpshooter in quarterback Nate Longshore and the best receiver trio in the country led by bonafide superstar DeSean Jackson. If their defense is merely adequate, they'll win 10 games on the strength of 40 points a game.

1. USC

This team will be absolutely freakish. The Trojans sport more talent than the entire Big East conference. Quarterback John David Booty is a Heisman favorite but his offense will be fairly pedestrian (30 points a game). They have a solid line, but unproven (albeit talented) players start at tailback and wideout. What will drive this team is a ferocious defense that returns all but one starter. Trojan linebackers Rey Maualuga, Keith Rivers and Brian Cushing could all (and will) start in the NFL. I can't say enough about how good this defense is. They will be the best Southern Cal has ever had, and could be one of the best ever in college football history. Having said this....

Final Thoughts

USC will lose a conference game. The Pac-10 is too tough. Cal, UCLA, Oregon, or someone will knock them off. Unfortunately for them, that may be enough to knock them out of the BCS championship game where they belong. Worse still, because of the Pac-10's lousy bowl contract, only the winner plays in a New Year's Day bowl game. That means whatever teams finish 2nd and 3rd won't get the credit they deserve.

Who's the best ?

A favorite topic among sports fans is "Who's the best?" Who's the greatest quarterback of all time? What's the best NBA team of all-time? Who is the best hitter in baseball? Questions like these provide hours of passionate debate for fans, sports talk radio shows, broadcasters, and athletes themselves. Unfortunately, it's an almost impossible question with hundreds of variables that most people don't consider. Why?

1. It's a completely subjective question. There are no standard measures. Statistics factor in, but don't tell the whole story. Who's better - Bird or Magic? There is no right answer, only opinion.

2. Biases. As objective as someone may try to be, their biases inevitably factor in. People naturally tend to favor athletes from there own era because they have seen them play with their own eyes. As a result, athletes from previous decades are overlooked, or dismissed because most people today don't believe they could compete with today's athletes. And then you simply have favorites - favorite players, favorite teams, favorite coaches. Everybody has them, even sports reporters. An irritating trend among sports media today is to throw every hot new athlete into the "greatest of all-time" argument. When a team wins more than one championship, the word "dynasty" immediately tossed around. It's as if they are trying to manufacture greatness in order to give the here and now a sense of significance.

3. You can't compare eras. To demonstrate how impossible this is, I'll pose this question - Who is the best golfer of all time? Only two names are even in the debate: Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus. Nearly everyone today would immediately say Tiger. He's only 31 years old and has 13 major championships. Nicklaus has the record at 18 majors, but didn't win his 13th major until age 35. Woods has also posted much better scores than Nicklaus in majors and has a higher winning percentage than Nicklaus through the first 11 years of their careers.

Case Closed? Not if we factor in competition and technology.

During his career, Nicklaus competed against such greats as Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino and Tom Watson, each of whom have more than five major championships. Outside of Tiger, no one in the current era can be considered great. Phil Mickelson, Vijay Singh, and Ernie Els are good players, but not in the same class as Jack's competition. Why does this matter? Well, Tiger runs away from the competition in most of his wins. What if he had the likes of Watson or Trevino breathing down his neck like Jack did? Could he handle the pressure? It's an important question, considering Tiger hasn't performed all that well when the score is close.

What about the technology of the clubs? Engineers have turned drivers into rocket launchers, changing the game dramatically. Players today rely on driving distance far more than in Jack's era. So this begs the question, what kind of scores would Nicklaus, Palmer and Player put up with today's clubs?

As you can see, the question of "who's the best" becomes muddled when you consider all the factors. And golf is an easy one compared to other sports.

So, how do you judge the best?

Quality of competition This includes the quality of the players or teams in a given era, but also the depth of competition. Example: The quality of competition among heavyweight boxers in the 1970s is widely considered to be far greater than it is now.

Quantity of competition In 1955 the NHL was composed of six teams with two rounds of playoffs. Today there are 30 teams and four rounds of playoffs . Although one can make the argument that talent gets diluted in larger leagues and thus making it easier to win, more teams mean more games and more opportunities to lose.

Technology The improved technology of rackets, clubs, balls, pads, helmets, shoes, and turf have all made huge impacts in their respective sports, and so must be taken into consideration.

Sports Medicine Injuries that were once career ending can be overcome in a matter of months today. Advancements in training and diet have augmented the performance of athletes dramatically in recent years. Athletes today are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before. These changes have affected perhaps affected football more than any other sport.

X-factors Steroids and performance enhancing drugs. Racial segregation that for years kept many of the best players from participating, so Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, and Lou Gherig never had to play against some of the best competition. Rule changes from year to year, era to era. The amount of travel involved with teams today. The number of night games today(baseball). Player salaries. Domed versus open stadiums.

In light of these factors, one cannot ask questions like "Who would win a game between the 2004 New Enland Patriots and the Pittsburgh Steelers of the 70s?" Why? Because the Patriots would destroy them 84-0. In football, the differences in 30 years are immeasurable. That doesnt' mean the Steelers weren't a better team. They won four Super Bowls and dominated football in the 1970s.

The bottom line is that when asking "Who's the best," one must measure a team or player's accomplishments against the era in which they played, while taking all of the factors of that era into consideration.


So who's better, Bird or Magic?

Drexler.

Definitely.

Scariest thing ever!

Fear is an interesting thing. Sometimes, in a difficult siutation, fear causes one to focus. Other times, fear compels us to be courageous in the face of danger. Fear may also spark a person's survival instincts, helping them to do what is necessary in a given situation.

Often times, however, fear leads to irrationality. And that is where I come in. To illustrate my point, I give you: the Camel Spider.

Those who have served in the Middle East are no doubt familiar with these monsters. A friend who just arrived in Iraq made mention of them, and to my everlasting horror and regret, I looked them up. Scary simply does not adequately describe these demon spiders (They aren't actually spiders, but a type of arachnid known as Solifugae).

What makes them scary? Well, aside from their nightmarish appearence, they can run up to 10mph chasing its prey. They can grow up to 6 inches, although returning soldiers swear they've measured ones larger. They are super aggressive and will bite you. They feed on insects, other spiders, scorpions, birds, lizards, and even small rodents. And although they are not poisonous, bites often result in infections.

Now back to my orginal point. My brain may tell me that a Grizzly Bear or Tiger Shark poses a far greater danger to my person, but the irrationality resulting from my dread of these spiders completely overpowers my ability to think clearly, and would therefore gladly pet a crocodile rather than face one of these beasts. Anything that vicious and scary-looking is to be feared and avoided at all costs. I think we'd win the war in Iraq in a heartbeat if we found a way to use them against Al-qaeda.

Simply put - Camel Spiders are evil spawns of Satan, spat up from hell to wreak horror and fear upon an unsuspecting world. Here's the proof:

Camel Spider

Camel Spider tied up

Camel Spider digging a hole

Camel Spider digging a lair and eating a scorpion

Camel Spider vs. Soldiers

Camel Spider vs. Scorpion

Apparently a favorite pastime of soldiers and Marines in the Middle East is betting on fights to the death between Camel Spiders and Scorpions.

Camel Spider eating lizard

Camel Spider vs. Mouse

Camel Spider vs. Giant Water Bug

Sleep well!

Quick!

Which 80's vehicle do you choose if you need to chase the bad guys, escape the authorities and get the girl ?!!! Be prepared to back up your answer to this important question with vigourous arguments.

General Lee
1969 Dodge Charger

A-Team's 1983 GMC Van

Miami Vice's 1986 Ferrari Testarossa

KITT

1982 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am

Magnum P.I's Ferrari 308 GTS

Zodiac

Review:
Zodiac is one of those movies that cause you to jump at every bump in the night for about an hour after you watch it. Directed by David Fincher ("Seven," "Fight Club" and "The Game"), who is a master of creating dark urban settings so alive as to be character themselves, re-creates the San Francisco of the late sixties and seventies so palpably, you feel less like a viewer and more like a bystander caught up in the fear and paranoia created by the killer who terrorized the bay area nearly forty years ago.

The film follows San Francisco journalists and detectives as they desperately try to discover the killer's identidy. The cast is excellent as Jake Gyllenhall plays the boy scout Chronicle cartoonist who becomes obsessed with solving the case because no one else will. Mark Ruffalo gives a grounded performance as a dedicated cop who becomes burnt out as the case turns up one dead end after another. And Robert Downey Jr. is brilliant as a smart-ass journalist who self destructs into drugs and alcholism.

Fincher puts us right there wrapped up in the tension, confusion, mistakes, dead-ends, hopes, and frustrations as the characters work their way through a maze investigating the case. As critic Richard Roeper points out, this movie refreshingly focuses more on the reporters and cops rather than the methodology and madness of the killer. We only see what they see. We only know what they know. And the result is a tense, thoughtfully paced thriller that completely owns you for two and a half hours.

And for about an hour afterwards too.