Heck, here some fighting words worthy of their own post. The OUAA is the weakest conference in the CIS. From 1991 to 1994, Laurier, Queen's Toronto and UWO won the Vanier cup. Over the next 10 years, only Ottawa as part of the OQIFC won it. A decade long drought from the OUAA teams. Over that time, Laval has won 3 times, St. Mary's twice and Canada West teams, 4 times. It's time that the guys who rank these teams through the season just leave the OUAA teams out of the top 10. They are not going to win anything and clearly an undefeated record in Ontario is an accomplishment only matched by the federal liberal party.
So consider Coach Haylor's record in light of the strength of his conference competition and he is no Semotiuk... semotiak... ah hell, he's hardly even a badger.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Thursday, November 24, 2005
JimDandy Spotted Parked out Front of Coach Haylor's house
Sighting reported but yet to be confirmed...
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
JimDandy Goes Missing after Western Loses to Laurier
Fans and readers of JimDandy Goodness continue their vigil awaiting news about the mysterious disappearance of JimDandy. Known to be a hardcore UWO mustangs fan, those close to JimDandy are concerned that their recent drubbing by Laurier in the whatever cup for the OUAA championship left him drunk and inconsolable. JimDandy has for a long time stuck by the coach Larry Haylor as a genious even going so far as to defend Haylor's defensive calls late in the game against UBC in the Vanier cup back in the late 1980s. It could be that the burden of being Haylor's syncophant was too much and he turned to other avenues and audiences to provide his views of the world coloured by his left-leaning eclectic beliefs.
Keep monitoring this site for information as the JD search. In the meantime, we all hope that JimDandy can be found safe and healthy... even if he is blubbering like a baby after the UWO thumping.
Keep monitoring this site for information as the JD search. In the meantime, we all hope that JimDandy can be found safe and healthy... even if he is blubbering like a baby after the UWO thumping.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
They Call it "The Game", but I can see why the fans need liquor...
Harvard beat Yale 30-24 in "Triple Overtime" to win "The Game", one of football's oldest contests and apparently heated rivalries, for the fifth year in a row. That's right, while the Patriots have quietly gone about their business dominating the NFL, Harvard has been doing the same the same to Yale... I happened to be channel surfing when I stumbled across "The Game" on one of TNT type channels. "The Game" was tied so I thought I would see who would win. Within a few shots of the field and the sideline, it was clear that this was not your usual NCAA contest. The Harvard head coach looked like he had stepped out of a Dockers catalogue with his stain and wrinkle resistent khakis and tasteful mock turtleneck. There were more white players on the field than has been seen since the initial fall of the color bar.
And the football? Words cannot do justice to how bad the quality of play really was. It was so bad that I thought I had stumbled onto archival footage of a London Ontario high school "Redfeather game" for the United Way. I also came away from "The Game" thinking that Yale and Harvard don't play by the usual rules, but rather use the old touch football system of "four for the field". I have this impression because they didn't seem to get to the punting game since they usually turned it over before the fourth down. It's not just my opinion, consider the quote from Harvard's coach after the game:
"It brings up memories of back when you were kids out playing by the streetlights," Murphy said
Then there is the fact that fans "voted with their feet" during the game. Yale had recently implemented a restriction on liquor and half-time tailgate parties. The result? Thousands of fans left in the third quarter since the game was obviously too painful to watch in a sober condition.
Perhaps the best symbol of the hyperbole and crappy football that makes up this game is the "Triple Overtime" that defined this game. First, the reason the game got to overtime was because, one of the teams with time left on the clock decided to sit on the ball to get to overtime rather than risk running a play that would be necessary to win the game, but with high probability, would have resulted in a game losing turnover. Since Harvard was on their own side of half, the turnover risk probably weighed heavily on the nattily dressed coach.
A period of Overtime consists of what appears to be touch football rules. There is a coin toss to determine first possession and direction that the offence will go... actually both offences will go. The first time starts with the ball on the 35 yard line or so and goes until they score or are stopped. Then the other team starts on the same 35 yard line going the same direction and they have to match or surpass the points put up by the other team. It's all kind of hazy now, given the high drama of the moment, but I believe that Yale fumbled on its first play of the first overtime. The Harvard coaching staff jumped up and down like excited school girls awaiting the arrival of the bay city rollers on stage (for a visual image, watch Pixar's "A Bug's life" when the stick bug is panicking and shouting "Francis Francis Francis!!!!). So Harvard takes over and, not wanting to risk a turnover, runs three plays to gain something like three yards and then misses the field goal.
On to overtime number 2 which is the same deal as period one. Harvard starts with the ball this time, and gains some yards. Then the quarterback throws what I think the announcers said was his first pass of his three year career as a starter (Most of his hand-offs were so deliberate that you could swear that they recruited him to run the "Statue of Liberty Play"). He kind of threw sidearmish underhandish pushing the ball rather than throwing it. It got picked off. Yale takes over with a chance to win and they turn the ball over. Onto overtime 3.
The only drama remaining in this game was whether someone could score before nightfall since there are no stadium lights in New Haven. I could swear that each pan of the stands showed more empty seats than the pan before. Anyway, Yale's star quarterback throws into coverage and gets picked off. Harvard then manages to score a touchdown since even Yale was caught off guard by the Harvard Running back running to an open part of the field rather than right into the butts of his linemen. And with that, the 100th and whatever version of "The Game" was finished.
The Boston Globe reports that at the end of the game, Harvard fans stormed the field to celebrate as tastefully attired Harvard coach Tim Murphy worked his way through the crowd to greet Yale coach Jack Siedlecki after another epic meeting. Murphy poignantly observed:
"The hardest part was walking over to Jack Siedlecki,... "I told him, `You didn't deserve to lose.' We made too many mistakes... "
I couldn't agree more. But my view is that neither team deserved to win. In fact, there should be a new rule put in that if one team cannot go more than two downs without a turnover for at least three possessions in a row, then the game should be called off and not played again until both coaches promise to teach their players how to actually play.
I think that there are some disturbing trends arising from "The Game" which represents the best that the elite of American academe is about. Remember, these schools produce presidents, captains of finance and industry, doctors and lawyers. If "The Game" is symbolic of what we can expect from these "leaders of tomorrow", then they will not be risk takers and they will not be able to execute the simplest of plays. This may not be that bad compared to the past. Consider the contrast with the current president and Yale Alumni who is a risk taker who can't execute the simplest of plays. If Yale and Harvard have eliminated risk taking behavior from their incompetent blue blood students, then the world may be a better place.
And the football? Words cannot do justice to how bad the quality of play really was. It was so bad that I thought I had stumbled onto archival footage of a London Ontario high school "Redfeather game" for the United Way. I also came away from "The Game" thinking that Yale and Harvard don't play by the usual rules, but rather use the old touch football system of "four for the field". I have this impression because they didn't seem to get to the punting game since they usually turned it over before the fourth down. It's not just my opinion, consider the quote from Harvard's coach after the game:
"It brings up memories of back when you were kids out playing by the streetlights," Murphy said
Then there is the fact that fans "voted with their feet" during the game. Yale had recently implemented a restriction on liquor and half-time tailgate parties. The result? Thousands of fans left in the third quarter since the game was obviously too painful to watch in a sober condition.
Perhaps the best symbol of the hyperbole and crappy football that makes up this game is the "Triple Overtime" that defined this game. First, the reason the game got to overtime was because, one of the teams with time left on the clock decided to sit on the ball to get to overtime rather than risk running a play that would be necessary to win the game, but with high probability, would have resulted in a game losing turnover. Since Harvard was on their own side of half, the turnover risk probably weighed heavily on the nattily dressed coach.
A period of Overtime consists of what appears to be touch football rules. There is a coin toss to determine first possession and direction that the offence will go... actually both offences will go. The first time starts with the ball on the 35 yard line or so and goes until they score or are stopped. Then the other team starts on the same 35 yard line going the same direction and they have to match or surpass the points put up by the other team. It's all kind of hazy now, given the high drama of the moment, but I believe that Yale fumbled on its first play of the first overtime. The Harvard coaching staff jumped up and down like excited school girls awaiting the arrival of the bay city rollers on stage (for a visual image, watch Pixar's "A Bug's life" when the stick bug is panicking and shouting "Francis Francis Francis!!!!). So Harvard takes over and, not wanting to risk a turnover, runs three plays to gain something like three yards and then misses the field goal.
On to overtime number 2 which is the same deal as period one. Harvard starts with the ball this time, and gains some yards. Then the quarterback throws what I think the announcers said was his first pass of his three year career as a starter (Most of his hand-offs were so deliberate that you could swear that they recruited him to run the "Statue of Liberty Play"). He kind of threw sidearmish underhandish pushing the ball rather than throwing it. It got picked off. Yale takes over with a chance to win and they turn the ball over. Onto overtime 3.
The only drama remaining in this game was whether someone could score before nightfall since there are no stadium lights in New Haven. I could swear that each pan of the stands showed more empty seats than the pan before. Anyway, Yale's star quarterback throws into coverage and gets picked off. Harvard then manages to score a touchdown since even Yale was caught off guard by the Harvard Running back running to an open part of the field rather than right into the butts of his linemen. And with that, the 100th and whatever version of "The Game" was finished.
The Boston Globe reports that at the end of the game, Harvard fans stormed the field to celebrate as tastefully attired Harvard coach Tim Murphy worked his way through the crowd to greet Yale coach Jack Siedlecki after another epic meeting. Murphy poignantly observed:
"The hardest part was walking over to Jack Siedlecki,... "I told him, `You didn't deserve to lose.' We made too many mistakes... "
I couldn't agree more. But my view is that neither team deserved to win. In fact, there should be a new rule put in that if one team cannot go more than two downs without a turnover for at least three possessions in a row, then the game should be called off and not played again until both coaches promise to teach their players how to actually play.
I think that there are some disturbing trends arising from "The Game" which represents the best that the elite of American academe is about. Remember, these schools produce presidents, captains of finance and industry, doctors and lawyers. If "The Game" is symbolic of what we can expect from these "leaders of tomorrow", then they will not be risk takers and they will not be able to execute the simplest of plays. This may not be that bad compared to the past. Consider the contrast with the current president and Yale Alumni who is a risk taker who can't execute the simplest of plays. If Yale and Harvard have eliminated risk taking behavior from their incompetent blue blood students, then the world may be a better place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)