CFBAs 2007-2008: BEST WRITING
We’re set to kick off the awards for today with the nod for best writing. Fortunately, this is an easy award, since even if we were to pull a caper and name our own recipient for the award, we would end up using the actual winner. The wisdom of crowds worked to perfection here, just as it did in Rwanda, Germany and Cambodia. (Um, we’ll edit those examples on the second draft. Why didn’t we win this award again, dammit?)
Soundtrack: Paperback Writer, of course, featuring one of three times in the Beatles oeuvre where Ringo Starr got to drum like a badass.
Best Writing: Runner-up. There’s quantity and quality, and rarely the two shall meet. (College Football News, Sauron’s eye is upon you and unblinking!) One of the few to combine the two is T. Kyle King, the proprietor of Dawg Sports and a legal brief-spouting font of delicious policy wonkage nimbly soldering together human intelligence, humor, and the awkward bits of logic that makes up illogic of large orders like the NCAA’s Recruiting Rules.
A prime example of Kyle’s tasty wonkage, which is really when he’s at his best:
In a classic example of self-interested actors working to everyone’s economic advantage through the invisible hand, the C.F.A. heightened the popularity and marketability of college football, which boosted everyone’s exposure and revenue, for the have nots as well as for the haves. Anyone who doubts that proposition needs to stand in front of the mirror and ask himself this question: “Are Boise State’s, West Virginia’s, and, heck, Georgia Tech’s football programs better off or worse off because ESPN televises Thursday night games?” These W.A.C., Big East, and A.C.C. teams are not a part of the B.C.S. “Oligarchic” Super Division, but they are beneficiaries (however unintended) of the C.F.A.’s efforts. John F. Kennedy was right that a rising tide lifts all boats.
Kyle will pull no mystical shrouds of beautiful bullshit vapor over your eyes, but he will crank out lucid, pointed, and taut prose inevitably leading to some argument or another that you, pinned in an armbar of logic, cannot wriggle out of of without resorting to insult, calumny, or lies. Thankfully, in all of our disagreements with Kyle, we always have an ample supply of all of these handy.
And the winner is…
Sunday Morning Quarterback. The pinnacle of college football writing today. Today, anywhere, anyone, anywhere. He’s a better prose constructionist than any of them, a one-man set of Wonder Twins capable of morphing into whatever tool you need. (In case you wonder which cartoon character we’d be, it’s Meatwad, the character with three presets: moron, bridge, and hot dog.)

A girl on each arm like he’s on Elimadate: SMQ wins.
Funny? Check:
SMQ: Um, Illinois. The Fighting Illini? He was decked out…he didn’t mention he got fired at Florida, like, more than two years ago?
AB: The Fightin’ what? Where the hell is that?
SMQ: Illinois? It’s…Illinois.
AB: [silence]
SMQ: They were, um, 2-10 last year. Last place in the Big Ten.
AB: This be some bull shit.
Lucidly analytical and vivacious? Check:
But in Scarbinsky’s case, he makes no value judgments. Just an observation: in spite of his reputation, Nick Saban is not a Terminator who takes no prisoners. If Bama partisans want a face-stomping monolith who will icily excise every potential misdemeanor impulse from his players out of sheer fear, they – like every other team – will have to lower their rigid expectations to reality. In its complete absence of finger-wagging alone, Scarbinsky’s column is a beacon of the form compared to the utopian do-gooding of Freeman and John Adams and the like.
Journalism that helps readers better understand its subject with nary a soapbox? In football? In a newspaper? What a concept.
Outlandishly brainy and bitchy? Yup:
I think anyone with any experience on a college campus (whch includes Freeman, I think, his history of bogus credentials notwithstanding) can say with a good degree of certainty: kids drink, fight and smoke pot everywhere. All the time. That is a prototypical college experience in a nutshell, and not remotely worth this kind of effort unless people are actually getting hurt and/or locked up. Tennessee players engaging in run-of-the-mill misdemeanors have the misfortune of getting caught at an unusually high rate, just like the poor cavalcade of underage drinkers at Georgia. His program looks bad, but Fulmer is right to respond to this overexcited finger-wagging: if every beer, joint, shove and ill-advised ride home committed by college players was caught by the police and reported in the paper, and every coach held to this standard, there’d either be no coaches left, or the athletic dorms of America would look like Guantanamo Bay.
Again, no one’s better. No one. Strip the gears, rebuild the engine, pop the restrictor plate off the engine, and he’s still lapping you on the ovals, short tracks, and road courses. Our own words are an insult to his fine writing, writing you may find at any spot on his site. We’ll stop typing now and just bow in the general direction of Austin, Texas, and declare you the winnah. We suggest you, reader, do the same. Congrats, SMQ. We promise/threaten to do our best to burn your superior brain out with alcohol the next time we see you.
Next up: Best ACC blog over at RTT.









1
drogue says:
SMQ, I think Orson wants to have your baby.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:00 am
2
jebus says:
I spent over half an hour yesterday reading about Boise State, Alabama, and the demise of Steve Slaton.
It was March 3rd. That’s only because of SMQ. He’s simply the best.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:12 am
3
ThreenOut says:
SMQ is the perfect blend of serious writing with humor. Love it.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:16 am
4
OPS says:
drogue, everyone wants to have SMQ’s baby. I’m getting a uterus installed tomorrow.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:34 am
5
AllWhoYonder says:
Great. Thanks, Jebus. Now I have that stupid “Simply the Best” song by Tina Turner stuck in my head.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
6
marcillac says:
The problem with SMQ is that he puts out just too much quality stuff to read in a timely manner with the attention it deserves. Still great insight and entertainement during the season and a comfy oasis in the proverivial offseason desert.
The aforementioned temporal constraints make it virtually impossible to hop over to Dawg Sports but whenerver the opportunity presents itself doing so is invariably worth the effort.
The playoff debate between the twon(catalogued on the left margin at SMQ) is a logical and linguistic tour de force and must reading for any minimaly serious fan of college football.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:41 am
7
jakldawg says:
It’s also worth noting, Vancleave shirt=winnar!
March 4th, 2008 at 10:44 am
8
drogue says:
OPS, that’s a thought. Is one of those expensive?
March 4th, 2008 at 10:46 am
9
jon says:
Re: fanboy department
Ringo’s drumming on “Rain” is my favorite, but he’s pretty killer on “Good Morning” from Sgt Pepper.
Oh, and “Helter Skelter,” doye
March 4th, 2008 at 10:49 am
10
robert says:
marcillac, I agree. In all seriousness, he is almost too good. And yes, I realize that I’m more firmly planted on his nuts than…well me on Obama’s nuts.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:54 am
11
beckett929 says:
I dont get the runner up.. someone explain the Boise St/WVU joke to me… I’ve only seen those teams go a combined 3-0 in BCS games… The ACC bit of that I get, theyve lost everytime out since ‘00…
March 4th, 2008 at 11:01 am
12
jebus says:
:AllWhoYonder: This was my hope and now with your help, everyone who missed it the firts time will get it in their heads too. There won’t be a dry-eyed EDSBS reader left after this thread.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:29 am
13
7-5 says:
#11 It’s not a joke. He was pointing out that before ESPN starting whoring out anyone willing to play during the week no one outside of Morgantown and the Rocky Mountains would care about the outcome of a BS or WV game. The same could have been said about Rutgers, Hawaii, or South Florida
March 4th, 2008 at 11:38 am
14
Biggus Rickus says:
While I’m recently tuned into SMQ, this is a well-earned award.
jon,
“She Said, She Said” was a fine example of Ringo’s chops too.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
15
Joshua says:
SMQ far and away.
Dawgsports is not that good. Others do more with less. Brevity, soul of wit….
March 4th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
16
gosouthgohard says:
I understand what T. Kyle is saying in the excerpt, but both the Big East and the ACC are in the BCS, for the record. Just because you don’t care about them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
17
andrew says:
gosouthgohard,
the point is not to identify the conferences to which these teams are aligned, but rather the relative places compared to the so-called BCS powers these teams hold (or held, as the case may be). while WVU and GT are in BCS conferences, they were not always taken seriously and were lacking in national exposure. the case for Boise State and others of their ilk (Fresno State, Utah, Hawaii, etc) is more obvious, being relatively obscure teams from relatively obscure conferences.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
18
beckett929 says:
#13 –
I kinda understand that point… but WVU played for a national title before ESPN became a major player, and was shutout of one after and undefeated season a few years later… and GT won a national title in that same time frame… I’m not arguing the logic so much as I am the fact that they picked really really bad examples to try to prove a point
March 4th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
19
T. Kyle King says:
For the sake of clarification, I probably should point out that the passage of mine quoted above is an excerpt from a lengthy posting I wrote in response to BCSBusters, who coined the phrase “BCS ‘Oligarchic’ Super Division” to refer to the traditional powerhouse programs in the major conferences. (In the S.E.C., in his estimation, that would include Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana State, and Tennessee, but not Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Mississippi State, South Carolina, or Vanderbilt, even though all twelve are members of a B.C.S. conference.)
BCSBusters’s point (which I apologize for oversimplifying; his argument is a well-researched and thoroughly articulated one, to which I cannot do adequate justice here) is that college football’s haves possess an unfair advantage over the sport’s have-nots, whether those have-nots are non-B.C.S. conference teams like Boise State or are less heralded B.C.S. conference teams like Rutgers. BCSBusters noted that the historic major conferences banded together in the 1970s and formed the C.F.A. to keep out the mid-majors and, to a lesser extent, the Pac-10, which was tied historically to the Rose Bowl.
Beckett929, I apologize if my reference to Boise State and West Virginia came across incorrectly as a joke. You are quite right that those teams have gone a combined 3-0 in B.C.S. games, which was part of my point that, although the C.F.A. was not designed to benefit teams like the Broncos or the Mountaineers (with which most college football fans in the Southeast and Midwest were unfamiliar until recently), the increased exposure such teams have garnered as a fringe benefit of the boom in the number of televised games has brought them to prominence, as well.
Beckett929’s subsequent point that West Virginia played for a national title in 1988 and that Georgia Tech shared a national title in 1990 is well-taken and I regret that I did not mention those facts, which support the argument I made in response to BCSBusters; namely, that quality teams with less familiar pedigrees are getting a greater share of the attention they deserve than commonly is believed. As I argued, times have changed, rapidly and for the better, when we can see the likes of Louisville (which, as gosouthgohard correctly pointed out, now is a B.C.S. conference team) and Boise State now playing in major bowl games. After all, as recently as 2004, an undefeated B.S.U. squad and a once-beaten U. of L. team were squaring off in the Liberty Bowl.
In short, beckett929 and gosouthgohard both make valid points, and I apologize if my intention (which was to credit Boise State and West Virginia, not to demean them) was not clear from the paragraph Orson quoted. I greatly appreciate marcillac’s praise and both 7-5’s and andrew’s support.
Joshua, I appreciate your constructive criticism. I freely admit (and this comment confirms) that Orson was correct when characterizing me as college football’s most verbose blogger. In my defense, I have tried to mix it up a little bit, both by bringing in a less wordy co-author and by trying to include some shorter, one-shot postings, and I try to inject both brevity and wit into the captions of the pictures with which I try to break up lengthy text.
Nevertheless, I accept Joshua’s critique in the spirit in which it was intended and, as always, I will endeavor to do better. (Bear in mind, though, that, as a lawyer, I belong to a profession that describes a 10,000-word document with the term “brief.”) On a more personal note, I congratulate Joshua’s Bayou Bengals on their 2007 national championship and I look forward to what promises to be an excellent game between Georgia and L.S.U. next fall.
Finally, and most importantly, the one point upon which we all may agree is the observation with which Joshua began his comment: “SMQ far and away.” I don’t like losing to anyone, but the correctness of Joshua’s position cannot be gainsaid: Sunday Morning Quarterback is both a gentleman and a scholar. Orson is correct that he is, by a wide margin, the blogosphere’s finest writer and no one deserved this award as much as he did. If given the choice between reading me and reading SMQ, I’d pick SMQ, too.
My congratulations go out to Sunday Morning Quarterback on claiming an honor he absolutely earned. Here’s to SMQ, a nice guy who finished first.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
20
T. Kyle King says:
Oops . . . problems with the links. Sorry. These are they:
1. http://www.dawgsports.com/story/2008/1/13/232631/251
2. http://bcsbusters.wordpress.com/
3. http://www.dawgsports.com/comments/2008/1/11/235726/505/2#2
Hopefully, that will work better. My bad.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
21
Ben says:
I agree with Kyle’s assessment that SMQ and Dawgsports are the most outstanding writers on the net, although there are many others that I enjoy reading as well (Conquest Chronicles, Rocky Top Talk, In The Bleachers and Black Heart Gold Pants to name a few).
To clarify Kyle a little further, both West Virginia and Georgia Tech were a part of the original CFA organization so it isn’t a surprise that both ended up winning the national championship in the early part of the CFA era. But like most things in college football, the royalty that certain teams bring to the table always seems to rise through, creating its own power vacuum.
Stewart Mandel was on the right track with his four tier assessment in organizing the programs based on history and tradition. The reason college football will not move forward in terms of a playoff is the people who truly run college football…Chuck Neinas, the conference commissioners, bowl CFO’s and the networks are in cahoots with the Royalty teams like Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, LSU, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, USC and UCLA…who are always in the premier high income bowl games even though their records don’t always indicate that they are deserving.
I disagree with Kyle’s assessment in terms of the CFA causing all boats to rise because they CFA’s objective has suppressed more teams than it has helped. The CFA fell apart because the greedy power structure of the elite programs soon began to cannibalize themselves as the powers schools among the 63 original CFA schools turned their backs on the tradition starved programs like BYU, West Virginia or Georgia Tech when Notre Dame signed their historic television contract and the SEC ventured out on their own with their own deal with CBS. This essentially created the super-conference movement and it didn’t take long for the television and bowl executives to figure out how to lock in the power programs in the premier bowl games, irregardless of the fact that they didn’t always deserve to be there.
Cable television caused the proliferation of games and along with the 85 scholarship rule (which truly precipitated the rise of the non-BCS) and the CFA organization as a whole, and more importantly the alliances that were created from this movement, has suppressed the game from moving forward more than it has helped the overall cause. The reason the game doesn’t move forward in terms of solving the BCS Controversy is the fact that 95% of the people who were involved within the CFA uprising are now the key people who are profiting from the system…the bowl executives, conference commissioners and television CFO’s.
So while the CFA did start the proliferation of games we now witness every Thursday, Friday, Saturday (and even Sunday, Tuesday and Wednesday) you cannot give this organization the true credit behind the parity we are now witnessing. Just another example of the riddle wrapped inside the enigma that throws people off of the true trail of power in college football.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:06 am