Between the Headset

While watching an NFL preseason game last week, my dad made the following observation (paraphrasing):

"It really seems that NFL quarterbacks come from small college programs, not from the big-time schools. Just look at (Baltimore Ravens QB Joe) Flacco."

That statement was met with some agreement and skepticism in the room, as people started rattling off NFL starting QBs and where they went to school. No consensus was reached on whether my dad was correct or not.

The next week, I heard a promotion for the Colin Cowherd show on ESPN radio. The clip used in the promotion was of Cowherd discussing the reason that NFL players from big programs are often busts in the pros. His rationale: "Players from big-time programs are surrounded by tons of talent, which means they don't have to work as hard to be successful." The other side to his argument is that players from smaller programs have to work harder to stand out and become great, which makes for a better work ethic and a more successful NFL career.

Both of the above statements sound good in the hypothetical, but I don't like to take statements like that at face value. Thus, I decided to take a look at actual NFL rosters and look at the numbers of starting QBs in the NFL and where they played their college ball. Below are my findings:

I have broken the starting QB's into two categories based on where they played in college: BCS schools and non-BCS schools (non Division I schools counted in the latter list as well)

BCS schools: Matt Ryan (Boston College), Trent Edwards (Stanford), Jay Cutler (Vanderbilt), Carson Palmer (USC), Brady Quinn (Notre Dame), Kyle Orton (Purdue), Matthew Stafford (Georgia), Aaron Rodgers (Cal), Matt Schaub (Virginia), Peyton Manning (Tennessee), Matt Cassel (USC), Tom Brady (Michigan), Drew Brees (Purdue), Eli Manning (Ole Miss), Mark Sanchez (USC), JaMarcus Russell (LSU), Donovan McNabb (Syracuse), Philip Rivers (NC State), Matt Hasselbeck (Boston College), Shaun Hill (Maryland), Marc Bulger (West Virginia), Kerry Collins (Penn State), Jason Campbell (Auburn)

# of starting QBs from BCS schools: 23

% of starting QBs from BCS schools: 72%

Non BCS schools: Kurt Warner (Northern Iowa), Joe Flacco (Delaware), Jake Delhomme (LA Lafayette), Tony Romo (Eastern Illinois), David Garrard (East Carolina), Chad Pennington (Marshall), Brett Favre (Southern Mississippi), Ben Roethlisberger (Miami OH), Byron Leftwich (Marshall)

# of starting QBs from non-BCS schools: 9

% of starting QBs from non-BCS schools: 28%

So at first blush, both my dad and Colin Cowherd aren't looking so good in their evaluations of the NFL QB pool. But let's dig a little deeper into these lists and see if we can draw any other conclusions about whether NFL QB's are more successful coming from big-time or smaller college programs.

First, let's break the above list down even further. If I separate the BCS school list into big-time BCS programs and smaller BCS programs (at the time the player was in school), we get the following:

QBs from big-time BCS schools: Palmer, Quinn, Stafford, P. Manning, Cassel, Brady, Sanchez, Russell, McNabb, Collins, Campbell

QBs from smaller BCS schools: Ryan, Edwards, Cutler, Orton, Rodgers, Schaub, Brees, E. Manning, Rivers, Hasselbeck, Hill, Bulger

The above breakdown is obviously subjective, but without doing too much research into the records of the teams when these players were in school, that is my first-glance breakdown of the big programs and the smaller ones.



So now that we have three lists, roughly the same size, we can compare the success that the QBs from each category have had at the pro level. For the sake of comparison, let's look at the number of MVPs and Super Bowl appearances each group has under its belt, as well as a career TD/INT ratio:

MVPs:

Big-time BCS: 3 (P. Manning 2, Brady 1)

Small BCS: 0

non-BCS: 5 (Favre 3, Warner 2)

Super Bowl Appearances:

Big-time BCS: 7 (Brady 4, P. Manning 1, Collins 1, McNabb 1)

Small BCS: 2 (Hasselbeck 1, E. Manning 1)

non-BCS: 8 (Warner 3, Favre 2, Roethlisberger 2, Delhomme 1)

Career TD/INT ratio:

Big-time BCS: 1092 TD/637 INT=1.7/1

Small BCS: 803 TD/531 INT= 1.5/1

non-BCS: 1163 TD/756 INT= 1.54/1

So what do we make of these numbers? The non-BCS schools and the Big-time BCS schools come out way ahead of the smaller but still major conference programs. The small BCS schools have no MVPs, 2 Super Bowl appearances (with only one win) and the worst QB/INT ratio. They also have the least number of TD passes, meaning they have fewer QBs with the longevity of the other two categories.

But should teams start drafting QBs from no-name schools in the first round because of the success of the current batch of small-school guys? Yes and no. Some of the most established NFL QB's (Warner and Favre) and some of the best young QB's (Flacco and Roethlisberger) are from non-BCS schools. So it might make sense for teams to dig a little deeper in their college scouting process to find more of these gems. But, obviously, teams shouldn't start drafting guys from D-III schools just for the fun of it.

And not all big-time BCS schools produce Pro Bowl QBs. Vince Young, Rick Mirer, Eric Crouch and Jason White are QBs who had great careers at big-time schools who didn't pan out in the NFL. But the numbers above are undeniable. Many QBs from big-time programs end up having great NFL careers, which could bode well for the likes of Mark Sanchez, Matthew Stafford and Brady Quinn.

As for the mid-level BCS schools and their general lack of success in the pro's? I think it's hard to figure out a reason solely from the numbers. A couple of them are good/great QB's who could become top-tier signal callers in the next few years (E. Manning, Rivers, Ryan) and some, like Brees, are already there.

But some of the biggest QB busts of all-time have come from these schools. Ryan Leaf (Washington St.), Akili Smith (Oregon) and Tim Couch (Kentucky) are all from these lesser BCS programs.

And what do we make of Colin Cowherd's statement that the amount of surrounding talent in college causes players not to work as hard? I actually don't buy this. Because there is so much talent and depth in the top-level programs, players have to work hard or they won't be starting for very long, since there is a guy right behind them ready to take their job. I think this forces these players work even harder. Meanwhile, players from the non-BCS programs have to work harder to make a name for themselves, and to make up for a lack of surrounding talent.

So perhaps we do have our answer. Many of the mid-level BCS programs don't quite have the competition like the big programs do to force players to keep working at the highest level to get better. But their status as major-conference teams guarantees a certain amount of exposure not promised to the non-BCS schools. Thus, they are not pushed to work harder to catch the eyes of NFL scouts.

At the end of the day, however, you can have all the statistics and trends in the world and still not be able to predict a player's success in the NFL, particulary at the QB position. There's a certain amount of luck in the NFL draft. But I think a great predictor of success in the pros can be gleaned from work ethic at the college level, and the school that a player attends can greatly affect that work ethic.

And I won't be surprised if the next five Super Bowls come from the list of lesser BCS programs, making this entire article moot.

In a time long before I was alive, sports fans had only one or two ways to follow their favorite teams: they could buy a ticket to the game, or they could read about it in the newspaper the next morning.

Soon enough, radio and television came along, and fans could follow their games live, as they were happening, relying on the eyes and ears of a professional broadcaster to guide them. But even during this period, fans without access to a radio or television were left in the dark if their team made a last-second field goal to send the game to OT, or if a home run in the bottom of the 13th inning put their team on top of the division.

And trying to play fantasy sports in the historic pre-computer days must have been annoying enough to test the patience of the owner of a fantasy football squad "Ghandi's Gamers."

But the age of the disconnected sports fan is gone, just like the dinosaurs and like Jello. (Does anyone eat that stuff anymore? I never see advertising or those little cups in the grocery store anymore. Perhaps they need a Facebook Fan Page.) Starting with the boom of the Internet, then followed by cell phones and text messaging and now culminating with smart phones and social networking, the ability for a sports fan to stay constantly informed is unprecedented.

So what is it like living in the hyper-connected world as a sports fan? And are there any downsides to having news and scores constantly at your fingertips? Here are some of my thoughts:

- I just bought a BlackBerry today, so I haven't been able to take full advantage of checking scores and setting fantasy teams from my phone. But I will say this: not having to depend on a phone call or text, or waiting until I'm in front of a computer or television, is an incredible feeling. I already know there will be many times that this comes in handy, whether at the airport, on a road trip (not driving, of course) or at a Bar Mitzvah when the candle-lighting ceremony just saw the boy (now a man) rhyme "cat" with "cat," that I'll be thankful for the ability to hop on one of my favorite sports blogs.

- The SEC recently banned social media from college stadiums in an attempt to preserve the value of its own media coverage and contracts. As the Mashable article states, this essentially means no Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. People cannot tweet about the game from the stadium or upload photos of the game. While this may be hard to enforce, the fact that this was even passed as a rule is beyond comprehension to me. I can't count how many times I've been perusing my Twitter or Facebook feeds only to see an update on a great game occurring at that moment. When I see this, do I simply keep hitting refresh, waiting for the person's next update? Of course not. I instead find the game on TV or the radio, or load up the gametracker online. If anything, social media increases the amount of conversation about sports. There's no way that Facebook or Twitter feeds will damage television ratings; in my opinion, they will only enhance them.

- Social media gives fans unprecedented access to the athletes and the reporters who cover them. SportsFanLive covers athletes on Twitter with "Athlete Tweets," but fans can pick and choose their own favorites to follow as well, and can actually communicate with them. Many of these athletes spend more time than you would think in front of a computer or on their phones, tweeting away and answering the questions of fans. This is something that simply could not have happened before the days of social media, but it is now helping athletes get their message out and brand themselves (for better or worse. See: Starbury). The fans, meanwhile, are able to get a glimpse into the lives of athletes that before would normally require a behind-the-scenes special to reveal. The professional leagues should probably monitor these tweets, just to make sure things don't get out of hand, but I think the athletes' new form of communication with fans is doing a whole lot more good than bad.

There are probably a few negatives that stem from the increase in social media and technological use from sports fans. For one, the amount of time spent on computers and phones by kids, whether for sports information or not, is time not spent actually playing sports. We all know about the lack of exercise from which many children suffer. All of this technology definitely won't help.

I don't think social media will keep people from going to games. While all of this stuff is great, there's nothing like being at the stadium or ballpark in person, cheering on your team, heckling opponents and dodging batteries hurled toward the field. But anyone who overdoes the social media/technology aspect of sports should be taken to a game so that they can remember why they love sports in the first place. It should keep their technology binge in check. If not, someone should take their BlackBerry and throw it against a wall.

There are plenty of other ways fans use social media and technology to enhance their sports craze. What are some of the ways you use social media and new technology to get your sporting fix each day, and what are some of the downsides you see to it?

A few days ago, I sought reader opinion on Between the Headset about the Michael Vick saga. I wanted to know whether the Eagles' signing of the troubled star made sense from both a football and public relations standpoint.

Here is some of what the readers had to say, along with my thoughts on their comments. You can read all of the comments here.

Nick writes: I think Vick should get another chance. He was punished by the law and the NFL, so as long as he doesn’t make any more mistakes, he deserves a shot like anyone else. Dogfighting wasn’t the only blemish on his record, but he seems to be sorry. He has too much to lose at this point. He’s bankrupt of his money and his reputation. I think his focus from now on will be on fixing his image and getting in playing shape.

This seems to be the central argument of those who support Vick's reinstatement/signing. People say that he made a mistake, and that because he's publicly stated he's sorry, and is at least feigning remorse, he deserves a second chance. At first, I did not agree with this argument. I thought his crime was so heinous that he should be banned forever from football. But Nick is right that Vick's reputation is about as low as it can get. The guy has pretty much hit rock bottom. So it seems only fair to give him a chance to vindicate himself. If he messes up again, then he can get the boot. But perhaps he can actually do some good in the animal community and turn his life around.

Fus writes: Not only should Vick definitely be allowed to play, but I wish my Jets had signed him. Mike Vick broke the law, and so he deserves jailtime, but I believe even that is too harsh a punishment. America has a biased love for dogs. In reality, what he did is no worse than hunting game, or what large food companies do to chickens – raised with beaks cut off, etc. – that we eventually eat. But because it’s a dog – “man’s best friend” in America, but a delicacy in China – that Americans act so irrationally. In many cultures animals are viewed differently; some as gods, some as friends, some as food. Who are we to judge which is right? Vick broke the law, got jail time, and is now out of jail. He deserves a second shot.

Well, then. I think we found this month's "guy who hates animals." Because China considers dog a delicacy, that makes Americans' love of them irrational? I think not. But, I have come around to the opinion that he did actually pay his dues and thus deserves another shot, as I mentioned above. Several readers pointed to Donte Stallworth as having committed a crime far worse than Vick's. Readers Ben and EZ ripped Stallworth for having settled outside of court after KILLING someone while driving drunk. This is a topic for another post, but let's just say that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was absolutely in the right by suspending Stallworth for the season. Athletes committing crimes, driving drunk, etc. need to learn that there are consequences for their stupid behavior, no matter how much money they have.



Bob. O writes: From a team standpoint, I dont’ get it. McNabb’s a top tier quarterback. And everyone was excited by his heir apparent. So why sign someone who could also possibly be top tier. Vick’s still young. If he’s in shape, he could start for many other teams in the league. How about Minnesota? But the Eagles would have been one of the last teams I’d have expected. The only reasoning I can come up with is their offense is designed for a mobile signal caller, so they wanted a mobile replacement if needed (since McNabb does have a laundry list of injuries). Donovan’s not as mobile as he used to be…but then again, Vick’s probably not either.

I agree that this is a confusing move from a purely football point of view. My problem is not necessarily how Vick will fit in. Assuming he is still in good shape, he is a dynamic athlete that offensive coordinators would kill for, particularly if they can use him in a creative sense. But what happens when McNabb throws three INT's in the first half of a home game against the Giants? Philadelphia fans won't settle for failure, and you better believe there will be chants of "We want Vick" echoing throughout Lincoln Financial Field. Is that a problem Andy Reid wants to deal with? How will McNabb like that? I can see it now:

"The Eagles won't comment on the quarterback controversy, but it's clear from talking with players in the locker room that the locker room is divided. The same is true of the talk shows and the newspapers. The QB situation in Philly is threatening to tear the Eagles' season apart. From Lincoln Financial Field, I'm Sal Paolantonio, ESPN."

Don't act surprised when you see that run 15 times in late October.

Frank writes: Also wanted to make a point about this from a PR perspective – I think Vick has done an excellent job of keeping this issue as quiet as possible. In about 48 hours or so, he signed with the Eagles, did the 60 minutes interview, and its done with. When the regular season comes around, he’s probably have a number of unassuming games where his stat line looks like this: 2 pass attempts, 1 completion, 8 yards passing, 23 yards rushing. We will all bore of that stat line, Vick will help the Eagles become a slightly better team and we’ll be more focused on other things.

This is a great point. Sports fans generally have short memories in these instances. It's all about what a player has done for them lately. If Vick stays out of the limelight for a while and contributes in a positive way to the Eagles, his legal troubles will be a thing of the past. I initially thought this would be a P.R. nightmare for the Eagles, but even in the days of the 24-hour news cycle, Vick's signing is old news. Especially once Brett Favre decided to unretire. As Fus said, if anyone should be kicked out of the league, it should be Favre.

I was definitely surprised at the overwhelming support Vick received on my blog. I would have expected the issue to polarize sports fans to a far greater extent. But perhaps I'm using too small a sample size. What are your thoughts, particularly in response to the points made above?

There's something about a good fight song, whether in college or the pros, that really fires me up at a sporting event. Maybe it's the music, maybe it's the pomp and circumstance with which it provides, or perhaps it's the way a good fight song can pump up a crowd.

With the start of college football season in less than a month, I thought I would post some of the best and worst fight songs out there, pro and college, with a quick thought or two accompanying each one.

Let's start with the best of the best. In college, one of the most popular fight songs has to be the University of Michigan's "Hail to the Victors." It's simple and has a catchy melody and a cool name. But if you are an opposing fan watching a game, hearing the song for the 10,000th time might make you want to stab out your ear drums. Here's a recorded version of the song:



The USC Trojans are another team with a great fight song, though it's unnecessary for them to play it after EVERY SINGLE positive USC play. First downs, sacks, holding penalties on the other team ... it's overdone. But still, the imperial nature of the song is very fitting of a team named Trojans.



Pro football teams have fight songs, too, and some are quite good. The Baltimore Ravens and Washington Redskins, among others, have legitimate, full-scale marching bands. The Ravens' fight song, while recognizable, is not sung by the entire stadium and fan base. The Chicago Bears, on the other hand, have a catchy fight song that is known by all Bears fans. Here's a video of random Chicagoans singing the song. Love the grouchy, off-key old man in the middle of the video.



And, of course, there's my biased, personal favorite: Go U Northwestern. The only problem with this fight song is that many fans don't know the words, and the band is often too small to have the song reverberate throughout Ryan Field or Welsh-Ryan Arena. Still, it will always hold a place in my purple heart.



Of course, not all fight songs were created equal, and many are either boring, annoying or downright awful.

Minnesota starts us off on the bad list. Its fight song is boring and non-descript, and the spelling of "Minnesota" at the end is incredibly unnecessary. I'm not a big fan of spelling things during chants, in general, but Minnesota is a long word that is not even catchy to spell. Don't believe me? See for yourself:



This next fight song will probably earn me a lot of flak for putting it on the bad list, but the Philadelphia Eagles' fight song is incredibly annoying. To me, the melody of the song is nothing special, but my real problem is, again, the spelling of "Eagles" at the end of the song. Particularly because this has become the calling of Eagles fans, even at non-Eagles events. I was at a concert at Philly a few years ago, and heard an E-A-G-L-E-S Eagles chant. It made we want to punch somebody.



But the worst fight song I've heard so far is the recently updated Miami Dolphins fight song (via Deadspin). Someone decided it would be a good idea to auto-tune the song, T-Pain style. The result: two minutes of embarrassing trash. It sounds like a children's song. If I were an opponent, and I heard this song playing to try to fire up the crowd/team, I would first hope T-Pain never wrote another song again, and then feel reassured that the Dolphins had no chance of beating me. Seriously, who thought this would be a good idea?



Of course, most team's fan bases will defend their own fight song, so I'm sure I ruffled a few feathers.

What are your favorite and least favorite pro and college fight songs? I'm open to checking out some new ones.