The problem with college football is...

One grating aspect of sports coverage is when leagues discuss rule changes and the experts come out of the woodwork. You know who I'm talking about-the wiseguys who pump out columns with rule changes so sensible, you almost forget they're either pointless or completely unrealistic.

So often the proposed changes would only slightly improve the experience for fans, rather than drawing in any new viewers. Writers say things like: "If baseball really wanted to be more successful, they'd do something about all that standing around." Granted, there are too many moments in any game when a pitcher's attempting his fifteenth straight pickoff throw, but there's no way that an arbitrary limit to the number of pickoff throws, for example, is really going to change people's mind about the sport in general.

What really gets me is that it's one of the most popular sports that has all the problems. That's college football. Fun to watch it may be, but it also unifies almost all of the biggest problems from every major sports league. Fortunately, college football fans are nice enough to casually disregard each of these issues.

You don't believe me?

1) Like hockey stars, college football players don't think they get paid enough.

And they may be right. I used to care about whether college football players got paid outside of their scholarships; then I remembered I'm not one. Like most fans, I don't care. Is it an injustice that colleges make money off some of the players? I guess, though almost everyone with a job is really just stacking up the cash for the person above them. (I have a government job, but I'm talking about the rest of you.)

There are obviously some players who bring in the big bucks. These guys are usually the same men who go on to make millions in the NFL, so it's almost fair (though I'd hate to be told, "Don't worry, there's a chance your next job'll make up for this). But there's just as clearly a huge crop of guys who not only don't deserve any extra dough, they shouldn't be on scholarship to begin with. Which brings us to our next issue:

2) Like college basketball, college football has way too many untalented players.

Even the top college hoops squads have that one "defensive specialist" who plays thirty minutes a night but only averages like three points per game. Teamwork is great, but don't forget that guys are often out there only because of a good attitude.

College football isn't exactly loaded, either. Part of the excitement of the game is that almost anything can and will happen. In a close contest, you never know how the game is going to end-an interception, a punt return, a massive offensive drive, and a blocked kick are all not only possible, but almost likely. But then that's the problem. The fluke plays don't happen as often in the pros, because most of those guys can do their jobs competently.

What always sticks out to me are the kickers. How often do bad special teams decide a game? I always recall this California-BYU game I attended as a freshman. The Cal kicker was lining up for what I think was a field goal but of about PAT distance. Well, he ended up shaking the stadium foundations with the brick he fired into the uprights. This is entertainment?

Fans get carried away with the "I could've done that", but man, I can miss a field goal!

3) Like major league baseball, college football has a testing problem.

You've been blind if you don't see what's going on here. Shortstops hitting 40 homers a season, players having career years at 38, the home run record falling seemingly every other month-baseball has a steroid problem it's known about for years.

(One thing I like about the steroid controversy is when writers make it really, really obvious whom they're writing about, but yet are too chicken to actually name the guy. Sort of like what I just did.)

College football has a testing problem, too. Not steroids, though. I'm talking about school exams. Granted, many players really do try to learn, but we also know that tons of players don't want to go to class. This leads to widespread corruption by desperate coaches and pathetic athlete-friendly instructors. The obvious solution: stop making players go to class. To my professor brother: I'm only kidding.

Seriously, though, if your favorite team has special assistants who only write term papers, and a list of teachers without the guts to fail a star, your team is a bunch of cheaters, just like Raffy P. Do college football fans care? What do you think?

(On a side note about the steroids, has anyone here heard about the new Blitz videogame? After the NFL sold its exclusive license/soul to the John Madden franchise, Midway responded with a completely over-the-top look at pro football that's due out in a few months. For example, you're going to have players thrown in jail during the season, and one team has a quarterback named "Mexico". One fun feature is the chance to use steroids to boost performance or get an injured player back on the field more quickly. Anyway, I told you all this so I could post this screenshot, where you can check out one of the available drug choices.)

4) Like major league baseball, college football has a huge competitive imbalance.

This one's legit. Everyone, myself definitely included, hates the Yankees (and if you don't, you better be from New York). They spend more than anyone in an attempt to buy championships. Sensible fans see that other squads, like the Red Sox, do exactly the same thing. But teams run by tightwads often don't have a prayer.

Same thing in college football. What's the difference between the Yankees and, say, USC? It's the same few juggernauts every year that have a realistic chance at the title in both sports. Most schools will never sniff a title, not unlike most baseball teams.

Does this bother anyone? Are you crazy? On the contrary, who doesn't love watching a Heisman hopeful score six touchdowns in one half against Southeastern Nebraska State?

5) Like pro basketball, college football is all about the star system.

What's wrong with the NBA? Aside from the idea that if you're a fan, there's a player out there right now looking to climb into the bleachers and cold-cock you, the most common complaint leveled against pro hoops is the idea that there's no teamwork anymore. It's always one guy isolated on one side while the rest of the team hides behind the three-point line in the opposite corner, critics say.

How is college football any different? Obviously, you can't line up a guy on one side and let the other ten keep the D distracted. But when a team gets its hands on a future NFL star, they'll install whatever gimmicky one-dimensional offense they can to force-feed him the ball (sometimes even when he's not a future star, just a quarterback at Texas Tech). I remember reading before the Virginia Tech-Florida State national title game in 2000 that Seminole coaches had devised something like 28 different ways to get Peter Warrick the ball. This is teamwork?

"Well, you oughta give your best player the ball." Isn't that what NBA teams are doing?

6) Like the NFL, college football hasn't started yet.

Bring it on!

Five mini-columns

In this in-between time at the start of football and late-but-not-that-late in the everlasting baseball season, there's not any one topic that stands out, so I thought I'd give you my well thought out opinions on five things in sports (originally ten, but I let No. 3 run so long that I thought I'd cut it short (having now finished this, I realize the word short is out of place here)). This probably means I'll have nothing to write about for weeks, so enjoy.

Keep in mind that a) I came up with this list at 2 a.m. this morning (I couldn't sleep and I'm not kidding; you have no idea the kind of pressure that comes with running this website) and b) I'm still not making any money off this, so if it makes no sense, blame yourself (which, interestingly enough, also makes no sense).

And we're off!

1) Maurice Clarett vs. Ohio State: Before you skip down to No. 2, which I would certainly do in your position, hear me out. There is actually a little timeliness to the whole "Is Maurice is a big crybaby tattle-tale?" issue.

First of all, I'm not very happy with people who tell right now, as I got in trouble for messing up the big conference this week at work by not showing up on time to help. The person who complained/told on me missed three salient points: First, everyone got started on time; second, everything worked just fine; and third, I actually was there.

Second, this was a topic up for debate on the local sports radio station (AM 950 THE FAN!) as I was driving home yesterday. One guy, whom I assume must have been a caller (I didn't listen very long), assured us that Ohio State and society at large had actually failed Clarett by coddling him at a young age and then later revoking those privileges. The host, meanwhile, argued that Clarett turned his back on his teammates and threw the Ohio State football program under the bus when he went public with all the under-the-table dealings he'd been part of.

Fools! First, I seriously doubt that Clarett had been taken care of so well that it warped his entire of sense of right and wrong to the point where no one should hold him accountable for his actions. Second, if Clarett really was the only or one of the very few to accept extra benefits in violation of NCAA rules, yes, he did kind of screw over his teammates, but I really doubt that was the case.

I have two points. One, while I've been ragging on Clarett since we drafted him, there's no need to make him out to be worse than he is years after the fact, and second, you don't have to assign blame: both sides obviously messed up.

2) The Avs sign Brad May: Is this a "slap in the face" to Steve Moore, who's still trying to recover from Todd Bertuzzi's heinous attack?

For anyone who doesn't know, May was a teammate of Bertuzzi who said before the cheapest of all cheap shots, "There's definitely a bounty on [Moore's] head. Clean hit or not, that's our best player and you respond. It's going to be fun when we get him."

Keep in mind two things: one, he was talking about retaliating for a hit Moore had laid on Markus Naslund. Not that that makes Bertuzzi's attack acceptable at all, but hockey players are constantly going after each other for stuff that happened in previous games (or have we all forgotten the height of the Avs-Red Wings rivalry?). And second, May said it before the attack. He said they'd get Moore back and it would be fun (and I imagine it probably is fun to dish out vengeance on the ice, most of the time), not, "I wholeheartedly endorse any bad thing that ever happens to Steve Moore."

I still wouldn't have signed May if only due to the PR ramifications, but the Avalanche as a franchise have been, overall, very supportive of Moore.

The real slap in the face, of course, is that Bertuzzi got off pretty easy, serving a 20-game suspension for the rest of the 2004 season and then staying home all of last year like every other player, which apparently was all justice demands.

3) The Eagles and Terrell Owens: (if you're not sick of this already)

Let there be no doubt: The Philadelphia Eagles are a bunch of cheapskates. In the several years before the Owens and Jevon Kearse signings, the Eagles finished seasons with millions of dollars of cap room but were too cheap to sign the players they needed to get to or win the Super Bowl (and this is a team that had free agent visits from backs like Antowain Smith and Priest Holmes early in their run).

Granted, with the big Mormon's clock management skills and Donovan McNabb's dry heaving, they may well not have won a Super Bowl either way, but at least they should have tried. Owens might be home from camp for skipping an autograph session, but it's the Eagles organization that has been truly awful to its fans. Say what you want about the effectiveness of the Broncos' decisions, but you can't say they're not trying.

I was solely in Owens' corner after reading an article by Michael Silver of SI.com which said the Eagles forced him to sign an injury waiver realeasing them from liability before letting him play in the Super Bowl. I'd link to it, but they took the article down, as this accusation proved to be, ahem, completely false. Yet I'm still with Owens.

Please don't give me the "he's only one year into a seven-year deal he signed willingly" garbage. First of all, no NFL contract of that length lasts the whole way. Second of all, it's not guaranteed, and without salary cap ramifications, the Eagles would cut him in a second (as they, like many NFL teams, have proven with heartless cuts in the past).

Spare me the even worse, "Let this guy try pouring concrete fifty hours a week, then we'll see how he complains" argument (and it's cousin, the "What about the guys in Iraq?" comparison, to which we all fall short). First of all, if you're at all a part of unionized labor, I don't see how you can look down on the guy. Second of all, shouldn't working stiffs be glad that one of their own (in the loosest sense, I know) might get more money out of the very corporation that still employs him at a profit?

Yes, he should be grateful just to have a job. Why do we assume he's not? If you could get a salary increase by skipping work, wouldn't you do that? If you pass on that opportunity, well, you're an idiot.

Of course, I stand up for Owens and put down Peyton Manning. Here's the difference: the Eagles have the cap room to pay Owens, whereas Manning's deal is so mind-numbingly huge that it affects everyone else on the roster. And second, Manning has pretty much the most off-the-field earning potential of anyone in the NFL, and none of those endorsements count against the cap, so he has an opportunity to take a little less, do something for his team, and still be richer than everyone.

For all we know, Owens' career basically ended last year. He may never come all the way back from his injury, so I understand the Eagles' hesitance to pay him as much as I understand why he wants all his money now. As much as he showboats and demands the spotlight, it's not like any of this is new. The Eagles should have seen this coming. The easiest way to take care of it is to pay the man; but I doubt they'll do that.

I love Andy Reid's "we can win without him" statements. What does Reid know about winning? For all I can tell, he's coached a ton of teams that didn't quite live up to their potential. He could use all the help he can get.

4) Rafael Palmeiro's a dirty cheater. Hall of Fame? Discuss: I know, I know, another "yes, we get it" topic.

If you can't guess, I'm a little skeptical about his assertion that he just started accidentally taking steroids the year testing came into effect. Silly me, that just doesn't add up. I do miss the days when Palmeiro and his Viagra endorsement were the butt of every performance-enhancer joke-I honestly never got sick of those.

And I agree with Frank Deford (who is probably my favorite sportswriter, by the way) that the punishments are still absurdly weak.

But I disagree with Rick Reilly (I'd link but you have to be a subscriber to see it anyway), who wrote this week that baseball writers who don't keep steroid users out of the Hall have no guts. This seems to imply that voting against Palmeiro in a few years takes some kind of moral courage, when it does nothing of the sort.

Personally, while taking steroids is something I'll never understand (I don't think "doing whatever it takes to win", by the way, is a respectable sign of competitiveness; if anything, it's an acknowledgement that your own legitimate best would never be good enough), the fact remains it wasn't against the rules until now. It is against the law, however, but frankly I don't know how the Hall of Fame bylaws treat that.

Besides, if the horrific side effects are true, Palmeiro's already going to get what's coming to him (in the long run, who really cares if he makes the Hall of Fame?), while, on the other hand, if Dr. Canseco is correct, then years from now we'll all wonder what the fuss was about.

5) The release of Madden 06: Count me out among those who embrace both this game's cultural significance and its quality. While it's cute when writers from ESPN.com praise the series, it's also a little ironic, considering that the dominance of Madden spelled the end of the ESPN NFL series.

Of course, I'm also bitter, because my favorite modern football video game (I say modern because Tecmo Bowl will always be the bomb as far as I'm concerned) was ESPN NFL 2K5, and the NFL's and NFLPA's exclusive licensing arrangements with Electronic Arts, the company that publishes Madden, ensure there will be no ESPN NFL this year. (Not that Madden's totally awful...I, ahem, played more than a hundred games of Madden 2003.)

In all seriousness, though, EA is a company that seems to employ some questionable business practices, such as buying up every videogame developer in sight (which I don't like, but can't really argue with) and allegedly forcing a lot of employees to log unpaid overtime (a scandal close to my heart, as it became public thanks largely to a blog posting).

Here's my question: how many of the football fans lining up to buy the newest Madden and stuff EA's pockets are the same people accusing Terrell Owens of unfettered greed?

Training Camp Questions: The Rip-Off Edition

Now that we're a week into Broncos training camp, it's time for me to run the standard "Five Questions the Broncos Must Answer in Camp" feature, though they're really more related to the regular season than the camp itself. Today Sports Illustrated's website ran a similar article, except it was five statements, not questions. See, pretending someone actually asked me these questions allows mfor responses heavy on opinion and light on facts.

1. Who will start at running back?
As Marvelous nee Pugs recently pointed out, the Post just ran an article saying how well Ron Dayne's running style meshes with Denver's zone-blocking/break-their-knees scheme.

That's a joke, right?

Even when Ron Dayne was "good", he wasn't that good. He's finished each of his professional seasons with a 3.4 yards per carry average, except in 2001, when he notched a career-best 3.8. Still, the Giants managed to find room in their offense to hand him the ball nearly 600 times.

Do the Broncos have a better line and running game than the Giants? No question. Not that anyone was putting eight in the box to stop Dayne, but with Giant quarterbacks like Kerry Collins and Eli Manning, they certainly could have. So he should be better. But Dayne is not the power back you'd expect from his size, and he should not end up the Broncos' starter this year.

Mike Anderson returns from an injury sustained when Coach Shamnahan wisely left him in in the fourth quarter of an exhibiton game last year. He's supposedly listed at No. 1 on the chart (the somewhat-official denverbroncos.com chart is a little out of date), but questions naturally remain. Namely, can he still be effective at his age? (He turns 32 in September.) Anderson got a late start to his career so he won't have the wear-and-tear of younger backs, unless you're the kind of weirdo who considers season-ending injuries "wear-and-tear".

Quentin Griffin has shown flashes, along with an annoying habit of being compared to Barry Sanders, but he's the anti-Kobe when it comes to actually holding on to the ball. Then again, Shanahan stuck with the admittedly-superior Clinton Portis through fumble trouble, so Griffin probably has a better shot at starting than most fans give him.

Maurice Clarett I've bashed enough on this site. Since he hasn't played in a long time, I honestly don't know how he'll perform-though it's probably safe to say that practice is helpful for most players. Probably a year away if he will contribute; but then, Shanahan has trusted rookies in the past (Portis, T.D., Anderson, and Gary).

My guess as the most likely opening-day starter is Tatum Bell, who battles hands problems of his own. Nevertheless, he combines speed and just enough elusiveness to call to mind recent successful Denver backs.

Whoever wins the competition, know that they'll rush for 1,000 yards without a doubt, har de har. You can plug anyone into that system and run the ball effectively. Or maybe not.

2. Who will be the Broncos backup quarterback?

Or, more specifically, why do the Broncos insist on giving themselves such pathetic options here? With Danny Kanell, Bradlee van Pelt, and Matt Mauck all jockeying for position beyond the mercurial Jake Plummer, the Broncos are pretty much willing to stake their entire season on Plummer's durability. (And never mind his oft-erratic performances.)

In his eight seasons, Plummer has started every game four times, so there's a fifty-fifty chance we'll have to rely on one of these guys for a stretch (anyone who knows statistics knows it's not really a 50-50 chance and that I just lied to you, ahem). Our defense may be solid, but it won't be good enough to win with any of those guys for any extended period.

Hopefully, the team can keep Plummer away from any demanding physical activity.

3. How are the special teams shaping up?

The last few years the most glaring weakness on the Broncos has been their complete unwillingness to address special teams. Year in and year out, it seems, we field statistically-dominating offenses and defenses and completely ignore the field-position game, while recent teams to emphasize it (the '00 Ravens, '01 Patriots, '03 Panthers) make trips to the Super Bowl.

Of course, not every team that addresses special teams ends up playing for the championship-but it can't hurt. For the Broncos, they've addressed the needs in some ways and not in others.

New punter Todd Sauerbrun is one of the league's top performers in terms of both gross and, more importantly, net average, and could be an important weapon this year. But the kickoff situation is up in the air-will the Broncos carry a specialist, like late-rounder Paul Edinger, to cover for Elam's decline? Elam is still one of the world's finest field goal kickers, even in crunch time.

And the loss of Reuben Droughns, and the chance that Rod Smith probably won't be fielding punts anymore, leaves the Broncos without proven returners.

4. How will the Broncos' aging receiving corps fare?

Rod Smith is old, Ashley Lelie is still one-dimensional (though at least he's hanging on to those deep balls now), and we bent over backwards to bring back tight end Jeb Putzier, who somehow had 36 catches for 572 yards last year, literally none of which I can remember. He must have been tearing it up when I was in church, I guess.

The X-factor, of course, is Darius Watts. Watts was impressive in camp last year and made some acrobatic grabs during the season, but he's best known for his drops. Will he improve fast enough to make the receiving corps a potential strength?

All right, I didn't mention a certain older gentleman, but I think Jerry Rice is the finest fourth receiver we've had in years.

5. How will the defense look?

It's tough to say. While we made some questionable/bizaree pickups on the defensive line, we also picked up a Pro Bowler in the return of Trevor Pryce, who barely players last season.

The linebacking corps should be improved with the continued development of D.J. Williams and the reacquisition of Ian Gold.

The defensive secondary returns two Pro Bowlers: John Lynch, whom I always feel guilty about rooting for, and Champ Bailey, who was terrible. Can Champ be that bad again? I doubt it, so there's room for optimism. But after the loss of Kelly Herndon, the rest of the secondary is young and ripe for Peyton's postseason stat-padding.

While the speedy linebacking corps and endless wave of mediocre D-linemen should prove effective against the run, it will take a near-miracle for the Broncos to slow down the best passing teams this year.