2006 College Football Blogger Award Nominations (Part III)

by T Kyle King on Dec 15, 2006 9:23 PM EST in Football

You already know from my previous nominations for The 2006 College Football Blogger Awards that I have an overinflated regard for my own writing, so it will not surprise you to learn that I was only too happy to list my nominees for the I Wanna Talk About Me Free for All, which Joel described thusly:

The I Wanna Talk About Me Free for All is designed primarily to spread the love in case it doesn't naturally happen some other way and to serve as the season's Round Up of Round Ups. Each blogger, no matter who they are, must identify their three best posts of the year.

I will begin by telling you which of my postings did not make the cut. Regrettably, my comprehensive denunciation of a Division I-A playoff first appeared in July 2005, well before the start of the period covered by these awards, so that one is out of the running.

Furthermore, I opted against nominating my two treatises of government and football, my pieces on the lawsuit against Warren St. John, my two-part defense of defense, my sequence of seven postings on the East Coast bias, the tale of my return to baseball, or what turned out to be an 18-part series on the radical realignment of the college football conferences, as these multi-part postings seemed to violate the spirit, and likely the letter, of the requirement to name my "three best posts of the year."

The key to a good post is starting with a good post hole digger. (Photograph from Shandong Jinfu Tools Co., Ltd.)

I attempted to identify my best posting from each of three different categories: humorous, editorial, and emotional. These are they:

1. Humorous: The E.S.P.N. "College GameDay" Drinking Game

Initially posted at my original weblog, Kyle on Football, last January 16, this piece garnered attention from the Georgia Sports Blog, Every Day Should Be Saturday, Fanblogs, and Sports Illustrated.

Simply stated, nothing I have ever penned stands as good a chance of being remembered in the annals of blogosphere history as my "claim to fame" as the "GameDay" Drinking Game, not even my "Grey's Anatomy" posting.

By the way, if you've ever actually attempted to play the "GameDay" Drinking Game and you have a story that you (a) are able to remember and (b) would care to share with the rest of the class, please feel free to recount your experience in the comments below, in the diaries to the right, or in your next hourly session with a licensed and caring therapist chosen by you or appointed by the court.

Like this wouldn't drive you to drink. . . . (Photograph from Sports Illustrated.)

2. Editorial: Shock Treatment: The Punditocracy v. The Blogosphere

While I was proud of The Weblogging Disclosure Statement and my argument for giving Auburn the death penalty, I felt my best commentary came when I was offering a point-by-point refutation of something silly written in the mainstream news media, and I was more pleased with my dissection of Stewart Mandel and Ivan Maisel than I was with my replies to Rick Bozich or Dennis Dodd.

3. Emotional: Why I Am a Georgia Fan

For me, this came down to a trio of contenders. I regretted not being able to select my tributes to Erk Russell and Lewis Grizzard, but, after re-reading all three pieces, I decided to go with my answer to the question, "How did you become a fan of your team?"

How did I become a Bulldog fan? Well, how could I not?

All right, I'm done talking about me for the moment. You may feel free to leave comments about me, but, in the meantime, I'll be preparing my nominations for the Blogger Championship Series, so stay tuned. . . .

Go 'Dawgs!

0 recs | Comment 1 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

#2

Just read your piece on Punditocracy vs. Blogosphere. Some of my friends (Texas fans) sent me that article that Maisel wrote about defense not winning championships back when it came out. I remember reading it and it not sitting well with me. I think I caught some of what you pointed out, but I also pointing out even if that is the case, it is nothing new for football to go through phases. Recently in the NFL everyone went back to a 3-4 defense, before that, the Zone Blitz was the big deal, before that, everyone was running a 4-3 like Dallas. The game game evolves and returns to its roots and history. Offensively, everyone had gone to the West Coast offense and focused on short and medium passing and ball-control, then the Rams came out with a more vertical, fast-pace offense that stunned everyone because the defenses were geared toward stopping the West Coast offense. Now everyone is buzzing about the spread-option (which if I am correct is a modification and older offense). So the offenses that have the personnel and experience running it, will probably catch some teams off guard (a la UGA in the Sugar Bowl), but defense will figure it out and then the game will evolve again.
But if offense truly was winning championship void of defense, Arizona State would have had a few titles in the past 3 years.
In Maisel's defense, as a former TV news employee, often times you are assigned a story by a producer or assignment editor that you are jazzed about, but that has to be done. His article smelt of that. That is the downside to the modern media age; we as the viewers can consume a huge amount of information and the stations (the producers or generators) often through out a lot of poor quality stuff to "fill the time" and avoid "dead air."

However, I do believe that Mandel is pretty much an instigator that writes for shock, which is becoming a scary trend amongst all journalists, but what can you expect when PTI, Crossfire, Talk Back Live and all these other shows are merely based on confrontation and the need to draw up opposing side on ALL issues.

by fotodog on Dec 16, 2006 11:35 AM EST 0 recs