Earlier this week, Ryan wrote about the ridiculousness of ESPN hyping their own QB rating system, furthering their desire to take over the world. But we really don't need a new QB rating system, do we? Especially one contrived by Trent Dilfer, no less. 158.3 isn't perfect, but we've learned to live with it. Perhaps what ESPN should have done instead was to come up with a rating system to rank their endless array of NFL analysts, which now includes that media friendly, likable former coach, Eric Mangini. We need a way to rank the most effective of the hundreds of ESPN NFL analysts right? So with ESPN unveiling the new QB system tonight, here's what we would have done for the Total Analyst Rating...
First off, let's forget the complicated multiplications, divisions, exponentials, normalizations, and whatever other number crunching you want to do to make yourself look smart. If you want to have fun, take the natural log of these points or whatever. It doesn't really matter. All you need to know is that the highest points total is the best NFL analyst, the ones that cross into negative territory... not so much...
+100 points for appearing on Mike & Mike, NFL Live, and the 6pm SportsCenter in one day. (+100 Bonus points if you also appear on the 11pm SportsCenter for the NFL Analyst Grand Slam.)
+50 points for being given a motivational speaking platform (Herm Edwards step on up).
+50 points for winning a season-long picks contest.
+25 points for having your own segment on Sunday/Monday Countdown or Primetime.
+20 points for getting to play on the virtual field.
+15 points for being interviewed from the NFL Films vault.
+10 points for having video shown of your playing/coaching career.
+10 points for appearing on PTI.
+5 points for being called by your recognizable nickname.
+1 point for having your "resume" being shown on screen.
0 points if you co-host a radio show with Mike Greenberg.
-1 point for bragging, "when I was a coach/player."
-2 points for saying "THIS GUY."
-5 points for being an ex-Cowboy or Patriot.
-5 points for interrupting someone.
-10 points for debating Skip Bayless.
-10 points for saying "THIS GUY" if you aren't Jon Gruden.
-15 points for appearing on The Herd.
-20 points for fake laughter.
-25 points for saying the name "Brett Favre."
-50 points for starting a needless national controversy with your "analysis."
-50 points for speaking louder and slower to sound more important (ahem... TRENT... DILFER...).
-50 points if you use the number of surgieres you had as a badge of honor.
-75 points if you hock your own line of green chili or other personal product.
-100 points for making a bogus prediction to motivate a team (we're looking at you Tom Jackson).
-150 points for being the worst GM in the league during your career.
-1000 points for using an ethnic slur to describe one of your colleagues.
And there you have it. Judging by this criteria, who do you think will emerge this season atop the ESPN NFL Total Analyst Rating?
what i find funny is how espn had craig "gold cadillac" james commenting on the cam newton scandal.
he is running for office on the platform of keeping the gov't out of our business. another ironic satance considering how he stuck his nose into the texas tech situation.
I was relieved to learn that Craig James did NOT kill five hookers while at SMU. http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2011/7/19/2282724/the-curious-index-7-19-2011. To be very clear, there is no proof that CRAIG JAMES KILLED FIVE HOOKERS AT SMU. Although Internet rumors are rampant, the authorities were unable to verify that CRAIG JAMES WAS CHARGED IN THE KILLINGS OF FIVE HOOKERS AT SMU. Although there are no witnesses to Craig James killing five HOOKERS at SMU, no one can prove that it is untrue that Craig James killed five HOOKERS at SMU. It would be really unfortunate if the repeated phrase Craig James killed five HOOKERS at SMU increased the likelihood that an Internet search would return a result that stated that Craig James killed five HOOKERS at SMU. No one wants the professional journalist Craig James to be accused of the claim that Craig James killed five HOOKERS at SMU.
I agree with Matt Yoder. Boring, obnoxious, or rude, I can tolerate. Someone lying repeatedly and using a position of power he didn't even earn to destroy the reputation and career of a coach who sat his lazy, worthless son, deserves far more than this blog can give him. I would lmfao if he were to get caught with a transvestite hooker who resembled a linebacker from the 1970s Raiders.
I loved this tournament and can't stand Craig James but I was pretty disappointed in the outcome. That said I have my biases but seeing Cowherd or Berman up there would have really made my day, I think they are far more pervasive personalities and having one of them up there would have been a much more recognizable statement as to the excesses of ESPN. Most folks who visit this site may not even recognize James at first glance. That said the voters have spoken. But: I'll bet if the contest was held in a year when the James thing had died down we would have seen a different winner.
I understand the lying and slander as reasons to boost James into "victory," but he definitely wasn't the worst announcer or sports media personality in the entire tourney. He was just the most reminiscent of one of those moms on "Tots on Tiaras" or whatever that deplorable show is called.
Question: Was there anyway to make the pick look like it was taken in a dark closet?
Love the way that James is dressed down and made to look sleep deprived in that interview. It is impossible to believe ESPN had no idea what was going on even if they were unaware of the full extent of James' dishonesty.
@JeffBozovsky Okay, with the chin cut off, it looks a lot like Gifford but I paid attention and can see it is McCarver
ESPN's continued employment of Craig James is like their continued employment of Scott Burnside- no one exactly knows why they're have jobs.
Frank Gifford has been out of the booth for a while now, shouldn't he be replaced by a more current fumble mouthed announcer?