Jason Collins Comes Out; Chris Broussard Causes Kerfluffle

I don't have any words of wisdom on what NBA player Jason Collins did Monday. It's far above and beyond anything I'm qualified to offer much comment about. In a piece on SI.com, Collins came out. He is the first active player in a major pro sport to do so, and there probably isn't a better person out there to do something like this, based on the story Collins told SI.

 Now I'm a free agent, literally and figuratively. I've reached that enviable state in life in which I can do pretty much what I want. And what I want is to continue to play basketball. I still love the game, and I still have something to offer. My coaches and teammates recognize that. At the same time, I want to be genuine and authentic and truthful.

... When I was younger I dated women. I even got engaged. I thought I had to live a certain way. I thought I needed to marry a woman and raise kids with her. I kept telling myself the sky was red, but I always knew it was blue.

I realized I needed to go public when Joe Kennedy, my old roommate at Stanford and now a Massachusetts congressman, told me he had just marched in Boston's 2012 Gay Pride Parade. I'm seldom jealous of others, but hearing what Joe had done filled me with envy. I was proud of him for participating but angry that as a closeted gay man I couldn't even cheer my straight friend on as a spectator. If I'd been questioned, I would have concocted half truths. What a shame to have to lie at a celebration of pride. I want to do the right thing and not hide anymore. I want to march for tolerance, acceptance and understanding. I want to take a stand and say, "Me, too."

It's a great piece from Collins and Franz Lidz. Collins tells a story that is likely shared by (probably) dozens of pro athletes, many of whom will now have the courage and drive to tell their own story, inspired by Collins.

Naturally, Collins' announcement set the internet on fire. I don't know that I want to give the time of day to what Dolphins receiver Mike Wallace tweeted. It's probably a good thing he didn't end up with the Vikings in the offseason, because Chris Kluwe wouldn't have enjoyed that teammate.

National radio host Tim Brando actually compared Collins coming out to him (Brando) potentially releasing a sex tape. It was a poor way of going about ripping people who are calling Collins a hero. It was also one of the more extreme reactions we saw on this day.

On ESPN, once Tebowmania died down (in the 12pm hour, ESPN mentioned Tebow 25 times before Collins' name came up, even though the Collins story had been out for more than two hours), Outside The Lines explored the Collins news and reacted. Enter ESPN's Chris Broussard.

    "I'm a Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality. I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. [ESPN's] L.Z. [Granderson] knows that. He and I have played on basketball teams together for several years. We've gone out, had lunch together, we've had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don't criticize him, he doesn't criticize me, and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.

    "In talking to some people around the league, there's a lot Christians in the NBA and just because they disagree with that lifestyle, they don't want to be called bigoted and intolerant and things like that. That's what LZ was getting at. Just like I may tolerate someone whose lifestyle I disagree with, he can tolerate my beliefs. He disagrees with my beliefs and my lifestyle but true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names.

    "... Personally, I don't believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you're openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that's a sin. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian."

No judging here, but this is another controversial viewpoint. In Broussard's defense, he doesn't say anything bigoted (in my view), and he goes about it an interesting way by invoking the name of gay sportswriter LZ Granderson. The fact those two can share a respectful relationship should tell you something about how Broussard is able to conduct himself.

Naturally, the internet was awash with criticism of Broussard, but I don't see anything disrespectful here. It's a viewpoint. Is it a popular one? No, but Broussard isn't ripping anyone for feeling differently, and he isn't ripping Collins for doing what he did. There's no judging going on.

Reality is that we are all going to be judged at some point. It's not our place to do so. But we all have feelings about how we should lead our lives, and we do the best we can to uphold our own beliefs. Those who are overly pushy about their feelings and philosophies can be quite annoying, but simply expressing those views is not pushy or annoying, especially when someone is asking you for said views.

If Broussard starts leading protests outside of arenas Jason Collins is playing in going forward, or if he openly advocates for NBA teams to avoid signing the free-agent-to-be this summer because he's a "sinner," then he will have gone too far. But simply telling an interviewer -- when asked -- how feels about something doesn't make Chris Broussard a bad person.

ESPN Announces College Hockey Tournament Coverage Plans

I'll present the ESPN information to you, largely because I know many of you are interested in watching the NCAA Tournament, and because a lot of you won't be traveling to regionals or the Frozen Four, even if UMD is involved.

This came from the Worldwide Leader in Sports Other Than Hockey on Wednesday.

For the eighth consecutive year, ESPN will present every glass-crushing moment of the 2012 NCAA Division I Men’s Ice Hockey Championship starting with the NCAA Men’s Ice Hockey Selection Show on Sunday, March 18, and culminating with the Men's Frozen Four in Tampa, Fla., April 5 and 7.  All 15 games will air live on ESPN2, ESPNU or ESPN3. Four regional games will be shown on ESPN3 with additional coverage on ESPNU in tape delay. For 2012, ESPN will debut its Advanced Replay Tool (ART) which allows graphics to be used in a replay, a first in the network’s coverage of NCAA hockey.

As in past years, the tournament brackets will be announced on the NCAA Men’s Ice Hockey Selection Show by SportsCenter anchor John Buccigross, analyst Barry Melrose and new to the selection show this year, three-time Stanley Cup champion Aaron Ward. Airing Sunday, March 18, at noon ET on ESPNU, Ward’s three-consecutive NCAA Championship appearances while playing at Michigan brings a second layer of expertise to the passion and enthusiasm Melrose infuses into the 30-minute special. The show will also include features from current NHL standouts reflecting on their own NCAA memories, including Tampa Bay’s Martin St. Louis, Buffalo’s Ryan Miller, New Jersey’s Zach Praise and Ottawa’s Matt Gilroy.

The ART, developed by ESPN Emerging Technology, allows graphics to be instantaneously embedded within a replay, providing commentators greater visual resources to communicate analysis to viewers.  It has seen previous success in ESPN’s coverage of basketball, football and golf telecasts (see video).

Melrose, Gary Thorne and Clay Matvick will utilize the tool during ESPN’s Frozen Four telecasts. Former NCAA players Sean Ritchlin (Michigan), Dave Starman (Hartford) and Billy Jaffe (Michigan) will also contribute analysis throughout the two week coverage span. ESPN has aired games from the men's championship since 1980 and recently extended its commitment to the NCAA, which includes airing the entire Division I Men’s Ice Hockey Championship through 2024.

Here is the link.

East Regional (Bridgeport, Conn.) games will be worked by John Buccigross and Barry Melrose. Northeast Regional (Worcester, Mass.) games will have Dan Parkhurst and Billy Jaffe on commentary. Ben Holden and Sean Ritchlin will head to Green Bay for the Midwest Regional. Minnesota's own Clay Matvick and Dave Starman will work the West Regional in St. Paul. Gary Thorne, Melrose, and Matvick will have Frozen Four duty in Tampa.

Steve Bartman Legend Lives Forever, But No One Should Be Happy

After some channel-surfing Tuesday night, it dawned on me that ESPN's "Catching Hell" documentary was on, and I had really wanted to watch it.

Boy, am I glad I did. It was an incredible two-hour program, directed by Alex Gibney. The show focused on Steve Bartman, the Cubs fan who kept outfielder Moises Alou from catching a foul pop in the eighth inning of Game 6 of the 2003 NLCS. After Alou failed to make the catch, the Cubs melted down, allowing Florida to score eight runs in the inning in an 8-3 win. Florida won Game 7 the next night to keep the Cubs from making their first World Series since the 1940s.

That Bartman became a bit of a celebrity was not a surprise. But anyone who remembers watching that game probably can recall the chilling images broadcast by Fox that night. Images of Bartman sitting in his seat near the friends he brought to the game, but looking like the loneliest guy in the stadium. The images of angry fans throwing beer and food at Bartman ... fans swearing at a guy they had never met and would never meet. Security escorting this then-anonymous Cubs fan from his seat -- not because he had done anything wrong, but for his own damn safety.

Eight years later, Gibney's fantastic documentary brought all those images back to the forefront. For this viewer, it was put together fantastically. I went to bed thinking about the stories that were told, and the pictures we saw. It brought back a lot of memories of sitting in a radio studio and watching the events unfold.

The next day, I did a talk show, and listened as callers -- one by one -- skewered Bartman as if he had actually done something wrong. It could only have been worse for those actually in Chicago. In the end, the majority of fans understood that Bartman only did what they would have done in that same position.

"Everyone else is/was doing it" is rarely an argument that can be used to justify behavior. In this case, it's the only argument you need.

Other fans in attendance were reaching for that ball. The fan who got it was proud of his accomplishment, and he profited about it. Bartman wasn't alone that night. He was simply the one the ball hit.

In the documentary, Gibney talked to many people who were sitting near Bartman. He shows amateur videos taken from inside the stadium, helping virtually confirm that Alou would have caught the ball had it not been touched by a fan. Since the ball was technically in the stands, fan interference was not going to be called, as the ball was fair game. Bartman didn't reach into the field of play, which would have led to an automatic out.

Bartman has lived in seclusion since, turning down multiple big-money offers to appear at events and/or tell his story. Somehow, he has avoided the celebrity that seemed so inevitable on that night, and he still manages to live in Chicago.

At the end of the documentary, the idea was brought up that it's not up to Chicago to forgive Bartman, but the other way around. After all the heat he took, all the abuse he got in the stadium and all the abuse people tried to direct his way in the aftermath, it's Bartman who gets to do the forgiving.

Based on his silence over these eight years, it doesn't seem he's too interested. Maybe he doesn't think it matters. But he doesn't seem interested.

******

It's a sad commentary on our society when it comes to our sports. People blame Bartman for what happened, easily forgetting Alex Gonzalez booting an easy double-play grounder, Mark Prior melting down as his pitch count rose, Dusty Baker leaving Prior in way too long, the Cubs bullpen failing to get anyone out, and the Cubs getting an awful performance from their pitchers in losing Game 7 the next night.

Why is it Steve Bartman's fault, when all he did was something most everyone around him was doing? If he hadn't hit that ball, someone else would have. And Moises Alou still would have been pissed.

The fan behavior was appalling. The only even remotely-related incident I can think of is how Aaron Rodgers was treated in Green Bay after taking over for Brett Favre. It wasn't Rodgers' call to make Favre retire and anoint Rodgers as the starter. Favre made himself retire, and the Packers' brass decided to move on. Rodgers was simply the guy who benefited, yet people acted as if he should have begged out of the job.

Unlike Bartman, Rodgers worked to win the fans over, and he did so very quickly. By the time Favre made his return to Lambeau Field as a member of the Vikings, Rodgers had the full support of nearly everyone in Green Bay. Yes, there were some who stuck by Favre, but it wasn't the majority, like it was at times in August 2008.

Bartman may never experience what Rodgers did in Green Bay, no matter the similarities -- passion, loyalty, tradition -- that exist with the franchises and fanbases. Part of it is that Bartman doesn't ever have to insert himself into the spotlight. The comparisons to Bill Buckner on Tuesday's documentary made that clear. Buckner was a public figure in 1986, and he continued to be a public figure. When he returned to Fenway Park after Boston's 2007 title, he was warmly received by fans who would have jeered him 20 years prior.

Even if the Cubs win a World Series, why would Bartman come out of hiding? What would he get out of it? Forgiveness he has never sought?

Bartman is a sympathetic figure because of how he was treated, and he remains one today because he has stayed away from his beloved Cubs. No one in Chicago that night should be proud of how that was handled, and his story remains a cautionary tale on the price of unwanted fame.

Gibney and ESPN should be saluted for the work done on this show. If you didn't see it, do what you can to watch or record a repeat. It's worth the two hours you will spend watching it.

Cris Carter Tries to Take Back Mind-Numbing Thoughts on Calvin Johnson

Last week, ESPN's Cris Carter made some waves by saying something really dumb.

I suspect this will become the norm at ESPN, if it hasn't already. The network has tried so hard to hire a large stable of former players and coaches to analyze the NFL that those hired can't possibly have their own voice or their own personality. There's no room to breathe with such a population of analysts ... no opportunity for one of them to step out and become a reliable voice of reason or source of interesting takes.

They're all the same, just like ESPN probably wants.

For Carter, Friday presented an opportunity to step out and say something interesting. It was a chance for him to take a stand and stake his claim to a larger audience.

He tried. And failed.

On ESPN Radio, he was asked about the top five receivers in the NFL. He failed to put Calvin Johnson on that list.

“Calvin Johnson, he’s very, very good at Madden and Tecmo Bowl or whatever they’re playing now,” Carter said. “But on film, when I watch film, and I break down the film, he’s not to the point of these guys yet.”

ESPN Radio’s Mike Greenberg pointed out that Johnson has played with lousy quarterbacks, but Carter wasn’t buying it.

“I made eight Pro Bowls,” Carter said. “I made it with five different quarterbacks. They weren’t always great. So I don’t want to hear the excuse that I’m not playing with a great quarterback.”

Face, meet palm.

I'll set aside the fact that he took a veiled shot at the quarterbacks he played with in the NFL.

Instead, let's focus on the lunacy that is his comment on Calvin Johnson. If he's only good on video games, why did the Jets and Packers -- among others -- routinely double him last year, even though both teams had elite players in their secondaries?

Sorry, Cris, but they weren't doubling him just because they could. They also weren't trying to confuse whoever Detroit had at quarterback. They did it because Calvin Johnson -- as he has shown time and time again -- is good enough to beat you, even when you do double-team him.

Monday, Carter saw the error of his ways. Sort of.

On Monday’s edition of ESPN Radio’s Mike & Mike in the Morning, the show on which Carter uttered his controversial comments, the two Mikes talked about the reaction to Carter’s opinion, with pretty much everyone who has weighed in taking the position that Carter was flat wrong.  They capped the discussion by pointing out that Carter had called the studio with this message regarding Johnson: “[H]e’s right there with the top five.  I may have given Reggie Wayne a gift.”

In other words, Carter apparently opted not to admit in real time that he had inadvertently overlooked Johnson, choosing instead to stubbornly support an inherently flawed argument.  Three days later, with no way out of the maze, Carter issued a mea culpa which the two Mikes laughed off as they went to a break.

I guess this is the closest thing we'll get to a "correction" out of the Worldwide Leader.

Bruce Feldman Mess Won't Go Away

Hope you're staying cool through this northern Minnesota heat wave. We get one of these virtually every year, it seems, but this one is especially notable because of the humidity involved.

Anyway, I've been largely silent on the blog (but not Twitter) regarding the issue with ESPN and journalist Bruce Feldman. While I popped off on Twitter and was unabashed in my support of Feldman, I didn't feel comfortable writing a blog and making him an even bigger issue.

However, recent events have compelled me to lay all this out for you, in case you weren't aware of what's going on.

It started Thursday night, when I saw tweets from Sports by Brooks indicating Feldman had been suspended indefinitely by ESPN. Feldman was called on the carpet he helped with Mike Leach's book, "Swing Your Sword," which includes a number of accusations regarding ESPN's behavior and "reporting" when Leach was fired at Texas Tech.

Oh, and Feldman had permission from ESPN to participate in the project.

SbB has led the reporting on this story, and naturally ESPN has tried to deny everything he has reported. However, Brooks is steadfast in what he is saying, and he isn't backing down.

ESPN tried to fight back, using its ombudsman.

Brooks Melchior first posted the erroneous news of Feldman's suspension on his blog Sports by Brooks, Thursday afternoon, just hours after ESPN brass, prompted by the book's publication, met by conference call with Feldman to discuss his involvement. For the past decade, Melchior has been the primary writer and editor on the site, which is now part of the Yardbarker network now owned by Fox Sports.

ESPN pointed out the error almost 24 hours later in a news release, igniting further argument over the difference between being suspended and merely being asked to take a break. This is more than just semantics. A suspension is a disciplinary action involving human resources, a record in your file and not being allowed onto the company premises for a period of time. Several people on that phone call reported to us that Feldman specifically asked whether he was being suspended and that he was told no.

Lying low and staying out of the public eye is different than being forced to stay home from work.

Feldman did not respond to several emails, text messages and phones calls from us. He has not tweeted or published any stories or appeared on the air, fueling rumors that ESPN is lying and that he really is suspended.

At this point, Feldman's silence is self-imposed, according to Rob King, ESPN senior vice president of editorial for digital and print media, and Chad Millman, editor-in-chief of ESPN The Magazine.

"He's paralyzed," King said. "He doesn't want to go out to an event and become the subject of the story. But he doesn't know what to say or how to say it, in order to put the story to bed."

"He's pretty anxious about this whole thing," Millman concurred.

Melchior also refused to comment for this column when we reached him on the phone Sunday. He does not offer his readers any information about his source or how the source came by the knowledge. But ESPN sources said no one in the company got a call from Melchior asking to confirm Feldman's suspension. 

I don't doubt for one second that this could be true. I don't know the truth. Only ESPN and Bruce Feldman know the truth. One of them has no motivation to tell the truth if it's negative toward them. The other isn't talking at all.

Brooks has no motivation to lie. He already is one of the most prolific and intelligent independent reporters on the internet. Might he gain a few readers by making up or embellishing a story about ESPN suspending one of its online reporters? Sure, but it's not worth what will happen if/when his misdeed is exposed.

Brooks also was all over the Ohio State/Tressel story before anyone else in the mainstream, outside of Yahoo. He knows what he is doing. It's not a gossip or tabloid site. He's good at what he does.

To dismiss this story would be to dismiss the reporter doing the gruntwork, and I refuse to do that.

There is no doubt in my mind -- and there has been no doubt in my mind for a long time -- that ESPN badly mishandled the Leach case. That it involved an ESPN analyst -- Craig James -- made things extremely complicated for them, and the argument could be made from the start that James was behaving like a manipulative sports parent who needed to get his child a leg up.

Instead of reporting both sides of the story, ESPN chose not to. Now, they pay the price, because no one should simply take their side of the story and believe it. Until Feldman speaks, it's hard to believe anything.

And if you're buying what ESPN is selling, don't look for Feldman to talk anytime soon.

Disastrous Day for NASCAR at Indy

No, it wasn't the 2008 debacle of exploding tires, explosive tempers, and 52 of 160 laps run on yellow.

Instead, NASCAR provided its fans with nothing interesting at all during Sunday's Allstate 400 at the Brickyard. That might actually be worse in some ways than the tire controversy that came out of last year's race.

This isn't meant as a slam at Jimmie Johnson, Mark Martin, or Tony Stewart. All three are generally likeable drivers who have done nothing wrong. It's getting a tad old, however, to see the same drivers (under the same ownership flag) riding up front all the time.

(Yes, I know Stewart "owns his own team". What this statement avoids is that he's basically driving Hendrick cars, and his team is widely considered an extension of Hendrick's team.)

While it was refreshing to see Juan Pablo Montoya dominate the race Sunday until his stupid mistake on pit road, the reality is that things weren't any more exciting then. Montoya thrived in the clean air at the front of the field and built a lead that reached over seven seconds. Because there weren't many cautions in Montoya's run of 116 laps led, the race quickly disintegrated into a 190 mph single-file parade. There was no passing to be found on the track, and no real good racing for position. Double-file restarts couldn't save NASCAR because there were so few cautions.

Restrictor-plate races at Daytona and Talladega may make some fans queasy, at least they have the promise of last-lap fireworks to hang their hat on. You might wait four hours to see something interesting happen, but you'll usually get a payoff. The race at Indy became a really fast parade not long after the start, and it stayed that way for the remainder of the 160 laps.

Making matters worse, ESPN's crew is led by a NASCAR-loving veteran who has as much business doing play-by-play of Sprint Cup races as I do. Jerry Punch, by all accounts, is a prince of a man, and he is a big reason why NASCAR has the kind of media attention it does now. He sucks at calling races, because it's obvious he sees his job as more of a "traffic director" gig than a traditional play-by-play man. As irritating as Bill Weber was on TNT before he got suspended (or fired, whatever), he's better than Punch. So is FOX's Mike Joy, no matter how horrible the rest of the FOX team is.

Let it be known that no play-by-play could have made anything interesting out of Sunday's race. Johnson was going to win from the moment of the last restart, and there was nothing that anyone could do about it, especially when the race stayed green the whole time.

Reality is that ESPN has built some quality pieces, but Punch does not belong in his role. The sooner they figure this out, the better it will be for everyone. Right now, ESPN doesn't have the play-by-play guy to carry them through a bad race. With Hendrick Motorsports obviously holding the keys to success with the "COT model", and everyone else struggling to find out what they have, ESPN is going to have more bad races than good as we ramp up to the Chase for the Sprint Cup.

In all seriousness, does anyone want to bet money on a non-Hendrick driver winning the Chase? I didn't think so.

EMMITT SMITH APPARENTLY OWED SEX

Via PFT comes this lovely piece of video.

Maybe ESPN doesn't believe in camera cues. More likely, Emmitt Smith just gets so into the music that he forgets what he's doing, while simultaneously not realizing that he's, you know, on live television.

ESPN TO WORK WITH NFL NETWORK?

Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk, who joins Michael David Smith (PFT/College Football Talk/FanHouse/Etc) and the Brothers Mottram as members of the "Internet Stars Who Must Never Sleep" Club, has a very interesting bombshell.

He got it from the Wall Street Journal, who reports that ESPN is in "high-level" talks on a deal with the NFL Network.

A deal would bring to a face-saving end an embarrassing episode for the NFL and a bitter stand-off between the lead and four of the nation's largest cable operators, a dispute which kept live pro football games on Thursday and Saturday nights out of many American homes.

An agreement would represent a big shift in strategy for the NFL—abandoning its effort to sidestep sports broadcasters like ESPN and take some of its valuable games directly to cable subscribers, who pay lucrative monthly fees.

...One possible scenario could be a combination of the NFL Network with the ESPN Classic network, which has relatively low ratings but wide distribution on expanded basic tiers. ESPN would likely use its market weight and its eight additional games to seek higher subscription fees than the 16 or 17 cents it currently receives for ESPN Classic, boosting rates to something closer to what the NFL network has been seeking, according to Derek Baine, a senior analyst for SNL Kagan. Under such a scenario, ESPN and the NFL could form a joint venture and share revenue, or ESPN could take an equity stake in the channel.

I only mention this because I think it's an interesting scenario. I like the NFL Network, but I really feel like they need to program more aggressively. I'm sure a big part of it is the lack of distribution deals, but those of us who get it deserve more original programming, more classic games, and fewer repeat loops of programming.

About the only things the network has going for them this offseason are the NFL Replay shows on Sundays, which are playing back the best games of every week of the season, and the NFL Classics on Monday nights, which are fun.

ESPN could certainly ruin many of the good things about the NFL Network, but the Worldwide Leader could also enhance much of the programming. NFL Network has a thin staff of reporters and analysts. ESPN's stable is practically endless.

The deal isn't done yet, but this one bears watching. The NFL Network needs to do something to claim some legitimacy, as they cut their own knees off by putting that Giants-Patriots classic on 43 channels last December.

APPALACHIAN STATE GETS WEEK ONE LOVE

History will be made August 30, when the reigning and defending national champions from Division I-A (oops ... FBS) and Division I-AA (oops ... FCS) meet. It still looks like a mismatch on paper, but the game between Appalachian State and LSU will get a ton more attention than it normally would.

First, it is that historic first "national champion vs. national champion" matchup. The Mountaineers are actually a two-time defending I-AA (oops ... FCS) champion. LSU backed into the BCS title game last year, and then put a whipping on Ohio State that surprised precisely no one.

Beyond that, there is that other reason why the game will garner plenty of national publicity. Oh, yeah. Almost forgot.



OK. I lied. I didn't almost forget. I'll never forget.

With all this in mind, the decision made this week by ESPN comes as no real surprise to me.

On Saturday, Aug. 30, LSU will open the 2008 football season on national television as the Tigers host Appalachian State in a game televised by ESPN, the Southeastern Conference announced on Tuesday.

Kickoff for the LSU-Appalachian State game is set for 4 p.m. in Tiger Stadium.

It seems ridiculous on its surface. Why would ESPN (and, presumably, ESPNHD) choose to nationally televise a I-A vs I-AA matchup?

After all, the odds of this being a greatly competitive game are virtually nil. Then again, you get a lot of nationally televised games in the first week that aren't that competitive. So why should they let that stop them?

I mean, could it really be that much worse than that 48-7 whipping LSU put on Virginia Tech in September last year? Or USC-Nebraska?

LSU should have no trouble pulling away from Appalachian State. But we said that about Michigan, too, and you all saw how that turned out. If nothing else, the off-chance of an "instant classic" should be reason enough to get people interested.