Sometimes you have to look at yourself in the mirror, be honest, and ask yourself, “Can I really do better than that?” If Mississippi State were to ask themselves that question regarding their head football coach, my answer would be “No.” I don’t know who Mississippi State thinks they are, or what they expect to be in a football sense, but I thought Sylvester Croom did a pretty good job with the program. From what I remember, he inherited a program on NCAA probation with scholarship reductions, one that had gone 7-27 in the three previous years. Sure, it took a few years before Mississippi State was no longer a punching bag, but they had reached that point.
Croom scored a big win over Florida in his first year as the Bulldogs’ head coach, helping launch the fire Ron Zook movement. In 2005, Croom’s squad obliterated rival Ole Miss 35-14. Finally by mid-season in 2006, his third year with the program, Mississippi State started to play at a respectable level. The Bulldogs kept all of their games in the second half of that season close, proving to me that Croom was getting Mississippi State to a respectable level.
A lot of people, myself included, wondered what Lane Kiffin was thinking when he took the Raiders job. Nobody lasted there longer than like two years, and nobody had a positive experience working for Al Davis. It was a miserable gig where one was guaranteed to fail, so as a result, nobody was willing to take it. But after getting rejected by several candidates, the Raiders came across Lane Kiffin who was eager to accept the gig. Knowing he was doomed for failure and a miserable experience, why would Kiffin take the job? 
They’re just blowing smoke, playing the game. See, the Angels’ real target is Mark Teixeira — he’s the one that really beefed up their team and rounded out their lineup. Adding Sabathia would just make the Angels pitching heavy but still leave their lineup vulnerable. Sure, he’s a nice addition for any club, but not a legitimate target for the Angels. So why all the
Almost as inherently as I’m drawn to the points category in a basketball boxscore, I’m interested in the field goals made and the field goals attempted by a player. For instance, 30 points is great and all, but how spectacular is it if you had to bomb up 24 shots to get that mark? Or last week for example, everybody was going gaga for Stephen Curry after he scored 44 points in a showdown with Oklahoma. Only problem is he did so shooting 41% from the field in a loss. That was the bottom line to me — not the 44 points — but the loss. Was it worth it? Well, we kind of had our test case in the matter as Loyola of Maryland decided they would make a conscious effort