Friday Beer Post: Gameday Beer of the Week - Anchor Steam Porter

Each week throughout the football season I'm going to suggest a good beer for the ubiquitous pre-game tailgate. Let's be honest, with tailgates it's not always top quality that you're looking for. To steal a phrase from the heinous beer terrorists at Budweiser, you want "drinkability." (or what a real beer connoisseur calls "a session beer") So, be warned, these may not be "the best" beers around. But, in the words of Dave Chappelle as Samuel L. Jackson "IT'LL GET YOU DRUNK!"

As the Buffs head west to the Bay Area, I'll tag local San Francisco beer Anchor Steam Porter as this week's Gameday Beer of the week!



(A six-pack of these little guys will do you well tomorrow)

I swear the first time I tried Anchor Steam's Porter I though I was drinking chocolate milk. They do a great job of crafting a sweet, rich porter without the heavy bitterness that can sometimes accompany the style. Good stuff, and easy to drink; Perfect for a tailgater who wants just a little bit more from their gameday beer.

Go Buffs!

Cal Preview

Now that the business of taking little brother back behind the woodshed is over with, it's time to move on with the season. Up next the Buffs travel (along with 7-10,000 of their closest friends) to Bould... I mean Berkley, California to take on the Cal Bears. This is a game that could determine the outlook of the rest of the season. Win, and the schedule suddenly sets up nicely for a 7-8 win season. Lose and .500 could be a tough get. Beyond that it's a 12-Pac preview game, and we don't want to look like idiots in front of our new neighbors...

(There's gonna be a lot of Black and Gold there Saturday)

CU hasn't won a true road game since Texas Tech in 2007. That's a long time. Altogether, Dan Hawkins is 2-20 in games not played in the state of Colorado. That's not good. Can these Buffaloes buck the trend? Can they finally break the Hawk road jinx?

Breaking it in Berkley won't be easy. Sure, Cal's 52-3 drubbing of UC-Davis means essentially dick since the Aggies are a D-1AA school, but they took care of business the same as CU and have a high level of confidence coming into the game.

Offensively, true-freshman Keenan Allen showed a lot of promise in the first game by hauling in 4 catches for 120 yds and a TD, TB Shane Vereen is a great runner and had 2 TD's last week, and QB Kevin Riley (recruited by CU) had a very efficient 14-20-248-3-0 stat line last week. Cal is loaded with speed and talent all over their offense, and will be a tough challenge for a defense that only had to face a one dimensional CSU offense last week. Many football pundits (and Utah and Cal fans) have criticized offensive coordinator Andy Ludwig's play calling, but with a full year with the current players under his belt, I would expect overall offensive consistency.
(Kevin Riley is a solid Sr QB. He'll be a good test of the defense)

Defensively, Cal held UC-Davis to 81 yards last week. I don't care who you play, that's damn impressive. Interestingly, however, they didn't force any turnovers (hrmmm...). Honestly, it's real tough to tell what a defense has when their 1-AA opponent starts a true freshman at QB. I expect them to be a significant upgrade over CSU's D, but that's not exactly hard. They are lead by LB Mike Mohamad. They do have a weakness at DB (which contributed to the team's low preseason Pac-10 ranking. They were typically picked to finish 6th or 7th.) , which may be exploitable by the brand-new receiving corps.

The Buffs come in having a right to feel good about themselves. The win last Saturday was solid. Not necessairly impressive, but solid. In addition, they played well in last years nationally televised loss to Oklahoma St (their last road game). When I hear them talk about this being a "business trip," and having confidence, I don't immediately assume that they're blowing smoke. The Buffs feel that they will win this game. And I sort of agree with them.

Believe me, this legit optimism is rare from me. As I mentioned last week, I am cautiously optimistic about this team. While, I've been burned before, things are going too damn well. How good did Travon Patterson look in a CU uniform last week? His punt returns shortened the offensive playing field and his speed on routes prevents safeties from doubling Scotty and Toney. The running games needs a little work, but Torres was impressive for a freshman. Defensively, Jon Major looks like something fantastic and the corners are allowed to stand "on an island" which frees our safeties to both run support and double the slot receiver. There is a lot of flexibility with this team, and the talent compliments itself in key areas.

(Travon's USC speed makes a ton of difference. From: The BDC)

I honestly think CU will have a good showing this week. Besides the support factor (A full 10th of the stadium could be wearing black and cheering on the Buffs!) CU traditionally does well in western roadtrips. Sure Cal is a major upgrade in speed and size over CSU, but I think CU ends up matching up pretty well against them none-the-less. The Buff WR's should get open, and if Tyler can find them, the ground game should open up, allowing CU to control field position and the clock. On defense, I'm interested to see if the promise shown last week was a factor of CSU's impotence or a sign of good things to come. Cal isn't any where close to being the best team in the Pac-10, and, while they are talented, I think CU should find a way to beat them.

(I'm trying... but it's so hard to be optimistic about a Hawk lead CU team)

This is the first time Hawk has brought the Buffs to his home state, and I think he'll bring back a win. I wouldn't necessairly be surprised with a loss, but I would be with a blowout (either way). Final score CU 24-Cal 20.

Go Buffs!

Memory Lane: 62-36 reax

Last night the programming director at Altitude decided to put 62-36 on. This man (or woman) is a genius.


(woot)

Here are a couple of good, laughable, and bad things I noticed.

Good:

The University I remember - A lot can happen in 9 years. The logo and uniforms have changed, the stadium has been expanded, and the tubas have added bell covers. Watching that game was like watching a snapshot of what would become my freshman year. I gotta a little misty-eyed actually.

Chris Brown and Bobby Purify - They were beasts. Honestly, just frickin awesome. Big shoulders, stood tall, and just shrugged off would be tacklers. Sure they were helped by a gigantic O-line and Brandon Drumm (maybe the hardest hitting full back I've ever seen. You could tell when he hit someone because it was 10x as loud as every other hit on the parabolic mic), but watching them run made me giddy. 3rd and 4th string RB's coming into that game, btw. That's depth, yo.
(Damn, he was good)

The coaches - Good ole Gary Barnett. He sure looked good over there, almost as befuddled as anyone that we hung 62 points on the Huskers. And look, Frank Solich! His forlorn countenance as he watched his precious corn machine disintegrate was hilarious.

The Laughable:

Crying Nebraska Kid - This never gets old.


(AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... it never gets old. Just think, that kid is almost college age now...)

Brent Musberger and Jack Arute making assumptions - 3 things were stated as fact towards the end of the game. 1) Eric Crouch had lost the Heisman (he still won it). 2) Nebraska had lost their shot at the title (they still got the opportunity to get butt-whupped by Miami). 3) That CU would play Oklahoma for the Big XII title (OU lost the next day and CU played (and beat) Texas the next week). Obviously the 3rd was jumping the gun, but it's still laughable that 2 concepts as clear as day (that Crouch didn't deserve the Heisman and that Nebraska no longer belonged in the title game) ended up being turned on their head.

Buffs going for 2 up 55-30 - Musberger thought it was due to a scoring chart, when every Buffs fan knows it was to rub salt in the open wound. Damn shame it wasn't converted.

Bobby Pesavento stating he deserved a shot at the NFL - Lol, that's just hilarious. Good game, though.

The Bad:

CU's O-line - It was massive. Just fucking massive. Why is that bad? Well, why haven't we had that amount of size and talent across the line since?

Marcus Houston - Markeesha got his name mentioned. Prior to that I had completely forgotten he existed. Hope he enjoyed FoCo. Fuck him.

Craig Ochs - Towards the end of the game Musberger started talking about how promising the future looked for CU. The RB tandem was coming back (Chris Brown would've gotten the Heisman the next year without bruising his sternum and missing 2.5 games), much of the O-line was staying (Wayne Lucier!), and their "best football player" in Craig Ochs was coming back. Or, he was coming back until he shit down his legs against CSU and ran off to Montana (WTF?!). I will never forget him running away from Boulder after losing to CSU the next year. I don't care about his reasons, fuck him.



Anyways, for those interested Altitude is showing it again on Friday @ noon. Cal preview in a bit...

That's gonna hurt - Sox lose and Twins win, Boys now 4.5 back

Yeesh, I was only kidding about the whole voodoo thing. I guess it makes sense that Freddy Garcia would lose to Justin Verlander, but to throw and injured back on top is just cruel. Add Sweaty Freddy to Gordon Beckham on the "Oh dear God no! Please just be hurt and not injured!" list. The Sox have already gotten more than could be possibly be asked for out of Freddy this year, and, with back to back outings with early exits due to back issues, we may have seen the last of his efforts in 2010. If only Peavy hadn't gotten hurt, the rotation wouldn't be flying by the seat of it's pants right now....

And, of course, the Twins come through with a pounding of the hapless Royals. So, over the course of the first 8 games of the road trip the Sox go 7-1, but don't gain a game! Speaking of voodoo, is that a necklace of shrunken heads around the neck of Twins coach Ron Gardenhire?

I haven't expected to win the division since my ill-fated trip home in August (when I was both ill and the Sox went 2-4 against their main division rivals), but this week has been just cruel. The team has been scratching and crawling; winning games they normally wouldn't and showing fight I honestly didn't expect to see. Yet the Damn Twins get a sweep at home against fellow division leader Texas and continue to return serve (a tennis metaphor?) over the same time frame.


(Yeah Manny, that loss is gonna hurt. From: the CST)

I won't actually concede the division yet, but it's all but over after the past weeks fruitless push.

Hats for bat... keep bat warm.

So what do I have to do to get the Goddamn Twins to lose a game tonight? Live chicken? Cigar? Rum? You no help me now, I say "Fuck you Jobu, I do it myself."

Boise State and the BCS

I watched most of the Boise St/Va Tech game last night. Outside of the 1st quarter (with my roommate stating nonchalantly "it's over" after Boise St went up 10-0 with 55 minutes still to play) I wasn't really that impressed with either team. I did notice some size and speed improvements from Boise St (especially along the lines), but they're still an over-acheiving team who can get up for one or two tough games every year, and then coast through their cupcake conference schedule.

I struggle with this concept every year. I hate the BCS (As currently constructed. If it was used towards a playoff it would be tolerable), but I don't think Boise St (or TCU, BYU, Hawaii, Utah, or any other "BCS Buster") really deserves a shot at the "title." I think this is the rational view that most poll-voters take when they year-in, year-out put Boise St on the outside of the national title game looking in. Sure, their programs story is kind of cool, and everyone loves to root for an underdog, but does a team who only plays 2 or 3 competitive teams a year really prove themselves?


(How impressive would Kellen Moore's numbers be if he had to slog through a Big XII or SEC schedule every year? From: NBC Sports)

I honestly believe a 1 loss SEC, Big XII, or Big 10 team is more deserving of a shot at the title than a 12-0 Boise St (regardless of what made-for-TV game they put together to start the season). After they play Oregon St they will face absolutely no one worth a damn. Sure, it's not their fault their conference is made up of the San Jose St's and Utah St's of the world, but I can't give them the level of credit I will give to the "big boys." And what's more, I'm pretty sure the voters share my opinion (I know the computers who weigh strength of schedule will).

Hope they enjoy the Fiesta Bowl.

Monday Grab Bag: OK, time for the season to start

Big weekend; lots of goings on. There are two videos below. Never embedded my own video before, so this could get interesting. Strait to the bag...

Buffs Win: Well, as I always say "a win is a win." It certainly wasn't pretty on Saturday, but I'll take 1-0 however we can get it. I've seen some great breakdowns of the game, but I'm just not one for the scientific breakdown of football; I just want a Buffs victory. I'll save my "scientific" interest in sports for Basketball and Baseball, thank you very much. However, it was great to see a few things Saturday: Travon Patterson getting into the action early, Aric Goodman having a perfect day, and Scotty (DO!) setting the all-time receptions mark on a beautiful TD catch.

(Do the dance Scotty! - From: The BDC)

And don't forget that the much-ballyhooed "CU Sucks" banner that some CSU grads were going to have flown around the stadium ended up being flown around upside-down. My guess: either the pilot was a CU grad, or it was a CU plant all along. But it sure made for an easy laugh Saturday.

(Ah the sweet smell of a victory cigar!)

Honestly, I was just glad I was able to find some shade in the nether-regions of the 5th level.

Stupid Traditions: So every year a friend and I "sneak" into FoCo, buy a CSU flag at their bookstore, eat Mexican food at "el Burrito," make terrible jokes at how terrible the place is, and return home. Then, the day of the game, we burn the flag to show our contempt for CSU in general. It's a stupid tradition, but I figured I might as well include a video of the flag burning for educational purposes.

(burn baby burn)

Attendance Issues: 61,000 my ass. You know whats funny about that attendance figure? Even though they pulled that number out of their ass, that's the lowest attendance figure in the history of the game being played in Denver. Woof.

I took a video during the marching band's pregame of all the empty seats, but I figured that was an unfair indicator of true attendance. So I took this video midway through the 1st quarter...

(I know for damn sure that everyone there could fit in Folsom.)

Again, the novelty of this game in Denver has worn off. When you need 3 title sponsors to make a game financially viable, it's not really financially viable. It sure didn't help that the network with broadcast rights is seen by exactly no one so that there was no in-network promotion during the lead-up.

Parker Orms: It was tough to see Parker go down with a torn ACL. I was really excited to see the local kid play. He won the starting Nickel-back job only to go off early in the 1st quarter on a non-contact play. He'll probably get a medical redshirt and still have 4 more years in Boulder, but still, you never want to see a young man have to go through injuries of this type.

White Sox Sweep in Boston: Well, when they needed it, my Sox came through. 3 tough, well earned victories were a result of the trip to Beantown. Take Sunday for example: we score two runs on an infield single and throwing error to take the lead, only to lose it the next inning. Normally the Sox would lie down at this point, but extreme plate discipline lead to back to back run scoring walks to seal the victory in the 9th. It wasn't necessarily a pretty series from a baseball standpoint, but anytime you can walk out of Fenway with 3-straight wins is a good sign. If only Texas would've helped us out with the Twins...

(That's good victory, boys! From: the trib))

Baseball is not wholly conservative or liberal: Some idiot talks about baseball being a wholly conservative sport. He reasons that baseball doesn't change, is merit based, and inherently American (as if that makes it conservative). Now, I never want to get political in this blog, but this George Will-esque drivel needs to stop. I apologize in advance.

First off, baseball changes all the time. (Hell, the game was originally played to 21 "aces" and you could call your own strike zone) Advances in race relations (integration and immigration included), the evolution of the DH, advancements in technology (bats, PED's, stadiums, training techniques), and the evolution of the modern sporting financial structure have all come out of baseball. That's a lot of changing. Hell, even the rules have changed over the years. We're going to soon be seeing instant replay on fair/foul calls.

Further, one of the strongest workers unions in America is in baseball. Hell, Marvin Miller and the Players Union basically re-wrote labor relation laws in the 1960's and 70's. Free Agency? Player Pensions? No-trade Clauses? Labor disputes and strikes (along with the usual government intervention)? That's not very conservative. What about revenue sharing and tax initiatives to pay for new stadiums? Urban renewal projects? What sort of idiot doesn't even consider these things when talking the history of baseball.

As to being inherently American; this idea is born of the notion of the game as being pastoral. Anyone who believes that probably believes the game was invented in Cooperstown, NY by a Civil War general (completely false). It's an urban (read: liberal) assimilation of a British game played by immigrants. The game's spread throughout Latin American communities, and its subsequent effect on the make-up of club rosters, is a profound example of the "liberal" spread of the game and it's effect on the so-called "never-changing" game.

Halfway through the article, there's the quote about lack of administrative overrides or some such nonsense. I will never understand why conservatives don't see high profile umpires (Joe West, cough cough) as activist judges. More than that, the league office is constantly involving itself in day-to-day business. Kennesaw Mountain Landis (the first ever commish) is a prime example of the overreaching executive. You want to talk expansion of executive power, go talk about that guy. Institutionally, the owners and the commissioner are constantly tinkering with the game. The game was growing tiresome in the 1920's so the game was changed to favor home runs and more scoring. In the '40's and '50's baseball was at the forefront of societal change when it integrated. In the 60's and '70's they played around with the pitchers mound , expanded the schedule, and joined the rest of the country in west-ward and suburban expansion. In the '80's and '90's baseball embraced free agency, even more scoring, tinkered with the All-star game and the playoffs, and embraced media expansion. All of these major initiatives came from the league office.

Just because something is currently perceived as slow doesn't mean its conservative. At one point in time, baseball was looked upon as the fastest game in the world. It was a progressive, inner-city entity that was looked upon as an agent of change. Just the very notion of the game, that everyone gets their chance at bat is progressive.

(Here's at rhetorical question; if the game is so conservative, why isn't it the most popular sport in the most conservative area of the country (football dominates the south)?)

In the end, baseball is neither wholly conservative nor liberal. It's just baseball. It belongs to all of us who care about the game. Sit down, shut up, and enjoy. Idiot. (i'll put money on him being a Cub fan).

And with that, I'll never mention politics on the blog again...

Happy Labor Day, Everybody!