Let's go to the Polls

I always vote on those polls you see on ESPN.com, and sometimes I'm absolutely shocked to see that in some cases the majority of American sports fans have absolutely no perspective or idea what they're talking about when they vote. (Note to commish: stop letting fans vote for a game they don't even watch.) While at other times ESPN just feeds sensationalist stories (Note to viewers: ratings get higher advertising revenue)

So in this poll I'll give my opinion on some of ESPN's most recent polls.

Question 1: What was Wednesday's most surprising hoops result?

Result:
Va Tech beats Wake: 65%
NJIT snaps 51-game losing streak: 35%

Every cliche sports movie about lovable losers who become champions somehow always has that one kinda mediocre team that they play early in the season and beat before gaining momentum and getting really good. It's kinda surprising, but nobody is really that shocked. At the end of the year, they beat the great domineering and everybody goes crazy. In this case, NJIT is the bad team at the start of the year, Bryant University is the mediocre team they beat. Va Tech is the improved team that beats the domineering team: Wake Forest (who just happen to wear black unis).

Verdict: Good Call

Question 2: Which Patriots QB will start more games next season?

Result:
Tom Brady: 65%
Matt Cassell: 35%

Ok, there are several scenarios to consider:

1. Cassell gets traded and Brady starts the year (I doubt Cassell is traded if Brady's rehab is slow)
   
2. Cassell stays around as insurance in case Brady isn't healthy for the opener and plays the Matt Schaub role until he leaves in 2010.
   
3. Brady gets traded and takes a while to get healthy, while Cassell starts for New England (Brady only gets traded if his rehab is slow)

So, all I can do is think which one of these scenarios is most likely. I think it depends on Brady's rehab, and since that is a relative unknown, I see Belichick keeping Cassell around, just in case, with Brady getting the edge as soon as he's 100%.

Verdict: Good Call

Question 3: Who is the best Second Baseman in the last 25 years?

Result:
Ryne Sandberg: 27%
Roberto Alomar: 25%
Craig Biggio: 22%
Chase Utley: 15%
Jeff Kent: 12%

Chase Utley is great now, but you can't give him that distinction after just over 5 years in the league. Craig Biggio has good career numbers, but I think that's more due to accumulation throughout a lengthy career. Also, has any pitcher ever seen Craid Biggio in the lineup and worried about facing him? He gets votes because he has played tons of positions in the field, is old school and has been beaned more than anybody else. America loves tough guys. Jeff Kent is the best power hitter of the bunch, and I think should be in the Hall of Fame, but when comparing him with some of the other guys on this list, you have to consider his fielding, which was never his strong suit.

So that leaves it to Alomar and Sandberg. I initially voted Alomar, because the Vizquel/Alomar combo in Cleveland was one of the greatest things to watch in the 90s and because he's a career .300 hitter. I was too young to watch Sandberg play, but looking at his numbers, he looks like an 80s version of Robbie Alomar with more power but a lesser batting average. The fact that Sandberg has an MVP gives him the edge on paper, but there was debate as to whether Sandberg was deserving of the HOF. I don't see Alomar being debated at all.

Verdict: Good call, but I voted otherwise.

Question 4: Is Jeff Kent a Hall of Famer?

Result:
Eventually, but not first ballot: 59%
Not going to make it: 25%
First ballot 16%

He has the all-time record for Home Runs by a Second Basemen. So what if he wasn't a great fielder? Mike Piazza leads all Catchers in Home Runs and he was the worst fielding catcher in the past 15 years. Kent had his best years when Barry Bonds was on his team and dominating headlines. That is the reason why Kent won't get in on the first ballot, because he isn't a sexy name. But I maintain the argument: if Piazza is a first ballot guy, then so is Kent.

Verdict: Bad call, but HOF voters are too exclusive to put him in first ballot.

Question 5:

What is the best one-loss team in College Basketball:

Result:
Duke: 32%
Pittsburgh: 27%
UConn: 18%
Wake: 13%
Oklahoma: 10%

OU is still virtually a one-man team. Wake has the size and talent, but the experience is missing and their resume isn't as impressive as the others. Plus, I'll take returning powerhouses over emerging powerhouses any day. Personally, I think Duke has a decent resume, and that win over Georgetown looks good, but when you remember that Greg Monroe (a huge mismatch for undersized Duke) was basically removed from the game by foul trouble, it loses it a little. Duke still doesn't have a good big man (Singler is a SF in the NBA) and a team that relies as much on outside shooting as they do won't ever get my vote. The reason they win this poll is because they're Duke, and have the largest fan base in the nation. They're the Notre Dame of Hoops.

In my opinion that makes it between Pitt and UConn. I think Pitt is a three-man team, while UConn has 7 guys who could be stars of their teams if they played for teams like Iowa, Kansas State, Cal, or NC State. They have incredible depth and a lot of experience, and that was the same reason I picked Kansas last year in November and it's the reason I picked UConn this year.

Verdict: Bad call, Notre Dame lost 10 straight bowl games because they were overrated. Get where I'm going with this?