Capital One Bowl

Alabama is a 10 point favorite, and has been ever since the matchup was announced. It is strange for a spread to stay constant for that long. Either money isn't moving or the odds makers are very, very confident. I would guess both.

Think about it; both teams are rather hard to figure. Alabama lost 3 games this season, which makes the matchup against an 11-1 team look lopsided. But, those losses came to S.Carolina, LSU and Auburn (the LSU and Auburn losses by a combined 4 points). Ingram didn't play or was limited for half the season. McElroy was limited or hurt in a number of games, including the 1 point loss to Auburn. So, not too shabby.

MSU won a lot of close games, with trick plays and late comebacks, but lost big on the road to Iowa. Iowa is obviously a lot better than their final record looked and MSU was playing through a lot of unknown (but apparent) injuries on both sides of the ball. So...what does anyone really know about either team?

MSU can win this game. They don't need trick plays, or misdirection or big breaks. The game MSU can win is boring and technically beautiful. It comes down to 3 basics: Don't beat yourself (penalties, drops, fumbles), good play calling, and execution. Sounds obvious, but I really think MSU's best chance to win is just playing smart.

The first is one obvious: penalties kill your own drives, extend the opponent's drives, and negate special teams plays. In a game of inches you have to have positives on every possession. That means scoring, obviously, but it can also be as simple as holding the ball as long as possible and changing field possession on EVERY possession. Keep the other teams offense off the field and, if you have to give it back without scoring, pin them deep.

The second is less obvious, and perhaps the most important. Don't out think yourself and don't be predictable. Too often MSU play calling is so obvious I can tell you what the play will be before the snap. That can workout against a team of lesser talent; here's what I'm planning to do now try to stop me. However, 'Bama is not that kind of opponent. In fact, Alabama is bigger and stronger than MSU where it matters. To negate that speed and size playing calling must be nearly perfect. And I don't mean hitting homeruns. I mean calling the play that gets you 5 yards instead of losing 3. I mean the play that allows you to be in a 3rd and short rather than 3rd and 8+. It means having a shot to make a field goal on 4th down rather than being 4-6 yards out of range based on your 1st, 2nd and 3rd down choices. That will be the difference between MSU

winning and losing. And, again, because it is a game of inches, if play calling goes wrong (and Cousins is continually in 3rd and 11) things could go very bad, very quickly.

The third is pretty obvious. Even if the play calling is perfect players have to execute. Blocking has to be perfect, hand offs have to be clean. Shots down field, when they come, have to lead player that find space rather than hanging. Audibles have to be perfect. Kick coverage and punting have to be smart.

If those things come together MSU can win this game. Alabama can run the ball with 2 great, fast and physical backs. Unfortunately, once you sneak up to support the run game Julio Jones is a legit NFL receiver (think Anquan Boldin). McElroy can make the throws. This team can play a very balanced game and also just flat out beat you up for 4 yards a carry up the middle. That sounds scary until you realize MSU strength is linebacking and offensive line. MSU's strength might not be good enough to match up with 'Bama, but I would rather take my chances strength to strength. The secondary still isn't very smart.

Keshawn Martin needs to touch the ball often in space. Kick and punt returns, screens, end arounds, and perhaps from the backfield. He (and maybe fowler) are the only two real 1:1 match-ups MSU can exploit. I also like Baker and Bell at the second level. Look for one big run from Bell.

My guess:

MSU -- 34

Ala -- 31

Economic Rant

I don't know that I have ever agreed more with something I've heard on CNBC (Strategy Sessions) today than this. The guest was David Stockman. He was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for Reagan (1981-1985) and wrote the first edition of the modern tax code. Obviously it is almost unrecognizable now. Off topic. The point is, our expectations are just plain wrong. When will Obama fix the jobs problem? When will Republicans fix the jobs problem?

They won't. And sadly, no one will.

The problem is our expectations are based on 2003-2007. Why we expect that level of employment, and compensation, when the whole premise was false I will never figure out. Probably the same reason people are scammed by emails offering free money and prizes for something you never entered to win or from someone you've never heard of. Short term gain with little to no work (day trading based on speed rather than fundamentals). Corporate shareholders caring only about the bottom line (quarterly reports and profits above all else, employees and corporate responsibility be damned). Americans are dumb. And they want everything quick and painless. That ain't gonna happen.

No money down, no interest ballooning adjustable rate mortgages...with no documents ("how much do you make?" ---- "Uh, $80,000...yeah $80,000." --- "Ok, sign here!") for homes that are waaay too big, or second (or third) homes leveraged to the hilt and based on overtime from uaw jobs that were obviously paying unsupportable wages.

Its grim. But its true. We are, again, leveraging things back up. Printing money. Unwilling to let these "Bush tax cuts" expire. How are we going to pay for that? What sense does that make? No one wants to pay the price, sacrifice or do the right thing. The markets are, as Mr. Stockman says "daytrader" driven. They fluctuate based on daily moves by government and external influences, not real indicators any competent investor (Buffett anyone?) would consider. Listen to this guy, even if you find him (and the topics) boring.

We have to support the middle class with manufacturing jobs and highly technical (and ever changing and willing to look ahead) industrial and R&D. Until we do that, by investing in universities like MSU, Texas A&M and PSU as well as NASA and providing incentives to actual productivity we are moving closer to catastrophe again.

There are no moral victories

There are wins and losses. This was a loss.

The sad thing is this very easily could have been an 8-10 point MSU win. No really. Hit some free throws, stop the careless turnovers (over and back with no pressure?!) and don't play Nix. Duke scored about 10 points off Nix alone, and missed scoring about 10 more (he cannot seem to get back to his man on high screens, Duke failed to find wide open players multiple times).

There were a couple of subtle, but VERY important* differences in this game. First, Lucious -- for the most part -- slowed his brain down a little. He only picked up his dribble once that I remember. He only forced a couple of passes to covered players. He finished VERY strong. Korie did all that as the primary ball handler; I would guess K.Lucious played the point at a 2:1 ratio to Lucas.

Second, and finally, this team decided to play to their strength. In the past, pressure defense against the ball handler (and wings trying to run half court sets) was a disaster. Last night Tom Izzo either turned his head or, more likely, gave an explicit green light to make overplaying defenders pay the price. Repeatedly Lucas, Green and most notably Lucious isolated and blew by their defender. I would venture it lead to 15-20 of MSU points. It also backed the defense off some and lead to dukie defensive breakdowns and, ultimately, clean msu looks for long jumpshots.

This is big. This is really big. It adds a wrinkle to the MSU offense that will keep man to man teams at bay (and should open up the half court sets more), and also plays to the MSU strengths with mismatches for Green and Lucas. Zones are a little bit different, but again, you attack a zone at seams by driving and finishing or kicking. Driving, under control and strong, is a good thing to see.

Nix is a disaster. I don't even know where to start. Payne looks like a newborn giraffe with the ball in the open floor. I'm a little concerned about Lucas' new "euro-step" layup, aka traveling. So far it has worked. I just hope it doesn't finally get called at a big moment this season.

I agree with J.Rexrode (LSJ) that Appling could be the difference should these teams meet again this year. He is very, very talented and can also put the ball on the floor. Sherman** was solid most of the game. Roe was mostly a non factor on offense but, along with Thornton, got screwed out of a few free throws on no calls. Roe played well enough and defended well. As a whole the team rebounded great. Duke was, for the most part, one and done. The problems came when Duke's "one" was a made shot, especially the 3's halfway through the second half.

All in all, I wasn't upset. Although it was sloppy and there were still far too many turnovers, when I would look down at the score, we were usually within 4 points. I can't be too upset with that against the supposed "head and shoulders" #1 team in the country at home.

* Important in my mind, which means it is likely not important.
** Pretty solid finishes around the rim. Missed a dime from Green late. Still no break on those hands. He can't catch a pass. Almost all his points came off the bounce, not the pass.