Back To The Future Conference Championship Games

Everyone loves talking about conference realignment, it appears, but some really hate the idea of a conference championship game taking away some of the luster of Michigan-Ohio State or, worse, regularly pitting the Michigan-OSU winner against some goofy school in the Western half of the conference that may or may not be worth the bid.

I do agree with them, partially: there's no reason to go to divisions. Divisions will either split Michigan and Ohio State, leading to a lot of Michigan-Ohio State title games the week after Michigan-Ohio State non-title games, or keep them together, leading to a lot of Big 12-style title games that aren't fair fights or compelling matchups. Ideally, an expanded Big Ten will add a ninth conference game and continue with the single table for standings. This would make a title game a dodgy, sometimes unnecessary possibility. But since Penn State joined the conference there have been co-championships galore, sometimes without the co-champions even meeting, seemingly random Rose Bowl decisions, and a general feeling of being zo... unsatysfyed about half the time. Let's survey the years since Penn State joined to see if a championship game would be net benefit or detriment.

1993
Ohio State and Wisconsin are co-champions at 6-1-1 in conference; the two tie 14-14. Wisconsin goes to the Rose Bowl because Ohio State has been more recently.
Verdict: Obviously a championship game to break this deadlock is desirable, but this situation will never come up again with the introduction of overtime. Not relevant.
1994
Undefeated Penn State is the outright champion. Nobody else finishes the regular season with fewer than four losses.
Verdict: A championship game would be unnecessary and, worse, would open up the possibility of a K-State-esque fall from glory from a team that had already proven its worth. No.
1995
Northwestern's miracle year. They beat Notre Dame, then lose to Miami (Ohio) and sweep the rest of their schedule. They miss second place Ohio State, whose only regular season loss is to Michigan in the finale.
Verdict: Ohio State missed out on an opportunity to beat Northwestern head to head and claim the title. Yes, they lost in conference and Northwestern did not but in a hypothetical world where OSU got a ninth conference game against the Wildcats, if they won they would have the same record and a head-to-head tiebreaker. It would have been fairer to have the two play. Yes.
1996
Northwestern's second miracle year; this time they tie for the conference championship with Ohio State, who again blow an undefeated season by losing to Michigan. Both teams are 7-1 this year, and the two don't play each other.
Verdict: Obvious benefit here. This, along with the coming Iowa-OSU shared title, are the platonic ideal when it comes to title games. Yes.
1997
Michigan's national championship season. The Wolverines are undefeated. Penn State and Ohio State tie for second at 6-2. Michigan defeats both of them during the course of the year.
Verdict: Two contenders two games back who have already lost to the champion don't deserve a rematch. No.
1998
A three-way tie between Michigan, Ohio State, and Wisconsin. All are 7-1. Wisconsin and Ohio State do not play. OSU's loss is to Michigan State, Michigan's is to Ohio State, and Wisconsin's is to Michigan. Wisconsin is chosen as the Rose Bowl representative for no apparent reason.
Verdict: This is an unfulfilling result. Wisconsin plays an easier schedule than Michigan, loses to them, and still goes to the Rose Bowl. Meanwhile, Ohio State beats the team that beat Wisconsin and still misses out. But how do you unravel the three-way-tie here? If both teams had beaten the other it's easy to excise the loser, but here we have an incomplete round-robin. If you go by overall record, 11-1 Wisconsin and 11-1 Ohio State win out but that just increases the incentive to fluff your schedule: Wisconsin played SDSU, Ohio, and UNLV out of conference while Michigan played Syracuse, ND, and EMU. Let's just throw up our hands and say maybe.
1999
Wisconsin finally earns a Rose Bowl berth instead of having one handed to them by archaic bylaws by finishing 7-1. Their loss is to 6-2 Michigan, which ties for second with Michigan State. Wisconsin beats Michigan State, Michigan State beats Michigan.
Verdict: We have an outright champion that played the runners-up. Even if it lost to one of them, a championship game here is not necessary. No.
2000
Another three-way-tie, this one between Michigan, Northwestern, and Purdue. All are 6-2. Michigan's losses are to Northwestern and Purdue; Purdue loses to under .500 Penn State and Michigan State; Northwestern loses to Purdue and Iowa.
Verdict: This three-way is easy to untangle: Michigan gets booted because it lost to both other co-champions. Then we're left with Purdue and Northwestern, who tied in the standings but also met on the field with Purdue winning. This one is a matter of taste. Personally, it wouldn't be a tragedy if the two had a rematch. Maybe.
2001
Illinois is the outright champion. Their only loss is to second place Michigan; Michigan drops games against Ohio State and Michigan State.
Verdict: Odd situation, this, with an outright champion who lost to a second place team a game behind. A rematch wouldn't be a terrible thing. Maybe. Do you change your mind if reminded that the 2001 Michigan State game was the infamous "clockgate" game? Note than any State fans wishing to make their weak case that they are not filthy cheaters should consider the horrible vengance Angry Michigan Safety Hating God has wreaked on the Spartans: the next year, of course, was the 49-3 meltdown that got Bobby Williams fired and they hired the only guy they could find who was a bigger laughingstock than Williams, who proceeded to lose four straight to Michigan, two of them in excruciating fashion. Yea, you reap what you sow.
2002
Iowa and Ohio State are both undefeated. They don't play each other.
Verdict: Obviously yes.
2003
Michigan is the outright champion. Their only conference loss is to Iowa, but the Hawkeyes end up 5-3. Michigan defeats second place, 6-2 Ohio State on the final day of the season.
Verdict: An outright champion that beat the second-place team. No.
2004
Iowa and Michigan are co-champs. Michigan's only loss is to Ohio State; Iowa loses to Michigan in the Big Ten opener.
Verdict: A matter of personal preference like a few previous years. Maybe.
2005
Ohio State and Penn State are co-champs. Both are 7-1. Penn State's loss is to Michigan. Ohio State's loss is to Penn State.
Verdict: Repeat of last year. Maybe.
2006
Ohio State burns a swath of destruction through the Big Ten, skipping Wisconsin. Second place is a 7-1 tie between the Badgers and Michigan. Michgan loses to OSU; Wisconsin loses to Michigan.
Verdict: Another sticky wicket. We have an outright champ who missed one of the second place teams but putting Wisconsin in the title game over Michigan seems to stupidly reward an easier schedule and ignore head-to-head. But what's the point of replaying a game you just saw? No.

We have one not applicable, five no, three yes, and a whopping five maybes. Your personal opinion on the maybes will influence your stand considerably. Personally, I don't mind if we get a rematch when two teams are tied in the standings.

I have a suggestion that may be logistically impossible, but here goes: the Big Ten should have an optional title game. Outright champion? No title game. But if two (or more) teams end up tied at the end of the year, put a game on in Chicago or Indianapolis between the co-champs. If three teams are tied, break ties like so:

• If one team has lost to both others, they're out.
• Eliminate the team with the weakest conference schedule.
• If one team has lost to another co-champion and didn't play the second, they're out.
• I dunno, overall record?

The Big Ten will be wasting some money on preparations on years there is no title game but there would obviously be a net profit, and the Big Ten championship would end up more satisfying overall. Year by year, this system would result in the following games:

1994: None.
1995: None.

1996: Northwestern vs. Ohio State.
1997: None.
1998: Michigan vs. Ohio State.
1999: None.
2000: Northwestern vs. Purdue.

2001: None.
2002: Iowa vs Ohio State.
2003: None.
2004: Iowa vs Michigan.
2005: Ohio State vs Penn State.

2006: None.

Six games in 13 years, only one of them a weird "let's play a doubleheader" Michigan-OSU game, and no more stupid co-championships or undeserved Wisconsin Rose Bowls. In this scenario a hypothetical twelfth team has been added; if the number of games does not expand there will be significantly more Iowa-OSU 2002 situations and a title game will happen more often.

Yes, this is all pretty stupid speculation when I really should be previewing Big Ten teams. I'm on it.

Big Ten Expansion: Pros and Cons

Yesterday's FanHouse post on Big Ten expansion must have set a record for number of intelligent comments without someone who types in all caps interjecting his learned opinion. And it's an interesting subject, so let's expound.

The situation: the Des Moines Register talks to Jim Delaney and Kirk Ferentz; the subject of conference expansion comes up. Delaney points out that there is a powerful new motive to expand: the Big Ten Network. A new school provides that much more content for the channel to carry and, if it's in a place not currently a part of the network's footprint, that many more basic cable subscribers. Hopefully. Maybe. Probably not if it's Rutgers.

So, goal for expansion:

• Maintain the CIC's high standards. The CIC is an academic consortium consisting of the Big Ten schools and the U of Chicago. It's a big deal to people, so any school admitted should have serious research going on in their grad schools and so forth and so on. Large public state schools are the preferred targets, although exceptions can be made.
• Expand the geographical reach of the conference. This increases the core recruiting area for the conference, the number of eyeballs watching on television, and the amount of money flowing into the BTN's coffers.
• Add interesting football teams.
• Add interesting basketball teams.
• Try to keep travel costs down by picking someone reasonably nearby.

And on with the contenders...

The Big East

Syracuse

PROs: An academic fit. Good basketball program. Adds upstate New York as a television market -- NYC won't care. Considering the addition of hockey. Football program has rich history.

CONs: Football program stuck in long-term malaise since departure of McNabb. Plays home games in snoozy dome named for maker of air conditioners. Sort of an awkward geographic fit, though it's a shorter distance to Syracuse than it is to Penn State from here if you use the wonder of Canada.

Verdict: A plan B school. It would bring in a decent-sized market that has few pro sports, but sexiness level is very low.

Rutgers

PROs: Also an academic fit. Better location than Syracuse; has the only program in the universe that could get New York City interested in college football even a little; even if it doesn't still brings in New Jersey. Provides a real rival for Penn State.

As potential world domination plans go, "conquer New York" is third only to capturing Notre Dame or audaciously (and mildly senselessly) picking off Texas from the Big Twelve.

CONs: Has been a total doormat for the enter non-Schiano existence of their program. Last year's Texas Bowl win was great... but as a 40 year high point not so much. Basketball program also bleah.

Verdict: A high stakes gamble, and how. Michigan's in on a ton of New Jersey recruits this year, so I've noticed a new trend: these guys are actually listing and seriously considering Rutgers. Safety Brandon Smith has them slightly trailing us. JB Fitzgerald has them in his top group with UF and us. Witherspoon listed them. They're probably going to get offensive lineman Art Forst. This is a new development, and even if they're striking out on the kinds of guys that get offers from Michigan and UF they're probably going to recruit better than a lot of mid-level Big Ten schools this year. Joining the Big Ten would probably be another boost. So... I don't think this is a flash in the pan. As long as Schiano stays.

That's the bet here: that Schiano can be a program patriarch for the Scarlet Knights. That Rutgers success can be sustained. That when Joe Paterno finally retires, he stays. That the move to the Big Ten provides a further boost. That the program is relevant enough to retain people's interest. Because the downside here is stark: my God, we've admitted Temple.

Louisville

PROs: An up-and-comer in college athletics, dumping money into their programs. Poised for long term success in both football and basketball. Adds a foothold in SEC country, bringing in markets in Kentucky.

CONs: Academics don't measure up; are reputedly not even close. Definitely a new money situation here: stadium named after a pizza company, JUCO-heavy basketball team, etc. Will they continue their success under Kragthorpe?

Verdict: But for the academics, a good choice. I would prefer them to any other available team save the real home runs; unfortunately I think the CIC thing is a dealbreaker.

Cincinnati

PROs: Geographic fit. Finally had the stones to jettison Bob Huggins; basketball team now sucky but not a haven for delinquents. Would provide instate competition for Ohio State.

CONs: Just recently jumped out of CUSA and unlike UL has experienced scant success. Only real success was under the shadow of Huggins. I don't know about their academics.

Also: I always, always spell it "Cincinatti," and I'd have to correct it a lot more often. No thanks.

Verdict: What's the point? Is anyone going to think to themselves "oooh, Cincinnati"? No.

Pitt

PROs: Geographic and academic fit. Also provides natural rival for Penn State. Football program has rich history; basketball program would be a fine addition.

CONs: Michigan and OSU are already raiding the hell out of the WPIAL. Adding Pitt opens no new recruiting grounds and only marginally raises interest in the Pittsburgh market. Their football fanbase would be amongst the worst in the conference.

Verdict: I guess. I would rather take a chance on Rutgers, personally.

UConn

PROs: Killer basketball program. Would expand the Big Ten into some new England media markets.

CONs: Football program remains fledgling. About as much of a geographic fit as Nebraska.

Verdict: Meh. They're like Louisville except their football team hasn't proven anything yet.

West Fuckin' Virginia

PROs: Darling of the moment with Rich Rodriguez staying, and if he turns down 'Bama's millions he's probably in for the long haul. Will have a good, if sleazy, basketball team with Huggins around.

CONs: Isn't WVU a really crap school? Huggins should be a net negative. Football program has strong flash-in-the-pan characteristics.

Verdict: Academics are a dealbreaker, I think.

The Big Twelve

Missouri

PROs: Geographic fit with decent academics. Natural basketball rivalry with Illinois. Opens up Missouri, St. Louis.

CONs: Hasn't won anything in football since 1969. That won't change in the Big Ten. Basketball program mostly known for having gel-slicked cheater Quinn Snyder in charge for way too long.

Verdict: Meh.

Iowa State

PROs: It's in Iowa.

CONs: Inept at every sport it ever tried. Brings in no new markets. No upside here.

Verdict: No way.

Nebraska

PROs: Rich football tradition. Would be competitive and bring cachet. Nebraska fans travel like mofos and would probably be fun to have around.

CONs: No other sports of note. Geographically distant. Nebraska is not a rich area to pluck recruits from. They would remind us of [BOWL REDACTED] and force us to strangle them and then we would be in jail.

Verdict: Nebraska fans occasionally bring this up as a possible escape hatch from the Big Twelve and their unbalanced TV contracts. An interesting possibility, but the geography is a negative and they don't bring anything except football. Tempting, but no.

Texas

PROs: Outstanding academics, outstanding football, outstanding basketball, outstanding fans. Austin is a great city. Brings in huge television and recruiting benefits.

CONs: Is in freaking Texas.

Verdict: Except for the bizarre geography, a perfect fit. Would be an earth-shattering move tectonic in scope. Would be better than Notre Dame.

But... really doubtful Texas would ever go for this. Would restrict their ability to schedule anyone ever again, as I assume OU would stay on the schedule plus probably A&M, then they'd just have to rotate two Texas schools for the rest of time. Non-revenue sports would all of a sudden have killer travel costs... and what do they do with their baseball and softball teams, both of which they like quite a bit? Playing in a virtual mid major is going to be a harsh blow.

Sadly, this is never going to happen.

Other

Notre Dame

PROs: Geography, academics, football. It keeps coming up because it's an obvious fit. Rivalries with MSU, Purdue, Michigan. No new markets, but they are kind of a big deal in college football.

CONs: Midwest would be full of suicide bombers from NDNation.

Verdict: One of us... one of us... one of us...

Miami, Ohio

PROs: Fine academic school with the appropriate geography. One of the more successful MAC programs historically. As the "Cradle of Coaches" has long-standing ties with the conference.

CONs: Is a MAC school, brings no new markets, and probably wouldn't be that competitive. Like Northwestern++.

Verdict: No.

Kentucky

PROs: Like Louisville except with a killer basketball program and a dire football one (this year's pending aberration excepted). And they're a better school.

CONs: As noted, dire football program.

Verdict: As a charter member of the SEC they wouldn't go for it, I don't think. And though the basketball program is interesting, football runs the world.

Boston College

PROs: Perennially decent at both basketball and football. Hockey team a national power (not that we'll all of a sudden have a Big Ten hockey conference, but we'd probably set something up regular-like w/ them). Academically a fit. Provides access to Boston media market and, by, extension, much of New England. Weird fit geographically but less weird than their current conference.

CONs: Geography. Check any Bill Simmons column for the general interest in collegiate sports in the Boston area.

Verdict: A strong candidate behind the home runs.

One Man's Order of Preference

1. Texas
2. Notre Dame
3. Louisville
4. Rutgers
5. Boston College
6. Nebraska
7. Missouri
8. Pitt

...the rest I don't care for.

One Man's Order of Likelihood

This is hard to project. I assume this is what will happen: the Big Ten tells everyone plans are afoot, gets the BTN up and running. Once we know how that's going, the Big Ten waits until ND's NBC contract expires and tries to get the Irish again. Once that doesn't work, it settles down to business. So... we have three years to see if Rutgers is going to hold it together and if UConn is going to step up. If Rutgers remains good and interest holds up...

1. Rutgers
2. Pitt
3. Missouri
4. Boston College
5. UConn

I Find The Productive Conversations We Are Having To Be Very Productive And Conversationy

Yeah, the post headers are broken in Firefox. Dunno why. Looking into it.

Everything about the Big Ten Network is productive. They have conversations which produce things. Not, like, agreements with major cable providers, sure, but expensive lunches, fan anger, and inexplicable fawning from Free Press employees. Mark Snyder's latest is... um... weird. I'd gotten used to Snyder as a news-guy who brings information and does not offer opinion, and now we have evidence as to why. His latest "blog" -- sorry about the scare quotes, but the Free Press doesn't even make any pretense, they just throw up a story and label it a blog -- is a stunningly Pollyanna thing that seems like it came directly from the mighty PR bowels of the Big Ten office.

Now is the time on Sprockets when we fisk.

The upcoming Big Ten Network is an outstanding idea.

From the moment it was announced last summer, it seemed ideal, filling a void that has existed since the explosion of cable televised sports in the past decade.

Wait... what void? Virtually every Big Ten game of import is televised nationally on ABC or basic cable. Basketball fans can catch any game that's not against Maryland-Baltimore County or equivalents on local syndication. Anyone out-of-market can buy ESPN's Gameplan for a reasonable price and get every game his team plays. The 95% of Big Ten fans who don't care about hockey should have absolutely no quarrel with the current state of coverage.

The next few months will be rocky if the large cable deals aren’t signed. Fans will start to worry about missing college football games and likely blame the network.

...yes, they will. Because it will be the network's fault. This is the ideal blame situation, when you can blame the thing that is at blame.

But that will be a temporary blip and Silverman knows it, that’s why his patience is impressive.

Justification for this is... what? His "patience" is impressive? This sound exactly like "we are not going to be on cable this fall" spun 180 degrees. Bill Martin wants to end the ND series! Patience is a virtue when it comes to getting on basic cable, because Lord knows we don't want to rush into something like having people watch our channel. I have patience, too. It expires the first time Michigan is shoehorned onto the Big Ten Network and I have to scramble to find it.

The network’s long-term future should withstand any early frustrations because, unlike CSTV and ESPNU, the Big Ten will have significant content from the start.

Guaranteeing at least two appearances by every conference football team was perfect. That way they’re not debuting with only second-tier events and appear legitimate. Much like the NFL Network's securing late-season football telecasts, fans will chase their teams wherever they are -- as long as they don’t have to pay extra for the privilege.

This is terrifying to me. In the latest chat on the Big Ten Network's official site:

Question: If we have already contacted our local cable provider and they have told us that they have no plans to carry the Big Ten Network this fall, what are we as fans to do at this point? Comcast is telling inquiring customers that they have no plans to carry the network.
Posted By: Tom from East Lansing, MI
5/24/2007 12:49:01 PM

And wait... perfect? Much like the NFL Network's brilliant plan to force cable operators to carry them by getting exclusive rights to a few NFL games? That worked so brilliantly that the NFL Network got on basic cable... nowhere. And they're charging 70 cents instead of the preposterous $1.10 the Big Ten Network has been demanding.

His track record includes launching the ESPN Zone restaurant chain -- an unqualified success -- so he has a feel for the people‘s wishes. That’s why he plans to be available with online chats at www.bigtennetwork.com, including the first one this Thursday at 1 p.m.

Online chats! This is definitely on the right track!

What the network realizes, and is lost on CSTV and ESPNU, is that college sports rarely have national appeal during their seasons. Only at the very end -- with college football being the lone exception -- do fans care about more than their conference and their team.

What does that even mean? CSTV and ESPNU are low-cost, no-access channels with no compelling programming, granted. Given that "patience" is now being espoused, it appears that the BTN will be a high-cost, no-access channel with compelling programming like Michigan-Appalachian State. Both situations suck, but only one is suffused in the gasoline of hubris, ready to be lit aflame in fall when football fans can't get the games they would have if this channel did not exist. I thought the whole point of the Big Ten Network was to increase access to Big Ten sports to fans; the way this is going there will be a net decrease. Fewer games will be shown nationally. Each team will have two games relegated to a regional cable ghetto.

Snyder makes no sense here. The big draw he has just espoused is football. He praises the Big Ten for "understanding" the provincial nature of college sports and their lack of widespread appeal mere paragraphs after praising the Big Ten for creating "compelling" programming by... locking away football games.

The Big Ten Network brass already understands the challenge of stability is for a long-term deal, not simply a rush to line it up for Sept. 1. That’s why they’ll wait until they can reach the widest audience possible.

We are screwed. The Big Ten Network understands that they can force cable providers into a deal they don't want to accept because they're obviously more important than the NFL.

Silverman and his staff will hear your complaints. They just may not deserve it.

Yeah... wow. An embarrassing shill job.

About this chat thing. It's totally awesomely useful:

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF YOUR NEGOTIATIONS WITH DISH NETWORK?

negotiations are moving along very well with all satellite and cable providers.

You say you have reached an agreement with 40 cable companies. Which companies are these.

these agreements will be announced as the contracts are signed over the next few weeks

We have heard that the Big Ten Network will be a good thing because it gives fans more access to Big Ten programming. However lets say you are unsuccesful with distribution and only people with DirectTV can see it. What are your plans in this case so millions of loyal fans in the region don't miss games.

we are working hard to make sure all big ten fans can see their teams play. It is very early in the distribution process and we are making great progress with distributors.

And this... is just... I don't know what it is:

Question: Will you show video's of boys climbing ropes. I used to really like that about gym class and would love to relive the moments. I mean there's nothing like a good old time rope climb to lighten the spirits. I do say I'd really enjoy a show about boys climbing rope
Posted By: Billy from Cicero, IL
5/24/2007 12:18:55 PM

Mark Silverman - Big Ten Network President's Response: we will have 35+ HD football games, well over 100 HD basketball games, not to mention olympic sports and women's sports.

BOYS! CLIMBING ROPES!

!!!

Question: I am pessimistic about your negotiations with Comcast considering their history with sports networks, i.e. a long delay to add FSN Detroit HD, moving ESPN Classic to digital, moving NFLN to the sports tier, not including ESPNU and CSTV in the sports tier, etc. Why should I be optimistic?
Posted By: James from Detroit, MI
5/24/2007 12:22:15 PM

Mark Silverman - Big Ten Network President's Response: we think the big ten network has a unique appeal that doesn't compare with other networks. we have over 40 cable deals agreed to on terms that we think are fair and reasonable and we believe we will continue striking agreements as we continue.

What is the possibility Time Warner Cable will carry The BTN? We have not had much success getting them to carry NFL Network, so I have concerns they won't carry the BTN either.

we have had very productive conversations with time warner and all cable/satellite providers.

Myself and a lot of friends have Dish Network. We are die hard Illinois Fans and we want to be able to see all the games. how close is Dish Network to signing the Big Ten Network?

we have had productive conversations with dish network.

Well, all my concerns have been assuaged.

This has disaster written all over it. When the Big Ten Network was announced, I thought it was a great idea given the following assumptions:

• The existing ESPN-ABC setup, which is very kind to the Big Ten, would remain untouched.
• Football on the network would restricted to Michigan State-Indiana, Illinois-Northwestern, and the like, giving those mediocre games a place to go other than ESPN+ syndication.
• The network would, like, you know, be available.

In an outburst of stunning hubris, the Big Ten has horned in on the ESPN distribution, in some weeks grabbing the second-best game available, guaranteed that every team is exiled to purgatory at least twice, and made demands not even the NFL could pull off. Even basketball coverage will get hurt if they maintain their exclusivity and don't get on basic cable, as ESPN+ syndication that got those games on locally will evaporate.

There's still time for the BTN to find itself on cable providers. And as long as I get it, even on a digital tier, I'm fine with that. But if it is relegated to the CSTV/ESPNU land of satellite-only access, there will be a conniption fit here and across the Big Ten region, and it will be deserved. Silverman's vague claims of productivity and "40 cable providers" seem intentionally misleading, which makes me think that things are going poorly. Snyder's breathless praise of Silverman's "patience" -- not a virtue in this situation -- makes me think things have reached an impasse and that the public rhetoric is changing in preparation for an August controversy.

google image search + "sweet pig justice" == guinea pig Damien

It's times like these I wish we were all Arkansas fans, because nobody screws with Arkansas fans without some sweet pig justice coming the other way. Heck, you can get to the SEC championship game and still receive sweet pig justice. They're itching to dispense it. If we were Arkansas fans, Jim Delaney would be hiding out in an Afghani cave and Mark Silverman would be a quivering hobo trying to trade sneaky rhetoric for booze. Also we would be really into fishing, if my one brief visit to a Natural State gas station/restaurant/fishing supply store is any indication. But wouldn't have to deal with this.