One of these teams is not like the others

And, yes, one of these teams just doesn't belong--in the playoffs, that is.

This is what I saw in NFL action yesterday:

One team, who hasn't played particularly consistently this year, was going on the road against one of the "hotter" teams in the NFL, into conditions that were not only challenging but totally unfamiliar. All this against one of the league's best magicians, who had a record of consistent brilliance in the early-winter weather that was a part of every December in this particular place.

The result? The Jags put up 28 points and force 3 Brett Favre turnovers--two of them in the Jags' endzone--en route to a stunning upset in Green Bay.

Another team also went on the road, albeit to external conditions (i.e. weather) that was not unusual for this team to be playing in. Their competition was, however, also a play-off caliber team--in fact, the home team HAD to win to keep whatever playoff hopes they had alive.

The result? The Bills dominated the Bengals, continuing their superb play of late.

ANOTHER team went on the road into totally familiar surroundings--as in, every other year it seems these two teams play a game in this stadium at this time of the year. The road team had EVERYTHING to gain--and lose--riding on this game; the home team was just playing for pride, with their best running back and wide receiver out of the lineup due to injury.

The result? The Broncos, for the third time this year on a nationally-televised game, stink up the joint!

All 3 teams are now at 8-6. The Jags have the easiest road to go to reach 10-6; the Bills have a good chance (especially the way they've been playing lately) to get to 10-6 also; and then there's the B-men. With a road game against Tennessee (which put up a lot of points yesterday vs. the Raiders) and a home game against Indianapolis to go, they don't have an easy path to get to 10-6.

Looks like they won't wait 'til the playoffs to break our hearts this year.

Riddle me this: how can a team consistently in the top 8 in both total offense AND total defense end up year after year looking at the playoffs from the spectator's couch?

At some point in time, it's gotta come down to Shanny. Yes, he's a marvelous player-getter--but his major free-agent pick-ups of the last two seasons (Jake Plummer and the Champ) have been less than consistent. And one of our most pressing needs--the ability to get pressure on the QB with just a 4-man rush--has gone unanswered for 2 WHOLE YEARS now! (Not to mention: I thought one of the reasons we got Champ was so that we didn't have to rely on a 4-man rush? Hmmm. . .) And I still haven't seen him out-coach anybody in the latter part of a game in a looooong time.

At some point, that's got to be less about the players than it is about the system. . .


So as the AFC playoff race heads down the wire, one great truth emerges: if any of the teams currently at 8-6 want to make it to 10-6, they're going to have to earn it.

Southern Maryland happenings

First, a little background: I currently live in Southern Maryland. This is a beautiful land, with plenty of trees (GORGEOUS falls!) and plenty of space. It is fairly conservative politically--two of the three counties that "make" SoMD went for Bush this year, and the third was neck-and-neck. And yes, there is an element of "red-neckdom" here--but I don't view that as a bad thing!

So in this culturally conservative area, I find the following happenings around town to be of interest:

The WaPo did an article this week called "Teacher's Request to use Personal Days in Dispute". This story is about a SoMD elementary school teacher with 30 years of experience in the county who requested to take the 3 school days prior to the 4-day Thanksgiving weekend off as "personal days". The school Principal, for reasons not entirely clarified in the article (there is mention of an "overrid(ing) concern about keeping enough teachers in classrooms over the holiday week"), denied the request. The teacher filed a grievance, and the Principal responded by saying that if the teacher could provide a compelling reason for the leave, it would be granted.

So far, this all seems fairly mature. The Principal has her reasons for saying no and has the AUTHORITY to say no (the article points out that the leave requests must be approved by the petitioner's supervisor, which should be the Principal). When presented with a grievance, Mrs. Principal simply asked for a reason to tilt her personal decision-making scale in favor of the teacher. This is how I believe management and employees should work--decisions should not be made "in a vacuum", and when a grievance is filed in accordance with regulations, it needs to be addressed--not conceded to, mind you, just addressed. I think the Principal, so far, as acted as one might hope a professional administrator would act.

But then the story breaks down. In response to the Principal's request for a compelling reason, the teacher essentially responded with (and I quote from the article): "Personal days are personal--I don't have to give a reason." And she, also, is exactly correct--she doesn't HAVE to give a reason.

But the Principal doesn't HAVE to allow the leave, either. And in this case, said Principal did NOT approve the leave. And this is where it gets really interesting!

The teacher, unwilling to work those three days, also unwilling to call in sick for those three days, and ALSO unwilling to accept the letter of reprimand that would result from her just not showing up for those 3 days, decides to retire. Which is entirely her choice--the fact that the administration is given the burden of finding a way to responsibly educate the teacher's class is merely an aside to the story at this point.

Chew on this for a second: who is this teacher thinking about when she decided to retire? Is she thinking about the school? Is she thinking about the union that has employed her for 30 years? Most importantly, is she thinking about the children? Heck no! She's thinking about herself, and her precious 3 days of leave versus her precious record that can't be tarnished by the awful shame of a letter of reprimand--a letter which, it should be said, would have no effect on her pay, either now or in retirement. But she's got scruples, at least--she won't call in sick because that would be wrong! (This is what happens when ideals are so small in scale that they can't even see the top of the heap of problems that have got to be addressed and resolved)

Now, she wants her job back. And as you might imagine, the WaPo take on the article is entirely pro-teacher: she's a worker of great pedigree and record who was unjustly wronged by a management that didn't look out for the needs of either the employees or the students, blah blah blah. . .

Listen, folks, the bottom line is this: she retired. Her choice, when faced with 3 otherwise somewhat acceptable options (not that I condone calling in sick to backdoor the personal leave system), was to create a 4th option that severed her relationship with the school system. And now she wants her job back?

Sorry, lady, that ship has sailed. If you want to teach in the district again, you go through the same ringamorale (nice word!) that every other applicant goes through. If you get a job, there's a 1-in-300 (or whatever the number of classrooms are in the district) chance that it will be in the same school and at the same level as the job you had in October of this year. And depending on the rules of the contract down there, my personal take is that her previous 30 years of experience should not count with regards to pay and benefits. And if she does get re-hired, she clearly shouldn't draw a pension (for her previous service) while still in the employ of the school district.

This wasn't a "leave of absence"--this was a hissy-fit gone awry. And she should be treated appropriately by the school district.

Item #2: my son came home from school this week full of information about Kwanzaa. Turns out that one of his class' topics du jour was Kwanzaa, and he was filled to the brim with information about the holiday. I, of course, was a little shocked. Having never understood Kwanzaa (the roots, the reason, etc.), I had assumed that it was a religious holiday on par with Christmas and Hannukah--both of which surely would NEVER be taught in a public school, unfortunately.

So I asked my boy a few questions about what he had learned. It is a credit to the little guy that he was able to give answers to my queries--also a credit to the teacher, who apparently did a good job of transmitting the message the school wanted to send about Kwanzaa. It appeared at no time did their study take on a "religious" context--and my "shock" died down.

But I was still curious about Kwanzaa itself. And I went to this website that talks about the origins and purpose of the holiday. And I see contradiction, at least in terms of the "message" of the school district. Oh, how I love research!

On the website (ostensibly written by the founder of Kwanzaa--it doesn't get much more original-source than that!), they stress that Kwanzaa is NOT a religious holiday. From the site: "Finally, it is important to note Kwanzaa is a cultural holiday, not a religious one, thus available to and practiced by Africans of all religious faiths who come together based on the rich, ancient and varied common ground of their Africanness."

What else is Kwanzaa? Well, it is "an expression of recovery and reconstruction of African culture which was being conducted in the general context of the Black Liberation Movement of the '60's". . .

Also, "Kwanzaa was created to introduce and reinforce the Nguzo Saba (the Seven Principles)"--one of which is Imani--which means "faith", or to go a step further: "To believe with all our heart in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders and the righteousness and victory of our struggle";

Lastly, "an emphasis on the importance of African communitarian values in general, which stress family, community and culture and speak to the best of what it means to be African and human in the fullest sense."

So let me get this straight: my son is taught about this "cultural event" in his public school--an event that stresses the separation of the African culture from the AMERICAN culture that is what should REALLY be taught in this public school?

Listen, I don't have a problem with teaching the principles of hard work, community-minded responsibility, belief in a cause, etc. I DO, however, have a problem with a public school district recognizing that this "Separation Celebration" is more worthy of my kid's attention during this season than are the roots of "THE" season.

And you can't even say that it's a religious thing--thanks to Kwanzaa. You see, there is one other element of Kwanzaa that I left out from above: "Kwanzaa is. . . a time of special reverence for the creator and creation in thanks and respect for the blessings, bountifulness and beauty of creation".

So Kwanzaa brings creationism (not directly, but it IS a central meme to the celebration of Kwanzaa) into my son's classroom during this season--but the Judeo-Christian beliefs that spring from creationism and are so central to defining what this season means to, say, 90% of the population of this school district, get left at the gutter's edge. The hypocrisy of public education knows no limits!

Third item: DC's bid to get a baseball team. Could this be any more comical???

More Bronco rants

Yes, I know there are more important things going on in the world, but indulge me while I do my annual "did the Broncos screw it up big-time again?" playoff guessing!

In answer to the above question: no, not yet. Thanks to Baltimore losing yesterday, Denver is still tied for the last playoff spot in the AFC. Granted, if the season ended today, the Ravens would get that spot thanks to their conference record. But buck up, B-man fans: after the likely outcome of this weekend's games, Denver SHOULD be 8-5 and no worse than tied with the Ravens in terms of conference record as well (Baltimore plays an NFC team in a game that they will probably win). In fact, let's look head-to-head at the OTHER teams involved in the playoff race:

BALTIMORE has two games they should win, both at home, and 2 games that I don't think anybody would want to have on their schedule (on the road at Indianapolis and Pittsburgh). I'd have to say that it's likely that they'll end up 9-7, with a 6-6 conference record. However, if they sneak in a 10th win, they'll be pretty happy.

JACKSONVILLE let a key game slip away last night as Pittsburgh continues to prove that they are one of the top teams in the league. While it was a bad loss for the Jags, they have the easiest road to go for the remaining 4 weeks, with only one game that SHOULD prove challenging (that being on the road in Green Bay. . .in December. . .ugh!) So I have to say that I find it likely that they'll end up 9-7--and I'm not ruling out a 10-6 finish (which, if it happens, probably gives them the last playoff spot).

CINCINNATI and BUFFALO are both 6-6, but they play each other two weeks from today (in Cincy) in Buffalo's toughest remaining game. Cincy will likely enter that game at 6-7 (they play at New England this weekend). Denver owns tiebreakers over Buffalo (the ONLY team that they hold a tie-breaker over right now), so Buffalo has got to win this game to keep it's playoff hopes alive. Cincy has another could-be tough game left, at Philly in the final week of the season--but who knows if Philly will be in playoff-rest mode by then. (My recommendation: heck no! They already get a bye week the next week)

ANYHOW. . .IF Denver loses just one remaining game, they've got a good chance (realistically, only Jax and Baltimore could match a 10-6 record, and I find that chance fairly slim). If they stumble and lose 2 more, than I gotta say that they're out of it. So many tie-breakers work against them that I don't think the Broncs could get in at 9-7 (whereas Cincy and Jax could). And as an aside: if Denver ends up 9-7, they don't DESERVE to be sniffing the playoffs. Not with the gift of a schedule they were given this year!

By the way, Denver plays one real tough game (Indy in the last week of the season), two pretty tough games (on the road at KC and Tennessee) and one should-be W (home against Miami).

Okay, that's the good news. Here's the bad: this Denver team hasn't won a single game against a team that was playing well at the time. The San Diego team that Denver escaped from in week 3 has no resemblance to the one that is playing for the Chargers now; Tampa's offense was worse than you read about in week 4; Carolina wasn't all too good in week 5; on and on and on. So while we may still make the playoffs, I don't think that this is a team that has the ability to cause any damage in the postseason. No, I think they're just good enough to break their fan's hearts again.

AAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!

Yes, another post about the Broncos. . .

SO, here's the riddle of the day: if a good team "finds a way to win the tight games," as the traditional logic goes, then what do you call a team that always finds a way to lose the tight games when they matter the most?

Home for the Holidays? Well, that would've applied, but that whole bye week thing drags the season later in the calendar year now, so not so much. But definitely, unless things get better--and quickly--Broncos fans can make vacation plans for early January without worrying about missing a playoff game.

So frustrating!