Black and Gold Propaganda: BTN's Ten Reasons To Be Excited for Purdue Football

When I say propaganda, you probably have a negative connotation with that. I don't necessarily mean it to be negative -- really, propaganda is just framing the argument in a way that favors your side. The BTN's Tom Dienhart has kindly created a ten reasons to be excited about Purdue football post for your enjoyment, which you can read here.

I'll admit, this kind of talk and the excitement I've heard from fans continues to suck me back in. This happens every year -- as football approaches, the halls of the BS offices come alive, Boilerdowd has a twinkle in his eye and I think we all get an extra hop in our steps. Or maybe that's just us liking skipping.

Some highlights from Dienhart's post:

• Purdue returns 15 starters in 2012, the most of any team in the Big Ten. Some stats don't matter at all, but I think experience is important. These guys are on a high right now from a decent finish to a "step forward" season.
   
• The defense, with Short, Russell, Gaston, Allen, Johnson, etc., should truly be a strength. Tibesar could become a hero in West Lafayette if it rounds into shape and actually becomes a weapon.
  
• Ricardo Allen. This is a big season for Allen, in my opinion. He's been trumpeted as among the best CBs in the nation for a while now, yet we saw some things that concerned us in his first two seasons in black and gold. That said, they were just his first two seasons as a freshman and sophomore. This is the year where he really should be expected to become the force he has been said to potentially be.
  
• Raheem Mostert. We love Mostert and were calling for him to play more last year. The guy is exciting on the field and good things just seem to happen when he has the ball. Here's hoping the coaches open things up a bit and give Mostert as big a role as he can fill.
  
• QB Situation. This will be the fulcrum on which the 2012 season hinges. Dienhart points to the three QBs with serious experience as a plus, which in some situations I think we would agree it is. The question here is whether the situation Purdue's coaching staff turns this into will be advantageous and lead to winning. We, among many, have our doubts about that. But as we often say when we're feeling negatively about something, we would love to be wrong. 

What do you think of Dienhart's list? Does it amp you up even more? Are you believing now? Does it feel like the pieces actually might be falling into place for Purdue to contend in the Leaders division?
  

Neither Chicago NOR Philly Are On This List

Lists are so dumb. 99% of the time they're created simply to foster debate, argument, etc. And that's annoying, because there's no way to win. Opinions are opinions and they're fun, but creating a defined 1-10 list is just so... official-sounding.

Anyway, Forbes loves to do the top ten [blank] cities in America (or the world, etc.). Fattest, fittest, hungriest, horniest, dumbest, smartest, handsomest, etc., it goes on and on. And while I've seen this one done many times before (who hasn't?), today I came across their 10 Most Miserable Sports Cities. And while I acknowledge I shouldn't even pay attention, some of it is just ludicrous to me.

Here's the list:

1. Seattle

Okay, I guess I won't argue. They lost a team and they've never really won anything.

2. Atlanta

This is more of a lame sports town. Nobody cares enough about Atlanta sports to feel tortured. Of course, the list is "miserable" sports cities, so I guess Atlanta qualifies. Though the Braves got to, what, four World Series and won one of them? I think most fans would take that.

3. Buffalo

Okay, again, hard to argue. But I might point out that they only have NFL and NHL -- no baseball or basketball, so if those two franchises aren't toeing the line, then you qualify as miserable? I would think you kind of need at least three major teams in order to suffer enough to make the list.

4. Phoenix

I get this one, but I just never got the feeling their sports fans cared much. It's like Southern California, always hot, there's other things to do, etc. Plus the Suns have been competitive and exciting for most of my life AND the Diamondbacks have been a contending franchise basically since their second season... and they won a World Series in 2001. I don't know, hard to be miserable, I would think. Oh, and how about the fact that many championships are held there? Super Bowls, Final Fours, etc. Doesn't that make it a decent sports town at least?

5. Houston

I live here now and so I have experience and can say it's not exactly "miserable." The fans are actually pretty good, very loyal and reasonably optimistic. The Rockets win 50+ games every year -- and won two titles in the '90s -- and the Texans are followed rabidly and appear to be improving. I don't know, I just can't see this in the top five of most miserable sports cities. People enjoy their sports here.

6. San Diego

Again, SoCal? Seriously? How bad is it? The Padres may not win World Series titles, but they contend seriously every 10-15 years. The Chargers have been consistently good for a while now, too. Oh, and they are another one (like Buffalo) with only two pro teams. And when the Chargers move to L.A. it'll only be one. Heh.

7. Denver

Come on. Seriously, this is where it goes off the rails. Denver is a pretty good sports town, with loyal fans and a good tradition. If you're a four-sport fan, you think of the Avalanche's dominance for a long run there, you think of John Elway, you think of the Rockies making the playoffs in their second or third season and then two years ago going all the way to the World Series. A lot of cities would take that. Oh, and the Broncos and Avalanche won four titles since 1996. Stupid to be on this list.

8. Cleveland

Okay, agreed. It's been painful for Clevelanders. We've all heard it many times and it's become a backlash creator -- when someone whines about Cleveland's lot in life, people are tired of it. But it's very legit. Do you think they'd take Atlanta's one title in 1995? Or Denver's history? In a heartbeat they would. They should truly be #1. Not only do they have a sordid history, but the fans are truly pained and are always -- always -- expecting the worst to happen. Optimism is nonexistent in C-town.

9. Minneapolis

Again, meh. The Twins won two World Series in the last 22 years and compete almost every year, which is a lot better than watching a sucky, losing, pathetic franchise. The Vikes have also competed and should have been in at least one or two Super Bowls over the last 5-10 years. And the hockey history is decent in Minnesota, despite losing a team.

10. Kansas City

I guess so. The Royals have been an abomination for years (though they have a title from 1985, which Indians fans would feel like was yesterday) and the Chiefs haven't done much in a while. But again, those are the only two pro teams -- so how painful can it be? Losing with three or four franchises would seem to be worse, but that's just my opinion.

So? What say you, dear readers?

Groundbreaking Report: Purdue Football Has Prestige

In ESPN's latest foray into idiotic rankings of intangible things, they're currently unveiling their "Prestige Rankings." Tomorrow numbers 6-10 are announced and then on Friday we all get to vomit together as Notre Dame undoubtedly makes the top 5 and they celebrate that like a national championship (you know, like they did when beating a .500 Hawaii team).

As it turns out, Purdue football is ranked 50th. So what does that mean exactly? Our program is the 50th-most.... prestigious? How does one measure such things? Sure, I know they have a formula but it's all just so silly. Purdue has 210 Prestige Points, 9 behind #49 Illinois. Indiana, on the other hand, is ranked #102 out of 119 and has negative-8 points. Negative. So, then, if you go to IU, you'll wind up a less-prestigious football player than you arrived? What does any of this mean? Is it that slow a month? I guess so.

Yes, yes, I get it -- it's to foster debate. But it's stupid. And people spent a lot of time, obviously, on conjuring this bullspit up. And aren't there better ways to spend time than this pseudo water-cooler chat fodder? I mean, do you know anyone who would read this list and then show it to their friends and say, "Dude, didn't you go to Boston College? They're only the 40th most prestigious football program in the country and DUKE is #38. Ha! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!"

Does ESPN think we're going to debate this in bars? Yes, here I am posting about it, but it's largely because there's little else to write about right now... and also, I'm not analyzing it or debating it because, well, it's retarded. If I had taken the total letters in the names of every player on the 1987 squad of each of these schools and arranged the teams in order of who had the most letters, the list would probably make just about as much sense.

Army #39, Oregon #53, Auburn #21, Iowa State #114, Rutgers #101..... uhhhhh, okay! Whatever you say, guys.

But tell me, who's more "now"?