Small Fish in a Big Pond

I’m trying something new. I set up a profile with the Yahoo! Contributor Network a few days ago, and I’m going to try submitting some writing for on-line publication. It’s pretty much like blogging, but submissions have to go through editors first, and some of Yahoo!’s corporate partners might pick up an article if it tickles their fancy.

There’s a potential to earn some money doing this, but I can’t imagine that it’s very lucrative. I’m sure it takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.3 billion hits to earn a nickel, so I’m not quitting my day job anytime soon. But at the same time, I’m not turning down an extra quarter or two in my pocket every six months.

My main motivator for doing this is to see how my writing stacks up to that of the rest of the world. To be honest, I’m pretty nervous about going through editors. What if they don’t like my stuff? That would be embarrassing. I’ve long considered writing to be one of the few things I’m relatively good at, so for that to be taken away would just leave drinking beer and losing fantasy football championship games as my only talents worth mentioning.

But what if they do like it? That’d be pretty cool.

I’m also motivated by their suggested limit of 300 to 500 words per submission. Brevity has never been a strong suit of mine, so this will be a challenge. Being challenged is something I enjoy.

I submitted a few things yesterday and the day before, and they’re all awaiting review. Well, to be honest, one of them was declined today. After overcoming the debilitating shame of having my worth as a human being reduced in value, I worked up the courage to read the reason why it was declined. There was some problem with the picture I attached to it. The picture wasn’t critical at all to the submission, so I just removed it and resubmitted the article. Whew. I’m not a failure after all. Yet.

They say it could take up to two weeks to get something published, but responses are often much quicker. I hope they’re quicker than that on my first submission. It was the Seahawks bit just below this entry. It’ll look pretty dumb if it’s published sometime after Saturday afternoon.

We’ll see how things go for awhile. School starts back up next Thursday, so that will drastically affect how much time I have for recreational writing until sometime in mid-May, but if you want to check in from time to time to see how it’s going, I encourage you to check out my profile. Every day. Roughly 2.3 billion times a day. And if you’re interested in becoming a Yahoo! Contributor, too, click on the little graphic of the bullhorn in the right-hand column of this blog. For every 9000 people I recruit, I get a free toaster.

Incidentally, this entry is 494 words long. Jackpot.

UPDATE: My first article was published this evening (1/7/11). Check it out here.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6190438/online_resource_available_for_parents.html?cat=8

Why the Seahawks Shouldn't Be in the Playoffs...or Should They?

I'm a huge Seahawks fan and have been since their inception in 1976. I grew up in Washington State, so they have always been my home team, regardless of where in the country I have lived. So last night, I was overjoyed when they beat the St. Louis Rams, 16-6, won the NFC West Division, and became the first division champion in NFL history with a losing record (7-9). I've been hearing Chuck's son--an avid New York Giants fan--grumbling for weeks, with growing intensity as the regular season drew to an end, about how his Giants may not make the playoffs, while my Seahawks could.

On Sunday night, his worst nightmare came true.

I imagine that Tampa Bay Buccaneers (10-6) fans had a similar reaction.

And you know what? I can't say that I disagree with either set of fans' frustration. Were the roles reversed, I'd be mad if the Seahawks finished 10-6, but some other team won their division at 7-9 and made the playoffs at the expense of my team. Many readers of sports articles about the Seahawks' improbable playoff berth have expressed emotions varying from frustration to rabid hatred of anything from the playoff system to the NFL Commissioner to the Seahawks to the entire Pacific Northwest.

Some of the comments make no sense, such as the person who stated that the Detroit Lions would have won the NFC West this year, had they been in that division. (Um, no. Detroit finished at 6-10. That would only have been good for third place.) But looking beyond the flawed logic of spurned individuals, the general message is clear: a 7-9 team should not make the NFL Playoffs, and definitely shouldn't host a first-round game.

Their case is easy to make. The Giants finished the season with a 10-6 record, tied for first place in the NFC East. Their problem? They lost both games against the Eagles, who also finished with a 10-6 record, tied for first place in the NFC East. The head-to-head tie-breaker goes to Philly. Chuck's son will be quick to remind me that the Giants pounded the Seahawks, 41-7, back in November. He also likes to argue the point that the NFC West is a much easier division than the NFC East to win because the East teams are better than those in the West. I don't think that argument carries much weight, though. The Giants and Eagles finished atop the division with a 10-6 record, and the Giants were swept by the Eagles. The other two teams, the Cowboys and Redskins, each finished at 6-10. While the Giants swept the Redskins (once handily and once, on Sunday, by a field goal against a Rex Grossman-led team), they barely beat the Cowboys once, and they lost to them the second time. The Giants also lost to the Tennessee Titans (6-10), the Colts (10-6), and the Packers (10-6). Had they beaten either the 6-10 Titans or the 6-10 Cowboys, they'd be in the postseason. Had they beaten the Eagles just once, they'd be in the postseason. Had they done something better than lose two of their last three games, they'd be in the postseason.

I think Buccaneers fans have a much more legitimate beef. Tampa Bay also finished the season with a 10-6 record, but in their division, that was only good for third place out of four teams. (Hey Giants fans, THAT'S a difficult division to win!) Like the Giants, the Bucs pounded the Seahawks a couple weeks ago, 38-15. In fact, they beat every NFC West team this season. Where did Tampa's losses come from? Two of them came from the division champion and #1-overall playoff seed Atlanta Falcons (13-3). One of them came from division-mate and playoff wild card New Orleans (11-5). One came against the AFC North champion Steelers (12-4), and one came against AFC wildcard Baltimore (12-4). The last loss came three weeks ago, at home, against the Detroit Lions (6-10). Despite that embarrassment, though, winning against the Lions wouldn't have gotten them into the playoffs. What would have been an 11-5 record would still have lost out to the Saints by virtue of New Orleans having the better division record.

In the big scheme of things, should the Seahawks be in the playoffs instead of the Giants or Buccaneers? Of course not. Obviously, those two teams each finished with three wins more than the 'Hawks. They also both pounded the Seahawks head-to-head. The only win worth mentioning for Seattle was in Chicago early in the season against the NFC North Champion Bears (11-5), and I'm not really sure how the heck that happened.

But NFL rules state that if you win your division, you not only get into the playoffs, but you also host a first-round game. So by those standards, should the Seahawks be in the playoffs instead of the Giants or Buccaneers? Absolutely. The Seahawks did what neither of those teams could do--they won their division. It's not the Seahawks' fault that the NFL allows for a 7-9 division champion. It's not the Seahawks' fault that they're in the NFC West instead of any other division. I still remember when the NFC East was so bad that they were referred to as the NFC Least. And yet their division champion always made it into the playoffs. And it's not exactly like the NFC South has a long history of winning with their teams being Atlanta, New Orleans, Tampa Bay, and Carolina. At various points in time, all four of those teams have long histories of being god-awful. It also wasn't long ago that critics were griping about how weak the AFC West was.

In fact, it was only two years ago.

New England and New York fans probably felt similarly in 2008 when their 11-5 Patriots and 9-7 Jets missed the playoffs because the San Diego Chargers won the AFC West with an 8-8 record.

A funny thing about those 2008 Playoffs, though: San Diego won their first-round game on the road against the 12-4 Colts before falling to the eventual Super Bowl Champion Steelers (12-4) the next week. Over in the NFC, the Arizona Cardinals won the NFC West that year with a 9-7 record. In the playoffs, they beat Atlanta (11-5), Carolina (12-4), and Philadelphia (9-6-1) before eventually losing by a whisker to the Steelers in the Super Bowl.

So don't hate the Seahawks for getting what they earned. Sure, New Orleans will likely pound them into dust on Saturday, but until the NFL changes its playoffs system, Seattle deserves to be there, and they deserve to host the first round.