From Aggies to Zips

So I've been hammering away at Excel to whip up a list of colleges and nicknames. I don't know Excel well enough, and I figured it'd be an interesting exercise to come up with a list and frequency for collegiate nicknames -- we know there are more Wildcats than Owls, but how many?

Armed with the data from this Web site, made a spreadsheet, then spent a while trying to create an intelligent count of the unique nicknames. That took me the longest time, but having solved it, I'd like to share my findings.

There were 1617 nicknames, 539 distinct -- some schools (like Georgia Tech and Hofstra) have multiple nicknames, and some schools have different nicknames for gendered sports teams (Lyon College, University of Central Arkansas) and even different sports (the Haverford College baseball team is the Black Squirrels). There are 354 mascots unique to their college, from the Ambassadors to the Zips. Your top ten mascots are the Eagles (61), Panthers (52), Tigers (45), Bulldogs (39), Wildcats (37), Lions (34), Cougars (32), Pioneers [!] (31), Warriors (30) and Knights (26). There are still teams called the Red Men (Carthage College; Carthago delenda est?) and the Redmen (University of Rio Grande), five Indians, and one Seminoles. Seven teams are in some way purple, 22 red, 35 blue, five black, 53 gold, seven green, 18 yellow, and one white -- the White Mules of Colby College, Waterville, Maine. There are two Bees, one Super Bees, one Maccabees. Two Squirrels, one Black Squirrels (as above).

Disclaimers: "Fighting" has been dropped from the nicknames. Geographically distinct campuses get counted as separate colleges (Davenport University accounts for 20 of the 52 Panthers). There are 160 colleges tabulated that have no official nickname, including several incarnations of DeVry University. Surely they should be the Infomercials.

Trade-bait

Via Yahoo, top ten NFL players who should be traded this season. The headline is that four of them are Detroit Lions. The real news is that three of them are Chiefs: Larry Johnson (at #1), Patrick Surtain, and Tony Gonzales. I have to wholeheartedly concur on the first two, especially since Herm's got that "wait until next year" tenor in his voice and Larry's petulance kicks in from time to time.

Tony Gonzales I'm not so sure about. I have to think that he's closer to the end of his career than a glance at his playmaking ability would lend one to believe, and that if given the choice I don't see him bolting for another team for more money or even a championship run, really. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think I or any more-fervent fans of the red would begrudge him a trade to a championship-caliber team -- there's some hard feelings this season, but you can't direct them at Tony Gonzales, who seems to be one of the few Chiefs showing up this season. (Your current MVP is still Dustin Colquitt, who, you have to admit, punts well.) And he's a vegetarian, which improves team chemistry immensely when you're eating out in the BBQ capital of Earth with a handful of the city's biggest appetites.

Thing of it is, even if/when these players do move off the roster and the seeds are planted for 2010 and beyond (no, this team isn't contending in 2009, even if the Chefs walked into the draft with more picks than Kurt Warner on muscle relaxant), I doubt it's going to be Herm Edwards reaping the benefits (and with the skillset he's shown, I think "reaping" might be apropos in the worst possible context). It shouldn't be Carl Peterson, either, who's helmed enough peaks and valleys to have been considered having a fair shot at the brass ring. The new Chiefs are going to need a new vision. Of course, if you ask me, I know who I'd pick....