home

To Get Paid To Write Nonsense . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Off Topic
Posted on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 02:40:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

. . . has not been my fate. I do it for free. On the other hand, Rick Reilly gets paid for it:

Some gifts people give are pointless: Styling mousse to Dick Vitale. An all-you-can-eat card to Kate Moss. The BCS Championship given to Oklahoma or Florida. It means nothing because the BCS has no credibility. Florida? Oklahoma? Who cares? Utah is the national champion. The End. Roll credits.

More . . .

Eventually Reilly gets to a good point - we need a playoff in college football. But he starts from a ridiculous one - Utah is the national champion. Couldn't we just have gotten to the playoff argument without the Utah is the national champion nonsense? Here is Reilly's good point:

Call Myles Brand, president of the asleep-at-the-wheel NCAA, and ask him if he and his greedy presidents are going to stand in defiance of president-elect Barack Obama, who wants a playoff and wants it yesterday.

That's the point here. And it was BEFORE Utah beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. College football needs a playoff.

Speaking for me only

< HuffPo: Obama told Senate Dems To Seat Burris | Wednesday Night Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    To Get Paid To Write Nonsense . . . | 91 comments (91 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Utah is the National Champion (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    is not nonsense, it is opinion. Everyone knows that. I've always found it hard not to pick an unbeaten team as a champion because they won every game. How can anyone real say definitively that a one loss team is better than an undefeated team. It's subjective.

    If Florida beats Oklahoma then shouldn't Mississippi be #1 since they are better than Florida by virtue of beating them in the swamp?

    Even playoffs aren't foolproof. Anything can happen in a one game format.

    It's just entertainment and big business.

    "National Championships" Are Nothing (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by tokin librul on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:42:03 PM EST
    more than in-house marketing tools.

    Incredibly effective propaganda tools for the status quo, too.

    Utah went undefeated. They played ranked teams, and beat ranked teams. Mebbe the MtnWest isn't a great conference, top to bottom. But three teams in the league were ranked during the year, too: Utah, BYU and TCU. Colo State wasn't terrible, and even the poor, mangy New Mexico Lobos brought off an upset AT Arizona in week 4...And they not only BEAT Alabama, they beat the CRAP out of Alabama...

    Utah is unquestionably #1

    Oklahoma / Florida (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Sherpa on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:56:04 PM EST
    Oh my.  We go through this every year.  Yes, its a horrible system, but everyone agreed: The BCS Championship Game winner is declared the National Champion.  Period.   Florida wins, they're NC.  Oklahoma wins, they're NC.  Utah had a nice season, but they didn't make it to the big game -- And they didn't make it because they only had a couple tough games, and they barely won those. (e.g. TCU, 13-10 -- BTW, Oklahoma ran up 800+ yards on TCU in route to a 35-10 win).  

    Yes, change it to a playoff, but this year, its Florida or Oklahoma taking home the prize.

     

    I didn't agree (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:01:32 PM EST
    why, I wasn't even consulted.

    The NCAA could decide that it's going to be Notre Dame and Army playing for the national championship every year, but I think you'll find that folks will continue to have opinions about who the best team is.

    Parent

    While I certainly respect your passion, (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:27:34 PM EST
    and agree with your analysis 100%, AND I don't want to sound like a nanny, but using profanity on TL gets it blocked from the Law School/Law Firm servers and causes Jeralyn hours of PITA work getting reinstated...

    Yeah you are right (none / 0) (#87)
    by Pepe on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:51:48 PM EST
    I think that is the first time I ever did that here. Last time too.

    Parent
    Hasn't the argument been (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 02:50:56 PM EST
    all along that a playoff system would extend the season and these are college students first?  Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous, seeing as how the bowl games used to be all on New Year's Day (the big ones, anyhow) and now we drag it out over a week, with minor bowls being played up to yesterday?

    I'm all for a playoff, and having attended a Big 12 school, I'm rooting for the Sooners.

    My next door neighbor's son (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:36:55 PM EST
    pitches for the U of Arizona.

    These are college students second. At best.

    Parent

    Yeh, having taught at a Big 10 campus (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:14:23 PM EST
    and at a nationally ranked private university, no thanks.  

    I took me to a nonjock urban commuter campus.  But then we went to the Sweet Sixteen . . . and once again, I was teaching students who aspired to careers such as sportscaster.  Or, as one "NCAA Scholar" famously put it on national teevee to my unending giggles, he wanted to be "a anchor."

    And once again, I was coping with coaches and an athletic director who thought that we the profs were their support staff.  And a coach who got one of our students, his "stats girl," pregnant.  No thanks.

    Parent

    Yeah. (none / 0) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:34:33 PM EST
    My neighbor's kid got one B and the rest A's in HS. 4.0+ GPA. He went to the U of A with all good intentions, but spending 4-6 days/week on the road was a reality slap in the face.

    He and his family are sure he'll be drafted, and I'm pretty sure he will. Not that that means he'll definitely make the big show, or big money, but what are you gonna do...

    Parent

    The road trips can kill academic careers (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:50:09 PM EST
    as I've seen again and again.  The students (others as well as jocks) often don't read syllabi to see that attendance counts in some courses' grades.  Even if not, there is -- amazingly to many students -- a strong correlation in most courses between attendance and performance.  We actually do tend to teach something.  And many of us bring material into our classes that isn't in the textbooks.  (Of course, for that I get criticism from some students and coaches, who just want us to read aloud, I guess, rather than seeing it as value added.)

    Tell the kid to look for the increasing number of online courses at any campus.  Something is lost, of course, but at least he may be able to keep up better from the road -- if the coaches really care about them as students and set aside study time.

    Parent

    Good advice I'm sure, (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:00:44 PM EST
    but he's going pro. Probably this year. Pretty much end of story at this point...

    [Mock] Draft#:23
    Jason Stoffel
    Ht/Wt:/ lbs
    Position:RHP
    Drafted From:Arizona


    Parent
    Hopefully (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 07:31:47 PM EST
    he'll make it out of AAA ball.  A baseball pro contract isn't like a pro-football contract....

    Parent
    Indeed. (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 08:51:39 PM EST


    Parent
    I can't stand Rick Reilly (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 02:56:19 PM EST
    He is not a real sportswriter.  He is like someone's effort to clone Mitch Albom, but more kitschy this time.  He's fine if you want a cute anecdote about Little League, but he should not be opining on serious topics of national import like college football playoffs.

    His point (none / 0) (#3)
    by Artoo on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:01:55 PM EST
    I think his point is that the national championship game is made irrelevant when a team like Utah can have the season they did and not have any chance at all to play for the national championship. May as well crown them considering all the other nonsense that goes on.

    (I do not like Rick Reilly, but since I agree with him on this point, I will defend him.)

    I agree too... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:44:11 PM EST
    If you're the only undefeated Division 1 team in the country, you are the national champion.

    It is as simple as never having lost.

    Parent

    Utah? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Trickster on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:29:56 PM EST
    Listen. Utah is pretty good. We knew that last week. But they're not as good as a healthy Alabama team, which in turn is not as good as Florida even when playing perhaps its (Alabama's) best game of the season.

    Alabama was unmotivated for the Sugar Bowl because they had thought they were going to play for the national championship.  Instead they had to play Utes.  (Is Mr. Gambini in the house?)  Bama was also short its best player, Andre Smith, and another starting offensive lineman went down in the first 5 minutes of the game.

    There's something to be learned if you go back to the only other game Alabama played this season with Andre Smith and another offensive lineman out: the Tulane game.  Alabama played against Utah exactly like it played against Tulane, except worse because the Tide came out flat. Bama was lucky to beat Tulane, and the same style of play, plus the flat first quarter, could not beat Utah - although it's telling to note that, once Alabama showed up for the game (with 5 minutes left in the 1st quarter), they outscored Utah over the last 50 minutes of the contest, even without a functioning offensive line.

    Tulane, for reference's sake, finished 2-10 in the Sun Belt.  The last I heard, nobody has been pimping them for the national championship even though they shoved Alabama around in a game that was more similar to the Sugar Bowl than you might think.

    Beating a short-handed, un-motivated Alabama squad does not make Utah a great team. This is the same Utah team that was lucky to beat TCU and Oregon St., that beat New Mexico by 3, Air Force by 7, and Weber St. 37-21.

    Here's an exercise for you. Pull out Utah's schedule, Florida's schedule, and Oklahoma's schedule, and place them all side by side. Chalk up which team was the most impressive each week of the season.

    Does Utah get a single pre-Bowl mark? Probably not.

    Congratulations to the Utes on their undefeated season and on their solid win over the Tide. If there were a legitimate 8-team playoff, they would've earned their way into it. But let's not get confused here and start thinking Utah could compete for an SEC championship. Georgia - as is, not before all the injuries - would be a good match for them.

    On the every-cloud-has-a-silver-lining front, though, this is yet another blow against the craptacular BCS system. May it rot in heck.


    Parent

    But one can't hold this against (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:35:13 PM EST
    Utah, can one?

    Alabama was unmotivated for the Sugar Bowl because they had thought they were going to play for the national championship.  


    Parent
    It's not Utah's fault, no (none / 0) (#65)
    by Trickster on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:29:43 PM EST
    Neither is it Alabama's fault that multiple teams on its schedule - Clemson, Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, and LSU - all dramatically failed to live up to expectations this year, the result of which is that Alabama got tagged with having a weak schedule even though their schedule looked absolutely murderous pre-season.

    These things are neither team's fault, but the fact that they happened reduces the brag points that the two teams can claim for their victories over the subject squads.

    Parent

    He's fine, (none / 0) (#4)
    by OldCity on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:04:40 PM EST
    it's the NCAA that's a joke.  Pure and simple, there shouldn't be a "national champion".  It's a ridiculous premise.  

    Think of the sheer number of teams.  How, honestly, could a playoff really be structured that would be fair?  (I suggest eliminating all cupcake scheduling to allow for more quality games, but college fans seem to think they're entitled to at least one 62-7 matchup per year.)  

    Just be satified wih conference championships and bowl wins.  there's never been any legitimacy to the "national championship" and there's never gonna be.  College Football is about money and delusion.

    Well if there was a playoff (none / 0) (#6)
    by Pepe on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:13:16 PM EST
    USC would come out on top. The prejudice of the east coast writers and others who vote is blatant.

    Utah is a good team. Lot's of speed. Disciplined. But not a national champion by any means. The fact that they beat 'Bama is just a testament to how wrong headed the polls have been all along. In fact a lot of the top teams have been exposed for what they were all season - OVERRATED. And the underrated PAC 10 has shown in the bowls that they are a lot better than what people gave them credit for.

    Oklahoma will come out on top tomorrow and yet again expose another overrated team, Florida, and their overrated fullback posing as a quarterback. It's pretty sad when your QB is just a few yards away from being the top rusher on the team with a measly 3.7 yd average and twice the number of rushes of anyone on the team. Like I said a fullback. A balanced team like USC with their triple threat pro-quality linebackers, not to mention their D-line, would eat Tebow up. Talk about being able to key into the offense and Tee-Off!

    He'd likely leave a USC game with a concussion as Ohio's (who btw exposed Texas as another over ranked team) Beanie Wells did Monday night. And passing? The USC secondary could pretty much take the night off. Tebow has no real passing game to worry about. Tomorrow night is really a farce thanks to the blatant prejudice of the east coast scribes and people who don't even belong voting.

    We won't be seeing a playoff system for quite a while. So tomorrow night there will be at least one team playing that doesn't belong there. It will be a Bowl Game - but a National Championship? Not hardly.

    This (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jb64 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:52:55 PM EST
    is a perfect example of why there should be no national champion in college football. Since your Beloved USC won't actually have to defend the smack you throw around, you can continue to wallow in delusion.

    And the Sooners get to do that for one more day.

    Parent

    You can bet that both (none / 0) (#60)
    by Pepe on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:18:44 PM EST
    the Okies and the baby gators are glad they are playing each other and that they are not playing USC.

    Even BTD said weeks ago that USC was the only team that had a chance against Florida and even ticked off the reasons why. Of course he was being kind to Florida in not admitting that they would get their butts kicked.

    Parent

    Uh yeah (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:41:38 PM EST
    Tell you what I do believe that Utah is a better team than USC, I mean they played a harder schedule, beat more good teams, and have a better record than USC as well as playing in a better conference (the Mountain West has a winning record in like 10 games vs. the Pac 10). But if you think a team that has no offense like USC could beat a balanced dynamic offense like Florida, well I'd just ask you to remind the site who won the last time USC played a top level run/pass threat who supposedly couldn't throw ball- I'll give you a hint the words "Young goes for the corner"  figure prominently.

    Parent
    As a UCLA Alum (none / 0) (#34)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:18:16 PM EST
    it's hard for me to say this, but it's not like USC got killed by Texas...

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#37)
    by ks on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:30:43 PM EST
    This current USC has no offense?  Also, that Texas game was one of the greatest college games EVER.  USC was a couple of feet from a THREEPEAT in that game and even after turning the ball over at MIDFIELD on downs, Texas/Young still had to convert at least one 4th down play in order to win.  Anyway, that Texas team top to bottom was better than this Florida team and the Young?Tebow comparison is iffy at best.

    Parent
    This is truly just smack talking (none / 0) (#38)
    by Trickster on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:32:01 PM EST
    And not worthy of much of a response other than to point out that it is what it is.  

    USC is a fine team, and they deserve to have a shot at the national title.  Too bad the system sucks.

    But the stuff you say about Florida is just silly.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Pepe on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:28:44 PM EST
    All I said about Florida was Tebow's actual stats. Those are the numbers Buba. 3.7 avg rushing and twice as many rushes as the next two Fla running backs combined. Do you dispute those actual numbers?

    Parent
    You also said (none / 0) (#66)
    by Trickster on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:37:20 PM EST
    "And passing? The USC secondary could pretty much take the night off. Tebow has no real passing game to worry about."

    That's a joke.  Florida has one of the best passing attacks in the nation, probably THE best.  Even though he plays in the SEC instead of the Big No-D 12, Tebow's pass efficiency rating is nearly up there with Bradford's and McCoy's.  He's head and shoulders above any other SEC QB, including Matt Stafford who is expected to go high in the draft and Jevan Snead who made mincemeat of the Texas Tech D in the Cotton Bowl.

    Even the part you quote above is slanted, because you don't point out the fact that college QBs rushing stats include sacks, nor the fact that Tebow plays his game in a conference noted for D.  USC may indeed have the best D in the nation, but there are at least 3 or 4 defenses in the SEC that are comparable.

    Parent

    Florida 'The' Best Passing game? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Pepe on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:19:49 PM EST
    Are you kidding me? You have no idea, no idea, what you are talking about. How about not being so lazy and actually look up the stats before coming here and embarrassing yourself?

    USC has a better passing game than Florida. Look it up. Sanchez passes more; completes a higher percentage; has 700 more yards; gains 28% more yards per game; and has 6 more touchdowns than Tea-Bow.

    I can't believe you guys just come on here and spout nonsense with nothing to back it up when the evidence is against you.

    Oh! And we are supposed to forget sacks too! Like they don't count during a game! What are you drinking swamp water?

    And good D in the SEC? WTF! In the top 10 in the nation - passing defense - Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee, the good SEC teams, are not even in the Top 20! That's comparable to USC who is #1? NO IT IS NOT.

    And Florida is #31 in passing defense. Yeah #31 in the nation in pass D. And USC can pass. Look what they did to Penn St. who is #12 in pass defense. If they did that to #12 what would they do with #31? No contest.

    And USC is #1 in pass defense.

    So what you have is a USC team who passes more and better than Florida who is #31 in pass D (Bradford is going to have a field day), against a Florida passing offense who does less in the passing game against the #1 passing D in the nation.

    So bottomline is USC could put a hurt on the Gator passing game as they have done with everyone else. That leaves the USC front line and the three Pro bound linebackers to snuff Tea-Bow, which they can because USC is in a virtual tie for #2 in the nation in Rushing defense.

    I'm done Trickster. Do your homework.

    And oh yeah. USC puts up 37.5 points per game and 10 more yards a game than Florida does on top of having the best defense in the nation who allowed an average of 7.8 points a game over 13 games.

    Parent

    Haha (none / 0) (#89)
    by Trickster on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:20:59 PM EST
    You're actually trying to use the pass defense statistic to make a point? Surely you realize that most good teams do not rank well in pass defense.  That stat only measures yards given up per game, and if you're kickin' booty left and right, you're going to tend to give up a lot of yards and not rank high in pass defense.

    Now, it's very impressive that Southern Cal is #1 in pass defense while also winning big frequently.  But USC is very good, as I've said consistently.  I'm not arguing that.

    But look at the REST of the top 10 in pass D - a bunch of scuzbucket teams, namely South Carolina, New Mexico St., Tennessee, N. Illinois, Florida St., Miami, UCLA, Connecticut, and San Jose St.  Hardly a college football honor role.

    Was it a strategic selection that you went for that joke of a stat?  Whether ornot, obviously the real number you look at is pass defense effciency, where USC is also #1 - and Florida is #2.  

    The average ranking in pass defense efficiency of the 12 Div 1A teams Florida faced is #39.8.

    The average ranking in pass defense efficiency of the 13 Div 1A teams USC has played is #46.1.

    Not a big difference, but it says Florida has played against somewhat tougher Ds on the average.

    Now look at the QB ratings, not with those stats  you selectively picked, but with the one stat that tells the tale:  passing efficiency.

    Tebow is 176.7, Sanches is 164.6.  Both very good, and both against tough Ds - but Tebow's is better, and against better Ds.

    In fact, I'll argue that the one characteristic of the pass efficiency rating that slants reality is the heavy weighting it gives to TD passes, and the relatively light weighting to interceptions.  In fact, TD passes are as much a factor of coach's choice as of anything else, especially with powerhouse teams like UF and USC who can pretty much score however they wish, whereas interceptions are vitally important.

    Guess what: Sanchez is the guy who gets the bigger artificial boost, with his 34 TD passes to Tebow's 28.  The really important stat, though, interceptions, is a landslide in Tebow's favor.  He threw 2, count 'em 2 picks for a 0.75% interception rate, while Sanchez threw 10 picks at a 2.73% rate, almost FOUR TIMES  the interception rate.

    Hey. Sanchez is a fine quarterback.  I'm not saying differently.  But he's no Tebow.

    p.s. I said nothing about sacks being unimportant.  What I said is that it's misleading to talk about college quarterbacks' yards per carry without mentioning sacks.  Like, for example, when you dog Tebow for his 3.7 yards per carry average, you don't get around to mentioning Sanchez' average this year, which is, uh . . . 0.3.  Yuck.

    Just to put that on a career basis, Sanchez in his career has carried 70 times for 33 yards - 0.5 yards per carry - and four TDS.

    Tebow in his career has carried 453 times for 1928 yards - 4.3 yards per carry, even with the sacks thrown in - and 43 TDs.

    So I wouldn't bring up rushing if I were you.

    Parent

    A pretty disjointed argument you make (none / 0) (#90)
    by Pepe on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:53:22 PM EST
    Not to mention the speculation you add in.

    FYI pass defense stats do include season totals. USC 1474 total passing yards allowed vs Florida allowing 2262 total passing yards. Quite a difference.

    As for your blather that teams don't have to have a good passing defense, does that go to rushing defense also? What you are saying is a good offense negates the need for a good defense. Fact is Fla had a total of 5751 offensive yds for the season. USC had 5437. That averages out to a difference of only 24 yds  per game. Not a game changer. Given that they are so close in total offense that leaves one area that can win the game - Defense.

    I didn't mention QR rating because there is not a nickels worth of difference between them.

    I didn't mention Sanchez's running because he doesn't run. USC actually has three awesome running backs and a hell of a good real QB. As opposed to Fla who basically has a one man team. Lose Tea-Bow and you have no team. Not so with USC. And with a one man team all a good defense has to do is key in on him stop his running and you now have a one dimensional team. You can't do that with USC. Which is a big point.

    You are funny. You think if you score enough points you then you give up a lot of passing yards. That doesn't even make sense. One is offense the other is defense. Wonders never cease. Obviously you don't understand football. Your search for stats means nothing. Sorry.

    Here is a lesson for you. Utah, a new kid on the block, creamed Alabama who was rated #1 for much of the season. Both teams were very close in offensive stats for the season with Utah averaging 37 points a game and Alabama averaging 31 points a a game. The score ended up being 31-17. Utah scoring near it's average and Alabama scoring less that half it's average. The difference in the game when you look at the stats...

    Defense.

    Now as for tomorrows game both teams are virtually tied in rushing offense. In passing OK has 4635 yds vs. Florida's 2764. And they score more points. Offensive advantage Oklahoma.

    Now on D they are tied in rushing defense. But Florida has a significant advantage in passing defense.

    So on offense OK has a huge advantage. On defense Florida has an advantage.

    So do you still want to talk up offense and downplay defense? LOL. Do you still stand by you can allow giving up passing yards to the best passing team on the field and just kick booty on your offense? LOL

    Humm? Trickster now changes gears. Defense good now! LOL

    Parent

    You entirely miss the point (none / 0) (#91)
    by Trickster on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:40:12 AM EST
    It's not that it's unimportant to defend against the pass - of course, that's very important - it's that the "pass defense" statistic is worthless.  It tends to be more a measure of whether you win or lose by big margins than a measure of how good your passing defense is.  Pass efficiency defense is infinitely more reliable as a measure of a team's ability to defend against the pass.

    By the way, I certainly never said ANYTHING to downplay defense.  That would be dumb.  Defense wins championships.

    As for your blather that teams don't have to have a good passing defense, does that go to rushing defense also?

    Just so you'll get the picture of what I'm talking about, let me explain how my point works with rushing defense.  If you're winning big and your opponents are always trying to pass, then they won't get running yards and you will be among the leaders in rushing defense.

    Every year, if you look at the top teams in rushing defense, you will see they mostly consist of the best teams in the nation, where as the top teams in the "pass defense" stat are generally a grab bag of mediocrity.

    This year is absolutely typical in this regard.  I already listed the mediocre group that comprise the top ten nationally in pass defense: USC was the only good team, Florida St. the next-best team in the top ten.  HERE, on the other hand, is the top ten in rush defense:

    TCU, Alabama, Texas, Ole Miss, USC, Nevada, Boston College, Penn St., Iowa, and South Florida.  Arguably 7 of the top 10 teams, and the second ten includes the other three, Utah, Oklahoma, and Florida, as well as LSU, Cincinnati, Virginia Tech, and Ohio St.  That's right - every BCS team, plus LSU, Ohio St., Boston College, Iowa,TCU, Texas, and Ole Miss are in the top 20, making this top 20 not too different from the actual top 20.  Night and day different, quality-wise, from the other group.

    You think if you score enough points you then you give up a lot of passing yards. That doesn't even make sense. One is offense the other is defense. Wonders never cease. Obviously you don't understand football.

    Again - if you win all your games big, your opponents will always be trying to come from behind, and they will almost always come up with a fair amount of passing yards.  It happens year after year after year after year, and if you don't realize that then you have no business throwing around taunts about who understands football and who doesn't, especially if you are trying to make points with statistics.

    Again, it's extremely impressive that USC leads in this stat while winning most of their games big, but that's extremely unusual.

    I didn't mention QR rating because there is not a nickels worth of difference between them.

    Sorry, but you can't compare QBs without comparing QB rating.  Anything else is just selective argument.  

    And by the way, 12 points is more than a nickel's worth of difference: Tebow is only 10 points behind 1st-place Sam Bradford at the top, while if you dropped another 12 down from 6th-place Sanchez you wouldn't even be in the top 15.  A 12-point pass efficiency rating advantage against better Ds is something you really can't argue with.  You can flap yer jaws, but you can't argue.

    You know, I don't like to brag - scratch that, I DO like to brag. And you picked on the wrong guy to argue college football stats with.  Come back when you're either (1) a lot better at it, or (2) have a true point to argue, not some hogwash like Florida can't pass.

    Parent

    old system (none / 0) (#8)
    by jharp on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:28:33 PM EST
    Count me in the group that favored the old system. And so what if it doesn't deliver an undisputed champion.

    Just don't feel like a short playoff system would be any more accurate. It doesn't take into account the entire season.

    And definitely scrap the conference championship games.

    Well (none / 0) (#15)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:53:41 PM EST
    I enjoyed the old system too, but it really didn't take into account the whole season either.  If you lost in week 1, it made no difference, and if you lost at the end of the season, you had no shot.  This generally remains the case today, of course.  So if those early games aren't going to count for much anyway (and of course, some top teams love to schedule cupcakes in the non-conference schedule regardless), I don't worry much that a playoff would benefit whoever happens to be playing the best at the end of the year.  That's the way it is with every other sport, anyway.

    Parent
    I think...OT (none / 0) (#9)
    by Salo on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:29:48 PM EST
    ...that Obama is very lucky to have the old Clinton crew around.   They can innoculate him the egomaniacs in the Senate.   It's also making me think that Biden is a good pick now.   Biden, although he is an A1 gasbag blaguing BS artist, can quash the revolts that Obama will face in the senate.  

    All of a sudden, especially with Panetta being proposed as DCI i'm beginning to see Obama's political strategy take root.  He's got the real Clinton loyalists in the bag and he's made gestures to trusted (trusted by fellow senators that is) people like Biden and Daschle.  He's picked a number of well connected DC types but done it in a way that looks like he's being original in the individual placements of the personalities.  Biden is probably a bit of a proceedural master stroke for business in the Senate.

    The cabinet he's picking... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Salo on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:31:58 PM EST
    ...looks a bit like a Parliamentary party taking control of things in a European style. Maybe well see some social democratic results.  Seems like the futures a bit brighter than I had previously thought.

    Parent
    No profanity please (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:46:43 PM EST


    Which part? (none / 0) (#46)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:49:35 PM EST
    Yeah sorry for that.

    Somewhat OT, but related to a post of yours yesterday, thought I'd point you in the direction of something that Glenn Reynolds links to approvingly today:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/65594/

    I would say this post is a more accurate reflection of his views on what has caused lower gas prices (ie- the recession).

    Parent

    In December, There Was No Appreciable (none / 0) (#16)
    by tokin librul on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:04:15 PM EST
    difference between USC and a pretty good NFL Team.

    But Utah was undefeated. No, they didn't play USC, or OK or Fl. But they did beat UCLA and Alabama and everybody else they DID play. There is not another team in the country can make that claim...

    On the record, they deserved the #1 ranking...

    "no credability" is an absurd statement (none / 0) (#17)
    by Exeter on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:06:30 PM EST
    Right now 12 game regular seasons + one bowl game are the norm... only a few years ago the norm was 10 + 1. I say go back to 10 game regular seasons and have the last four games reserved for a play-off and go 16-8-4-Championship.  Almost all of the teams would be playing LESS games than they are now.
    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:28:43 PM EST
    they would be playing FEWER games.

    Thank you for visiting the best college football covering law and politics and grammar blog.

    Parent

    Ewwwww... I can't believe I said that! (none / 0) (#48)
    by Exeter on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:54:33 PM EST


    Parent
    They'd be playing FEWER games, actually (none / 0) (#20)
    by cymro on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:33:08 PM EST
    The Columbia Guide to Standard American English

    Parent
    Hey now (none / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:40:59 PM EST
    First one to respond is witty.  Second one is pedantic!

    Parent
    Indeed! You posted while I was ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by cymro on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:58:12 PM EST
    ... pedantically finding a reference!

    Parent
    Camille Paglia (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 07:29:54 PM EST
    wrote that she loved Sarah Palin's syntax--it was all so authentic and understable.

    Proper grammar and usage is just stuff snooty people make up to make them feel superior....Or, so some say....

    Parent

    Fine (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 07:38:10 PM EST
    As a fictional character in a novel she would be fine, as a real live politician who would turn back the clocks on civil rights, education and separation of church and state no thanks.

    Parent
    Camille Paglia? Seriously? (none / 0) (#83)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:09:43 PM EST
    Consider the source.

    Parent
    No horse in this race (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:20:27 PM EST
    Why does the NE always have cr@ppy football teams?  With the possible exception of B.C. sometimes - for a state with this many colleges we sure don't do college football well.

    Probobly some residual (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:41:21 PM EST
    Puritan scruples about not feeding human growth hormone to cow tipping high school kids.

    Parent
    See, now that's a good 'un! (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:43:33 PM EST


    Parent
    I remember when (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:44:11 PM EST
    (not that long ago), the average weight of a college offensive lineman was like 270. Man, those weight training techniques have improved in the last 20 - 30 years.

    Parent
    The main reason (none / 0) (#29)
    by eric on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:04:24 PM EST
    that I can think of is that, quite frankly, there are better things to do.

    In major metro areas, there are pro teams for people to watch. It just isn't part of the culture like it is in red state America.  Sure there are exceptions like USC, but by and large, it is desolation that drives these people to football.  Look at the top 25 rankings and tell me how much you would like to visit any of those teams home cities for anything other than seeing a fooball game.

    Parent

    Hey, don't include Columbus (none / 0) (#78)
    by sallywally on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 08:41:10 PM EST
    Ohio in the football-desperate group. This is a great place to live - attractive, diverse, close to nationally ranked museums, universities (we have several here), think tanks (we have two of the largest), and other sources of bright, interesting people.

    We even have big bookstores, the Internet, and cable teevee here, don't-ya know?

    Parent

    No, they don't know. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:05:40 PM EST
    Further, most people don't know that Columbus is in fact the biggest city in Ohio, and not Cleveland or Cincinnati.

    Parent
    Yep, one of the nation's major cities (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:20:01 PM EST
    now, and a majority-minority city -- and people I know who live there love it.  We're visiting soon, so I can see it for myself.

    It has a funny history, too.  It started out as Franklinton. . . .

    And it has an ancient history, thus Mound Street.

    Parent

    How 'bout a liberal artsy answer??? (none / 0) (#32)
    by wurman on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:09:26 PM EST
    1. The Northeast colleges don't have very good scholarship programs.
    2. How's a teenaged jock with a C- average from Frog's Jowls High, & 1000 combined SAT, going to get into ____ [Harvard, Fairleigh-Dickinson, Dartmouth, (Ursinus 21 - Juniata 17), Brown, Cornell, Quinnipiac, etc?
    3. Basketball, baseball, soccer, & lacrosse are so much more gentlemanly.
    4. Amateur is acceptable in the Blue States.
    5. There is a land where time stands still, where long ago & far away Syracuse could recruit, Vassar was for girls, & Bu$h xliii was a cheerleader at Phillips Academy but couldn't make the cut at Yale.


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:35:31 PM EST
    1 - They have great ones, just not for sports.

    2 - Sure, but we also have state schools.  We are well known for the ivys and wannabe-ivys, but trust me, we have plenty of schools for slackers too!

    3 - None of our collegiate sports teams are that good, when was the last time you saw a basketball champ from MA???

    4 - Got me there :)

    5 - No comment...

    Parent

    I cheated. (none / 0) (#43)
    by wurman on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:40:37 PM EST
    You actually meant the REAL Northeast & my comments include a mid-Atlantic state--PA, of all places.

    UConn seems to do well at basketball.

    Paterno plods along with some success.

    Then there's both rugby & women's field hockey.

    Parent

    I cheated too (none / 0) (#93)
    by CST on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 09:57:16 AM EST
    I meant New England, and I discounted UConn because I lump CT with NY in the tri-state area, even though it's both.

    Parent
    Being born and bred in NJ, (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:40:04 PM EST
    and having taken a course or two at Fairly-Ridiculous, I love seeing them named in the same breath as Harvard, Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, etc...

    Parent
    Don't we have enough (none / 0) (#27)
    by eric on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:52:47 PM EST
    national champions?  Leave that to the pros.  College should be about your conference and then, going to a nice bowl match up.  Not everything needs to be nationwide contest.

    Here in the Big Ten, we were perfectly happy picking our winner and sending them out to the Rose Bowl.  We don't care about Florida, Utah, or Oklahoma.

    Adding, if there is some kind of dispute about a "national champion" and those teams actually care, let them duke it out in a separate contest.  Leave the rest of us out of it.

    Good idea. Let USC go off and (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:43:23 PM EST
    battle outside the Rose Bowl.  Maybe Michigan would actually win the Rose Bowl for a pleasant change.

    Parent
    UM will have to aspire to better than 3-9. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:02:35 PM EST
    Further, I can safely assure you that USC will not be Pac-10's kingpin in perpetuity, any more than Washington remained astride the Pac-10 following the Huskies' magnificent run in the early '90s, or UCLA remained dominant after its championship years in the late '90s.

    And as Pasadena Tournament of Roses officials learned once already to their chagrin, it doesn't pay over the long-term to unilaterally dispense with tradition, simply to live in the moment.

    Parent

    Obviously U of M wouldn't be in the (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:13:05 AM EST
    Rose Bowl with a 3 and 9 record.  

    Parent
    Utah is the only program, BCS and otherwise ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:06:05 PM EST
    ... that has had two undefeated seasons in the 10 years since the BCS was founded. Further, the Utes actually enjoyed a higher strength-of-schedule rating than their Sugar Bowl opponent Alabama, which was perched atop the polls at No. 1 for the entire latter portion of the 2008 season.

    Let's see the Florida Gators endure the rigors of Mountain West Conference road games in the high country of Salt Lake City (Utah), Provo (BYU), Laramie (Wyoming), Ft. Worth (TCU) and Colorado Springs (Air Force) every other year, before you deem to declare Utah's schedule unworthy of national championship consideration.

    Otherwise, I can only note that with the exception of a trip to Tallahassee every other year, Florida very rarely travels to schools outside of the SEC conference, and gets to enjoy its home confines in Gainesville for 98% of its non-conference gridiron contests.

    One might just as well ask how can a team be considered for a national championship when it refuses to play any games west of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio River.

    For example, I didn't see Florida sign up to play a home-and-home series with this season's opening opponent Hawaii, like Alabama did a few years ago. As Crimson Tide fans can attest from their experience of defeat in the islands a few years ago, the Warriors are indeed a different breed of animal in Aloha Stadium, as are most teams when they get to play at home.

    Go play a few games on the road against non-BCS powers like Boise State, BYU, Utah, Hawaii, Fresno State, Miami-Ohio and East Carolina -- heck, I'd even settle for the Gators scheduling a game down the road in Orlando against UCF, or with Big East power South Florida in St. Petersburg -- and then we'll discuss Florida's claim to a national championship.

    Otherwise, it's only so much preening and posturing.

    What happened to June Jones? (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 07:25:16 PM EST
    Shoulda stayed in Hawaii....

    Parent
    June Jones had a lot of personal issues ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 08:17:39 PM EST
    ... regarding his family status that made his future in Hawaii increasingly problematic.

    Not to get into the weeds here with his history out here, but Mike Price was fired from the head coach's job at Alabama for far less than the shenanigans Jones pulled early in his tenure in Honolulu. As a result, his wife subsequently left him and took the kids, and he was really feeling the need to be around for his children as they came of age, hence the move to Dallas. We all wish him nothing but the best.

    I think Hawaii has a good replacement in Greg McMackin. His offense might not be the caliber of Jones' product here, but his defenses are pretty stellar, he recruits very well (especially in keeping island prospects at home), and the Warriors will be a very good team in the next few years.

    Parent

    I like the bowl system (none / 0) (#31)
    by abdiel on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:07:59 PM EST
    Not for the controversy, but I think it encourages more bold scheduling.  A playoff would make conferences even more insular, so we'd never see good matchups like USC-Ohio State in the regular season.  You'd see more Texas Techs, who had an undefeated record on a cupcake schedule and was overrated when they went up against Oklahoma and Ole Miss.  

    The BCS isn't to blame for the fact that Utah won't be #1, the voters are.  If Utah wants to be the unquestioned #1, then next year they should play USC or Florida or Oklahoma.  At the very least, doing that would shut one school's fans up.

    By the way, the Mountain West gets no credit for beating the Pac-10 head to head.  The Pac-10 had some truly awful teams, like UCLA, Arizona State, or any school from Washington.  Arizona is also weird, having beaten 10-2 BYU but losing to 4-8 New Mexico State.

    The BCS should get the blame for its system (none / 0) (#51)
    by cymro on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:58:43 PM EST
    Your argument that

    The BCS isn't to blame for the fact that Utah won't be #1, the voters are

    ignores the fact that the BCS is responsible for designing and managing the system it uses to designate the "national champion", and yet provides no direction to the voters and makes no effort to ensure validity or consistency in the vote.

    As DAN Wetzel points out in his article, Utah out of sight, out of mind, the BCS polls do not actually require voters to watch the games, and it's quite likely that many (maybe even most?) of the voters did not even see Utah play during the season.

    Parent

    Then let Utah play Florida or Oklahoma (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by abdiel on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:04:06 PM EST
    Beat an elite team on prime time and they'll get all the exposure they need.  

    That's the reason I like the bowl system - if Utah feels confident and they don't want to get the shaft again, then they'll schedule an elite team, a game that people will want to watch because so much is at stake.  

    I'm sure Alabama is very eager for revenge.  Start there.

    Parent

    But suppose ... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 08:26:50 PM EST
    ... the so-called "elite" teams don't want to play Utah? And from a selfish standpoint, why should they? They have nothing to gain, and a lot to lose.

    The University of Hawaii increasingly ran into that very problem as its football team transitioned over the past decade from a college football doormat to a mid-major power. Texas dropped them from its schedule in 2000, Notre Dame and Purdue pulled out in 2001, Virginia opted out in 2003, Michigan and Michigan State exercised buy-out opetions clauses in game contracts for 2007, and UCLA has point-blank refused to schedule the Warriors, home or away.

    Parent

    It's sad (none / 0) (#35)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:27:45 PM EST
    that every other college league, including lower level football divisions, have a playoff system but 1A  does not.

    A team like Utah or Boise State or BYU has no shot at a national title.  If you aren't in the Big 10, Big 12, Big East, SEC or ACC you can pretty much forget a national title.  

    There are too many people that are too financially vested in the current system to see any real changes.  Which is a shame.  I might actually care more about college ball if they had a playoff.

    Imagine a playoff where each conference winner plus 4 at large bids got into a playoff?  

    Cut the season back to 10. 9 for conferences that have conference championships.  16 team playoff.  People would be glued to the sets in December.

    Notre Dame begs to differ (none / 0) (#50)
    by abdiel on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:57:49 PM EST
    Even though they haven't been any good in a long time, the Fighting Irish would always be eligible for the championship game if they went undefeated.  And that is the point - Notre Dame would have to defeat USC, Michigan State, North Carolina, and BC, all respectable teams.  

    Sorry, but Utah isn't going to get any respect for beating the likes of UCLA and Oregon State.  If you want to be #1, go beat USC, or Florida, or Oklahoma.  

    Parent

    Alabama? (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 07:26:26 PM EST
    That gives Utah a good claim...

    Parent
    Utah has played them. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 08:03:41 PM EST
    abdiel: "Sorry, but Utah isn't going to get any respect for beating the likes of UCLA and Oregon State.  If you want to be #1, go beat USC, or Florida, or Oklahoma."

    Utah beat Oregon State less than one week after the Beavers knocked off USC. Are you implying that USC's loss should be considered a mulligan, while Utah's victory shouldn't count?

    And by the way, were you asleep during the Sugar Bowl?

    Further, Utah did in fact beat USC in a bowl game the last time they played only a few years ago when Urban Meyer was still the Utes' coach, which was early in the Pete Carroll era at Southern Cal. As I recall, they dominated the Trojans defensively much the same way they did Alabama.

    Non-BCS schools like Utah, Fresno State, Hawaii and Boise State that aspire to maintain competitive, high-caliber football programs do in fact aggressively court opportunities to play big-name competition whenever they can. For example, perennial MWC power Brigham Young will play its 2009 opener against Oklahoma in Dallas, defending WAC champion Boise State will play host to Oregon, Fresno State travels to Wisconsin and Cincinnati, and Hawaii will end its season with Navy and Wisconsin.

    However, I don't hear much criticism from people like you of traditional powers and BCS programs like Michigan and Michigan State, when they either studiously avoid scheduling potentially tough non-BCS threats like Utah or Fresno State, or unilaterally drop such teams from their schedule on short notice. Both schools did just that in early 2007 to eventual WAC champion Hawaii, after watching Warrior QB Colt Brennan complete an NCAA-record 75% of his passes for an NCAA-record 58 touchdowns and an NCAA-record 5,600 yards during the 2006 season, and seeing the Warriors blow by Fresno State, Purdue and Arizona State. What was all the more infuriating was to hear sports commentators and columnists criticize Hawaii for playing Northern Colorado and Charleston Southern, when in fact those two schools were the last-second replacements for those two Big Ten teams.

    (Ironically, Michigan scratched Hawaii from its 2007 home schedule in favor of hosting Appalachian State. Karma does have a wicked sense of humor.)

    So your point holds neither water nor credibility. Of course, when confronted with facts, those who shamelessly dote on big-name teams will just come up with some other lame excuse to deny good non-BCS teams their due.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Maybe that was it (none / 0) (#76)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 08:21:28 PM EST
    but considering MSU was already talking about getting out of that game before the 2006 season even happened, given that (rightly or wrongly) they were upset about what they considered bush-league WAC officiating on their prior visit, that kinda sounds like wishful thinking.  Not that Hawaii wouldn't have won a matchup that year, of course.

    Parent
    You know, it's always easy ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 08:44:23 PM EST
    ... to blame the officiating when you lose both a 21-point lead and the game, 41-31, as then-Michigan State head coach John L. Smith did out here in December 2004.

    However, what Smith always conveniently forgot to tell reporters is that the officiating crew working that particular game was from the Pac-10, and were not local or WAC. I was at that game, and remember it vividly.

    Truth be told, Smith's Spartan team simply choked and unraveled in the second half. They became frustrated as then-Warrior QB Timmy Chang found his range to light them up for over 550 yards and five TDs, and as a result the Spartans got flagged for numerous personal foul penalties when they lost both their cool and their poise.  Blame the coach, and not the refs, for that debacle.

    If nothing else, Michigan State basketball coach Tom Izzo apparently took such inter-departmental belly-aching from his fellow MSU coach to heart, and thus insisted on having Big Ten officials work his team's non-conference game with Hawaii in their 2005 season opener in Honolulu. It didn't help; his then-No. 4-ranked Spartans were blown out, 84-62.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#85)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:20:23 PM EST
    regardless of the "real" reason (and John L. Smith was a weird guy who ran a weird program), your underlying point about the difficulties mid-majors have in scheduling is undeniably true.  People act like all you have to do is make a call and boom, you have Oklahoma on the schedule.

    Parent
    yay! i agree with big tent... (none / 0) (#45)
    by blogname on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:48:47 PM EST
    I am a complete gator fan - but I really respect Ok and the Big 12. I cannot wait to watch us win.

    Anyone know the spread? (none / 0) (#52)
    by abdiel on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:59:18 PM EST
    Just out of curiosity

    All depends on Percy. (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:05:10 PM EST


    Parent
    And you are right (none / 0) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:20:06 PM EST
    The only movement in the line began the day Percy was declared 90% healthy with him only feeling some pain when he slows down. Percy's answer to that, "I'll just have to keep speeding up"

    Parent
    Opened (none / 0) (#59)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:15:18 PM EST
    with the Gators a 3 point favorite a month ago and hovered at that point until 2 days ago. Now the Gators are a 4 point favorite

    Parent
    I'm going to correct myself (none / 0) (#62)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:24:40 PM EST
    Since this morning the line has moved again, depending on the sportsbook, with the Gators favored by 4.5 or 5 depending on your offshore connection. This being a law blog, the following is necessary:

    **The above information is provided for entertainment purposes only**

    Parent

    Percy is pretty clever, I'd say. (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 07:14:09 PM EST
    And I'm entirely impressed with your state of the art knowledge of the odds.

    Parent
    This is all well and good, but when (none / 0) (#58)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:09:34 PM EST
    are we going to have a national chess-boxing championship? There's the sport of the future!

    As a long time Trojan watcher (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 07:46:41 PM EST
    their annual let down no longer surprises....Bunch of primadonnas...With that level of talent, they should be in the BCS title game every year....

    primadonnas? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Pepe on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:49:33 PM EST
    Hey they are a one loss team just like the two playing tomorrow but due to voting bias they are left out in the cold.

    Brent Musburger had it right during the Rose Bowl broadcast when he kept waging his finger and his tongue at the people who voted USC down and voted the 5-0 in Bowl games PAC 10 down. He knows better as he actually watches the games as opposed to people who don't want to see USC anymore due to regional prejudices.

    USC lost to a then #23 Oregon St. Florida lost to a then unranked Ole Miss. And they are rated higher than us? Remove the 'C' and what you end up with is the BS Bowl.

    Parent

    To Get Paid To Write Nonsense . . . | 91 comments (91 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment