LSU has won the National Championship, I think.

That's right, I know the actual game isn't until Monday, but honestly it doesn't matter...or so everyone seems to be saying*. The SEC is 6-2 in bowls, while the Big Ten is a lowly 3-4.

Nevermind that the SEC was favored in 75% of their matchps while the Big Ten drew a tougher lot; they were dogs in 71% of their games. Nevermind that the hottest team in the SEC played a WAC school, or that Kentucky played a Florida State team that was down 35 guys, or that the SEC runner-up was matched up against the 5th best Big Ten team. Nevermind that MSU, who finished 9th in the Big Ten, was lucky enough to play the ACC runner-up. Or that Penn State, Illinois and Michigan played what equate to away games. These things don't matter, what matters is the raw record, and that is why LSU has won is going to win the Mythical National Championship.

It'll be ok guys.
Oh, and Ohio State is 0-8 against SEC teams in bowl games. That's trouble right there. This stat is relevant, seriously. And USC wins Rose Bowls because Pete Carroll has never lost a swimming race against Will Ferrell. It's science.

Ok, enough sarcasm. If there is one thing we know about this season, and, really there is only one, it's that you cannot compare teams to the second degree. App State beat Michigan, Michigan beat Florida. Stanford beat USC, then Notre Dame took down Stanford. Pitt beats WVU, then WVU goes out and owns Big XII champ OU. I can go all day. I know for a fact that the outcome of the Purdue-Central Michigan game has absolutely no impact or relation to the Mythical National Championship game.


*To be totally honest, this guy actually gets it. The shame is that ESPN has to sell his story by trying to start another played out Big10-SEC fight (or maybe it was his idea, who knows).

Further BCS Game thoughts...

So the blowouts continue...the Bust Championship Series has brought us three games with a combined point total of 138 for the winners and 55 for the losers. Although to be fair, unlike the New Year's bowls, it was the underdog who did the bitchslapping yesterday. Some random thoughts about last nights game:

-Devine is fast, as hell.

-Are the OU Band hand gestures that exciting that i need to see them every 15 minutes?

-Speaking of pointless camera shots, isn't the point of the "sky cam" better views of the field, not better views of cameras? I think ESPN zoomed in on that thing thirty times.

-Stoops has gained weight, maybe it's the stress of having your passing game shut down by a team from the Big East, or maybe the 300+ rushing yards hit team gave up for the first time since 1990-somthing.

-There has been no team as hot/cold as WVU this year. They lose to Pitt but then totally redeem themselves by smacking around the #4 team in the nation.

-I don't care much for WVU, but I really like their interim coach. Is he even being considered for the job? WVU doesn't seem to be having any problems on the field and the players seem to really like the guy.




UPDATE: So 'that guy', who is actually named Bill Stewart, is the new head coach at WVU. You have to wonder if a quick hire after a teary bowl win is a smart move, but honestly who gives a damn. When the next best alternative is the alcoholic son of a cheating football coach who wears funny hats, well, then I like this guy too. (But seriously, I think everyone wins here.)

Bust Championship Series

BCS, you guys are killing me. 49-17, really? 633 yards of total offense for USC? I didn't watch the second half of this game. Let me say that again, I turned off the Rose Bowl at half time! Now I'm all for tradition, but the tradition of the Rose Bowl has never been matching the #1 Pac Ten team against the #2 Big Ten team*.

Per the BCS website:

The BCS is ...

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a five-game arrangement for post-season college football that is designed to match the two top-rated teams in a national championship game and to create exciting and competitive matchups between eight other highly regarded teams in four other games.

Really? Because that's not what you are doing. USC-Illinois was neither "exciting" nor "competitive". Oh, and the other game? Ya, undefeated Hawaii looked like a high school team last night. You matched what is probably the best team in the nation right now in Georgia against a team from the WAC.

The two BCS games yesterday were the only ones that actually interested me, that's part of why I'm so annoyed. The BCS had a chance to crate another very interesting matchup, #3 VT vs #4 OU, but decided instead that two watered down games are better than one good one. West Virginia have no coaching staff and just lost to Whanstash. Kasas has a resume about as good as Hawaii's but are less fun to watch. I can't wait.




*Now I know this sets a good precedent for Penn State, meaning we don't have to win anything to get into the Rose Bowl, but the reality is we would get in anyway. We are a huge draw and haven't been there in a decade.

Why you don't have to root for the Big Ten in their bowl games.

It is commonly believed that your conference needs to win their bowl games or the sky will fall. That without some good out of conference wins no one will take your teams seriously. I'm calling bullshit.



Reasons why you don't have to root for the big ten in their bowl games:

#1 - Poor performance doesn't equal punishment. In a season that followed a summer of supreme Big Ten hate, the conference still lands the #1 seed in the MNC despite no overwhelming evidence that they are really any good. In addition, the Big Ten landed their record 15th BCS bid in Illinois*. All this after being ranked the 6th best conference by Sagarin.

#2 - No one really looks at the record anyway. So OSU and UM are blown out of the water, but then Penn State and Wiscy control their games against the mighty SEC. Minnesota dominates but manages to give 31 unanswered points in the last 20 minutes of the game, then another 6 in overtime for a loss. Even an underperforming and barely bowl eligible (6-6) Iowa team had #13 Texas by the horns** before pulling a Minnesota late in that game.

#3 - There will always be an excuse. The Big East went 5-0 last year in their bowls, yet they get no respect because "they didn't play anyone". Penn State beats Tennessee, but "Fulmer just can't win bowl games". Wisconsin beats Arkansas, but "McFadden was hurt" (even though he had over a month to heal)...the whole point is that you don't even get credit for what you do on the field. People, mainly sports writers and pollsters, create expectations about everything, even predictions that they publish for millions of people. So what happens when they are dead wrong? Do they realize they were basing their expectations on flawed logic? No, of course not, they rationalize so that they really weren't that wrong. This way they can write a follow up piece about how the grass was too long, or how the "should have been" winning coach made some terrible play calls. It's never about how stupid they are, it can't be, because then they wouldn't be experts. And what would we do without experts?



*I know that they probably wouldn't be in if it wasn't for the situation, that they needed OSU in the MNC Game and a little love from our good friend the Rose Bowl, but this is really my point. We do have a nice deal, the Rose is going to pick a Big Ten team, usually, if they qualify, and the Zookers qualified.

**No pun is intended, I swear, it just kind of slipped out. Because I know this line has been horrible abused, I had to Goodle search for proof: over 1,000 results.

Another reason to hate the BCS

There are many, for sure. But here is another. The BCS games suck this year, but they didn't have to. The rules allow for a BCS matchup shift that could be enacted if [1] "the same team will be playing in the same bowl game for two consecutive years" or, [2] "whether alternative pairings may have greater or lesser appeal to college football fans".

Haha, good one BCS, the "fans".

Anyway, enough sarcasm. So to get down to it, the BCS selected their teams, looked at the matchups, and then decided that Hawaii-UGA, VT-Kansas(?!), and Oklahoma-WVU where "the balls". No adjustment (namely pitting #3 VT against #4 OU) would be of greater "appeal to college football fans". Or so they say.

So, logically, when someone gets screwed, it's either about money or saving face. In this case the latter appears to be the case. As SI points out, "Theoretically, a decisive victory by Oklahoma -- which is ranked No. 3 in the AP and Coaches polls -- combined with a less decisive LSU victory over the Buckeyes could have opened the door for a split national championship. Unlike the coaches***, AP voters are not obligated to select the BCS title-game winner No. 1."

This actually makes a lot of sense. The BCS does not like splits. The whole justification for the BCS is the fact that they will no longer exist*. Why would they set themselves up when they can make just as much money by taking the safe road.

So, BCS, why can't we have a VT-OU matchup?

"Everybody looked at that, and knowing that, still came to the same conclusion. In any such consideration of something like this, you have to look at the question of what precedent does it set -- particularly when there have been more compelling requests** that have not been granted -- and what are the unintended consequences?"

So the reason why you are making a dumb decision now is because you have made dumb decisions in the past? Ya, that sounds like the kind of fucked up logic that got us here in the first place.


*except sometimes.
**probably referring to the FSU-Miami rematch in 2003.
***This isn't true, after the USC/LSU/OU debacle, the Coach's Poll allowed their members to to vote for whoever they wanted. Most voted for LSU anyway, some did not.