Saturday morning snacks

Here are a few tasty items to get you started on a cold morning:

  • Here’s a handy timeline of political grandstanding/stupidity as it pertains to the BCS.  My favorite has to be the state pol who introduced a bill to keep all teams from Texas out of the BCS – the year the Longhorns won the MNC.  Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face…
  • Lance Thompson’s decision:  money or a change of assholes?  You decide.
  • First, it was bringing back Ed Orgeron.  Now, John L. Smith.  The coaching characters quotient in the SEC has certainly jumped up this offseason.  As a blogger, this is nothing but good news, of course.
  • For all the talk we’ve heard about redshirts in the wake of Moreno’s early departure, there are still valid reasons to redshirt a football player.
  • Why do I have the feeling that if Obama had come out in favor of the BCS, The Weekly Standard would have published a piece on the virtues of a playoff?  Wankers.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, College Football, Don't Mess With Lane Kiffin, Media Punditry/Foibles, Political Wankery, SEC Football

11 responses to “Saturday morning snacks

  1. MJ

    The last piece of proposed legislation is hilarious, too. Let’s see, Congress won’t fund FBS schools with football teams unless there is a playoff… only to have them use the funds for additional travel required by a playoff… which conflicts directly with the work conducted by the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees.

    Not to mention that government interference of the individual bowls (which are formed as corporations with individual rights) would violate the 14th Amendment under the Equal Protection Clause.


  2. In the Weekly Standard’s defense, arguing for the general conservation of tradition and the long-standing system is in line with their professed philosophy.


    • In the Weekly Standard’s defense, arguing for the general conservation of tradition and the long-standing system is in line with their professed philosophy.

      If it’s all about tradition, shouldn’t the WS be advocating a return to the pre-1994 set up? 😉


  3. NCT

    Politics. We’ve come a long way from the days when Tech and Georgia weren’t permitted to play against “integrated” football teams unless it was outside the state of Georgia (thereby allowing Tech to participate in the 1956 Sugar Bowl against Pitt).


  4. MJ

    You’re right, NCT. How do people like this get elected?

    I wonder if Rep. Miller from California has considered that his proposed law would negatively impact students at the affected universities… based on the fact that he wants a CFB playoff.

    Anyway, SCOTUS would overturn this law for the same reasons City of New York v. Clinton overturned line-item veto.


  5. I guess its good to see even politicians are passionate about their teams and college football? That said, these people need to stay as far away from CFB as possible. We have our own brand of politics to deal with in CFB, and its bad enough without the elected officials getting involved. It makes my head hurt to just think about how bad they can screw this up. Look what they’ve done to the country.


  6. Please forgive me, I forgot to add-and will continue to do to the country.


  7. Wow, the creator of one of the computer rankings used in the BCS thinks that the BCS is a great system? Thank you, Weekly Standard, for that revelatory bit of insight.

    But this has to be one of the dumbest paragraphs I’ve ever read about anything:

    Contrast this with the BCS era. There has been some controversy over title-game selections, although very little in the past five years. But when a given matchup clearly should have taken place, it has taken place–as in the 2006 Rose Bowl, when Vince Young and Texas beat USC on a fourth-down touchdown run with 19 seconds left, and the 2003 Fiesta Bowl, when Ohio State beat Miami in double-overtime.

    “Very little” controversy in the last five years? Right, because EVERYBODY wanted Florida in the ’06 national-title game instead of Michigan, and nobody in Auburn actually thought their team should’ve been playing in the ’04 Orange Bowl. But hey, when there are only two undefeated teams at the end of the season, the system works perfectly! All hail the BCS wizards for figuring out that Texas and USC were the two best teams in the country at the end of 2005, because Lord knows there was no way any of the rest of us were going to be able to figure that out for ourselves!

    What a knob.


  8. Hackerdog

    “If it’s all about tradition, shouldn’t the WS be advocating a return to the pre-1994 set up?”

    Not necessarily. The WS also adheres to the political philosophy of the government keeping its nose out of stupid and trivial matters such as the BCS. Since the schools, sportswriters, and bowl committees decided on the BCS, I stand with the WS in admonishing The One to kindly stay out of it.


    • OK, Hacker, if it’s simply a matter of general political philosophy, then why is Obama the only party mentioned by name in the article? There are scads of politicians advocating government action in this arena.


  9. Dirk Dawgler

    Before I even clicked on “Comments,” I was certain that Doug (aka the Janeane Garofalo of the Dawg interwebs) would be heard from in the form of castigating anything & everything conservative in nature.

    In these troubling times, it’s reassuring to know that there are still some things you can always count on.