There's really no better place on Earth to hear rampant, unrepressed, unabashed, almost exuberant irrationality than in the world of sports. Hell, sports commentary may have somehow beat out politics in this regard. The ferocious, unrelenting tirades filled with every profane word the English language has yet graced us with that fill the mouths of even the most mundane sports fan whenever a questionable call is made against their favorite team should be evidence enough of this. If that doesn't do the trick, just go onto an ESPN message board after a team loses or listen to some of the most bland, unenlightened "analysis" on sports shows by the likes of Sean Salisbury and Stephen A. Smith.
Unfortunately for those of us who like sports but also prefer a rational argument, College football has blessed us with another conundrum for which angry fans can spit their ill-informed venom at. Of course I'm speaking of the Texas/Oklahoma mess.
Here's the breakdown; Texas and Oklahoma both finished 11-1 overall and 7-1 in the Big 12. When they played each other Texas won on a neutral field 45-35. Now the team that wins the Big 12 South plays the team that wins the Big 12 North for the Big 12 Championship. If two teams have the same record, the head to head match up decides who wins, if there is a three way tie, than the team with the higher BCS ranking goes.
OK, so as you may know, Oklahoma is ranked 3rd and Texas 4th so Oklahoma will played a vastly outmatched Missouri team for the title and likely a trip to the national championship game this Saturday. Texas fans are absolutely outraged, I mean they won the head to head, end of story right. Some Texas fans even set up a website; 45-35.com. It is an outrage isn't it? I mean, if you listen to this idiot, it really is that simple.
Well it's not that simple and I'm sick of hearing Texas fans and poorly educated sports "analysts" tell me it is. See there's this little problem called Texas Tech that every Longhorns fan conveniently forgot about. Here's how the games went down:
Texas beat Oklahoma 45-35, Texas finished 11-1
Texas Tech beat Texas 39-33, Texas Tech finished 11-1
Oklahoma beat Texas Tech 65-21, Oklahoma finished 11-1
There is a three-way tie, therefore head to head is completely nullified. Gone forever, meaningless, pointless, useless, etc. Some have said that Texas Tech hasn't had as tough a schedule, nor as big a margin of victory, and they're not playing as well right now. Well the same exact thing can be said about Oklahoma against Texas. Oklahoma had a tougher schedule, playing top 15 teams Cincinnati and TCU, while the only tough opponent Texas played that Oklahoma didn't was a barely ranked Missouri team Oklahoma will probably throttle tomorrow. Oklahoma has a better margin of victory, they are a hotter team right now, they lost earlier in the season than Texas, they have scored 60 points in four straight games and will likely set an NCAA record for points scored.
So that leaves the most mind numbingly stupid argument left; Texas Tech got blown out so badly they shouldn't be considered. I've actually heard this one many times. Now listen here ya'll, what you are actually saying, whether you’re aware of it or not, is because Oklahoma did so good and beat a team that Texas lost to by so much they don't deserve to go to the championship. If only Oklahoma wasn't as good and didn’t win by as much, then maybe they deserve to go.
Obviously this doesn't mean the BCS is a good system, it is ridiculously unfair. We desperately need a playoff to sort these annual messes out. Really, the Big 12 itself should have a better system. Why is it split into two divisions anyways? Why is a 9-3 team playing an 11-1 team for the Big-12 championship when there are two other 11-1 teams sitting idly by? However, in this very imperfect system, Oklahoma deserves to go. With the head to head nullified, Oklahoma's tougher schedule, better margin of victory and the fact they are certainly playing better right now should trump anything else. Texas is getting screwed, but they're getting screwed out of the third seed in a best of eight playoff that does not currently exist.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
Some Change Barack
Not that I expected that much from him, but Barack Obama's cabinet selections have been a disappointment to say the least. Today he officially nominated Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. A bit of a U turn from all those horribly mean things Clinton and Obama said about each other during their bitter primary campaign. I am not exactly what you would call a fan of Hillary Clinton. I've always found her, like her husband, to be the ambitious, cuthroat, lying politican type. Although she did dodge all those make believe bullets in Serbia back in the early 90's, so that's a plus.
My bigger problem is how blatantly status quo Obama's selections have been with Hillary Clinton simply being the biggest name on the list. He also picked many others who were long time Clinton people including John Podesta as Transition Chief and Rep. Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff among others. Some have described this as a "a team of rivals" in reference to Abraham Lincoln, who basically put everyone he beat in the election into cabinet posts. That's one way of looking at it, but I don't see it that way. I think these selections, all basically Clinton people (with the notable exception of Robert Gates, who will probably remain at Secretary of Defense, again big change) just creates the second presidency of Bill Clinton.
If that was what this whole election was about, fine, he should have said so. Hillary Clinton at least for once took a leave from her normal dishonesty and basically admitted that was her intention. But this coming from the guy who talked so much about "hope" and "change" and a "new politics" just seems awful disingenuous. I guess that's nothing new from a politician. Change all the way back to 1999!
That being said, it's not all bad. Bill Clinton certainly had many faults, like launching some 25 odd, mostly inept military interventions, but those were at least short, small wars with few casualties unlike the debacles George W Bush got us into in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, while I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, he's leaps and bounds ahead of Bush. Ironically, our economy actually got freer under Clinton and then less free under Bush, which will probably surprise the many mindless talking head drones who assume rhetoric equals action. According to the Fraser Institute's yearly report on economic freedom, the US was a 7.8 (out of 10) in 1990, two years before Clinton took office. When he left, the US stood at 8.6, and now, after 8 years of Bush it has fallen to an 8.0.
I guess all this elucidates the simple point that politicians are, with very few exceptions, dirty liars. The supposedly egalitarian democrats increased economic freedom, the supposedly free market republicans decreased economic freedom and Barack Obama isn't about change or a new sort of politics. He's simply trying to have the third and then fourth terms of Bill Clinton's presidency. But hey let’s look on the bright side, given our recent history, that's certainly not the worst thing that could happen.
My bigger problem is how blatantly status quo Obama's selections have been with Hillary Clinton simply being the biggest name on the list. He also picked many others who were long time Clinton people including John Podesta as Transition Chief and Rep. Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff among others. Some have described this as a "a team of rivals" in reference to Abraham Lincoln, who basically put everyone he beat in the election into cabinet posts. That's one way of looking at it, but I don't see it that way. I think these selections, all basically Clinton people (with the notable exception of Robert Gates, who will probably remain at Secretary of Defense, again big change) just creates the second presidency of Bill Clinton.
If that was what this whole election was about, fine, he should have said so. Hillary Clinton at least for once took a leave from her normal dishonesty and basically admitted that was her intention. But this coming from the guy who talked so much about "hope" and "change" and a "new politics" just seems awful disingenuous. I guess that's nothing new from a politician. Change all the way back to 1999!
That being said, it's not all bad. Bill Clinton certainly had many faults, like launching some 25 odd, mostly inept military interventions, but those were at least short, small wars with few casualties unlike the debacles George W Bush got us into in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, while I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, he's leaps and bounds ahead of Bush. Ironically, our economy actually got freer under Clinton and then less free under Bush, which will probably surprise the many mindless talking head drones who assume rhetoric equals action. According to the Fraser Institute's yearly report on economic freedom, the US was a 7.8 (out of 10) in 1990, two years before Clinton took office. When he left, the US stood at 8.6, and now, after 8 years of Bush it has fallen to an 8.0.
I guess all this elucidates the simple point that politicians are, with very few exceptions, dirty liars. The supposedly egalitarian democrats increased economic freedom, the supposedly free market republicans decreased economic freedom and Barack Obama isn't about change or a new sort of politics. He's simply trying to have the third and then fourth terms of Bill Clinton's presidency. But hey let’s look on the bright side, given our recent history, that's certainly not the worst thing that could happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
