2.12.03
College Football: Am I supposed to be surprised? Right now, KJ has accumulated the third-most rushing yards in the history of the program. He's only about 400 or so yards behind Cyrus Lawrence, Tech's all time rushing leader. It would be possible that, were he to stay for his senior season, KJ would get the record before conference play even started.
Perhaps, more to the point, he's an awesome talent, a Doak Walker finalist and may well travel to New York as a Heisman finalist (even though he won't win). And even more germane than that, he may well be a top ten pick in the draft. All of these things compel him to come out, I know. But I don't like it any more than I did when Michael Vick came out. I certainly understand it, and I don't begrudge either Vick or Jones (or players like Ike Charlton or Shyrone Stith) coming out early, if they feel (however mistakenly, as in the 7th rounder Stith's case) it's in their best interests.
One of the members of the SEC got around to hiring a black coach. Mississippi State, which about 40 years ago, snuck out of the state to play in a NCAA tournament game against a team with black players - then against state law - hired the first black football coach in the 70 year history of the Southeastern Conference. Ivan Maisel that it's the right thing to do. Maisel argues that MSU AD Mike Slive did the right thing in hiring Croom, but by mentioning only at the end of his introduction the barrier that was broken he "buried the lead". Yeah, maybe. But maybe Mississippi State has the right idea, just like they did when they played that illegal basketball game 40 years ago. That idea being that skin colour isn't important; the important things are character traits, unique to each individual: character, courage, competence. In other words, can the man do the job? Personally, I think so (as does Slive) but only time will tell. Moreover, since part of the collegiate coach's job is recruiting, I think that you have to cut a new coach (whether Croom or, a couple of years ago, Ron Zook) slack and let them coach through their contract of 4 or 5 years. All in all, a good hire for Mississippi State. I am unaware of a better candidate for the Bulldogs.
Going Bowling: So here's my question: which bowls are important in College Football?
Obviously, the Sugar Bowl is important; it, of course, decides a national champion. Since national championships are the highest goals to which collegiate teams can aspire, those games which decide them are, almost by definition, important.
By this criterion, one must add the Divisions I-AA, II, and III national championships, played in Chattanooga, Florence, Ala. and Salem, Va., respectively.
One can make the argument that the other three BCS bowls are also important. Although not nearly as important as the four games mentioned above, they are important in the sense that excellent teams play in them. To play in a BCS bowl, a team must (a) win the championship of a BCS conference or (b) finish in the top 12 in the BCS standings. This means that the team has done one of two meaningful things: won a conference championship (arguably the most meaningful thing outside the national title) or been universally acclaimed by media, coaches and computer formulae as one of the best teams (top 10%) in the nation.
But where from there? By the conference championship criterion, the Liberty Bowl is important based on the fact that it is the only non-BCS bowl to pair conference champions. Should the Gator or Cotton Bowls be counted? Both of these pit BCS-conference runners-up (i.e. both bowls get first pick for both teams after the BCS takes its teams). Should the Cotton Bowl be counted? It oftentimes, too, pits BCS runners-up (in the form of division champions).
Personally, I would argue that the BCS bowls, the other national championships and the Liberty Bowl are important. Of course, there is oftentimes another one or two important bowls: the ones in which your teams take the field. I, of course, blogged yesterday about the Insight Bowl rather than any of the aforementioned bowls (I'll have a full bowl preview before the New Orleans Bowl kicks off 2 weeks from today, for those interested). I did so not because it's important to a vast majority of blog readers (to be honest, I don't give two toots about the Holiday Bowl, for example) but because it's important to me as a Tech fan.
Democratic Idiots,: Power Line links to stories about the faux Israeli-Palestinian accords in Geneva, negotiated by private citizens out of power and out of touch with their respective populaces. One of the interesting things that came out of it was a speech in which ex-President Carter says:
Had I been elected to a second term, with the prestige and authority and influence and reputation I had in the region, we could have moved to a final solution.
Ah, yes, the final solution. Considering that Palestinians have, even now, always - even during your term in office - refused to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, I suspect that the 'final solution' that they had in mind and continue to have in mind today would involve something not terribly different from what happened at the Wannsee Conference in 1942 outside Berlin. You know, Mr President, the Conference which doomed millions of Jews to death by gassing. Perhaps you should have said simply that you supported any effort by the Palestinians to obtain Zyklon B, or perhaps something more modern like tabun or sarin (both of which were used by Sadam Hussein against the Iranians and Kurds, and of which sarin was also used in the Tokyo subway attack a few years ago). I'm not certain that the effect of that statement would have been vastly different from the effect of what you actually said.
Captain's Quarters has a couple of interesting posts about Howard Dean, both regarding an interview Dean did with Chris Matthews. The first link I posted points to Dean running off at the mouth about concentrated ownership of the media; he suggests that he would 'appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum'. But the problem is this: Isn't it the right of those who broadcast to determine what they broadcast...or what they don't? Certainly he makes the point that the better democracy (representative republicanism, actually, or constitutional republicanism if you prefer) depends upon the dissemination of information. However, he seems to suggest that he would compel those owners of media outlets to work against their better interests by either (a) selling media outlets or (b) disseminating information with which they do not agree.
The second link regarding Dr Dean refers to international affairs. Dr Dean believes that 'the Soviet Union' should exert pressure on Iran regarding the latter's atomic weapons program; after all, 'the Soviet Union is supplying of the equipment that Iran I believe mostly likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons.' This is weirdly reminiscent of the interview given by President Bush to whatzizname up in Boston, who asked the then-Governor to name the heads of government of those four countries. Of course, the reporter in Boston deliberately asked Bush about that trivia. Here Chris Matthews does no such thing, and Dr Dean talks unprompted of the Soviet Union as a current entity; the last presidential election in which that was the case involved the current president's father. Since Dr Dean's gaffe was the greater on two levels. First, he misstated a country's name. One presumes that President Bush could have said on the campaign trail three years ago that the Soviet Union had split into several separate states. Second, Mr Bush's gaffe was the result of some nameless reporter giving him a pop-quiz. Dr Dean's gaffe was completely and totally unprompted.
Of course, given the party affiliation of each, one could hazard an educated guess at which gaffe received more press.
More later - R.
Comments:
Post a Comment
