Odds & Ends

I thought the story about a charity executive embezzling money to, among other things, hire a professional dominatrix was strange enough. Yet, I think the more important question is why did he fly from New York to Ohio to see her? Not speaking from personal experience of course, but I certainly would have thought New York would be an easier to find paid perversions than Ohio. Well, except maybe Cincinnati. Nothing but freaks up there.

Speaking of perversions, I'm not sure the oddest part of this story about a couple microwaving a dildo to heat up a urine sample. Whoever is doing the testing must be pretty thorough if the woman felt the need for a fake organ. Of course, didn't she realize a woman whipping out a wang might lead to more questions?

To begin with, I'm not really sure that either JJ Redick or Adam Morrison is really the best college player in the country. Sure they score a lot, but do they really do anything else well? I certainly don't think they should be a lock over Randy Foye or Brandon Roy. Yet, what is really ludicrous is even trying to compare those two to Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. Anyone who thinks these two bozos are even remotely close to those two legends needs to see a doctor about some head-from-anus surgery.

Another story from the "What were you thinking?" file. A Spanish "artist" has converted a German Synagogue into a gas chamber, and apparently doesn't understand why some people might find it slightly offensive.

Of course, cluelessness is running amok in this country. I'm not just talking about teachers purchasing academic credentials. I'm talking about a school board member who is "baffled" at why the teachers were fired. I guess she thinks someone committing academic fraud would be the perfect role model for students who might be inclined to cheat.

Then there is Sharon Stone. Not to question the intellect of a Hollywood celebrity, but she surprised even me when she said Hillary Clinton was "too sexy to win" the Presidency. I can give a lot of reasons why I wouldn't vote for Hillary, but that certainly isn't one of them. Husband Bill must not think she's too sexy when you consider the "bimbo eruptions" that cropped up during his career.

Speaking of Sharon Stone, I saw a preview for her new movie Basic Instinct 2. It looks exactly like Basic Instinct 1. Of course, I'm sure I will eventually watch it, but a part of me is hoping that she used a body double at this stage of her career.

I'm usually not from the isolationist wing of the Republican Party, and I have no problem with a well managed immigration program. However, when you start waving the Mexican flag during a protest of American policy, my only response is "If you don't like it, GET THE HELL OUT".

First Round Thoughts and Opinions

I've never been a big St. Patrick's day person. I'm not Irish nor Catholic. I also don't like to wear green, so I don't know why I'm supposed to wear green and act Irish on St. Patrick's day. Actually, if I was Irish or Catholic (and especially both), the way St. Patrick's Day is celebrated would be somewhat offensive. Not only is St. Patrick an icon of Ireland, he's been sanctified by the Catholic Church. Yet, what is the expected behavior on St. Paddy's Day? Getting drunk. Doesn't really seem like the proper way to celebrate a missionary's life. Yet, there I was in an Irish Bar (McCarthy's) on St. Patrick's Day. However, there was one good thing about it. I found a lot of humor in watching a bar full of UK fans rooting for the Wildcats while wearing the colors of their opponents, UAB. I don't know who sells those silly "Gettin Lucky In Kentucky", but they made some money if they stocked up on the green ones.

I understand the thought process that led Billy Packer and Jim Nantz to mug the NCAA tournament selection committee chair, Craig Littlepage, during a post-selection interview. It does seem strange that the Missouri Valley Conference got in as many teams as the ACC. However, it's still not a good reason to be rather rude to a business partner. They didn't just disagree with Littlepage. They about called him a liar and then interrupted him when he wanted to give a simple congratulations to the teams in the tournament. Besides, considering that Packer didn't seem to know what day it was (he talked about one matchup before the pairing was announced), he's not exactly a good choice to make any argument. His theory was that at-large bids should measure a conference's historical trends which means that Wichita State should be excluded because Florida State plays in the ACC where Duke and UNC have been more successful in the tournaments than Southern Illinois. Doesn't matter whether or not Florida State is better than Wichita State (they're not), but their conference has been historically better, so they should get the automatic bid. To begin with, that argument is crap. MVC teams that make the NCAAs have to start out with low seeds meaning they play a top team out of the gate. Of course their historical trend will be worse, but it doesn't matter anyway. If the tournament is supposed to be the top 65 teams, it should do away with automatic bids. Why should the SWAC get any team in? It doesn't matter who their conference champ is, it won't be a top 65 team. The funny thing is that we're basically arguing about whether a good small conference team or a mediocre major conference team will be a double digit seed. Does it really matter? After all, since they began seeding in 1979, only two teams seeded lower than eight (11th seed LSU in 1986 and 9th seeded Penn in 1979) have ever made the Final Four. The lowest seeded team to win it all was Villanova which was an eight, but the '88 Kansas and '83 NC State teams (both 6 seeds) are the only other champs that weren't at least a four seed. So, we're talking about a bubble team which has virtually no chance of even making the Final Four, much less winning the title. I say reward the small team for a good season rather than a major school for an underwhelming one. Granted, Packer and Nantz did sort of apologize during the UK/UConn game, but what else could they do? Two of the four MVC teams, neither of whom won the conference tourney, were already in the Sweet Sixteen which is two more than the Big Ten. Hell, the only conference with more is the Big East.

Besides, CBS has the worst coverage. While watching the UK game, I could see where Murray State was tied with North Carolina with a minute left. Yet, they waited until 16 seconds were left before switching to it. I realize that the UK/UAB game was close, but there were over 10 minutes left. Why not switch? Or use that split screen they used to have?

Since I don't have a team in the tournament, I can pull for my bracket teams. So I was already happy that UConn beat UK because a loss would have killed my brackets. However, there was another reason. Phil basically shaved his head hoping it would help UK beat UAB. I was afraid if they had beaten UConn, Phil would have shaved other body parts. Which is fine if that's what he wants to do, but my real fear was that he would post the pictures, and we shouldn't have to see that.

I'm not a big fan of the "Duke Mystique", but Duke teams always play hard. With all the talent on the UConn roster, they would be unbeatable if they played as hard as Duke. Which was why I was scared to pick them to win it all. It was mindboggling to me that UL stayed closer at UConn during the regular season than they did against Rutgers or St. John's. They'll start jogging back on defense and standing around on offense. You get the feeling that Rudy Gay could take over this tournament, but he doesn't. Letting a UK team shooting 50% on threes in the second half come back from a big deficit wouldn't indicate that much of a problem, but letting Albany get a 12 point lead with 12 minutes left in the game does. It's almost like they have too much talent and figure they can always pull it out. Which they almost always do.

I didn't think I'd see a better shot in this tournament after Chris Lofton's game winner in the first round. Then I saw the game winner by Northwestern State's Jermaine Wallace's to beat Iowa. Lofton's as actually a better shot (a fall-away baseline 19 foot jumper with a man in his face), but his was drawn up. Wallace's was a rebound a miss, get stuck in the corner and bury a three. Plus, there were mitigating factors. One is that it was a huge upset by a school that some drunks (we started right after lunch and the place was already crowded) in the aforementioned Irish Bar refused to believe me when I said Northwestern State was in Louisiana. Even I couldn't tell them which city it was in. Two, they were down while the Vols were already tied and would have still had overtime. Three, it was funny to see the two Northwestern State players hugging in celebration at half court while Iowa still has a second left to get off a shot. Lucky for them, the guy with the 'fro got back on defense and kept Iowa from getting off a good shot. Needless to say, both will probably end up in next year's highlight clips to be played over and over.

I thought this was interesting. Apparently, the IU players were happy that Iowa lost in the first round because it meant that Mike Davis went farther than Steve Alford. Of course, they needed a completely inept play by San Diego State (guy gave up a turnover when he incorrectly thought he would have been called for a backcourt violation) and pass tipped directly to an open man to win. Then lost by 10 to a beatable Gonzaga who had won their previous three games by a total of 9 points. Actually, it was pretty stupid of the IU players to celebrate publicly, because even though I wouldn't hire Steve Alford (1 NCAA win in six years), Indiana might. Do you really want to tick off your next coach?

Actually, Mike Davis is lousy coach. He got lucky early when his team got hot and took him to the title game (helped by Jason Williams bricking a free throw). Since then Indiana has tried to strive for mediocrity despite having a number of talented players. Contrast that with Bruce Pearl at UT. It may seem strange that I think Tennessee's team overachieved this year. After all, they barely beat Winthrop in the first round before dropping the second to Wichita State. Still, when I look at that roster, it's got no size and relies too heavily on outside shooting and should never have won the SEC East or been a 2 seed. But it did. As much as I like Chris Lofton, that team had nothing like a Jared Jeffries who Davis inherited. Watch out for UT when Bruce Pearl gets more talent there.

This One Is For Phil

According to his review of my blog, Phil is disappointed that I stick to opinion issues and avoid the personal. As everyone knows, it hurts me greatly to disappoint Phil, so I have decided to have an entry that includes something new. Since everyone else likes to put pictures of their pets on their blogs, I have decided to put a couple of pictures of one of my pets. This is Little Guy. He is a fancy rat. He's actually the larger of my two rats, but that's because he eats anything that moves. He'll even try to eat Styrofoam if looks like popcorn.

Oh, and since Phil expects every blog to include an entry about the ski trip, I have to admit that I thought about sneaking Little Guy along and letting him loose at an opportune moment to see how people would react. Actually, what I really want to say about the ski trip is - good food, cold beer, Louisville beats Notre Dame, Steelers win the Super Bowl, nobody pissed me off. Does anyone have to ask whether I had a good time?

Another bone for Phil. The Republicans in Congress are engaged in out of control spending that would make a Democrat blush. Well, probably not, but at least Democrat aren't running as the party of low spending. It's small consolation to me that Ted Stevens and Don Young (both Republicans) haven't tried to add money to build a bridge between two Alaskan ice floes.


Interesting note - if you run the blogspot spell-checker, blog is not a word.

Aimless Thoughts While Waiting For NCAA Bracket

If you've watched any Syracuse games, you've probably heard that Gerry McNamara was recently voted the most overrated player in the Big East by Sports Illustrated (he also was voted the biggest crybaby in the Big East). That led to an obscenity laden tirade by coach Jim Boeheim (must not have asked which coach is the biggest crybaby since nothing says class like dropping the F bomb at a press conference) in which he said Syracuse would not have won 10 games without McNamara (it's tough to find a 36% shooter with a 2-1.1 assist to turnover ratio). I hope the other players thanked Jimmy for his confidence in their abilities. Does this mean that Syracuse fans should get ready for a 10 win season next year? McNamara has played well in the Big East tournament, but his disappearing act in big games during the regular season is one reason Syracuse went in as a bubble team. However, let's look at the poll. To begin with, McNamara actually tied with Rudy Gay as each had 27% of the vote. Who did the voting? One player from each Big East team, but it wasn't 16 voters because the five teams playing their first year in the Big East (Louisville, Marquette, etc) didn't get a vote because of the conference scheduling, they hadn't played every Big East team yet. What that means is the "poll" that got everyone in a tizzy was actually three players saying McNamara was overrated. I can't take a poll seriously that only includes 11 people. It looks even worse when you consider that Uconn was voted the team with the most respect for its coach even though that coach, Jim Calhoun, was voted the coach they would least like to play for.

I like ESPN's Pride of the Program blurbs. However, I don't like it enough to make a point of figuring out when everyone is on. So, it would be nice if they would at least list which moment they used for each program. I understand if they don't want to reveal a particular moment until it airs, but you would think that they could keep a running tally after they show it. Yet, if you go to ESPN's website, you wouldn't even know this programming exists. Plus, I want to know who is picking the moments. I was watching the one on Utah State, and they picked a three overtime loss to UNLV. Sure, Utah State set a record for most points in a loss, but I remember a few years back when 12th seeded Utah State knocked off Ohio State in the NCAA tournament. Do they really think Utah State fans are prouder of a high scoring loss in a regular season game than a big upset in the Big Dance?

I said in a previous post that ESPN should not have let Dick Vitale call Duke games from the moment he admitted to a magazine that Duke is his favorite team. It's one thing for a local basketball broadcast to have a certified homer on it, but ESPN is national and should avoid having an active booster of a school call their game. Especially when his loudmouth act got old years ago. The Duke/Wake Forest semifinal game was the perfect example of just how embarrassed he should be. I had just flipped over to the game just in time to miss the actual play, but hear Vitale declare that the refs made a wonderful call when they ruled a foul intentional. He said that the Wake player never went for the ball. Then, they showed the replay. Yes, a foul occurred because the Wake player did wrap his right arm around the Duke player, but he not only was going for the ball with his left hand, he actually stripped it out. You would think a competent announcer would have backtracked after seeing the replay, but not Dick. He went right ahead with his belief the call was intentional. Even better, he later followed that up with a theory that was ingenious. Wait. That's not the right word. Incredibly stupid fits much better. He addressed the midseason controversy about Duke seemingly getting favorable treatment from game officials and actually had the nerve to declare that the calls go against Duke because they are so good. I guess we shouldn't focus on how the critical calls always seem to go their way in close games, and just be happy that Duke is able to overcome such adversity.

Glad to see Rick Pitino changed his mind about going to the NIT (or had it changed for him). If he has players who are hurt, don't play them. The NIT doesn't mean much in the standings, but for an inexperienced team, it's extra practice time and at least one more competitive game. Pick up some more experience and maybe UL will score more than two points in their first ten minutes of the Big East tournament. Actually, the only reason that I could see why Pitino didn't want to play in the NIT is that it would be his second trip in his five year UL career, and he didn't want it on his resume. UL isn't paying him the big bucks for NITs.

CBS coverage is friggin' joke. At the end of the SEC championship game, they never showed a replay of Florida's Joakim Noah's block with seconds left and South Carolina down two. It looked like there might have been some contact to it (there wasn't), but CBS acted like it never happened. They showed Noah's go-ahead put back, and then showed the Florida bench reaction to it. ESPN was getting ready to show it, but they cut back to the ACC title game (which makes sense), but ESPN2 didn't cover themselves in glory either. They were talking bracketology at the half of the Southland title game, and were still talking about what a possible win by South Carolina would do to selections. Nobody thought to tell them that the game was over five minutes ago? If it was on tape, that was poor decision making, because they had to know that the game was close to ending.

The Oscars

There's a lot of things to love about the Oscars. The pomp. The pageantry. The fact that they give an Oscar for the best short animated film. The stars showing up in environmentally correct cars that were mostly loaners meaning they don't actually own a Toyota. Mega-wealthy stars getting a gift bag worth thousands of dollars. What's not to love?

Hey, Kirby Puckett died.

I didn't actually watch the Oscars (A Fistful Of Dollars was on another channel). Looking at the ratings, I wasn't the only one. I didn't really have much of an interest in the festivities, but it might be because the only movie with nominations in the major categories that I actually saw was Walk The Line. Looking at the box office numbers, I was the rule not the exception. Granted, the amount of money a movie makes obviously doesn't indicate quality. However, you would think at least one of the Best Picture nominees could have beaten The Dukes of Hazzard, although I think Brokeback Mountain did actually catch the documentary about penguins. While I didn't see any of the Best Picture nominees, I can't believe they were all better than Walk The Line, but unfortunately, the Johnny Cash biopic had two problems. One, it made money. Two, Cash spent the whole movie chasing his soulmate June Carter. It probably would have gotten an Best Picture nomination if he had spent the whole time chasing Waylon Jennings. In the end, it came as a shock to everyone that Crash beat out the gay sheepherder movie for Best Picture. Never thought I would write those words.

The Best Actor and Actress winners were somewhat expected. Reese Witherspoon won for her earnest portayal of June Carter in which she showed a side of June that I didn't know existed. Man, she was a nag. Her only real competition was Felicity Huffman who should have been in a category all her own. She should have been up for the straight-female-used-to-playing-sluts-now-playing-a-man-about-to-get-his-wang-sliced-off Oscar. She would have won that one. The Best Actor went to Philip Seymour Hoffman who surprised everyone (well, all 10 people who watched Capote) with his second (at least) portrayal of a gay man. And in this case, he wasn't creepily lusting after Dirk Diggler's johnson. I was pretty happy that he won over whoever was in Brokeback Mountain. I would hate for the makers of Capote to second guess their lack of a sodomy scene in the movie.

In the supporting category, Rachel Weisz won for the her role in The Constant Gardener which surprised me since I read she got killed at the beginning. Because of that, I will probably never watch the movie. It's got to be all flashbacks. However, it is nice to see a Hollywood movie that would take an anti-corporate viewpoint, because the only wholesome corporations are major movie studios that do all their filming in Romania to avoid union wage scales. According to George Clooney, the Oscar voters are a daring bunch. At least he alluded to that in his acceptance speech for Best Supporting Actor. After all, the movie he won for was Syriana which blamed the U.S. in general, and Big Oil, in particular, for al the world's ills. Making a movie that comes across as a liberal soundbite is tremendously courageous in Hollywood. I'm not sure Clooney can get a job parking cars there now. Of course, he could have been talking about the nomination of his movie Good Luck, and Good Night which was another one of those movies that nobody saw, but did raise awareness of that huge social problem - McCarthyism of the 1950s. After all, nothing says courage more than going after a guy who died in 1957 and was discredited in his own lifetime. Maybe his next project will be about a an aide to McCarthy during his Red Scare days who would later authorize wiretaps on Martin Luther King Jr. Somehow I doubt it since his name was Robert Kennedy. I will say one thing in Clooney's defense. At least he didn't take the opportunity to poke fun at another actor's debilitating illness.

Living On Another Planet

I often wonder why so many Americans refuse to see the problem that is Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. There seems to be a tendency to "blame the victim" rather than the perpetrator. The cartoon issue is just the most recent example. The cartoonist themselves are condemned for offending Muslims, but the Muslims who want them killed are less so. The invasion of Iraq is blamed for Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, but somehow I must have missed all those American troops were in Baghdad when the planes flew into the World Trade Center towers. The fact of the matter is that while planning was being made for that terrorist attack in Afghanistan, the mean ole U.S.A. was providing more aid to that famine stricken country than anyone else. That was in spite of them harboring Osama bin-Laden who was wanted for terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa. Many of the problems of the Middle East are blamed on Israel. Somehow, a country that is just over 8000 square miles (compared to over 6 million square miles that make up Arab countries) and has just under 7 million people, of whom almost 20% are Arabs (compared to about 300 million Arabs outside Israel) causes otherwise sane, tolerant people to strap bombs to themselves and blow up buses, pizza parlors and skyscrapers. As for the belief that the anger is over their treatment of Palestinians (who are ethnically, religiously and culturally no different from other Arabs), that's a laugh. Palestinians are treated like garbage in other Arab countries. Arabs in Israel have more rights (the right to vote) than most Arabs in Arabic countries, not to mention more rights (right to freely practice their religion) than non-Muslims in Muslim countries.

So, where's the problem? One area just might be higher education. Normally, it's political correctness run amok. I can cite numerous examples of students or faculty members facing punishment for holding politically incorrect views. One of the biggest is the recent resignation of Lawrence Summers at Harvard. It's not often that a former cabinet member of the Clinton administration is considered too conservative, but apparently this one is for the Harvard faculty. His greatest crime was saying that innate gender differences (along with discrimination and social reasons) may explain why there weren't more women in higher level faculty positions in math and science. Just because it was an academic conference and there is a body of research indicating the possibility of such things is no reason to allow anyone to deviate from the PC playground. Yet, as long as you come from the poor, discriminated Muslim population, true misogyny is fine. I just found out that an ambassador at large for the Taliban wasn't just accepted into Yale, he was actively recruited into Yale in spite of being a fourth grade dropout (although he did get a GED). I guess noting that men and women are different is far worse than representing a government that put women down to the level of livestock. Actually, that's wrong. Under the Taliban, women were worth less than livestock.

This cluelessness isn't just academia. It's also national media. A recent Newsweek article shows just how out of touch some of them are. Somehow the Dutch have become the intolerant ones because they want Muslim immigrants to actually accept their values. Values like women's rights and not brutally murdering someone on the streets because he offends an abusive culture. Yet, somehow, the Dutch are portrayed as wrong. Of course, the Newsweek writer doesn't have a clue what's going on. Back when there was rioting in France, the international press went out of their way to avoid pointing out that all the rioters seemed to be Muslims. One reporter was so clueless about what was happening that she actually referred to the Tunisian immigrants who started the whole thing as "African-Americans" which is taking the whole PC thing a bit too far. Actually, Newsweek is definitely behind because the Dutch pushback against Muslim immigration began long before the cartoons (actually, the cartoons were probably part of that). It began even before the Van Gogh murder. In 2002, Pim Fortuyn was set to make a strong showing in Dutch parliamentary elections on an anti-Muslim immigration platform, but he was murdered by an animal rights nut. The inherent stupidity of the press was very present at the time because they insisted he was a "Far Right" politician because of his views. This was in spite of the fact that he was a gay, sociology professor. Much like the Newsweek article, it was assumed that he must have been an enemy of tolerance and multiculturalism because of his anti-Muslim stance. Actually, his anti-Muslim stance was to protect the tolerance and multiculturalism of Dutch society from an immigrant community that refused to assimilate into that open society. He knew that unfettered immigration would lead to a violent sub-population opposed to the liberal Dutch society. Unfortunately, Europe is beginning to realize the same thing.

Duke Basketball

I'm not a big Duke basher. Never have been. One reason could be that Louisville hasn't played them since beating them for the 1986 Championship. I guess if UL was 1-6 against them since beating them for an NCAA basketball title (like another local college team), I might be more critical. I'm not going to hate them because they win. I wish Louisville had been as successful in the past 15 years. It's tough for me to hate Mike Krzyzewski. He's a West Point grad who was the first ACC coach to really stand up to the most irritating, sanctimonious coach to ever grace the sidelines - Dean Smith. We're talking about the man who took the "stall" and called it the Four Corners Offense. Everyone else called it boring. He always seemed to think he was special and above every other coach, whether it was name-calling opposing players or thinking he could stop the game whenever he wanted. He's also the guy who turned down his alma mater, Kansas, when they asked him to come back and coach the Jayhawks. Said he wanted to stay with the program that he built at North Carolina. Yet, when it came to Roy Williams, he shamed him into dumping the Kansas program that he had spent 15 years at in order to return to North Carolina, simply because Smith wanted him to continue his legacy. So, I have a tough time believing Smith ever did anything that wasn't for his own benefit.

So, if I have such disdain for the Tarheels, it makes it tough to really dislike Duke. In fact, I still can't figure out why white players at Duke are so hated especially by other white people. Ferry, Laettner, Hurley, Wojo and Redick have been despised, but not Hill, Dawkins, Deng or Brand. However, I cannot believe how bad ESPN got with the latest Duke-North Carolina game. Really, three different channels showing three different angles. Please. To begin with, I've never thought much of the Cameron Crazies. They pass out cheer sheets (so much for spontaneity) which means I could care less about having a camera stuck in with them. I realize ESPN has the ACC contract and Duke is a big draw, but this is way too much. They don't seem to realize perception is quickly becoming reality. I've always thought Dick Vitale should have been pulled from Duke games the moment he said Duke was his favorite team (for the record, I don't think he should call UL games because of his business relationship with Rick Pitino in horse racing). ESPN is a national network which shouldn't have a homer calling games. It's gotten so bad that one of the more objective basketball analysts is Dookie Jay Bilas. How can anyone look at it as anything other than ESPN being Duke's home network?

Other college basketball quick hits:
Does it make sense to anyone that the NCAA is supposed to be helping student-athletes by punishing schools for low graduation rates? To begin with, I've always looked at college athletes as adults, so their success or failure academically is up to them, just like it is for any other college student. However, does taking away the number of scholarships benefit the student-athlete since it means fewer scholarships available?

I can't believe that Rick Pitino has indicated that UL would pass on the NIT because Freedom Hall probably wouldn't be available for home dates. I never really believe anything he says, but if he's being honest, he's stupid. He's blamed the team's problems this year on inexperience (the same problem Carolina and Kansas are supposed to have), so why wouldn't he want extra games?

One of the most laughable things I heard was during the UK-LSU game. The commentators were saying how much the lineup change had benefited UK as Brandon Stockton started instead of Rajon Rondo (among others). Please. UK was down 12-4 when the good players came in. Considering LSU's lack of depth means all their games are close, a better start could have made a difference.

I thought Cincinnati firing Bob Huggins the way they did was garbage. The timing (at the beginning of the school year) was designed to get rid of him, but not the players. That left former assistant/interim head coach Andy Kennedy in a lousy position - win in turmoil even though your connection to Huggins means you likely won't be considered for the job. He's done a great job, but I hope he doesn't get it full time. I hope another team gives him a chance that doesn't have the crap administration that Cincinnati does.

The irony is that I heard back when Huggins was fired that Kennedy was to be an interim coach with the expectation that former Xavier coach Skip Prosser would come back to Cincinnati. Might be a harder sell now that his present team, Wake Forest, has done a backflip into the toilet and are 12th in the ACC.

Speaking of Wake Forest, am I the only one who thinks former Wake (and present South Carolina) coach Dave Odom looks like the dad from Alf?

Winter Olympics - The Ugly

Actually, I only saw a few ugly moments during the Olympics. The most embarrassing one was Lindsey Jacobellis. For those who didn't pay attention, she was the heavy favorite to win the snowboard cross event which is where four people race down an obstacle course on snowboards. She was already spotlighted by being in that stupid VISA commercial where she relaxes after being told that someone stole her VISA checkcard. So she gets a huge lead (couldn't even see the second snowboarder), decides to showboat with a little trick on the second to last jump, and ends up falling on her ass. She was so far ahead at that point, she still won silver, but her little stunt cost her a gold. I probably should have put her under "The Bad" because she came up with some ridiculous excuse that she was really only trying to stabalize herself. However, unlike Bode Miller, she did seem intent on doing her best to win. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if she wasn't thinking of her sponsor, because that would have made a nice commercial moment. It was funny to see her compared to other athletes who bombed out like this, because there really isn't anyone like her. Guys like Bill Buckner weren't showboating. They just screwed up. Leon Lett was showboating, but it was late in a game in which the Cowboys were beating the crap out of Buffalo. Short of a Dallas forfeit, there was no way the Bills were going to win that game.

I think the NHL may want to rethink letting their players participate in the Olympics after the Canadian team was heavily favored, but bombed out before the medal round. I don't really care about hockey, but it really seems dumb to take a break right in the middle of the NHL season to let guys go play hockey at the Olympics. It's a bit different from basketball where the Olympics are during the summer which means no league time is lost, but there are some similarities. One reason that the U.S. basketball team failed in the last Olympics was how the team was picked. When the top American NBA players didn't want to play, they started picking people with name value to sell jerseys regardless of how well they would play as a team or how suited they were for international play (no true point guard, poor three point shooting). The other problem was that they hadn't done much practicing together. The Olympic hockey teams that had nothing but NHL players got in one practice together before they played. Gee, wonder why they lost.

From a personal point of view, the ugliest was the sniping done by speedskaters Shani Davis and Chad Hedrick. I really like speedskating, so I don't like to see it trivialized by two guys moaning and groaning. Once again, for those not paying attention, Chad Hedrick was entered in five speedskating events which means if he got gold in all of them, he would tie Eric Heiden. Shani Davis had been planning to win the 1000 meter race (which he did), and didn't want to skate in the pursuit (three guys skating single file as a team with the time stopping when the third man crosses the line) because it was two days before the 1000 meter and he was worried skating the pursuit would hurt his chances. Hedrick knew not having Davis would hurt the U.S. in the pursuit, so he let it publicly be known that he thinks Davis should take every opportunity to help win a medal for America. Contrary to the expectations of misinformed people, I take the side of paranoid, outspoken black (first to win a winter Olympic medal) Davis over the rah-rah America, good ole boy from Texas Hedrick. I've never speedskated, so I don't know how much wear it takes out of your legs, but it's alot just looking at guys who skate one event. If Davis believes that skating the pursuit would cost him a gold in the 1000 meter, I'm not going to argue. Plus, I think Hedrick was being disingenuous when he said Davis was forsaking America. More like he thinks Davis is forsaking Hedrick's quest for five golds. After all, why would he be forsaking the U.S. if he sacrifices 1000 meter gold for pursuit gold? The U.S. tally is the same. Plus, Hedrick was also in the 1000, so maybe he wasn't being so altruistic. If Davis also skates the pursuit, it could have helped Hedrick in the 1000. Besides, Hedrick has really been lacking in graciousness when he loses. A bronze isn't good enough for him. He never congratulated Davis for winning anything. He kept bringing up the pursuit. After one silver medal showing, he talked about how he has more heart than anyone else. Get a grip. I think the worst was after the 1500 meter race in which it was portrayed as a showdown between Davis and Hedrick who had both won a gold medal, but Italian Enrico Fabris beat them both for gold and leaving silver for Davis and bronze for Hedrick. Davis skated over to congratulate Fabris on his win. Hedrick found a television camera to blame his loss on skating too many endurance races while Fabris and Davis just did sprints. Guess what wasn't acceptable as an excuse for Davis is for him.

Winter Olympics - The Bad

Want to know what I disliked the most about the Winter Olympics coverage? The coverage. NBC did a horrible job, and yet wondered why their ratings were bad. As I said before, I wanted to watch events that I normally can't see throughout the year. Yet, NBC assumed that I wanted to watch figure skating and ice hockey. Two sports that are shown throughout the year. Of course, I can't figure out why they thought hockey would be watched. Most people didn't know the NHL went on strike, so if they aren't watching professional hockey, why would they watch amateur hockey (with professionals)? As for ice skating, you can watch that all fall, because that's ESPN's counter-programming to Monday Night Football. Yet, NBC thinks I want to watch that. The other problem is the scheduling. I realize NBC has a problem because the European location means most of the events are on tape which means I had to avoid ESPN.com while goofing off at work so I wouldn't know the results before I got home. Still, there was another scheduling problem. Mainly, I didn't know when the events I wanted to see might be on. I'd look at the schedule and seven sports would be listed from 8 to midnight. That would be fine if they had them in half hour blocs, but they didn't. It would be 8 minutes of speedskating (that I wanted to watch) followed by 11 minutes of ice skating (which I didn't want to watch and half the time wasn't even the event, but some crap human interest story). So I either sit through some garbage I don't want to see while waiting for something I do want to see or flip back and forth with something else and possibly miss it. Yes, Phil, I know I could get Tivo and solve this problem and make my life much more wonderful.

I've said before I don't get too worked up about U.S. success in the Olympics, so I don't put too much stock in calling someone a "bust". After all, a lot of Americans are hyped going into the games only because they are Americans, not because they are necessarily the best. Just because you're the "best chance" for a U.S. medal in your sport doesn't mean you are one of the top three in it. Plus, you are competing against others who have considered tops in that sport, not to mention those athletes who pick the Olympics to have their great moment in the sun (or at night since a lot of events seemed to be after dark). However, there was one dud. I'll be honest, I didn't care much for Bode Miller before the Olympics. As most people know, I'm not big on liberal views, but I don't dislike liberals (for some reason, a lot of my friends are liberals). However, Miller belongs to that group of liberals I despise - the limousine liberal. Usually limousine liberals are like "environmentalist" Laurie David who rails against SUVs, but only flies on private planes. Or a John Kerry who says the rich (including him) don't pay enough in taxes, but when given the opportunity to pay more, doesn't. Miller fits right in. He wants to be seen as a rebel skier who hates corporations and the rich and thinks the Olympics are "money driven". However, that doesn't stop him from making about $5 million a year from endorsements by non-corporations like Nike. Oh wait, Nike is very large corporation. Of course, he also hates the spotlight, but never shies away from it (video game, radio show, website, autobiography released just in time for the Olympics), unless he's just lost another race. I realize that endorsements are the lifeblood for many Olympic competitors, but others American skiers seem to make do (by "make do" I mean win medals) without taking money from every company that comes along. Hell, he's a paid endorser for Barilla pasta. Personally, I think it's great that a skier can make $5 million at his sport, but to pretend you don't care about money while pimping yourself out to just about anybody makes you a hypocrite.

Actually, if he was just a hypocrite, I wouldn't concern myself with his losing every race he entered. After all, he may have been the World Cup champion, but he'd won one (I think) race this past year, so why should he be considered the favorite. He was overhyped, but he did nothing to downplay it. The problem is his reaction after the races. First, he kept trying to sneak off. I'm willing to bet his face would have been pressed up against every camera he could find if he won. Second, he didn't even seem to care while he was racing or after. I wouldn't have had a problem if he said he was just beaten by skiers who were better that day, but, he tried to say that he lost because he tried too hard. Then he took it to the next level. His Olympics have to be viewed as a success (despite being 0-fer) because "he rocked" on the local bar scene, and "got to party and socialize at an Olympic level". I'm all for athletes enjoying the Olympic experience, but if your only Olympic goal is getting drunk in local bars, why not pay your own way there (as I pointed out, he can afford it) and let someone who does care about winning have your spot on the team? Well, except Nike probably wouldn't have signed him if he was going to skip the Olympics. Of course, Bode is a common man who doesn't care about money or fame and just wants to live his own lifestyle. Of course, I'm not sure how many ski bums without $5 million endorsement deals can afford a lifestyle that includes golf outings to Dubai.

Winter Olympics - The Good

I've never been a big fan of reality television, so I don't understand how a televised karaoke contest beats anything in the ratings, but I'm still shocked how "American Idol" can beat the Winter Olympics so badly. I realize that outside of ice skating, hockey and snowboarding, none of the sports in Winter Olympics get airtime when the Games aren't on. However, that's what I like about it. I could never watch ski jumping or bobsled as if they were football or basketball or even volleyball, but I do like to see it occasionally which is why I really like the Olympics. It's the same way with the summer Olympics. I'm pretty indifferent to Olympic basketball because I watch NBA and college all year. I do watch the summer Games for things like wrestling and swimming which I can't see year round, nor would I follow that closely if they did.

However, there are other sports that I always like to watch and wish they would show more often. One that I really like is speedskating. I prefer short track because of the wipeouts, but I would even watch long-track if ESPN showed it year round. Short track is exciting because the close proximity of the racers and the fact that every race is close at the end. Long track doesn't have the proximity, but it's interesting to see the skaters looking like they are about to die while trying to gut out the end of an endurance race. Considering how little interest there is in this country for speedskating outside of the Olympics, I think the U.S. skaters are phenomenal. Chad Hedrick, Joey Cheek and Shani Davis all came away with a gold and silver medal (Hedrick also had a bronze). Apolo Anton Ohno is really the only big name short track speedskater on the U.S. team, but he came away with a gold and bronze individually while anchoring the bronze medal relay team. For the record, the short track relay is the wildest event in the Olympics. It' s no wonder short track is now hugely popular in Asia. That race looks like the proverbial Chinese fire drill.

Another sport I really like to watch is, believe or not, curling. When it first came out in the Olympics, I thought it was silly. Shuffleboard on ice. However, when I really began to look at the rules and understand it better, it really became interesting. Yes, there is some aspect of shuffleboard to it, but there is also shades of bowling (think of the big hook shots some bowlers make) and pool (good angles can take out multiple opposing rocks). Plus, strategy is huge. The only problem I have is one game takes about three hours. Cut down on the time it takes, and I would watch curling all the time (not that it will ever be on all the time). The U.S. men's team had a great Olympics taking home the bronze when no one expected them to even make the medal round.

Actually, one of the things I like most about the Winter Olympics is that I don't have to worry about my innate jingoism. That means I can watch most events without really worrying too much about where the U.S. athletes are, because they are probably way behind. Outside of snowboarding and women's figure skating (most of which I don't watch), the U.S. isn't considered a power in most winter events. Sure, the alpine skiing teams (think downhill and slalom, not ski jumping or cross country) were expected to do much better than they did, but they had two gold medals which is two more than the last Olympics where they only had two silver. Besides, few people in this country pay that much attention to skiing events outside the Olympics. However, in Europe, it's huge. They actually said during ski jumping that in Austria, you can make a living as a professional ski jumper. How can the U.S. compete with that? I can't imagine too many athletes growing up in the U.S. wanting to be ski jumpers. So, with most events, I don't feel too bad when the U.S. isn't competitive. The other advantage is that when the U.S. does win in one of their non-competitive sports, it's a bonus. I doubt you can ever have a "Miracle On Ice" moment for the U.S. again, because they'll probably never be underdogs like that again. Still, it's nice to have some Cinderellas.

Tale Of Two Vice Presidents

I'll be honest. I don't understand the "outrage" over Dick Cheney waiting 18 hours to alert the Washington press corp about his hunting accident. To begin with, he's the vice president. While Cheney has been more influential than most, it's still not a job with major policy implications. I understand it's a story because (to the best of my knowledge) it's the first time a sitting Vice President has shot anyone since Aaron Burr. However, I don't understand why it's imperative that he immediately call the media after a hunting accident. Hunting accidents are bad, but they happen. Would it have the same impact if he had hit him with a car? Probably not. As a Boy Scout and member of an ROTC air rifle team, I understand the importance of gun safety, and that is what this story comes down to. Unless you are an idiot in North Carolina (talk about low standards to be a staff writer) or a Democrat anywhere, this issue boils down to, at worst, the Vice President not practicing proper hunting etiquette. It certainly is very important to Cheney and Harry Whittington (the guy he wounded). However, it has no policy implications. It is totally removed from any governing connection. So, while the Vice President shooting someone is a story, it's shouldn't be the only thing being reported. I believe Cheney is right. The national press is pissed because the scoop went to a newspaper in Corpus Christi instead of the NY Times or Washington Post.

Yet, this short term story is huge, while the one about former VP Al Gore is ignored. If you think about it, Aaron Burr wasn't just the last VP who shot someone in while in office. He was also the last former VP who was tried for treason. No, I'm not advocating Gore be charged with treason. For one, Saudi Arabia is a somewhat ally so treason doesn't really apply. Yes, I realize that their citizenry seems to be pretty anti-American/pro al-Qaeda, but I think the fall of the House of Saud would make Saudi Arabia even more anti-American. That wouldn't be good. Two, I'm a big believer in free speech. However, I think what Gore did was certainly disloyal. He was also stupid. Much like my previous post about offended Muslims, I have to laugh about anyone who would complain to a Middle East audience about the "mistreatment" of anyone. I don't even have to go into why Gore is a liar for saying the U.S. "indiscriminately" rounded up Muslims for visa violations (if we had done this in August 2001, maybe we would have stopped a fairly large terrorist attack). The simple fact is that until we start cutting off hands for petty theft, the U.S. has a long way to go to match the mistreatment Arabs suffer under the Saudi government (or most other Middle East governments). Actually, try worshipping as a Christian there. For a former VP to attack the U.S. while in a foreign country that shreds Bibles is absurd. I'm not going to say that the U.S. is perfect. It's not. We have faults. However, there is a reason immigrant boats seem to go one way (to the U.S. for the morons at home). Contrary to the opinion of the American Left (as represented by Al Gore), Muslims/Arabs have more rights in the United States than Muslims/Arabs in Muslim/Arab countries. Bad mouthing America to a Saudi audience isn't treason, but it is crass. And I think it's certainly more of a PR hit for the U.S. than a hunting accident. For any Democrats in the audience, Al gore is your boy. Aren't you proud?

You've Got To Be Kidding Me

I don't think I need to describe the uproar from a Danish newspaper publishing some editorial cartoons depicting Muhammad in an unflattering light. Needless to say, the Muslim world is in flames with calls for death and apologies (not necessarily in that order) in spite of the fact that the event took place months ago . I actually believe that the media (whether news or entertainment) should make an effort not to be offensive towards religious beliefs. Of course, I've gotten used to disparaging treatment of Christians and its beliefs in Western pop culture and the press. It's fine if you have a fuzzy New Age type of Christianity, but if you hold traditional Christian beliefs, you'll quickly be marginalized as an extremist member of the "Religious Right". It's not just hard news. It's become routine for sportswriters to ridicule the religious beliefs of athletes. Pop culture is even worse. I would have to think really hard to remember a character with traditional Christian beliefs who was not portrayed in a derogatory manner in a major motion picture. They are usually portrayed as a hate-monger or a hypocrite who espouses one thing while doing something else. On TV, NBC was going to have Britney Spears guest-star as a bible-thumping cook with a show called "Cruci-fixins", a concept that I find highly offensive considering what the Crucifixion means to Christianity. Fortunately, NBC did decide that maybe it wasn't such a good idea, but the fact that it was talked about enough in-house that it made it to a press release makes me believe it was going to happen before the backlash. I don't think I have to explain why Marilyn Manson may be slightly offensive to Christians, but now Kanye West just had his picture on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine looking like Jesus. This country has gotten to the point that if you make "art" that seems to have the intent to offend Christians, you'll get a government grant, but if you make art that has a hint of positive Christianity to it, it will be banned. Yet, somehow, Christians have managed to survive all of this without rioting and arson. Compare the protests to the Muhammad cartoons with the protests of the NBC show "Book of Daniel" which many Christians found offensive for having a pill-popping priest who talks to a morally ambiguous Christ. Muslim protesters rioted, got killed, burned down embassies and threatened to murder anyone involved with the printing of the cartoons. Did Christian activists burn down NBC affiliates or threaten to behead Aidan Quinn? Did they insist that the President apologize for NBC or pass laws to censor NBC's content? No. They wrote letters, and then didn't watch the show so it got canceled due to bad ratings.

Actually, the extreme reaction of Muslims isn't the worst part of this story. It's the sheer hypocrisy of Muslims, especially those in the Middle East, to complain of a lack of sensitivity towards Muslims. There is no place in the world that is more intolerant of other religions than Muslim countries. Which is more offensive: some tasteless (at worst) cartoons by a newspaper or official Palestinian television saying Jews are descended from monkeys and pigs? Cartoons or an official Egyptian government newspaper accusing Jews of using Arab blood to make Passover bread? Cartoons or the destruction of two ancient Buddha statues? Cartoons or forcing Nigerian Christians to live under Islamic law? Cartoons or the return of Dhimmi status for non-Muslims in Muslim countries? Cartoons or the beheading of Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia? Cartoons or the complete lack of religious freedom in Iran, Sudan or Saudi Arabia (a country where 15 schoolgirls died in a fire when the religious police would not let them escape because they weren't wearing their robes and headscarves)?

Do you see a pattern here? Muslim leaders are demanding the type of "tolerance" towards their religion from western countries that is completely absent in the Muslim world. And most likely will be absent in Europe when Muslims become the majority. Sadly, the world is capitulating. Editors have been fired for printing the cartoons. A newspaper website was shut down by the Swedish government for displaying the cartoons. Western political leaders are apologizing (for something they didn't do). The increasingly irrelevant UN wants to join the European Union in condemning the cartoons unlike the more serious issues mentioned in the last paragraph that the UN has made a career of ignoring. Think of how out of whack this has become. Cartoons are being condemned not the violence and death threats. It's a sad day when the concept of free expression must take a backseat to the sensibilities of the culture that glorifies suicide bombers.

I think my favorite reaction is that of the EU when they declared they are thinking of enforcing a "media code". It included this wonderful quote from one of their moronic commissioners - "The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression. We can and are ready to self-regulate that right." I think the real message he is giving is "we are your bitch". Does this idiot realize what he is saying? He's giving a veto to Muslim activists over free speech and press because of hurt feelings. What's next? The implementation of Sharia because Muslims are offended by secular law? This isn't sensitivity to religion. This is surrender. Does anybody believe that this "media code" will be used to protect the sensitivities of non-Muslim religions? Of course not. Christians and Jews have a tendency not to riot over perceived slights. Plus, kowtowing to Muslims while showing indifference to other religions can be plainly seen already in England. Political correctness has run amok to the point that one council has banned pig related items (i.e. figures, calendars) in their office including Piglet from Winnie-the-Pooh. Why? Muslims think pigs are impure animals, so seeing a pig may offend them. Well, guess what? Devout Jews consider pigs to be impure also. Where was the concern for them? I think it's obvious that the Muslim world is different place from the western world. Unfortunately, they seem to be Hell-bent on making their world our world. Sadly, our gutless leaders are helping them as much as they can.

Other NFL Stuff

I thought the move from ABC to ESPN wouldn't be a dramatic change for Monday Night Football, but I crapped out on that one. One good change is that the game will start a half hour earlier. However, that's about the only good thing I've heard. Originally, Al Michaels was supposed to be paired in the booth with Joe Theisman. I had managed to convince myself that it wouldn't be that bad. Hey, Al Michaels is one of the best in the business, and maybe Joe Theisman won't be so stupid without Paul McGuire and Mike Patrick. That one bright spot is down the tubes. Al Michaels is going to NBC to do the Sunday night game. Granted, I would try to get out too if they were going to stick me in a box with Theisman. Mike Tirico is replacing him which isn't terrible as Tirico is a decent play by play guy. However, ESPN decided to drive the bus right over a cliff by adding Tony Kornheiser to the team. WTF? Was Stephan A Smith not available? Isn't Joe enough stupidity for one booth? I have never been able to watch an entire episode of "Pardon The Interruption" because of the inanity of the hosts. The last thing I want to listen to during a football game is Kornheiser's spewing nonsense. After all, this is the guy who once declared on his radio show that he would vote for Bill Bradley for President because he had played basketball. Nothing like a good rational argument to make yourself look like an intellectual giant. I see nothing good coming from this (as do 54% of the voters on ESPN.com), but I actually saw one writer compare Kornheiser to Howard Cosell, although it was Dan Shanoff who writes for ESPN.com (no bias there). Since he quit MNF in 1984, I didn't really get to hear much of Cosell, but from that little bit plus some recordings, I don't see what the attraction was. He sounded like a rambler who tried much too hard to be cute. Not exactly what I'm looking for while watching a game. Since I love watching football, I won't be turning the game off, but I have a feeling I will be muting it.

I was glad to see Warren Moon get elected to the Hall of Fame. He saved my butt one year in fantasy football.

I don't care what reasons Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana had for missing the Super Bowl ceremony of the past MVPs. Having all the previous Super Bowl MVPs together seems pretty historic, but they used the hackneyed "family consideration" as their excuse not to be there (although reports are the appearance fees weren't enough especially for Montana who apparently wanted $100,000). I read that Montana told Stephen A Smith (no way I would have watched it) he had moved beyond football. Sure, I wonder if his accountant says the same thing since Montana makes paid appearances all the time. There is the possibility that autograph shows want Montana there for reasons other than his football career. Call me a cynic, but I believe money really was the reason.

This is a pre-Super Bowl story. Donovan McNabb finally responded to Terrell Owens by saying Owens attacks on him were worse because he's black. I took McNabb's side in his Owens' problems, but his reasoning is absurd. Why should Owens' attacks on McNabb be any worse than the things he said about Jeff Garcia just because McNabb is black? I doubt very seriously that Owens was thinking about race in any way. He was just acting like a dick because he is a dick.

Super Bowl

Time to talk about the Super Bowl. Was it just me or did the commercials seem pretty lame this year? Sure, there were some pretty good ones. Budweiser had some nice ones. The hidden fridge. The beer scavenger hunt. Guys pretending to fix the roof while goofing off. The little Clydesdale trying to pull the wagon. A few really stood out. The guy using the beer to keep from being mauled by a bear, but his friend grabs it and runs off. The sheared sheep as a streaker running on the field where the Clydesdale are playing football. The best was the touch football where a hot chick tells a guy she's going to be open, then he decks her after the catch. Ameriquest had some really funny ones with the doctor killing a fly with the defibrillator paddle and the woman on the plane who falls on the guys lap. Funny stuff. My personal favorite was the Mastercard commercial with MacGyver. However, the rest weren't so good. CareerBuilder wasn't bad. Their two commercials were good, but not Super Bowl good. It wasn't much different from the ones they run during the year. Which was a real problem. Too many didn't stand out. Gillette had another commercial about how advanced their newest razor is. Whoop-dee-doo. Emerald nuts had another one that came up with an acronym that was stupid. Motorola now has a cell phone that looks like a rock. Will the excitement ever end? And I still can't figure out what was up with the people biohazard suits. The most disappointing were two areas - cars and colas. Diet Pepsi had a pretty good one with Jackie Chan and a Diet Pepsi can making a movie. There other one was odd to say the least. To begin with, who the Hell cares about Puff Daddy? The second, does calling something "brown and bubbly" make you want to buy it? The other cola ad was for Sierra Mist. It bombed the moment I realized it had Kathy Griffith (mistakenly called a comedienne even though she isn't funny) and one of those schmucks whose only job now seems to be commentary on the VH1 "I Love The Whatever Decade We're Showcasing This Week". None of the car commercials stood out at all. Toyota with the bilingual dad? Boring. Another Tacoma commercial showing it's tough? Yawn. Hot chick mudflap logo looking at a Honda pickup? Why not get a real hot chick. That Cadillac surfacing on a model's runway? Looked expensive, but the commercial sucked. Actually, there was a car commercial that stood out. The Hummer that was spawned by some dinosaur type monster and a giant tin man was just bizarre. And finally, the Burger King commercial must be mentioned because it was the most elaborate production with some Ziegfield Follies dance show about the Whopper. Oh, and it sucked.

Almost forgot. There was a football game in which the Steelers won their fifth Super Bowl. I'll give the Seahawk fans the complaint about the offensive pass interference. While technically, Darrell Jackson did push off, it was clearly ticky-tacky. So, I'll call the final score 21-14. As for the other disputed calls, I don't know if Sean Locklear held on a long pass play for the Seahawks, but I'm not buying anyone who says that he didn't. Maybe Gatlinburg's ABC (which probably means Knoxville) left off a replay, but the only one I saw showed the play from the back which means I only saw one of Locklear's hands. I don't see them both, I can't say he wasn't holding. And complaints about the Roethlisberger touchdown are laughable. There is no way to tell whether the ball crossed the goal line from the replay. So, how can you say the Steelers got a break? As for me, the ball in his arm hit the ground a couple of inches from the goal line, but where it is at the point doesn't matter. The defensive player hit Roethlisberger's arm straight on as he was diving for the end zone. Physics tell me that his arm was probably pushed back instead of stopped dead which makes me believe the ball was over the goal line at some point. Besides, the Steelers didn't get all the calls. One of Jerramy Stevens' dropped passes (I can't remember which one of many) looked like a catch and fumble to me, but the refs called it an incomplete pass. Speaking of which, I thought Stevens should have been the MVP. His four drops really helped the Steelers out. He almost dropped his touchdown catch. I don't know why Joey Porter thought he was soft. I have to laugh about Mike Holmgren blaming the refs for the loss. The last thing he wants is to explain why the Seahawks looked so inept at the end of both halves. I was beginning to wonder if they had ever run a two minute drill before.

World Baseball Classic

I'm not sure how many people know too much about the World Baseball Classic. It's baseball trying to start their own World Cup tournament. Frankly, I find it silly. The reason that the World Cup works is that soccer is a worldwide sport (as much as I hate to say it). Their are leagues in all kinds of countries that are somewhat on par. In baseball, there is the MLB. All other leagues are inferior. So, I don't think a worldwide baseball tournament will have the same impact because the World Series will still be so much more important. Think about the World Championships in basketball. Sure, they are more popular to Europeans than Americans, but I'm willing to bet even the European players would rather win the NBA championship than the basketball world championship.

The only reason I've even noticed the World Baseball Classic (can you call something a classic that's never been played before?) is the Cuban controversy. At first, Cuba wasn't given a license to come play by the U.S. government because of sanctions against Cuba. Then, they reversed course due to pressure from Major League Baseball, the players association, the Olympics and the International Baseball Federation. One side of me is happy the Cubans are going to be playing. I hope some defect. The other side of me is still indignant that these totalitarian countries are allowed into these international sporting events. I've long thought the Olympics were unethical when they were allowing the Soviet bloc countries to participate. Sure, they like to say the Olympics are above politics (I call B.S. on that one). This wasn't just politics, but basic human rights. How can let a country participate when they don't send security guards to protect their athletes, but to keep them prisoner? How can you glorify the amateur athlete when some of them are forced to be amateurs by their country who won't let them leave?

Cuba is still like that. The one I can't believe is the player's association fighting to get Cuba in. Excuse me? How many Cuban members do they have who can no longer go back home because of Fidel Castro? Who actually had to escape an island prison to play professional baseball? This union pitches a hissy fit when there is talk of a salary cap even though their players will still make millions. This union believes that anything less than unfettered free agency is slavery. Yet, they are supporting a regime who forces players to play where the government wants them to or not play at all. A regime that uses baseball as punishment. Orlando Hernandez was banned from playing baseball in Cuba because his brother Livan defected, so he ended up having to flee the island. How can the player's union sanction anything that would keep that kind of system alive?

But I shouldn't be surprised. These international sports organizations have always had a tendency to suck up to dictators. They are more than willing to criticize the U.S. for "playing politics" with their little events, because they know they can get away with it. But when it comes to pressure from a totalitarian government like China, they'll fold in a heartbeat. Not allowing a country to send it's prisoner/athletes is a horrible display of politics, but forcing a democratic country to play under a different name to appease China is perfectly OK. If the U.S. had any balls, they would refuse to play until Taiwan is allowed to play under their own name, play their national anthem and fly their flag. Of course, apparently this has already been a common rule for the Olympics (so much for no politics). That means that Taiwan isn't allowed to play in the Olympics as a country even though they are one, but Palestine is allowed to play as a country even though they aren't one.

Super Bowl

Who will win? Nothing against the Seahawks who have one of my favorite fantasy players in Shaun Alexander, but I don't see it happening. Yes, they were probably the best team in the NFC, but that's like being the best team in the AFC in the 80's and early 90's. It doesn't mean anything come Super Bowl time. I think the AFC was clearly the better conference this year. Look at the rest of the NFC. Chicago wasn't ready. Tampa had Chris Simms. The Giants looked pretty ratty down the stretch. Washington would have had a losing record if they were in the AFC and made the playoffs because someone had to. Carolina didn't have DeShaun Foster in the playoffs. So, by default, who was going to beat Seattle. I'm not going so far as moron Skip Bayless who doesn't think the Seahawks would have made the playoffs if they were still in the AFC West. However, Seattle wouldn't have won the AFC West or finished with 13 wins. Playing in the NFC West was cake city. It was the only division in the NFL that didn't have two teams win at least 9 games. St. Louis finished second with 6 wins.

So, you say you've got to play who is on the schedule. Sure. But they weren't impressing me much even in wins. They played four playoff teams. I throw out the Colts who benched everyone. They beat the Giants (although they shouldn't have) and lost to Jacksonville and Washington. The only other team they played who was close to making the playoffs was Dallas, and they needed a Drew Bledsoe brainlock INT and a 50 yard field goal to win that. The other problem for them is they won't be at home. This team was completely different on the road and at home. San Francisco shows that. At home, the Seahawks blow them out by 38 points, but on the road, they win by 2. Or look at their four games against AFC teams. Once again, the Colts game is thrown out (although they beat the Colts' second string by only 15). They lost to the Jaguars, and their only other games were against the worst AFC team (Texans) and arguably the second worst AFC team (Titans with apologies to the Jets and Raiders). They crushed the Texans at home, but when they went on the road, they needed a late rally to squeak by the Titans. In theory, the Super Bowl is a neutral field, but Steelers fans are the best at getting tickets. There won't be a 12th man to save the Seahawks. I'm not saying they can't win, but they won't. Steelers by 10.

NFL Conference Championships

AFC Championship Game
Broncos vs. Steelers
Much has been made of the fact that the Steelers could be the first sixth seed to advance to the Super Bowl. Well, they aren't you're normal sixth seed. For one, they had a better record than the fourth seed Patriots. They had the same record as the the third seed Bengals. If not for Ben Roethlisberger missing four games, they probably don't lose those two overtime games and win the AFC North making them the third seed. This is obviously not the same team that had a mid-year three game losing streak. The question is whether they can go to Denver and win in a stadium the Broncos haven't lost at all year. Of course, the Broncos best win at home was over the Patriots who were going through their alternating win/loss stretch. They only beat Baltimore 12-10 in December, so I'm not all that concerned with their home field. The Steelers need to be more concerned with their blitzes not getting to Plummer. Their corners could struggle with Rod Smith and Ashley Lelie in single coverage, so getting to Plummer is a must. Both teams like to run the ball, and both are good at stopping it. So, it could come down to quarterbacks which is why the Steelers will win. Come on. I don't care how mistake free Jake Plummer has played this year. He's still Jake Plummer. It's not like the Broncos offense really lit it up against New England. Of their five scoring drives, four started in New England territory. Three went for fewer than 15 yards. Actually, you could make the argument that all four were less than 15 yards since the other was 40, but the ball went from the 40 to the 1 yard line on a rather iffy pass interference call. Even a couple of the Patriot turnovers were somewhat fluky. Punter Todd Sauerbrun forcing a fumble? I don't care if he was accused of using steroids, that's fluky. So, while Denver was winning while getting every break, the Steelers were winning while the Colts were getting every break. In the clutch, don't take Jake.

NFC Championship
Seahawks vs. Panthers
Everything seems set up for the Seahawks. They've got homefield where they always play well. Even if Julius Peppers plays, he's going to be playing with a bum shoulder. No DeShaun Foster at all. Nothing against Nick Goings who has played well in relief before, but he doesn't have breakaway speed, and more importantly, who spells him? Sure, Shaun Alexander suffered a concussion last week, but I really don't think it was a bad one. I've seen guys with concussions still look loopy in post-game interviews. Alexander looked fine on the sideline before the half. Besides, it just showed that Matt Hasselbeck can step it up and win without Alexander. So, Seattle should be the easy winner, right? Wrong. I have to look at what these teams did last week. I don't think for a second that Seattle could have played like they did last week and beaten Chicago. Yet, Carolina did, and made the Chicago defense look silly. And at this point, I wouldn't pick against Jake Delhomme and Steve Smith in any playoff game short of the Super Bowl.

Random NFL thoughts

The divisional playoff round had some great games. Most playoff rounds have at least one blowout. This weekend really didn't.

I'm still trying to figure out the non-call during the Steelers/Colts game when the play was blown dead at the snap, but the referees picked up the flag saying there was no penalty because the Steelers didn't move and the Colts didn't touch the Steelers. Well, it looked like Alan Faneca probably did move and the Colts did make contact as their entire defensive line was in the neutral zone pointing. The question is - if no one jumped on either side, why blow it dead? Refs is that game certainly didn't cover themselves in glory.

Speaking of which, I'm a little surprised the NFL actually came out and said the referee was wrong when he overturned Troy Polamalu's interception. What else was he going to do? Everyone except the referee knew it was an interception. I'm just curious if they would have admitted it if the Colts had ended up winning the game. I've always found it a stretch to believe NFL referees would consciously make a call to favor a team, so I can't really support Joey Porter's contention that the overturn was done to help the Colts. However, I will say that I was happy Mike Vanderjagt's last minute kick was way wide. No reason to give them a chance to see a close miss as a good score. Of course, it might be better to think they were corrupt rather than really stupid or drunk.

I've seen some writers (although fewer than I thought) point to the irony that Mike Vanderjagt, who missed the potential game tying field goal, had called out Peyton Manning a couple of years back saying they wouldn't win because Peyton didn't have enough fire. Well, I'm taking Vanderjagt's side. Yes, Vanderjagt missed the field goal (I won't get into the fact that one touchdown shouldn't have been on the board), but poor play throughout the game (and pretty much every playoff loss by the Colts) by Manning meant that they needed the field goal just for overtime. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Manning's poor decision making meant the field goal was longer than it had to be.

While I'll admit the sight of the ball on the ground with no Steeler near it made me want to throw up. Especially since I wasn't sure where Ben Roethlisberger was and the guy who picked it up was a cornerback. However, I shouldn't have been too concerned that Nick Harper was going the distance. After all, how fast can you run a day after your wife slices open your knee? Roethlisberger made a great play, but the best defensive play by an offensive player has to be New England's Ben Watson who ran down Champ Bailey to knock him out at the one. How often is there a 100 yard interception return that doesn't result in a touchdown? How can a tight end run down a cornerback when he has to run about 130 yards to the corner's 100?

Some think Bailey fumbled the ball through the end zone which should have given the Patriots the ball at the 20. I thought replays were inconclusive, but I wouldn't care either way. That is still one of the stupidest rules in a league with many stupid rules. Why should the team without the ball get it on a fumble that they never have possession of just because it goes through the end zone? If the ball is knocked out at the one yard line, the defense doesn't get it if they never had possession.

While I hate to agree with Michael Irvin, he wasn't far off when he said halfway through the season that Steve Smith should be the MVP. Actually, it's really bad that he didn't even get a vote for MVP. They'll really need him in the next round with DeShaun Foster breaking his ankle. Do you think Foster might be injury prone?

Non playoff question. What were the Packers thinking of when they hired Mike McCarthy as their new head coach? Sure, he was the quarterback coach in 1999, but that was the Ray Rhodes season when the offense wasn't too swift. He followed that with five seasons in New Orleans (just what you need with Aaron Rodgers as your future QB, the guy who developed Aaron Brooks) before spending last year as the offensive coordinator of the 49'ers. Yeah, he did a great job with their offense. Apparently, his main qualification is that he would be grateful to the GM for hiring him.

One of the funniest stories of the offseason is that the Eagles' gave permission to Drew Rosenhaus to try to find a trade for Terrell Owens. Who is going to trade for him when they would have to pick up his contract? The Eagles can't keep him, and he's due a roster bonus of $7.5 million in March so you know he'll be on the market by then. It actually sounds like desperation on Owens' part. He and Rosenhaus may realize that he isn't getting a better deal than the one he had with Philly. Get a trade and the new team has to pick up that contract. Ironic that Owens' behavior has lessened his own value and that of his agent.

Here's a great story. USC coach Pete Carroll would only give his blessing to Reggie Bush to go pro after getting assurances that the Texans would take him with the first pick. Real sweet, Pete. Would you not have given your blessing if the Texans said they were interested in Vince Young? Bush is still going in the top three. It's not like he's a quarterback. If he went third (worst case scenario), going back to USC for another year would just add another year of hits to his body just to move up (at best) two spots.

Actually, a couple of sources (profootballtalk.com and Pro Football Weekly) have mentioned rumors of a trade by the Texans to get Ricky Williams from Miami. One says it would be for David Carr. That would probably make Vince Young the first pick. However, does Houston need an all Longhorn backfield to sell tickets?

NFL Playoffs Round Two

Denver 27 New England 13
Those damned Denver Broncos. Imagine the nerve of them disrespecting Tom Brady and the Patriots by actually beating them in the playoffs. I hope Brady learned his lesson. Don't whine about disrespect and then play a lousy game. Sure, he had 341 yards passing, but he also had two interceptions, and built up those yards without really doing much. The Patriots only scored 13 points. Of course, he had some help as his teammates fumbled away the ball three times. Of course, I see a certain irony there. The Patriots "dynasty" began with the "tuck rule" BS that never should have overruled an obvious Brady fumble. Now it ends because they couldn't hang onto the ball. Plus, they weren't that good this year anyway.

Seattle 20 Washington 10
I think this game showed why Seattle was the best team in the NFC and possibly the league. Everything was set up for the Redskins. Shaun Alexander was knocked out early. Their defense was playing good. Mark Brunell actually threw for over 200 more yards than he did in their wild card game. Yet, they never really were in the game against Seattle. Why? Seattle did miss Alexander, but they had other weapons. For one, their defense is very good. Matt Hasselbeck has made himself into one of the top quarterbacks in the league. It doesn't hurt that Darrell Jackson is back and playing well. Besides, it was rather silly of "pundits" to take the Redskins' wild card win over the Bucs to mean much. There defense played good, but Tampa played poorly which is why they won.

Carolina 29 Chicago 21
I didn't think I would be saying this, but I can't believe Chicago's defense let them down. But it did. I thought the Panthers had a good shot at winning, but only because their defense was also good. However, Rex Grossman played a good game after a slow start, but he overcame early drops to move the team pretty well. Thomas Jones had a low yards per attempt average, but he got the tough yardage. If you had told me Chicago would score 21 points, I would have thought they had the game. I didn't think the Panthers' offense would do what it did. Actually, it wasn't all of their offense. The running game wasn't much even before DeShaun Foster got hurt. It was Jake Delhomme and Steve Smith. Say what you will about Tom Brady, but Delhomme has shown up in big games. His first year as a starter, he led the Panthers to the Super Bowl where he threw for over three hundred yards and three touchdowns in their tight shootout loss. Last year, after a bad start (1-7) caused by lots of injuries, the Panthers put the ball in Delhomme's hands and went 6-2 over the rest of the year and almost made the playoffs. Because of him and Smith, I wouldn't count them out against the Seahawks.

Pittsburgh 21 Indianapolis 18
The game I really wanted to talk about. I was really hoping that the Colts' playoff choke job would be this week instead of next. You knew it was coming. Tony Dungy and Peyton Manning on the same team. The two biggest chokers in big games. Actually, even though I thought the Colts were the favorite, I couldn't understand why so many people thought the Steelers didn't have a shot. Sure, the Steelers didn't look sharp in a game earlier at Indy, but it was the offense. Ben Roethlisberger was in his first game off knee surgery and looked rusty. However, considering how poorly the offense played, the Steelers defense was fine. They gave up two touchdowns and four field goals. One touchdown and three field goal drives started in Pittsburgh territory. So, I figured the Pittsburgh defense would be OK this time around. They are good at masking coverage which is where Peyton Manning struggles. He reads game film better than anyone, so if you can hide what you're doing before the snap, he has trouble with it. The Pittsburgh offense was playing very well at the end of the season, so I was hoping it would carry over. It did. However, the real reason for the victory was the Manning/Dungy choke duo. Look at the ending. The Colts had pulled within three because of a BS overturned interception call. Manning had the ball on his own 18. His next three plays were a pass that barely got 2 yards, a sack and an overthrow. Then he was sacked again on fourth down. Those sacks later led him to criticize his line while not talking about how many of his passes weren't even close to the intended receiver. He gets the ball back because of a fumble by Jerome Bettis (first of the year which thankfully was saved by a Roethlisberger shoe-string tackle) and gets them to second and 2 on the Pittsburgh 28 with 31 seconds left and two timeouts. What does he do? He throws for the endzone twice (one was almost intercepted) which forces a 46 yard field goal which missed. While I would expect the league's all time leading field goal kicker (by percentage) to make a 46 yarder, why not go short (or run) to get the first and use your timeouts? Blame the kicker all you want, but that decision making was inexcusable. They had two yards to go. Why go for the home run? Get it to overtime and go for the win.

Stay tuned for my Conference Championship game picks.

NFL Wild Card Weekend

Time has been at a premium, but I couldn't hold back from commenting on the NFL playoffs.

Washington 17 Tampa Bay 10
Redskin fans should thank God that Edell Shepherd dropped that catch with about three minutes left. The Redskins offense was horrible. If the Bucs had tied the game, I'm not sure Washington would have had any chance to score. They might have been better off under the old rule that let the team scored on to either receive a kickoff or kick the ball themselves (the idea was that you kicked off and played for a turnover on your opponents side of the field). It wasn't like Tampa's offense was that great, and Chris Simms is always a screw-up waiting to happen. That dropped pass was the only good one I saw from him. Yes, as many Simms' apologists pointed out, his two crucial interceptions (one lead to a TD, the other ended their last chance) were tipped, but so what? The idea is to get the passes to your receivers without them being tipped. I'm not surprised the Skins went conservative on offense once they got a lead. When has Chris Simms ever showed up for a big game?

Carolina 23 New York Giants 0
Speaking of quarterbacks and big game flops, who else guessed that Eli Manning would follow his brother in that category? 113 yards and three interceptions wasn't too pretty. As a longtime Steelers fan, I'm not surprised by the Plaxico Burress disappearing act. His tendency to quit when things weren't going well is a reason they had no real inclination to pay him the money he wanted. The Giants were downright horrible. Their longest drive of the game was 6 plays for 31 yards, and the Carolina 39 yard line was the farthest they got downfield. Their second half drives ended on punt, interception, interception, interception and fumble. I think the best part was Tiki Barber saying the Giants were outcoached. Normally, I don't like a player who didn't have a good game (like Barber) calling out others, but I can't stand Tom Coughlin so I think it's funny. And he's right. It didn't appear the Giants' staff had any clue what was going on.

New England 28 Jacksonville 3
I like Jack Del Rio. And I like Byron Leftwich. But I think Del Rio made a mistake starting Leftwich. Actually, I don't think that was the mistake, because Leftwich is a better quarterback than Garrard. I think Del Rio should have given Leftwich some serious playing time in their last game of the year, so he wouldn't have been so rusty. Actually, I think it sucks that New England was the host team just because they won their division. Yes, the Jags had a fairly easy schedule, but they won more games than every team in the league except Indy, Seattle and Denver. They won two more games than the Patriots who were playing in the AFC East which was the worst division in the league. Why should the Jags have to play the first game on the road in 20 degree weather? They looked pretty inept on offense, so they probably still would have lost, but their defense was playing well, and who knows? Don't you think there is a big difference between playing a January game in Boston and Jacksonville?

Pittsburgh 31 Cincinnati 17
Would Cincinnati have won if Carson Palmer hadn't been hurt (and no, it was not a dirty hit)? Their chances would have been better, but I wouldn't say they would have necessarily won. While they may have won the last game against the Steelers, it was by eight points. The game before that was in Cincinnati and the Steelers won 27-13. Plus, in their last two home games, the Bengals haven't scored as many as 31 points against weaker teams like the Bills and Browns. Ironically, I think the Bengals' offense doesn't play as well on the turf at Paul Brown Stadium. They're built like a dome team. It's a moot point anyway since injuries are part of the game. The Bengals wouldn't even have won the division if Ben Roethlisberger hadn't been out three games. Besides, the Bengals are lucky to have Jon Kitna who is one of the better backups in the league. They scored more points in the first half with him than they did the entire first meeting of this season. And it appears that something may have happened at halftime with the Bengals' class clown that may have helped their offensive offense of the second half.

Bowl Games

I haven't put anything up lately. It's because it's football season and I put the time into a site devoted to my league. In fact, I had these picks on my fantasy football site two weeks ago, but I haven't given that address to everyone who has this one. And some people probably are better off not seeing the fantasy football site, so I'm putting my bowl picks here.

Bowl Picks. Winners in italics.
New Orleans Bowl (played in Lafayette, LA) - Southern Miss vs. Arkansas State - Arkansas State won an overtime game over 1-10 Florida Atlantic by the score of 3-0. Take Southern Miss.
GMAC Bowl - UTEP vs. Toledo - This is a game that I think could be a fun one to watch. Anyone besides me know that Carson Palmer's little brother Jordan plays for UTEP? Still, I'm taking Toledo in a close one. UK fans should watch since I think Toledo coach Tom Amstutz would make a good replacement for Rich Brooks (assuming Brooks doesn't win 5 games next year and gets a four year extension).
Las Vegas Bowl - BYU vs. Cal - Cal has only played one bad game this year. I've got to go with the hippies over the Mormons.
Poinsettia Bowl - Colorado St. vs. Navy - How often does Colorado St. see the triple option? Navy runs all over them.
Fort Worth Bowl - Kansas vs. Houston - Could be a snooze fest, but I'll go with Kansas. I think they've been playing better to end the season.
Hawaii Bowl - Nevada vs. Central Florida - Bear with me on this one. Central Florida loses the CUSA title game and goes to Hawaii while Tulsa wins it and goes to Memphis? Doesn't seem fair. Oh well, Central Florida wins to continue the George O'Leary reclamation project.
Motor City Bowl - Memphis vs. Akron - DeAngelo Williams is back. Take Memphis.
Champ Sports Bowl - Clemson vs. Colorado - I don't care if one of them was Texas, Colorado has lost its last three games 130-22. Take Clemson.
Insight Bowl - Arizona State vs. Rutgers - Rutgers is making its second bowl ever and should get the win over a weak Sun Devil team.
MPC Computers Bowl - Boston College vs. Boise State - Boise St. is playing a de facto home game against a BC team that is pissed off that they went 8-3 in the ACC and still dropped behind lesser ACC teams to end up in the only bowl game where the weather could be colder than in Boston. Personally, after BC stabbed the Big East in the back, I find it funny. Oh yeah, don't take a team that is unhappy playing in their bowl.
Alamo Bowl - Michigan vs. Nebraska - Bet this bowl never thought these two storied teams would end up in its lower-tier game at the same time. Both are 7-4, but I think Michigan is a better 7-4.
Emerald Bowl - Georgia Tech vs. Utah - Georgia Tech is simply a better team.
Holiday Bowl - Oregon vs. Oklahoma - Oregon should have been in a BCS game, while Oklahoma shouldn't be in a bowl game this good.
Music City Bowl - Minnesota vs. Virginia - Neither team really thrills me, but Minnesota runs the ball well.
Sun Bowl - Northwestern vs. UCLA - This is a tough one. I don't like UCLA at all. But I'm not sure I like Northwestern any better. I'll take Northwestern in the upset.
Independence Bowl - South Carolina vs. Missouri - Missouri sucks.
Peach Bowl - Miami vs. LSU - Look like crap in the SEC championship game, and may not have JaMarcus Russell, so I'm picking Miami over LSU. However, I do think LSU got screwed by the bowls. Why are Alabama, Auburn and Florida in better bowls?
Meineke Car Care Bowl - South Florida vs. NC State - I wish I knew the temperature was going to be. If it's average or above average, I would take South Florida, but if it's really cold, then NC State. I'm guessing milder weather. South Florida.
Liberty Bowl - Tulsa vs. Fresno St. - Since losing a close game to Southern Cal, Fresno has slumped. Tulsa is playing well. Take Tulsa.
Houston Bowl - TCU vs. Iowa State - Interesting. TCU (located in Fort Worth) is playing in the Houston Bowl while Houston is playing in the Fort Worth Bowl. TCU is on a 9 game winning streak, but should be undefeated. Iowa State is a mediocre team from a mediocre division of the Big 12.
Cotton Bowl - Texas Tech vs. Alabama - Team that likes to score against a team that can't. I know the adage is that defense wins championships, but I'm not so sure Alabama has the offense to win a bowl game.
Outback Bowl - Iowa vs. Florida - I would take Florida is they were playing in Gainesville, but they aren't.
Gator Bowl - Louisville vs. Virginia Tech - I wouldn't be going to Jacksonville if I thought UL was going to lose. Besides, we beat North Carolina worse than they did (said with crossed fingers).
Capital One Bowl - Wisconsin vs. Auburn - While I can see an emotional Wisconsin trying to win one for retiring Barry Alvarez, I still don't see them beating Auburn.
Fiesta Bowl - Notre Dame vs. Ohio State - Notre Dame hasn't beaten anyone. Take Ohio State.
Sugar Bowl - Georgia vs. West Virginia - The key to beating Georgia is running well which is forte of West Virginia. Of course, West Virginia struggles against scrambling quarterbacks which DJ Shockley hasn't done as much as I thought he would. Still, it's a home game this year for Georgia.
Orange Bowl - Penn State vs. Florida State - I'm still not sure how a four loss Florida State managed to get into a BCS game.
Rose Bowl - Southern Cal vs. Texas - Well, both teams tried to make a point by running up the score on their opponents the last week of the season. I still think Texas has a better defense and will win.