Tonight's Game

Consider:

2003-LSU 21, Oklahoma 14
2004-USC 55, Oklahoma 19
2005-Oklahoma 17, Oregon 14
2006-Boise State 43, Oklahoma 42
2007-West Virginia 48, Oklahoma 28

Pardon me for calling a kettle black. Stoops was a great big game coach, but no longer. Florida 41, Oklahoma 28.


No, Bob, the scoreboard isn't wrong. You just got out-coached in a big game AGAIN. That's alright, you'll be coaching for the Chiefs before too long. I hear their new GM is into under-performing college coaches.

After a brief hiatus...

...the return of the OJ blog. I had intended this little project to occupy some free time I had last semester, but I really didn't have all that time I intended. Hopefully a new year will yield some more time to muse on some things.

On the top of the list is last night's Scrubs premiere. Primo, brava, and all that nonsense. The new batch of interns are idiots, but there is something endearing about the abrasive blonde who has no idea how to relate to patients. I thought the firing of the Janitor was a nice touch, but I don't expect him to be gone for long. Ted was the star of the first two episodes, if you ask me. His ineptitude reached new heights, and his delivery was excellent throughout. "My balloon!" I had hoped they'd keep House on Tuesday nights so I could watch it and Scrubs back-to-back for a two hour long orgasm of comedic medical goodness on Dienstag, but alas, it was not to be.

Second on the list is the fiasco that is the search for the new Kansas City Chiefs GM. I'm as glad as anyone, after another horrible year, that King Carl hit the road--and in style. If you didn't get a chance to check his farewell press conference yesterday, you missed a treat. After stating his intentions to remain in the league and patting himself on the back with the hand he wasn't pleasuring himself with for an hour, CP stated he wasn't ready to retire and wanted to be a consultant somewhere. I hear the seventh circle of Hell has a few openings. His suggested replacement, Scott Pioli (the "architect" behind the New England dynasty) wants to get rid of Herm Edwards and replace him with Kirk Ferentz, the current coach of the Iowa Hawkeyes football program. Yes, the Iowa Hawkeyes who were the only Big 10 team to win their bowl game this season (another subject for another time). Reports suggest that Pioli likely won't join the team unless he can hire the coach he wants for next season, and that Coach isn't Herm Edwards. I don't like the Big 10. I never have. This year it was exceptionally awful and the Hawkeyes finished third. A complete overhaul of the franchise is needed, but hiring Ferentz would be a step in one of the few wrong directions remaining. I honestly don't know what needs to happen, but the Hunt family needs to move quickly. If we don't have a GM by the end of January I'm pawning all of my Chiefs apparel and merchandise for money to buy Titans gear.

Finally, a thought on the current overall status of the United States Congress. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard pundits in the last few months bemoan the current approval ratings of Congress, citing "record lows" as a reason the American public has lost faith in the legislative body. Isn't that the idea? As a nation, we aren't supposed to approve universally of the decisions of the legislature. The body was envisioned as a place where bills go to die. If the legislature is passing legislation quickly, it isn't doing its job. Which is why all these stimulus bills being passed in quick succession worries me. I'm not an economist, but I do know that laws made in earnest are usually laws that we later regret. Obviously, the current economic crisis requires a response--but one that is calculated and designed to solve the problem, not one that pleases the public and makes our lawmakers out to be heroes.

That's it for now. All this thinking at the end of an extended break from schooling is killing me. I'll be back in a few days.

Thoughts on the "Terrible Call" at the end of last weekend's Washington/BYU Game

The most interesting finish in the football universe this weekend was the end of the game between the Washington Huskies and the BYU...Crazy Bastards who Knock on my Door all the Time Wanting to Talk about Jesus. If you missed it, a quick recap: unranked Washington scored in the final ten seconds to bring them within a point of ranked non-BCS opponent BYU. All they needed to do was kick the extra point and send the game into the pleasantly well-conceived college overtime period. However, upon entering the end zone, the Washington quarterback tossed the ball behind his head in celebration, illiciting a fifteen-yard unsportsmanlike penalty per NCAA touchdown celebration rules. Washington was forced to kick the potential game-tying PAT from the 17 instead of the 2. BYU blocked the kick and won the game, 28-27.

All of this infuriated ESPN's crack football analyst Mark May, who sounds like Mighty Mouse's retarded cousin when he speaks. May accused the officials of influencing the outcome of the game immediately following the final play, an offense we can all agree is unforgivable for a team of officials. Unfortunately, this claim was completely groundless. Perhaps the officials should have swallowed the whistle in this instance--certainly that question is up for debate. However, it is a much more tedious argument to try and say that the officials caused the Huskies to lose this football game. It was BYU's special teams play that preserved the win for their ballclub, not the incompetency of the officiating crew. Had Washington come out and protected their kicker, they still had a very good chance (I'm not sure of the success rate of college field goals inside the 20, but it's gotta be better than 70%, right?) of sending the game into overtime, which was the best possible outcome for them attempting the PAT kick.

BYU gained no comparative advantage for blocking the kick by moving the line of scrimmage back 15 yards. If the ball had been kicked and come up short or veered right or left, then you could concievably make the argument that the officials caused the outcome of the game. But that's not what happened. BYU's superior special teams play won them the game on Saturday afternoon, regardless of what Mark May THINKS happened. I thought we'd gotten past this non-BCS bias a couple of years ago on ESPN with the stunning victory by Boise State over Choke-lahoma. But apparently everyone in Bristol realized what we knew a long time ago-that Oklahoma is the most overrated team in the country year after year-and that win by the Mustangs has lost some of its prestige. In any event, the forceful ignorance displayed by Mark May in asserting referee incompetence caused Washington to lose that football game shows that either the non-BCS bias still exists on the network or that May himself lacks what most of us call common sense. Either way, I'm watching college football with the sound turned down from now on...and blaring Black Sabbath on my stereo in the background to keep the Mormons away.

Usain Bolt > Michael Phelps

It's true. We can try to approach this from a mathematical standpoint in any way you'd like to, but Usain Bolt's two world records at this year's Olympics are infinitely more impressive than anything Michael Phelps has done.

The statement isn't meant to devalue what Phelps has accomplished at this year's Games. He has certainly attained a level of Olympic greatness that will be difficult for an athlete in any sport to equal, and the level of respect and admiration he is recieving right now is warranted. However, the single greatest performance at this year's games will be overshadowed by Phelps' 6'7" frame in the annals of history, and that performance belongs to Usain Bolt.

In each of his record-breaking performances, Usain decimated fields of the world's greatest sprinters. Tyson Gay was unable to challenge him in the 100 meters, but does anyone that watched that race really believe Bolt would have had any trouble holding off Gay? Or a sprinting cheetah, for that matter? Phelps owes a great debt to his teammates for his two relay medals (particularly Lezak) and only showed the type of dominance we saw from Bolt in one of his events.

Yes, Phelps competing in more events and his achievement displays a level of endurance that we're likely to never see again at the Summer Games. However, the scheduling of Phelps' events and the relative wear and tear on his body compared to that of Bolt, who had to run three rounds before each of his record-breaking performances, make just one particular medal in swimming much easier than winning one medal in Olympic sprinting, especially winning in the manner in which Bolt won both of his events.

Add to this the fact that Bolt's performance in the 100 meters (complete and utter domination) came in an event that wasn't even his specialty, and we've witnessed greatness that may never be achieved again on the track. I'm not suggesting that Bolt is the greatest athlete in Olympic history (like NBC has recently dubbed Phelps, a claim that, according to their mathematical scale, is absolutely correct, but lacking an equitable way to compare his achievements to other Olympians who are not able logistically or physically to compete for as many medals) because sprinting is clearly his only athletic talent. If he entered himself into a few field events and was able to compete at a high level, though, I think you'd have to put him in the discussion. However, assuming the results of Bolt's races are untainted (and, contrary to popular belief, we have to without a positive drug test), he has had the greatest single performance in the Olympics this year.

Journalists I Despise, Part 1

Any person who assumes that one side of the political spectrum is ceaselessly the champion of continued human existence and the other is intent upon switching the tracks, speeding the proverbial American train off a cliff in a Looney Toons-esque disastrous puff of smoke will never have an audience with me, nor will they recieve my respect. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are equally prone to possessing character flaws, the influence of campaign contribution money, or making poor policy decisions as a result of either of these two. The sooner supporters of each party are willing to agree to this fundamental fact, the better off everyone will be.

As a result, I cannot stand those who continue to perpetuate false truths under the label of "commentary" or "opinion-editorial." The purpose of these "talking heads" seems to be to cloud the truth by spinning facts in an attempt to not only blind supporters of the party the commentator supports by demonizing the opposition but also inciting anger from the other side and rendering any kind of constructive discussion of policy impossible. We've already seen this tactic being employed this summer in the presidential race by both sides-McCain's campaign has limited debate by trying to make a story out of Barack Obama's admittedly frenzied fan base, while Barack seems to be grabbing at straws trying to pin John McCain as a old crony of Washington politics. Each of these make sense given the political climate in America right now-the general public as a whole seems ready for turnover (as evidenced by the Congressional elections a couple of years ago) but also seem wary of potential foreign threats budding their heads in Iran and recently Eastern Europe. However, these tactics almost ensure that the general public will be making their voting decision based on sloppily-constructed narratives and false truths when they arrive at the polls in November.

This particular post is critical of one commentator who I've seen as egregiously engaged in the above actions for years now. Glenn Beck is quite possibly the biggest culprit of fear-mongering and self-promotion I've come in contact with. Before entering into my discussion of why I despise Glenn Beck, I realize that offering my appraisal of one side of the spectrum seems a bit slanted. I am, in fact, a liberal at heart and disagree with many of Mr. Beck's political positions. However, I also consider myself decently open-minded on political issues, a trait that Mr. Beck and I DO NOT share. I would like to call attention to a couple of opinion pieces Beck wrote for CNN.com this summer that illustrate why I cannot stand his particular style of political commentary.

The first, a piece about Che Guevara t-shirts in America and those that wear them, exhibit a bias that is so typical of Right attacks on the Left one has to wonder whether Beck simply filled in a Mad Lib provided by the Republican Party. It can be read here: http://http//www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/17/beck.che.guevara/. This post is not to argue the political merits of the Che t-shirts, or in fact Che's position in history. That discussion will be saved for another place and time. However, it is Beck's categorization of those who wear the shirts-"latte sipping liberals"-that must give us pause. Who out there wouldn't take the bet that there has to be another talking head out there criticizing Republicans for being Hummer-driving, poverty-hating warmongerers? Probably the same people Beck is criticizing right now in his article, right? So what's the constructive value of such a piece? Let's forget for a second that Beck criticizes Guevara for being a "failure" in history (despite the fact that Beck's probably role model, Barry Goldwater, got TROUNCED in his attempt to gain entry into the White House) and ask the question, what practical purpose does this article serve? His audience is clearly not members of his own party, who likely agree with his assessment of Guevara as a political leader. No, he WANTS the people wearing the t-shirts to read the article, become enraged, and call into his show/post comments to his blog questioning his comments in an arena in which he is in complete control of the debate. Name one constructive outcome that comes from this series of events, aside from the fact that Glenn's wallet gets fatter?

The second article that I found particularly offensive was this self-aggrandizing piece in which Beck assumes that we care about who he's going to vote for: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/beck.conservatives/index.html?iref=newssearch. The point of this article, as I can understand it, is that McCain is not conservative enough for Glenn Beck. Anyone who has followed the election for more than five minutes will be able to tell that McCain is definitely not as conservative as Bush, so that premise for this article has been covered before. The only purpose that remains after that is for Beck to explain to you how conservative he truly is, and some pedantic diatribe about how hard it is for him to find a candidate. You can hear the world's smallest violin playing in the background, right? Mr. Beck is a national celebrity whose radio show and appearances pull in enough money for him to live comfortably (though, given the text of these last two pieces, it is difficult for this author to find out WHY). In this upcoming election, Beck's worries about who he's going to vote for rank somewhere between Lars Ullrich's worries about Napster dipping in to his multi-millons in earnings in the late-90s and Michael Phelps worrying he's not going to have enough shelf-space for his eight gold medals when he arrives back in the U.S. No matter who wins the election, and particularly if Barack Obama is the victor in November, Beck's show will be more popular than ever for angry Republicans to contribute their concerns and unfounded insults about the sitting president. Hell, why do you think The Daily Show has become so popular over the last eight years? Would it have the same sociopolitical impact if Gore had won in 2000? Would we even have a Colbert Report?

In effect, Beck's article thus becomes a piece that hypes his show and appearances following the election in November. Either way, he can claim he's dissatisfied and vocalize it in a unique and interesting way (presuming he tosses the Mad Libs out the window for a second) which I must admit Beck is able to do from time to time. Beck is a smart businessman, but like many other smart businessman his tactics are deplorable, and his ego outweighs any type of positive impact he's trying to make in the process.

I'm tackling Jemele Hill of ESPN.com next time. Stick around.