Shit like this just makes me happy that spring training is 11ish weeks away

I wanted to post something extensive about the BCS title game mess but sadly I couldn't really find anything worth wholeheartedly attacking. My stance: it's annoying that the game is a rematch, I would rather have seen Oklahoma State, but it's not the greatest injustice in the history of sports. (What is that greatest injustice, you ask? Easy. Jimmy Rollins over Matt Holliday for 2007 NL MVP.)

Anyways, the two closest calls came over at CBSSports, where Dennis Dodd wrote a piece titled "Blame voters -- not SEC -- for having LSU, 'Bama in title game." A bold stance to be certain. What? Voters (and really, you can call the people who organize the computer rankings voters too given how screwed up some of their results are and the fact that they don't have to disclose their formulas if they don't want to) are responsible for the championship game matchup? I was ready to blame greedy Wall Street bankers, illegal immigrants, and the moon. But then the article had some good points; Okie State had the better resume, but the SEC has a lot of street cred and voters are influenced by that. It also pointed out that most SEC fans are insufferable cunts--can't go wrong with that one. (Not you, Biggest Ruckus. You're cool.) So Dennis is off the hook this time.

Troll extraordinaire Gregg Doyel wrote a similar piece about how Okie State got screwed simply because they don't play in the SEC. He wandered all over stupidland to make his points, my favorite part being:

Because Alabama is in the SEC, and the networks love the SEC. They have reason to, given the top-dollar TV contracts given to the SEC, but it's more subtle than that. Familiarity breeds appreciation, which explains the unfathomably bad songs that make it into the Top 40. Why are they there? Because the radio plays them. Why does the radio play them? Because they're in the Top 40. It's a vicious cycle that has resulted in Katy Perry in your eardrums, and Alabama in your favorite bowl game.

LEAVE KATY PERRY ALONE! SHE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS! But like Dodd, Doyel had some points. So yeah, it is what it is. The whole BCS hierarchy continues to be at best fucking worthless and at worst a corrupt money-funneling scheme for big bowl and big conference execs. I bet we have a playoff system of some kind within ten years, because any time the season doesn't end with two and exactly two undefeated teams, there's going to be a shitstorm. But it'll take a while for people (execs of the non-AQ conferences, powerful coaches, NCAA execs who aren't greedy assholes oh wait there probably aren't any) to get angry enough to actually do something about it.

Really, I'm just pissed that LSU won and Houston lost this weekend. Because of one or both of those things didn't happen, man, we'd have really seen some quality (and justified) bitching and moaning today. Sigh. Maybe next year. In the meantime: TEBOW TEBOW RODGERS PACKERS NFC EAST LOGJAM STEELERS RAVENS TEBOW JIM HARBAUGH PEYTON MANNING'S BABYNECK SAINTS TEBOW WILD CARDS GRONKOWSKI BRADY TEBOW TEBOW!!!!! And that, plus a little NHL and NBA regular season ACTION ACTION ACTION have to get us through until mid-February. No, I will not acknowledge regular season college basketball.

Boise State Loses! But They're Still Awesome!!!

As you might have noticed, the media darling of Boise State football lost in OT last night.

All season, blowhards have been whining about how unfair it would be that BSU wouldn't get the chance to play in the title game, even if they finished undefeated. Rick Reilly went on and on about how bad the BCS, arguing that the "computers TKO Boise State". Well, looks like BSU TKO'd itself.

So just today, Gene Wojecehjogiaski came out with an article titled "Despite Boise's Loss, non-AQ's belong". Now, of course one game doesn't constitute enough evidence to make a judgment about a whole system, but last night's game is a piece of evidence that affirms the points of view of the Gordon Gees of the world and damages the opposing points of view of the Gene Wojs of the world: competition in non-BCS conferences is generally not up to the same standard, and, consequently, teams from those conferences should get lower preference for BCS bowl bids.

Gene's whole article isn't worth a thorough examination, as most of it explains the reasons for Nevada's win. The most interesting stuff comes at the end, when Gene asks Nevada coach Chris Ault if WAC teams can play with the AQ conferences, and he said that "Ohio State wouldn't beat Boise State". It's kind of stupid for journalists to ask these coaches these things, beacuse like what the hell else would they say? But I guess that's their job.

Here's where the article gets bad:

Anyway, this is the win that will keep on giving. It was a hard-fought victory for all those Little Sisters of the Poor programs -- the same sometimes-scruffy non-automatic qualifiers Gee so casually mocked with his comments.

Actually, this game is just the opposite. By proving the BSU was more of the caliber of the Nevadas of the world and less the caliber of the Auburns of the world, this win actually devalues the LSoP programs, since their best just proved to be ... not that great.

For years the non-AQs have been forced to jump through BCS hoops. Now TCU could be bumped up to BCS first class if No. 1 Oregon or No. 2 Auburn falters in its final game.

And things are as they should be.

Make no mistake: TCU is now positioned for a long-shot national title try not because of the BCS "system," but in spite of it. Maybe that's what makes it easier to root for the Horned Frogs and Wolf Packs of the world.

Make no mistake: both Auburn and Oregon have proved themselves clearly more impressive than TCU this season. Each of those teams deserves their spot. The BCS system is working just fine. While it might not be perfect, sportswriters' hand-wringing and fulminating about its errors is far disproportionate to its actual evil.

Hometown Hero Hates Computers

It's about time for our yearly doses of BCS controversy. This week's comes from the Cincinnati Enquirer's Paul Daughtery, who has been featured here before. He's certainly a Cincinnati hometown writer, and to a certain extent I think writers in their hometown papers should be allowed some license. But this article abuses that privilege."BCS is one game UC Can't Win"

"BCS one game UC can't win"

UC wins by 31 and loses three spots in the BCS computer rankings. The Bearcats smack Louisville with a QB who’d never started a college game. The computer says UC had a lousy week.

They beat up on a terrible team. The computer didn't factor in that the QB hadn't started a game before!

That’s because Louisville is bad and BYU is good and TCU won at BYU and Iowa hasn’t lost and Boise State got shafted two years ago and Southern Cal has fabulous cheerleaders. Or some damned thing.

I like how he complains that it's so confusing. Hey, BYU is a better team than Louisville, so a win over BYU should count more! BYU was 6-1 coming in, while Louisville was 2-4.

Also, Iowa, Boise State and Southern Cal all have much more impressive resumes - wins over Penn State, Michigan and Wisconsin (Iowa), Oregon (BSU, though their claim is weakest), Notre Dame, Cal, and Ohio State (USC) are more impressive than Cicninnati's.

It's not debatable.

The rankings account for schedule strength, conference strength, coaches voting, global warming, black helicopters and things that go bump in the night. To the BCS computers, if Florida beats Georgia in the parking lot of a Gainesville Burger King Saturday, it means less than if the Gators had done the winning out behind Weaver D’s Restaurant in Athens. Even if REM is eating there.

What? How hard is it to comprehend schedule strength? How hard is it to explain that a win on the road is a little more impressive than a win at home? How hard is it to explain conference strength?

Also, what are all those references doing here? Is this a Bill Simmons article? REM? Black helicopters? I don't get it.

The Bearcats are taking this well. Brian Kelly is absolutely rational about it. Kelly says all the right things, which for Kelly is highly unusual: We’re in the mix, he says. We have some big games coming up. Nobody’s great. Our players don’t think about it. Let’s let it play out.

Good for Brian Kelly, who is being rational about it. I like how Daugherty is surprised that Mr. Kelly is being rational. Like he expects the coach to share his hysterical, irrational perspective.

“It’s great the university is getting that recognition,’’ the coach allows. “I hope our admissions (are) up.’’

Fabulous. Let’s hear it for more applications.

What Kelly doesn’t say is, the whole deal is rigged. Not rigged in the manner of Soviet elections or nickel slots, but rigged just the same. Bloodlines matter, so Florida will win everything. Unless it’s Texas or Alabama.

Bloodlines matter and playing good opponents matter. How hard is this to understand?

The BCS is ingenious in the way it gets us all worked up about college football. Around here, it’s great we have the chance to get worked up personally. It beats planning the roadie to the Papajohn’s.com Bowl.

Sure, because Cincinnati has its best team in school history. But that doesn't mean they've ascended to the top of college football.

But America isn’t supposed to work this way. We compete. We tap gloves and come out fighting, may the best man win. My mousetrap against yours. We compete. We play off. Computing for a champion doesn’t compute.

Except that all 118 teams in FBS can't play, because a team can only play one game a week, and there aren't 118 weeks in the season. Even the top 25 can't all play! I realize this is a thinly veiled argument for a playoff, but the article doesn't mention any of the stumbling blocks to that end.

I asked Einstein about the BCS. How does it work? I ran it by Galileo, Copernicus and Kant. They had no clue. Stephen Hawking was stumped. Freud said it had something to do with my mother.

Well, I'm glad I read this.

I took my troubles down to Madame Rue. You know, the gypsy with the gold-capped tooth. What about the BCS? She gave me a Nick Saban voodoo doll and some pins. The good fans of Utah begged me to lie down in a cool place.

Well, I'm glad I read this.

“We’re coached just to do what we’re told to do on the field. It’s not a big deal’’ to the players, says Bearcats wideout D.J. Woods. Well, OK, but how come players hung around with their laptops Sunday afternoon, awaiting the new BCS rankings?

Because they want to do well? They're hopeful, even in a tough situation?

“Sunday, everybody was shocked,’’ Woods concedes. “How did that happen? I guess you have to be a big school surrounded by a big stadium.’’

I guess you have to be a school that schedules the best teams in college football instead of SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE.

Kelly argues that UC’s success is too new to make a big enough dent. The rookies have to stand on the table and sing their alma maters. You can’t just pledge the BCS frat. You have to swallow some goldfish first.

Or beat some good teams first. The comparison to a frat initiation is asinine. The team has to prove itself on the field of champions, instead of the field of patsies.

“That new person on the block has to prove (himself),’’ is Kelly’s explanation. “We keep winning, we’ll change the perceptions of what those traditional powers are. We’re in the process of putting together another great season.

“(If we) start doing that year in and year out, I think that changes everything.’’

Yes. Or, if your AD would've set up a tougher schedule five years ago, that would've given you a chance.

Maybe. But how many years? How many seasons of 10-win cred does it take a Cincinnati, or a program like it, to break the BCS glass ceiling?

More than one.

What if the Bearcats play, say, Alabama, in the Sugar Bowl, and roll the Tide the way Utah did? Then do they get a seat at the big boy table?

If they play more than one good team and beat them, then yes, they do. One win does not a champion make.

“We’ve got some games in front of us that really are going to serve us well,’’ Kelly adds. True enough, and those wins over Top 25s West Virginia and Pitt would get the Bearcats just high enough to chant “We’re Number Three!’’ if they win their BCS bowl game.

Good luck, Bearcats. But beating West Virginia and Pitt still don't prove your mettle like winning in a better conference would.

The BCS rankings have us talking, all right. Who’s listening?

Lots of people are listening. This is a terrible ending to a terrible article. The BCS has its flaws, I suppose, but this is a stupid article with a stupid premise. Shameless homerism which ignores the facts of the situation - that UC hasn't played and won against good teams, while other teams have - is embarrassing for any news writer or any newspaper.

National writers let reason take a backseat

I don't have an entire article to rip. Instead, I bring you a hodgepodge of reasoning that hurts my brain from the nation's sportswriters.

Gregg Doyel: Not again, certainly not with Vick, who is the most vile professional athlete since Rae Carruth. Vick didn't conspire to kill a person, "just" dogs, but considering I prefer the typical dog to the typical person, that's an unforgivable crime in my opinion.

Rae Carruth conspired to kill his girlfriend, who, at the time was eight months pregnant with twins. One of the babies died a week after being born. Rae Carruth was found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and shooting into an occupied vehicle. He's now serving 18 years 11 months in prison. Vick did some pretty horrible things. But, there's a reason he might be out of jail in less than two years. Conspiracy to commit murder is ever so slightly less forgivable than teaching dogs to kill and then killing the ones who don't.

Ivan Maisel: That's because, in the end, the blame for this mess lies at the feet not of the BCS but of the Big 12. The Big 12 tiebreaker states that in the event of a three-way tie in which all other tiebreakers have been exhausted, the team rated highest in the BCS will be the division champion.

The Southeastern Conference tiebreaker says that in the event of a three-way tie, the team that is rated the highest will be the division champion unless the second-highest team is within five places in the BCS standings. Then it reverts to head-to-head competition. You can bet emphasis is added. And you can bet that the Big 12 will revisit this rule after the season.

I can't imagine there's anyone who writes for or reads this blog who thinks that the BCS is a perfect system, or would vehemently defend its implementation and workings. Everyone gets that it sucks. This year, if you're a Texas fan, you feel jobbed and you hate the BCS. If you're an Oklahoma fan, well, you feel the exact opposite.

Oklahoma lost to Texas by 10. Texas lost to Texas Tech by six on a last second touchdown. Texas Tech then lost to Oklahoma by 44. And thus, we have a problem.

Larry and I have had plenty of conversations about how a three-way tie should be broken. And you know what? There's really no one way that is without its deficiencies.

As for the SEC's system, let's use it here in this instance. Oklahoma is #2 in the BCS, Texas is #3, Tech is #7. I assume, since it's not specifically mentioned, that the third team, of the three way tie, gets booted from the discussion. So it's down to Oklahoma and Texas. Under the SEC rules, Texas goes to the Big XII championship game. They're happy; Oklahoma's not. This is no different from the quandary we find ourselves in now.

All the arguments I've heard for Texas pretty much start by discarding Texas Tech from the three-way tie argument. Then, it comes down to the Oklahoma-Texas head to head matchup. Texas, of course, gets the edge with the win over Oklahoma seven weeks ago. But, why toss Texas Tech out of the argument? Because they had two bad wins at home, sure, but primarily because they got crushed by 44 two weeks ago. Texas Tech gets discounted because of the whoopin' that Oklahoma put on them, and because of that whoopin' Oklahoma is inferior to Texas. Ivan Maisel, and everyone else, SEC included, welcome to geometry class. I give you the circle.

Brad Edwards: That raises the question: Is it still certain that Florida reaches the BCS National Championship Game by simply beating No. 1 Alabama on Saturday?

Just guessing, but, yes.

While there's obvious reason for Gators fans to be concerned, it remains highly unlikely that No. 3 Texas will stay ahead of Florida with many voters if UF wins the SEC title.

This might be too picky, but an "obvious reason" to be concerned should yield something slightly more likely than "highly unlikely." I could die tomorrow, but, that's highly unlikely. So, I'm not concerned.

If Oklahoma goes on to win the Big 12 championship, chances are good that some (if not most) of this week's Longhorns supporters will move the conference champion back ahead of UT on next week's ballots.

No argument here. This would cement Oklahoma as either #1 or #2 in the final BCS standings.

Also, with Alabama-Florida being a 1 versus 2 matchup in the Harris poll, and the Gators trailing No. 2 Oklahoma by only 12 points in this week's coaches' poll, it's probable that Florida will move to No. 1 in both polls if it wins the SEC title. That would pretty much ensure the Gators reach the top 2 of next week's BCS standings.

Again, no argument here. This pretty much cements Florida as either #1 or #2, right?

But if Florida wins the SEC and somehow doesn't climb higher than second in one of the polls, there's a chance Oklahoma and Texas could have a rematch for the BCS title.

Sure, delineate the reasons that this won't happen, and then, tell us that in the event that the .00001% chance this scenario plays itself out, we're fucked into having a rematch of two great teams for the national championship. Sound the alarm Brad Edwards. The British are most definitely coming.

Stewart Mandel: For the first time in the 11-year history of the BCS, I find myself thankful for the computers...I myself...conclud[ed] that the Longhorns deserved to stay ahead of the Sooners.

What?

The computers made the decision for us. They decided the exact opposite of what you personally felt. You're happy for the computers?

Andrew Perloff: If ever a personal foul was worth the 15 yards, it was Steelers safety Ryan Clark's "unnecessary hit on a defenseless receiver" against New England. Clark laid out Wes Welker, taking the Patriots' talented receiver out of the game. Welker and his fellow receivers have been torturing defenses, running for yards after the catch all season. Lots of safeties around the league have probably dreamt the hit Clark put on Welker. Hopefully the talented Welker will be just fine. While I understand the emphasis on player safety, as a fan I'd miss bone-crunching hits on receivers over the middle if they completely disappeared.

Go here. :43-:47 is the only way to aptly describe my thoughts on this.

If Homer Simpson is S-M-R-T, Then I'm L-C-K-Y

Pop culture reference! Maybe if I bring up a popular TV show, people will like my blog just as much as they like it!

I know this has nothing to do with bad sports journalism, other than the fact that I'm less ignorant than Stewart Mandel (which isn't saying much), but I'm writing about it anyways. Consider it a sad celebration of the end of college football for the next 8 months or so. Just because I'm feeling like the cock of the walk after re-reading these, and because Ohio State and LSU square off tonight in the last game of the season, let's review my BCS bowl predictions from about a month ago. Obviously I would not be doing this if they had all turned out flagrantly wrong, but they didn't, so I am. Hooray. Holy shit, I am one lucky guessing bastard. Let's get the barely right/mostly wrong one out of the way first.

Georgia/Hawaii: This is exciting on the surface because just like last year's Fiesta Bowl, it's a high scoring WAC team matching up against a traditional powerhouse. So I'm excited about that (as anyone should be, at least on some minimal level) no matter how imbalanced the matchups on the field look. In any case, Georgia is probably going to win, but I'm not sold at all on Mathew Stafford. He misses a lot of open guys. Colt Brennan is the shit and he showed it against Boise State. Knowshon Moreno and Thomas Brown should rack up big yards, but the game will be played indoors and on fieldturf so the Warriors will be moving the ball as well. If Brennan has time to throw Hawaii's going to put up at least 35. Can Georgia match?

Obviously I was way off in thinking that Hawaii had a chance. But at least I was correct in guessing that if Hawaii was going to get killed, it would be because Brennan had no time to throw. That Georgia pass rush was vicious. Anyways, my thoughts about the other three games were more or less correct.

USC/Illinois: Yawn. Stanford over USC gets more ridiculous every time I think about it. Illinois beat Ohio State because no one could tackle Juice Williams. USC won't have the same problem.

Yawn. Williams and the rest of the Illini offense looked like a bunch of Canadians against the Trojan defense. The only thing that kept the game from turning into a total travesty was John David Booty's awfulness. I bet Missouri or Florida could have at least kept the final margin under three touchdowns. But why have a game like that, when you can have tradition? Heavens to Betsy, thank goodness a Big 10 team faced off with a PAC 10 team in the Rose Bowl! What would we have done otherwise?

West Virginia/Oklahoma: Since they seem to be on national TV every single weekend, I've seen WV absolutely embarrass several teams this year. Sure, they haven't played a team like Oklahoma, but as long as Pat White is healthy their offense can move the ball on anyone. Oklahoma is, of course, dangerously good in their own right. Stupid Bob Stoops. Stop looking so smug already. I can't explain WV's meltdown against Pitt other than to say it was a rivalry game, Pitt got up for it, and Westy choked. But like I already mentioned, I also watched Oklahoma absolutely shit the bed against Colorado in October. Bad games happen. If Westy doesn't have a hangover from the Pitt disaster (which is likely given that they have a month to forget about it) they're more than capable of beating the Sooners. Will they? Probably not. But it's going to be a good game as long as White doesn't get knocked out.

West Virginia's bed-shitting against Pitt was an aberration. Turns out, they can play with anyone when White is healthy. Just like I said. Nah nah nah nah nah. OK, maybe I said they "probably" wouldn't win and then they won by 20. At least I gave them a fighting chance, unlike Mandel. (See his article, linked in my original post.)

Kansas/Virigina Tech: Obviously, Kansas is really going to struggle to score much. Fortunately they have a very underrated defense that's going to hold VaTech's offense in check as well. Kansas CB Aqib Talib is a bad man and future NFL starter. I've seen four Hokie games this year and they don't seem to have much at the offensive skill positions. Tyrod Taylor gets a lot of snaps considering he sucks. Brandon Ore crumples as soon as he gets touched half the time. If Kansas makes too many mistakes early, it could get out of hand, but I think Todd Reesing is capable enough of not coughing up the ball that it should be interesting well into the second half.

Obviously this is my favorite of the four. Talib had a pick-6, KU's defense beat the crap out of VaTech's offense pretty much all night, and I came out smelling like a pile of roses covered in daisies and freshly baked cookies. The only thing I was really wrong about was the fact that Ore had a good game. Yayyyyyyyyyy me. Mandel made some kind of crack about the fact that Kansas was only the second best team in the Big 12 North. That may be true, but I guess the second best team in the Big 12 North is still more than a match for the ACC champ.

In conclusion, if there's anything we've learned in the end from this year's slate of BCS bowls, it's that a playoff system would be completely unnecessary and unsatisfactory. (I'm not implying that it will ever happen, just implying that anyone who says it shouldn't happen has a tiny brain. And if they're male, a tiny penis.)

Go Tigers! I don't really give a shit about them, but I do hate Ohio State, and a two loss national champion would be just another log on the fire that's hopefully about to engulf the BCS.

Hopefully.

Probably not.

Definitely not.

Fuck.

Oh well.

Why Bother Supporting Your Claims With Evidence or Explanations? That Takes Too Much Time

CNNSI.com's Stewart Mandel is mad about this year's BCS bowl matchups. He's sure they're all going to suck. I strongly disagree, as I think every game except USC/Illinois will be close and entertaining. (See below for some probably-going-to-blow-up-in-my-face predictions vabout them.) But that's not why I'm writing this. I'm writing it because Stewart flagrantly violates arguably the most basic rule of analytical writing. I'm pretty sure I learned it in 4th or 5th grade: if you're going to write about your opinion, you have to say why you hold that opinion. See, that's the format. First you make a point. Then you give some kind of evidence that justifies that point. Mandel gets lost somewhere between those two steps, and the result really pisses me off.

Meanwhile, you'd be hard-pressed to find too many fans who would describe this year's other BCS matchups (besides the title game) as "compelling."

Virginia Tech, No. 3 in the final BCS standings, is playing Kansas, the No. 2 team in the Big 12 North. No. 4 Oklahoma's reward for beating the No. 1 team in the country Saturday night (Missouri) is to face a West Virginia team that lost to 4-7 Pittsburgh the same night. No. 5 Georgia went from an anticipated title date with Ohio State in New Orleans to the undercard a week earlier against Hawaii. And do you think USC's Carroll, whose teams have made mincemeat out of their previous Big Ten Rose Bowl foes, is losing much sleep over those Illinois game tapes?

Little to no analysis is given as to why these games supposedly won't be good. Apparently because Kansas lost to Missouri they are terrible. Meanwhile VaTech's disastrous performance against LSU is conveniently ignored. Sure, it was like three months ago. It was also by 41 points! Forty fucking one! West Virginia lost to 5-7 Pitt, so they're ostensibly unworthy of lining up against Oklahoma. Sure, OU lost to 6-6 Colorado. But that's totally different. Georgia/Hawaii is going to suck, uh... because... Georgia thought they were going to play in the title game, and now they're not. (Nevermind that just like Kansas is the #2 team in the Big 12 North, Georgia is the #2 team in the SEC East.) The USC/Illinois matchup, well yeah, he's got me there. Probably will be a blowout. Still, that's three cheap shots taken at three BCS games with absolutely no justification. None.

But wait, there's more. Mandel then has the nerve to conclude his diatribe with this completely outrageous endorsement of the "plus one" quasi-playoff plan. (I have no problem with the "plus one," I just have a problem with this shitty, unexplained logic.)

Imagine, if you will, the potential bowl lineup if such a format existed. Right now, rather than lamenting the colossal letdown of this upcoming postseason, we'd be salivating over, say, an Ohio State-Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl and an LSU-Virginia Tech rematch in the Sugar Bowl -- with the added excitement of knowing two of those teams would meet each other the following week.

Oh, OK. Ohio State-Oklahoma, unlike West Virginia-Oklahoma, would be making us "salivate." Because apparently to him, it's abundantly clear that OSU is way better than WVU. Or they match up more salivation-inducingly with Oklahoma. Or something. How are are we supposed to know if he can't take the time to explain? Same for LSU-VaTech. Earlier in the article he described the OSU-LSU championship game matchup in this fashion:

Whichever team, Ohio State or LSU, wins the Jan. 7 title game, there will be a significant faction of the public that questions its legitimacy.

Now, we just add two more two loss teams and one more game and everyone should magically feel 100% better about the legitimacy of whoever ends up being crowned champion. Sounds totally reasonable. Not only that, but the matchups suddenly go from being boring to "thrill a minute," "plan your evening around this," "be careful not to shit your pants" exciting. Huh.

Is all this crap self-evident, and I'm the stupid one for not being able to see it? Or is Stewart Mandel just full of crap, and trying to make an argument for the plus one game without utilizing any logic or support whatsoever?

Oh, and before you accuse me of hypocrisy because I'm ripping Stewart for not explaining himself while failing to provide my own explanation for thinking the actual BCS games this year will be exciting: (Obviously these are outrageously simple at best but at least it's better than what Mandel does)

USC/Illinois: Yawn. Stanford over USC gets more ridiculous every time I think about it. Illinois beat Ohio State because no one could tackle Juice Williams. USC won't have the same problem.

LSU/Ohio State: Stewart never says this game won't be exciting, just that it won't definitively settle all debates about who should be #1, so I don't think I need to say much. LSU's loss to Arkansas exposed some of their weaknesses, but Beanie Wells is hardly Darren McFadden. They're clearly going to be the underdogs, but OSU's defense is pretty awesome. Should keep things interesting.

Georgia/Hawaii: This is exciting on the surface because just like last year's Fiesta Bowl, it's a high scoring WAC team matching up against a traditional powerhouse. So I'm excited about that (as anyone should be, at least on some minimal level) no matter how imbalanced the matchups on the field look. In any case, Georgia is probably going to win, but I'm not sold at all on Mathew Stafford. He misses a lot of open guys. Colt Brennan is the shit and he showed it against Boise State. Knowshon Moreno and Thomas Brown should rack up big yards, but the game will be played indoors and on fieldturf so the Warriors will be moving the ball as well. If Brennan has time to throw Hawaii's going to put up at least 35. Can Georgia match?

Kansas/Virigina Tech: Obviously, Kansas is really going to struggle to score much. Fortunately they have a very underrated defense that's going to hold VaTech's offense in check as well. Kansas CB Aqib Talib is a bad man and future NFL starter. I've seen four Hokie games this year and they don't seem to have much at the offensive skill positions. Tyrod Taylor gets a lot of snaps considering he sucks. Brandon Ore crumples as soon as he gets touched half the time. If Kansas makes too many mistakes early, it could get out of hand, but I think Todd Reising is capable enough of not coughing up the ball that it should be interesting well into the second half.

West Virginia/Oklahoma: Since they seem to be on national TV every single weekend, I've seen WV absolutely embarrass several teams this year. Sure, they haven't played a team like Oklahoma, but as long as Pat White is healthy their offense can move the ball on anyone. Oklahoma is, of course, dangerously good in their own right. Stupid Bob Stoops. Stop looking so smug already. I can't explain WV's meltdown against Pitt other than to say it was a rivalry game, Pitt got up for it, and Westy choked. But like I already mentioned, I also watched Oklahoma absolutely shit the bed against Colorado in October. Bad games happen. If Westy doesn't have a hangover from the Pitt disaster (which is likely given that they have a month to forget about it) they're more than capable of beating the Sooners. Will they? Probably not. But it's going to be a good game as long as White doesn't get knocked out.

I will probably look back on this and laugh at myself 6 weeks from now, after LSU blows out OSU, Georgia blows out Hawaii, Oklahoma blows out West Virginia, VaTech beats Kansas like 4-0, and Illinois/USC turns into a triple OT thriller. Sigh. Such is the wonderful world of sports predictions. That's why we here at FireJay like to stay away from anything that resembles original ideas and instead spend all our time hating. I'm really going out on a limb here, I hope it doesn't come back to bite me too hard. Remember, all I'm claiming is that these games will be interesting and fun. That shouldn't be too much to ask for.