Edwin MacPhisto

I hope so. Differently. Adverbs, bro. I understand that. But you don't automatically stop every long ball just because Antonio Perkins is on the field. Very good quarterbacks complete passes; Matt Leinart is a very good quarterback. Any of those long plays? At all? Even Charles Woodson blew coverages sometimes. You seem to have this really inflated idea of what one "superstar" player can do, especially a cornerback. No one player is going to win this game for either team; both teams are too good for that. What I'm saying is that switching in a couple of guys on defense isn't going to entirely shut down Matt Leinart, one of the most impressive receiving corps in the country, and one of the most precise offensive systems in the game today. Presuming that would be as ridiculous as presuming that USC can hold Adrian Petersen to 50 yards.

Persecution complex much? Everyone knows that Oklahoma doesn't have a choice in where they go. If traditionalists want to see the Pac-10 or Big Ten team that did get in wax the outsider regardless, don't be shocked.

The games since OSU and A&M have been against Baylor, Nebraska, and Colorado. Telling someone that you didn't give up long plays against Baylor and Nebraska is like telling someone that you managed to get your pants on right today. OU's good, but their secondary has appeared to be their one defensive bend point this season. If Jarrett and Smith can get behind the defensive backs, Leinart will make the secondary pay. The DBs may be improved, but Donovan Woods smoked the lineup he faced for over 200 yards on eight completions. And he's not even that good. Some of those are going to get through, and I imagine that's where the Trojans will be able to do the most damage. Neither of these teams are invincible, and I expect that with offenses this good it's going to be the defenses that give.

That was the Orange Bowl, actually - Rose Bowl East. The Orange snatched them up before the Rose had a chance. Can't happen anymore - a bowl can demand holding onto its "host team" if another bowl picks before them, or something along those lines. Last year, USC was really the only great team in the Pac-10. Had they gone to the Sugar Bowl for the National Title, which is the only place they would gone besides the Rose Bowl, it wouldn't have made a lot of sense for a Pac-10 team to be in the Rose. I don't think Washington State was even eligible for an at-large bid. In 2002, it was just disappointing because there was absolutely the potential for a great Rose Bowl game, even with Ohio State going to the Fiesta for the national championship. Most people thought Iowa was just as good, and since the teams never played they both went 8-0 in conference play. USC/Iowa would have been a dream Rose Game that year, but that went to the Orange.

These are better than "Rock Your Body," which is not to say I don't like 70% of the stuff on your mix. "To Be Young" is the one Ryan Adams song I sort of like. I don't know the Dead Milkmen song, so I left it on there rather than kill it. I love Interpol, but "Slow Hands" is no "Rock Your Body." "Evil," sure. Same for Elvis Costello; "Blame it on Cain" ain't bad, but it's in the lower tier of My Aim Is True. "Handsome Devil" is a good but not great Smiths song. I heard the new Ashanti song today and I was reminded that, moreso than anyone else, I think, she says her own name at the beginning of every song. I kind of wish David Byrne had done that while he was in the Talking Heads.

I think the difference is that, last year, OU deserved a BCS bowl, no question. Maybe not the national title, but the one ass-whooping in the championship game wouldn't negate the incredible season that had come before that. OU in the Rose Bowl would have been a bit of a spank on tradition, but at least it would have been an absolutely vital team to the BCS picture. Texas' credentials are a lot more questionable this time around, and Brown's campaigning is some whiny nonsense. NCAA selection committee, dammit. Good enough for basketball, better than a Coaches' Poll.

Doesn't that also apply to the transitive property of victories/performance, which really doesn't mean a lot in these big games as well? Not really. When I say transitive property, I mean "OU beat Oklahoma State who beat UCLA by more than USC beat UCLA by, so OU should be able to beat USC cause they already beat a team that beat UCLA by more." Looking at how Oklahoma performs against good offenses is more of an evaluative criteria of how their defenses hold up than a direct comparison involving UCLA. Notre Dame beat Stanford by 8 points, but no one's going to say that they're better than USC because of that. I'm leaning towards Auburn by a fucking lot. I've seen Virginia Tech play a lot this year, and they're good, but Auburn is great, and they match up against Tech's strong points extremely well. Also, I pretty much agree exactly with Iggy's analysis of the Orange Bowl match-up.

I'd say that while over half of those songs may be better than "Rock Your Body," less than half are better than "Cry Me A River."

The transitive property of victories/performance really doesn't mean a lot in these big games. I'm leaning towards USC simply because Oklahoma's defense has shown itself to be quite fallible, giving up a lot of big plays and big points against both A&M and Oklahoma State, neither of whose attacks are nearly as well-rounded as the Trojans'. Both teams can pretty much score at will when they have to, but USC is a team that was able to hold Cal to 17 and Arizona State to even less. The 28 they they gave up to Stanford is their highest allowance of the season, and the USC of that week has developed into a much, much better team since. OU are no slouches--shutting out Texas is impressive, even if Vince Young pretty much turned himself incompetent after a quarter--but I always take the firm defense over the explosive offense. It'll be close, but I'll still take USC by a touchdown.

Five minutes ago, my roommate said "C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER." Weird.

This year we'd have: USC OU Auburn Utah Virginia Tech Boise State Texas Cal I suppose that's a better layout, but I still question any system that would put an undefeated WAC team like Boise in the playoff. The competition's just not there. The Big Ten wasn't very good this year, but Michigan is a *much* better team than Boise State. Still, if it were Louisville, who're the 7th highest-ranked conference champ, I'd be less concerned. So it's not bad. Who gets the revenue from the playoff games? Do the teams in them get as much money as they would from a BCS bid? Do they get more money for going further into the playoffs? $20 million for the rights to broadcast the championship game is good, but who'll see the money, and how will it be distributed? Same conference plan as now, or more to the individual team? The NCAA wouldn't be able to get most of the major conferences to agree to this, though. Show the Big Ten or Big East a system where they wouldn't get in on the playoffs this year, or even one where the ACC sees that its representative would only get in by .0300, and they won't agree. It also would raise another set of questions similar to the question of why Pitt's getting a BCS bid now. This year, your system would take teams 1-6 and 8-9, leaving out #7 Georgia. Enter the concern as to why on earth Boise should be in there instead of them. I like it, but the major conferences would never agree to it.

The biggest problem with a playoff is the lack of money involved. If anyone's got fiscal stats for profits on the football playoffs in the other divisions, share 'em, as I can't really find any. I doubt they can compare with the bowls, though; most of the bowls make a shitload of money for the teams and sponsors involved, and anything on December 30th or later certainly does. The schools in Division I-A won't go to a playoff unless they're convinced they can make just as much money as they do playing 28 bowl games. If you think you can do bowls and a playoff at the same time, that's a different story, but I think executing that would be a massive nightmare.

I don't think it's a particularly great album, but the Twilight Singers She Loves You is a very good collection of the sort of covers that Greg Dulli does so well. Worth a download or $10 buy for anyone who's an Afghan Whigs or Twilight Singers fan.

I guess we just need to decide what matters most - getting a firm national champion, as happens in every other NCAA sport, or keeping the tradition (and revenue) of the bowls. Academics shouldn't be a consideration, by the way; if every division I-AA or II football team can deal with a playoff extended the season (not to say anything of all the other D-I sports), so can the D-I schools. As for the Orange Bowl, it's easily the most appealing match-up of the bowl season, though Boise and Louisville might crack 100 points. USC to win, probably, but a hell of a game either way.

I know I've griped about Virginia having to head out to play Fresno State, but that actually looks like it'll be one of the more interesting match-ups. Feels kinda bland all across. Right now I'm most excited about the Liberty and the Peach.

Dama, I can see the shit-fit forming already, so chill beforehand. No one's taking anything away from your Sooners, but the system won't be selecting a clear national champion if Auburn beats Virginia Tech. The system will *say* it has, but come on. 13-0 Auburn will probably be sitting there at #2 when all's said and done, right behind 13-0 Oklahoma or USC.

It's hard to say that it produced the correct national title game this year. It's really splitting hairs to distinguish between any of the top 3 teams, so while you get a great national title game, it's going to be hard to say Auburn is any less impressive than those teams if they take care of Virginia Tech. That problem would have existed under the old system, too, in a different fashion. And Texas A&M won't be feeling Cal's wrath; it's more than likely going to be Texas Tech. A&M to the Cotton, TT or Oklahoma State to the Holiday, and the other to the Alamo.

That Tower holds a special place in my heart. It's where I picked up The Velvet Underground & Nico, as well as the Buzzcocks' Singles Going Steady. I'd go broke if I lived within 20 blocks of it.

Has anyone mentioned Wu-Tang's "M.E.T.H.O.D. Man"? Between the "torture, motherfucker" part, the Wu-Tang roll call, and that big beat when Method Man actually starts rapping, it's got enough great beginnings for three different songs.

Utah was already ahead of Texas in the AP poll. Who knows how it'll all filter out - maybe they'll get a break in the computers - but it looks like many more than the 3 or 4 vote-changes that Jerry Palm thought'd be necessary happened.

I think Cal's officially on their way out, guys. They had a 48-point lead on Texas in last week's Coaches Poll. It's now down to 5. In the AP, their margin over Texas dropped from 85 to 62. Not as bad, but still, ouch. Hello Holiday Bowl.

Also, I'm getting Incandenza a copy of the Arcade Fire's self-titled EP for Christmas.

I counted about 15 or 16 I wouldn't mind seeing out of that Coachella list. Not bad. I'd like to see Boards of Canada live so I could nod my head and say things like "Wow, that's really fascinating." The Darkness are good for the same kinds of parties where someone puts on "You Shook Me All Night Long" while a bunch of guys drinking beer out of Solo cups stand in a cluster, lightly headbang, and pump their fists. Sometimes these end in circle jerks.

I think that answers the title question.

Yes. What I'm wondering is if Virginia Tech holds on and wins the game, will any of the jackasses who are bashing Pitt and the Big East remember that the ACC champ will be a team that finished in 4th place - behind both Pitt and WVU - the last two years in the "mediocre" Big East. They'll remember that, but they'll also realize that this year's Virginia Tech team is much better than the team of the last two years. The last two Tech squads had big name players like Kevin Jones, but never could bring it all together across the entire team. Hence the big-time chokes down the stretch. This is a much more cohesive unit; they rely less on a big name needing to make big plays and on "Beamer Ball" than they do on just being a very rounded team that gels exceptionally well.