Playoffs?!?!

That's right, Jim "Coors Light" Mora, we're talking about the playoffs, or the lack of them in college football. Aside from the lower three divisions, of course, where they've been running quite fine, thank you.

But anyway, Dan Wetzel at Yahoo Sports offers the best argument I've seen yet for a playoff system for Division I-A (no, I'm not going to call I-A and I-AA whatever they call them now). Onto some high points.

A playoff would give teams from small conferences at least a shot to win a championship on the field. Unlikely? Yeah, but then I just watched Utah from the Mountain West beat SEC power Alabama — ranked #1 for several weeks — in the Sugar Bowl to cap off an undefeated season.

Perhaps the most memorable college football game of the last few years was Boise State-Oklahoma, in part because Boise was the unbeaten underdog that wasn’t supposed to win. When it did, in dramatic fashion, it became the talk of the country. There would’ve been historic interest in seeing if the Broncos could do it again the following week.

Why wouldn’t college football want that?

The BCS said Boise State had no shot at a national title in 2007 because either 1) it wasn’t any good in 1977 or 2) wasn’t geographically or politically situated to be in the proper conference. As illogical as this is, that’s the system.

And maybe a smaller conference team never does break through to win four of those games, but watching such an upset in the context of a playoff is a lot more fun than just seeing an isolated upset that ends up meaning nothing for either team, as is the case for Utah and Alabama.

Oh, but the bowls. How will America survive without them? Now, I'll usually watch the big bowl games, and mix in some random, smaller bowls pairing teams I could care less about because sometimes those are fun to watch (and on TV when nothing else is, but that's a good thing).

But are there any bowl games — meaning the bowl itself, regardless of who's playing in it — that means anything anymore? I'll give you the Rose Bowl. Any others? I don't think so. And as a graduate of a Big 10 school (albeit latecomer Penn State), I can say I'd have no qualms about the playoffs doing away with the Rose Bowl and all the rest.

Can they still have bowls and a playoff? Sure. But the bowls should not be any past of a playoff. And be assured, it's not the tradition of the bowl games that's holding up a playoff, unless that tradition is the stacks of cash at stake.

BCS bowl games are the single worst deal in American sports. College football’s [continually willing] to be fleeced by outside businessmen, who gleefully cut themselves in on millions in profits ...

Just about every idea you’ll hear or read will use these bowls for the quarterfinals and these for the semifinals and all of it is ridiculous.

The travel demands alone on teams and fans for three or four weeks of neutral sites make it implausible. Going neutral site makes seeds meaningless. This is exactly what the apologists want the debate to be about, a non starter of a solution.

The solution, however, is to ignore the bowls.

The next bit in Wetzel's piece addresses higher seeds getting home games, which would be amazing. Of course, I'm picturing a raucous Beaver Stadium in December, the Nittany Lions running onto a snow-covered field, and the fans hurling snowballs at, well, whoever. Throwing snowballs is fun.

And yes, even if I'm still feeling the sting of Penn State's Rose Bowl loss to USC, I think many non-USC fans would like to see them repeat their usual Rose Bowl domination-fests on the road in December, outside the sunny confines of Southern California or the fluorescent confines of a domed stadium.

Hosting games would be a boon to the schools and the campus communities — literally tens of millions of dollars into the local economy.

It would also reward the higher seeds (again placing value on the regular season) by providing the distinct advantage of playing at home. To be a top two seed, and host through the championship game, would be a monster reward.

This would also placate complaints from northern teams that are seemingly always playing bowl games near the campus of their opponent.

We’ve seen, say, USC have its way with Ohio State and Michigan in Pasadena, but what if the Trojans had to travel to Ohio Stadium on a cold and snowy day? Perhaps USC could prove it has grit not just talent. Intra-sectional games have all but died out due to recent scheduling philosophies, but the idea of them returning each December and January, famous jerseys in famous faraway stadiums can warm any fan's heart.

There are yet more excuses, and that's all they are.

Not enough time with classes, etc.? Too many games? Yeah, because in the month between their last game and their bowl those teams aren't practicing and scrimmaging every chance they get. At least they'd be playing for something now. And lose early, you get a nice holiday break with the family.

They'll miss exams, or their exam schedule will be interfered with? Pffft. Please, as if schools give a crap.

The best arguments, though, are the most sensible — you'd have a champion determined on the field, and it would be more fun for everyone involved. Except possibly those bowl organizers (I'm picturing the rich Texan on The Simpsons) who may be out a cash cow. But screw those jerks.


I should note that Wetzel's was the best argument for a playoff I've read or heard since I had to write an argument for my Speech Comm class in college. That class sucked, but I killed it on this assignment.

My roommate Orlando was such a fan (desperate for a topic), he later used my speech (parts or all, I'm not sure, but I suspect all) for his own Speech Comm class at a satellite campus. And if I recall correctly, the A-minuses abounded. A two-fold triumph!

Crack reporting

I don't really have any interest in reading his book — and if I did, it would have to wait until I wade through the piles of unread stuff laying around my apartment — but this is a pretty interesting article on New York Times columnist David Carr.

Carr, a former crack user and lots of other things apparently, wrote an autobiographical drug addict memoir soon to be released. I never heard of or read the guy up to this point (that I can remember), but what I found most interesting about the article was writer Jennifer Senior's descriptions of the man and journalist working today.

In one bit of insight, that doesn't sound like it necessitated a whole lot of insight, Senior describes Carr as having "a crackhead's approach to news," substituting new job-related addictions for old ones.

He’s just had three big stories run in the space of 24 hours, totaling 6,300 words. “There’s something to the theory of mania replacing mania,” he says. And compulsion replacing compulsion, he might have added: When he recently wrote a media column slamming Fox News, he got 450 e-mails, and he answered each and every one. “And why would I do that?” he asks. “There’s a weirdness to it. Like if I don’t, flying monkeys will attack.”

I've seen several drug addict movies and liked many, so if it goes to the big screen I'll probably see it eventually. Reading the book may take one of my more up-to-date reader friends to tell me to read it, though. I'm still working on stuff I got for Christmas, after all.

Oh, enjoy the bonus Woody Harrelson.

Wal-Mart whoops

Usually watching or reading the news is a surefire way to piss me off, so it's nice when such an amusing story comes along, especially when a heartless corporate monolith is the butt of the joke.

Seems Wal-Mart hired a guy in 1970 to tape its annual meetings, big sales meetings and other doings. This continued until 2006, when the relationship was terminated. What wasn't terminated was the 15,000 tapes made in the meantime (even though Wal-Mart, good cheapasses that they were, suggested videographer Flagler reuse the tapes to save money).

So now the video company's new owners, having turned down Wal-Mart's $500,000 offer for all the material, are ready to sell to anyone. I don't know if they'll ever make $500,000 off the tapes, but turning down the offer definitely makes for a better story. And as Wal-Mart will likely forever be involved in lawsuits, the tapes could prove most valuable — assuming Wal-Mart's perfunctory legal challenge on the tapes fails.

The tapes surfaced, so to speak, via a lawsuit against Wal-Mart in which a kid was injured by an exploding gas can.

The plaintiff's attorney Diane M. Breneman says that when she first laid eyes on the racks of tapes, "I thought, 'How could anyone in the world allow this to exist?'" The videos, she says, deal with "everything anyone would want on Wal-Mart ... They've got 30 years of people winging it."

Ouch. That's gotta sting.

Here's hoping lawyers, as well as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, put this stuff to good use.

Super for Siegels, not so much DC

A federal judge this week ruled the heirs of Jerry Siegel own part of the copyright to Superman, co-created by Siegel and Joe Shuster.

Now, this case mainly involves the first Superman story in Action Comics #1, which Siegel and Shuster sold to DC (for $130!), and the character points and story elements therein. But how much of what DC did with the character since was based out of that story? It could also only pertain to money being owed the Siegels for product only after 1999, when DC's copyright protection would have terminated. But that's a ton of product and money at stake, and product decisions could conceivably have to be OK'd by the Siegels and Shuster estate holders (after 2013).

Comic book writer Warren Ellis is not one for hyperbole, but called the ruling "fucking immense."

There's been numerous cases of comic book creators, or their heirs, challenging publishers over the rights to characters, especially with the boom of comic book-based films. Although the specific cases differ, and most may not be able to overcome the work-for-hire hurdle as was done in the Siegel case, most of these people were royally screwed. Hopefully this will lead to more getting their due.

It is amazing to think about Superman product possibly having to be run through the Siegel and Shuster estates — not unlike Star Wars comics, games, etc. running through Lucas — and further down the road, the Superman copyright being in the public domain. Assuming copyrights aren't extended by then. It's no accident Mickey Mouse isn't already public domain.

I'm no lawyer, but the detailing of the ruling and possible ramifications make for interesting reading. The article at the top breaks it down in non-legalese. More here, with some interesting comments in the forum. Yet more here.

Note: The image at the top is from All Star Superman #8, which came out Wednesday, the same day the ruling was announced. All Star Supes is written by Grant Morrison. Is this more Morrison magic via comics at work?

And the law won?

Well, not yet it didn't. And even if much of his remaining time in office is spent on vacation, Bush has nine months to figure a way around a House bill disallowing immunity for telecom companies who helped the government spy on Americans. But still, the House made a good call, and it apparently puts Bush in a bit of a quandary:

President Bush has repeatedly claimed that there's an urgent national security need for new spying legislation. But he also says he'll veto any surveillance bill that does not grant retroactive immunity to the companies that turned over phone records and access to internet cable fibers to the government.

Bush argues that the participating companies were patriots, and that they would stop complying with lawful court orders in the future if not freed from the lawsuits accusing them of conducting illegal surveillance for Bush.

But it will likely be politically difficult to veto a bill containing new spying powers Bush himself says are vital to American's security, simply because a couple of deep-pocketed corporations are facing lawsuits for violating federal privacy laws.

So a tough decision. Lucky for Bush he's the decider. Via.

Chris Ware posts up

As soon as I saw this cool poster for The Savages I recognized the work of writer/artist Chris Ware who, based on his work and the from what I know of the film, seems a good fit. He talks about it briefly here.

McCain's pain

The "straight talker" didn't too much like this New York Times article about him, which offers some good reporting on John McCain and his (un)ethical history.

The second graph — the one McCain's people are having a conniption over, despite some serious business in the rest of the article — basically says people in McCain's camp thought he was having an affair during his 2000 run for president. It doesn't say he was, likely because the Times couldn't prove it. But it feels like they were being told by these anonymous McCain camp people that he was having an affair. But the Times couldn't go with that, so we get what was printed.

The gist of the rest of the article is that McCain continually seems to court ethical improprieties while maintaining a stance against the influence of lobbyists and corporate interests, though that stance seems not to be a priority in this campaign.

Hey, it's easier to just say you're a "straight shooter" than come up with an actual issue, especially when you can be called on your shit on the issues.

But anyway, why has he courted ethical problems the way he has? He's a dumbass? Probably has a lot to do with it. He'd still rather get things done in Washington instead of being a man alone, fighting the system? Maybe. He just like helping lobbyist buddies too much to really walk the reform walk? Looks like it.

He may be all about governmental reform now that the Republican bid is pretty much assured, and to take some of the sting out of Obama's campaign, but he wasn't making a righteous, indignant spectacle out of himself concerning the Bush administration/Congress in recent years when he could have, when it would have meant something beyond campaign pap.

Back to the article, near the end the Times circles back to this possible affair, and drip the hammer a little harder, writing:

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.

Yeah, great, but the Times didn't have it. The implication’s clear as to how McCain behaved "inappropriately" with this one lobbyist. They attempt to cover themselves by never coming out and saying it, but this feels like an all or nothing situation. You either have it and report it, or you don't, and don't.

The McCain campaign's response to the Times is worthless as expected, especially as it counters facts in the story disputed by no one, which leads to my reaction on the story.

There's plenty of good reporting in there, and they actually could have hit McCain harder I think. How many times did he request the FCC or other bureaucrats to expedite proposals not submitted by his lobbyist buddies? They say reform hasn't been a big deal in his current campaign — point out how (and thus, how hokey and meaningless his campaign has been).

But the inclusion of the "implication" will end up detracting from the rest of the piece. Speculation suggests the Times rushed it to print so they weren't scooped by a The New Republic story on the Times' handling of the investigation, and it feels like that may be the case.

UPDATE: Though the Times denied it, the McCain camp alleged the story came out as is because The New Republic was working on a story on the Times' reporting (delaying?) the McCain story. This was discussed on Charlie Rose Thursday night, with someone from the TNR saying he took the Times' at their word in that the TNR didn't affect their decision on the story. So now I have to go read this TNR piece.

TNR's Noam Scheiber also offered that "The story reads to me like it had originally been much more ambitious, but had its guts ripped out somewhere along the way," to which I'd agree.

UPDATE 2: Go read the TNR piece, it's great stuff. I wonder what it would have looked like before the Times went ahead and ran the McCain story.

Behind The Wire

Creator David Simon offers some behind-the-scenes insight into making the best show on TV, The Wire. Turns out Baltimore's real life mayor and developers weren't big on the show. Shocker. Simon makes some compelling points on the value of the show, no matter what city it's set in. The fact New York City never seems to have a problem with crime-ridden projects based in the Big Apple, and support from most Baltimoreans — the mayor aside — seal his point.

Amazon reviews, a cautionary tale

Surfing around this morning I came across A Slate.com article wherein an author details his discovery of shenanigans in the Amazon review process. Not startling, but kind of disappointing and fairly annoying. Pretty pathetic too.

Not that I really pay much mind to the reviews, especially when it came to reviewers' rankings, etc. I typically don't surf around Amazon looking for stuff to blow money on, I'm there to get something I already know I want. And reviews can be helpful in comparing different DVD versions of the same movie, for example, detailing what features on on which. The only extended reading of reviews I recall centered on the various DVD versions of The Killer or Hard Boiled, can't remember.

Obviously with the anonymous postings, anyone can write reviews — publicists, the authors themselves. You know that going in. But clearly some of these regular reviewers are cooking the books, so to speak. Averaging 45 book reviews a week? Uh, yeah, OK. Maybe this guy could pull that off, but otherwise you'd need time to eat and breathe, no?

Was this blog post helpful to you?