Three Tiresome Debates

The BCS: This happens EVERY SINGLE YEAR and it's getting tiresome. So, let's break it down: yes, it sucks. Should we got to a pure playoff system? I'm not sure I like that, because there's a lot of tradition associated with the bowl system that I like and enjoy. So here's what I think: the BCS goes down to ONE, count it ONE game- that's the national title game. And how do we get there? Well, take those end of the season BCS standings and the Top 8 get to compete in a playoff- the Elite 8 of College Football. How it would break down this year:

Auburn v. Arkansas

Oregon v. Oklahoma

TCU v. Ohio State

Wisconsin v. Stanford

Winners of the Auburn and Oregon games would play each other, winners of the TCU and Wisconsin games would play each other and the winners of those two games would play for all the marbles. And the rest of the Bowls could pick whomever they like.

It's a win, win, win for all concerned. Playoff fans get their playoff. Bowl fans get their bowls. Everyone gets a TON of good football in December and January. I say we do it. Who's with me?

 

Cam Newton: Should he win the Heisman? To be totally honest, I don't know. I didn't actually sit and watch him play whereas Kellen Moore in that game against Nevada looked INSANELY good, so I would go with Kellen Moore on this one. But I will say this: the trophy should be about the quality of play, not off field shenanigans that the player may or may not be involved in. I think Reggie Bush might ultimately do Cam Newton in, if it does emerge a couple of years down the road that there was shadiness that did involve Newton, then he will undoubtedly be under ENORMOUS pressure to give back the Heisman- presuming he wins. I think if it's the trophy for the Best Player in College Football, it's got to be about what that player does on the field. If people want to give a trophy to the most morally upstanding person out there, make a new trophy.

 

The War On Christmas: nothing will send me into a blind rage than some idiot conservative commentator pontificating about the so-called 'Liberal-war-on-Christmas' and how saying 'Happy Holidays' is really a sign that you're a card carrying member of a secular, atheist, gay agenda pimping conspiracy to drive Jesus Christ out of America and destroy Christianity, the Republic and civilization as we know it. Let me say this:

ARGH!

First of all: there is Diwali, Hannukah, Kwanza, Thanksgiving, Halloween, Eid, New Year's, Epiphany, Martin Luther King Day, All Saint's Day and undoubtedly some Buddhist holiday and many Hindu festivals that I have forgotten all in a period roughly between November 1^st and January 15^th. That's 10 holidays in a 2 and a half month period- and in this Judeo-Christian nation of ours- hell, let's expand it out to include our African-American brothers and sisters and this year, our Muslim brothers and sisters as well in December alone we find five major holidays. And you want to know what the most amazing part about America is: if I meet you on the street in December, I have no way of knowing what religion you practice- and good manners on my part forbid me from assuming that you're a Christian. OK, it's a pretty good bet here in America, but it's not a sure thing- so saying Happy Holidays covers all manner of religious possibilities- as well as more secular ones depending on your taste. In essence, what we need is not pontification from right wing blowhards on this issue- we need Emily Post to weigh in and let us know the etiquette once and for all.

Second of all: It's Jesus Christ. The man took two loaves and a fish and fed 5,000 people. He turned water into wine and got nailed to a tree and lived to talk about it. Are we really all that worried people are going to forget about him? Especially Christians? Of course Christmas has become commercialized and materialistic- we're Capitalists after all. So the right wing can have us be capitalist and spend money at Christmas or make it all about Jesus- but they can't do both.