gotta love it. college football is one of the best sporting spectacles in the world. the passion of the fans rivals that of any european soccer club. the amount of money spent on ncaa football stuff must be staggering. it’s always fun to watch the somewhat controlled circus that is college football every year. this year however, has probably been one of the craziest seasons ever. i mean, there were something like 8 #2 teams over the course of 12 or 13 weeks. that’s pretty amazing. also, taking into consideration the amount of on the field upsets this year i don’t think anyone should have been surprised by the number of “upset” bowl choices this year.

already the rose bowl is taking flack for choosing 9-3 illinois over 10-2 georgia. the thing that most people miss though is that the rose bowl isn’t tied directly to the bcs like the other bowls. they have an external conference partnership (pac 10/big 10) and an external tv contract. they “go along with” the bcs mainly because the big 10 and pac 10 do. i’m sure if the rose bowl people had their way, they’d prefer the big 10 and pac 10 play there every year. it’s just too bad for them that those conferences make way more money in the bcs. given that, it shouldn’t be any surprise that illinois got the nod over georgia.

speaking of georgia, who really wanted to see them play in the bcs championship game (other than their fans)? clearly none of the voters. it’s seen as some great slight that georgia got leapfrogged by lsu for the #2 spot. after some deliberation i decided it’s exactly what should’ve happend. a team that doesn’t win their conference shouldn’t be allowed to play for the national championship. how can you be the best team in the country if you can’t even win your conference? i understand georgia fan’s feelings on this, but if it were some other team and not theirs i’m sure they’d be happy to see it happen. i bet 99.9% of them were ecstatic when michigan didn’t get a second chance at osu last year in the championship game.

admittedly, i kind of like the bcs. since its inception, college football popularity has gone up. with that though, cries for the end of the bcs have gone up as well. i don’t see why people would want to get rid of it when clearly it has shown to be very popular with the general public/everyday college football fan. i think people really enjoy the fact that games all across the country have an effect on their team, and that come bowl season, 64 out of 119 schools get to play in one. leaving out all the little guys isn’t really any more fun for 99% of the teams.

there are a lot of reasons that the college football post season is the way it is. one is definately money. there are something like 32 bowl games, and even the lame ass ones pay out multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars. for some small schools and conferences, that can be a huge boost to their programs. the second reason is the conferences them selves. the big 6 bcs conferences are in no rush to lose their control over the whole system. they are all guaranteed to make tons of money on the current system. lastly you have university presidents who are afraid of a playoff system b/c it undermines the “academic” goals of university athletics. lots of university presidents think that if they go for a playoff system then they’ve basically just created nfl jr. i think that argument is pretty weak (somehow basketball isn’t nba jr?)

a lot of this is spelled out in stewart mandel’s book bowls, polls, and tattered souls which i think should be required reading for any college football fan in the bcs era. he goes into a lot of detail and gives examples backed by actual facts and stats way better than i could. you should give it a read if you are really interested in this stuff.

that is all.

now i’m all for equality amongst the sexes and all that shit. i think women are just as good at most thing - if not better than - men. i think they can be just as good CEOs or atheletes or whatever.

espn has a female announcer that actually knows her shit. i think her name is pam ward but i’m not 100% sure on that. anyway, i have no problem with someone who knows what they are talking about calling a game and keeping it interesting. (granted her voice is kinda manly and scratchy, but that’s not so bad)

what i do find rather amusing though is the “sideline analysts” that most sports broadcasts have now. they take a fairly attractive woman, stick her on the sideline, then have her “report” on different things during the game. the one thing i’ve come to notice that they usually report on is the “gossip” going on. for example, who’s hurt. who’s mom cooked them a big breakfast before the game. who has a girlfriend in the stands that happens to be a sister to someone on the opposing sideline.

it just seems to me that a lot of these sports organizations (espn, cbs, abc, etc) are taking the low road to allow women into sports broadcasting. now realize i’m not talking about female sports (wnba, women’s collegiate sports, billiards, etc) which have had a number of well informed, useful, female commentators, but rather the female sportscasters foray into male sports.

it just kind of bothers me really. i’d rather see more color commentators be female, or more play by play callers be female, than have some semi attractive woman giving gossip reports from the sidelines. but hey, that’s just me.