Michigan State coach Mark Dantonio may have gone crazy

Conference championship and BCS selection weekend is nearly upon us in the world of college football. Due to that, many coaches are attempting to persuade voters that their teams deserve a shot in the national championship game. Mark Dantonio of the 11-1 and 10th ranked Michigan State Spartans is one of those coaches.

He recently the following on the matter:

"Why not us, if certain scenarios take place, which obviously last weekend you saw a lot of scenarios take place. There are no givens in college football. Anybody can rise up to beat someone else. That ball bounces a lot of different ways.

The fact of the matter is we're 11-1 right now, we're playing in a championship environment. And we'll move from there. Don't limit yourself. Dream big. That's what I tell my football team."

"The fact of the matter is" there's a better chance for the Chicago Cubs to win the World Series during an off-season than it is for Michigan State to play in the national championship game this year.

Michigan State is currently ranked 10th in the BCS. Not only would they need to defeat 12-0 and 2nd ranked Ohio State in the Big Ten title game this coming Saturday, they'd need the following things to occur:

1) For #20 Duke to beat #1 Florida State in the ACC championship game (or for FSU quarterback Jameis Winston to get suspended due to the pending sexual assault charge)

2) For the loser of the SEC title game between #3 Auburn and #5 Missouri to fall a few spots

3) For #4 Alabama to not be viewed as a legitimate choice since it didn't even make the SEC title game, let alone win it

4) For #6 Oklahoma State to fall to #17 Oklahoma

5) For #7 Stanford to lose to #11 Arizona State in the Pac-12 title game and for ASU to not rise much in the polls

6) For #8 South Carolina to not be seen as a legitimate choice due to the Gamecocks not winning the SEC

7) For #9 Baylor to lose to #25 Texas

Even if Florida State, Ohio State, Auburn, Oklahoma State, Stanford, and Baylor all lose this coming weekend, the committee is not going to leapfrog two-time defending champion Alabama with Michigan State. Leading up to the Big Ten title game, Michigan State's opponents are a combined 57-74, and that's excluding Youngstown State of the FCS. Besides Youngstown, Michigan State's non-conference schedule included: 1-11 Western Michigan, whom they beat by only 13 points; 2-9 South Florida, whom they beat by 15 points; and 8-4 Notre Dame; whom they lost to by 4 points. These three teams combined to go 11-24 and the Spartans outscored them by only 24 points. Michigan State also didn't have to square off against Ohio State, Wisconsin, or Penn State in conference this year. Four of their eight conference opponents ended up with losing records, combining to go 15-33. The four in-conference opponents they faced with winning records combined to go 31-17. Even if we include Ohio State's 12-0 record to Michigan State's resume, their opponents are still under .500, at 69-74. Lastly, according to the current BCS poll, Michigan State has yet to face a team in the top 25 - well, until Saturday. If they win that game, then congratulations, but one win versus a top 25 team, an awful non-conference schedule, and some pretty unconvincing victories against sub-par competition isn't going to persuade the committee that they should leapfrog 11-1 and two-time defending champion Alabama for a trip to the national championship game. Sorry, Mark, but you asked for it...

"Why not us?..."

Exactly...

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10073294/mark-dantonio-stumps-big-ten-champ-title-game

http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/127/michigan-state-spartans

http://espn.go.com/college-football/standings

http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs/_/year/2013

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"

The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

Search This Blog