If Alabama wins, it'll make a mockery of the college football playoff and selection committee

Many in the sports media, ESPN in particular, have an odd, almost abusive relationship with Alabama head coach Nick Saban. Saban treats them like crap day in and day out for many years, these sports commentators start to believe they deserve such treatment, and wind up spending most of their time defending their abuser - in this case, Nick Saban. At no time was this any more prevalent than last night and this morning, after Alabama dominated Clemson 24-6 to win the Sugar Bowl and advance to the national championship game to face in-conference rival Georgia. To paraphrase, here are what 99% of ESPN's college football analysts said following the Tide's big victory:

- "Well, that just goes to show you the committee got it right."

- "This game proves Alabama's one of the best four teams and deserved to get in over Ohio State."

- "Alabama's loss to Auburn was obviously due to injuries."

- "Alabama's just the better team."

- "There was a reason the playoff committee selection the Crimson Tide."

I'm sorry, but just as Alabama's one loss against Auburn shouldn't define their team, neither should one win against Clemson, and it doesn't prove they deserved to be in the playoffs in the first place.

Let's not even take Ohio State into the equation. Even though they handled Pac-12 champ USC in the Cotton Bowl rather easily, their two losses, especially against unranked Iowa by five scores, would have made them a rather flawed selection by the playoff committee. However, do you know who else won on New Year's Day and went on to become the only undefeated team of the season? Central Florida? Know who they beat? Auburn? Who defeated Alabama? Oh, that's right, Auburn.

If Georgia wins the national championship game next Monday, then I don't think there will be much gripe about the end result. The Bulldogs would have won the SEC championship game, the playoff semifinal, and national title games. It'll be seen by 99.9% of the population as a well deserved title. However, if Alabama wins, that's another matter all together. In a system where four teams make a playoff, the champion would have been a club who finished third in their conference; didn't make their conference championship game, let alone win it; all the while a 14-0 team had to watch the contest from home. In what other sport would this take place? In what other sport would a team who had yet to lose a game be told, "I'm sorry, but you can't advance to the next game, because there's this one-loss team, who didn't even make their conference title game, who we think looks a little better than you guys. Sure, you may have beaten the team they lost to, but we still think they look better than you. We hope you understand."? The correct answer is, "No other sport."

If Alabama wins next Monday, one of two things needs to happen: 1) We need to do away with the conference championship games (because they obviously don't mean much) or 2) We need to expand the playoff field from 4 to 8 teams. If Alabama wins on Monday, we will have witnessed a national championship game where a third place team from a conference, a team who didn't even make the conference title game, let alone win it, would have won the national title by defeating the team from their very own conference who won the conference championship. If that doesn't make a mockery of the college football playoff and its selection committee, I don't know what does...

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