Film: The Final Frontier

So I recently took it upon myself to watch the first six "Star Trek" movies, you know the ones that starred the cast from TOS (the original series). Seven featured Kirk, and maybe a few others, but that was a handoff, largely dominated by the cast of TNG (the next generation).

god that sounds nerdy.

Moving on.

I skipped 1 cos it sucks. Oh noes, an alien probe?! Oh wait, the V'ger is really the Voyager space probe? Let me mind meld with it! Expendable captain, please sacrifice yourself for it.

Moving on.

Star Trek 2 is awesome. The Wrath Of Khan is basically a pirate movie in space, and is such an awesome movie, it should have legitimately been considered for many "real" awards, but alas it was both a sequel and sci fi. Plus, who could say no to Ricardo Montalban? One of the greatest lines in all of moviedom (well actually one, followed by the other.) Must see.



Classic.

Star Trek 3. There's not much to love, but there's also not much to hate. Oh wait, where did Kirstey Alley go? Irrelevant. Cheeseburger habits are demanding on the paycheck. Anyways, who knew Christopher Lloyd would get his break as a Klingon? FUN FACT: Christopher Lloyd's character in The Search For Spock has the same name as his character from Santa Buddies (so no, it's not a nod to A Christmas Carol (Kruge and Cruge), it's a nod to Star Trek).

Star Trek 4. Widely regarded as the Star Trek non-Star Trek fans like, it's ok. It also serves as one of the cornerstones of my knowledge of aquatic life, along with Free Willie, Jaws, and Moby Dick. The plot mainly revolves around stealing whales from the mom from "Seventh Heaven". Oh, I should mention they travelled back in time for this to happen, to San Francisco of the 1980s. Highlights include Scotty talking into a computer mouse and Chekov asking for "nuclear wessels". The funniest part is The Journey Home is really a reworking of Star Trek 1, in the larger general plot (unknown space probe travels through the galaxy and destroys a bunch of stuff, except this time it sounds like its trying to communicate with whales). To top it off, the overt political message about whale hunting comes off as tacked on. Whatevs, gotta nuke something.

Star Trek 5. For what it's worth, it's not awful. It basically is everything you'd expect Star Trek to be. Crazy Prophet takes over the Enterprise, turns out to be Spock's half brother, and wants to go to the center of the galaxy to find god.

I wish I was making that up. All things said, The Final Frontier was about as good as it could be, especially with Shatner directing it.

Star Trek 6. A whodunit in space, with waaaaaaay too much Shakespeare, for space. You mean you've never read Hamlet in its original Klignon? Also, it turns out it was the slutty one from "sex and the city" who ruined everything for everyone. Highlights include seeing Christopher Plummer and the dad from "that 70s show" as Klignons. Also the Undiscovered Country doesn't actually exist. It's just a mediocre metaphor for the future. The only highlight is a scene where Shatner fights a shapeshifter who shifted into Shatner. Shatner fighting Shatner. It's almost as good as Shatner fighting the Gorn in "The Arena".



So yeah. Not a waste of time. Just watch 2, 3, and 4 (which happen directly consecutively, and thus kinda make up a trilogy, though 5 happens not long after that.....). I recommend avoiding 1 and 6 at all costs though.

-- Knuttel

maybe later I'll do 7-10. 8 is the only one I can really say if it's good or not (and it's awesome, perhaps better than 2). Why did they never make a movie with the DS9 cast? Whatevs.

Feel Good-umentaries

What has happened to documentaries?

I realize that nothing can ever be truly objective, even the simple presentation of facts is always filtered by the mind which organizes them. But does every single modern documentary have to simply go for an emotional response?

OK, so not all the oscar winners and nominees were feel good stories, but the fact remains that they were all emotional. Even the documentary Food Inc., while producing a lot of fact filled moments and tried earnestly to expose wrongful practices of the large food industry, spent many many moments on emotional pieces, which usually didn't add anything major to the story.

In addition to this, The documentary awards (short and long) are often seen as a reflection of issues that hollywood, or the academy, care(s) about.

And so the winner for long documentary was a fluff piece (The Cove) about the Japanese practice of eating dolphins (and whales), and some of their methods of hunting. Sure, I don't personally agree with the eating of these animals, but I also come from a society where this is certainly not the norm, and really isn't accepted either. In Japan, there is a long history and tradition of eating these creatures, much like there is a tradition for them to eat other creatures of the sea. Japan is a series of islands, with alot of coastline, and not alot of land. It makes perfect sense they'd turn to the sea for sustinence. Alas, I digress. Possibly the thing that irks me the most about it is they don't have any regard at all for what Japan thinks of it. A good chunk of the movie was about how the locals were opposed to this film and how difficult it was for this film crew to get this message across to the world. (Good for you, thanks). OK, maybe the methods of hunting they use aren't that "humane", but frankly what is humane hunting anyway. These are probably the same idiots that want the deer population to starve themselves to death rather than get hunted down, cos it's natural -- nevermind that their natural predators haven't been in most of these areas for over 100 years. Goddamnit, I digress again.

Really the makers of this film come off as more ignorant than the people they're trying to portray. Even the title (The Cove) implies this is a secret and dirty act they are doing, and this is the only place this happens, and we, as responsible members of this western world, must be the ones to stop it.

It's like if a film crew went to Mexico to make a documentary about how the people are savages, making tacos instead of hamburgers.

What about Eskimo hunting? Is that OK? They hunt all sorts of sea mammals (which I'm assuming is the criteria for making this evil, being mammal). I can just imagine one of the producers trying to talk to an Inuit -- "Don't you know you can get all your protein sources from Soy and Soy byproducts? Where's your nearest Wholefoods?" "Geeeee, Thaaaaaaanks."

Like I said in my previous post, it's this total lack of self-awareness that makes the academy awards watchable.


Moral arguments are always the worst, simply because they lack universality. The world is not black and white, and fuck if it's always shaded in gray.


"Good sir, can you show me to that place where sea lions ride the waves to the shore?"

--Ok, one more picture. That's it, I swear.



Terrifying.

Anyways, onto the short documentary.

It got Kanye'd. Haha. It happens at the MTV awards, chalk it up to the zany nature. It happens at the academy awards? You betta bet there was some monocle droppage.

I'll try and put this together as fairly as possible. The documentary that won was about a woman in Africa who suffers from natural disfigurement, making her "tainted by witchcraft" amongst locals, that sings in a band, and to a lesser extent her band, who also suffer from deformities. There were originally two people involved in the direction/shooting of this short documentary or whatever, and naturally they had different ideas on what the direction was to be (oh, so that's what a director does). Anyways, one director wanted it to be about the woman, the other wanted it to be about the band. The one who wanted it to be about the woman won, and finished the movie listed as the director, and thus the recipient of the award. The other person, having contributed, managed to keep a role as producer in the credits, though largely maintained a position of disowning the film. The movie wins, and the director walks up and gives a speech. The other person crashes through (apparently to the protest of the director's 90 some year old mother, hah) and runs up, interrupts the speech only a few short words into it, and doesn't let the other dude finish.

So let me rephrase that. The director, who's documentary was his vision, gets cut out of his own acceptance speech by the partner who only the day prior had pretty much disowned any attachment to the project.

At least Beyonce was nominated for an award when the proceedings were interrupted on her behalf; and its probably less emotionally jarring for this to happen to a middle aged man than to an 18 year old girl.

BTW, last time a "major" motion picture, and not an "independent" film won best picture was only a few years ago with The Departed (2006). And possibly one of the "largest" films ever made, Return of the King (2003) has won recently, and blockbusters simply dominated in the late 90s. So, even with an expanded field, the academy can't pick one of its own major studio films to win the best picture award. Wow. I really question a lot here, but I'll leave this as it is.

You guys got enough pictures, no video.

-- Knuttel

Knuttel Watches The Academy Awards On An Hour Or Two Tape Delay

Sometimes I question why I do things. Sometimes, whatevs.

So why am I watching these awards if I have been such an outspoken critic of them and their relevance? Simple. It's such a large exercise in auto-fellation, that you just sit on the edge of your seat, waiting for that moment when something goes wrong, metaphorically when either that one muscle gets pulled, or if one flinches and bites. That is why.

That being said, I really don't care about who wins or any of that. I want to see just how self-indulgent these proceedings happen to be.

I know they expanded the "Best picture" award to 10 movies to try and incorporate more of the mainstream blockbuster movies.

But that's not the awards I know or want to see. I want to see the complete lack of shame or self awareness that caused them to expand the field to 10 pictures.

Will they be snorting the bones of third world orphans? One can hope.

Will any "genre" films get any of the big awards? Hah. The only genre that ever gets any of the big awards is the oscar bait genre itself. (Yes, it is its own genre).

And what's with all this genre bullshit anyways? And really you can't pin this on me for making a big deal about genre shit. They should've gotten their due as it arises. But no. Whatevs. Shits in the past, can't be changed, and it likely won't get resolved in the future.

I always go by this guideline -- 90% of everything (musically, literary, cinematically) is shit. 90% of drama, 90% of comedy, 90% of sci fi, 90% of metal, 90% of jazz, 90% of rap, 90% of romance, etc and so on. You get the picture.

So why are these mediocre movies getting all the pub and awards, when Star Trek doesn't even get nominated for best adapted screenplay?

Whatevs. I'll watch my movies, academy, and you can return to your ivory tower of neckbeard academia.

-- Knuttel

P.S. Best ever Movie Song. Doubt it was nominated.

Movement and Music

What is music? Besides a simple collection of notes or sounds or whatever, I think the answer is always personal. It has more to do with how one was introduced to music, how one listened to music, what they were exposed to; a list of likes and dislikes is never really quite simple.

For example: I hate Creed, but damnit if their first album isn't genius. Shit, I even have the two after that, in hopes they could re-catch that somehow. Alas, the singer was a douche.

For me music has always been about movement. I think it started in my middle school years. I had been subjected to painfully long busrides starting in 4th grade, and had a cd player in 5th (that I was subsequently banned from taking to school due to repeating harmless, though explicit, lyrics from a band I haven't listened to since, 311), so 6th grade was when this really started to expand and grow. It was also when I decided to pick up the guitar (fuck you high school and collegiate posers who only know the chords to "wonderwall", oasis sucks anyway). This connection just naturally developed. I was in motion and the music went in motion. The music went in motion as I went in motion. This would happen for hours a day, five days a week, all school year long.

And so naturally I gravitated to music that had a well defined notion of motion. Metal became an obvious choice for my middle school self, though naturally listening to rock radio of the late 90's, Metallica and Sabbath were often supplanted by Ozzy, Smashing Pumpkins, a slew of post-grunge bands, and the one blur album with "that woohoo song".

High School came along and naturally that led to more musical exploration. Again I had a painfully long bus ride, though only the return trip (we had to wait outside a different school for about an hour to pick those kids up). Metal was explored further, though often only nominally. Post-grunge quickly gave way to classic rock. Pink Floyd introduced me to atmospheric music, which is when I learned of my synesthesia. Atmospheric music introduced me to Radiohead. Radiohead introduced me to britpop. I refound my old blur cd(s I actually had 13 also, in anticipation of another "woohoo song") and subsequently found the entire blur catalog, just in time for their next release, Think Tank. In time I went back and searched for music from the original britpop band, The Beatles.

College came and I found jazz, which is nothing but movement. There is always a chord progression or a note progression or a scale progression. Something is always going on. Even in Free Jazz, it's just different kind of movements, movements of colors, shapes, feelings. Thus Jazz is "faster" than any kind metal, thrash, speed or otherwise.

Speaking of metal, this is also when the actual deep diving into the metal world began. What I listened to in middle school was but a wading. Funny thing is even then I knew hair metal sucked.

But all of this music I had listened to, all of it had a sense of motion to it, a sense of time, whether strict or abstract. Good music to me always knew when to move, how fast to move, when to stay still, for how long should it stay still, etc. "Echoes" has long been my favorite Pink Floyd song, because at the bridge, it simply just stops for 10 minutes, exploring its own cavernous space, and echoes itself back into the verse and chorus.

And for the music, a song which actually moves remarkably slow, which suits it much better than one would think.



-- Knuttel

PS. the current singer/songwriter who probably has the best sense of this is Lady GaGa.

Is Knuttel Really Talking About Tim Burton?

So Tim Burton has another re-make coming out soon. And it stars his usual cast, and I'm also going to presume Elfman is doing the score.

What should one make of his career?

He's spent virtually all of his career doing re-makes of one sort or another, and almost all of them are incredibly stylistically similar. So stylistically similar I often make the bad joke "I liked Edward Scissorhands the first time I saw it."

Basically every film he's done has either had a mid-20th century (50s-ish) or cheapened Victorian feel. Adding the 50s bit really makes it to include all of his films. The Victorian imagery style he uses is so gaudy and while stylistically true, so uncharacteristically Victorian, it just seems to cheapen the whole 19th century. I'd imagine many a steampunk enthusiast to abhor the coming of a Tim Burton film.

It's like he caught in some sort of permanent suburban mailaise, imagining up places he's never been, in a time he never will be a part of, with all the money Hollywood can throw at him.

I always thought it was a demand we have of our "artists" (something I'd always assume a good filmmaker to be) to progress with their work, or at the very least to not stand still. One must move about and explore. What can the medium do, what can it not do, where should we go, are there places we should refrain from going? These are questions one must ask. And no, "but it's in 3D" does not yet fully count unless one is really planning on exploring the medium (I heard Cameron did this in Avatar, but I don't have much interest in seeing it). As of now, I still see it as an expensive Hollywood excercise in survival.

Another note, something with which I disagree with him almost unequivocally -- Just because something is strange, bizarre, or even trippy does not mean that it is dark and possibly brooding. This trait of his has seemingly gotten worse in recent years, possibly due to the rise of emo music mid decade.

Even so, how can one say the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the original Planet of the Apes were not dark. Darkness is very much often hid amongst the light. In fact, the early music of Black Sabbath pretty much defined that sentance. Everyone remembers "Iron Man" and "Paranoid", but what about "Planet Caravan", "Laguna Sunrise", "Changes", and even "NIB" (which has a very positive message actually).



Maybe I'm just angry he lacks the proper respect one should have for an audience. He never challenges it, he simply expects them to show up when the time comes, hand over money to see his movie and possibly buy paraphanelia, and until then drool over press releases from the set.

-- Knuttel

Texas Tea

Forming amongst a loose coalition of protesters during last years tax season as a response to the bailouts, the "tea party" has since become something slightly more tangible.

Depending on who you ask, the Tea Party is either a small government (Libertarian) or 10th Amendment/state's rights (Statist) party. Regardless, both can agree that they want a smaller Federal government. This tieing in with the Libertarian boom of the last decade can cause a radical shift of the Party system as we know it. It could abandon the Republicans, to be doomed alone with the Christian right. It can rip the social liberals/apathetics from the Democratic party, leaving them alone with those in favor of large federal infrastructure.

But earlier this week was the first real test of their principals, and how they hold up via candidates, in the Texas State Primaries.

As the Tea Party doesn't have any real party affiliations, I think there were Tea Party representatives on both the Republican and Democratic Ballots. Given recent political history, this meant most of the candidates were on the Republican ballot.

Given recent political history, this meant most of these Tea Partiers were lined up against incumbents.

With the recession/depression/economic whatever, congress's dealings whith said whatever, and really congress's approval rating since 2006, you would think this would be to the incumbent's disadvantage. One must need only look to the McCain-Feingold reform to be instantly corrected on this silly mistake.

Congress has always had Franking privelages. This means they can mail stuff anywhere for free. This means any Congressman can simply spam newsletters and pamphlets whenever he wants. This is a significant cut on overhead that was invaluable in the days when people still used mail. Add this advantage to the McCain-Feingold act and, well it simply isn't fair. The bill puts a ceiling on the amount of money the candidate can accept from any single organization/person (different amounts in each case). This effectively makes it an even playing field, as far as funding is concerned.

The incumbent has the pleasure/displeasure of being known. They have recognition. All publicity is good publicity. Period. Plus, the incumbent already has a support infrastructure in place. They don't need to waste money on building their campaign process and plan. They already have that, or at least some semblance of it from previous campaigns. Newcomers start from scratch.

Well, it looks like I'm rambling a bit now about "campaign finance reform" and it's effects on actual campaigns, but I'm getting to my point, I swear.

The tea party candidates were blown out of the water.

They weren't close anywhere. Really.

The closest they might have done was disrupt Senator K Bailey Hutchinson's gubanatorial campaign. That's debatable, and it wasn't even under the dubious categorization of "vote stealing" (something which I will deny ever ever exists, you run your campaign on who else is running and you vote on who runs, to speculate other scenarios is reckless and irresponsible), but rather under the category of something more akin to a PAC taking apart a candidate. Think of it this way. She got swift boated -- except instead of for serving in Vietnam and earning a purple ehart, to be discredited by disillusioned veterans who may or may not have served for you, she had a very successful career as a congresswoman for Texas and was always able to pull money and projects back into her state/districts and was discredited for supporting the state of Texas by wasting the federal governments money on projects which may or may not have helped her state/districts.

My wording is awkward, but trust me, there's an analogy in there somewhere.

Regardless, I think this actually serves as a good example of the short term future of the party.

They will act as a PAC, or series of PAC's, rather than a party which runs successful candidates. This is the same strategy which has kept the ideals of the green party alive, as Ralph Nader's presidential campaign numbers continue to dwindle.

Given the nature of their party's politics and views, they should probably be advised to get some butts in the seats. They can act as an influencer, but if they actually want to change policy at their pace, they need to get their own representatives in government.

Both the parties of today were created upon single issues, really, so it's not entirely out of the question to say this party can't do it.

The Democratic party, while claiming ties back to the founding fathers (especially Jefferson), came into something more of their modern manifestation as the "vote for Andrew Jackson" party. There was really only one party then, but that's when the distinction was began between Democrat-Republicans and Jacksonian Democrats.

The Republican party has a much more cohesive tie to one single party. It was formed in the 1850's as an abolitionist party, and grew largely out of the ashes of the crumbling Whig Party, which refused to take an official party wide stance on the issue. At the end of the decade, they managed to put a President in the Oval Office, Abraham Lincoln.

So the question is will they be able to do it? Or even simply, will they try?

Ron Paul is a good bet for someone who has at least the capability to do it. He has drawn the ire of both the major parties, supports most of the Tea Party's central ideals, and has the support of the internet (which may only equal to one person in real life). Not to mention, if he can win his home state of Texas, well that would change the entire political landscape.

German Music Time!!



-- Knuttel

How Do You Open A Door On The Anatolian Peninsula?

With a Tur-key!

Hah, get it?

All kidding aside, something possibly momentous has occurred in American-Turkish relations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8550765.stm

Yeah, it is non-binding, and yeah Congress has yet to vote on it, but it's already stirred up some controversy.

Background information:
The land of Armenia had been under control of the Ottoman Empire. Being a Christian people, they were granted some rights, but not all the rights the Muslim Turks and Arabs were. World War I begins in 1914. The Ottoman Empire sided Germany and Austria-Hungary to form the Central Powers. Russia, on the north-eastern border of the empire, was part of the opposition. In 1915, several prominent Armenians were convicted of treason etc and accused of aiding the Russians (another Christian nation). This escalated to a very systematic effort to relocate and sometimes execute/massacre the Armenian population. This lasted until the later part of the decade, forcing many Armenians to run away and try and find places of refuge. The scale of the events was so comprehensive it actually caused the creation of the word "genocide". The government of the later Republic of Turkey (the Ottoman Empire dissolved very quickly thereafter) has maintained the stance that these actions were entirely military in nature and were not intended to eradicate the Armenian peoples. Similar actions were carried out to lesser extents to the other minorities on the Anatolian peninsula, notably Greeks and Assyrians, also Christian. This may have been the largest factor contributing to the Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek diasporas. The total death count has been largely disputed, but it is largely recognized as the first modern genocide, similar to the later German Holocaust. As many as 20 countries have officially called these events the Armenian Genocide.

The United States of America has to now not officially taken a stance on the events, as Turkey has been a key ally of the past fifty years. In addition to its geographic importance over the years (proximity to the Soviet Union in the past, the Middle East, specifically Iraq, now) Turkey has one of the largest militaries in the world.

That being said, the majority of the Armenian diaspora went to either Russia or the USA, and the Armenian population of America has continuously fought to have the event recognized.

Regardless of the semantics involved in naming this event, it should at least be recognized in some capacity as more than a military event. -- I really do hate semantics like this. I once got a professor started on a tirade because I mentioned the conflict in the Balkans of the 90s as a genocide, when it was really just a type of conflict. I also got him started on another tirade because I referred to the Latino section of cultures or whatever as Hispanic.

Anyways, I see this turning out one of three ways.

1. Turkey mans up and calls it a genocide, and everyone except the Turks are happy.
2. Turkey blows up a bunch of smoke in the short term, but it doesn't really mean anything and they forget about it.
3. The nation suffers a backlash and goes stronger away from secularization (which itself has two sub-outcomes)
a. The military stages another coup and restores the secular Republic of Turkey.
b. The government simply becomes Muslim, and may even attempt to establish a caliphate.

It's kind of funny how something so "non-binding" can get people really upset.

-- Knuttel

Post-Olympic hangover stew

So a few things which have been stewing inside this head of mine, some of which happened during the Olympics, some after, mostly who cares.

I read an article about Warren Buffet on large CEO bonuses.
-It basically states that if the CEO is at a chance to earn the corporation large amounts of money, there shouldn't be anything against rewarding him for it. But when the CEO or other high ranking corporate officials are willing to gamble with their organization's equity so willy nilly, they should stand to lose money, or at the very least not get rewarded with such huge bonuses. Buffet went on to include the fact that up to 90 percent of his personal wealth is tied up in investments in his companies. Thus, Warren Buffet himself is very much at risk for losing huge amounts of money if he invests too riskily. He did take a decent hit during the economic downturn.

I largely agree with this. I always worked under the assumption that a company bonus was earned for good performance. Running a fortune 500 into bankruptcy, while quite an achievement, is not something to be rewarded with a bonus.

To state that this would drive away talent is ludicrous. The bonus is still there, it just has to be earned. And by guaranteeing it, you're actually telling these people that they can't achieve this. You're basically just throwing money at them and hoping the problems will get solved, much like the government does with public education.

And if these people truly are the gods among men they claim to be, these holy captains of industry, is there really a harm in letting them loose upon the other fields of our economy and infrastructure? Can not these captains pilot the small businesses, of whose virtues we often extol? Can not these gods of men lead our government, on scales local, state, and federal?

Or are they just another group of charlatans. A group of outcasts, clinging onto their wealth and worldly possessions?

If this is the case, why can't we simply cast them out of eden?

fuggem

-- btw, the article was from over the weekend, and i dont really feel like digging it up. so if you're interested, look it up.

The Cafferty report: how sunday night CNN makes my brain bleed
I could only take about 5 minutes of it, really. And it's not like they were entirely making bad points or asking bad questions, they weren't. It was just so bad.

The questions were asked at the wrong people. The points were made out of context. It was designed to make you angry at something (regarding the government likely), but it just made me mad at the formatting.

They did a piece on the congressional pension system, and how longterm congressmen (especially senators) can really rack up huge annual pensions (Chris Dodd's was in 6 figures).

But calling these congressmen themselves and asking why they are due to receive these pensions? These are the people that have earned, or at least felt like they earned them. Even if it is waaaay too much, do you think they are going to comment on it, or at least if they are, are they going to say something that pleases you?

Sure, maybe reform is to be had there, as reform can help many a things, but if you really want to make the point, you have to hit the right spot. Find the keystone of this pension arch, and tug at it until the thing collapses. Until then you're just throwing rocks.

Healthcare: The return
They couldn't get it done the first time, so here they are to fail again.

Really, they get nothing done as far as healthcare, or even insurance reform is concerned unless some sort of public option is to be included. Making sure everyone is elgible for an insurance that has a ceiling rate is great and all for everyone, but in the greater scheme of things, it passes on the cost of liabilities of those lesser health. And making it illegal not to be covered would simply mean a much higher cost for someone of awesome health, such as I. At the very least, make the age for insurance dependency higher than 18. College extends it for most to 22, but even then, most starting jobs, regardless of where you came, don't initially offer insurance. Some entry level positions simply don't offer benefits. Most companies you have to work there for a few months.

That's time you're unisured, and time you would be forced to have insurance.

And for all of this, Speaker Pelosi gives herself an A.

fugger. really.

-- Knuttel

double feature of music. descending progression that gets stuck in your head like mad and possibly the greatest example of shoegazing ever made.





night

Olympics part 3, closing remarks

Ok, so the witty title or tag never really came, but whatevs. Frankly i was more interested in watching the games and admiring athletic prowess than talking about it. Do you know why? Cos I'm a do-er, not a talker.

I do things like watch the games on TV. end.

But there was some pretty awesome stuff going on. Skeleton and Luge were still exciting, despite the efforts of mr. no-fun-pants from georgia (poor taste, moving on). Bobsled remained the most boring of the sledding sports, largely because there was no John Candy coached team from Jamaica. Frankly I have a hard time following any bobsledder not named Doug E Fresh.

Snowboarding, meh. Ski-cross -- awesome. And mr. I-used-to-be-an-alcoholic biffed in the final to come in 4th, out of 4, to not medal.

Buddha Miller finally had a good games. Vonn took the cheese off her shin long enough to medal as well, though she may have screwed up her teammate. -- Oh, and Chris Collinsworth, please know what you're talking about before you say it. "I still think they should separate anyone that has a chance of medalling and have them running the track by themselves" (in reference to 2 skiiers being on the track, Vonn crashing and causing fellow american to restart) -- well they do usually do that, but if you watched it, you would also notice the huge amounts of fog and all together poor weather conditions. Hmmm, could this cause any sort of delay? Yeah, I think it did. Long delay = 2 runners on the track regardless of quality. And if theyre the best skiiers, shouldn't the threat of crashes be smaller? Thought so.

Crosby won a gold for hockey on the 25th, then managed to get on canada's other roster to score the game winning goal over america in ot to get them the gold. Dunno how that happenned. BTW, same medal order for both genders of hockey -- Canada, USA, Finland.

Biathalon, fun.

Figure skating, hate to agree with lyceck or whatevs, but the score for the long program is not based off one jump (which less than a handful of skaters can do) but off the whole program, you know, actual skating, transitions, spins, little jumps, putting something cohesive together. I didnt watch either, cos I don't really care about figure skating, but you got to look at everything when you're judging it, not one damn trick. You can't win a dive meet by simply having a really high DD. It doesn't work that way, you have to execute.

Moving on.

Curling's not a sport.

Moving on.

Canada finished with the most golds, making them the victors by some counts. They finished 3rd in overrall medals, coming after USA and Germany with 26 (14 Gold, 7 Silver, 5 Bronze). That's well short of the mythical "40" goal they were going for, but maybe canadians are just too nice to be that ultra competitive. Not to mention they had little to no balance. They had decent bob sledding, but they couldn't luge or skeleton for shit. Good on freestyle skiing, but not on any other kind of skiing. Good but not awesome in either short or long track speed skating. If one is to "win" the winter olympics, they need a solid presence in alpine skiing and sledding. They did not have that.

America passed it's single winter olympics medal count record with 37 (9 Gold, 15 Silver, 13 Bronze). They had 34 when they hosted the games in Salt Lake City in 02. Unless they add alot more events, I think 40 may remain a mythic number for the winter games.

-- Knuttel

Olympics part 2

Yeah, still no cool title or tags or anything, but I was bored and decided to write a poem/song for the Olympic committee to use, cos it was extremely obvious that the worst songs at the opening ceremony were all the "Olympic" songs.

without further ado

--
Perched atop Olympus,
mighty eagles soar.
The gods are seated at their court
telling tales of yore

Mighty Zeus smashes down a bolt of lightning
Fires rage as mortal men are scattering

And there to save a fellow man
is the first of these mortal Olympians

with the speed and agility of Hermes,
he brings a message of hope to those trapped

with the might of the titans,
he lefts them to safety

with the savagery of Ares
he is reckless in his rescue quest

with the wit of Athena
he saves them all; and himself

And so...
they grew
Olympians to two
To see who was the best
they set themselves a test
and the winner...
he shall find
glory for all time

Sieze the Flame
Oympic Games

THE ASSASSIN STRIKES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT
HE'LL TAKE YOUR LIFE BEFORE YOU CAN SCREAM

Day turns to night
as night goes to weeks
continuing forever
this fire of which we speak

From every corner of the world
that mighty atlas holds
these competitors come forward;
they brave, they bold

Sieze the Flame
Olympic Games

--

So there you go. the Olympic committee should definitely adopt it for the 2012 games. I think it may be too late for the ones currently running.

Canada got its first "home" gold medal ... ever... in Mens moguls, after coming extremely close in women's moguls the day before.

Germany took 1 and 2 in the luge. An old Italian veteran, and 2 time defending gold medalist, took the bronze. Thus it continues, no one messes with the alps in sledding events.

There was also some good biathalon-ing going on, with France taking the gold, and an American taking the highest position ever for an American in any biathalon event. He didn't place, but he was in the top 10.

-- Knuttel

Olympics time

So, since I'm really not doing anything else, I'm thinking maybe I should cover the 2010 Winter Olympics. This is not entirely without precedent, as I previously did this with the Euro 2008 soccer tournament. I may have also bitched about diving in some regard for the summer olympics of that year, but I really don't feel like looking that up.

First things first
- The opening ceremony
--Parts of the actual opening weren't bad if you were willing to stay still for no less then 6 hours. Parts were bizarre. Parts included a slam poet (big mistake, dude was rocking a big ass neck beard). Other parts didn't work. -- The indoor cauldron for the actual lighting ceremony had technical difficulties.

Yeah, after several hours of everything working fine, and everything requiring a very high level of technicality, the one moment that actually mattered failed.

HOW DARE YOU KEEP THE GREAT ONE WAITING AS SUCH!

-Whistler
--This was all after the highly publicized luge accident on the sled course. A certain Georgian (the place Stalin was from) Olympian was training on the course when he rounded the harrowing 13th turn, flew off the course and had his neck snapped by a un-padded and unobstructed steel support beam.

Unfortunately, it raises more questions than it answers.
-Why was the track built backwards (looping turns up top, sharp turns at the bottom being hit at full speed)?
-Why wasn't the track fixed in some regard after already having a short history of accidents -- it was either the 08 or 09 world cup in Vancouver that was racked with sledding accidents, in practice and in competition?
-Why were the steel support beams exposed coming right off that turn?
-Why didn't the Canadians let the other sledders use the track more in practice leading up the the games (alot of the sledding and skiing courses were kept off limits to non-Canadians prior).

But the games must go on. ... minus two Georgians ... his teammate left the games in grief.

And on the first day of actual events, are qualifying runs for Mens Luge!!!!

-The Alpine nations again dominated.
-The starting point of the track was moved up to the starting point used for womens and doubles luge, which shortens it to a point where they're only going 85-90 mph at the bottom instead of 95-100.
-A swiss luger lost control on the 11th turn (I think that's equivalent to the 13th turn the Georgian had problems with) and almost fell off his sled. He somehow managed to regain control, get fully back onto the sled, and actually post a time to finish the race.
skill

And for the record, it wasn't just novice lugers, or lower tier lugers who get weeded out and only go to the games to show up that were having problems, nay, it too affected the top level atheletes of the sport.

Also today was Womens Moguls, where an American placed first, and Canadian second, and fifth.

Short track speed skating had an event, as well as a relay event. A trio of Koreans was looking to sweep the medals for that particular singles short track, as the one in second place wiped out, taking number 3 with him. This left two Americans to pull second and third, silver going to Olympic veteran Apolo Anton Ono.

There was also normal ski jump (the shorter one), and a biathalon event, though I missed em. Kinda a shame, cos I like biathalon. I propose for the next games they mix shooting and downhill skiing for a biathalon event, to complement the shooting and cross country skiing biathalons that occur now.



-That seems good for now. Since it's almost 4 in the morning I don't feel like putting any pictures or videos or anything up. Next olympic post should have a witty title/graphic, and this post will likely be retro-tagged thusly.

Until then, happy lupercalia everybody!!

-- Knuttel

Dave Jr: back in Megadeth

Dave (Jr) Ellefson has made his return to the thrash metal band Megadeth. He was a founding member of the band, along with Dave (Sr) Mustaine, and remained with the band until Mustaine broke up the band due to an injury that was likely to prevent him from further playing in 2002. Mustaine re-formed the band in 2004 after getting over said injury, and due to tensions between the two, Ellefson decided not to be a part of this. Iced Earth bassist James Macdonaugh joined the band initially to replace him for the upcoming tour. In 2006 Macdonaugh and Mustaine parted ways due to personal differences, and he was replaced by versaitle bassist James Lomenzo (White Lion, Pride & Glory, David Lee Roth, Ozzy, Black Label Society). Lomenzo recorded two albums with Megadeth (United Abominations, Endgame) before Ellefson decided to come back to Megadeth a few days ago.

The story on their website


and now, one of the classic Dave Jr basslines. "Peace Sells" originally appeared as part of the highly influential second album of Megadeth Peace Sells ... But Who's Buying and gained further notoriety by becoming the theme music for MTV News for over a decade.




-- Knuttel

Article

Psychologists are trying to take over the country.

I might put up a rant about this later, but I'm kinda tired and angry. damn blizzard.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021000009.html?wpisrc=nl_headline



-- Knuttel

Link Link Link triforce something

News through links, cos I'm too lazy to actually write about it right now.

JD Salinger, author of watershed book Catcher in the Rye died recently, after spending years of his life as a recluse. Right before he is announced dead, this website is launched.
http://boards.4chan.org/lit/
I wonder if the two are related.

Obama's State of the Union Speech.
I didn't bother watching it, but someone decided to check its veracity.
http://factcheck.org/2010/01/obamas-state-of-the-union-address/
Didn't actually read this one, but I read MSNBC's this morning, and I guess they redacted it because God forbid they criticize a democratic president.

Apparently Supreme Court Judge Alito disagreed with him...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35117174/ns/politics-white_house/
but that's probably just a bunch of bullshit. Just kinda interesting when something little like that can get blown out of proportion.
-- aside -- the justices are there to show the joining of all three branches of the government (yeah, alot of ceremonial pomp and circumstance crap) and are supposed to not show any emotion either way (cheering, booing, "you lie"ing) to show their complete neutrality in regards to the constitution aka they don't play favorites.

Terrence "Mount" Cody rocks some solid C cups
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/01/26/terrence.cody.ap/index.html?eref=sihp
Is there some unwritten rule about Alabama linemen showing up to scouting events showing off some man boobs? I guess things are different in the south.

Mark Sanchez and Jamarcus Russel's careers compared.
http://deadspin.com/5452869/mark-sanchez-is-the-new-jamarcus-russell-only-worse
Huh, I don't follow the NFL/RGFL anymore, but I thought Jamarcus Russel sucked...

And finally
link not safe for work (hah, like that actually matters to me)
http://jalopnik.com/5458817/2010-pirelli-calendar-seriously-what-does-this-have-to-do-with-tires-nsfw
But the one on the left is definitely my car.

-- Knuttel

And where the fuck were you?!?!

I love playing with the emphasis on that. I think the closeness of where to were really helps with it.

Anyways, I obviously have been away from this for a while. I'm contemplating maybe some format changes, cos let's be honest, no one reads this anyway.

In any case, there will be something "real" up likely tomorrow, maybe on Haiti, maybe on more pressing matters, like the Lifetime movie Cyber Seduction. Whatever the case may be, prepare to be enthralled.

So lately I've been organizing my efforts to be an even more super awesome person on my road to personal betterment. A few nights ago, after "Jersey Shore" came to a close, I popped in my old smashing pumpkins dvd (Vieuphoria, if anyone's wondering), and as I'm watching Billy Corgan straight up wail out song after song, I realize something -- I used to be able to play like that, and what the fuck happenned. Ok, maybe not that good. But the point stands. I used to have well above average chops and a fuggin awesome ear, and due mostly to "guitar atrophy", I've lost ability in both, though mostly the former.

That being said, I have not-so-carefully crafted a list of songs from four artists, three of which had a pretty profound influence on my "playing days". It could get expanded or amended in the future, but goddamnit, I am going to learn these songs; every single one. Let's see how far i get/bad it gets before I make any changes.

so the list, broken down by album (from american release) + 1 single


Smashing Pumpkins
Gish
Siva
Rhinoceros
I am one
Crush
Siamese Dream
Geek USA
Cherub Rock
Soma
Hummer
Quiet
Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness
Zero
Muzzle
Where the Boys feared to tread
Bodies
Jellybelly
An ode to no one
Xyu
Thru the eyes of ruby
Porceleina of the oceans
1979
Here is no why
To forgive
Bullet with butterfly wings
Love
Tales of a scorched earth

Blur
Modern life is rubbish
Popscene
Parklife
This is a low
London loves
Blur
Beetlebum
m.o.r
on your own
you’re so great
movin on
13
Bugman
Coffee and tv

Radiohead
Pablo Honey
Blow out
The bends
Street spirit
Sulk
Planet telex
Black star
My Iron lung ep
The trickster
Permanent daylight
Ok computer
Airbag
Paranoid android
Lucky
(single)
talk show host
Kid a
Morning bell
Everything in its right place
National anthem
Amnesiac
Knives out
I might be wrong
Dollars and cents
Hail to the thief
2+2=5
Backdrifts
Go to sleep
There, there
Where I end and you begin

Mastodon
Leviathan
Seabeast
Blood and thunder
Iron tusk
Blood mountain
Colony of birchmen
Hunters of the sky
This mortal soil
Sleeping giant
Crack the skye
Oblivion


Those last ones are gonna be a doozy, damn hybrid picking.

and now, because it would be unfair to pick one video after listing a bunch of awesome music, an equally awesome link.

Jersey Shore Nickname Generator
Could You be the next "the situation" or "ms./mrs the situation"?
Maybe you'll find out what a snooki is....

-- Knuttel

a snack

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=ohlmeyer_don&id=4844048

a little insight on the leach firing. ill probably put something real of mine up later.

Non-Knuttel Poetry Time!!

This unit of time's entry is brought to us by Mastodon (under the presumptive influence of it's drummer, Brann Dailor)

Oblivion -- from Crack the Skye

I flew beyond the sun before it was time
burning all the gold that held me inside my shell
waiting for you to pull me back in
i almost had the world in my sight

lost love . bright eyes, fading . faster than stars falling

how can I tell you that I failed?

Falling from grace cause I've been away too long
leaving you behind with my lonesome song
now I'm lost in oblivion

I tried to burrow a hole into the ground
breaking all the fingers and the nails from my hand
the eyes of a child see no wrong
ignorant bliss, impending doom

Lost love . bright eyes, fading . faster than stars falling

how can I tell you that I failed?

Falling from grace cause I've been away too long
leaving you behind with my lonesome song
now I'm lost in

falling from grace cause I've been away too long
leaving you behind with my lonesome song
now I'm lost in oblivion




and now the video for reference



enjoy the three part harmonies as well

-- Knuttel

the 1987 Fiesta Bowl: the game that changed college football forever

We all know what happenned.

Penn State and Miami met at Sun Devil Stadium in Arizona on January 2nd, 1987. Both teams had gone through the regular season undefeated and were the consensus #1 and 2 in every poll. Despite being largely unfavored, Penn State beat Miami 14-10, by forcing 7 turnovers, 5 of them Vinny Testaverde interceptions (including a timely goal line pick to seal the game).

How did this happen? Why did this happen? What was the result of this?

In the 1986 College Football season, there were 4 major bowl games -- The Rose Bowl, The Orange Bowl, The Sugar Bowl, and The Cotton Bowl. All 4 of these bowl games had conference tie-ins, and thus had to select the winner(s) of whatever conference(s) they were tied to. The Rose Bowl was tied to the Big Ten (which still had 10 members) and the Pac-10. The Orange Bowl was tied to the Big 8 Conference (now makes up 8 of the Big 12 teams). The Sugar Bowl was tied to the SEC. The Cotton Bowl was tied to the Southwest Conference (busted up in the early 90's, 4 teams went to complete the Big 12).

Penn State and Miami, the two teams who went through the regular season undefeated, were both independent at the time. The match-up would be split up if either of the schools decided to accept a berth to one of the four major bowls.

This left two bowls in a bidding war for the rights to play these two teams -- The Fiesta Bowl in Arizona, and the Citrus Bowl (now capitol one bowl) in Orlando. As the two bowls tried desperately to outbid one another for this game, the Fiesta Bowl came up with a plan that has since infiltrated its way into every other single bowl game. They accepted sponsorship, titular sponsorship at that, from Sunkist, in order to pay the sum to host the two teams.

I don't think there is a bowl game out there now that is not sponsored, not even the blandly titled "bcs championship game" goes without a sponsor (it's FedEx this time around).

This idea of pitting a #1 and #2 against each other every year became a popular idea, namely because college football had no playoff system then, and shows no signs of wanting one now. Co-National Champions after both the 1990 and 1991 seasons even further expressed this need to attempt to pit the two "best" teams against one another. The Bowl Coalition was formed for the 1992 season to try and remedy this situation.

The Bowl coalition consisted of six games with guaranteed representatives coming from six conferences -- the Southwest conference, the Big East, the Big 8, the SEC, the ACC, and Notre Dame (yeah, I went there). The Rose Bowl was not a part of this because it has tie-ins with two conferences, as opposed to the one tie-in most of the other bowls have. The Big East, having formed for the 1991 season, had no direct tie-in to any bowl game, but rather was selected much like an at-large team, a system that continues to this day.

Ironically, the Bowl coalition prevented Penn State from a shot at the 1994 season's National championship. Penn State, having recently joined the Big Ten, went directly to the Rose Bowl, leaving also undefeated Nebraska to play someone else. Both teams won their bowl games and finished the season undefeated.

The Penn State snub along with the guaranteed Notre Dame bid (they went 6-4-1 for the 1994 season, got crushed by Colorado in the 1995 Fiesta Bowl) gave the Bowl coalition a short life. It was supplanted by the Bowl Alliance, but that was basically the same thing (though the Southwest and Big 8 conferences were replaced for the 1996 season by the Big 12), the Rose Bowl was still not involved, which left the Big Ten and Pac-10 out of it. Starting with the 1998 season, they finally joined, creating the "bowl championship series" (I suppose the title does not lie, there is a series of bowls, and there must be champions of each bowl game).

Alas, as I began to ramble about the de-evolution/evolution of the division 1 football title, I forgot to mention an important point. As the title game started to become more directly tied to conferences/notre dame, it became important for the independent football teams to join conferences. The Big East added football (it had already existed, though its schools played football independently). Penn State joined the Big Ten. South Carolina joined the SEC. The only "important" independent to remain so was notre dame, who could do so because of special priveleges it had with the bowl system (after shunning it entirely for 50 years).

The 1987 Fiesta Bowl was the last matchup between an independent number 1 and independent number 2. The 1989 Fiesta Bowl also featured an all-independent matchup, though #1 Notre Dame was pitted against #3 West Virgina. Miami (also still independent) was #2, but several factors kept them from playing in this game -- namely Miami had already lost to Notre Dame that season, and Miami as a team tried to personally kill every member of Notre Dame's roster (something you'd think I'd support, but alas,I'd rather pros do it than thugs).

So yeah, Penn State won the 1987 Fiesta bowl, and with it the national title from the 1986 season, but they ended up taking part in an event which forever changed the sport they played.

Good News Everyone: The bsc has made its selections!!!

Let me start this off by stating that I am not pissed that Penn State did not get selected for a bsc bowl. I am a little bit puzzled, but I am not pissed -- Iowa beat them in the head to head matchup, and thus they should go instead.

Now, for an idea of what I think of the bsc, replace "Limp Bizkit" in the following song whenever it comes up.



Now, onto the review of what the bsc has done this year.


-- First off, the Big 12 and SEC championship games became the de facto semi final for the "national championship" game, for some unknown reason besides the fact that Big 12 and SEC fans hype their conferences more than any of the others. I'm sorry there's stuff to do in the rest of the country, I really am, but that doesn't mean you have to take it out on the everyone else.

-- Who's piece of shit idea was it to put TCU up against Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl? The point of having non-bsc conference teams make it to bsc bowls is so they can beat those bsc conference teams. And yes, it can happen, yes, it has happenned. Utah and Boise State have both done it before. So yes, this is a matchup of unbeatens, but the fact that neither of these teams is playing Georgia Tech, Florida, or Iowa (putting them up against an unbeaten Cincy would also be pointless in my opinion) just means that the bsc has nothing but disdain for any and all schools outside of the "big 6" (and really, they hate the big east now too, so maybe the big 5 is better). The bsc's shitty ass futile attempt to de-legitamize any kind of chance that either of these teams has for a national title just further legitamizes the need for a playoff system. Frankly, I think Texas may not even be the best team in the state, I think TCU might be better, but they're not gonna have any chance of proving it. I'd like to say maybe they make this the semi, and they play the winner of the other game, but that would leave out a possibly undefeated cincy.

-- Did Florida really have to go to the Sugar Bowl? I realize the SEC has ties to the game, but the SEC's automatic qualifier is playing for the "national title". That should make Florida up for grabs by any other bowl. Truth be told, the matchup should be interesting against Cincy. Florida's dirty ass defense against Cincinatti's precision offense should be fun.

-- Why does Iowa go to the Orange bowl? This one is completely at-large and completely under control by the entire bowl committee. Ohio State is already going to the Rose Bowl, Iowa can go anywhere. So why not send Iowa to the Fiesta bowl against TCU? Put Boise State in the Orange bowl against Georgia Tech (automatic bid and conference tie in, not gonna make any complaints). It's not like Big Ten teams can't go to the Fiesta Bowl, in fact Penn State (passed over, but whatevs) has a rich and long history at the Fiesta Bowl, including the 1987(?) national championship against Miami.

-- Why is every commentator stating alternative championship scenarios as "if Texas didn't get selected for the national championship game, who should be?" Is it really that safe to assume Alabama is that far ahead of everybody else? If that is the case, just give them the title already and let everyone else play their bowls (it's happenned before, when Nixon screwed Penn State out of a title in '69 and declared Texas the champion after defeating Arkansas -- one of the few things I didn't like about his presidency). Yes, Texas almost lost their conference title game, but they won it, which is what they needed to do to win their conference. You know what, TCU, Boise State, and Cincinnatti also did what they needed to do to win their conferences, and they, along with Alabama, all remained undefeated in doing so.

-- Random thought, since when does winning the SEC put you in the national title game? Yeah, I know SEC teams beat Ohio State two years in a row to win the national title, but those weren't that good of Ohio State teams. They may have won the Big Ten those years, but the Big Ten wasn't very strong those years. Penn State was burdened by Anthony Morelli and Michigan began its tailslide into mediocrity. If Ohio State didn't win the conference those seasons, it would have been the ultimate excercise in futility considering their rosters. And you know what, those two SEC teams, they weren't just SEC teams, they were GOOD teams. It's a very fine distinction in some parts of this country, but it's a distinction that has to be made.

-- If there are 120 teams in "fbs", and it requires 12 teams for a conference to have a championship game, why not have 10 conferences -- 12 playoff spots (2 at-large bids) and make it work with bye weeks -- the NFL uses a 12 team playoff system, I have no idea what the RGFL uses, but that's another matter entirely.

So why does it have to be like this? At least with the old system, we all knew it was sloppy, and it was going to miss chances to name national champions (1994 Penn State Nittany Lions, ahem) but it never went out of its way to proclaim how right it is and how awesome and perfect it is that the games are like this.

Oh, and really don't ever listen to ESPN at all for anything regarding whether or not to have a BCS or any sort of bowl system -- Disney (owners of ESPN) has distribution rights to all but a few bowl games, and as such, stands to lose alot that time of year if anything were to change.

-- Knuttel

post script

-- I was just thinking about how one of the most classic, memorable, enduring moments of college basketball was Villanova's defeat of Patrick Ewing's Georgetown town in the mid-80s, despite being vastly out seeded etc etc; and how a scenario like that could never ever happen in College Football with the system as it is now.

-- Maybe because the field is so evenly qualified this year they should just revert to the older system and have these 5 or so major bowls and just vote on whichever one plays the best. Frankly it makes about just as much sense, and while it doesn't pit 1 against 2, it allows for all the unbeatens to have a shot at the title. Might actually be less chaotic.

-- Side note of additional information -- Cincinnati actually edged out Texas in the computer polls. Thought I'd share that.

-- Joe Paterno was "asked to give up" his voting privelages in the Coaches poll after he split his number 1 vote 3 ways during the season of 3 unbeatens. This was after the "national championship" game "decided" the winner. The bsc will stop at nothing for false legitimacy.

BS "championship" preview before the preview

If anyone is wondering, that stands for "bowl subdivision championship". I think it works better with the letters rearranged like so.

Let's start this off by kicking charlie "Fatass" weiss out the door. His firing really made my extra-high levels of obnoxiousness during the nd/PSU game weekend 2007 really worth it. I recall screaming about weiss' protestant prostituting to some nd alumni who bought me beer the night before as well as many threats of rape, murder, and general mutilation to nd fans attending the game, as well as their extended family.

He was a fraud who could only win with Ty Willingham's players. The only kind of players he could recruit were offensive skill players, wanting to show off in a true pro system by a true pro style coach. A shame you kind of need offensive linemen and defensive players to really pull it off.

I shall also bid farewell to Mangino, the coach at Kansas who matched the schools previous total of bowl wins (3) and won their first orange bowl (they lost to Penn State in their first one, despite a strong effort from future Redskin John Riggins). Apparently he is really mean to his players, and that just doesn't fly once they stop winning for you.

So onto bowls and possible scenarios etc.

One bowl is already entirely figured out -- the rose bowl. Both the Pac-10 and the Big Ten have already declared their winners, neither of whom "have a shot" at the national championship and both shall receive an automatic berth for this game. The ohio state buckeyes won the Big Ten outright, going 7-1 (Iowa and Penn State are tied for second at 6-2), and went 3-1 in their non-conference schedule (a loss to a Pac-10 team). Oregon won the Pac-10 similarly, losing one in conference for an outright berth and losing one out of conference, to Boise State of the WAC. As this post shall not make any predictions, I shall leave this part as is, except one more mentioning of legarrete (sp?) blunt's awesome punching form. I also don't really know if I should pray ohio state doesn't embarass the Big Ten yet again in a bsc game or hope they win.

This leaves 3 proper BSC bowls and the "national championship" game left, 8 slots to fill. Automatic berths will also come from the ACC, Big East, SEC, and Big 12.

The Big East is being decided by a de facto championship game, between undefeated Cincinatti and 9-2 Pitt (one conference loss).

Cincinatti has the opportunity to be left out of the "national championship" game if they win. Pitt has the opportunity to spoil a possible national title for the conference if they win.

The ACC championship game will not send anyone to the "national championship" game, as both teams have at least two losses. The game itself should be good, as this is a rematch from an earlier game in the season -- Georgia Tech and Clemson. The scoring shall be fun to watch, as Georgia Tech is one of the few division 1 teams to run the under center triple option, a very explosive version that can score quickly, and Clemson's Spiller can hurt the opposing team in so many different facets of the game.

The Big 12 championship game features undefeated Texas against 9-3 Nebraska. Texas is being picked almost universally in a landslide, but Nebraska's defense may prove to be a possible spoiler (for both the conference and national title). It's easy to forget that the Big 12 south was weak this year (unfulfilled expecations from Oklahoma and Oklahoma state, struggles by Texas Tech and Texas A&M, and perennially weak Baylor).

The SEC championship game will likely send one team to the "national championship" game. I really don't understand how, but they probably will. Undefeated Florida from the SEC east and undefeated Alabama from the SEC west will face down eachother for this game. Both of these teams are being flat out inundated with praise about how awesome they are, how holy tim teblow is, etc. Let me get this straight. The SEC is not the strongest conference in college football. Having two undefeated teams does not make one the strongest conference. The SEC often plays weaker out of conference matchups than the Big Ten. The SEC east is one of the weakest divisions in college football. Let me ask this -- who in the east had a shot at knocking off florida for the east title? Georgia may be the closest, but making them the fifth strongest team in the whole SEC may be generous. Tennessee may be good in the future, but is a joke. Kentucky periodically rises to mediocrity, but otherwise is a joke. Vanderbilt. Enough said. South Carolina is also perennially mediocre. Even in the west, they're all just a little sub par. I'd like to see Auburn in a year or two though, I like their version of the downhill spread.

So let's assume all goes as planned, I know I said no predictions, but these aren't really mine, just what are pretty universal assumptions.

Florida wins the SEC and goes to the "national title" game
Texas wins the Big 12 and goes to the "national title" game
Georgia Tech wins the ACC and goes to the Sugar Bowl
Cincinatti wins the Big East and goes to the Sugar Bowl ... undefeated
Ohio State won the Big Ten and is going to the Rose Bowl
Oregon won the Pac-10 and is going to the Rose Bowl

This leaves 4 at large bids (which really may split up the Sugar bowl matchup).
The likely candidates will be among the following
Texas Christian University -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Boise State -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Iowa -- 10-2, Big Ten
Penn State -- 10-2, Big Ten
Alabama/Florida -- 12-1, SEC

If Georgia Tech loses their championship game, they will be 10-3 and likely up for an at-large bid.
If Cincinatti loses their championship game, they will be 11-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
If Texas loses their championship game, they will be 12-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
Virgina Tech, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Pitt, and LSU will all have 9 wins and be on the periphery of the bsc picture if it goes as above.

Notre Dame is not in the top 50 this year, and thus will not get into a bsc game.

One non-bsc team may have an automatic berth if they ...... jibbrish really. Both TCU and Boise State qualify for one of the automatic berths is what that means.
Only two teams from any single conference can receive bsc berths. This means the loser of the SEC game will likely get a berth, and either Iowa or Penn State will be left out of the bsc picture.

It is VERY possible for either TCU or Boise State to get left out of a bsc bowl game entirely, despite going undefeated with strong schedules.

It is possible, this year, for there to be 4 undefeated teams at the end of the season, breaking the record of 3 a few years back (Auburn and Utah were left out, I believe, and USC won the "national title", against 1 loss, hadn't actually won their conference Oklahoma; I could be wrong).

So how do we fix this?

Well first of all every team needs to be in a conference. THIS INCLUDES NOTRE DAME. The service academies I wouldn't mind giving an exemption to, but they could just as easily join a lighter conference or drop to 1-fCs (the c stands for championship, they're legit there). Army, not too long ago, had a stint in Conference-USA, if anyone cares to remember.

Secondly all "major" conferences need to be expanded to 12 teams and feature conference championship games. In face, all conferences should just be expanded to a size large enough to have a championship game and then have a winner decided that way. I'm really fucking pissed that Penn State's last two conference championships were "shared" with ohio state, even though Penn State won the match-up both of those seasons. Penn State got the automatic berth, but those really shouldn't count for conference titles for Tressel.

The Big Ten, for example, could easily go to 12 teams by adding, oh, I dunno, Notre Dame. Half of their "rivals" are in the Big Ten anyway. Schedule one out of conference each year with USC and have Stanford, Navy, and BC on some sort of shuffled schedule. Wow, did I just fix that? In fact, the Big East could absorb both Army and Navy, now that I think about it. Maybe Penn State could re-align (does that mean Penn State gets to play traditional rivals like Pitt and West Virgina?) (I dunno, an Iowa State realign from the big 12 to even that, and a TCU realign to even that) to bring it to 11. Maybe re-add Temple to get a solid 12?

Thirdly, there needs to be a playoff system. I dunno how many conferences are going to exist, but maybe JUST ONE BERTH from each conference? Maybe have an at-large or two to even it out if it needs to be done.

If the major conferences are that much superior to the others then it really shouldnt be that big a deal for Texas to face the MAC winner, and Florida to face the Conference-USA winner, should it?

If the season's too long, then shorten it. 10-11 games was all most teams needed for the longest time. Now 12's become the standard within the past decade, and schools are complaining they'll play too many games. Frankly I think that was some sort of idea planted by the bsc, to ward off any playoff talk.

Re-alignment shouldn't be that much of an issue anyway, as most of the non-major conferences don't last too long. The Big 12 is an invention of the past 20 years, as is the current form of the SEC. The current ACC is even newer, going from 9-12 teams in one year.

I've probably gotten too long winded and possibly angry sounding by this point, so I shall leave you with that thought.

-- Knuttel

oh, and some Danzig