Live Bloggin' The Sugar Bowl

by Peter Bean on Jan 3, 2007 5:06 PM CST in Texas Longhorns Football

If you're planning to watch the Sugar Bowl tonight - and you know you are - join me and Orson over at EDSBS as we live blog the happenings.

If you read either edition of the Golden Unicycle Diaries, then you know that we're likely to talk about everything but the football game. So, be warned.

The upside? Terry Bradshaw, Howie Long, and Kenny Albert are calling the game. High entertainment, indeed.

See y'all tonight.

--PB--

Tweet Comment 27 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Did anyone see this?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=klosterman/070103

It's Chuck Klosterman's most recent page 2 article in which he presents a case against a college football playoff. At first I cringed at the idea, but I like Klosterman a lot, so I read it. It's actually pretty good. I like how he makes it personal - so that a playoff system will slightly lessen his reason for living.

Anyway, enough of that. Go Tigers!

by hornbone on Jan 3, 2007 5:16 PM CST reply actions

I read it...

And I'm against a playoff, generally speaking, but I didn't think it was that great an articulation of the anti-playoff position. I know it's Klosterman and Page 2, so it's not really supposed to be a real analysis. But, from my perspective, at least it got the idea in people's heads that a playoff isn't some inevitable conclusion that everyone in the world supports.

As an aside, Thom Brennaman's pro-playoff screed in between Boise State's TD and 2-pt conversion in OT was abominable. Talk about the damn game that's going on rather than making some stupid editorial point that you as the play-by-play man are in no position to be making at any point, let alone the biggest moment of the game. I hate FOX.

by billyzane on Jan 3, 2007 5:35 PM CST up reply actions

Definitely agree

A lot of Klosterman's arguments fell well short of the mark.

He complains that non-playoff bowls will simply become "exhibitions." Chuck - they already are.

Further, his point about existential diminishment is irrelevant if, under a proposed new system, these "exhibition" bowls don't cease to exist. They'll still be there and he can, as he likes to say, just "enjoy the experience of football." It won't make any difference what's happening at the top of the food chain.

by Peter Bean on Jan 3, 2007 5:40 PM CST up reply actions

yeah

I didn't really take the article as a serious argument against a playoff because, as you said, it falls short in that regard. To me it's more of a humorous slant on the fun of the "mythical" status of college football.

by hornbone on Jan 3, 2007 5:57 PM CST up reply actions

And

He did make some really nice points. His notion that the obsession with getting a "truer" #1 may be misplaced is a compelling idea, and one for playoff advocates to consider.

by Peter Bean on Jan 3, 2007 6:02 PM CST up reply actions

Personally

The biggest problem with the current system is lets say that OU beats Boise State. Michigans argument was erased during the Rose Bowl. Other than USC who has an argument that they should deserve a shot.

The only undefeated team left is Ohio State. Also what happens in a situation like last year?

by lalonghorn on Jan 3, 2007 6:46 PM CST reply actions

Ok that was terrible

Im going to quit blogging on medication. I hate the flu.

by lalonghorn on Jan 3, 2007 6:49 PM CST reply actions

Lord have mercy

Would the voters please stop overrating Notre Dame so that they can play in an appropriate bowl with an evenly matched opponent.

by the other Andrew on Jan 4, 2007 12:10 AM CST reply actions

I'm completely serious...

...but I know it's irrational. Notre Dame should not be allowed to play in a BCS bowl game until they join a conference. THat way they will have to go through a league schedule like everyone else, exposing their identity as a 20-25 ranked football team. They've been on the wrong end of the two most boring BCS bowl games in the past two years.

I wish the BCS heads would take a stand and not allow Notre Dame to play their bowls. Demand a little bit of excellence.

by Longhorn13 on Jan 4, 2007 12:20 AM CST up reply actions

THat was so boring

Good Lord. Finding talking points was painful.

by Peter Bean on Jan 4, 2007 12:14 AM CST reply actions

10 Bowl Losses in a Row!!!!

[joey] Whoa! [/joey]

by Hornbud on Jan 4, 2007 8:44 AM CST reply actions

The only thing more painful

than watching the second half of that game was listening to Howie and Terry TALK during the game.

Quite possibly the worst college football broadcast I've ever seen and heard. It was an abomination.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Jan 4, 2007 9:04 AM CST reply actions

How did Fox

get bowl games? Doesn't ABC own the BCS? Did Fox just fork over a dumptruck full of cash for this?

Howie and Bradshaw gave me the distinct impression that they did not do this broadcast completely voluntarily. Like it was beneth them or something. And I'm more than a little bit certain that Bradshaw wasn't entirely sober either.

by Hornbud on Jan 4, 2007 9:12 AM CST up reply actions

Bradshaw not sober?

You say that like it's a bad thing
Would anyone be able to tell the difference anyway?

by DC Trojan on Jan 4, 2007 9:33 AM CST up reply actions

Is this bad for Notre Dame

Does the BCS force ND to play teams that are above them, creating a situation where they lose 9 bowl games in a row? Is it better for ND to get paid and exposure, if they the exposure you get is an ass beating every year?

by Wells on Jan 4, 2007 9:08 AM CST reply actions

It's the annual rebalancing

It's a punishment for the institutional arrogance of opting out of a conference for football, and an opportunity to beat the unfounded arrogance out of the players, overconfidence that apparently survived their beatings by Michigan and USC.

I understand the startling irony of an SC alumnus accusing Notre Dame of institutional arrogance, but they really are in a different league.

by DC Trojan on Jan 4, 2007 9:38 AM CST up reply actions

Completely agree

At least SC is in a conference and does not have the excuse clause to get them into the BCS every year.

But from a non-emotional level, do you think this is good or bad for ND. I think it must be hard on Weis to have to play his last game of the year against superior competition every year. If he does not get them up to BCS standards next year, no one will remember that he brought them back to the level they are at now and will only remember the loss at the end of every year.

by Wells on Jan 4, 2007 9:43 AM CST up reply actions

Hard to tell how long his leash is...

I think that if they can get to a decent and improving level next year, then another bowl hiding that counted as a learning experience would be tolerated. But no more than that.

It's a hard balancing act, inasmuch there's a point of diminishing returns to wins that put you in over-matched bowl games, and yet one cannot afford to lose. Or not to win.

Frankly I think they'll have a hard time next year, either because of lingering players from the current starting team, or because it's going to be harder than folks expect to bring the young players along. After all, it takes some time to get good as a defender.

by DC Trojan on Jan 9, 2007 3:07 PM CST up reply actions

Notre Dame the great Pale Wonder

Notre Dame is the last white hope for a lot of Midwesterners. What other private Christian school is competitive?

xerxes

by Xerxes on Jan 4, 2007 10:10 AM CST reply actions

Does BC count

or does it have to be in the Midwest?

by Wells on Jan 4, 2007 10:17 AM CST up reply actions

Hard to say about BC

they don't get the national press as much, along with some of basketball teams. Only the mid west because it is the last bastion of ethnic homogeneousness in the country( where catchup counts for salsa or even marinara sauce for that matter).

xerxes

by Xerxes on Jan 4, 2007 12:18 PM CST up reply actions

BC and ND different animals

I don't think BC has even ever won a conference champ, much less been considered "good". I guess you could consider them competitive, but that seems awfully broad. Their best season is 7 or 8 wins. They beat the teams they should, but almost never knock off anyone.

ND flaunts and pushes the religious dimension of the University. (Much more than BC)

I'm not sure how to describe it, but every blue collar shmoe on the east coast and midwest pretends they went to Notre Dame too. It's an iconic symbol to middle class white familes (especially Catholics). BC is just another Catholic school.
Tom O'Brien left BC for NC freakin State, because the fans and local community could care less about BC football. ND fans live for football.

Anyway......just observations.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Jan 4, 2007 12:47 PM CST up reply actions

LSU

Is it just me, or is everybody just overlooking the fact that LSU had a damn good team. Everybody's talking about how bad ND is ... Think USC could beat LSU?

And does this game cause Brady Quinn to drop in rating for the draft? He looked downright scared at times out there

"Excuse me while I whip this out."

by FreedomDip on Jan 4, 2007 10:50 AM CST reply actions

You are missing the point

Everyone agrees LSU is a good team. That is why ND got beat, because they can't beat good teams.

The theme of most discussions, "why does ND keep getting matched in bowl games against superior teams?"

I don't know if USC could beat LSU or not. I do know Miss almost did, while Auburn and Florida did. An Arkansas team that got thrashed by USC took LSU to the limit.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Jan 4, 2007 11:22 AM CST up reply actions