TMQ Review Part II: Double Teamin' That Ass!

Although wb had said he didn't give a rat about Easterbrook's thoughts on the BCS, there was just enough lunacy, twisted logic, and overall douchebaggery that I couldn't resist opining. As a result, TMQ's getting fingercuffed.

Besides striking me as the kind of guy who thinks strippers really like him when they tell him how handsome he is, Gregg Easterbrook has gone from being a writer who looks at football a bit differently to being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. Look no further than his views on the BCS.

Unless you are the president of a major university, or you peddle tortilla chips for a living, if you care about football, you hate the BCS. The BCS fucking blows. (Yes, this is the kind of hard-hitting analysis you can expect from TIOSB is coming posts.)

And yet, TMQ finds a way to argue that the BCS works in that it was never intended to produce a national champ. Let's start with his contention that the name itself shows this to be true:

The organization is called the Bowl Championship Series, not the Football Championship Series. The winner of the Ohio State-LSU game will be the champion of the BCS, an artificial five-game theatrical event. Names matter, and based on its name, the BCS does not even pretend to be about choosing college football's best team.

He actually makes a good point here, except for the fact that he's 100% wrong. From the Official BCS website:

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a five-game arrangement for post-season college football that is designed to match the two top-rated teams in a national championship game and to create exciting and competitive matchups between eight other highly regarded teams in four other games.

OK, so simple reading comprehension is not his strong suit. That's OK, this is America. But here's where his argument gets really insane. The argument that a playoff couldn't replace the bowl system effectively. Now, I think it's a bullshit argument, but some don't feel that way. But in supporting his argument, he comes up with one of the worst examples anyone could possibly come up with:

No. 15, Clemson, would play No. 2, LSU, at -- where? The first-round games in such a postseason bracket might be letdowns -- especially in terms of crowds, if, say, LSU versus Clemson were played in Tempe, Ariz., to compensate organizers for the loss of the Insight Bowl.

I read this passage, and wrote the words "This man's fucking insane" in my notebook. Where to begin? Really? LSU and Clemson in a first-round playoff game wouldn't sell tickets?

• First off, the "short notice" argument wouldn't work, since the unemployment rate for LSU and Clemson grads fans is roughly 85%, and as such they don't have to worry about getting time off from work.
• You know who's playing in the Insight Bowl this year? No? Of course you don't, because no one fucking cares, except for fans of the teams playing. For the record, it's 7-5 Indiana against 6-6 Oklahoma State, and they're playing for fuck all. So, actually, only one set of fans cares, because IU fans have moved on to basketball already.
• (By the way, what is Insight anyway? Does anyone know what product or service they sell? They spend money on naming rights to their shitty bowl, and I have no clue what they're offering. And I'm not going to give them the satisfaction of Googling them.)
• It's snowing in half the country right now. In Tempe, today's forecast calls for sunny, cloudless skies and a temperature of 72°. If that piece of information and skanktastic ASU coeds aren't enough to get you there, nothing is.

TMQ then brings up the point that the bowl system creates multiple "champions":

Currently there are 32 Division I-A bowls . . . [t]hat means basically half of Division I-A advances to a season-ending hoopla event, with one-quarter of Division I-A seasons ending with a huge-hoopla victory. In the NFL, two-thirds of the teams do not advance to any postseason event and just one team ends its season with a huge victory. Thus the bowl system spreads the razzle-dazzle around to a large number of teams, and allows large numbers to say their seasons yielded a final triumph.

Seriously, fuck the Super Bowl. I want to see the teams that miss out on the last playoff spot to play each other in a "title" game. Get a corporate sponsor on there, find a neutral site, and -BOOM! - excitement! I want to see the Titans and Lions battle it out in the KY Warming Gel Bowl in Shreveport. Fuck yeah!

Finally, in arguing for the BCS, he brings up the fact that Hawaii got in:

Had it not been for the two-from-a-conference limit and the "Boise State rule," Missouri would be in the BCS and Hawaii would be out. Then sports radio would be howling nonstop about the only undefeated Division I team not making the BCS. Plus, having Hawaii in the Sugar will be good for ratings and overall entertainment value.

Ugh. What this also proves is that a team from a smaller conference will never, ever, ever play for the national championship. There were no undefeated teams (except for Hawaii), and the only 1-loss team's signature win came against a team that lost to Appalachian Fucking State.

So to sum it all up, Easterbrook's a douche, and I'm surprised he didn't find a way to blame it on Belichick (or The Jews). But at least we all know what it would be like if Skip Bayless were literate.