There may be a four team tournament to decide who gets to play in the BCS National Championship.
While I like this idea, and I think it's going in the right direction, it still isn't quite right. So there are 120(?) teams that can make bowl games and now you are going to pick four of them to play it out to win the BCS title. (I don't remember the exact number of NCAA 1 teams that can make the bowl games).
I have never agreed with the BCS system. It doesn't prove who the best team in the country is. It would be the same as the NCAA basketball Tournament were to only allow the Top seeds play for the national championship and the rest of them just play to see who gets the rest. All the excitement of the tournament would be gone. Not just for the championship but to see more upsets, that's what makes sports great.
Lastly, the way they want to decide who the final four teams are, are based on a computer. That has been a problem with college football in general. A computer can't watch how players play, how much skill they have, the heart and effort. If it was always up to a computer teams like TCU and Boise State would never have a chance, no matter who it beat, because the conference they play in is too "weak". That's also another issue in its self.
Anyway, I think it's a good thing the BCS committee is finally listening to people and is heading towards a four team tournament, though it needs a lot of work.
Brittney Griner and the women of the Baylor's basketball team have won the National Championship and had the first ever perfect season. I say there should be an asterisk.
Now they say she will go down as one of the greatest female athletes ever. I think otherwise.
That is the voice of a man.....
I believe girl's can dunk, but grunting like that while dunking, no. I think not. Having a voice deeper then mine, no, I don't think so.
Maybe if you don't want to believe that, then believe ESPN's sports science, when they compare her to NBA professionals.
Now it is possible that she is a freak of nature as a woman, but even if she was a man she would be a freak of nature.
Regardless, I believe the Baylor record should have an asterisk next to it. For having a male/high HGH user on the team.
I don't feel like writing too much about this because I don't want to come off as someone that is just being mean for no reason, I am just saying it's something that is worth noticing. It's joked about a lot, but seriously.....
Brittney Griner and the National Champion Baylor Bears finish 40-0*
All the latest talk is about how Calipari finally got the National Championship he deserved, please, he doesn't deserve anything.
Deadspin had a good article about it all, though a few people on the editor's board are Calipari/Kentucky fans, so that skews things a bit.
Anyway, John Calipari is a pimp. He is a brutally honest pimp that uses the possibility of athletes making tons of money if they go to his school for the one-and-done program.
A few years back the NCAA changed the rules so you had to go to college for one year before the pros. They said because the best talents were skipping over college and were hurting the game. Is it really though?
I don't care to watch superstar athletes, I want to see good competition and teamwork. That doesn't happen with teams that have a superstar and a bunch of nobodies whose only job is to sit there. Save that for the NBA that no one watches.
Even though Calipari always had good teams, he never won the championship. It was something that basketball purists could hang their hat on. You can't win it all with inexperience. You need seniors and juniors to win the big one.
In 2008 Calipari's Memphis team proved it.
A team that couldn't convert. Now the 2012 Kentucky team almost did it once again, unfortunately Anthony "I am shit" (or was the un-classy comment he yelled, I am the shit, which ever) Davis helps lead a team to prove Calipari's system can work.
Though he couldn't shoot from the field what so ever, but he was able to rebound. Good thing that's important in a professional league that doesn't play defense.... just sayin.
So it is sad to see that a team of one-and-dones can win a championship, even if it takes Calipari well over a decade to win it. Like they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Also, any coach that says having six kids getting drafted was the greatest day in UK history, greater than the days where they won its titles, just doesn't seem right in my mind.
Side note, I don't like coach Bob Knight, though I like him a bit more now.
Knight wont mention the name Kentucky. Also, he never has anything good to say about Calipari. When asked which one of the No.1 seeds will exit the tournament early, his response, "the one from the SEC."
He will continuously mock its "student-athletes", referring that they never go to class because an education means nothing to them.
If you get the chance Google it and find an article like this.
Lastly, I would like to leave you with a quote that my friend, who is a Kansas fan, said.
" I'm reading Machiavelli for a second time right now and he points out that kingdoms won by internal power are greater than those won by mercenaries."
The Final Four is rapidly approaching and usually I would be thrilled. Though it seems the four teams that are left are all in the Top-10 of schools I don't like. So let's break down the pros and cons of each of the teams winning it all.
1. Kentucky - the overall favorite of the tournament and who most people expect to win.
Pro if they win: John Calipari is about to get caught for another NCAA violation/scandal that will cause Kentucky to vacate all of its wins for this season.
Con if they win: I will have to hear about Anthony Davis all year and look at this for the year ....
*Shivers*
2. Louisville - a team that is coached by someone who looks like My Cousin Vinny.
Pro if they win: They don't get a lot of over hyped attention during the season so I wouldn't be extremely disgusted if they win and I had to hear about them for a few months, things could be worse.
Con if they win: They are apart of the Big East and then once again the Big East can argue they have the best conference. When you have 40 teams in a 68 team tournament, odds are you are going to have a team from your conference win it.....
3. Kansas - They beat Purdue.....
Pro if they win: Purdue can say they almost beat (and probably should of) the winners of the NCAA tournament. It's not the best thing to say but it's better than losing to VCU.
Con if they win: We are going to hear more BS stories like this that no one cares about. Stupid Kansas. That kid should go outside....
4. aOSU - Smh
Pro if they win: The B1G wins the NCAA Tournament.
Con if they win: I could write a book about this. First, they are a terrible school. Also, when they are in first place in the nation they can't sell out their own basketball arena. Jared Sullinger is terrible. He complains every time someone blocks his shot.....
Also, Thad Matta has been considered a good coach in the B1G and now if he wins the NCAA Tounament he will be considered a much better coach and frankly, he shouldn't be.
So the result, who should win?
Winner: Kentucky!
Why?
Simple, Calipari will cheat or something once again. The win wont count and the official winner of the 2012 NCAA Tournament will be no one, and that way, we all win .... except Thad...
I don't really like Kentucky or coach Calipari but they are a decent team and led by POY candidate Anthony Davis. Most people see a great athlete, I truly can't get past one thing about him....
The Uni-brow.
Now I understand some men don't like to clean themselves up or what ever. But seriously? You are one of the most noticeable people in college basketball and you are not going to clean yourself up.
I mean if you were a scrub and never really played that's another story but, you are one of the best. Do you do it to just to be different or so people recognize you?
Aren't you afraid people will confuse you with this guy:
I feel like that would be a major concern. But that's just me.
So now I hope my team, Purdue, if they face the all mighty uni-brow they can defeat it in an epic battle.
Anyway, the whole rant is the fact that every time I see him on ESPN I just want to shave it off. He would even look better with no eyebrows but for what ever reason he is going to keep that look.
I guess I am the one in the wrong and should just hop on the bandwagon. Well, sign me up with a shirt....
