CyberToothedTiger.com

The FIFA World Cup is just a plain un-American sporting event. I’m not talking about it being anti-American, and I’m not talking about it’s participants having an anti-American sentiment. I just mean that there are so many aspects of the tournament that are antithetical to what we as Americans expect of our professional sports. I actually watched quite a few games this time around, and here’s what I found.

1. Not enough scoring. This aspect of the game has been discussed ad infinitum, including my own rant a few years ago. It’s a part of soccer in general, but it seems even more evident in the World Cup. A lot of the teams seem much more concerned with not losing than with winning. So both teams play hard defense and don’t attack the goal. I guess they just hope that the one shot on goal they take each half happens to go in.

2. The Group Stage allows ties. Teams can advance out of their group without ever winning a game! As a result, teams play for a tie. Seriously. In other words, as long as the game is tied, they exclusively play defense. And since the game is tied nil-nil to start, they actually hope to end the game nil-nil. These are the top 32 teams that qualified out of the 200+ FIFA national teams, and all they want to do is tie?  Can you imagine that in an American sport… to have a team play to not score?

3. Flops. Need I say more? Replay after replay shows players pretending to be pushed down, grabbed, or tripped, when there was virtually no contact. And after acting like their legs were broken, after they get the call, they make a miraculous recovery and play on. The most egregious use of the flop is to get the offending player to be given a yellow card. Oh, yes, let’s talk about that card.

4. The Yellow Card. The referee pulls the little yellow card out of his pocket to indicate “unsporting behavior”, which, as far as I can tell, is equivalent to “unsportsmanlike conduct” or a “personal foul” in NFL football. But really, a little yellow card pushed in the face of the player? What is this, middle school gym class? And of course, two yellow cards leads to a red card, which apparently means you have to go to the principal’s office and can’t play anymore.

5. Stoppage time. What is up with that? There is some nebulous amount of time added to the end of the game, to allow for the time the game was stopped for injury during the game. So why don’t they just stop the clock during the game? Instead, they just let the official on the field blow his whistle when he decides it’s time to end the game. Is this a legacy rule from when they used a pocket watch to time the games?

6. Unexplained fouls. Apparently, officials are not required to specify which player committed the foul, or even what the foul was! All they have to do is blow their whistle and point in the opposite direction. In the NFL, it wasn’t until the last quarter century that officials were required to name the player committing the foul, but they’ve always had to call the actual foul. Can you imagine an official in an American pro sport calling a foul, without saying what it was? If you watched the US vs England game this year, you know what I’m talking about. The official blew off a late goal by the US team, but FIFA did not, and said they would not, require the official to tell us what he thought he saw.

7. Obvious bad calls. Okay, so there’s no explanation of why the US was called for a foul which disallowed their goal against England. But remarkably, that wasn’t even the worst of the calls in this year’s World Cup, and it’s not even the quarter finals yet. In the Argentina vs Mexico game, the Argentine player was clearly standing by himself in front of the goalkeeper when the ball came to him and he headed it in for a goal. But no offside foul was called by the official on the field nor either of the sideline officials. To their credit, they huddled on the sideline to discuss it, but I guess they pulled a Sgt. Shultz and declared, “I see nothing.” In the England vs Germany game, the English player banged a shot off of the crossbar, which bounced down and into the goal behind the goalie. Replay showed the ball a foot or more across the goal line. Apparently, all the official saw was the ball bounce back up to the goalie, who caught it, so no goal was awarded. Seriously.

8. Not enough officials. This deficiency is probably the worst part of it all, and helps explain several of the other curiosites of FIFA World Cup play. They have one official on the field, who ostensibly makes all the calls and keeps the time. There are assistant referees on either sideline who mostly just points their flag when the ball goes out of bounds. One of the main reasons that flops work is because the referee may be on the other side of the field and can’t see what actually happens. The same goes for those other bad calls.

Next to the Olympics, the FIFA World Cup is the largest sports event in the world. Part of soccer’s world appeal is it’s simplicity — a team, a ball, and a field, where nothing changes. Apparently, they have no desire to embrace modern times, because the members seem to accept these shortcomings. I’m not talking about changing the rules of soccer, or mandating changes to all amateur and professional contests. But this is the World Cup! Would it be so bad if they added an official to keep the time on the scoreboard, or had extra officials on the end lines who can actually see what happens when a shot on goal occurs, or had two officials on the field so they can have two different viewing angles, or use replay to confirm or deny a goal? Really.

Join us in the 21st century, FIFA.

When Plaxico Burress was first indicted on weapons charges in New York City, he pleaded Not Guilty (I still don’t understand the difference between pleaded, plead, and pled) . I guess he and his lawyer were going to claim that someone stole Plaxico’s pistol, then stuck it down and his pants and shot him.

Okay, so later they got back to reality and changed the plea to Guilty and took a plea bargain, for which Burress was sentenced to about two years, which is normal for NYC. Afterward, Jeremy Schaap of ESPN interviewed Burress, who said, in reference to the pistol:

“It wasn’t like I was trying to hide it or go into this place and go through security. They knew I had it, they pat me down and they said, ‘OK.’ They let me in, with it.”

First of all, they had to pat him down. Does that mean he first tried to get into the club without revealing that he had it? Regardless, after they saw the gun, the security guards let him in. Is that normal practice at NYC nightclubs? If you go to a nightclub, should you assume that some patrons are packing heat? Did Plaxico routinely carry his pistol? Is that how Plax rolls?

Whenever celebrities get in trouble for carrying a handgun, they always say it’s for self-defense. But professional athletes and entertainers are the only millionaires who feel compelled to carry a weapon themselves, rather than hiring a professional body guard. Can anyone recall a story in which a pro athlete averted a crime against himself or others because he was carrying a weapon? I don’t think so. Jeremy Schaap didn’t ask any of these questions. I thought of them as I was watching the interview. Why didn’t Schaap think of them?

The idea behind six degrees of separation has been around for nearly a century, but it was John Guare’s play and film of the 1990s that brought the actual phrase into public consciousness. Put simply, the concept is that any two people in the world can be connected by jumping from one’s friends, to their friends, to their friends, etc., with no more than five intermediary steps, hence, six degrees of separation.

Over the years there have been several research experiments designed to test the concept in different settings. The consensus seems to be that the hypothesis has some validity, although some researchers contend that the number six is scientifically arbitrary. In my own reading on the subject, I have never been able to pin down exactly what constitutes a “friend”. Some writers use the term “acquaintance” instead. Obviously, the broader the definition, the more connections you have.

I think most people would define a friend/acquaintance as someone you know by sight and name, whom you have met in person, who also knows you by sight and name. For instance, I know Tiger Woods by sight and name, but we’ve never met, and he doesn’t know me. I know the mayor of our town by sight and name, and we’ve met in person, but I’m sure he doesn’t know me. So I don’t think Tiger and the Mayor would count as friends in my six degrees.

On the other hand, when I was in high school, I knew (using the definition from the previous paragraph) all 160 people in my class and at least another hundred students from other classes, sports teams, and extracurricular activities. I’m sure there was at least another hundred people I knew as relatives and as other people from my community. When I went to college, in two different states, I probably met and knew several hundred more people. While working summers at Hersheypark, I made dozens of new acquaintances every year. All told, I think I’m safe in saying that when I was in my youth and early adulthood, there was close to a thousand people who, at one time or another, fit the definition of friend/acquainance.

What brought this topic to mind was that I recently attended my high school reunion, and several of my classmates encouraged me to join Facebook. While poking around, I came across a Facebook (fb) “group” called Six Degrees of Separation (actually there are several such groups on fb), which purports to be a six degrees experiment. They encourage people to join the group and then invite their friends to join the group, and then their friends, etc. with the intent of showing how all fb users are connected by common friends.

I have three problems with this experiment.

First of all, no matter how popular fb becomes, you’re never going to get my thousand friends. Okay, so maybe their intent isn’t so global. Maybe they just want to try the six degrees of fb.

My second problem is, if they really want to document friend connections, shouldn’t they limit membership in the group to people who already have a friend in the group? In that way all the people in the group would already have a connection and you could draw real conclusions. The way it is now, with anyone joining, you just end up with a bunch of disjointed subsets of people, who aren’t connected in any way to the other subsets. Having a large number of people in the group doesn’t prove anything. I imagine what they are trying to do, by allowing anyone to join, is to grow the group more quickly, with the hope that eventually a connection will be made for everyone. Well, that brings me to the third problem I have with this experiment.

Doesn’t Facebook already have the complete data? Couldn’t fb do their own analytics with the friend connections? They wouldn’t have to rely on voluntary participation. It seems to me that fb could do their own analysis of the friend connections. They could look at the friends database and calculate every user’s complete set of connections. They could even post it on each home page, like “You have 461,874 friends in your Six Degrees of Separation.”

Now that I think about it, maybe I’ll write the script myself. Let me fire up my GW-BASIC interpreter and see what I can do. Wait, I might need Turbo Pascal for this one.

Today I watched The Blue Eyed Six documentary on DVD. The Blue Eyed Six were a group of six men, all of them coincidentally blue-eyed, who were arrested and indicted on first degree murder charges in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, in 1879. The motive for the murder was an insurance scheme which relied on life insurance policies which some of the men had taken out on the victim. All six were found guilty of first degree murder. Eventually, one of them was acquitted on appeal, but the other five men were hanged. The story, in fact and legend, is well-known in the local area and is still a favorite tale to be told around campfires.

I became more aware of the story several years ago while doing research for my North Annville Genealogy project. Several of the Blue Eyed Six had children, and many of their descendants still live in Lebanon County. While researching my North Annville neighbors, I traced several families back to that infamous group. My interest was piqued. I read Edna Carmean’s 1974 book of the same name and did some other reading at the Lebanon County Historical Society, where I am a member.

Around this time I was adding content to the Wikipedia, based on my other areas of research, so I decided to expand the article on the Blue Eyed Six. In Carmean’s book, she spent about six pages discussing the aftermath of the trial as it related to insurance reform. In my contribution to the Wikipedia, I summarized that concept with this sentence:

“Apart from the actual murder trial, the whole proceeding turned out to be an indictment of the murky business of assessment life insurance, which led to major changes in insurance law, particularly with regard to the practice of insuring people in whom one had no legal interest.”

For anyone familiar with how the Wikipedia works, you can see that I submitted that sentence, along with other additions and corrections, to the article in February, 2006.

Bruce and Brian Kreider produced their stage play of the same name in 1994. The play was immediately popular with local residents, and the brothers soon began work on creating a video documentary. It took some doing, but they finally released the film to sellout crowds in 2007. Since I don’t live in the area, I never had opportunity to see the play, nor had I seen the film. When I saw the DVD for sale at the Lebanon County Historical Society gift shop last week, I purchased a copy.

Near the end of the film, I heard the narrator say,”Apart from the actual murder trial, the whole proceeding turned out to be an indictment of the murky business of assessment life insurance, which led to major changes in insurance law, particularly with regard to the practice of insuring people in whom one had no legal interest.”

I nearly jumped out of my seat. THAT’S MY SENTENCE! I WROTE THAT!

I stopped the DVD, backed it up and replayed it. I went online and pulled up the article. I played it again. I was right. They took that line, verbatim, from the Wikipedia.

I am fully aware that contributions to the Wikipedia are publicly licensed, and that I have no official stake in its usage. My satisfaction is just the knowledge that my creative writing was deemed worthy of inclusion in the documentary.

The other day I was going through some stuff, and I came across my old IBM Thinkpad 600E. The 600E is a relatively small 1999-era laptop, which was considered a solid and reliable business machine in its day. I had purchased it on eBay around 2003 as a second computer and as my first laptop. I had always been satisfied with desktop computers, and at the time I think I was using my fifth one, upgrading about every 3 years or so since my first computer. My main computer was a high-end Compaq running Windows XP, but I thought it was time to jump into the laptop fray.

I did some research and found this Thinkpad being sold by a reputable seller at a reasonable price, so I bought it. To this day it is the only thing I’ve ever purchased on eBay. Anyway, the seller had done a good job of wiping the hard drive and installing a clean copy of Windows 2000 SP4. He had also upgraded the RAM to 92 MB. It didn’t come with a boot installation disk, but he did send a CD with the Windows 2000 SP4 self-extracting file.

The only complaint I had about the Thinkpad was its long boot time. But since I was using it as a truly mobile computer, and not my main machine, it wasn’t a big deal. As I recall, what had prompted me to buy a laptop was a family project I was working on, to scan old family photos, and I wanted to be able to take my scanner on the road. It was fun at home, too, to be able to sit on the front porch and surf the ‘net, or even VPN into my office network.

So the Thinkpad served its purpose until it was demoted to the shelf when I bought a shiny new Dell XPS in 2008.

Then with all the talk lately about netbooks, it occurred to me that maybe I could turn that old Thinkpad into a functional netbook. To my disappointment, when I turned it on, it refused to boot. There was some error which indicated a case of bitrot… some missing file or damaged hard drive. The first thing I tried was to re-install the OS from the CD, but that didn’t help. I could have tried a hard drive recovery utility, but I decided to go a different route. I decided to try Linux.

After doing some research online about my 10 year old computer with limited RAM, I decided to try Fluxbuntu, a stripped-down derivative of Ubuntu. So I went through all the steps of downloading the distro file and burning the install disk. I put it into the CD drive and turned on the Thinkpad. Everything went as expected. It re-formatted the drive and installed the new OS. I rebooted, and ta-da! I had a Linux box.

The next step was getting my Linux box online. I had previously been using a Linksys Wireless-G PCMCIA card, so naturally I wanted to use the same thing. Again, I went online and researched the possibilities. I found a blog which described the steps for using the Windows drivers for this model of wireless card with Ubuntu. Now, my experience with Linux is extremely limited. I had previously converted an old Windows ME computer to Ubuntu, which I had connected via Ethernet to my broadband router, but I never really did anything with it, other than to show myself, “Hey, it works.”

So here I was trying to follow the directions for installing a non-Linux driver on Linux. With virtually no Linux experience, even the simplest task was a roadblock. For instance, “Copy the files from the install disk.” It took me awhile to figure out that I couldn’t access the CD until I first mounted the CD. “Change all the file names to lower case.” Okay, I know how to rename a file in DOS, but what is the command line for renaming a Linux file? Eventually I got to the point where I realized that the directions I had did not apply to the version of my model of wireless card, and probably not to Fluxbuntu either. So I gave up.

Next I popped in my PCMCIA Ethernet card. I still have the installation disk, which said it was compatible with Linux, so I was fairly confident I would be able to install it. To my amazement, Fluxbuntu immediately recognized the card and installed the drivers itself. I plugged in an Ethernet cable and ta-da! I was online. But that really wasn’t a solution. There’s no sense in having a little netbook if you have to keep it tethered to the cable. So I reconsidered my Windows options.

In my box of stuff I have an OEM copy of Windows 98 SE, so I decided to try it. I thought that if I could get the Thinkpad working with Windows 98, maybe I could then upgrade it with my Windows 2000 disk. It turned out to be a series of dead ends and frustration. I got Windows 98 up and running, albeit with low graphics, but I still couldn’t get it to run the Windows 2000 installation. When I tried to run it, I immediately got an error message that it was missing a particular dll file. Of course, experience teaches that fixing one missing file often just leads to another missing file, and then another…

So I decided to try to get it online. It recognized the Ethernet card, it installed the driver, it said it was working, and when I plugged in the cable, all the lights on the card lit up, and the connection light on the router lit up. But I couldn’t get online. I went over and over every setting and advanced setting I could find, but still couldn’t get a connection to the router.

So then I decided to try the long shot of using the wireless card. I ran the install disk and immediately got an error message: “Internet Explorer 5.5 or later required.” Are you kidding me? I checked, and the active version was 5.0. Okay, so I’ll install a later version. Wrong. I had no way to copy data to the computer! The Thinkpad has a USB port, but when I plugged in a thumb drive, it said it needed a driver! The Thinkpad obviously has a CD drive, but I couldn’t get it to read any of my CD-R disks… probably a conflict between the old standard format and the new higher capacity CDs. The Thinkpad has an external floppy drive, and I found a floppy disk in my box of stuff, but none of the other five computers in our house has a floppy drive or floppy drive connection port!

Eventually I was able to figure out how to burn a CD using the legacy “mastered” format that the Thinkpad could read. So I went through the steps of downloading the complete IE 5.5 package, burning it to a CD, and installing it on the Thinkpad. This time I was able to install the Linksys wireless card drivers and software. Next I went through the steps of configuring the settings for my home network. It all went well until I clicked on “Save” configuration. I got an error message, “Unable to save configuration.”

That was it. I was done. I wiped the hard drive. The Thinkpad goes back on the shelf. Maybe I should just send it to the recycle bin.

Watching TV on your computer is becoming more and more commonplace, but the next step in home entertainment is finding a way to get Internet video, including streaming programs, video podcasts, and paid downloaded shows and movies, to play on your actual television. While it is possible today with a variey of hardware and software manipulations, none of the solutions are simple and some are rather expensive. It is the promise of tomorrow when even high-def video can easily be delivered on demand over the Internet, to be watched at your convenience on your high-def TV. Let me repeat: All of these methods require a level of expertise that most casual home users do not possess. This article is not intented to be a tutorial, but rather a manageable explanation of some things you may have heard.

Direct Connection

The simplest solution is a direct connection between your computer and your television. The connection itself depends on the available ports on your computer and your TV. The newer models of both provide the most options. For example, the best connection would be an HDMI cable. With your computer attached to the TV, it is then a relatively simple process of playing the video on the computer with the TV acting as the monitor. The disadvantage of a direct connection with the computer, of course, is that you have to have the computer right there, and you have to control it with the keyboard and mouse — not very convenient. Some newer versions of Windows PCs have a special software package called Media Center, which is an enhancement of the regular Windows Media Player. The Media Center is designed to control all sorts of digital media on the computer, and even uses a remote control.

Game Consoles

Modern game consoles — the X-Box 360, PlayStation 3, and the Wii — all have the capability to play Internet video. As a Microsoft product, the X-Box has built-in software which makes it a Media Center Extender, which means that you can stream video from your Media Center computer to the X-Box and then onto your TV. With the Wii, it’s possible to purchase a premium browser, Opera, from which you can play Internet video.

Apple TV

The Apple TV is not a television set. It is a device which is designed to play videos — which you purchase and/or download from the iTunes store — on your own TV. It seems strange that Apple would call it an Apple TV, since they might actually decide to build televisions in the future. Nevertheless, the idea is that it allows you to play the video on your regular TV instead of just on your video iPod. Although it was designed solely for iTunes, it is possible to modify the Apple TV to play other types of Internet video as well. To be sure, it is a rather expensive solution intended for media savy customers.

Popcorn Hour

Popcorn Hour is device that describes itself as a networked media tank. It can download video from the Internet, but its best feature is that it can stream video from other computers in your home. Like the Apple TV, it is an expensive option.

Roku

Roku is another digital media player. It has been around for awhile, dealing mostly with music and displaying digital photos on your TV. Recently, however, it became more popular when they partnered with Netflix to stream movies intantly for Netflix subscribers. The Roku box is less expensive than other choices, and it has the potential to expand its service to other types of Internet video.

Twitter is a relatively new social networking tool of the Internet which popularized micro-blogging. The main purpose is to keep friends connected, by letting everyone know where you are and what you are doing. Like other services, it depends on a technology known as SMS (short message service), which is basically a text message that can be sent and received via most modern cell phones, in addition to the website. The difference is that twitter messages, called tweets, are sent to a server, which forwards the messages to multiple receivers at once. To receive a particular person’s tweets, you must first sign up to follow them. This mass message system is called a feed.

The term feed is a general description of the process whereby a website or Internet service automatically sends data to you, rather than you going and getting it from them. Another example of a feed is a podcast subscription, where the website feeds the podcast out to the subscribers, using a technology called RSS.

As with many new technologies, Twitter made its first inroads with tech enthusiasts. Twitter became popular at technology conferences, where groups of friends could see where everyone was, and make plans to meet, without having to make multiple phone calls or to send multiple text messages.

The tweets themselves are limited to a length of 140 characters — about one sentence — which is why it is often described as micro-blogging. Users become adept at conveying their thoughts in short sentences and phrases. Twitter is often derided as a waste of time because the service encourages a lot of inane conversation, like telling your followers what you had for lunch. However, it has also been lauded for its dissemination of information during breaking news stories.

Besides the public feed, Twitter also has an instant message feature for private conversations.

Unlike some other social networking sites, creating a Twitter account is very simple on the Twitter.com website. The original intent was to connect groups of friends and acquaintances, both in personal life and in business. However, with Twitter, the connection process is not mutually inclusive. In other words, its possible to follow a person’s twitter feed, without them following yours. As a result, when famous people create a Twitter account, their intent is to have as many followers as possible, because it’s free publicity. Of course, they have no intention of ever following your tweets. In the tech world, it became a bragging contest to see who could get the most followers on Twitter.

Eventually Twitter was noticed by mainstream media, and soon all the national news services, interactive TV shows, and political campaigns decided to create their own Twitter accounts. Entertainment and sports celebrities, too, jumped in. By 2009, Twitter had become pervasive in all aspects of mass media. You can’t watch a news broadcast without someone or something reminding you to follow their Twitter. The difference is that, in the original design, the appeal was that the tweets were actually being typed by the actual person. So even if you didn’t know someone personally, you felt as though you were getting a personal communication from them. With celebrities and mass media, you never know who is actually doing the typing.

Ironically, to the original techie users, the rapid growth means that Twitter has lost its luster. Whereas it was once a secret club for people in the know, now that it’s been accepted by the masses, and by mass media, it’s lost some of its cool-ness factor.

The basic service on Twitter.com has spurred the creation of an abundance of third-party applications which use the Twitter feed to make it searchable, more manageable, and compatible with other web services like Facebook.

This afternoon, the Pittsburgh Steelers took the lead and won the game over the Baltimore Ravens on a touchdown at the end of the game. However, there was considerable controversy over whether or not a touchdown was actually scored.

The play in question proceeded in the following manner: The receiver ran his route in the end zone. The quarterback threw the ball in his direction. The receiver had his feet in the endzone, but he had to reach back out onto the field of play to catch the ball. At essentially the same time, the defensive player tackled the reciever, forcing him even further back into the field of play.

Two officials on the field marked the ball down just outside the goal line, where the receiver made the catch. Since the game was inside the 2-minute warning, Pittsburgh could not challenge the call. Instead, they called time out, to give the officials the chance to make an official instant replay review, which they did. When the referee came back out onto the field, his official explanation was that “the receiver had both feet down in the end zone” when he made the catch, and it was therefore a touchdown.

There are two thing wrong with that outcome.

First of all, the referee never said that the call on the field was reversed. The whole concept of instant replay is based on the assumption that the call on the field stands, unless there is indisputable video evidence to the contrary. Instant replay does not replace the responsibility of the officials on the field to make a call. But in this case, the referee never even acknowledged the call on the field. Instead, he made it seem as though the video replay was used to determine whether or not it was a touchdown. There’s a significant difference.

The second thing wrong with the call is that the referee never even described a touchdown! Everyone knows that a touchdown is scored when any part of the ball, while in possession, touches/crosses the plane of the goal line. But the referee made it sound as though it was a touchdown simply because the receiver’s feet were down in the end zone. He never said anything about the ball reaching the end zone, and the video evidence was far from indisputable that it did. Now, the “two feet down in the end zone” thing often comes up with catches along the side of the end zone or the back of the end zone, but it doesn’t apply to the front of the end zone. If it did, then a runner with the ball could score a touchdown merely by sliding his feet across the goal line without ever getting the ball to the goal line!

After the game, the officials back-tracked on the explanation and stated that the football had reached the plane of the goal line. Nevertheless, they’d still have a hard time defending that conclusion with indisputable evidence.

I expect there will be a league review of this incident. Unfortunately, it will not be the first one this year. In September, a game-changing fumble recovery in the Denver vs San Diego game was disallowed because the official blew his whistle before it was recovered. In November, the whole officiating crew of the Pittsburgh vs San Diego game overturned a touchdown because they mistakenly ruled the ball dead.

Earlier in the same game today, Baltimore punted to Pittsburgh. The punt returner muffed the catch. The ball first rolled forward, then was finally picked up by another Pittsburgh player, who ran the ball about 18 more yards. The announcers said that the ball would be returned to the point at which the player picked up the ball, because you “can’t advance a muff.” Wrong. The kicking team can’t advance a muff, but the receiving team can. In fact, the officials had to huddle and then announce that it was okay for Pittsburgh to advance the ball, as if they weren’t sure themselves.

While I’m at it, I’m still waiting for clarification on the rule about a player coming back onto the field from out of bounds. How many times have we heard the announcers tell us that when a receiver runs out of bounds, he can’t be the “first person to touch it” when he comes back in bounds? Earlier this year (I don’t remember which game) a receiver inadvertently ran out of bounds. The pass came down and hit the defender, bounced up in the air, and then the receiver caught it. He was NOT the first person to touch it. It had obviously ricocheted off the defender. Nevertheless, the officials threw the flag and called it an illegal catch because the receiver had come in from out of bounds. I looked at the rule, and it specifically says the ball must be first “touched by an opponent,” which is was! The rule does not preclude the receiver from making the catch, but the officials did. Oh, well, I’ll probably never see that happen again.

Need I say more? When I wrote about Sam Bradford at the end of last season, I was very optimistic, like others, about his future at Oklahoma. But it was too much to expect that he would win the Heisman Trophy in his sophomore year. But he did.

Bradford followed up last year’s remarkable season with even more impressive stats. Last year he set an NCAA record for touchdown passes by a freshman (36). This year he led the country in TD passes (48), which naturally shattered the record for TD passes for a combined freshman and sophomore year (84), which also set single season and career records for Oklahoma. Led by Bradford, the Sooners set an NCAA record for most points scored in a season (702), while accomplishing something that had never been done: scoring 60+ points in five consecutive games. The team finished the season 12-1 and champions of the Big 12.

And now there is just one game left to cap this magical season for the Oklahoma Sooners and their fans.

The controversy continues. Little has changed since I wrote my article before the 2007 NCAA football season. This year, we ended up with no less than 7 major college BCS teams with one loss, plus two lesser BCS teams with undefeated records. So, once again, no matter which two teams ended up on top, there would be good cases to be made for other teams to be unjustly left out of the championship game.

The BCS (Bowl Championship Series) has become the college sports equivalent of the Electoral College. If there are two clear-cut top teams, like there were in 2002 with undefeated Ohio State and Miami, then the BCS rankings are irrelevant. If the top teams aren’t obvious, like they are this year, then the BCS rankings are subject to ridicule.

Oklahoma will play Florida for the championship, but that means that [fill in the blank] was left out. The only way to settle the championship would be a playoff. The two systems most often promoted are the “and one” championship game and an 8-team bracket.

I have no idea how they would implement the “and one” system. Ostensibly, after the bowl games were played, the top two teams would play one more game against each other for the the real championship. Are you kidding me? How would that solve anything? Either you’d have to pre-select the top four teams to play each other, or you’d have to select the top two teams afterward. The key word is select. This year, for example, we’re going to end up with at least three (and we could have as many as six) top division teams with no more than one loss after their bowl game. So any selection of two of those teams would be just as controversial as the current BCS rankings system.

With an 8-team bracket, you’d be guaranteed to get all the top teams in the playoff. But once again, you’d have to select the 8 teams. In my previous article, I suggested that the qualifying teams should all be league champions. Even that system wouldn’t make sense this year, when clearly the Big East champion Cincinnati and the ACC champion Georgia Tech weren’t even ranked in the top 10. On the other hand, the Big 12 South division alone has three teams in the top 10.

I watched two different sportscasters give their theoretical 8-team bracket this year, and as expected, they had different teams. There’s always the spector of those undefeated second tier teams, Utah and Boise State. And what do you do in years when there are four teams that are clearly above the rest? Do you throw in four other teams just to fill the bracket? One could argue that a controversy over the bottom teams in the bracket would generate less passion than trying to pick just two at the top. My response would be, if they don’t matter, then why are they in the playoff?

We all know that the big Bowl games are here to stay. So playoff promoters always say they would incorporate the bowl games into the playoff series. My question of that scenario is, who would go to the games? The Bowl games are an event unto themselves. Fans of the teams take off from work, make travel plans, and spend lots of money, to attend a bowl game. So if your team has to play two playoff/bowl games before they get to the championship game, which game are you going to plan for? Are you going to go to the first game, in case they lose and their season ends, or are you going to hold out for the more important games to follow?

Proponents of a playoff often cite the lower division college football playoffs and wonder why the major colleges couldn’t do the same. Well, the reason is quite simple. The two things are completely different. In the lower divisions, the teams are seeded and play at the home field of the higher seed. The visiting team certainly has some followers, but it is a home game for the home team in every sense of the word.

How would you fit the bowl games into that scenario? While those first-round playoffs would undoubtedly get high TV ratings, do you think they could fill the stands? Using this year’s example, how many fans of Texas and Ohio State would make the trip to the Fiesta Bowl in Arizona, if they thought they had a good chance to move on to another, even bigger game?

Another aspect of bowl games vs playoffs that rarely gets heard is the perspective of the players and coaches. Certainly those top teams that miss out of the BCS championship by a slim margin are going to wish they were in a playoff, but the truth is that they’d much rather be in the championship game than have to compete for the championship game. That may sound obvious, but I’ve heard former players admit when questioned, that they really enjoyed their bowl game experience because they knew it was a once-and-done deal. Their perspective would have to change if it were merely a playoff game.

If BCS college football is ever going to get to a playoff, I think it will have to be some kind of hybrid play-in system using the same rankings we have now. In other words, the lower ranked teams will have to play each other on a home field basis to qualify for a smaller playoff bracket in the bowl games.