Today’s Clarion-Ledger has an interesting piece on Eli Manning’s heir apparent, Micheal Spurlock, and the competitors for his throne—much-heralded Louisiana prospect Robert Lane and 2003 third-stringer Ethan Flatt. Saturdays in Oxford this fall are going to be just a wee bit different than they have in the past few years (both under Manning and his eminently forgettable predecessor, who’s currently a CFL backup) with the athletic Spurlock running the offense.

John Cole is right to be disgusted by ex-Colorado coach Gary Barnett’s remarks about former CU player Katie Hnida, who was allegedly raped by one of her former teammates. Barnett said, apparently in response to an inquiry from a reporter as to the reason for Ms. Hnida’s departure from the team (and transfer to New Mexico) in 2000:

It was obvious Katie was not very good. She was awful. ... Katie was not only a girl, she was terrible. OK? There’s no other way to say it.

Not only does the comment show a lack of seriousness by Barnett, it also makes me question his abilities as a coach and leader. Good coaches don’t speak ill about their players in public; that’s close to the cardinal rule of coaching. What a dipshit, and good riddance.

More on this story in Friday’s New York Times.

David Pinto has a revenue sharing plan for baseball:

I’ve felt for a long time that what baseball needs is a competitive form of revenue sharing. Teams would be paid for their road games based on how many people they brought in, not just in the stadium, but for the TV and radio audiences as well. This would encourage teams to sign an Alex Rodriguez, since they would make money from the fans he would draw on the road.

Something vaguely similar happens in college football—road teams in non-conference games normally get an appearance fee. Something like that makes sense for baseball as a revenue-sharing mechanism—after all, George Steinbrenner wouldn’t be making much money if the Yankees didn’t play opponents at home. Someone more awake than me will have to figure out the fairest way of implementing such a system; my guess is that, unreliable as they are, tying the “opponent share” to the existing TV and radio ratings is the way to go.

Well, I predicted the outcome, but I didn’t predict that the things everyone would be talking about would be (a) Janet Jackson’s right breast and (b) a streaker.

Any-hoo, Matt Stinson has the roundup, including Justin Timberlake’s declaration that Ms. Jackson’s exposed “boobage” was a “wardrobe malfunction.” Now, I may only have a doctorate in political science, but even I know that women don’t wear pasties† unless they think they’re going to be baring their chests. I also noticed that both Mr. Timberlake’s and Ms. Jackson’s names were pointedly omitted from the post-halftime promo for next week’s Grammy Awards.

Now, I’m not going to join the inevitable calls for FCC investigations, corporate boycotts, and other silliness that no doubt will ensue from this incident. To do so would further distract from where the attention should be, which is on both the New England Patriots and Carolina Panthers for playing 60 minutes of great pro football. Kudos to both teams for giving us one of the best Super Bowls in recent memory.

Patriots by 3—even though I want the Panthers to win.

Kate Malcolm reports on FIFA head-honcho Sepp Blatter’s diagnosis for the lack of popularity of womens’ soccer: the ladies are dressing too much like the men. Needless to say, such soccer luminaries as Brandi Chastain and Julie Foudy are not impressed by Blatter’s remarks.

On the other hand, as Tony Kornheiser has quite rightly pointed out, the signature moment of the 1999 Womens’ World Cup, when Ms. Chastain spontaneously removed her top on the field, led to a much of the media attention that womens’ soccer has received. Since then, U.S. womens’ soccer has been something of a media black hole. Absent some sort of continuing sex appeal—whether to men, in the personages of Chastain and Mia Hamm, among others, or lesbian women (following the path of the WNBA, perhaps)—womens’ soccer has generated little buzz in the world of sports, especially since Americans seem ill-inclined to even watch the mens’ version of the sport.

I think in the long term, though, soccer (mens’ and womens’) can succeed in America without the gimmicks. Like any sport, much of the excitement is generated not by the action on the field, but by the fans’ enthusiasm for it. It’s hard to duplicate that sort of excitement in half-empty venues designed for more popular sports. In the end, I suspect better players and more rabid fans will “sex up” the game far more than dressing the players in tight clothing—and I think that applies to both mens’ and womens’ soccer equally.

Update: Ryan of The Dead Parrots Society has additional thoughts on this topic. As he says, “It's a lot easier for principle to beat pragmatism when there isn't a lot of money at stake.”

I’m a bit late to the story of Pete Rose admitting he bet on baseball—a story that was actually supposed to be embargoed until his appearance on ABC’s Primetime Live, but no matter (earlier reactions include John Cole’s and Michele’s; everyone in my blogroll who has an RSS feed and had something to say about it is listed here) . I think Larry Ribstein’s reaction one of the more interesting, though I don’t think it gets to the heart of the problem with stated betting on baseball.

That Rose bet on games involving the Reds is the big “no-no” issue; if he’d simply bet on other teams, he’d have received a one year suspension. The key question is what is the harm to Baseball from Rose’s bets?—and, by Baseball, I mean the institution that everyone has been saying Rose sullied. Since nobody claims he actually bet against the Reds, it’s hard to charge him with throwing games; he may have had an extra incentive to win in games he wagered on, but that isn’t throwing a game, and unlike other sports baseball betting is normally on the “money line”—you pick straight-up, not against a point spread—so “point shaving” (or “running up the score“) isn’t an issue. (You can also bet other sports, like football, on the money line, but that isn’t very popular.) Rose’s interest as a bettor coincided with his unbiased interest as a manager.

Now, some have argued that because Rose didn’t bet on every single game, and that he apparently got inside information from other managers (including those in the AL—the Reds are an NL team, and before interleague play intelligence on AL teams was pretty useless for NL managers), his behavior is somehow corrupting to Baseball. Because Rose didn’t bet on all games involving the Reds, the argument is that bookies knew that the Reds were less likely to win the game. Even if that’s true, it’s hard to see how Baseball is harmed. The victim is whoever was on the losing side of the bets lodged by Rose’s bookies because of the informational advantage they had—unless Baseball was betting on games, they weren’t harmed at all. Similarly, Rose’s intelligence on other teams only harmed other bettors—not Baseball. And, ultimately, since virtually everyone who was involved was violating numerous state and federal laws against sports wagering—the harm was to people who were already engaging in illegal conduct. If a thief breaks into a drug dealer’s house and steals his TV, the thief’s criminal act doesn’t absolve the dealer for buying home electronics from the proceeds of his own illegal act.

Now, there are other reasonable arguments against Rose’s betting: that it potentially created the appearance of corruption: for example, that it placed him in a position where he might be able to throw games to have his gambling debts reduced. But there doesn’t seem to be evidence that Rose threw games—and, in general I find “appearance of corruption” arguments specious. You can also argue that Rose harmed Baseball as an institution by denying the allegations for 14 years and impugning the credibility of his accusers and other opponents, including then-NBC reporter Jim Gray (who now spends his time about as far up Kobe Bryant’s ass as Ahmad Rashad was up Michael Jordan’s). And Rose’s frequent appearances in Cooperstown, New York haven’t exactly endeared him to the MLB brass. But Rose’s betting, alone, apparently had no ill effects on Baseball.

Update: John Jenkins disagrees with my assessment, as does David Wright via email; both raise essentially the same point (I'll quote John’s post):

Rose's gambling on the Reds changed the way Rose managed games. Baseball has a 162-game season. When Rose had money riding on a game, he would obviously be managing to win that game at the expense of future games. Suppose Rose was clinging to a one-run game going into the ninth and his closer had pitched the last three days straight and his arm was sore. Rose might pitch the guy to win that game because he had money on it, and then cost the team 3 games over the next 2 weeks that they could have won if that pitcher could have rested that day.

I do agree that having money riding on the game might pervert Rose’s incentive structure—and my overlooking that fact may go to show you how much I really care about baseball as a game. On the other hand, Rose’s mediocrity as a manager is such that he might have made decisions that were weak over the long term anyway, even without the monetary incentive to do so.

Another update: Brian of Redbird Nation makes a compelling case for a shorter-than-lifetime ban for Pete Rose.

The Memphis Commercial Appeal reports that, despite rumors that Ole Miss head coach David Cutcliffe is on the shortlist in the latest iteration of the Nebraska head coaching search, Pete Boone hasn’t gotten any calls seeking permission to interview Cut. I rather think Cutcliffe—whose reputation is mostly as a quarterbacks and pro-style offense guru—is a poor fit for Nebraska and its option-oriented attack; then again, Cutcliffe is 3–2 against the Big 12 since coming to Ole Miss—with both losses (and one win) coming against Texas Tech, so he’d probably do OK in that conference, and Nebraska probably has much deeper pockets than Ole Miss does.

All that said, I can’t see Cutcliffe going to Nebraska—the scrutiny is just too intense in Lincoln, if the Solich firing is anything to judge by. By contrast, all Cut has to do in Oxford is have a winning SEC record next year (admittedly, not something I’d wager much money on, even with a favorable schedule); if he manages that, he’ll probably be elevated to the height of Johnny Vaught in the Ole Miss coaching pantheon.

The end of the world is nigh: the University of Southern California and Louisiana State University are splitting the Division I-A college football championship due to a split between the AP and ESPN/USA Today polls. Mark my words: the Homeland Security Alert System is about to be bumped up a notch…

Also of vague interest: I finished in the top 10th percentile of the Sonic BowlMania Challenge, correctly predicting the outcomes of 18 of the 28 bowl games through a mixture of luck and foolhardiness (including putting 26 points on the Ole Miss Rebels, which—if we were talking about money—would be a very stupid course of action usually).

This is unreal: Nick LeShea is being jeered by the crowd at the Orange Bowl halftime show. Granted, I completely agree with the sentiment—but still.

Here goes:

Rose Bowl: Michigan 31, USC 17.
Orange Bowl: Miami 24, FSU 21.
Fiesta Bowl: KSU 28, OSU 10. (Update: If Ell Roberson doesn’t play: OSU 17, KSU 10.)
Sugar Bowl: LSU 35, Oklahoma 24.

Bonus prediction:
Cotton Bowl: Ole Miss 41, Oklahoma State 28.

Due to the power of TiVo, and my general laziness clearing out my Season Pass list, I’ve had a Season Pass for ESPN2’s “Cold Pizza” two-hour morning show since it started (set to “Keep At Most: 1” so I only kill two hours of space). That isn’t to say I’ve watched every show, mind you; many days, it goes straight into the digital dustbin. But, I’ve given it a shot, and it’s time to review the “good” and “bad”:

• Jay Crawford, the male co-host, is moderately competent.
• Kit Hoover, the female co-host, reminds me of an Ole Miss sorority girl—and a none-too-bright one, at that. (Plus, whatever variant of a southern accent she has is downright painful to listen to.)
• Leslie Maxey, the newswoman, is stuck with the thankless task of newsdrone. She seems reasonably competent when not reading the equivalent of the “local news digest of the national news” from the teleprompter, though.
• Thea Andrews, the catch-all person (I think her actual title is “national correspondent”), seems competent enough, plus she has sort of a Lauren Graham thing going on—as Dave Letterman would say, she’s “easy on the eyes”—and (IMHO) did a better job than Hoover when called on to fill in as co-host once.
• The “guest people do the weather” schtick doesn’t work at any level. Just pay Greg Proops whatever he asks to get him to do the job permanently—or let Andrews do it.
• Whoever thought this show needed a “sideline reporter” should be thrown in a spider hole in Iraq, along with the guy who does it. Apparently, it’s supposed to be funny to have a Jewish guy as the sideline reporter. Newsflash: it isn’t.
• Silly question for Disney: if you’re going to do a morning show, wouldn’t it make more sense to have it in ESPN, a.k.a. “The Mothership,” where it’ll get better ratings?
• Make the frickin’ show more about sports, and less like an obsessively tame version of “The Man Show.”

Frankly, if ESPN wants to do something better in the morning, I think the thing to do is something more like the Saturday and Sunday morning SportsCenter, maybe with a dash of the style of The NFL Network’s “NFL Total Access” (ironically, hosted by Rich Eisen, who was originally interested in the “Cold Pizza” gig): something more casual, but clearly a sports show for the morning viewer rather than a morning show that talks about sports. Put Crawford and Andrews in a casual studio, bring in guests, and have an experienced SportsCenter or ESPNews anchor (Michael Kim?) on hand for sports headlines and highlights at the top and bottom of the hour.

James Joyner is right that, if things play out the way they look, the BCS is in big trouble. However, the hidden story in this is why the BCS is in trouble. Let’s look at the ESPN/USA Today top five (i.e. the Coaches’ poll):

1. USC: 37 first-place votes, 1542 points.
2. LSU: 18 first-place votes, 1516 points.
3. Oklahoma: 8 first-place votes, 1449 points.
4. Michigan: 0 first-place votes, 1393 points.
5. Texas: 0 first-place votes, 1272 points.

As I’ve mentioned before, the major polls are compiled using a Borda count. The media poll (AP) has 65 voters, while the coaches’ poll has 63 voters. The Borda count procedure is fairly simplistic: the #1 team on each ballot gets 25 points, #2 gets 24… all the way down to #25, which gets 1 point. (In math terms, the points added for each team are 26 minus the ranking.) The Borda count, incidentally, happens to be a very rotten way of aggregating preferences, but it has the benefit over other methods (like Condorcet voting) of not requiring a lot of thought to apply.

With that aside out of the way, let’s stare at the numbers. The full ballots aren’t released (a glaring oversight in the system), but we do know that 8 people ranked Oklahoma #1. Assume, for the sake of argument, the “objectively correct” ranking of Oklahoma is no higher than #3; in other words, no voter should have ranked OU #1 or #2.* Oklahoma thus recieved 8×2 or 16 more points than it should have, reducing its total to 1433 points.

Let’s also assume that these 8 poll voters all ranked LSU, USC, and Michigan (a fair assumption); we don’t even need to know which team was ranked #2 on these ballots. Bumping Oklahoma to #4 bumps each of these teams up by 8×1 points. This gives USC 1550, LSU 1524, OU 1433 (per above), and Michigan 1393. Now, Michigan is within 40 points of being #3 (down from 56).

Now, let’s return to the original numbers. We know that some voters ranked OU above #3. Why? Well, for starters, they got 8 first-place votes. It also turns out that OU’s total of 1449 is exactly the total that they would have received had they been ranked #3 on all 63 ballots (63×(26-3)=1449). Now we have an interesting problem: reconstructing the position of OU on the ballots.

We know OU was #1 on eight ballots. They received 1249 points from 55 other ballots. Let’s assume the only reasonable rankings for OU on those ballots is 2, 3, 4, and 5. So we have an integer programming problem: (26-2)a+(26-3)b+(26-4)c+(26-5)d=24a+23b+22c+21d=1249, where a–d are all non-negative integers, and a+b+c+d=55.

Solving this problem iteratively, there are two possible ballot configurations: 17 second-place votes, 15 third-place votes, 13 fourth-place votes, and 10 fifth-place votes; or 18 second-place, 14 third-place, 12 fourth-place, and 11 fifth-place. Now, let’s also drop OU to third on these ballots.

Assuming there are 17 second-place votes for OU, dropping them to third will reduce their point total by 17. Assuming Michigan was ranked third or below on all of these ballots (a trivial assumption; we know they never were ranked #1, and we know they couldn’t have been #2 because OU was), OU loses 17 and Michigan gains 17. This makes the point totals: USC 1550, LSU 1524, OU 1416, and Michigan 1410.

If there were 18 second-place votes for OU, the “correct” point totals—if they’d actually ranked OU third—would have been USC 1550, LSU 1524, OU 1415, and Michigan 1411.

Now, we can broaden the analysis a little. Assume that some voters ranked OU as low as 6th. If that is the case, more than 18 voters must have voted OU #2 for them to get 1449 points. If 20 voters ranked OU #2, when they should have been #3, OU and Michigan would have been tied. And it’s possible, although unlikely, that as many as 24 voters ranked OU #2.

The moral of the story: the Borda count sucks. And so do the coaches.

James Joyner notes the upcoming Charlie-Foxtrot in the BCS standings resulting from Oklahoma’s drubbing by Kansas State in the Big XII title game and the convincing wins by LSU (over Georgia) and USC (over Oregon State). If I had a ballot, here’s how I’d rank the teams:

1. Southern Cal (11-1). Their only loss was in overtime, which—given the funky OT rules in college—is understandable.
2. LSU (12-1). Really, only three teams have even given LSU problems this year: Florida, Georgia (in the first game), and Ole Miss. Everyone else, LSU has basically destroyed.
3. Michigan (10-2). Probably the scariest team in the country today, even if John Navarre isn’t your prototypical great quarterback. Then again, he doesn’t have to be; he’s got Chris Perry in the backfield.
4. Oklahoma (12-1). The team folded like a cheap kite at the first sign of real adversity this season (the 5-8 Crimson Tide—with losses to NIU and Hawaii, along with practically everyone in the SEC—don’t count as “adversity” in this discussion). They’re lucky I haven’t dropped them below the TCU Horned Frogs or the Blue Turf Warriors of Boise State.
5. Texas (10-2). Really, just the best of a bunch of two-loss teams lurking below Michigan.

The brain trusts at ABC and CBS have decided to put the Big XII and SEC title games up against each other in prime time. Idiots. Thank God for DirecTV with TiVo.

• Lousiana State over Georgia (at Atlanta). The trendy pick is Georgia. I think they’re in serious trouble unless David Greene can figure out LSU’s blitz packages—something even Unitas Award winner Eli Manning couldn’t do consistently. LSU by 10.
• Oklahoma over Kansas State (at Kansas City). Ell Roberson and K-State will probably keep it close for a while, but Oklahoma has a stifling defense and too many receivers to cover. Sooners by 9.

The rampant BCS speculation is that LSU goes to the Sugar Bowl if both USC and LSU win. That, of course, assumes the pollsters don’t play dirty pool with the polls—something I wouldn’t put past the voters, particularly the AP voters who’ve never really signed on to this whole BCS thing (hell hath no fury like a journalist scorned: ask “major league asshole” Adam Clymer). You read it here first: the fix is in, and it’s gonna be Oklahoma–USC in N'Orleans.

Both Robert Prather (a Mississippi State grad) and Steven Taylor have noted the hiring of Sylvester Croom as head coach of the Mississippi State Bulldogs, and believe it is a positive step, a position I generally agree with—although, like Steven, I wish the reason why the national media was paying attention to my adopted state was due to something other than race. (Apparently, there’s a law that the only stories about Mississippi are allowed to be about race—directly or tangentially—or WorldCom, neither of which usually reflect well on us. Ex-governor Kirk Fordice’s now-abandoned slogan—“Only Positive Mississippi Spoken Here”—reflects that frustration.)

Of course, the inevitable comparisons between State and Ole Miss had to be trotted out, both by ESPN, as noted by Steven Godfrey in Thursday’s Daily Mississippian, and by others—even relatively local media—as Spencer Bryan notes in today’s DM. ESPN dragged out decades-old footage of Rebel fans waving Confederate battle flags at Ole Miss home games—dating from when Ole Miss was too cheap to paint the helmets that came from the factory—while failing to note the inconvenient fact that purple-and-gold faux Confederate banners adorning LSU fans outnumbered the genuine article at the recent LSU-Ole Miss matchup. On the academic side of the ledger, Ole Miss’ record of hiring and promoting minorities is far better than State’s. And if the Rebels had gone 2–10 instead of 9–3, I think there’s a good chance that Croom would have been introduced at a very similar-looking press conference here in Oxford this week instead.

Other takes are at Outside the Beltway, The American Mind, and StateDOG.

Ole Miss goes 7-1 in the SEC for the first time in, well, forever (and the first time with only one loss since 1963), yet some morons still want to fire the coach because we lost by 3 points—a field goal—to what may be the best team in the country not named “Oklahoma.” What a bunch of Grade A, no account nitwits.

Well, last week could have gone better. Nonetheless, I soldier on…

• 11/27: OLE MISS over Mississippi State. It’s the 100th edition of Ole Miss-Mississippi State, this year being held in the Friendly Confines of Scott Field in Starkville. Yes, it’s Jackie Sherill’s last game. Yes, State can be dangerous at times. Yes, the Rebels are coming off a heartbreaking loss. No, none of this matters. Key stat: “MSU has put up little fight since Sherrill announced on Oct. 17 he’d be stepping down at season’s end. State has been outscored 236-57 in the five games since that announcement, all lopsided SEC losses.” (From Thursday’s Clarion-Ledger.) Rebs win by 20+ in an offensive showcase.
• 11/28: LOUISIANA STATE over Arkansas. Arkansas has been impressive of late, against weak opposition, while LSU has pretty much cruised over its opposition, with only three competitive games all season (the loss against Florida, and wins over Georgia and Ole Miss). LSU should win easily, but, then again, that’s what people said last year, too. LSU by 3 in a slugfest.
• 11/29: Tennessee over KENTUCKY. UT just outmatches Kentucky in every phase of the game.
• Georgia over GEORGIA TECH. Despite their injury issues, Georgia should roll over Tech.
• FLORIDA over Florida State. As always, should be a very competitive game. Florida should win a close game.
• HAWAI'I over Alabama. The key question is whether Alabama will show up ready to play. They nearly lost last year to a Hawai'i team that was inferior to this one. I have to give Hawai'i the edge here.

LSU über-fan TigerEducated notes an LSU Reveille column by Bryan Wideman that focuses on Friday night’s near-brawl between drunk LSU and Ole Miss supporters near the Oxford Square. You can also read the Oxford Eagle’s account of the incident.

While I don’t think Wideman’s experience was typical of that of most visiting fans, I think his account of being roughed up by an Oxford police officer ought to be properly investigated; that’s simply unacceptable conduct.

First, Washington Redskins backup QB Tim Hasselbeck (not to be confused with Matt Hasselbeck, his brother), with three NFL passes to his credit, puts on a passing clinic against the Miami Dolphins despite losing the game, then his new wife Elisabeth, fresh off Survivor, lands a gig on The View replacing Lisa Ling.

Hell Yeah, Damn Right
Hotty Toddy, Gosh A-Mighty,
Who The Hell Are We?
Hey! Flim-Flam, Bim Bam,
Ole Miss, By Damn.

See you later…

I may or may not have more to say on the game tomorrow. I’m currently dog tired and not particularly sober. In the meantime, you can read Robert Prather’s thoughts on the game, which I generally agree with, and my comments at his place, which I definitely agree with. And Conrad isn’t particularly thrilled with the outcome either.

A little earlier than I’d meant, but I imagine I’ll be in a hurry in the morning tomorrow. On to the picks (as always, straight up):

• GEORGIA over Kentucky. The good news for Kentucky: win out and they go to a bowl. The bad news: if the Wildcats can’t beat Vanderbilt in Nashville in front of a half-dozen fans, they certainly can’t win inside the hedges in Athens.
• TENNESSEE over Vanderbilt. Then again, the Commodores are on a one-game conference winning streak…
• ARKANSAS over Mississippi State. Time is running out on the Jackie Sherill farewell tour, and I don’t think the parting gifts will be nice from Fayetteville, particularly with Arkansas trying to sneak into the Cotton Bowl with a late surge.
• Clemson over SOUTH CAROLINA. If Tommy Bowden’s team can stay focused, they should beat their in-state rival. But SC is a dangerous football team nonetheless; ask Florida, who by all rights should have lost to the Gamecocks last week.
• Alabama over AUBURN. Yes, “on paper” Auburn outclasses Alabama in almost every phase of the game. But with Alabama having nothing to play for except punching Auburn’s ticket to the EV1.com Houston Bowl, all the pressure is on Tommy Tuberville, Jason Campbell, and Carnell Williams, who were supposed to be wrapping up the regular season on their way to the Sugar Bowl at this point. Look for Tubby’s squad to find another way to lose.

And, last but not least:

• OLE MISS over Louisiana State. Forget about Eli Manning; the real story is that the 21 other starters around him have battled through adversity, injury, and early-season embarassments. Nobody gave the Rebels a chance to be where they are today at the beginning of the season. Eight weeks ago, most fans thought the best thing that might happen in this season was another trip to Shreveport. At that time, sophomore receiver Taye Biddle, who dropped sure TDs against Memphis and Texas Tech, was less popular in Oxford than Osama Bin Laden. Now I don’t know if the Rebels are a team of destiny. But I do know that this game is for all the marbles. And every time since September 27 when it’s been put-up-or-shut-up time, someone has stepped up and made the key play, whether it’s Eli making a key QB sneak to run out the clock on South Carolina, Lorenzo Townsend—the fullback—catching a 49 yard pass on 3rd and long against Auburn deep in the 4th quarter, or Eric Oliver picking off Chris Leak to stop a late drive by Florida. The Rebels haven’t always won pretty. They haven’t kept the proverbial boot on the neck at times. They’ve been burned on freak plays. But still, somehow, they keep finding a way to win. And I think they’ll do it again Saturday. Not because Ole Miss outmatches LSU in any phase of the game—frankly, they don’t—but because the Rebels are on a mission that they’re not quite done with yet. And they’ll have the largest crowd ever to witness a sporting event in the state of Mississippi on hand to help carry them over the goal line.

What, you were expecting X’s and O’s?

Also of interest: a New York Times profile of Manning.

Matthew Stinson has a photograph of a young Dutch woman eagerly awaiting the kickoff of a soccer match between Scotland and the Netherlands.

The letter of the day is, of course, K for Kate.

As it’s Monday, it’s time for the weekly howls of outrage to erupt at the latest BCS standings. Unfortunately for fans of college football, however, the outrage is largely manufactured and misplaced. Why?

• Controversy sells. Getting people to watch the 6 EST SportsCenter is pulling teeth; hence why ESPN has pulled Dan Patrick back into full-time duty in Bristol, and why the BCS standings are a prominent part of the Monday show—to the point that they receive nearly 48 hours of pre-hype from “College GameDay Final” on.
• The controversy is manufactured by the entities that have the most to lose from an independent evaluation of college football: the media. 65 of America’s leading college football writers and broadcasters have a vested interest in their ratings being the sole indicators of quality in college football. The regional and other biases of both the writers and the coaches are notorious. Nothing like some diversionary controversy to deflect attention away from the gorilla sitting in the corner.

There are legitimate reasons to critique the BCS standings. The fundamental problem is that they’re an ad hoc amalgamation of polls, an arbitrary selection of computer rankings, and fudge factors, necessitated by the false legitimacy that the Associated Press and ESPN/USA Today polls have among college football fans. From an econometric standpoint, there are serious problems with the BCS.

A fundamental problem is that truly ordinal data is treated as metric in the formula. Your age, height, and weight are metric data: differences in age have real meaning. If I’m 27 and my cousin is 3, the difference in our ages—24 years—is a meaningful quantity. By contrast, poll rankings aren’t metric. LSU is #3 in the AP poll, and Ole Miss is #15. 15-3=12. Twelve doesn’t tell us much of anything about the difference between LSU and Ole Miss; it just tells us that there’s a difference. Missouri is #27. 27-15=12. Treating this difference as metric makes an invalid assertion: that the difference in quality between LSU and Ole Miss is the same as the difference between Ole Miss and Missouri.

This problem repeats itself throughout the BCS formula. Means of rankings in polls and computer rankings are taken. These means are added together. The strength of schedule component—which is a key component of many computer rankings—starts as metric data, then is converted to a ranking and arbitrarily scaled… then added to the means. Losses—which are metric—are then subtracted. Finally, an ad hoc adjustment is made for so-called “quality wins”—an adjustment one would hope that is incorporated in the polls and computer rankings anyway. Then the rankings are reported with these bizarre totals attached, apparently because totals look cool (I guess they got the idea from the AP and ESPN polls, who report the sorta-kinda metric Borda count in addition to the rankings).

Nonetheless, the fundamental idea of the BCS rankings is sound, even if there are too many compromises and too many ad hoc adjustments. So what would I do?

• Include more computer rankings.
• Use averaging methods appropriate for ordinal data. Or at least, recognize that taking the mean of a bunch of ordinal data doesn’t make it metric… so make it properly ordinal again.
• Eliminate the silly restriction that computer rankings cannot incorporate margin-of-victory as a factor in their formulas. (I’ll explain why this restriction is silly in another post.)
• Eliminate the ad hoc adjustments.

Next time (which I intended to be this time—sigh), I’ll talk about “computer rankings” in more detail. It turns out that they can be thought of as an application of the oft-maligned statistical technique known as factor analysis.

My first losing record—heck, my first loss—on these picks was last Saturday. But, instead of quitting while I’m ahead, here are some more picks:

• TENNESSEE over Mississippi State (JP split). “Duh” pick of the week.
• Florida over SOUTH CAROLINA (JP split). Florida just has too much talent for the Gamecocks to handle.
• ARKANSAS over New Mexico State. A bit late for an out-of-conference game, n‘est-ce que pas?
• VANDERBILT over Kentucky. Coin-flip.
• GEORGIA over Auburn. Yes, Auburn’s won five straight in Athens, but it won’t be six, even against a depleted Georgia team.
• Louisiana State over ALABAMA. Some peoples’ upset special; I do expect a fairly close game for a while, but ultimately LSU is a superior team to the Crimson Tide.

The Rebels have a week off to prepare for the biggest football game ever from Oxford, one week from today at 2:30 pm on CBS.