By the time you read this I'll be at book signing in Birmingham. Then I'll be hanging out on the radio in Birmingham and Memphis for Friday. Getting prepped up for the UT-Alabama game. Which brings me to the above link, remember when you were a kid and you'd watch old games that your dad had seen and think they looked ancient. Well, meet the CBS introduction to Tennessee-Alabama from 1996.
How ancient does this thing look? And it's only 13 years old. Look at Jim Nantz's mullet, the neon graphics that look like something you designed in computer class. Seriously, how is it possible that we used to think this was awesome? If my son ever sees this intro, which he one day will, he's going to look at me like I used to look at my dad when old sporting clips played. He'll be thinking, "Man, your sports were really lame, Dad."
Our beaver pelt trader of the week goes to Jim Nantz's 1996 mullet.
Anyway, on to our picks with the French girl and from there, to All That and a Bag of Mail.
In my continuing battle with my family's former French exchange student, Audrey, we hit a bit of a snag last week. Namely, she didn't submit her picks because she was traveling without internet access. But, fortunately, I submitted mine and managed to go 3-3. Meaning, nothing really changed. So we'll consign last week to the dustbin of Internet history and continue anew this week.
To refresh, I'm 15-14-1 and Audrey is 11-17-2
Here are my picks followed by Audrey's.
Arkansas @ Ole Miss -6.5
Tennessee @ Alabama -16.5
Iowa -1 @ Michigan State
Florida -23 @ Mississippi State
Auburn @ LSU -7.5
Oregon State @ USC -21
Audrey's picks along with her rationalizations (or possibly a word association exercise):
Ole Miss - Crocodile
Tennessee - Of course
Michigan State - lake
Florida - Hurricane
Auburn - Hair
Oregon State - Where the hell is that?
Craig B. writes:
Clay,
Since you are the resident expert on all things modern man, I wanted to pass along this article and get your thoughts. This guy says that ancient Australian aboriginals run close to the speed of Usain Bolt?Also, a Roman Legion would complete a marathon and a half a day? That's almost 40 miles a day!
In all seriousness, what does this say for the modern male, especially coupled with the steady emasculation by women. Is all lost for the modern male?
Also, did you make the bet with Vernon? Is the beard on the line? Your Vols will not cover!
Roll Tide!
This article is awesome because we can extrapolate the speed that someone was running based on ancient footprints in the mud? How much more amazing is that ability than being able to run really fast? In this article, I'm troubled by the definition of ancient man, though. For instance, before the mind was fully developed does it really surprise you that we would have been stronger? Or faster?
And if we play the thread back far enough isn't that like being jealous of a our pre-evolutionary ancestors? Can you even do that?
I do buy the Roman Legion business, those guys were unbelievable. I mean if Oprah can run a marathon today, does it surprise me that some of the baddest warriors in the history of mankind could run 40 miles while carrying half their body weight?Wouldn't this be an awesome television show, you and a bunch of buddies try to be Roman Legion guys? With no training.
And you have to cover 40 miles while carrying all of your armor.
How long would this take to complete?
Days, certainly. A week? Especially if you couldn't leave any men or material behind. I'd love to see this. Hell, I'm volunteering to try.
But I still don't believe some aboriginal in Australia is faster than Usain Bolt. In fact, the more I think about this, the more ridiculous I think it is.
Although I wish we could clone these guys and give them modern running technology like the author suggests. My other favorite thing from this article was the bit about the African tribesmen who had to jump their height to become men.
What if you couldn't do that? How frustrating would it be to constantly fail?
Also, he suggests that jumping a lot makes you a better jumper. That's not really true, right? I mean, at least not to any great extent. You might add a couple of inches to your vertical, but jumping ability is one of the most innate athletic talents there is.
Anyway, fascinating article. Clearly, we're all pansies.
Jason O. writes:
C'lay,
I think that a hefty dose of DDT would do the trick here.
An idea: Our new strategy for stopping the entry of exotic snakes into America, Jake the Snake DDT's the offending smugglers.
Maybe we even have a ship moored out in international waters where we take these guys so the Constitution wouldn't apply. At least in the Bush White House.
Better strategy, what if we started broadcasting old Jake the Snake wrestling tapes to the Pakistani and Afghani militants, with the idea that Jake was an exotic mystic with superhuman powers.
Then instead of waterboarding them to get information, we just bring in Jake the Snake, he turns over a few chairs, pulls out Damien, and they confess after being threatened with the DDT.
Constitutional Crisis ... averted.
An idea: Our new strategy for stopping the entry of exotic snakes into America, Jake the Snake DDT's the offending smugglers.
Maybe we even have a ship moored out in international waters where we take these guys so the Constitution wouldn't apply. At least in the Bush White House.
Better strategy, what if we started broadcasting old Jake the Snake wrestling tapes to the Pakistani and Afghani militants, with the idea that Jake was an exotic mystic with superhuman powers.
Then instead of waterboarding them to get information, we just bring in Jake the Snake, he turns over a few chairs, pulls out Damien, and they confess after being threatened with the DDT.
Constitutional Crisis ... averted.
B. L. P. writes:
C'lay,
What's the ruling on having a beard and a shaved head?If you're taking book topic suggestions, perhaps a beard book is in order.
A beard book is not bad, but I'm not sure I can write 300 pages on beards. The ruling on shaved heads and beards is complicated. Basically it's better to have a beard if you have a shaved head, but you also have to deal with the fact that many people will consider you psychotic. (Right: Michael Stipe makes my point, frightens small children, adults, anyone who hasn't leered and uttered the phrase, "look in the box.")
Or from the future.
Jason L. writes:
I am just about the biggest SEC person I know. Being from Chicago, that's actually kind of a big deal. My question is this: Can I root for TCU and Boise to go undefeated? I think that is what it will take for the BCS to go nuclear. If they both go undefeated you will have both teams finish ranked between fourth and eighth, is my guess. With the hearings over the summer, the BCS might take this stuff seriously and tell the bowls they have to take both. If both are not taken and some two-loss Big 10/Big 12 team is taken ahead of them that is direct proof of Monopoly. With proof of Monopoly the BCS goes away and the Government threatens to pull the NCAA Anti-trust exemption if a playoff is not put into place. Is that crazy?
Why is monopoly capitalized in this e-mail? It's not the game, we're talking about, right? Which reminds me, what are the odds that Les Miles thinks that monopolies are governed by the rules of the board game? Would this surprise you to find out? (Right: Our concept of how Les Miles would actually play Monopoly. From a bed of nails.) If he had to testify before Congress, I think his opening remark would be, "Congressmen, could someone please tell me who actually has Boardwalk and Park Place? And even if we knew that, those are only two places on the board. You don't have to land on them. You can land on the utility bill or you can pass, Go. This is really just a bunch of flim-flam."
Anyway, back to your premise, I think any fan of college football who is rooting for a team that isn't going to make the BCS title game, has an obligation to root for chaos every year. In particular, I think you want chaos that leads to Boise State and, say, Cincinnati playing for the title this year.
And I'm willing to suspend all conference affiliation arguments and everything else when it comes to making this argument. I think it will take a team like that winning the title for the big six conferences to reconsider their system. Because, all of a sudden, their little boy's club won't appear as infallible.
As for your final point, here are the provisions on how a team is selected for the BCS. Here's the general rule for those conferences:
"No more than one such team from Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, and the Western Athletic Conference shall earn an automatic berth in any year. (Note: a second team may be eligible for at-large eligibility as noted below.) If two or more teams from those conferences satisfy the provisions for an automatic berth, then the team with the highest finish in the final BCS Standings will receive the automatic berth, and the remaining team or teams will be considered for at-large selection if it meets the criteria."
Having said all of that, I think it's beyond unlikely that an at-large entrant would come from outside the big six conferences. And the language in the selection is open enough to allow that to happen without making the system appear any more unjust than it does already.
Great e-mail.
