The understanding of college football rankings eludes me

I don't follow football which means I don't follow college football. But I noticed a few news stories that kind of made me think...yes, the gerbil wheel still runs occasionally.

It seems TCU has gone undefeated (12-0, 8-0). They are the Mountain West Conference Champions.

But this is where my ignorance shows through. They are or are not going to a bowl game? In the article [here], it wasn't clear. It especially was confusing when it said,

"The only chance TCU has to become the first outsider to play in the BCS national championship game is for No. 3 Texas (12-0) to lose to Nebraska (9-3) in the Big 12 title game."

Okay, what? You lost me!

I'll just rant on about what I am not clear. A team goes undefeated, some of those wins by huge margins, and after all that effort they maybe will play in a bowl/championship game? To me, that's like working 12-hour days and still getting 8-hour pay. What's the point? I've heard some people say that those wins came against not-so-great teams. Every team has an off season but that doesn't mean they weren't good at some point in time.

So, let's take a look at TCU's cross-town rival, SMU. After something like 25 losing seasons, SMU goes (7-5, 6-2) and gets the Hawaii Bowl. I don't know if that's a championship or what but they already get a bowl game with a 7-5 season where as TCU goes 12-0 and is iffy? SMU article here as long as it lasts at Dallas Morning News.

Now, I think I understand there are different levels of conference play. Wrong or right, I kind of relate it to NHL, IHL, CHL, etc. because I have a decent grasp and understanding on ice hockey leagues. I also relate it to high school competitions where the break down is something like 3A, 4A, 5A depending on the size of the school and school district.

So as there are different levels of play, why not different levels of bowl games? Again, I don't know college ball so there may be something like this already in place. I just don't see why a team that goes 12-0 for the season is not rewarded in the end for their amazing effort but a team that's sucked for twenty-five years with a barely winning season of 7-5 is in a bowl game.

I am college football ignorant so this may not be as dismal as it seems to me. If I'm sort of right, hooray for me and colleges that continually get shafted should push for change!

Celebration of Lights - a campus tradition

 

 

A spoon-fed brat just doesn't get it

Below is an article from a couple of weeks ago that was printed in the Southern Methodist University campus newspaper, the Daily Campus. It was written by an SMU junior who obviously hasn't ever worked hard for something, purchased it, were told you owned it and then had it taken away from you without your permission. That's why I refuse to buy a house. Ever heard of eminent domain? They lead you to believe you own something but they can take it back if they deem it necessary. Oh, and they'll give you a "fair" price for it. Not!

Anyhow, if this youngster had a clue, she would have known that "old people were kicked out" of their homes that many have owned for decades. I know, I lived at the University Gardens complex for a few years as well. I met these elderly people. A neighbor above me had lived there since they were practically built. She got her undergrad at SMU and decided to remain in what was considered on-campus living.

I knew another woman, younger than I by a few years or so, that actually worked at SMU. She lived in her grandfather's condo that he's owned for a couple of decades. He was an undergrad, her father was an undergrad and she was an undergrad and also got her MBA. Her grandfather sold the condo. She moved elsewhere.

SMU had these condominiums condemned as unsafe to be lived in unless something like $23M worth of renovations were made. It's cheaper to close it down than renovate. It's funny though how there are some apartments about a block or so north of University Gardens that are way worse than the UG condos but they haven't been condemned. Trust me, I've lived in those too! In the long-short-term plan, I believe those apartments will cease to be habitable as well. What's worse is that both these locations were/are fully habitable as long as there isn't another purpose for which the University needs the land.

I live in a rental house. It's a nice, quaint house. I've got more cracks in the walls that I NEVER got in the apartments or condos. The cracks showed up after the 3-day raining we got two weekends ago in my living room, dining room and bedrooms. That's why building houses in Texas sucks. The houses always shift, settle or move after hard rains or just because. But this is considered habitable?

Anyway, the article just once again proved to me that many of the "spoon-fed" college kids at SMU truly are ignorant to the world around them and what it really means to work for something besides coaxing Father to buy that new Razr cell phone.

I bet this "journalist" was listening to her iPod Mini while drafting her story. I bet if we took that away from her she'd get 1/100th of what the point Mr. Vodicka is trying to make. Then again, she'll probably just ask Mummie or Dattie to buy another one since SHE herself probably didn't buy the first one!

I'm done!