So, there’s a movie about a man from ghetto who is fighting to get his children back from his ex-wife. Well… this so-called ghetto is everything in my neighborhood. Literally. Even the entrance to my parking lot for my loft is included in the previews. See it here.

“Oh, I’m looking for my missing piece, I’m looking for my missing piece, hi dee ho, here I go, looking for my missing piece…oh I’m lookin’ for my missin’ piece, over land and over seas, so grease my knees and fleece my bees, I’m lookin’ for my missin’ piece.” - Shel Silverstein

So… I am glad things like this are coming back here and here.

Alright. The controversy is out there, so I’m just going to throw out some stats and lets see what happens if everyone wins out (USC over UCLA… Florida over Arkansas). Here are the three team profiles:

D1A Opponents Win/Loss Records (aka how much are each teams opponents winning):
Team #1: 83-61
Team #2: 89-56
Team #3: 83-60

Team’s Conference Out-of-Conference Record:
Team #1’s Conference: 33-11
Team #2’s Conference: 49-7
Team #3’s Conference: 21-9

Strength of Schedule (Colley’s BCS Computer Rankings):
Team #1: 4th
Team #2: 11th
Team #3: 23rd

Total Offense Rank:
Team #1: 32nd
Team #2: 21st
Team #3: 23rd

Total Defense Rank:
Team #1: 6th
Team #2: 10th
Team #3: 28th

Team National Average Rank (average of both Offense rank and Defense rank):
Team #1: 19th
Team #2: 15.5
Team #3: 25.5

BCS Average of Opponents (Billingsley expanded rankings):
Team #1: 97.83
Team #2: 36.58
Team #3: 36.66

Now… at the end of the day, all three of these teams deserve a shot at Ohio State. There are many facets of the arguments for and against each team. The quality wins losses are close to even for each. With Oregon State getting into the BCS Top 25, everyone now has lost to a BCS Top 25 team, with Michigan’s obviously being the best “loss,” though the other two teams are only a questionable call (Florida) and a completed 2 point conversion (USC) away from being undefeated, both in opposing teams stadiums.

At the end of the day, only one team right now had played more winning opponents, had a conference with a better out-of-conference record, has the best average of total team defense/offense, and has a better BCS opponent average. That team… the Florida Gators (Team #2).

Not only do they have all these things going for them, their Strength of Schedule only improves with a win over Arkansas. So why are they considered third of these three teams? Style points. That’s it. But my question is really the definition of style points. Can a defense earn style points? Does holding every team to 20 points or less earn you any “style” points? No. Winning big over one of the 55th ranked scoring defense in the country (a school whose stats are padded by wins over military schools) really better style points? Does scoring 23 points against the nations #6 scoring defense not equal style points? Apparently not. Seems that voters look at games like Ohio State-Michigan and say, “Wow, those teams really play with style.” How do we know that either of those two teams are the best in the country when they have not played any BCS conference champion and/or team in a championship. At least USC played Nebraska and won. Not saying you need that to be in the championship game, but how do two teams from one conference equal the best teams in the country in a conference that hadn’t beat any conference champion or participant in championship game.

Let me remind you of another team that looked a whole lot like Florida this season. The 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes. Winning a lot of close games, predominately on defense. National championship game (during the regulation time) was only 17-17. Sometimes defense does win championships. So… I ask… what the hell? Oh, by the way. Team #1 is Michigan, Team #3 is USC.

The polar ice caps are growing. Another ice age is on its way. We better break out the winter coats and prepare for a global crisis of being too cold.

It sounds ridiculous to us in 2006 with the rise of Al Gore’s movie and all the talk of global warming, but this was the sentiment of top scientist about 20 years ago. Newsweek had a featured article in which they discussed the falling worldwide temperatures and increase in ice in the poles.

Just look at some of the quotes:

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.

The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale

Sound familiar? It should. Its the same rhetoric that you hear regarding global warming. Now, I consider myself a bit of hippie. I used to be more in my younger days (as with many). I agree that we need to find cleaner ways to fuel our cars. I agree we need to cut down on factory air pollution. But, the way global warming has been politicized is rather ridiculous. I was constantly taught in school that we are taught history so that we can learn from history. Why is that we would just rather ignore it now?