How to have a college football national championship

Tune into ESPN or listen to sports radio and almost every time college football is discussed, the term "playoffs" soon surfaces.

For a while, I wasn't on board with a playoff system. I thought the season would simply be too long. Too much work and too much risk of injuries. But, something I think very few people realize is that there are playoffs in college football. Division-II and Division-III, even Division-IAA (now called Division I FCS) all have playoffs. 16 teams, 4 games for the top 2 teams. Why not Division-IA (or Division I FBS)? Not only that, high school football as playoffs. My high school's division had 32 teams, 5 games. How can one say that a playoff is too taxing for college football's top division when even high schoolers seem capable of handling it?

So if we decide playoffs are the best way, the question is who and how many?

Option 1) The best 8 or 16 teams get in, regardless of conference. The BCS or AP would select who they are.

Option 2) Playoffs are composed of the conference champs, period.

Option 3) Playoffs are composed of the conference champs and a few wild card picks. This is how the playoffs work for any major sport. Division/conference leaders get in automatically, and the best teams left get picked. A variation of this would be that only the champs of the BCS conferences got in, and the rest are at-large (similar to the BCS bowl system now).


The problem I have with Option 1 is that it still allows a high degree of subjectivity in football. The polls and even the BCS rankings are very subjective. I prefer either option 2 or 3 because it allows everyone a shot regardless of the conference. Yes, some conferences are weaker, but if that is the case, it would be proven in the playoffs. Who cares if, say Michigan or Georgia is better than Hawaii? The point is, they aren't better than the best team in their own respective conference, and the whole point of the playoffs is to determine the best team overall.

The problem with option 3 is it still leaves room for some subjectivity. Oklahoman columnist Berry Tramel points this out in his blog:

If the NCAA would adopt my playoff plan — an 11-team playoff, with only conference champions involved — think how great would be not just the playoff, but the regular season. That’s the problem with all the 16-team or 8-team playoffs. When you bring in the wild cards and at-large berths, you’ve got just as big a mess as we’ve got now, and you’ve watered down the regular season.

I agree with Tramel, and think that a tournament solely composed of the conference champs would be the best. The top 5 teams would get a first round bye. You would get 4 rounds, a total of 10 games.

7 facts about yours truly

I was tagged by Lee to share 7 facts about myself. Give him a visit sometime. He's a pretty fascinating person.

1. I've been married for four years to my wonderful wife.

2. I was raised by my grandparents for 12 years.

3. I once met "Big Country" Bryant Reeves at a family reunion.

4. I used to play with Bible action figures as a kid. I had David and Goliath, Samson and Delilah, Jonah and a big whale he could fit in, all the famous Bible people. I also had Jesus, but I pretty much left him alone. I didn't want to do anything blasphemous.

5. As a kid, I watched way too much TV and didn't read nearly enough books.

6. I played football for a year in high school. I was a pretty small kid. Most small kids are at least fast. I was not.

7. Seeing my baby boy laughing for the first time brought tears to my eyes.

I'm supposed to tag 7 people, but I will just do those that typically or may do these: I will tag those who typically do these: Josh, The Pachyderm, Neil, and John Kaiser.

Still missing an important point: Possible breakthrough in stem-cell research

An article from Wired states that

In an unprecedented feat of biological alchemy, researchers have turned human skin cells into stem cells that hold the same medical promise as the controversial embryonic stem cells.

Scientists believe stem cell research will be able to cure numerous diseases and regenerate failing bodies. The new technique, however, doesn't require the destruction of embryos, or use human eggs or cloning. Thus, it sweeps aside the ethical objections to stem-cell research.

I think this is great, because there are ethical questions involved when using embryonic stem cells.

However, some people are still missing an important point when it comes to stem-cell research. Ethical dilemmas are not the only reason to question government funding of medical research. To support stem-cell research does not automatically mean one must support government funding, though most people think the two are synonymous. I don't want to get into a detailed list of pros and cons for government funding right now, but I think it is a question that we should at least consider.

The problem with our culture is that we assume all things good and true must be funded by government. We think the arts are important, well, let's use tax money to fund the arts! We want to support our farmers; well, make sure they get subsidies! Ethanol can increase fuel efficiency, well, by all means, give lots of money to car or oil companies to research the issue! Like baseball, well, let's give billionaires some money so they will build a stadium in this city! Think faith-based initiatives are great, well, we better throw tax dollars at them!

The idea that government is a type of benefactor is so pervasive in our minds that we think anything that needs to be done in society should be done so through laws and tax dollars. And that's unfortunate, because I believe government corrupts so many things. People complain that we should fund stem-cell research because we shouldn't let politics corrupt science, but that is exactly what happens when you fund the research.

Some people prefer a "broader view" of government. But I prefer a "separate spheres" approach. Now, I don't mean that are values shouldn't inform how we interact in politics as one can take that statement to mean. What I mean is that we shouldn't be so quick to ensure that government infests every area of our lives. So many good and pure things happen outside the reach of government. Sure, we must ensure that we have a just society and that everyone is treated equally under the law. At the same time, however, many revolutionary things, Jesus' mission for one, happened outside, and in spite of, and even contrary to, the realm of government. Other institutions, such as the family, the church, and charities, are the ones that truly change lives.

A conflict of rights?

Sigrid Fry-Revere from the Cato-blog says the following:

I believe abortion is morally wrong, but I also believe that in a conflict between mother and fetus, a woman’s right must always take precedence. A human being’s rights under the law increase with maturity. That has been the tradition under Anglo-American law as well as world wide for most of history. To suggest that a fetus has the same rights as a mature adult individual borders on the perverse. A woman’s rights should never be placed second to the needs of her fetus. To do so is to treat women first and foremost as communally owned vessels for bringing forth life and only second as autonomous individuals.

I take a couple issues with this.

First of all, I disagree that age affects right to life. She rightly asserts that the rights of individuals, on the whole, increase with age. Adults can do more things, whether it be vote, make major purchases, drink, etc... Children's lives can be essentially run by their parents. But the right to be free from harm should always be a constant. While parents can choose how they raise their kids and what philosophies to teach them, parents never have the right to harm their children. I understand that Fry-Revere does not believe a fetus qualifies as a human, but her argument concerning age and rights does not hold water here.

Secondly, one has to consider exactly what rights are being trumped. Many pro-lifers, such as myself, do agree that if the fetus poses an imminent risk to the mother, abortion is not immoral. However, Fry-Revere is weighing the right to life vs. the right not to be inconvenienced.

The author does say one statement I agree with, however. The idea of each state deciding whether abortion is legal or not does sound appealing, after all it is better than the current situation. But philosophically, I don't know if it is that sound. She states

Abortion should no more be a question for local politics than slavery.

Unfortunately, she goes in the wrong direction from there.

The media's view of the American Dad, real and ideal

Who says you can't learn anything from Hollywood?

Watching TV and movies we see a portrayal of the average dad. This may provide insight into how many dads are viewed and/or what makes the ideal father.

In most TV shows the husband/dad is portrayed as a bumbling idiot. Look at King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond, and The Simpsons. The dad is usually incompetent and inconsiderate of his wife's feelings. He is always the one that screws everything up. That is just how it is.

It seems to be different in the movies, however, and perhaps that is because of the style of storytelling that tends to work towards a resolution, both in events and character; whereas a TV show things tend to stay the same. At the beginning, the dad is someone to tied up into his work, ignores his family, and tends to pursue money as opposed to higher ideals. Let's look at the movies RV and the modern version of The Shaggy Dog.

In RV, the dad is having problems with his job, and he isn't exactly commanding respect from his kids. He finally faces a dilemma near the end of the movie, in which he has a choice of commercial success or staying true to his values.

In The Shaggy Dog, the dad is similar, but more extreme. He is pursuing success in his job, but all the while somewhat neglecting his wife, and he is not involved in his son and daughter's lives whatsoever. The son is pretending to play football to make his dad happy, while secretly practicing for a play. The dad, Tim Allen's character, is at odds with his daughter concerning a clash of values. When the dad transforms into a dog, however, he gets a sneak peek into his children's lives. He transforms from a workaholic dad to a great family man who shares the values of his daughter.

I think in movies and TV we may get a glimpse of the American Dad archetype (I suppose this could be any dad, but I really just watch American TV and movies). (I hope archetype is the right word, correct me if not) In the movies, he is a workaholic father and may only be involved in the children's lives to the extent that he urges them to get good grades or, in the case of a son, be a man's man and play football or the like. His primary concern is his career, and the family is really secondary.

Interestingly enough, the TV representation in some sense, is the opposite. Instead of being ambitious and successful, he has little motivation at all. We don't see this so much in the Raymond character, but in King of Queens, The Simpsons. But the attitude towards the family is still not overwhelmingly positive. It is primarily one of indifference, although not the degree of neglect seen in the movies.

These are just observations I've made. In TV, there's not really much redemption concerning the father character; the father character is not motivated to be an active father, and he realizes that, and he accepts that, and the family accepts that. Movies are more positive, however, we see how some fathers are, but we also get a glimpse of how fathers should be. Men need to take note of these characters. Society wants fathers that are not tied up in their job, who love their wives, who are involved in their children's lives beyond the disciplinarian role, and who shares values that aren't compromised by the outside world. I think God wants the same thing. I would add this though. At the same time, I believe the wife/mother has a responsibility to ensure that the dad is still respected, even if he is not perfect. But the overall message is clear; be there for your family, don't just be the breadwinner.

A vet's day post, a day late

Perspective, I believe, is one of the keys to living a somewhat content and grumble-free life.

My boss was telling me this story. He occasionally has to travel to Hawaii. He has been there 50-something times over his career. He's sick of going. He was complaining about the trip...to someone who was in Iraq. The soldier was kind enough, but his elaboration about his trip changed my boss's perspective.

At Starbucks the other day, some guy was yelling at the barista because his order was wrong. If the worst thing that happens to you that day is that you have the wrong kind of milk in your coffee drink, you live a blessed and/or fortunate life.

And I'm no different. I get consumed by the everyday worries of life. I have bills to pay, projects for the house, etc... I get upset when my teams lose, but again, if that's the worst of my problems, I am in good shape.

One of the greatest days of my life was when my son was born. I saw him the very second he stepped into this world. When he graduates, when he gets married, when he has his own babies, I will always look back to the day I saw him, and he saw the world, for the very first time.

But some people don't see that day. They are off on the other side of the world while their baby is born. All wonder if they will live to see their child. Some don't.

Many of us don't have to spend 13 to 15 months away from our family. For many of us, imminent death is not at the front of our minds. For many of us, we don't sleep in a foxhole. Many of us have the luxury of being there when our babies are born.

All it takes is a little perspective to see that our lives really aren't that bad. We have it pretty good and we have had to sacrifice so very little. Other's have and are making that sacrifice.

This isn't about the nobility or lack thereof of the current war, or any war in particular. The point is, people are willing to die for us.

To all the veterans and current soldiers, Thank you.

The Universe

Sometimes I enjoy getting into a good debate. Sometimes I don't. Sometimes I'm in the mood to talk about serious topics, whether it be political, theological, whatever... Unfortunately, I seem to be in a bit of a bind. I do one of my few posts about TV shows, then I am criticized for watching too much TV. Go figure. I suppose everything is a topic for debate. I just feel that the topics I post on are subject for debate. At the same time, however, a blog is somewhat like a safe haven, where I post about whatever I feel like talking about; but when I am criticized personally based on my selection of topics, then that "safe haven" aspect goes away. I guess that's what irks me.

Speaking of TV, right now I am watching a special on the History channel called "The Universe." It touches a little bit on the topic of religion and science in regards to the origin of the universe.

So here's a question. Are religion and science meant to be mutually exclusive? I've heard the theory that science explains the what, religion explains the why? Or are science and religion really compatible, is it just religionists who put God in a box, or scientists who are pure materialists that make it not seem to be the case?

I'm more of a fan of the physical sciences, as opposed to the biological. Concerning evolution and such, I'm not opposed to the idea of any evolutionary mechanisms being involved in nature. And evolution can be a vague term. If I am asked, "Do you believe in evolution", I'm not even sure what I am being asked. Macro-evolution? Micro-evolution? Sometimes I think Christians are focused on the idea of defeating evolution, when not all aspects of evolution necessarily contradict the Bible.

There seems to be less of a conflict when it comes to the physical sciences. It seems that the origin of the universe as a whole does not really conflict with a divine Creator. In fact, the idea of the Big Bang seems to fit along just nicely.

Is it natural to believe in a divine Creator? At first glance, the idea of a universe that came on its own is no easier to swallow than a universe that sprang from a Creator. The natural question is, if God created the universe, who created God? I would say nobody, and I don't think that is an intellectual cop out. Here's why.

I have two options:
1) The universe, which has certain rules (conservation of energy, things always tend towards choas) came out of nothing.
2) Something outside the universe which is not bound by our same rules created the universe.


To me, option 2 seems easier to swallow. Maybe it doesn't to other people. Psalm 19:1-4 says that "The heavens declare the glory of God", so I think God did instill something in us that leads us to look at nature and infer a Creator behind it.

This isn't meant as some course in apologetics. I'm just thinking out loud. My main point is, as far as the science I know, I don't think religion and science necessarily come into conflict. But I don't know if our worldview should be that religion and science are mutually exclusive, or that they truly complement each other.

Love isn't all you need

In my Sunday School class we are going over the Love and Respect series by Emerson Eggerichs. The idea of the series is that it focuses on a key verse on marriage in the Bible from Ephesians 5:33:

Nevertheless, each one of you must also love his own wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

As most marriage books/videos do, the series talks about the need for a husband to love his wife, but it also focuses on another key aspect of a successful marriage - that a wife respect her husband.

Women should love their husbands, and husbands respect their wives, but the idea is that women are naturally loving, and men are naturally respectful, so they may not tend to give their spouse exactly what they need.

The idea of what respect looks like is less certain than love, at least to me and many others. Some people, such as myself, believe the husband is the head of the household under Christ, and part of this respect is a recognition of that position. But even if you tend to be more liberal in thought regarding family structure, you could still appreciate the idea of respect, in that a husband wants to be admired and not looked down upon. I think men want to be treated in a way that say, other people at work treat him. I was with a group of guys once at a former church, and one of their complaints about their wives was that at times they talked to the men, they talked to them in a disrespectful way that other men wouldn't dare talk to them.

I just wanted to touch on this idea a little bit. This doesn't mean that women don't deserve respect and men don't deserve love, I just believe this verse just focuses on needs of our spouse we tend to overlook. And respect doesn't mean the man can never be challenged or called out if he does something wrong; people have taken this idea to the extreme and made respect equate with control. At the same time, we are also a love-saturated society. The idea of respect is often not talked about. Love isn't all you need.

Dear writers

Dear writers of Scrubs,

For some reason, every show feels like they have to have an on-again, off-again relationship between two main characters. I think Who's the Boss started this, and was popularized by Friends Ross and Rachel. Consequently, so many sitcoms feel that they have to pursue this formula. Some shows still do this well, like The Office's Jim and Pam. But those two have a chemistry; there is absolutely none with J.D. and Elliot. They are more like best friends. Having two co-stars get involved is okay, but they have to click in order to have a real relationship. I feel like Scrubs is simply putting the two together because they happen to work at the same place. It's predictable. Why not do something totally out of the norm, like people not getting together solely because they are two young costars on the show?

And what is up with people only dating those they work with? Why does a doctor have to date another doctor? What about the pizza girl/guy? I'm just not sure if the majority of America dates and marries the person they work with. And why does every member of the family have to work the same occupation? Alias did this to the extreme. Sydney, of the CIA, has a dad who is in the CIA, and has a mom who used to work the CIA (but ended up being a double agent), she had an unknown half-sister who works for some foreign intelligence group, whose dad happened to work for the CIA, and Sydney marries a guy who works for the CIA, whose dad used to work for the CIA...this is getting ridiculous.... I work on software. If everytime I had a conversation with my wife, sister, sister's husband, long-lost brother, secret father of mine, and it involved whether or not C++ or Java is a better programming language, I would move to the forest.

Dear writers of The Office,
You are about to suffer from Steve Urkel syndrome. Family Matters used to be a somewhat heartwarming show spotlighted on a variety of characters (not that it was really a great show to begin with). They had the nerdy guy who everyone liked, and, in typically fashion of writers who milk things for all they are worth, basically turned it into the Steve Urkel show. You are doing the same with Steve Carr\ell's character, Michael Scott. Instead of the show staying true to its origins, a comedy with somewhat real people in a documentary type scenario, the show has become a "what crazy things will Michael do in this episode?" You have a great cast, use them.

Dear producers of The Next Great American Band,
Kudos to having a long overdue show on actual bands who write their own stuff and cover something other than Destiny's Child. But, c'mon, having a critic who is an outspoken British guy, how original.

When being a sports fan, take it one game at a time

Being a fan of any sports team can be a great experience, or it can be painful. But the experience doesn't have to depend on how a team does. Being a good fan depends on how seriously they take their team's success, to some degree.

One aspect of fandom I think is very important is to have the same approach that a coach or player should have: take it one game at a time.

What I mean is that a fan should focus only on the upcoming game and not the big picture of how the team does. I believe that when fans focus on the overall picture - if they will make the playoffs, how good of a bowl game they make, if they'll win a conference/league championship - then the overall fan experience is less enjoyable.

Why do I think this? Let's look at things in college football terms, since that is my favorite sport. If you don't have a team that typically performs all that well, then from the fan's perspective, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Every victory is a joy. Losses are still a disappointment, but they are gotten over more easily.

However, let's say you root for a championship caliber team, Ohio State, USC, Michigan, Oklahoma, Florida, etc... Things change. Fans will believe that the conference championship and a BCS bowl game is theirs to lose. High expectations are set upon the team. Losses are met with people calling for the coach's head. Wins are met with sighs of relief. Even during a victory, fans will analyze the teams performance to see if any weaknesses were exposed that will cause problems later.

So, does this mean we just root for bad teams? No. I think the answer is to keep a short-term mindset even when your team becomes successful. As I said earlier, fans should just look at the value of winning a game, one game at a time. Relish each victory. Don't worry about the postseason. Don't obsess over the fact that your team barely hung on to victory while their pass defense was ripped to shreds; be thankful that they found a way to win.

It's okay to be disappointed after losses, and I think, to even lose a little sleep that night from time to time. But be disappointed because it was a loss, not that the team won't get to go to so and so bowl game or, because they lost this game there is no way they will win the next one.

By approaching games this way, I think fans do a better job in sharing in the emotional highs and lows of the season along with the team.

My apologies to anyone who is not an Oklahoma State fan

Posting about my college team is a tad self-indulgent, because OSU is one of those teams whose fan base consists primarily of locals to Oklahoma and/or alumni, me being at one time the former and now the latter. And OU is winning the battle as far as local fans. But, you have a choice if you want to read this or not.


Why I believe Oklahoma State will do better this season than the last season. OSU just romped Nebraska 45-14 in Nebraska. But the thing OSU fans saw last year is that the team would have a great victory one weekend but not carry the momentum into the next weekend. A great come-from-behind victory last year in Kansas was deflated by a loss to A&M the following weekend at Homecoming. A great victory over Nebraska did nothing to propel the Cowboys at Austin playing Texas. So, based on last year, the victory over Nebraska means swat in predicting future outcomes this season.

However, there are a few factors that makes me think this year's team is different.

1. Better defense. OSU played poorly at the beginning of the season, but they picked things up in the middle of the Texas Tech game, despite the loss to A&M after that. OSU kept a great Nebraska offense to a couple of garbage-time touchdowns.
2. More consistency at quarterback. Bobby Reid, who started last year but is benched this year, is a great athlete and hit great heights as quarterback, but was very inconsistent last year. Zac Robinson, the current QB, has had more consistent production if you neglect his very first starting game at Troy.
3. More overall offensive consistency. Even during the victories last year, it would take some time for the offense to click. Last season, Nebraska jumped to a 17-0 lead before OSU started finally moving the ball. In the Kansas game, OSU came from behind to win, and at Kansas State, they almost had a come from behind victory. This season, OSU's offense is clicking early and jumping out to an early lead.

About Mike Gundy: For those who don't know, Gundy held a passionate, angry press conference when a columnist from the Oklahoman criticized Bobby Reid. In short, I agree with what Gundy did, but I don't agree with the way he did it. I disagree with Gundy in some respects, because I think college athletes are fair game when it comes to both praise and criticism. At the same time, however, Gundy has every right to defend his players in public and say that a column is wrong, although he should be careful not to attack the columnist. I think Gundy was right in talking about the issue publicly, because it was a public column, but he should have waited till he calmed down and collected his thoughts. The news, whether local or ESPN, have shown an amazing amount of bias in showing the negative reactions to his spiel, and not any of the positives from fellow coaches.

Is football just a big chess match?

Colin Cowherd from ESPN radio listed the following 4 things to look for when determining if you have a good coach in football.

1) Team plays better after halftime.
2) Team plays better as the season progresses.
3) Team scores few offensive penalties. Defensive penalties are less importance since they are more reactionary.
4) Team plays fairly consistently. Team does not do awesome one week then totally blow it the next.

The quality of coaching, Colin insists, does not depend on play calling. Or, at the very least, cannot be surmised from the play calling.

I believe those 4 points he mentioned are probably pretty good ones, although 2 and 4 could probably be combined. However, the lack of these qualities could also indicate an inexperienced team, especially on the college level, so that should always be factored in.

So, how important is play-calling? I think people like strong leaders. They like their quarterbacks to shoulder the team, and they like their head coaches to be the mastermind pulling the team's strings. We like to envision football as a big chess match between two head coaches. When a fourth and one is not converted, we may tend to blame the coach for calling the play, not on the players who should have executed properly. So I think we harp on play-calling too much at times.

However, I don't know if we can dismiss the importance of play calling. I'm not talking so much about when a run or pass is called, but an overall play calling philosophy. It is important that a coach utilizes the talent he has. Many people in the area claim that the Denver Broncos performed better when the current coach, Mike Shanahan, took over, simply because he utilized John Elway much more than the previous coach (although there are not a lot of Shanahan fans at the moment). When you have a star quarterback, you want to make the riskier calls and go long more often, and when you have a stud running back, then you want to go for the sure running game.

But I can still see Colin's point in that we often assume that we know what the best calls are, but we aren't in the coaches shoes. We also don't know what is the result of bad play-calling and simply poor execution. But we tend to look at the end result of the game, when the end result is a combination of coaching and players.

Our view of authority - what it means for politics and where it came from

Although I would call myself a limited-government conservative, to me, mainstream conservative somewhat makes sense. Although the term "mainstream conservatism" is somewhat up for grabs, in short, I would define it as this: a view that government should have a say in moral affairs and be more hands-off in economic matters. This is why it makes sense. In general, authority figures have a role in saying what is right and wrong; examples include the church, our parents, schools, etc...

But...I am overlooking something. Let's go back to the parents example. Parents tell us what is right and wrong, but they also provide for us. They nurture us and they try to provide a somewhat safe environment.

So, for some reason, when I think of authority, I immediately think of a type of moral authority, some guide telling me what to do and what not to do. Others, however, may think of a more nurturing, provisional figure. It's not that we neglect on facet of authority, we may just tend to emphasize one side in our minds.

So this makes me think, do our political views come from our view of authority in general? In fact, do our political views have something to do with our family structure, or at least, our view of it?

Think of a conservative's view of government. The government lays down the (moral) law, protects us from bad guys, and tells us to go out and get a job. Sounds like your stereotypical Dad.

Think of a liberal's view of government. Here, the government makes sure we have what we need and is a little more permissive concerning what we do and don't do. Does this sound like a Mom?

Stay with me here. This has nothing to do with if conservatives are manly men and liberals are girly girls or anything like that. I'm just saying that, for some reason, conservatives tend to view their ideal government as some type of father figure, whereas liberals see the government as a more nurturing mother figure.

So do our political views have anything to do with our family structure? Does the dominant parental figure affect our views?

This is just a theory, but I really don't have anything to back it up. I consider myself a cultural conservative, but I didn't have a strong father figure until later in my life. If I asked conservatives and liberals I knew about their family life, I don't know if their stories would indicate any correlation between political views and dominant parental figure.

So how would libertarians figure into the equation. It's hard to say because, unlike conservatives and liberals, their whole philosophy requires more of a compartmentalization between the institution of government and other institutions, so their experience with authority in the family structure may be less likely to affect their view of government. Or, has their experience with familial authority initiated their limited government views in the first place?

But maybe I am limiting my scope and need to expand it to other areas of authority in our life. What about the church? There is a high correlation between religious people and conservative thought, but there is also a growing number of Christian liberals, so who knows?

So am I onto something here, or am I way off?

Thoughts on the college football scene

People have underestimated Ohio State. While Michigan was losing to I-AA schools and Texas was just barely beating Central Florida and Arkansas State, Ohio State was dominating their opponents under the radar. There is too much of a time lag in rankings in the polls. I would have kicked Texas out of the top 10 after the first 1 or 2 weeks.

Les Miles is a better coach than I thought he was.

Because of the way we crown our national champion, people get involved in imaginary contests about which conference is better. We can only surmise that such and such conference is better than the other one just because of a single game between two schools earlier in the season, or maybe there were no games at all. We don't really know if the Big 12 champ is truly better than the PAC-10 champ, so we make a guess based on strength of schedule, which is primarily within one's conference. It doesn't make any sense.

The best way is to have a tournament of 8 teams. Why 8? Because we want to avoid two things:

1) the have's having two or three more games than the have-nots. Let's say a regular season schedule is reduced to 11 games. Bowl-worthy teams would have 12 games. The top 8 would only have 12, 13, or 14 games. If we have a tournament of 16 or 32, we have the top teams getting 4 or 5 more games experience than a team at the bottom.
2) Injuries.

Big 12 notes:

Analysts said that the Big 12 was rich in great quarterbacks, but things have turned out slightly different than expected. No one would expect Oklahoma's Sam Bradford would lead the pack, not only in the Big 12, but in the nation in efficiency. Texas's McCoy is in a bit of a sophomore slump, although the Red River Game looked promising for him. And OSU's Bobby Reid isn't starting for his team anymore.

The Big 12 champ may very well come out of the North this year. Kansas, Colorado, and Missouri are looking good.

Nebraska should have stuck with Frank Solich. He was a 10-3 coach when they fired him, and if I'm not mistaken, he took them to a national championship game. He was fired because Nebraska wasn't THE team in the Big 12 anymore. However, things change in college football. It wasn't just Osborne leaving Nebraska, it was two coaches by the name of Bob Stoops and Mack Brown that changed things in the Big 12. Now, looking from Nebraska's point of view, they believe someone else could take them to the top rung. Callahan came in, and it was known things would be messy, as their would be growing pains with a new type of offense. But Callahan has had time to recruit. They have not been much of a factor in the Big 12, and the idea of them going to a national championship game anytime soon is laughable. As the San Diego Chargers have learned, you don't fire a winning coach.

I just couldn't stay away... On SCHIP

So Bush vetoed SCHIP, so he's a total scumbag right? I mean, who wouldn't want to provide health insurance for kids?

But no issue is as simple as it seems. And sometimes what seems like the obvious, simple solution may provide a short term fix, but will not really address the problem.

So the SCHIP idea works like this: health care is too expensive, so let's have the government cover the costs. It is a noble plan, and I admire the Democrats motives. But, as I said a couple posts back, opposite opinions do not mean opposite goals or motives.

Bush and the Republicans don't hate kids, they just don't think government expansion of health care will truly fix the problem, and they think it can make things even worse. People such as myself believe government expansion will harm the overall quality of health care. And the net result would be more children dying.

When something is too expensive, we must ask why it is too expensive. And liberals may roll their eyes when this conservative says that government is the problem, because it seems that that is the excuse every time. But at least some of the time that is true. As the pachyderm points out:

In Manhattan, an individual cannot purchase health insurance for less than $10,000/year. Clearly, that is a problem with NY laws, which do not permit managed care organisations to charge lower premiums to healthy 25-year-olds than to the elderly or the chronically ill. A 30-year-old, nonsmoking, female resident of SoCal, however, can get basic coverage for approximately $600/year.

What's frustrating about the issue is that so many people look on the surface and see it as the caring Democrats being shut down by the "couldn't care less about children unless they are in the womb" President Bush. I'm not saying there is no worthy debate here, because there is, but it still requires further analysis.

Unlike the strict libertarians, I'm all for the government helping people who cannot help themselves. Not everyone can afford health insurance. But before helping people out, we must examine why such a problem exists in the first place. Cut down spending before asking for more money.

Normal people do this. If I look at my budget and find out I am in the hole every month, I would examine my budget and find out where I could cut costs and if there are any unnecessary expenses. If our family worked like government however, my wife would immediately demand that I get a 2nd job so that we can afford to feed our son.

A short break

I've been on travel the past week so I haven't had time to post. Right now I am busy with a few things. I want to come back soon, I just have to devote time to other things at the moment. I want to make sure that when I do come back I can post at least 2 times a week, which I know isn't very much to some, but I want to at least be consistent.

Using your own conclusions to evaluate others' opinions

Yes, catchy post title I know.

On Neil's blog a user commented

It might make a difference in my opinion [about abortion] if I ever once saw a pro-lifer actually make an argument for adoption; for universal health care and adequate funding for education; even criticize the Bush Administration for planning to defund the S-CHIP program. Since I have yet to read a peep about any of this, I will rest my case on what I have experienced. All too much concern over all those fetuses makes little difference because there seems no concern at all ever expressed for the life of “post-birth” life.

I've addressed this viewpoint somewhat in a previous post, but I'd like to touch more on this again.

The problem the commenter has is that he equates "caring for the born" = "voting Democrat." The reason he does this is, I believe, he uses his own motivations to evaluate the motivations of others.

Here is my response on the blog:

You seem to think that these programs are the best ways to preserve life…I don’t.

I think universal health care harms the overall quality of care and actually puts people’s lives at risk due to long waiting lines. Canada’s supreme court seems to agree.

I think funding for education is adequate, but more revolutionary ideas have to take place in order for education to improve, rather than simply more funding. Many free market advocates are passionate about this issue, they just don’t think it is a matter of more money, but of school choice.

So there are a couple issues with your argument. 1) You assume that conservatives have the opinions they do simply because they don’t care. 2) You support certain programs because they produce supposed results. Let’s call them results A. The problem with this is that you evaluate other people’s political ideals based on results A, rather than the supposed results (results B) in the conservatives mind.

Here is an example:
1) You support universal healthcare because you believe it provides great health care for everyone and saves lives, especially poor kids.

2) Conservatives don’t support universal healthcare.

3) Therefore…the conclusion is that conservatives don’t want great health care for everyone and wants kids to die.

Now I’ll do the same.
1) I am against gun control because I want innocent people to defend themselves. For instance, I want a woman to defend herself in case she is about to be raped.

2) You support gun control.

3) Therefore…you want women to be raped.

The ultimate source of authority

In Christianity, typically the measure of how conservative or liberal someone is theologically hinges on their viewpoint of the Bible. Theological conservatives tend to believe the Bible literally and believe in it's infallibility, whereas liberals may tend to view the Bible less literally. This is quite a spectrum. Many believe that the Bible is inspired by God, yet view many stories and accounts of miracles as merely symbolic. Others see the Bible as their Holy Book, yet believe it is full of errors since it was written by men.

I don't want to get too much into the debate about the overall veracity or how literal the Bible is. From my own viewpoint, I am pretty conservative, so I believe the Bible completely. I tend not to dismiss elements of stories simply because they contain accounts of the supernatural.

Those who believe that the Bible is completely true view the Bible as the ultimate source of authority. Any other philosophy, whether it be presented by our pastor, a self-help book, the slick-haired man asking for money on TV, it is weighed against Scripture. If things don't line up with the Bible, it is rejected; hopefully, however, it illuminates our understanding of something already found in the Bible. This is, of course, not a perfect process. We are humans, so we can often misunderstand what the Bible says. Nevertheless, we do have a reference source that helps us greatly.

Many people believe the Bible for the most part, but believe that it can or does contain errors since it was written by men. However, when one doubts certain parts of the Bible, how does one know what parts to accept and what parts to reject? That person's internal philosophy ultimately becomes the lens through which the Bible is viewed. Instead of weighing everything against the Bible, they weigh the Bible, and everything else, against their own personal philosophy.

As I said, this is not really an argument that the Bible is completely true, though I believe it is. However, something has to be our ultimate source of authority. If we make evaluations about which parts of the Bible are true, we become our own source of authority.

My increased appreciation for my wife, and other stay-at-home Moms

We decided before Levi was born that my wife would stay at home. We had tried for some time just to live solely on my income so that when she would stay home it would not be a big strain.

So, the baby was sick last week with a viral infection. Once he got over it, my wife got sick. When it is just the husband and wife, either person being sick is not a ton of fun. When my wife was sick in the past, I may have stayed home from work and took her to the doctor.

With a baby, this takes on a whole new dimension. For one, when the newborn is sick, it is not fun to hear him moan in pain from a sore throat; that is about the worst sound you can hear. When the wife is sick, that means I become the stay-at-home mom. I enjoyed my extra time with Levi. At the same time, I realize how much my wife goes through taking care of a newborn. I thought it was rough taking care of him all day for 2 or 3 days, so I can only imagine what my wife goes through doing it all the time. So, my appreciation for what my wife does every day is renewed. To all those stay at home moms, or moms in general, I salute you.

Analysis of my fantasy football draft

A quick note: I haven't been posting nearly as often. Part of it is being busy. I'm doing a little bit of work offsite, and overall I've just had a lot on my plate. Also, the little bit of time during work I am engaged in personal stuff, I've been involved with my fantasy football team that I drafted last weekend. Also, I've had a lack of inspiration due to being so busy. When I'm not busy, all sorts of stuff is going through my head, and the focus for some time has been political/philosophical issues. For some reason, having a child, fantasy football, and work stuff has been filling my head. I will try to post when I have the time, but I'm not making any promises. I know it's nice for readers of a blog to have the blogger post on a consistent basis, but I just can't promise that.

Back to my fantasy football draft, here is an analysis of a few of my picks. There are 15 players and 15 picks per player.

1st round - Travis Henry, RB, Denver Broncos. I think Henry has a lot of potential in an offense in which any running back does pretty well. There are injuries to be concerned about. I had a choice between him and Maroney of the Patriots, and upon reflection, Maroney may have been the better choice, but I think Henry has the bigger upside.
2nd round - Cedric Benson, RB, Da Bears. At this point, there were higher rated players who were quarterbacks. I decided to go for two strong running backs. This is a bit of a gamble, as this is his first year as the premier back.
3rd round - Vince Young, QB, Tennessee Titans. I am a huge Vince Young fan. However, this may not have been the best pick. A good rule in Fantasy Football is to pick either a super-elite QB, or wait until the later rounds as their is not a huge point difference among them. I probably should have picked a very good wide receiver at this point. Nevertheless, having Vince will make FF more fun this year. I root for Vince Young anyway, and when he does well, I have the added bonus of my team doing well.
6th Round - Fred Taylor, RB, Jacksonville Jaguars - I think a good pick for this round. I needed a backup RB, and I thought Fred was pretty good to still be hanging around. He typically has injuries at least once during the year, so that probably gave him a low ranking. For a 3rd RB, however, (I have to start 2), I trust his health enough.
8th Round - Patriots Defense - One of the better defenses, a steal at this round.
15th Round - Josh Scobee, Kicker, JacksonVille Jaguars - I don't know much about this guy, but the fact that I waited until the last round is one of the smartest things I have done.