My annual CFB gripe session

Yesterday, there was a great but also terrible article on Grantland. 

Great, because it talked about:

1. How much better the playoff system is, even though it hasn't happened yet
2. Most of the fun of CFB is arguing about it
3. How he was wrong to oppose the playoff format
4. The pointless "tradition" of bowl games, and how it's really just about money (I have no problem with how it's about money - I just want to see more football in whatever format)

Terrible, because:

1.  He argued that the playoffs shouldn't ever be expanded to 8 teams, or even 6.  He then proceeded to use the same arguments that he used last year as to why there shouldn't be a playoff system at all!  I should point out that the very first point of his article was admitting he was wrong to oppose the playoff system.  So now he's asking you to use the same logic to oppose a slightly larger playoff system, when he admitted he was wrong about that logic?  It's one of the poorest defenses I've seen in print, possibly, ever.

That's really the only thing I hated about it.  I could argue about his points on whether players should be paid (I'm on the "no" side, but I won't discuss it further), but mainly, it's ridiculous that anyone who is a fan of anything would oppose something that would make that sport more entertaining.  My main argument is always: sports are entertainment.  It's not about the players, the coaches, or anybody else but you and me.  Without us, these tremendous athletes and brilliant coaches would be working on an assembly line, selling cars, or data consulting.  Televised sports exist only because of fans.  Fans exist because it's fun to watch.  So why not make it more fun to watch?  Would an 8-team playoff be more entertaining than a 4-team? 

The arguments against it are such:

A.  It makes the regular season less meaningful. 

1. The main defense of the anti-playoff people (that, and the "sanctity" of the bowls), which, and this is the entire point of the article, is complete bunk.  If anything, the regular season is more meaningful because there are 2 more spots.  For example, for the last 3-4 weeks of the season, it's been narrowed down to more or less 10 to 15 teams that are in contention for those 4 spots.  This means that only those teams' games are meaningful, and the rest are just for pride.  This is better than last year, where only 5 to 6 teams were in contention in November.  If we increase it to 8 teams, then around 30 teams would have meaningful games in November.  Am I wrong here?  I'm seeing the regular season becoming more meaningful with each postseason spot that opens up.
2. Some would argue that, fine, 8 is fine, but no more.  16 is just too many!  To them, I argue that you could have a tournament of 128 teams and still not devalue the regular season.  Why?  Because Americans love football.  Which fan would be against having more football?  Now, 128 teams is ridiculous and that would never happen.  But 8?  Sure.  16?  Maybe!  With 16 spots, it would make even the no-name conference games interesting.  And who wouldn't want to see Marshall or Northern Illinois upset a Missouri or Nebraska?  That wouldn't happen, you argue.  It wouldn't?  Nebraska almost lost to McNeese St this season, and Missouri actually did lose to a pretty pathetic Indiana team.  Those 16 spots would also be about tournament seeding and pairing.  Your Alabamas and Florida States might be shoe-ins, but they're still going to play hard every week for that #1 seed and you know that their fans still care about each and every game.
3. Teams would schedule more interesting non-conference match-ups.  More teams means that losses are less important, which means that more teams would take chances scheduling big names to bulk up their resume, similar to NCAA basketball.  You could argue that my point of losses being less important means the regular season is less meaningful.  I see your point.  Let's go back to the SEC scheduling 20 FCS games a year, instead of Alabama-Oklahoma, Ole Miss-USC, Ohio St-LSU in September.  That does sound more meaningful.

B.  The best team might not win the championship

1. The article argues that (more or less) the last 15 champions have been the best team.   I'm sorry, but...what?  That's a pretty massive statement to make without any backup whatsoever.  You could go through almost every year and determine a team that could have potentially beaten that champion that wasn't invited to the championship game. 
2. Also, that's not the point of a playoff.  The point is...everybody say it with me now...ENTERTAINMENT!  When LSU had a rematch of Alabama a few years back for the championship, I could not care less about that game.  We already watched a mind-numbing 6-3 game between the 2 not 3 games before, and now we have to watch it again?  I didn't even bother watching.  By the way, nobody else did either: it was the lowest-watched BCS championship ever.  (2002 and 2005 were lower, but it wasn't the "official BCS championship" at the time.)  We watch March Madness because there are 64ish teams and it's hugely entertaining.  I don't think anybody's ever argued whether the team that wins March Madness is the best team - it doesn't really matter.  Could Duke (out in the first round) could have beaten UConn (champion)?  Possibly.  Probably.  Doesn't matter!  UConn made it through all the rounds and they are the champs!  Are they the best?  Doesn't matter!  Not the point!

If we ended right now (12/5), my rankings would have these matchups:

1. Alabama vs. 8. Georgia Tech
4. Oregon vs. 5. TCU
2. Ohio St vs. 7. Boise St
3. Florida St vs 6. Ole Miss

That's right, Ole Miss, with 3 losses, gets in.  Why?  They beat Boise St, Alabama, and Mississippi St.  Yes, they lost, in a shutout, to Arkansas.  I've tweaked and tweaked my algorithm, but they beat 3 top 10 teams, so for Ole Miss to not make it, I'd have to lower the value of the strength of schedule, and that would put your Boise States and Marshalls in the top 4.  And how about Boise St?  The AP rankings have them at 22.  They lost to Ole Miss (#6) and Air Force (#35) and have blown away most of their other opponents.  You could argue all day about who's better than whom and nobody would be wrong and we wouldn't get anywhere because only 4 teams get in.  And neither Boise St nor Ole Miss are in the top 4, so the argument switches from them to TCU vs Oregon vs Baylor.  No matter how many teams you have, there will be arguments.  That's half the fun.  The difference is that the playoff system seeks to conclude on these arguments, whereas the bowl system rarely did, because Ole Miss wouldn't be playing Boise St or Georgia Tech, they'd play Nebraska (#23) or someone like that.

So I would see Bama beating Ga Tech pretty handily, with a good run-D.  Oregon vs TCU would be a heck of a game, maybe in the 60s!  TCU gets past them.  Boise St upsets a short-handed OSU team, and Ole Miss beats FSU.  TCU upsets Bama in a barn-burner, and Ole Miss beats Boise St again.  TCU then beats Ole Miss for the championship.  All these games sound awesome!  A 4-team playoff is certainly great, but an 8 team would be even better.

We still have 1 more week of regular season football, with Oregon vs Arizona, FSU vs Ga Tech, Ohio St vs Wisconsin, and Bama vs Missouri.  Our top 8, and even top 4, could be shaken up.  Isn't this great!?!

 I want to end by bearing my playoff testimony:  I am thankful for the playoffs, I believe it's the best system, and I hope that it expands to 8, and then to 16 in the next 10 or 20 years.  Until next year!

Kent's Week 5 Rankings

Enough games have been played to give me a decent amount of data to work with, so I'm releasing my rankings here:
The first thing you'll notice is that there are a bunch of unranked (AP poll) teams in there, and that BYU is 7th, and that Arizona is 9th, the highest unranked team.  Now, my algorithm weighs wins heaviest, but there is some strength of schedule involved, as you see that South Carolina is the only team that cracked the top 25 with a loss.  Keep in mind that the SOS is based on games played, not games scheduled.  BYU's SOS is pretty poor, but others' (Duke, Washington, Utah, etc) are even poorer.  Throughout the season, we'll see that BYU's SOS will stay pretty much the same and the aforementioned teams' will improve, meaning BYU will fall in the rankings.

At first glance, it's tempting to try and tweak my algorithm to more closely align with the perception that Duke and/or Utah don't deserve to be in the top 25.  And, perhaps, BYU doesn't deserve to be #1 if that's what happens if they win out and no one else is undefeated.  I don't believe BYU is the best team in the nation, and probably not the 7th best either, although I do believe that going undefeated will demonstrate a top 10 pedigree.   I will revisit that later, if need be.  But last year's results aligned pretty closely to the common perception of who was the best, so I'm sticking with it.  At any rate, it's early, there's still a lot of football to be played, and I don't think BYU's going undefeated.

By conference, much to my chagrin, the SEC has been winning their non-conf games and therefore, is justifiably the best.  I imagine these numbers will stay similar throughout the season, as most non-conference games have been played.

A letter from the Olson family

I've received a few compliments on my writing recently, enough to stroke my ego and motivate me to write another non-sports, non-weight loss related post, of which I haven't written since November 2012. 

Many of you will remember that I dated a girl in high school for a time, who went by the name of "Hillary", and I believe she still goes by that name.  We dated for 16 months before I left on the mish, spending mucho time together, with lots of smooching, jealousy, flowers, expensive dates/gifts and anything else a teenage relationship with an insecure cheerleader demands.  The way in which I manipulated her into dating me is worth a whole other post.

The plan was dictated to me: I would go on my mission, come back, get married in the temple, and have 3 kids, and live in Orem for the rest of my life.  I had no problem with this plan, and couldn't wait to spend the rest of eternity with her.  She demanded a promise ring before I left, to which I complied, and I believe I spent something like 200 bucks on the durn thing.  We were promised-to-be-engaged, like in Arrested Development with George Michael and Ann (her?).

The nights before my mission were spent sobbing in each others' arms, talking about how much we'd miss each other and how great it would be to come home and get married.  We were quite seriously in love, writing ardent love letters to each other daily when I was in the MTC.   I last saw her at the airport on May 10, 1999, with many more tears and desperate promises. 

The mail service in Poland wasn't quite as reliable as in the MTC, or at least that's what I told myself as the letters from my betrothed became fewer and further between.  This became a great source of depression on my mission, which fell on top of general homesickness, not knowing Polish, and a lazy trainer as a reason to be miserable every hour of every day.  Eventually, in mid-July, I received a letter from Hillary that "I wasn't focused on my mission and we would need to stop writing".  This much may have been true, but hindsight dictates that it wasn't the reason she stopped writing.

My next companion came in August, and he was this piece of work who shared the same last name as me.  He told me of stories that he swore were true, involving a unicorn he saw in the woods, a 2-foot-tall goblin who lived in his closet named "Fletastifus" (spelling?), and others that I have tried to remove from my memory.  He would take baths every morning with his toy Titanic ship (inflatable iceberg included!), and cuddle with his Tigger doll at night.  He liked to jump on me in the middle of the night to "wrestle".  However, he was good at listening to my "girl problems" and that was helpful, at least for a couple of weeks. 

One day, my comp received a call from some friend who inherited a greenie from the London MTC.  This greenie brought word that an "Elder Hansen" had a girlfriend who was engaged to some other dude.  The problem was that there were 5 Elder Hansens in the mission at the time, and 4 of them had girlfriends.  I had a pretty good idea that it was me, because Hillstance had essentially dumped me the month before and I hadn't received anything from her since.

However, I couldn't take the suspense and broke a mission rule: I called her house to see if it was true.  Her mom answered, and I said, "Hi, Susan, this is Kent."  (It's worth noting that Hillary's parents were named Gary and Susan, like mine.  What a coincidence!)  She gasped.  Then I asked, "Is Hillary engaged?"  She replied, "I'm so sorry, yes."  "When are they getting married?"  "December 17."  "Okay, thanks.  Goodbye."  And that was that.

I broke down crying.  My comp, ever the emotional one, gave me a big hug, which I needed and appreciated.  Even though I knew that things weren't looking good for this relationship, there was still hope that things would work out.  Now there was no hope, and that was that.  In Hillary's defense, she sent me an "official" Dear John in September announcing her engagement, to which I wrote a bitter and "I-want-my-stuff-back" letter in return a month later.

I couldn't sleep very well for the next week or so.  My comp and I had an epic argument about something unrelated, which probably deserves its own post.  I got a new comp in September, who was, amazingly, worse than my first 2 companions.  I was his first junior companion.  His Polish was worse than mine, and he was 12 months in the field.  He went to great efforts to move his bed into a different room (against the rules).  We'd come home at 7 pm every night if we didn't have an appointment, instead of finding or visiting members.  He wouldn't contact, hated tracting, then blamed me for not having investigators.  We would ride 2-car trams around the city, and he would wait until I got in one car to intentionally ride in the other.  It was then that I decided to take control of my own happiness and "lose myself in the work".  I did all the contacting, demanded that we go tracting, set up most of the appointments and led all the discussions that I set up on my own.  I also ate nothing but potatoes those months in order to catch up on my MSF, because my first 3 companions had financial help from home and spent quite a lot more than what was allocated.

These were the hardest 2 months of my life, but working this hard helped me learn the language quite well and learn how to be a good missionary. I was made senior companion in January, and by the summer was doing quite well on my mission, finding lots of people to teach and enjoying every companionship immensely since my first 3.  In fact, when people would find out who my first 3 companions were, they were amazed that I turned out so well.

In June, I wanted to send Hillary a letter to make up for my bitter one in October.  I knew she was married - my sister JoEllen had seen them at the courthouse the week they got married (Jo got married on the same day) - so I wasn't holding out any desperate attempt at some reunion.  I wanted to "be friends" or at least let her know that I was doing well and she didn't need to worry about my emotional stability, which she was so concerned about in her Dear John.  I kept it light-hearted and positive - a few dumb jokes, no references to being dumped or whatever, and just let her know that I was doing great and enjoying my mission.  I asked her some questions, like how she was doing and where she was studying and how the married life is, etc. 

In return, I got an envelope with no address, reading "The Olson Family".  This is what the letter said (I typed it exactly as I received it, but bolded parts that were particularly fascinating to me):

07/05/00

Kent,

First of all, I don't appreciate you writing a letter to my wife.  The letter was never opened.  My wife picked it up, noticed it was from you, and threw it away.  I don't know what the letter said, but I'd like to tell you a few things.  (No hard feelings intended)

I don't know what you think you and my wife had, but the ring you gave her before you left on your mission was off her hand by our third date.  Obviously, you envisioned the relationship you had with her as something with more substance than what her perception of your relationship was.  It's too bad that high school flings are just that - flings.

In the real world, real men don't write to, or try to maintain relationships with ex-flings.  When you get sealed to someone for eternity, your love and concern for the temporal well being of your spouse supercedes your curiosity for one of your ex-fling's current situation in life.  (Even if the ex-fling is on a mission)

I've heard that the Warsaw, Poland mission is a tough mission, and I respect you for being willing to serve.  I suggest that you spend free time on p-day studying your language, writing your family, or planning for your investigators.  Entertaining a fetish with an ex-fling is not what I would call effective use of your time.

In layman's terms, my wife isn't really interested in maintaining a friendship with you, and we, as a family, don't really want to hear from you again.  I hope there are no hard feelings.  When you are married, you won't want your wife's old flings writing her letters or calling her house when they are on a mission.  Please respect our family, and do as my wife requested - no more letters or phone calls, focus on your mission, and move on.

Thank you,

The Olson family

When I received this, I was so thrown off that I didn't know if I should be enraged.  Was this a joke?  Obviously, it wasn't, so as I processed it more and more, it just made me angry.  I didn't try and send anything in return, but what I did do was make copies of it and send it to a few friends that were also on missions for their enjoyment.  Unbeknownst to me, these friends made copies of it and sent it to their friends, and when I got home, a few people mentioned it to me, and we had a good laugh.

Before I break this down, I want to say that I've considered his point-of-view.  He's married to a beautiful girl, and some letter shows up from an ex, and he wants to make sure that his marriage stays intact from a threat that is half a world away, on a mission, and hasn't tried to contact her since October.  At the time, I wasn't married, so I figured that's just what you gotta do to protect your marriage.  My view is, if you do feel that someone should stop contacting your wife, there are other ways of doing it, that don't involve insulting the person for 5 paragraphs, then saying, "No offense".  You should probably have the person do it, in this case Hillary, and have her write, "Thanks for the letter, but I'd prefer to not maintain contact with you, for the best interest of my marriage.  Good luck in everything you do."  Is that so hard?

So let's break this down, paragraph by paragraph. 

First of all, I don't appreciate you writing a letter to my wife.  The letter was never opened.  My wife picked it up, noticed it was from you, and threw it away.  I don't know what the letter said, but I'd like to tell you a few things.  (No hard feelings intended)

Didn't even open it!  I mean, if you want to rip someone a new one, wouldn't you want to at least read the letter?  For all they knew, I could've told them about a potential investigator that they could help me with, or that I wanted to give Hillary a bunch of presents that I bought pre-mission that were no good to anybody else.  Or something.  If you really don't care about me, just throw the letter away and don't write me back.

Another question is: did Hillary throw it away, or did the husband?  Did she even know about the letter?  Hillary may have been angry at me for my bitter letter in October, but she doesn't seem like the type of person that would just throw the letter away without opening it.

My favorite part here is the "No hard feelings intended", after which he skewers me for the rest of the entire letter.

I don't know what you think you and my wife had, but the ring you gave her before you left on your mission was off her hand by our third date.  Obviously, you envisioned the relationship you had with her as something with more substance than what her perception of your relationship was.  It's too bad that high school flings are just that - flings.

Congrats to you for getting my ring off her finger by the third date, but what was wrong with your first 2 dates that it took so long?  I love how he implies that I was so obtuse that I didn't realize that it was a fling.  So I guess all those letters and tapes I got in the MTC was part of a fling?  16 months of seeing each other almost daily and so on was a fling?  I get it - I was young, I'm the first to admit it.  Too young to know anything about love. You win, I lose!  I'm such an idiot!  You're the real winner!  All hail Mr. Olson! 

In the real world, real men don't write to, or try to maintain relationships with ex-flings.  When you get sealed to someone for eternity, your love and concern for the temporal well being of your spouse supercedes your curiosity for one of your ex-fling's current situation in life.  (Even if the ex-fling is on a mission)

I love how he brings manliness into the equation.  Why didn't he mention how much he could bench?  "Hey buddy - real men don't write a one-page letter wishing their ex the best.  They coldly ignore the existence of any previous relationships."

I also enjoy his continued use of the word "fling", hammering home the fact that this relationship was completely meaningless.  In general, I believe that is the most hurtful thing one could do after breaking up with someone who you've been seeing for a while, is to disregard the whole thing as meaningless.  It's one thing if the person dumps you, I get it, you didn't want to marry me.  But a whole other if the person tells you that the whole thing meant nothing, that they got nothing out of it.  That's what a fling is, and coming from the ex's husband is a lot more hurtful that coming from her.

I've heard that the Warsaw, Poland mission is a tough mission, and I respect you for being willing to serve.  I suggest that you spend free time on p-day studying your language, writing your family, or planning for your investigators.  Entertaining a fetish with an ex-fling is not what I would call effective use of your time

He at least throws me a bone with the "tough mission" thing.  But then promptly eliminates that with an accusation that challenges how I use my mission time and uses a word like "fetish" which is reserved for pervs and weirdos.  I wouldn't call writing one letter in 8 months as a "fetish" and it took me probably 15 minutes to write the thing, it wasn't very long at all.  In fact, I knew there was a good chance I wouldn't get anything back, so I kept it short on purpose.  Challenging a missionary on their use of time is a highly sensitive area to any missionary, so this struck a nerve.

In layman's terms, my wife isn't really interested in maintaining a friendship with you, and we, as a family, don't really want to hear from you again.  I hope there are no hard feelings.  When you are married, you won't want your wife's old flings writing her letters or calling her house when they are on a mission.  Please respect our family, and do as my wife requested - no more letters or phone calls, focus on your mission, and move on.

Thank you,

The Olson family

"In layman's terms" really brings it home.  "In case you are too stupid to understand what I've been saying."  "In case you don't realize that I've been making fun of you this entire letter."  And then he says, "no hard feelings" again.  I'm not sure that "no hard feelings" erases 4 paragraphs of criticizing me, but I guess you had it in the first paragraph, so there you go.

I also liked how he says, "No more letters or phone calls" implying that there had been a constant stream of them.  I called in August 1999 and talked to her mom for 30 seconds, if that.  I wrote in October 1999 and in June 2000.  "No more letters" would've sufficed.

Now that I'm married, I can finally understand what he's writing about. I'm happily married to Melanie, and if she got some letter from an ex, I wouldn't think twice about it.  If she wanted to correspond with them, then go ahead.  I know Melanie loves me, she tells me every day, and I'm secure enough in that knowledge to allow her to maintain contact with former boyfriends, and anybody else she feels like she wants to maintain contact with.

All in all, Mr. Olson did me a favor by marrying Hillary.  I don't mean that to be insulting to Hillary, but if she would've waited and we got married right after the mission, I believe it would've been a lot harder for me than the way it worked out with Melanie.  I got to travel quite a few places before I got married, and developed a lot more as a person than perhaps I would've if I'd gotten married immediately.  Also, Melanie is the perfect person for me, we're quite happy together in this life we have.  Hopefully, the Olsons are happy, too.  No hard feelings intended.