Gretzky's Mullet

I might have better phrased the question I suppose too, no problem. However, as much as one would like to believe in his public image, I have a hard time believing he wasn't in on any of it, it'd be just too bizarre. For instance, he claimed to have seen her at a football game, which obviously was untrue. I suppose if he saw someone similar looking and briefly, and then that person contacted him online, maybe you can come up with a scenario where he's innocent there. But she's in the hospital for a crash and then for leukemia and he never tries to visit her even once (upon which he'd find out she doesn't exist), the woman he wants to marry? And he doesn't attend her funeral either? If anything, that speaks worse about his character than would him making up the hoax. At least with my closet homosexuality theory, he comes across more as an insecure and uncomfortable young person under a lot of pressure than he would under the current story. In any case, I have a feeling we haven't heard the end of this what with all of the unanswered questions.

Indeed, and I asked whether you buy that he was the victim or not? It was a question. Then I stated reasons that I don't. My personal conspiracy theory (completely unsubstantiated by any evidence and unrelated to any of the current rumours) is that he's a closet homosexual. Having an imaginary long distance girlfriend would be a convenient way to satisfy Mormon parents antsy for their son to get married (and to a woman), and would be a convenient excuse for him not to engage in the generally promiscuous and highly sexualized lifestyle of a male campus icon, not to mention that he'd be able to hide what would be a disadvantage as a highly publicized athlete in a hypermasculine sports environment. His buddy Tuiasosopo would either be an accomplice or perhaps even his partner. However, as his career wound down, and as his family and fellow players perhaps began to suspect something was amiss, they had to "kill her off", and hadn't counted on the rigor of that particular journalist in exposing him. Admittedly, it doesn't explain everything, but it makes a lot more sense than anything else currently out

You buy that he was the victim? There are a lot of inconsistencies in the story. He himself has said that they met in 2009 after a Stanford football game, which must have been a lie. His family also was said to have met her. The dates of the deaths are very fuzzy. The hoax was said to have been perpetrated by one of Te'o's friends, so there's something of a motive issue. The photo is of an existing and very much alive person who has never met Te'o, meaning that he must never have even seen her if this was a hoax, and so why was he talking about marrying a girl he'd never even seen on a video call, let alone actually in person? Seems much more likely to me that he was in on it. The motive question remains, but the rest of it makes more sense. If he wasn't in on it, then he's been lying quite extensively to cover up whatever "it" was. If he was in on it, then either he's some kind of nutjob, or he was using it cover up something even more embarrassing. Whether or not he was the victim, he's most definitely not innocent.

You might be right about that. You can probably call the quality of losses a wash between the two teams. However, if you just look at the wins then, I'd still say Alabama deserves to be ahead. And I kept on feeling that the Bulldogs got screwed (am not a Georgia fan, but just saying). Maybe I'm just pissed off that I was the only one pulling against the Cardinal vs Ducks among the group I watched with and the Ducks screwed it up. Yeah, they're not unbeatable, but neither is anyone else this year. Also enjoying the chat, though we are on a canucks site after all. I often feel a little lonely in the MLB thread too.

Yes but did you realistically think that Oregon was going to be able to leapfrog a team that won the NC? And after Oregon didn't even play for their own conference championship? Meanwhile Alabama beat an excellent Georgia team in their conference championship (albeit barely), and their only loss was to an excellent A&M team, definitely a more touted opponent than Stanford was. It doesn't matter if you "lost in overtime", it's still a loss to a lower ranked team. Also, watching that game, the Cardinal defence completely flummoxed the Ducks offence, and that probably strengthened the impression that the Ducks offence was overrated and simply hadn't been properly challenged yet (up to that point in the season, they hadn't even really been challenged). Also it doesn't matter that the LSU win was close they were still the first team to beat the Tigers in Baton Rouge since Tebow and the Gators in 2009. That win earned the Tide more credibility with the voters than anything the Ducks did. Also the Tide played Michigan in week 1, a harder non-conference game than any that the Ducks played. I live in the States as well and get really sick of hearing about the SEC from its stupid fans. But, I'm not about to deny that the conference deserves its accolades.

Oops I forgot that Ohio State would still be in the AP rankings despite not being in the BCS. I think Oregon benefited from an easy schedule this year and was overrated. Really, they lost to the only good team they played (Stanford), and that despite the fact that the Cardinal didn't play very well (fumbles, etc). I guess they deserve a little credit for the Fiesta Bowl win. Not sure how you can say Alabama is overrated though, they played a very challenging conference schedule and beat all but the 5th ranked team, who I think should be higher than ND for sure. Also, I think Georgia got majorly shafted this year, they had only one regular season loss (a bit of an ugly one, but to a top 10 team), and they were 4 yards away and a few seconds short from going to the NC against Alabama. Somehow, a 4 point loss where they couldn't quite punch it in from the red zone to win at the end of the SEC Championship game (ie: about as close as it could possibly be) against the SEC's best team was enough to drop them in the rankings, and yet Notre Dame can get absolutely run out of the building by that same team and yet still finishes ahead of the Bulldogs. Meanwhile Florida got the chance to make a fool of themselves in the Sugar Bowl when anyone could see they just weren't very good.

I could see that, and it would mean the first and last "BCS Championship Game" under the bowl format that wasn't won by the SEC. What a disappointment Notre Dame turned out to be, they were simply outclassed yesterday. If I had to pick a top 10 to end the season, it'd be: 1. Alabama 2. Georgia 3. Oregon 4. Texas A&M 5. Notre Dame 6. Stanford 7. Florida 8. LSU 9. South Carolina 10. Kansas State However, I imagine Florida will somehow finish higher, even though they totally did not deserve a BCS bowl over Georgia (who got majorly shafted in the pre-Bowl rankings IMO) and the Gators subsequently licked balls in said BCS bowl against #21 Louisville. I might be snubbing Clemson a little bit too, perhaps they deserve to be in ahead of K-State.

That was a huge game to kick off Bowl season yeah. I watched the 2nd and 3rd quarters at the gym, and then left and didn't bother to turn the TV on when I got home, thinking that Nevada basically had it wrapped up. Stupid me. Not to mention that I was also flipping to Butler vs Indiana in hoops and Butler toppled the #1 team in OT, and I didn't catch the end of that either. The Idaho Potato Bowl (formerly the Humanitarian Bowl) was less entertaining, but still had its moments. Utah State played its last WAC game in style, pounding the injury depleted Toledo, and showing they're ready to be a big cheese in the Mountain West. Chuckie Keeton is only a sophomore, and looked incredible yesterday. Look for that team to challenge for a bigger bowl next year. Incidentally, I don't know why the NCAA can't force title sponsors to give bowls a dignified name and then just add their name before it. Eg: they may call the Orange Bowl the "Discover" Orange Bowl and the Rose Bowl "presented by Vizio" but at least they don't call them the Discover Bowl and the Vizio Bowl. Yet this week we have the "Beef'O'Brady's Bowl", which used to be called the St Petersburg Bowl but now it's officially the BoB Bowl St Petersburg. I'm not going to watch it on principle, nor will I watch the Little Caesars Bowl (formerly Motor City Bowl) or the Peach Bowl which is now the Chick-Fil-A Bowl (and which is actually a really compelling matchup, LSU and Clemson). I wish they'd realize that letting the sponsors give it a stupid name like that demeans it, though I guess selling out is what the NCAA does best. The "Citrus Bowl" is now the "Capital One Bowl", the Mobile Bowl is the "GoDaddy.com Bowl" (that one didn't have much history, it pretty much sucks), the Hall of Fame Bowl is now the "Outback Bowl", the Texas Bowl is now the "Meineke Car Care of Texas Bowl", the Queen City Bowl is now the "Belk Bowl" (also a crappy one with no real history). At least the "Heart of Dallas Bowl", which is a new one, has that name based on a charitable organization that uses sports to raise money for local charities.

Yeah but there's also the doghouse you gotta worry about. I think I may have avoided it but it's too early to tell. EDIT: Nope, I got in trouble again. It came up in conversation, and I got asked why I care to watch a game between two schools I'm not associated with in any way. I mentioned that she doesn't know any of the people competing on X-Factor either and yet she watches that so what's the difference. Later I couldn't help but notice that we went quite promptly to sleep after getting into bed. Women, what can you do?

My wife's really big on making plans in advance, and I took one look at our calendar for January and canceled my way out of a plan made with a bunch of other people on Friday the 4th so I can watch the Cotton Bowl. Hopefully the Aggies and Sooners can make it worth the lambasting I got over that one.

I think the vote should be close, as both players could make a case for being deserving. I happen to think that the hype around Manziel and the fact that he's a QB will probably push it to him. I also think the Aggies are going to beat the Sooners in the Cotton Bowl, sorry Rupert. I've been wrong before, but I just think the Aggies will be better on both sides of the ball. Looking at the balance of their games, the Sooners have only beaten one opponent that ended the season ranked, and it was the largely unimpressive Longhorns in the Red River game. Granted, the Aggies played an easier SEC schedule than some of the other teams in that conference (eg: did not have to play Georgia or South Carolina), and they lost (albeit by tiny margins) against LSU and Florida at home, however, they also beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa, which probably qualifies as the single biggest victory by any team in college football all season. Both teams have some question marks on the defensive end, but that's far more serious of a problem for Oklahoma, who gave up a combined 97 points in back-to-back barnburners against West Virginia and Oklahoma State. They won both games, but demonstrated they can't stop the run, giving up over 300 yards rushing to the Mountaineers' Tavon Austin and 5 rushing TD's against the Cowboys. Up against the balanced attack of Manziel, as well as the underrated but capable Malena, I think the Sooners will have real problems.

I'm going to point out that I hate that Florida is going to the Sugar Bowl instead of Georgia. When you think about it, all Georgia did to get demoted from the 3rd overall seed to 7th was lose to the 2nd overall seed, in a very close game in a conference championship that Florida didn't even have to play. So by virtue of sitting (since they couldn't earn their way into that championship game) the Gators can leapfrog a team that has to play? So so stupid. Not to mention that Georgia actually beat Florida head to head this year.

That's one of the best Bowl matchups of the year, including the BCS. I like that it doesn't conflict with any other important bowl too (January 4th). Can't miss. The whole BCS actually looks pretty good this year actually, though I'll probably skip the Orange Bowl. Of the non-BCS, along with the Cotton, the Outback Bowl (Denard's last game) should be pretty exciting, and the Las Vegas Bowl has Boise State vs Washington Huskies, which has a lot of entertainment potential.

I think Alabama vs ND actually does have some potential for excitement. I think the Tide will win, but it should at least be worth watching. I can't believe the Badgers pounded the Huskers as bad as they did either. Who would've imagined a Badgers-Cardinal Rose Bowl two weeks ago? Good to see K-State redeem themselves back into the Fiesta too.

I'm going to come out and say that it was exactly the right time for Costas to say something. The problem people have in this country is that there is a sense of cognitive dissonance between the idea of people being murdered and the idea that guns are part of the problem. So it's perfectly ok for Bob to go on and say that the death of these people was a tragedy, but then when he rightly points out that by extension, it was preventable and that the easy availability of a murder weapon was partly responsible, he gets in trouble? Only the extreme lunacy of the gun nut movement would lead to this even being a source of conflict. The time to talk about fixing problems, like gun violence, is in the wake of that violence, especially with a problem so urgent. Handguns exist for one purpose, and one purpose alone. To murder people. They're not for hunting, they're not for war (where killing isn't usually referred to as murder, largely a semantic difference), they are designed with only one function. Is it possible that Belcher would have murdered his girlfriend without a gun had one not been available? Of course it is: while we will never know exactly what was going through his head at the time, there are many ways for a person to kill another. However, none have the swiftness, the finality, or the potential for complete spontaneity as a handgun pointed to someone's head. However, because of the hard and tireless work of the NRA, people have learned to divorce the concept of the tool from the handyman that wields it, when the evidence that more guns means more homicides is effectively indisputable. Bob was pointing out what in any sane country or setting should have been self-evident, and that's that the most tragic thing about these senseless tragedies is that they ARE preventable, and that we are not doing enough to prevent them. They also had no business playing that game IMO. These people need to learn a little perspective.