Shrewd Dealings...

Today it was announced that Boston GM Theo Epstein didn't want to re-up on his contract, and instead declined an offer from the Red Sox that would have paid him roughly $1.2 million a year.

This turn of events is rather shocking, but hardly illogical.

During Epstein's three-year tenure as Red Sox GM, Boston finished a game away from the World Series in 2003, won the World Series in 2004, and made the playoffs before running into a "destined" White Sox team, which quickly disposed of the BoSox. During the playoffs, Boston's starting pitching was exposed as being shaky, inconsistent, and full of holes. Similarly, there were problems with the bullpen, as Keith Foulke was unable to close, leaving Mike Timlin, the basic definition of a set-up guy, as the stopper. Although Timlin pitched well, he was (and is) hardly the long-term answer, leaving the Red Sox with a rather precarious subset of decisions to make in the offseason.

Perhaps Epstein saw the writing on the wall.

At 32, Epstein has hardly reached the apex of his career. But it's possible that he could have climbed no further as a member of the Red Sox organization. We can credit Theo with quickly putting together a roster that could compete for a title. We can also credit Theo with making sure "all the right pieces" were available for a late-season run. But, like virtually every other GM on the planet, we can't credit Theo with being able to keep the camaraderie and chemistry of the team together year after year. In that respect, Epstein can hardly be at fault; his off-season signings were well-conceived, but ill-received.

For one thing, Epstein inherited an albatross, both contractually and in the clubhouse. The name: Manny Ramirez. Ramirez's gaudy contract made him (and continues to make) him practically impossible to trade. Yet his clubhouse presence made his exit desirable, and the Red Sox have tried (and failed) to facilitate his requested departure. The problem is complex; Ramirez is too good to dump, but not worth the contract that he signed for. He is also the key of the Red Sox lineup- his presence essentially assures David Ortiz of seeing pitches to hit every night. So the Red Sox need and don't need Manny, and he continues to tie up the Red Sox payroll.

Another matter came with the sharp decline of Curt Schilling, who wasn't exactly a beacon to the clubhouse this year either. Keith Foulke's contract is large, Matt Clement is committed long-term, and Edgar Renteria had a substantially disappointing year. In short, Epstein was staring a salary cap nightmare straight in the face, with the knowledge that any sort of "rebuilding" wasn't an option.

The meaning of the resignation is subsequently clear: Epstein can leave at the top, start over in between, and retain his reputation as a baseball genius. He can leave Boston's numerous offseason problems to someone else, and bask in the glory of his success. In that regard, Epstein's final act of general managing comes in an area that seems most important: his own career.

LA Dodgers fire GM Depodesta.

So I saw today where the LA Dodgers fired their GM, Paul DePodesta, and I just had to laugh.

For one thing, DePodesta actually made some decent value free agent signings, and for another thing, the Dodgers were ridiculously injured this year, but apparently the Dodgers' "high expectations were not met."

I find this argument to be kind of silly, especially if you take into account the fact that J.D. Drew, their highest-paid player, only played in maybe half of their games. Milton Bradley, who managed to play in 75 games, decided to pick a fight with Jeff Kent, claiming that Kent didn't know how to deal with black people and wasn't much of a leader. While this may have been true, Kent deserved at least a little bit of credit for playing the most games of any Dodger.

ESPN said that both Derek Lowe and J.D. Drew were disappointments, but they weren't really. Drew was hurt, and Lowe pitched a ton of innings with a pretty good ERA. Additionally, Eric Gagne was injured for most of the year, forcing the Dodgers to have converted outfielder Yhency Brazoban close. (On a side note, Jason, my friend, caught two foul balls hit by Brazoban in the same minor league game. Craziest thing ever.) Anyhow, Brazoban ain't exactly Mariano Rivera.

So what doomed the Dodgers? Well, it was probably something to the effect of two of their three best hitters being out for half the year (along with Gagne), along with the fact that Jeff Kent can't get along with Milton Bradley. But hey, who can? And Bradley was whining about how Kent couldn't really relate to black players, but really, most of the Dodgers weren't black. As far as I know, Hee Seop Choi, Eric Gagne, Derek Lowe, Jeff Weaver, Mike Edwards, Jason Phillips, Jayson Werth, J.D. Drew, Brad Penny, Scott Erickson, Kelly Wunsch, and others weren't black, and Jose Cruz, Odalis Perez, Cesar Izturis, Ricky Ledee, Wilson Alvarez, and Brazoban were Hispanic.. leaving who? I don't know the answer to this, but maybe Milton does.

So we've talked about the Dodgers' problems last year, which were significant. Now let's move on to the firing of DePodesta.

Look, the Dodgers haven't ever signed any notable power hitters other than Gary Sheffield (and they traded for Shawn Green), but J.D. Drew was pretty much on the cusp of being there. He should have a pretty good year this year. Jeff Kent was solid and he played well... Derek Lowe did what he was supposed to... so did Jeff Weaver and Brad Penny, for the most part. And DePodesta should have been given a large hug for not locking up Adrian Beltre and for ditching Shawn Green's contract. He had the guts to cut some of LA's potential losses.

But now he's gone, hopefully not for long. Moneyball may have its faults, but DePodesta deserved at least a year or two to implement his system, which should work pretty well once the talented minor leaguers the Dodgers have come up. His replacement can at least look forward to players whose long-term deals are somewhat indicative of their value. That's something that good GMs do.

Then my mind went dark... we both forgot where your car was parked...

Is it just me, or is Phil Garner ridiculously bad at managing his roster? I'm putting the blame for every one of the Astros' losses not on the actual team (that would be too easy) but on the former Brewer himself.

Let's review what happened in Game 3:

Who pitched, and when...

1) Roy Oswalt, for six innings.

- This is the real cause for the disturbance, as Oswalt was notably off and should have, to use a phrase we can all understand, "been cut off" after the game was tied, or maybe after he allowed five of those eight baserunners to reach in the fifth. I, more than anyone else, am preaching that Oswalt is "the truth," but frankly, you gotta win any way you can, and if that means setting "the truth" free for the night, then so be it.

2) Russ Springer, for one inning.

- Pinch-hitting Bagwell for him is fine.

3) Dan Wheeler, for an inning and a third.

- Yeah, you could've left Dan in. I think he was good to go...

4) Mike Gallo, for one batter.

- Nice way to burn a pitcher... but hey, Ozzie did it too...

5) Brad Lidge, four hitters.

- This is my major gripe... Lidge was mowing down the ChiSox, but a nervous Garner took him out, not wanting to... a) damage his psyche, b) let him hit... either way, Lidge had to pitch more... especially since Garner knew at this point that he'd already fried half the 'pen...

6) Chad Qualls, three innings.

- I think he should have pitched more... he also should have hit... knowing who you had left, Qualls was the best.

7) Astacio, 8) Rodriguez.

- And I think it's been duly noted that Pettitte could have pitched. After all, the Astros had to win...

So what does Ozzie Guillen do? He pushes the "whatever" button, lets Geoff Blum take a whack at Astacio, and that's the ballgame. Knowing that Astacio was only AAA quality, Guillen figured, "Hey, it's the 14th, I'm about out of hitters, let's let this guy hit..."

Then he does what Garner didn't by putting in Mark Buehrle, his reasoning probably involving something to the effect of "he gives me the best chance to win."

But hey, this isn't the first Phil Garner mismanagement of a lineup we've seen... see this.

Whatever the case may be, I'm starting to think that we should just hide the lineup card from Phil Garner and let Bagwell and Biggio make the calls... after all, they probably know the 'Stros better than anyone.

On a side note, it's the bottom of the third, with no runs given up by Brandon Backe. That guy can sort of pitch in the postseason. I think somebody should reward him with a Jaret Wright-like contract. That would be prudent.

On a more somber note...

A quick glance at the Louisville Cardinal, my old campus newspaper, revealed that Dr. Paul Weber, my Political Science professor at this time last year, had passed away.

When I took Political Discourse in the fall of last year, Weber revealed that he had prostrate cancer. As a result of his treatments, he had to occasionally miss class; but the fact that he taught at all showed his devotion to students. As a lecturer, Weber was brilliant (his knowledge far superceded the nature of the class I took); as an individual, he was caring and compassionate. His devotion to U of L was evident in his support for the McConnell Scholars program, which is a hallmark of the university.

Weber's thoughts on separation of church and state are among the most lucid and "accurate" ideas that are presented today. His thorough analysis of the definition of this separation is among the more complete perspectives of a concept that has come to the forefront of our country's policy. His objectivity is also admirable; Weber was devout in his faith.

Weber's ability to teach and his contributions to political science made him an invaluable facet to Louisville's reputation, while his charisma put a good face on not only his department, but the entire university. He will be missed.

Paul Weber was 67.

Extensive World Series Preview

I've been patently wrong with my ALCS/NLCS predictions, and so now I'd like a do-over for the World Series. We've got the Houston Astros and the Chicago White Sox, teams that are, well, rather symmetric.

Let's go over the specifications:

Accomplished Switch-Hitting DH

Well, the White Sox have Carl Everett, who is probably most famous at this point for believing that dinosaurs don't exist, which, quite frankly, blows me and the rest of the planet away. Carl Everett is also responsible for ruining what would have been one of the greatest feats in recent baseball history: a Mike Mussina no-no at Fenway taken into the ninth. He's also one of the Reggie Sanders-types, players that are worth having around in the postseason because they can hit for power and have been around long enough to see about everything. Did I mention that Everett is a former Astro? Weird.

The Astros have a guy named Lance Berkman who does sort of the same thing, except better. And he's far more stable. And he also won a Home Run Derby, something Everett almost did, once upon a time. And he had a monster September and looks bulletproof in the playoffs. So, I give the edge to: Houston.

Speedy, no-hit center fielder.

The Astros have likely NL Rookie of the Year Willy Taveras, who might be the one of the average rookies of the year ever. You know the Astros have a bead on this, because they've benched this guy for a postseason game here and there. Still, he managed to hold the job down the whole year with a good batting average, and he'll probably be there next year. And he can get on base, which is what leadoff hitters supposedly do. So, give him a flyer, but he's no...

Scott Podsednik! You have to love a guy who never hit in the minors, but is hitting now in the bigs. He almost makes the Carlos Lee trade worth it. He also hit his first home run of the year against the Red Sox. That's nice. Edge: the ChiSox.

Suspect Right-Handed Power Hitter

The White Sox have Paul Konerko, who I really shouldn't put into this category, except for the fact that he had the whole 2003 season where he didn't really show up. But he's been big in the postseason and he is a legitimate power hitter. In fact, he's far and away the best hitter in their lineup, which is why I always find it odd that teams don't pitch around him more. Maybe they do and I just don't notice.

The Astros have Morgan Ensberg, a powerful third baseman whose power mysteriously disappeared last year. Very inexplicable. He also went on a major tear this year and there was talk of him being the MVP before his tear ended. He's been alright in the playoffs as well. Give him the benefit of the doubt, but give Chicago the edge.

The "Not Yet" Outfielder.

The Astros have Jason Lane, who was an awesome minor league hitter and has sort of become that power hitting type in the bigs after two verrry mediocre seasons. The White Sox have Aaron Rowand, who basically switched years with Jason Lane, having his power surge last year before reverting back to servicable this year. Lane has been clutch this postseason. Edge: Astros.

The stud lefty.

The Astros have Andy Pettitte, one of the best pitchers in baseball; who I will readily admit doesn't get enough respect. After all, with a few more good years, you have to think of Pettitte as a borderline Hall-of-Famer, with all of his postseason accomplishments. The White Sox have Mark Buehrle, who has a good chance at the AL Cy Young. Buehrle is slightly better, in my view. Thus, I give the edge to the ChiSox.

The young guns (right handed, that is.)

The Astros have Roy Oswalt and Brandon Backe. The White Sox have Freddy Garcia and Jon Garland. Oswalt is clearly the best of the bunch, with Garcia in a solid second. Garland and Backe are more unproven, as this is the first year that Garland's been really good. Still, Roy Oswalt is the second coming of Kevin Brown, but is probably more durable. Both guys are mean with nasty stuff. And you sort of know that he's gonna win whichever start he gets to pitch... or at least you have a good chance. So, I'll take the Astros here.

Finally, we get to the obvious comparison:

Thomas vs. Bagwell.

Both are probable Hall-of-Famers; both won MVPs. And both Bags and the Big Hurt will be playing a very minor role in the series. It always stinks to see players you grew up with get old. That's never any fun.

What, I have to pick???

Ok, Astros in 7.

Rationale:

Clemens, Oswalt and Pettitte can't lose four games, can they? Is Bobby Jenks going to be able to handle the closer games?

On the other hand, A.J. Pierzynski might engage in some form of cheating like he did last series. I wouldn't try that stuff when Clemens is pitching though. Or, if I was feeling lucky...

Never mind.

Final Thoughts:
Jermaine Dye might be a key to this series. I think his year has been rather underappreciated, although you can't really feel too bad for someone who took the A's for so much money and gave them so little. His presence, along with the emergence of Joe Crede (frankly, it's about time) gives the White Sox lineup a clear edge.

The White Sox staff, from top to bottom, is probably better than the Astros. Unfortunately, it rarely matters past starters 1-4, and the Astros have them beat there. Jose Contreras has been unbelievable this year, but he's not quite Roger Clemens.

And you can't really fault Brad Lidge for giving up that home run to Albert Pujols. Pujols is the best hitter of our generation, after all.

school...

I failed the living f*** out of my macro midterm today. I know I got the worst grade in the class.

0 correct out of 4 problems = bad.

Plus, it's raining here, and that's depressing.

On the bright side, I might get like a 50 or so on my micro midterm. I'm feeling better already.

Michelle Wie...

I originally intended my first post to be about why I felt Michelle Wie should turn pro. Now that she has turned pro, I can't use that material. But I will defend her decision, based on three simple facts...

1) She is good enough to play on the LPGA tour.

Not only is Wie good enough, she's in the top tier of LPGA players already... She made the cut in all the LPGA majors (a major feat) and finished in the top 25 of all of them. Since golf is a sport where your performance in the majors is a litmus test of how good you are relative to your peers, Wie's performances put her near the top of the heap. In fact, she placed second in the LPGA championship, third in the British, and was tied for the lead after the 3rd round of the US Women's Open. Long story short: she's not only good enough, she's way good enough. She's been among the best this year.

I'm a firm believer in the idea that if you're good enough to do something, you should probably be allowed to do it. And Wie has definitely shown that she's good enough to play women's golf. In fact, she's shown that she might be good enough to play men's golf in some capacity, which is sort of a scary thought. She will probably make a cut in a PGA Tour event at some point in her life.

2) She will win soon.

Mark my words, she will win something within the next year. We forget that she already won the LPGA Publinx tourney at the ripe age of 14, and she's come pretty close to winning on the big tour a number of times. (She's in contention this week...). The knock on Wie is that she hasn't won yet, and that she will need to win to "validate" herself. This argument is ridiculous because she a) has won, b) has contended numerous times at the highest level, and c) is only 16 years old. If she hasn't won something in the next three or four years, you can talk to me about "validation," but until then, she could have the right to live her life and work on her game. Her best years, may, believe it or not, be ahead of her.

Plus, she's in the hypothetical top ten on the women's money list. That's good anywhere.

3) $10 million in endorsements.

Q: What is the expected value of $0 in the future?
A: nothing.

Michelle Wie has lost money this year. And hey, she might as well get the bling. No, it's seriously retarded to let tournament hosters free-ride off of your appearances in their tournaments (increased tickets sales, better tv ratings for the LPGA tour) without getting duly compensated. You should get paid when you play well enough to win a check. Michelle has already lost about a million dollars by being an amateur this year. Do you want to lose a couple'a'mil? I doubt it. How much is her amateur status worth? How much is anyone's amateur status worth? The people that claim that amateurs are great for the game and should just play for the "love of the game" are generally people who aren't good enough to cash in on their respective athletic abilities. It's easy to take a ridiculous 'moral' stance when you have absolutely nothing at stake.

And Nike gets residual benefits from Wie wearing their apparel and using their goods and they should pay for those benefits. The Wies are well within their rights to make that grande-meal sized corporation pay. That's the best economic move, and Michelle Wie is simply maximizing her utility. That's something anyone should be happy about.

And Justice for all...

Wasn't that the title of a Metallica album? It's more appropriate to judge the baseball playoffs by this simple sentence. Down with bloated payrolls!

First, I want to give a shoutout to Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz. They were not the reasons why the Red Sox lost.

I also want to point out bad sports journalism, which may become a hobby of mine. I'll just leave these for you if you choose to read this:

A-Rod, postseason stats (not including this Angels series, because I didn't feel like throwin' them in...)

.330 BA, 6 HR, 16 RBI, .978 OPS.

Once again, somebody didn't quite do their homework, which is nice.

I went three-for-four on predicting the winners, and I'm happy that the Angels won. So, with this confidence, I'm going to take a stab at the ALCS and NLCS...

St. Louis vs. Houston.

It's tough to pick against either one of these teams, but you kind of have to go with the Cardinals, because their offense is more stable and their pitching is pretty comparable to Houston's. Plus, there's no good reason not to pick them. They'll have four solid starters and their bullpen is deep; Carpenter and Mulder aren't too shabby (keep in mind that Mark Mulder won a Cy Young once) and they have Albert Pujols, who is awesome. Houston will need to pitch well in every game to win this series, which I feel will ultimately lead to the same result as last year. Keep in mind that the 'Stros don't have Beltran or Jeff Kent this year, and their lineup isn't nearly as imposing.
Still, this series should go seven, and if Houston's staff gets on a roll the series is over. So I'm going to average out these factors with St. Louis in 7, just like last year. Welcome to the best new rivalry in baseball.

Chicago vs. LA Angels.

This is a coin flip; Chicago and Anaheim both have inconsistent offenses and great staffs; but Chicago's is more rested. The longer this series goes, the more it favors the Angels, and so it is in the best interests of the ChiSox to get early wins, which they are set up to accomplish.
Bobby Jenks is a key to this series- he's a stud but he could implode, and the Angels have this habit of being clutch. Still, it's hard to go against Chicago's four quality starters, and the rotation is perfectly coordinated, while the Angels' is a mess. I'm gonna do it though... Angels in 6. (It's too difficult to go against the clutch hitting of the Angels.)

I shouldn't be allowed to talk about college football.

I really, really, really thought that Ohio State would go on the road and tear up some Nittany Lions, but watching the second half of that game was painful. It was painful for many reasons, but one of them is the fact that the Buckeyes have 1) two explosive ends and 2) an innate refusal to use the pocket passer to throw to them. Memo to Jim Tressel: quarterbacks are supposed to throw the ball, not run it. And Troy Smith ain't no Vince Young.

That being said... the Buckeyes should still split time, because Troy Smith is still a good bet for a late drive, and he's too talented not to play.

I just want to point out that Justin Zwick has a 72% completion percentage, and Smith has a 55% completion percentage. You tell me who should be throwing the football. Plus, we won't get into the critical fumble or costly interception, I think we've seen that song and dance before.

On a side note, Georgia could be for real, although they always have problems with Florida... so we've gotta wait a bit.

Next week's must-watch games... Penn State at Michigan, USC at Notre Dame, and Florida at LSU. Throw in Texas/Colorado for good measure.

Here's hoping that Georgia and Alabama run the table to get to an unbeaten SEC final.

Here's hoping that Matt Leinart finally loses.

Here's hoping that Iowa makes a bowl.

But the game of the week is Louisville at WVU for the Big East title! We all know South Florida will lose some games, so the Big East and the BCS is for the taking. Take it if you dare.

MLB Update...

Yeah, the Red Sox won the Wild Card, but screw them... all of them except for Manny and David Ortiz, who should win the MVP.

Curt Schilling picked a nice time to dominate, so I'll stop hating on Schilling if the Sports Guy will stop being all "Curt Schilling is the best pitcher ever!!!" (He's not, just if you're checking.)

What I want to know is this: Why was Scott Elarton starting the must-win game for the Indians? He pitched well enough, but he's not exactly the guy I'd like to have out there. I haven't seen a debacle like this since Phil Garner (knowing that he could start Clemens and Oswalt back-to-back on three days' rest, only needing to win one game) decided to start Pete Munro for Game 6, essentially puttin' all his eggs in one basket.

What if Jimmy Rollins gets a hit in each of his first twenty games next year?

Quick playoff picks: White Sox over Red Sox in five... Yanks over Angels in four... Astros in five... Cardinals in four.

Logic: Well, the Red Sox should win, but I think that the White Sox will outpitch the Red Sox in at least one game, the Red Sox's pitchers will implode in at least one game, and that the White Sox looked pretty good in disposing of the Indians in a series that they had nothing to prove in... so I'm taking them. This is clearly a huge mistake, but I'm sticking with it.

I've always liked Anaheim, but I don't know if they match up well with the Yanks. I'd love to be wrong with this series, though. The Angels have to win game one, or I think they're in trouble (they'll have to face Randy Johnson, possibly twice). Vladimir Guerrero could be a beast in the playoffs, though. He did hit a grand slam of Timlin last year.

The Cardinals might lose to Jake Peavy in game one... the Astros/Braves should be a tough series... will we see Clemens/Smoltz, then Pettitte/Hudson? That would be nice. Nobody seems to care about the NL anymore.

(You know, the Padres could beat the Cardinals... it's possible.)

And here is where I actually return to "talking about sports."

I'm getting back into this college football thing, mainly because it's contagious in the Columbus area, and I'm convinced that the Big 10 is the best football conference top-to-bottom in America...

So I thought I would give you my "compelling matchups of next week," the ones you should really watch if you get a chance... mainly because there aren't that many, and I can actually do this.

1) #6 Ohio St. at #16 Penn St.

I'm watching this game for two reasons: 1) I go here. But more compelling is 2), which should give us an indication of how Joe Paterno's season/career will play out. If (a big if) the Nittany Lions keep it close, they'll probably beat at least two of those other teams on their schedule, (Illinois and somebody else), making them 7-4 and probably validating the fact that Paterno can still coach. If Penn State wins, they're immediate BCS contenders. This will give Paterno the "I-told-you-so" bit, and we'll be stuck with him for another "x" number of years, where x is however long he lives. If they get blown out, this could be a spiral of fantastic proportions. Either way, it'll be something to watch.

As for the actual analysis, it's pretty simple. Penn State has played one good defense (S. Florida), and Ohio State's is much better. In fact, I think it could be America's best... but that's just an opinion. So Penn State will have to score at least 14 to win, and since their D is suspect, that number might even go higher. At least it's at Happy Valley at night, which is a suck place to play.

2) #5 Georgia at #8 Tennessee

I admittedly know nothing about Georgia, except for the fact that they always seem to lose to either Florida, Tennessee or LSU. I'd like to believe that they're going to get screwed out of a BCS title game birth in the near future, as is becoming a great tradition. Someday, someone will fix it, right? I think the SEC team should always get a free pass if it runs the table, anyway. You know they'll be able to play defense. Anyway, the inconsistent Vols are going to start Rick (I'm not as good as Casey) Clausen, who wasn't good enough for LSU, but who mysteriously decided to get a mean streak and take it out on a viable BCS contender. The real question here is if D.J. Shockley is as good as his stats seem to indicate, which, given the nature of the Bulldogs' wins, may not be the case.

***NOTE: I was going to insert LSU/Vandy in here until Vandy gave it away that they sucked by losing to in-state rival Middle Tennessee State... bye, bye, mid-level bowl. Hey, at least you could still beat UK...***

3) #9 Cal at #16 UCLA

Keep in mind, UCLA beat Oklahoma, who probably sucks (but who will have to be a confirmed suck team against Texas this week). So they're probably for real. Cal, meanwhile, has beaten the stuffing out of every team they've played, for whatever that's worth. They've got two guys who could get a combined 2,000 yards rushing this year... hey, maybe Jeff Tedford was actually a running coach. I'm sure Cal is eager to show that the disaster that was the Holiday Bowl was a one-shot deal, and this is their first real chance to do that.

On a side note, I want to skip this game and see what happens when these two play USC, a team either vastly better than the other teams in the US (so much so that they can toy with them for a half) or a team that is on the ropes for a loss.

4) Wyoming vs. TCU

This game is for the Mountain West title, and both teams have beaten a power conference team and have acquired votes in the coaches' poll. Too bad they're not in the WAC anymore, we could have a "Winner take WAC" game.
I know that the Mountain West is an eternal crapshoot, so this game is probably not for the title (though these should be the two best teams) but wouldn't it be nice to see one team each year that escaped the conference with ten wins, and went on to kick some mid-level power conference team's... well, this happened last year, and used to happen with BYU, but I want it every year. Every year, guys.

The filler...

5) Iowa vs. Purdue

This is the last dying gasp for each team at respectability and a decent bowl. There's a lot on the line here.

6) #16 Texas Tech at Nebraska

It would be better for everyone if Nebraska regained its throne among college football's elite... and if Texas Tech wins this game, that Texas game looks better. This is a compelling matchup, but I don't think anyone who reads this blog will actually see it on TV.

7) #2 Texas vs. Oklahoma

This shouldn't be on here, but we'll probably all get it, and Mack Brown hasn't ever beaten the Sooners. That's enough to at least check the score. If it's close in the second half, you have to watch, because Texas shouldn't lose this game, and if they do, you might see a fan commit some sort of homicide, which makes for good tv.

8) NC State at #24 Georgia Tech

This is my "take a flyer on it" game, mainly because it should be a decent game between two bowl teams in the perpetually underrated ACC. Mid-level ACC teams get no respect. Remember, N.C. State actually didn't get blown out by Virginia Tech.