The Christmas Review

Well, my laptop went tits up a couple weeks ago. Thankfully, it was still under warranty. Two motherboards, one CPU, and one Video Card later, we are up and running today. So, I would just like to take a minute to wish everyone a belated Merry Christmas.

I got some sweet swag for the holiday. My loot tally included a DVD of Rambo, a copy of A Farewell to Arms, a copy of The Complete Short Stories of Ernest Hemmingway, a Copy of Soul by Seal, a copy of Neon Bible by Arcade Fire, and some clothes and cash.

Fixing College Football: The Big Ten

Now we visit up north. It's time to realign the Big Ten conference. We've already sent Penn State to the Big East, and the Big Ten pretty much shakes itself out once the Nittany Lions are out of the mix.

Ohio State University

The University of Michigan

Michigan State University

The University of Iowa

The University of Minnesota

The University of Wisconsin

Northwestern University

The University of Illinois

The University of Indiana

Purdue University

Good rivalries, now we just need them to play good football.

Heisman Thoughts

The greatest individual trophy in sports, the Heisman Memorial Trophy, will be awarded in a little less than two days. The three finalists are already in New York. Sam Bradford, the quarterback for Oklahoma, is my pick to take home the stiff arm. He's competing against last year's winner, Tim Tebow of Florida, and the popular Colt McCoy of Texas.

One of the things that makes the Heisman so interesting is that the ballot simply instructs the voter to select the "most outstanding player." Some voters take that to mean the most valuable, to some it means the best performance, and to some it means the best player on the best team. Because of this, people can make an argument for any of the finalists.

I personally believe that Sam Bradford has a much stronger case than either Tebow or McCoy, given that Bradford is the best player on the number one ranked team at the time of voting. Bradford also enjoys a significant statistical advantage over the other QBs. Bradford has more yards from scrimmage, more TDs, and a higher passer rating than either of his opponents. McCoy has a higher completion percentage, and Tebow has fewer turnovers, but the overall statistics clearly give Bradford the edge. Bradford had the best performance, while playing on the #1 team. Seems like a no brainer to me.

But as always, there is dissent in the mainstream media. Here are a few examples.

Chris Low, SEC blogger for ESPN.com, puts forth this article. He stumps for Tebow based on the argument that Tebow faced much tougher defenses. This might be true, however, he makes several mistakes. First off, he makes the mistake of using raw defensive rankings. This is a problem because it gets you into a chicken/egg argument very quickly as to why scores are so low in the SEC. Do the offenses struggle because of powerhouse defenses, or are the defenses being inflated by offenses the likes of Auburn and Tennessee? Just as QBs like McCoy or Bradford might make a defense look silly, so to do Jonathon Crompton and Kodi Burns make even the most pathetic defenses look like the 1985 Bears. The other mistake he make was claiming that Arkansas was the worst defense Tebow's faced this season. I guess he thought the game against the Citadel was just a scrimmage. That's OK, he wasn't the only one...

In defense of McCoy, Jeff Martin of the Kansas City Star claims that, "Twisted Logic will rob McCoy of the Heisman!" I find this piece hilarious, because the only twisted logic in the article is his case for McCoy. He starts out by dismissing Tebow with this quote,

Tebow is a great college football player. Every television talking head said as much over the weekend. But how can you give him the Heisman a year ago in large part for his statistical achievements — the first I-A player to finish with more than 20 passing touchdowns and 20 rushing touchdowns in a season — and then turn around a year later and twist the criteria? Now it's about who is most valuable to his team?

So we're going by performance, rather than value to team. That's OK, I can dig it. But then it's down to Bradford vs. McCoy, and Mr. Martin goes all M. Night Shyamalan on us, and brings out the twist!

McCoy and the Longhorns took the Red River Rivalry, 45-35, even though Bradford had the far loftier statistics, not to mention the superior offensive supporting cast.
Maybe this is being too simplistic, but McCoy did more with less all season long, which is why he was No. 1 on my ballot and Bradford was No. 2.

OK... So he's going one of two ways here. Either he's claiming that McCoy deserves it over Bradford because he won the head to head matchup of the teams, or he's completely reversing tack on his argument against Tebow, simply to justify McCoy winning. In the event of the former, it shows a tragic lack of understanding of the nature of the QB position and the sport in general. If it's the latter, then he's a hypocrite who laughably accuses hypocrisy to be the reason why what he believes is right might not occur. Either way, I would expect more out of a major city newspaper sports journalist.

All rhetoric aside, we'll find out which argument was the most persuasive at the Heisman ceremony on Saturday.

Blue C Sushi

While dropping my sister of at the U in Seattle after her Thanksgiving visit, we stopped for an early dinner at Blue C Sushi in the University Village. What ensued was a rather unique dining experience.

Blue C operates on a conveyor belt. They have the food laid out on color coded plates, ranging form $1.25 for the greens, to $5.25 for the dark blues. The food sits on this conveyor belt and scrolls around the place, passing by each table, where the customers can grab it at their leisure. Soy sauce, wasabi, and ginger are siting at the end of each table. At the end of the meal, you add up the plates on a scorecard, and that becomes your bill.

The food is decent. There's Sushi, some cooked dishes, and some vegetarian dishes, but if you don't like Sushi, you'll find eating at Blue C to be difficult. However, if you are a sushi fan, or at least find it edible, then Blue C will be an enjoyable experience for you. The seared tuna is delectable. They've got the standard set of drinks, a functioning bar, and the obligatory sake menu, which allows you to quench the fire of the spicy salmon rolls.

The ambiance is solid. The layout is fairly open, and the walls are dominated by either large picture windows, large pictures of the iconic Tokyo Square crosswalks, or large televisions showing bits of Japanese life. The music is forgettable, and the din of the crowd usually drowns it out. The service is a little detached, as it's basically a moving buffet.

To get the best out of Blue C, bring a crowd. Each plate comes with 4 sushi rolls or 2 sushi slices. With more people, you can get more variety out of your meal. It's a little slice of Tokyo Chic in Seattle, and it's a 8/10.

Argh

Goddammit. Oregon State dropped the first Civil War game in Corvallis since 1996, and it happened to be when the Rose Bowl was on the line. My frustration knows no bounds right now. So many things went wrong.

Sean Canfield should have been starting. He's a better QB than Lyle Moevao, pure and simple. While Moevao had decent raw stats, he threw two interceptions that were returned for touchdowns. Niether of which were great plays by the defense, merely terrible throws by the QB. Moevao's throws were off all night. The recievers were trying their best to make adjustments, but less than a quarter of the passes were in the right spot. Moevao walked into a couple sacks, and constantly missed the open checkdowns.

Without Jacquizz Rodgers, the offense panicked, and went back to that detestable shotgun set. This took the run completely out of the picture, leading to the 60 passing plays, against the 13 runs by running backs. The play calling got worse in the red zone, two red zone opportunities were squandered in the first half when the offense got too cute, and did things like call no back formations and try the fly sweep twice in a row. This caused OSU to come away with 3 points when they should have had 14.

The fly sweep is a fine play. It's the foundation of OSU's offense, however, it is not a red zone play. The whole idea is to put the ball into the hands of Rodgers, Stroughter, or Johnson, have them beat the defense to the corner, and outrun people. OSU made several uncharacteristic mistakes using this play. They ran it with multiple players split wide, and they ran it in the Red Zone. Both these situations create the same flaw. It puts defenders closer to the sideline than the ball carrier. It's one thing to try a play against the grain to try and catch defenders off guard, it's another entirely to do it repeatedly.

Outside of the Red Zone, they didn't use the fly sweep motion enough. Because of the threat of the play, and the visible buildup of the motion, it warps defenses outside of the red zone. Even if the motion man doesn't get the ball, it opens up the pass downfield, and opens up runs up the middle. But OSU hardly ran the motion.

Ryan McCant's didn't get very many carries, and on his best run of the night, an 11 yard run in the 4th quarter, he fumbled. McCant's didn't see too many carries the whole season, because Jacquizz has been a beast. I believe in using a star back heavily, but I also think you need to work the backups into it, for familiarity's sake. It helps cut down on fumbles, and breeds confidence.

On defense, they gave up almost 700 yards. There's a lot of problems.

Problem number one. TACKLING. The ugly beast that rose it's head against Stanford and Penn State showed up again. Too many plays were created by missed tackles. The linebackers were just awful, constantly out of position, and arm tackling too often. The Corners missed several tackles too.

The defensive ends broke containment on almost every play. Especially in a misdirection offense like Oregon's, the key to playing DE against that offense is to never let a player involved in a handoff to get outside of you. especially if you think the play is going away from you. The QB hands off to the running back and runs at you, make sure he doesn't have the ball before you start chasing the running back.

Schematically, Oregon runs about 12 different plays, which is increased based on run pass options, and read options. Oregon's shotgun offense has the same limitations as the offense OSU ran. Based on the alignment of the running back, there are some gaps that the running back can't get to off the first cut. The weakside B, C, and D gaps are out. This brings us back to containment. There are two ways to vary pressure on an offense, blitzes and stunts. OSU ran a lot of stunts, which work well against a conventional offense, however, a read option offense is succeptable to blitzes, but renders stunts useless. All a DE stunt does is automatically blow containment, and open up those gaps that were out before. One player can prevent the whole weakside from being used, which allows you to focus on the strongside. OSU failed to do this, and the same play blew them up, time and again.

The referees were par for the course for the Pac 10, which is to say, God Awful. The review official for the fumble returned for the touchdown in the 3rd quarter should be fired. There is no excuse for that kind of incompetence when you have time to look, rewind, and look again at a call. None of the refs on the field have any clue what pass interferance is. Combined with some terrible spots for the ball, and I have a renewed hatred for the officials of the Pac 10.

All in all, it was a poorly played game. However, I would like to take a moment to thank the Beavers for playing as well as they have thus far this season. No one expected it outside of Corvallis. Good job.

It's also worth noting that the Rose Bowl dream is not over for OSU. Because of the Ducks loss to Cal, if USC loses to UCLA, Oregon State has the tiebreaker in a three way tie too. So, GO BRUINS!

Brad Edwards is an Apologist for All the Wrong Things.

For those of you who don't know, Brad Edwards is a columnist for ESPN.com. He recently wrote an article on ESPN.com trying to justify allowing a team that did not win their conference to compete for the BCS title. He's essentially apologizing in advance for what would happen if Missouri wins the Big XII championship game. He claims that the third ranked team in the conference would be the best team in the nation. He attempts to back up his claim by painting a doomsday scenario where the top ranked teams lose out, and don't win their conferences.

Here's my stance on this. If the best teams lose out, then clearly, they weren't the best teams. This is a problem that will have been manufactured by the money grab known as the conference championship games. I am deeply opposed to conference championship games. They undermine the importance of conference play, and they screw up the national title picture. However, it is the bed the Big XII has made, and now they must lie in it.

The fact that he's arguing for the Big XII makes his case even shakier. The Big XII has already screwed up the BCS picture in this exact same manner twice. In 2001, the Big XII champion was Colorado, however, the Big XII sent Nebraska to the national title game. The result? 37-14 Miami. They didn't learn their lesson. In 2003, Kansas State was the Big XII champion, but the Big XII sent Oklahoma to the National Title Game. This time it was 21-14 LSU.

I believe the voters might have learned their lesson. Last season, Georgia was ranked second with only the conference championship games to go. Georgia was not playing, so they figured that their spot in the title game against Ohio State was assured. Far from it. Eventual SEC Champion LSU jumped from 7th to 2nd, and locked the #3 team in the SEC from attempting to play in the title game. The results were quite pleasing to the SEC. 38-24 LSU.

So to answer your question Brad, in case your doomsday scenario does play out, yes, Penn State-Florida would be just fine.

Drink of the Moment: The Vesper

"Just a moment. Three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large, thin slice of lemon peel. Got it?"

If there's an author this side of Earnest Hemingway who really knew his liquor, it was Ian Flemming, the creator of secret agent James Bond. In honor of the release of Quantum of Solace, I bring you the drink Flemming created through 007, The Vesper.

The Vesper was introduced in Flemming's 1953 novel, Casino Royal. During a high stakes game of Baccarat. Bond invents the drink when asked if he'd like a drink from the bar. When Felix Lighter, one of the other players comments on the drink, Bond says this.

"I never have more than one drink before dinner. But I do like that one to be large and very strong and very cold and very well-made. I hate small portions of anything, particularly when they taste bad. This drink's my own invention. I'm going to patent it when I can think of a good name."

He ends up naming it in honor of Vesper Lynd, the double agent for the Soviets that he's bedding at this time.

As you can read above, the drink involves Gin, Vodka, and Kina Lillet. However, if you want to make an accurate Vesper, you must keep in mind that this recipe was devised in 1953, when men were men, and alcohol was strong. Gordon's Gin has been cut down in proof, and most vodkas currently sold are 80 proof. Kina Lillet isn't made anymore. They replaced it with Lillet Blanc, which has no quinine in it, so it lacks any real bite to it.

To get around these issues, there are several quick fixes. Many modern gins maintain the 94 proof of 50's Gordon's. 100 proof vodka is easy to find. A dash of quinine powder turns a Lillet Blanc back into Kina Lillet. The quinine powder might be difficult to find, so if you can't get your hands on it, substitute in 2 dashes of Angostura Bitters.

You wind up with 3 oz 94 proof gin, 1 oz 100 proof vodka, 1/2 oz of Lillet Blanc, and a dash of Quinine Powder (or two dashed bitters). Shake until cold, then strain into a Cocktail glass, or a deep champagne goblet if you want to be true to Bond. Garnish with a long thin lemon peel. Take a sip, and picture yourself heads up with Le Chiffre.