Welsh Rugby Fan Cuts Off Sack

My thoughts after reading this story:

• Maybe deals like this only help your team if God knows you're actually willing to hold up your end of the bargain.
• This guy is clearly . . . nuts, but I have to give him his due. I mean, people say stupid shit like that all the time, but how many people actually have the . . . balls to follow through.
• No wonder the Welsh population growth rate is four times less than the world population growth rate. Perhaps the Welsh should start rooting against their national rugby team. Or just ban wire cutters.
• No doubt this guy has the world's highest pain threshold, which reminds me of an anecdote about a friend's roommate (yes, I have met the roommate and verified the veracity of the story): So, the roommate is riding his freestyle bike at a terrain park when he slips off the pedals and racks himself on the frame. It hurts. However, he continues with this activity until he notices some blood. Being of sounder mind than the Welsh rugby fan, he decides it is time to go home. He rides his bike several miles back to my friend's house. There, he relaxes on the couch watching TV. It becomes apparent everything is not right, so his girlfriend convinces him to go to the hospital. He ends up receiving stitches at the ER to sew up his scrotum. Men know that there is no worse pain, qualitatively speaking, than getting hit in the balls. When I heard this story I was in absolute awe that my friend's roommate was able to function at all after this incident.

Poll Fiction

Freedom Dip takes exception to USC’s claim to a 2003 national championship in football (hat tip: Burnt Orange Nation):

Let's get something straight with USC and the rest of the college football world.

USC is NOT going for a 3-peat!!! Period.

Who won the national title in 2003? Wasn't it LSU?

If fans say, "Well, USC should have been in the title game." Then I say tough. The BCS is the system agreed upon by the coaches, and the coaches voted the Tigers No. 1 after the Sugar Bowl that year. Ap's vote doesn't even count anymore. BCS is the accepted system for now.

If USC claims half the title in 2003, then Auburn should claim half of the 2004 title.
End of story.

Well, allow me to retort.

Does Tommy Trojan look like a bitch?

I said, DOES TOMMY TROJAN LOOK LIKE A BITCH?

No? Then why are you trying to f*** him like a bitch, Freedom Dip?

Seriously, this is a tired argument and the only people trying to make it are LSU fans and other Trojan-haters. USC’s claim is that it is defending two consecutive AP national titles. Yes, there is a distinction. No, USC does not deny that LSU was a co-national champion in 2003 (I seem to remember some kind of ceremony on the south lawn of the White House with both teams present). Why are some LSU fans so determined to reject USC’s equally legitimate claim?

The NCAA does not recognize an official national champion in Division I-A football. Even the BCS itself concedes that there was a split national title in 2003: “For the only time since the BCS was formed, there is a split national champion.”

SI.com’s Stewart Mandel lays it out in his May 17, 2005 College Football Mailbag:

I'm getting sick and tired of all of you people saying that USC is going for a three-peat. Just being No. 1 in the AP poll does not mean you won the national title. Some people may think this is just an (even after five months) angry Sooners fan ranting, but it's crazy to say the Trojans are going for a three-peat.
--Seth Points, Haskell, Okla.

Tell you what, Seth: We'll stop referring to USC as two-time defending national champion just as soon as Oklahoma renounces its 1950, '55, '56, '74, '75 and '85 national championships. This may come as a shock to you (and to everyone else who has written in with the same complaint), but the Sooners won those titles the same way USC won its 2003 crown: By finishing No. 1 in the AP poll.

You may also be unaware that the crystal trophy handed out at the end of each year's BCS title game is not technically bestowed for winning the game but rather for finishing No. 1 in the coaches' poll (which, conveniently, is required to vote the winner of the game No. 1). So, unless for some reason you think the coaches' poll is somehow more legitimate than the AP poll -- and, as far as I know, they've been considered pretty much equals for about 70 years -- then there's really nothing "crazy" about it.

Let’s not forget that the AP poll was legitimate enough in the eyes of the BCS people that they completely revamped their ranking system after the 2003 season to preclude the recurrence of a unanimous #1-ranked team being excluded from their title game.

Bad Analysis

I came across an example of exceptionally bad analysis in Matthew Zemek's "Weekly Affirmation" at College Football News.com:

When Cal lost to Oregon in a sloppy football game, USC’s strength of schedule dipped appreciably. A team that had been 5-0 and leading UCLA by 12 points with nine minutes left in regulation had suddenly spiraled to 6-3 before the showdown with the Trojans next weekend. When the Canes and Hokies kicked it off in Blacksburg, I was thinking to myself, “If USC doesn’t blast Cal out of the water—really crush them—on Nov. 12, one has no choice to dock the Trojans for their strength of schedule, just as I docked Texas for its strength of schedule.” I didn’t expect Cal to take this kind of a nosedive, but it happened, and that’s part of the larger body of evidence I have to deal with. My mind has to remain open when new evidence presents itself.

He continues:

Later in the day, the landscape changed even more against USC. When UCLA—a team supposedly worthy of contending for the Pac-10 title as USC’s final regular-season opponent—lost so decisively and pathetically to Arizona, I had no choice but to internally downgrade USC’s schedule strength still more.

Huh?

Objectively speaking, these two games have absolutely no net effect on USC's strength of schedule because USC plays all four teams. The loss by Cal, USC's Nov. 12 opponent, was a win for Oregon, USC's Sept. 24 opponent; just as UCLA's loss was a win for Arizona, who USC beat on Oct. 8. Therefore, the results of these two games for these four teams cancel each other out in USC's final schedule strength.

Subjectively speaking, the results of these two games should also be a wash. Whereas presumed USC victories over Cal and UCLA will now be less impressive, the past victories over 8-1 Oregon (in Eugene) and Arizona should now appear more impressive. If anything, the results of these two games bolster the evidence supporting USC's current reputation because USC has already beaten the victors of the Cal-Oregon and Arizona-UCLA games, but has not yet played the losers of those two contests.

In addition to Zemek's poor interpretation of the results of those games, he also makes the erroneous assumption that a team's strength is partly determined by its strength of schedule. I'm not saying that strength of schedule is not a legitimate factor of a team's BCS ranking (I'm not saying it is, either, but that's a separate issue). However, for those who believe the Pac-10 is a weak conference (myself not included), one only has to look at USC's non-conference performance over the past 3 years for proof that this assumption about schedule strength is suspect.

Zemek prides himself on his sound analysis of college football. Elsewhere in this piece, he writes, "good college football journalism concerns the process of making sense of events after they happen," and, "it’s making sense of events as they occur, and especially after they occur, that counts." I couldn't resist calling him out.