An easy way to decide who plays in the BCS title game

It's extremely simple. So simple that even people who espouse other approaches seem to implicitly accept its logic. Are you ready? Don't zone out, it's really short. Here goes: the two best teams should play in the championship game.

Got it? How about one more time: the two best teams should play in the championship game.

Nothing else matters. If someone puts a gun to your head and asks you to name the two best teams, the two teams you would take over any others on a neutral field, those two teams are the ones that should play in that game. Like I said, it's easy. Nevertheless, people find ways to screw it up, and are doing so rampantly as we approach the end of the 2011 season.

Why? Alabama. Everything is coming to a head here. Circumstances have forced Bama back to the top of the pile of one loss teams and a lot of people are upset. Oklahoma State just lost to a 26 point underdog. Oklahoma lost to an even bigger dog at home. Oregon and Alabama both lost to the same opponent, but Bama lost in overtime whereas Oregon was beaten soundly. Arkansas lost to Bama and is likely stuck in third place in the SEC West. An undefeated Houston team simply would not have the strength of schedule to justify inclusion.

So the natural response is to try and invent a bunch of arbitrary rules to keep the clear second best team out of the title game. If, after the next couple of weeks it becomes even clearer that Alabama is the second best team in America, it would be a damn shame if they were denied their rightful opportunity to play for a championship.

On Penn State

Voluminous ink has been spilled on this topic so I will stick to loosely organized observations without setting out the basic facts. McQueary is going to be the focal point of much of this, and his behavior is quite difficult to sort through, and I don't think it will be possible to simply blame the administrators for failing to act on detailed reports provided by him. McQueary is a part of the whole rotten system there and the more I think about it, the more I find it plausible that he either sugar coated his story or was nudged into downplaying what he saw. This is not to say that the administrators behaved correctly, merely that McQueary possibly didn't tell them the graphic details that he revealed to the grand jury.

Then there's the recent development of McQueary claiming in an email or some other medium that he actually did contact the police. To me this smells like a response to public criticism. It smells like an attempt by McQueary to retell history and to defend his actions. Just now I read a report that the police have no record of any report by McQueary or anyone else. So just what the hell was McQueary talking about?

At any rate, I'm sure all of the participants in this drama have lawyers smartly telling them to shut the fuck up in no uncertain terms, and already two of the critical figures have made public statements. Sandusky, for his part, gave a cryptic media interview via telephone that did nothing to help his case. Years from now when this thing is mostly sorted out I am confident that writers approaching the topic will find much symbolism and significance in that interview, none of it flattering to Sandusky or Penn State University.

And with Paterno, I'm not even sure what to say.