Three and counting

First of all, Drew insisted that I post final standings for the Bowl Challenge just so everyone knows that he officially won. So, fine. Here you go:

1. Drew (22-10)
2. Stan (21-11)
3. Rudnik (20-12, -6 winner score)
4. Flax (20-12, -14 winner score)
5. Dad (19-13)
6. Tyler (18-14, -1 tiebreaker score)
7. JQ (18-14, -7 tiebreaker score)
8. NJ Dave (15-17, -7 tiebreaker score)
9. Rich (15-17, no tiebreaker)
10. NU Dave (11-21)

Happy? Good. Moving on.

In sports news, my new hero is Greg Archuleta of the Albuquerque Journal, the only AP voter who cast his #1 vote in the final poll for the country's last unbeaten team, Boise State. (BSU finished #5 in the final poll; Florida, of course, finished first.) Could Boise State beat Florida? I don't know; quite possibly not. But as a team that won all the games they could, don't you think they should get a chance? If anything, a playoff system is more necessary in college football than in most other sports; in basketball and hockey each team plays every other one at least once, for example, and the same is true within each league in baseball. In college football, you're lucky if the top teams play two strong out-of-conference games. (Ohio State played one, against a rebuilding Texas team, and while Florida did play two bowl-winning teams, they also played Central Florida and I-AA Western Carolina, both of whom they slaughtered.) So the national title contenders probably aren't going to play, unless they're in the same conference, and yet the two best are determined by human polls and computer formulas, and not anything that happens on the field. It's getting pretty ridiculous. Ohio State/Florida was probably the best pick for the title game, but it was by no means the only reasonable pick, and that was so because these teams don't play each other. Set it up so that the contenders meet in a playoff and the eventual title showdown will be much more conclusive. I know some people value tradition over finality, but if that's the case you should be rooting for a return to the old system, where the big bowls had specific conference affiliations and if the #1 team was from the Big Ten and the #2 team was from the SEC, there was no way in hell they were going to meet. Now that's the way to be unsatisfied with an outcome!

In other news, this is a real website. I don't know whether to be impressed or alarmed. Doesn't it just seem really, weirdly, oddly specific? I mean, just burritos? Maybe I should set one up for bubble tea, or turkey sandwiches.

January 9 means it must be Alma's and my anniversary. Happy three years, baby! I know other people are reading this so I'll spare you too much mush, but it has to be said, over and over again: I love this woman.

Bowled over

Cincinnati and Southern Miss won, so Drew, at 22-9, takes the title in the Bowl Challenge. Monday's game is irrelevant, since everyone had Ohio State (and even if they didn't, the only person who could catch Drew with one game is Stan). Since it's Drew, the token of my esteem will probably be candy of some sort, although I should probably try and make it slightly more interesting than just handing him a bag of Skittles. I suppose we'll see.

Final Standings (prior to Monday's game)
1. Drew 22-9
2. Stan 21-10
3t. Flax 20-11
3t. Rudnik 20-11
5. Dad 19-12
6t. JQ 18-13
6t. Tyler 18-13
8t. NJ Dave 15-16
8t. Rich 15-16
10. NU Dave 11-20

Drew has sewn up the second-best winning percentage in Challenge history (if anyone ever tops Marc's 19-6 from 2001, I'll be pretty surprised). Meanwhile, though I hate to keep piling on Dave, his picks were kind of amazing. He started 0-7, then went 3-3 to get to 3-10... and proceeded to go on a 6-0 run, getting all the way to 9-10 before missing another. He then went 2-2 to get to 11-12 following the Cotton Bowl - and hasn't gotten one right since, dropping to 11-20 with an 0-8 run, which actually manages to beat his 0-7 start. Talk about being streaky!

Anyway, that's the Bowl Challenge for another year. I'll update the actual page after the title game, but this is the last I'll write about it here. And with good cause!

The home stretch

Sorry for the lack of updates, but I don't have internet at home right now (thanks, RCN). Updating the picks has been hard enough, since I have to do it through the website's control panel (much, much harder than with a WYSIWYG editor), so I've been doing it more sporadically than I otherwise might have. That said, they should all be up to date now, and assuming I haven't miscounted, our post-New-Year's-Day standings look like this:

1. Rudnik (19-8)
2. Drew (18-9)
3t. Flax (17-10)
3t. Stan (17-10)
5t. Dad (16-11)
5t. Tyler (16-11)
7. JQ (15-12)
8. Rich (13-14)
9. NJ Dave (12-15)
10. NU Dave (11-16)

If Wake Forest wins tonight, Rudnik will have things virtually locked up; he'd go two games up over Drew and three over Stan and me. Drew would need Cincinnati and Southern Miss to win just to tie Rudnik (not that that's not possible, but obviously it doesn't leave him any breathing room as those are the only games they have different of the final four), while everyone else would be mathematically eliminated.

If Louisville wins, however, Rudnik and Drew would be tied at 19-9 with Stan and myself at 18-10 (I've included Tyler and Dad, who would be at 17-11 with a Louisville win, in the below scenarios, even though I calculate that they can't win at this point). The Sugar Bowl and title game are both non-factors in the race at this point, meaning it would all come down to the International and GMAC Bowls. So assuming Louisville wins tonight, the following scenarios could happen:

If Western Michigan and Ohio win:
Rudnik 22-9 (or 21-10 if ND wins)
Drew 20-11 (or 19-12 if ND wins)
Flax 20-11 (or 19-12 if ND wins)
Tyler 20-11 (or 19-12 if ND wins)
Dad 19-12 (or 18-13 if ND wins)
Stan 19-12 (or 18-13 if ND wins)

So we'd have a three-way tie for second, but since Rudnik had UWM and Ohio, he'd win going away. But what if he's wrong about both?

If Cincinnati and Southern Miss win:
Drew 22-9 (or 21-10 if ND wins)
Stan 21-10 (or 20-11 if ND wins)
Flax 20-11 (or 19-12 if ND wins)
Rudnik 20-11 (or 19-12 if ND wins)
Dad 19-12 (or 18-13 if ND wins)
Tyler 18-13 (or 17-14 if ND wins)

In this scenario Drew would win, and Stan would actually sneak all the way to second.

If Cincinnati and Ohio win:
Rudnik 21-10 (or 20-11 if ND wins)
Drew 21-10 (or 20-11 if ND wins)
Stan 20-11 (or 19-12 if ND wins)
Dad 20-11 (or 19-12 if ND wins)
Flax 19-12 (or 18-13 if ND wins)
Tyler 19-12 (or 18-13 if ND wins)

In this case it would come down to a tiebreaker between Rudnik and Drew. Rud has 48 total points, while Drew has 59. (I'd call that advantage: Rudnik.)

If Western Michigan and Southern Miss win:
Rudnik 21-10 (or 20-11 if ND wins)
Drew 21-10 (or 20-11 if ND wins)
Flax 21-10 (or 20-11 if ND wins)
Stan 20-11 (or 19-12 if ND wins)
Tyler 19-12 (or 18-13 if ND wins)
Dad 18-13 (or 17-14 if ND wins)

The final scenario, which involves me turning around my January 1 fortunes (2-4!) and getting all three remaining difference games right, would actually lead to a three-way tie atop the leaderboard. More problematic? Guess who has the same tiebreaker score. That's right, Rudnik and I both took 48 points (35-13 for him, 27-21 for me).

In the interest of full transparency I am announcing right now the resolution to this situation should it actually arise. (Of course, if Louisville, Cincinnati, or Ohio win, it becomes moot.) In the event of two players with the same tiebreaker score, the player whose score for the winning team is closer wins the tiebreaker. Should this fail to resolve things (say Ohio State wins 31-17, for example), the winner will be the player whose birthday is closest to the birthday of the game's MVP, much like the second tiebreaker (never used) for the Tournament Challenge.

(Troy Smith: 7/20; Ted Ginn: 4/12; Antonio Pittman, 12/19; Chris Leak, 5/3. Rudnik, with his March 20 birthday, would beat me in three of these four.)

So anyway: advantage Rudnik, for the moment. But it's not over yet.

Feliz Navidad

So the Bowl Challenge is off to a hot start. Currently JQ and I are tied at 5-2, and then there's a big group at either 3 or 4 correct picks, so it's still on. Unless you're NU Dave; I think my new rule for making picks is going to be wait for his to come in, then take the opposite for every game. I'm teasing of course, but damn, 0-7? That is a major confluence of bad luck picking. There are quite a few bowls coming up where he picked with the majority, so odds are he gets off the schneid soon, but wow. Previous long 0-fer to start a Challenge? 0-2. So congratulations, Dave - you may not win the Challenge, but you've made your way into history, however ignominiously.

"Back" in DC for Christmas, which is tomorrow. It's been pretty laid back, which is just as well, since work was stressful as hell for the second half of last week. I miss Alma, though.

Business: does anyone out there like Camera Obscura? They're playing Logan Square Auditorium on February 3. I actually know nothing about them besides the name and an album title, but they're playing with the Essex Green, whom I love. (And if you're wondering why I didn't just ask about the Essex Green, I figured you'd be much less likely to have heard of them, unless you are Marc Hogan or someone I told about them.) I suspect Alma isn't all that interested (our musical tastes don't have a huge amount of overlap) so possible company would be appreciated. (If Alma does end up wanting to go, well, even better.) Let me know in the comments.