I agree with Bryan on the college football playoffs. Why do we need a playoff? It's a regional sport, with regional winners. There's a reason it was always called a "mythical" national championship. If there is more than one undefeated team, so what? It gives us something to argue about. There is no clear reason to have a playoff.

And I mean Curtis. How sad. Again BHTV resists any temptation to think outside the box and invite new, interesting bloggers to discuss sports. Instead, we go down this well-trodden, boring path. Hey Bob, wasn't Bryant Gumble available? To talk about Tiger Woods a week late or absurd topics like "Is football too dangerous" is bad enough - but to dig up boring, predictable 100 year old Robert "I'm a politically aware sportswriter" " Lipstyle - Good grief. In the last 20 years one good thing has happened - I no longer have to read uber-liberal sportswriters. I can watch everything on Cable TV and get all the interesting sports analysis and commentary on the net. Sometimes things change for the best.

I had no idea the idea of liberal bias extended even into sports.

Quoting rcocean: And I mean Curtis.

How sad. Again BHTV resists any temptation to think outside the box and invite new, interesting bloggers to discuss sports. Instead, we go down this well-trodden, boring path. Hey Bob, wasn't Bryant Gumble available?

LMAO. Ok, that was funny. That being said: thanks for listening! Who would you prefer, rcocean? I would love to see jason whitlock.

Quoting rcocean: And I mean Curtis.

How sad. Again BHTV resists any temptation to think outside the box and invite new, interesting bloggers to discuss sports.

I can't think of anything more tedious, more annoying, than discussions of sports or athletes. Conceptual art, maybe. Just a personal preference. Re: Tiger's troubles: character is determined by capability. Some men are incapable of being faithful to one woman. It's no big deal.

Quoting nikkibong: LMAO. Ok, that was funny.

That being said: thanks for listening!

Who would you prefer, rcocean?

I would love to see jason whitlock.

I agree completely on Jason, I think Stephen A. Smith would be good. Others, Art Spander (Golf), Baseball Crank, Allen Barra, Bill James,

Jesus effing christ this Robert guy is cynical. He was basically delighting in Tigers downfall and assuming everything about his father and nature and life is rotten to the core.
The cynicism is not a product of this scandal either, it is VERY clear he never liked the guy from the start. Even his accomplishments were essentially spit on by turning his genuine determination to be good at what he does into a tale of oppression and being ridden by a taskmaster father bent on revenge.
Reading a bit too much into things? I suppose it makes them feel better about themselves. Good for you guys. The only person he needs to answer to about his affairs is his wife, not either of you, or some golf nobility in the country clubs or even his sponsors. If that last group is bothered enough, then let them drop him.

lipsyte is great. been missing him on BhTV.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Even his accomplishments were essentially spit on by turning his genuine determination to be good at what he does into a tale of oppression and being ridden by a taskmaster father bent on revenge.

I've never yet read an in-depth profile of a dominant professional male athlete that didn't incorporate some kind of daddy issue. The idea that such athletes are borderline psychopaths seems pretty common to me--and reasonable. It takes a special kind of derangement to do what they do. They endure truly enormous suffering to win--and it ain't about the money, either. Their bodies are abnormal and so are their psychologies.

Quoting rcocean: I agree completely on Jason, I think Stephen A. Smith would be good. Others, Art Spander (Golf), Baseball Crank, Allen Barra, Bill James,

Steve Sailer would be great. His writing on Toby Gerhart have been very good. http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/12/i...r-heisman.html

Quoting JonIrenicus: Reading a bit too much into things?

The cloud of the silver lining of the affairs 'de Tiger is people like Lipsyte and their opinions on what/why, if only for the laughs. The way he licks his lips and says "I'd really like to see him go down" is not only ultra creepy but hilarious. One more down against the man! I guess you could follow his logic and presume that during high school little Robert was stuffed into a few trash cans but that would be too simplistic. If Robert actually did play hs sports he would know that every player is just as unique as the members of the marching band and the latin club. Saying he (Tiger) should apologize for diverting attention from war, health care etc shows that Lipsyte has no clue where the problem is. Tiger didn't divert our attention, the media did. But the silver cup so far goes to Eugene Robinson, who said the main problem was that Tiger's whore wranglers had not attended diversity training. You really get a glimpse into how poisoned the minds are of the

Congrats also to Robert on realizing that sex, politics, money and corruption have intruded into college sports. Has this guy ever been to Washington DC? As to a college football playoff, the money from the bowl system will make defeating the college presidents and the NCAA very difficult. The best idea would be an 8 team playoff and it would only result in two more games for the finalists than the current system. Plus all of December is avail to hold it and you could still have holiday bowl games for the also-rans. That being said, when the local little league has a better system for determining the best team, there's a problem

I would like to note my annoyance at a trait by self-hating humans to describe the moral fall of an individual as something that is likely to "humanise" that person in some way in the eyes of the community. This appears to me either an upleasant overhang of unresolved religious issues, an unattractive and unknowing attempt to rationalise one's own uncertain integrity, or an admission of affection for a marketing avatar. We knew almost nothing about Tiger Woods before, except for that which had been oh so carefully manufactured by a host of the world's most sophisicated marketing specialists. Those who thought they knew him, might be compared to those who felt they knew Lady Diana or now feel they have a close understanding of Barack Obama. It's a celebrity thing. Not the stuff of sentient adults, anyhow. Well, we may feel we all know at least a little more about Tiger Woods now: that he plays golf very well, wears predictable clothing so-so well and he lies very badly indeed. But this does this not make him either "more human" or "less human". The species adjective simply does not apply.

Quoting Facchetti: I would like to note my annoyance at a trait by self-hating humans to describe the moral fall of an individual as something that is likely to "humanise" that person in some way in the eyes of the community. This appears to me either an upleasant overhang of unresolved religious issues, an unattractive and unknowing attempt to rationalise one's own uncertain integrity, or an admission of affection for a marketing avatar.

We knew almost nothing about Tiger Woods before, except for that which had been oh so carefully manufactured by a host of the world's most sophisicated marketing specialists. Those who thought they knew him, might be compared to those who felt they knew Lady Diana or now feel they have a close understanding of Barack Obama. It's a celebrity thing. Not the stuff of sentient adults, anyhow.

Well, we may feel we all know at least a little more about Tiger Woods now: that he plays golf very well, wears predictable clothing so-so well and he lies very badly indeed. But this does this not make him either "more human" or "less human". The species adjective simply does

Quoting DenvilleSteve:
Regarding the diavloggers, I think Bryan is way too deferential to Lipsyte. How could he not challenge him on his initial statement that golf is not a sport? At the least prompt him for a fuller explanation.

Yeah, really. I like this pairing and would like to see Lypsyte wax nostalgic about his earlier reporting days. And the Tiger story bores me to tears.

Will SOMEONE please tell some of these talking heads to say something other than,"Y'know."
A couple of these guys are UNWATCHABLE!!!

Quoting DenvilleSteve: My take on Tiger Woods is he is a republican. I think he is sincere in his regret that he has gotten his family drawn into this mess.

Are you suggesting these two are related or are they just two disconnected opinions about Woods?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Regarding the diavloggers, I think Bryan is way too deferential to Lipsyte. How could he not challenge him on his initial statement that golf is not a sport? At the least prompt him for a fuller explanation.

I think he didn't challenge this point because it's tired and banal to discuss what the definition of sport is. It's just a definition. Who cares? Besides Lipsyte thoroughly extinguishes any credibility on this at the end when, without any probing questions,he volunteers that NASCAR is his "favorite sport". I understand that NASCAR's rightful status is a matter of hot debate over many a bud light, but I think saying NASCAR is sport and golf is not is just fucking around with what words mean in a way that's not illustrative.

Quoting messwithtexas: Are you suggesting these two are related or are they just two disconnected opinions about Woods?

I think he didn't challenge this point because it's tired and banal to discuss what the definition of sport is. It's just a definition. Who cares? Besides Lipsyte thoroughly extinguishes any credibility on this at the end when, without any probing questions,he volunteers that NASCAR is his "favorite sport". I understand that NASCAR's rightful status is a matter of hot debate over many a bud light, but I think saying NASCAR is sport and golf is not is just fucking around with what words mean in a way that's not illustrative.

Oh, I would have liked to hear his reasoning. And if traveling at 200 mph while dodging obstacles also going 200 mph isn't a sport, I don't know what is. That being said, I'm not a big racing fan.

I liked this diavlog a lot. Lipsyte is quite droll, and, methinks, dead on regarding the Unbearable Banality of Tiger Woods. Curtis, on the other hand, struck me as being totally wrong on his diagnosis of Woods' "transgressions." He claims that they represent a betrayal of Woods' reputation for discipline and self-control. Yet, wasn't the way Woods organized the trists much like the way he plays golf? - cold, calm, detached. Curtis alludes to Michael Jordan's competitive spirit. That gives me an exucse to recommend this superb character study of MJ, one of the best sports books I've ever read: http://www.powells.com/biblio/2-0743254260-1

Quoting Facchetti: I would like to note my annoyance at a trait by self-hating humans to describe the moral fall of an individual as something that is likely to "humanise" that person in some way in the eyes of the community. This appears to me either an upleasant overhang of unresolved religious issues, an unattractive and unknowing attempt to rationalise one's own uncertain integrity, or an admission of affection for a marketing avatar.

We knew almost nothing about Tiger Woods before, except for that which had been oh so carefully manufactured by a host of the world's most sophisicated marketing specialists. Those who thought they knew him, might be compared to those who felt they knew Lady Diana or now feel they have a close understanding of Barack Obama. It's a celebrity thing. Not the stuff of sentient adults, anyhow.

Well, we may feel we all know at least a little more about Tiger Woods now: that he plays golf very well, wears predictable clothing so-so well and he lies very badly indeed. But this does this not make him either "more human" or "less human". The species adjective simply does

I come at this from a little different perspective. I like to see people who act as if they are better than anyone else, brought down, simply because I don't like people who think/act like they are better than everyone else. This isn't really the case with Tiger, but it would definitely cheer me to see Sarah Palin or somebody very preachy exposed for hypocrisy or their vices. In the case of athletes, the media tries to sell them as these larger than life super-people who in the best cases (like Tiger) are respectful and love their parents and never say a bad thing etc., etc. It's all part of our human urge to envision heroes and perfect people, and I think it's ridiculous, so I always enjoy when we get a reminder that everybody has problems and issues and that these people (athletes, movie stars etc.) are no different from the rest of us in that respect. But most significantly I love seeing the trainwrecks that are caused by domineering parents like Tiger's Dad, Agassi's dad and the countless parents of child actors. Not because I revel in the misery that Tiger/Agassi etc., endure, but

I still can't decide if Curtis is just being cute, or if he really is pro-BCS. While I most certainly do not want Congress or the White House to get involved that does not change the fact that the BCS is a complete abomination. There is a very simple solution to this problem which I've written before: The Sun Belt and Conference USA would merge into a mega conference. On Christmas Day the WAC champ would play the Mountain West champ in Las Vegas and the MAC champ would play the ConferenceUSA/SunBelt champ in Orlando. On New Years the Pac 10 and Big Ten champs would play in the Rose Bowl, the Big 12 and ACC champs would play in the Orange Bowl, the SEC and Big East champs would play in the Sugar Bowl, and the winners of the Christmas Day games would square off in the Fiesta Bowl. The following would week would feature two semi-final games and the next week would be the national champion. This plan preserves the importance of in season conference rivalry games (since playoff spots are given only to conference champs), offers every team a

Quoting conncarroll: I still can't decide if Curtis is just being cute, or if he really is pro-BCS. While I most certainly do not want Congress or the White House to get involved that does not change the fact that the BCS is a complete abomination.

There is a very simple solution to this problem which I've written before:

Sorry Conn could you flowchart that "Simple Solution"? (Just kidding). Your idea to limit the playoffs to Conference champions is a good one. In fact, if I agreed with playoffs and "National Champions" - yours is the best plan I've read. But I don't support either. I don't like the Professionalization of College Football. I say go back to the college-athlete. No scholarships, no freshman, 10 games a year & then the bowl games. Penalize colleges that don't graduate their football players. Heck I'd go even further (wacky idea) and establish weight limits for college football - say 210 lbs. Why should colleges be farm teams for the NFL. I like college football because its NOT the NFL.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I come at this from a little different perspective. I like to see people who act as if they are better than anyone else, brought down, simply because I don't like people who think/act like they are better than everyone else. This isn't really the case with Tiger, but it would definitely cheer me to see Sarah Palin or somebody very preachy exposed for hypocrisy or their vices. In the case of athletes, the media tries to sell them as these larger than life super-people who in the best cases (like Tiger) are respectful and love their parents and never say a bad thing etc., etc. It's all part of our human urge to envision heroes and perfect people, and I think it's ridiculous, so I always enjoy when we get a reminder that everybody has problems and issues and that these people (athletes, movie stars etc.) are no different from the rest of us in that respect.

Tiger isn't just a great athlete. He's a billion-dollar corporation. The value of the corporation is not based solely on golf; it's based on image. The media may be complicit, but you have to pin the responsibility

Quoting look: Oh, I would have liked to hear his reasoning. And if traveling at 200 mph while dodging obstacles also going 200 mph isn't a sport, I don't know what is. That being said, I'm not a big racing fan.

I'm not saying this wouldn't be interesting to the subset of people who enjoy the debate about what does and doesn't qualify as a sport, but I don't think that means Curtis was being "way too deferential" by not pushing this tired point. As for the comment about NASCAR v golf, I am not a fan of either as I find them both dreadfully boring, but I think under any normal conception of what constitutes a sport there is more of a case to be made for the inclusion of golf than NASCAR because of the obvious importance of the car in racing. Granted most sports require some kind of equipment, but the complexities of designing a race car play a more integral role in NASCAR than the specifications of the various equipment does in other sports. For instance, there is typically no talk about the changing quality of a golfer's clubs from match to match, with the

Talking about whether golf, pool, or NASCAR, is a "sport" is boring. Its just word games.

Quoting conncarroll: This past Sunday I was watching the 1992 Orange Bowl on ESPN Classic (that is how bad a college football nut I am) and then-NBC broadcaster Bill Walsh was defending the then-current system talking about how academics would suffer if football players had to play the 12- and 13-game seasons a playoff system would demand.

The punch line is that the NCAA has since expanded the regular season to 12 games and that five of the nine conferences (ACC, SEC, Big 12, MAC, C-USA) now all have championship games. So Alabama and Texas will both have played 14 games this season, which in 1991 was supposed to be academic apocalypse.

not to mention that some major university canceled classes for a bowl game recently. so 20,000 students * 5 hrs of class = 100,000 hours of lost academics. so that one event is far more of an "academic loss" than 20 years of an extended schedule for a football team. *hypothetical numbers above, but I think my point holds up. my preference: go to a club system like futbol in europe. there really is no need to have legions of ignorant jocks being given red carpet treatment in a supposed academic environment. and yeah - i realize

Quoting Ray: I've never yet read an in-depth profile of a dominant professional male athlete that didn't incorporate some kind of daddy issue.

The idea that such athletes are borderline psychopaths seems pretty common to me--and reasonable.

It takes a special kind of derangement to do what they do. They endure truly enormous suffering to win--and it ain't about the money, either. Their bodies are abnormal and so are their psychologies.

Lets say I granted everything you just said, explain the contempt seething from Lipsyte. It sounds much more like he just doesn't like anyone getting above their place in a sports hierarchy. That's if he even considered golf a sport, from his perspective it is bad enough to suffer a regular golfer being considered an athlete, to have one not only considered among the athlete club, but placed among some of the greatest ever! It is enough to send the man into a controlled rage, and has. You got analysis, I got contempt and bitterness. Good for him again, be bitter, continue looking down on the man, explain away his drive and determination and skill into a tale of obedience and ruthlessness and

Quoting popcorn_karate: not to mention that some major university canceled classes for a bowl game recently. so 20,000 students * 5 hrs of class = 100,000 hours of lost academics.

so that one event is far more of an "academic loss" than 20 years of an extended schedule for a football team.

*hypothetical numbers above, but I think my point holds up.

my preference: go to a club system like futbol in europe. there really is no need to have legions of ignorant jocks being given red carpet treatment in a supposed academic environment. and yeah - i realize that is a non-starter.

I keep pushing that too. I think almost everybody would be better off if they privatized college sports.

Pretty bland exchange by and large I’d say, and I tuned out—being Canadian— when these guys started talking about college football. Except: it was intellectually infuriating. It was extraordinary for me to hear Lipsyte’s appalling schadenfreude over Tiger’s troubles. These guys, I would bet, decry an American popular culture besotted with mind numbing, dehumanizing triviality, of which reality television and degenerate notions of celebrity-as in being famous only for being famous -are an apotheosis. These guys, who I never before heard of, in their by play over Tiger’s troubles went on and on about how unprepossessing he is, how robotic, how uninteresting. Maybe that’s all so. So fucking what? My question is: why isn’t it enough for them—they are sports writers—that he is, let’s stipulate, the greatest golfer ever? On what basis do they get to expect any other talents and accomplishments from him (which he may or may not possess) and complain about what's lacking? Why isn’t his sheer golfing brilliance sufficient? That is all he asserts; that is all he would claim to be judged by. Here is an irony flowing from their misapprehension of what is important: for all that they misconceivedly demand of Tiger apart from his

Quoting claymisher: I keep pushing that too. I think almost everybody would be better off if they privatized college sports.

Instead of the Obama-esque technocratic solution, I would just cancel the BCS for, say, 5 years. The unis would revert to the dark ages before a BCS, and start afresh. After five years, fans, coaches, and players could decide whether they want to revert to the BCS system or continue with the organic process underway. I realize, too, this is a non-starter.

If they privatized college sports, wouldn't that be the death knell to all the sports that are spectator-weak, including just about every women's program? Right now I'm pretty sure that most Div 1A programs are partially funded by football and (to a lesser extant) (men's) basketball.

Quoting conncarroll: I still can't decide if Curtis is just being cute, or if he really is pro-BCS. While I most certainly do not want Congress or the White House to get involved that does not change the fact that the BCS is a complete abomination.

There is a very simple solution to this problem which I've written before

I pretty much agree with this solution -- it's similar to what I argue for. If we can't do something like that, I'd just as soon go back to the days when the Bowls were mostly traditionally affiliated with certain conference champions and matchups and not try to create a championship game out of it at all. Then we could have the argument plus a lot more interesting bowls and not undermine all but the designated championship one. On other matters, I find the joy in Tiger's troubles bizarre. As I think someone else said, Tiger doesn't strike me as someone who held himself up in a hypocritical way. His marketing image seems based on him simply being reasonably quite publically, plus his success at golf and persona on the golf course. The fact that

This won't ever fly. Where do the 2 and 3 place teams of the SEC come in for example? Your plan doesn't function in conference strength. How would this effect non-conference games during a regular season? College football is not the same across the nation. In some parts it is huge and it others it is almost non-existant. The best teams, not just the best teams from some region, should have the chance to be playing in a bowl or playoff at the end of the season. The Sun Belt and Conference USA champs likely would have 3-4 losses at least if they played in the SEC, Big 10, or Big 12. The good "mid-majors" just need to be admitted into the more prestigous conferences. Texas should try and join the SEC as well.

Quoting Lyle: This won't ever fly. Where do the 2 and 3 place teams of the SEC come in for?

This is the same issue that you get with any sport that has divisions. The 2nd and 3rd place teams in the SEC had a chance to win the SEC and didn't. Thus, they can't be national champion. They could play in some other bowl in this scenario. Or add some wildcard scenario if you must, I suppose.

That would be they way it worked in Conn's plan. I get that. That's why it won't work, because major colleges in major conferences have larger programs than the "lesser" colleges. They've got bigger stadiums to fill and sports revenue to look after. These teams might even have beaten the conference champion in the "weaker" conference and yet, the weaker team gets a shot at the national championship just because they're in a conference that covers the mountain states or the northeast? The college football landscape is too imbalanced for this to work, I think. It seems like a cute solution, but the powers that be won't let it happen. I don't mind the way it is right now, or going back to the way it was... otherwise there needs to be a playoff system just like in the other NCAA divisions.

This was entertaining and informative for those of us who do not follow golf or the Tiger Woods scandal. Lipsyte is good. So is the other guy. Ban intercollegiate athletics! They aren't that fun to watch and their effect upon higher education is largely negative. There has to be a better way to raise money for higher education than encouraging grown men, the alumni who are the raison d'etre for intercollegiate athletics, to remain perpetual adolescents. And there have to be better things for college kids to do than to go to these games.