Damn right! And, FYI, there was a pretty famous continuance that made the rounds last year for the Saints-Bears playoff game. There, the federal trial court in New Orleans (E.D. La.) granted the motion. Court and football just don't mix.

This year, the BCS game is just another shitty bowl game pairing good, but not great, teams. This isn't USC-Texas or even Florida-Ohio St. Most people will not necessarily consider the winner to be the true national champion.

Overrated: LSU

Underrated: Ohio State

Hope the client wasn't billed for that

Pretty awesome motion, even if I do take exception to the "Slowhio" remark. It should be a good game - LSU is a great team, and OSU has been a pleasant surprise this year.

GO BUCKS!

Brilliant.
Confirms my belief that all inhabitants of the south are inbred, redneck hillbillies, but still, brilliant.

Insider,

Don't you mean "Slowhio?" See Harrell v. Spencer, Motion to Continue, n.1.

What surprises me is that anyone goes to work the friday before football games down here. Tailgaiting starts Thursday nights.

You Yankees enjoy your countless hours, bankrupt morals, anal retentiveness, and unattractive women. I'll take my 145K and compression.

Oh, and if you visit (i.e., don't stay!) don't forget--Delta is ready when you are!

While I would normally agree that this is a solid ground for a continuance, this game actually crowns nobody. Not in this worst year of college football in the post-war era where the participants both back-doored their way into the "National Championship" Game.

The BCS is a joke and completely indefensible. LSO-tOSU is nothing more than a game between two pretty decent teams.

Wait...

...there's law in the south?

The Bluebooking leaves much to be desired.

Go Buckeyes!
OH...IO
OH...IO
OH...IO

I'm going to echo the sentiment that I hope the client wasn't billed for this, especially the legal research required to find that totally inapposite quote regarding the importance of collegiate atheltics.

I thought lawsuits were serious, but then again I'm a dumb Yankee.

Journal Editor in Atlanta:

...so does your mother's face.

Hahahahah!

OSU underrated... right. Because the Big 10 has just been so great in their big non-conference and bowl games the last two years.

OSU and Michigan just looked sad in their Bowl Games last year. USC - Florida would have been a much better game.

I live in Chicago and although it pains me to admit it, the Big 10 is the TTT of the real BCS conferences the last couple of years. Overrated teams that just get killed when they play people out of conference.

If any of you southern hicks want a piece of me, I'm right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JMOh-cul6M

LSU 24
OSU 21

By the way, I'm fairly certain that neither fans of LSU nor fans of OSU care one iota about whether or not the biased supporters of other schools consider the championship to be "legitimate." For the past seventy-two years, the team atop the AP poll at the end of the season was dubbed the national champion of college football. For the last fifty-seven years, the number one team in the coaches' poll has also enjoyed the title of national champion. This year, the winner of the LSU-OSU game will be atop both of those polls. There will be an undisputed national champion by any historically valid criteria. End of argument.

I can't believe they included a reference to www.tigerpimpnation.com in a submission to a court of law.

3:15--

Just like LSU's last national championship--that was undisputed right?

3:21 -

Fire up your extant nueron and brush off whatever reading comprehension skills you posses.

In 2003, LSU was number one in the coaches' poll, but USC was number one in the AP poll.

This year, there will be one team atop both of those polls. Let me slow that down for you:

There...

will...

be...

one...

team...

atop...

both...

the..

AP...

poll...

and...

the...

coaches'...

poll.

That team will be either LSU or OSU. Hence, this year, there will be an undisputed national championship, by any valid historical standard.

2003 is not analogous to 2007.

2003

It's so funny how LSU supposedly won a national championship in 03, but EVERYONE credits USC with winning the NC that year.

Why aren't people abiding by historically valid criteria???

You don't think if OU rolls and LSU and tOSU struggle that OU would have a shot at leaping them both in the AP poll? If not, you are deluding yourself.

3:27.....Still not entirely true. What if LSU wins in a bad, but close, game? And what if Okie blows out WVU? Or what if GA wins convincingly? There still could be controversy.

LSUChi -- I think the point is that, after the creation of the BCS, the polls were supposed to be meaningless. Whoever won the BCS game was supposed to be considered the NC. But in 2003 that didn't happen. And the reason it didn't happen isn't because one team was tops in one poll but not in the other. It happened because, by and large, most fans and media types felt USC was the better team. In fact, most people don't even think the 2 teams were that comparable and that USC would have crushed LSU on a neutral field.

LOL @ Scotch and Guns from Louisiana lecturing Northerners on morals. Louisiana is the most ethically bankrupt state in the US.

How many elected official are indicted in Louisiana every year? Furthermore, isn't Louisiana home of the Spears Fertility Clinic?

Lets not even get started on New Orleans...

Morality in Louisiana. Ha.

If Hawaii wins impressively, and LSU and Ohio St. both look mediocre, they should be atop the polls!!

Scotch and Guns is clearly from Atlanta, not Louisiana, moron. Try reading his post, yank.

Even if LSU finishes atop both polls, it's still not a legit NC. They have 2 losses, including a late season loss to Arkansas of all team, and several close wins.

To put them on the same level as '05 Texas or '04 USC is absurd and insulting to college football.

Hey, 3:43, you dissin' yankees?

Dear 3:41. Not from Louisiana. But I'd take that state for the filth that is NYC anyday. Rudy G? Please.

I'm all for global warming. I'll give up New Orleans if it takes out NYC.

I'm from Louisiana and hope that LSU wins the National Championship. With that having been said, the fact that this guy couldn't even spell "LSU Tiger's" properly reminds me of why I left the state for my college and law school degrees.

Let me respond seriatim:

3:36 - No, I sincerely doubt that the AP voters will annoint Oklahoma the NC if they blow out a coachless WVU that lost its last home game to a sub-.500 Pitt squad. Similarly, I doubt the voters would raise UGA over LSU for beating a non-BCS conference school, especially since LSU won UGA's conference. I am willing to bet neither of those things will happen.

3:37 - Your final sentence is pure, unadorned assertion unsupported by any fact or evidence. The argument about which team - LSU or USC - would have won in 2003 could consume the entire bandwidth of this blog for thirty days, so I'll refrain. The larger point is that the sentiment of casual observers and the public at large is completely innapposite. The college football national champion is, by historic convention, the team or teams atop the coaches' and AP polls. Period. End of story. To wit, there are Penn State fans who will forever claim that the Nittany Lions are the true 1994 national champions. Most college football pundits believe that PSU was better than Nebraska that season. Nonetheless, Nebraska was the 1994 NC and is listed in any reputable sports almanac as the 1994 NC, because Nebraska finished atop the polls. Carping and whining attends most college football seasons, pre and post BCS, but the polls uniformly define the championship. Thus, either LSU or OSU will be the undisputed national champion of college football in 2007.

Can you tell me why LSU jumped Georgia after coasting past a mediocre Tennessee squad?

Also:
"there are Penn State fans who will forever claim that the Nittany Lions are the true 1994 national champions."

No there are not. Every person who is alive would easily concede that Nebraska was the best team in the country in 1994 and the best team of all time in 1995.

fn 3's www.tigerpimpnation.com would not be all that funny if i had merely stumbled upon it randomly. but knowing that some insurance company lawyer is a part of it makes it hilarious.

4:03 -

You clearly aren't a student of college football history if you think that "every person who is alive would easily concede that Nebraska was the best team in the country in 1994."

Every person alive? Easily?

Really?

Try not to promulgate moronic, dogmatic, absolute, unequivocal statements which can easily be refuted:

http://www.greatsportsrivalries.com/1994_national_champs/1994_ncaa_national_champions.html

Notice how LSuChil didn't respond to the guy calling LSU 2-loss dogshit that doesn't deserve to share the same accolade as 04 USC or 05 Texas.

He didn't respond because he knows it's true.

LSU's offense is terrible. They are a one-sided team. And Ohio State hasn't beaten anyone. If the winner of this game is the national champion, then that designation has lost its importance.

Anyone else notice that they're waiting until February 11th to have a telephone conference to pick a new trial date? Sheesh, these guys must be really "busy"...

4:14 -

Actually, I didn't respond because the argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Or any sense, really. The debate we are having concerns whether or not LSU/OSU will be the undisputed champ in 2007. That's all.

I am not debating the place of the 2007 OSU/LSU squad in the pantheon of past champions. Personally, I would never make the argument that 2007 LSU/OSU are as good as 2004 USC or 2005 Texas or 2003 LSU/USC. Of course, none of that alters the fact that the LSU/OSU winner will be the champion this year in this season in 2007.

Yeah, WVU losing to a sub-.500 Pitt team in their final home game was embarrassing. Probably worse than losing in your final home game to a team that was sub-.500 in conference. But not much.

Uh, yeah, but I'm gonna have to go ahead and conclude that there is a major difference between losing to Pitt and losing to a team that is playing in an NYD bowl and fetures the Heisman runner-up and potential #1 NFL draft pick.

But other than that, totally comparable.

You know what doesn't matter? College football.

No 2-loss team can ever be considered a legitimate national champion. This non-sense about who finishes in the polls is "legitimate" is retarded. If no team in a given year is good enough to be crowned champion, they should have no champion. But that isn't feasible, so college football fans at large should instead take matters into their own hands and shun the paper "champion" as not being legit championship material.

LSU's lame. Both OU and USC would humiliate them on a neutral field; it would only be slightly less embarrassing in that shithole they call "death valley." Their whole offense is a fat white guy.

They also have no tradition or history as a program, which I think should also count against them. Just not very prestigious...

As lame a NC as LSU would make (and I agree that would be lame), Ohio St. is even worse. They have beaten NOBODY. At least LSU went thru the paces of a rigorous SEC schedule (even if they did fail miserably).

Does anyone actually like the bowl system currently in place? How 'bout a f-ing tournament?

Regardless of who wins, we know one thing for sure--back on the campus of the winning school, lots and lots of shit will be set on fire. Nothing helps celebrate a big win in Columbus or Baton Rouge like destroying things.

There's this tractor pull I really want to attend in January, but I have to argue a motion. This will be good precedent for me for filing a motion for a continuance.

There will be no offense, and so the announcers will inevitably get bored and distracted from the game. At which point they'll start talking about how much Matt Flynn looks like Matt Damon. For the 1000th time. Avoid.

Dear 3:11 and other Buckeye haters,

Yes, OSU didn't show for the game. Sorry, but we lost our best receiver to an injury early in the game and were distracted by the Heisman and forgot to play. And admittedly, Florida didn't miss a beat because they had a great game.

But two years? Ahem, we won our bowl game that year and were pretty close to beating Texas, a team that won the national championship that year.

LSU has a great team and OSU has a terrible record in bowl games against SEC teams, so I hope January 7th is a good game.

GO BUCK!

And I guess last years Florida team was overrated and Ohio St underrated? Result? SEC smashing of slow white boys from the north.

The real winner of the BCS championship is always the baby momma.

A for 2003 Split NC? Once USC gets hit with sanctions, heisman ripped from Bush... will there be any debate then? I'm still waiting for USC Fan to show me an AP National Championship trophy? Crystal is what counts, talk is bs.

"They also have no tradition or history as a program, which I think should also count against them. Just not very prestigious..." Are you kidding me? Just b/c Kirk Herbstreit blows the big 10 every saturday morning, does not make it true.

Good Luck OSU fan as you geaux 0-9 against SEC schools in bowls. Hows that for tradition!!!

5:16,

It was just the opposite last season. OSU was overrated and UF was underrated.

You know what's lame? The same tired college football discussions. You're biglaw lawyers, not some Bubbas huddled around a keg at an Auburn tailgate. Act like it.

LSU's program has a little history and tradition, but let's not put them in the same class as Alabama, Texas, OU, USC, Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, etc. Maybe in 20-30 more years, but not yet.

Please enlighten me, 5:24. What does a biglaw lawyer act like? What are the approved topics of conversation?

Tiger Fan, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I can only hope your post was not an attempt to respond to 2:27.

Hypothetical 2003 post-BCS game:

USC 91 LSU 0

What in the world is Tiger Fan attempting to say here? "Just b/c Kirk Herbstreit blows the big 10 every saturday morning, does not make it true."

Vegas actually published a point spread for a hypothetical LSU-USC game in 2003. I think it was something like USC by four touchdowns.

There is no doubt that OSU hasn't played anyone, but at least if LSU wins this year their National Champ game opponent won't have lost their previous game 35-7.

I am honestly not sure which "championship" would be considered more of a joke.

The only way Ohio State can win this game is if they get lucky like they did against Miami in 02. Then they'll really be known as the Luckeyes.

There you geaux, live in your Hypothetical and Fantasy College Football Tournaments on ESPN.com while LSU or OSU takes home its 2nd Crystal ball since BCS inception.

LSU doesn't even have a real rivalry game that it's involved in. That tells you how much tradition they have down in DV...

Whoever wins will win their 2nd undeserved NC in a decade. What an honor!

If I'm Glenn Dorsey, I sit this game out. Why risk your potential #1 overall status (and the tens of millions that go along with that) for a relatively meaningless trinket?

Someone needs to tell Chris Wells that Beanie is not an acceptable name after you turn 4.

5:31, they think about higher things than meaningless amateur athletic games they're not involved in.

If tradition equates to having a band "Dot an I" on Ohio each week, sign me up for some of your yankee ways. Wow that is special.

yes, let us all discuss "higher things."

5:56--No, they don't.

5:56 -

Congratulations, you've won the Pretentious Douchebag Pedant award of the day.

Now run along and return to your erudite pursuits...like populating that privilege log.

556 was likely a pencil-armed geek who threw and ran like a girl and so never learned anything about sports. Now, when his colleagues have conversations about sports, he feels insecure and dismisses the conversation as beneath him.

6:13: as opposed to college football discussions, which are filled with ex-jocks with beer bellies talking about how 'their team' is going to do and reminiscing about their glory days? If you love the sport, play it. Don't discuss what effect a game you won't play will have on a championship you will not earn.

Wow, 6:35 must have gotten beat up A LOT by the jocks growing up.

But seriously, you ONLY talk about things that you actually do? So you never discuss music, movies, books, art, etc.? What a sad little existence you must lead when the only thing you discuss is being a lawyer.

Depressing.

LMAO at "Slowhio."

tOSU has the second-highest number of players currently in the NFL (they trail Miami by 2, and are almost certain to pass them in this year's draft). They have sent the most active wide receivers (9) ... the most speed-intensive position on the field. Last year, Antonio Pittman tied for the best running back 40-time at the NFL combine. The stats for LSU and Ohio State are easily available online. Ohio State is faster at most positions and has an average edge in the 40 of .11 seconds, which is significant. Get your facts straight instead of making things up.

Reality check for 3:11: "[T]he Big 10 has just been so great in their big non-conference and bowl games the last two years ... the Big 10 is the TTT of the real BCS conferences the last couple of years. Overrated teams that just get killed when they play people out of conference."

Two years ago the Big 10 had teams that finished 3rd and 4th, respectively, and each won their BCS bowl game. tOSU is tied with USC for the most BCS bowl wins and highest BCS winning percentage. Yes, last year tOSU got blown out by Florida ... but the Big 10 was 2-1 against the SEC in bowl games.

This year the Big 10 has the best winning percentage of all BCS conferences against out-of-conference BCS opponents. Here are the numbers:

SEC 7-7 .500
BIG12 5-6 .455
BIG10 9-4 .692
ACC 11-11 .500
BIG East 7-8 .467
Pac10 7-6 .538

In my book, 9-4 is better than 7-7. The second-best team in the SEC got pwned by a team that finished 3-6 in the PAC 10.

I'm not saying tOSU will win, but the unthinking repetition of the "Big 10 is weak" meme doesn't really qualify as intelligent thought. Both teams have well-balanced offenses and great defenses, although LSU both scores and gives up more points. It should be a great game.

4:36: "LSU's lame. Both OU and USC would humiliate them on a neutral field ..."

... yet USC couldn't beat Stanford at home. Maybe they would win, maybe they wouldn't, but I doubt they would "humiliate" anyone in the top 10.

P.S. - co-sign 6:05, 6:13, and 6:41

PROOF that the motion should be granted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

If you're gonna draft up a motion like that, at least draft it well and without obvious errors.

that website is the best thing i've seen in years. you anal nyc pricks need to laugh once in a while.

could a big 10 proponent remind me of the last time that the Big 10 won the ACC-Big 10 challenge? Oh, that's right. It hasn't happened.

the big 10 is nothing but media hype in every sport.

What the hell does basketball have to do with this? Can you tell me the last time any team from the ACC was even relevant in football? Your conference is so poorly regarded that its teams are intentionally paired up in bowl games against teams with much worse records. Why is your #2, Boston College, playing the Big 10's #7 Michigan State? That's right, it's because a #2 vs. #2 matchup wouldn't even be worth watching, because Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn State would all cream you.

8:43, in addition to OSU getting killed last year, Michigan (wow, they should have had a rematch with OSU for the nation championshi) got trounced by USC.

As for USC - Stanford, if you knew anything about that game you would know that Booty had no business being in their with his busted throwing hand.

USC healthy, as it is now (and it wasn't against Stanford and Oregon, AND that was when Oregon was the best team in the country, i.e. before Dixon got hurt) could beat any team in the country. I certainly think that LSU - USC would be a better football game than OSU-LSU.

Which is of course why we need a playoff or at least a plus-one. But sadly, that isn't going to happen. =(

USC lost to two unranked teams and beat only two teams all year that finished with a winning record. There is nothing special about what they did this year. There is certainly no reason to think they would "beat any team in the country."

I don't care if Booty had a fractured spine, a championship-caliber team doesn't get beat at home by a 41-point underdog.

I agree that we should have a plus-one. If we did, however, USC wouldn't even be in it this year.

USC lost to two unranked teams and beat only two teams all year that finished with a winning record. There is nothing special about what they did this year. There is certainly no reason to think they would "beat any team in the country."

I don't care if Booty had a fractured spine, a championship-caliber team doesn't get beat at home by a 41-point underdog.

I agree that we should have a plus-one. If we did, however, USC wouldn't even be in it this year.

What cracks me up is the people who point to Michigan's loss to USC as "proof" that the Big 10 is weak. What other conference runner-up would have beaten USC last year? They beat Arkansas (the SEC runner-up) by 36 and Nebraska (the Big 12 runner-up) by 18. No other conference's second-place team would have done any better.

I am from the South, and love college football, and would probably want a continuance if my team were in the NC too, but, and not to take this too seriously, what about the needs of the client? Were the clients of these attorneys even consulted about putting the trial off? I mean, statistically the chances are that the clients are also big LSU fans and would rather concentrate on the game as well, but what if the plaintiff, e.g., has to wait 6 months longer now to get whatever recovery he gets? What if he can't afford to wait? Did the plaintiff's attorney even consider this, or did he just get together at the country club with his Tiger Pimp friends and conspire to write this over the top motion?

I can't agree with the uptight douchebags on here that talk about college football like it's pro wrestling and suggest it shouldn't even be discussed by serious lawyers (really? fuck you), but at the same time this is a real case, and this motion indicates a detachment from reality and a lack of understanding of the real impact on people's lives of their work on the part of these attorneys that I find a little disturbing. Hopefully the clients were ok with it and I'm just making too much of this.

Best part of the supporting memorandum:
"maintaining a football team is an important aspect of the university's overall business or profession of educating students."

I suppose that's true in Louisiana, where yahoos, droolers and pimps make up the three major social groups and punching the right icon on the cash register is the principal occupational task facing most college graduates. But even so, such people shouldn't be allowed to use words they have no direct experience with and don't understand (e.g., "university"). It's like Guiliani talking about loyalty, Huckabee about evolution, Romney about religion, or Thompson about "fire in the belly." The words have meaning, just not for them. Like football fans in general, southern ones in particular, they're more at home in the linguistic universe of body parts and biological functions.

1:21,

What matters isn't where the team that beat you is now, what matters is where they were when it happened.

USC lost to Oregon when Oregon was #5 in country (and after that win would go on to #2). Just because Oregon isn't ranked now (because they lost the best player in the country to injury) doesn't mean that USC isn't a good team. If you were to ask most analyst who is playing the best football right now, most of them would have USC in the top four, if not the top two.

That was pretty much the weakest reply I have ever read. First, there is no logical reason for caring what a team was ranked halfway through the season, rather than where it ended up. Oregon is unranked and lost their last three games. Furthermore, the score was misleading. They pwned USC.

Second, you don't even address Stanford because, of course, to mention that loss is to lose any claim you have to being in the top 5. I would bet my special bonus that if tOSU had lost to Minnesota, or LSU lost to Vanderbilt, or Oklahoma lost to Baylor, you wouldn't be arguing on their behalf.

Third, USC has only two wins over opponents with winning records. They accomplished the least of any team in the top 10. It's not an accident that they are ranked 7th. They are not even part of the discussion.

owned and exposed

I don't mention the Stanford loss because it was bad, no if ands and buts about it.

However, it does matter how good a team was when you played them. This is because nobody doubts that USC would dominate Oregon if they played them today even though (as you correctly note) Oregon pretty much manhandled them back when they played.

Oregon lost their last three games, but that is meaningless without context. They lost those games because they lost the best player in the country.

Perhaps you don't remember him (or never saw him since people on the East Coast can't seem to bother watching a football game that doesn't come on at noon EST) but Dennis Dixon was the clear cut favorite for the Heisman Trophy before before he blew out his knee.

Oregon with Dixon and Oregon without him are simply two different teams, and you are a fool to compare Oregon today to Oregon then.

Unlike the rest of the Pac 10 (which when healthy was an amazingly strong and deep conference this year) USC is actually healthy now. I'm not saying that they'd win a playof,f but the team they have, talent to coaching, could give any of the 5 teams ranked above a run for it.

And for the record, when you cite to the BCS Standings for what a team is ranked you lose all credibility that you might have had.

I like Dennis Dixon, and he was certainly in the running, but "clear cut favorite for the Heisman"? That statement is itself a clear cut favorite for hyperbole of the year. And where you see "an amazingly strong" conference, I see a record of 7-6. Not bad, but nothing special, either. (I will give USC props, though, for always trying to schedule tough out of conference opponents, and for always levelling someone from the SEC.)

This back-and-forth started with your statement that "LSU - USC would be a better football game than OSU-LSU." I see no reason why that is true. OSU has beaten more teams with winning records. They have scored more points than USC. They lead the nation in total D and scoring D. They played one common opponent - Washington. USC squeaked by them. OSU beat them into the ground and pulled their first string with a quarter to play.

USC's play over the course of the season outweighs your subjective belief that they are "playing the best football right now." They are on a four game win streak against four teams that OSU would have decimated.

oh, sure, the acc is weak compared the big ten. yeah right.

DUKE beat Northwestern. A team bound for a bowl game. The big ten is nothing but hype.

BC is in the lower bowl b/c their fans suck and won't travel.

Oh, and enjoy watching OSU get trounced again.

LMAO. The ACC is irrelevant.

Actually, the Northwestern example is a curious choice. They are the Big 10's doormat. Ohio State beat them by 51 despite putting in their second string in the first half. They had a losing record in conference and were blown out several other times. They are going to a bowl game because they were 4-1 out of conference.

Enjoy watching BC play in the cereal bowl, and be glad they aren'y playing another conference's #2.

I think his point was that the Big 10's Football Doormat is worse than the ACC's Football Doormat?

Aside from that, I don't know...

"I think his point was that the Big 10's Football Doormat is worse than the ACC's Football Doormat?"

I think his pseudonym, his comment about OSU, and his statement that "[t]he big ten is nothing but hype" make his "point" pretty clear. Too bad all he has to rely on is, as you say, the fact that one doormat lost to another. Va Tech is lucky they picked the third-best team in the Big 12. We have already seen what happens when they play other conferences' champions. BC is very lucky they drew a team that could only manage 3 wins against its Big 10 opponents. Match them up against another conference #2 and the game would be over by halftime.

It cracks me up when people make comments or predictions about OSU getting "trounced," while your conference champion lost a game *this season* by 41 points.

That's right, 41 points.

pwned

What is the little "t" for in front of OSU?

The actual name of the school is "The Ohio State University." A lot of internet posters therefore use "tOSU" to distinguish it from Oklahoma State and Oregon State, both of whom also use "OSU." There are just too many major programs with the same acronym. (SEC fans sometimes do the same thing to distinguish between Southern Cal and South Carolina, both of whom use "USC.")

The school itself began to emphasize "The" in the mid 1990s, largely as a snarky response to Ohio University's attempt to copyright the word "Ohio." I believe OU tried to force tOSU to change the name of Ohio Stadium and wanted them to stop selling products (sweatshirts, ball caps, etc.) that simply said "Ohio" or had an "O" on them.

By the way, a Yale economist figured out a complex computer simulation that picks bowl winners with 80% accuracy. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

Okay, "big ten sucks," please explain to me how the 9th place team in the Big 10 just took the ACC runner-up down to the wire. (According to the ESPN standings, the 7th place ranking mentioned above was overly generous.)

6 suspensions, including their best defensive player ... only 3 wins all year in a conference that "sucks" ... 5 turnovers ... and still your #2 squeaked by the skin of their teeth. Kudos to BC for playing an exciting game, but I think this pretty much proved my point. A #2 v. #2 matchup would have been pitiful.