On the latest episode in the inexplicable saga of Britney Spears, in her underwearless moment:

I have some updates on my previous post, but I have one more question. Who here really believes that Florida would have jumped Michigan, from number four to number three, if USC had won?

OK, UCLA has done their part (thanks, Jane!). Now, I’m watching to see if Arkansas can beat Florida, which will make any debate moot. If Florida wins, look for another debate over how screwed up the BCS is (which every year is a given…).

[Update at end of Florida-Arkansas game]

Florida won by ten points. Now the emotional debate (that will shed much more heat than light) over who is number two will begin…

[Update at quarter till five PM]

OK, it looks like Florida has been named number two. I have to think that’s because of the strong desire of many to avoid a rematch, rather than an honest assessment of who’s number two.

I’ll be quite amused if Ohio State blows out Florida, and Michigan trounces USC. We know from an existence proof that Michigan and Ohio State are well matched (or at least as well matched as anyone’s been against Ohio State), and provide an exciting game. If we have two blowouts in the Rose and Championship games, the country will know that they chose the wrong number two, and wondering if the real national championship game didn’t occur on November 18th.

[Update]

One more thought. I think that dual blowouts are in fact quite likely. I don’t think that Florida will be able to handle Ohio State, and does anyone think that UCLA’s defense is better, or even as good as Michigan’s? USC has been a pretender all season.

[Update]

Pete Fiutak says that the humans have taken control away from the machines:

The voters have spoken, delivering the message that they didn’t want a rematch by keeping Michigan out of the national title game and putting in a good, but underwhelming, Florida team to face Ohio State in the first stand-alone BCS Championship. While many outside the Detroit and Ann Arbor metropolitan areas may be pleased about this, there’s still something a bit hanging-chad slimy about the process.

I understand the arguments against a rematch, but I think that they should have lived with the rules they set up at the beginning of the season. I also think that Wisconsin was robbed by the two-team-per-conference rule.

I know it’s not an edifying subject, but Kay Hymowitz entertainingly dissects the cultural phenomenon that is Paris Hilton:

Now despite her fame and good fortune, for most sentient adults Hilton personifies the decadence of our cultural moment. With her nightclub brawls, her endless sexcapades, her vapid interviews, her rodentlike dog and her lack of ostensible talent, she reeks of every vice ever ascribed to our poor country. She has become a synonym for American materialism, bad manners, greed, “like” and “whatever” Valley Girl inarticulateness, parochialism, arrogance, promiscuity, antifeminism, exposed roots and navels, entitlement, cell-phone addiction, anorexia and bulimia, predilection for gas-guzzling private transportation, pornified womanhood, exhibitionism, narcissism — you name it.

The “rodentlike dog” in particular tickled my funny bone. But as Kay points out, it’s not about worship of her, but hatred. Deserved or not, she’s our Marie Antoinette.

OK, they’ve got the general region down, but they don’t seem to be able to differentiate between Michigan and Wisconsin, which is pretty weird. Just one more question (bubblers versus drinking fountains) would nail it down.

And for the record, I’m a “pop person.” Soda is a thing with ice cream.

So sayeth Zoidberg. Behold, Futurama, the movie.

[Via tdr]

It doesn’t follow the BCS rules, but assuming that USC beats UCLA next week, it makes the most sense. Have a playoff between the Trojans and the Wolverines in the Rose Bowl, and then let the winner play Ohio State on January 8th. Of course the Buckeyes would have an advantage in that they’d be rested for two months, but they’d also be rusty.

It doesn’t follow the BCS rules, but assuming that USC beats UCLA next week, it makes the most sense. Have a playoff between the Trojans and the Wolverines in the Rose Bowl, and then let the winner play Ohio State on January 8th. Of course the Buckeyes would have an advantage in that they’d be rested for two months, but they’d also be rusty.

It doesn’t follow the BCS rules, but assuming that USC beats UCLA next week, it makes the most sense. Have a playoff between the Trojans and the Wolverines in the Rose Bowl, and then let the winner play Ohio State on January 8th. Of course the Buckeyes would have an advantage in that they’d be rested for two months, but they’d also be rusty.

If number one beats number two by a field goal on number one’s home field, sounds like they’re ranked about right. We’ll see what the pollsters and computers say this afternoon.

Ohio State definitely looked like the better team, though, at least after the first quarter. Michigan’s first drive was impressive, but after that they seemed to sputter somewhat. I’d say that if these teams played ten games, Ohio State would win six or seven of them.

And I was pulling for a Cal victory last night, but it wasn’t to be. But if Notre Dame knocks off USC, what to do, what to do? It doesn’t make sense to rank the Irish ahead of Michigan, considering the pasting the Wolverines gave them in South Bend. Perhaps, though, just to be safe, USC should beat Notre Dame, and then let UCLA knock off the Trojans. That would leave Florida, I guess.

I know that a lot of people don’t want a rematch, but it looks like there’s a good possibility of that happening. Of course, then, if Michigan wins, people will be demanding another, and the best two out of three. Such is the silliness of trying to assign a national championship to college football teams. There simply aren’t enough games for it to be meaningful.