Don't Bet On It: National Game of Disinterest

by T Kyle King on Oct 26, 2006 7:28 AM EDT in Football

Since I have taken you around the S.E.C. and forecast the national games of interest, all that remains is for me to declare the national game of disinterest.

Each week, one college football game stands apart from all the rest, distinguishing itself as that lone contest so lifeless, so meaningless, so devoid of any redeeming characteristic that I cannot bring myself to pay attention to it, much less predict the winner of it. That complete waste of a gridiron clash is the national game of disinterest.

The choice for this week's national game of disinterest was obvious:

Miami (Florida) at Georgia Tech

Wait a minute . . . that can't be right, can it? The Hurricanes and the Yellow Jackets are good, aren't they? Surely this game has some impact on the A.C.C. title, doesn't it?

As a matter of fact, it can, they aren't, and it doesn't. Despite the high degree of name recognition enjoyed by the two teams, this game is a dud.

Face it: this game isn't just dull, it's Al-Gore-giving-a-speech-on-government-reform dull.

One coach is staring down the barrel of the surest firing in college football this season. The other coach defines mediocrity and briefly flirted with the sort of improvement that might have relieved some of the pressure he must feel to please the athletic director who succeeded, and is not beholden to, the athletic director who hired him.

Neither team has beaten anyone of consequence and both teams have survived scares from lower-tier opponents whose names are four-letter words in Division I-A college football. Troy went into the fourth quarter against Georgia Tech in a position to win the game and Duke made the Miami faithful exceedingly nervous last weekend. Both absorbed absolute beat-downs from the best teams each of them faced . . . Louisville and Clemson, respectively.

This is a car wreck of a football game. (I use that analogy because both schools' campuses are located in urban settings in which interest in rubbernecking when passing highway collisions exceeds focus on the local college teams. I'm just doing what I can to help.)

At one time, Atlanta was the City Too Busy to Hate. Now it's the City Too Busy to Care Much One Way or the Other.

What we have here is a contest that is much, much less than the sum of its parts. This one wouldn't even be made intriguing if a fight broke out, since it's abundantly clear who would win a physical confrontation between thugs and nerds.

When a game is so inconsequential that it wouldn't warrant watching even to witness a bench-clearing brawl, that is the national game of disinterest. Avoid it now and thank me later.

Go 'Dawgs!

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

I think the Al Gore comparison is...

actually quite appropriate. The game/speech on government reform might be dull, but it's actually quite important and has wide-reaching effects.

Reforming government (and streamlining things, eliminating government jobs) is something that almost everyone should be in favor of, no matter how dull it might be.

The winner of the Miami/GT game, assuming Clemson beats Virginia Tech on Saturday, will have a game and a half lead on the rest of the Coastal division. It wouldn't exactly seal things for Miami (who has VPI and BC left), but a win for GT would effectively seal a trip to Jacksonville, and 60 minutes from a BCS bowl.

So labelling it boring might be appropriate (though I'd say any opportunity to watch Calivin Johnson, assuming the ball goes his way, should have some flashes of excitement), it's not exactly right to call it inconsequential. Probably no game this weekend has a more direct consequence on a BCS game than this one.

by LD on Oct 26, 2006 9:17 AM EDT 0 recs

I'm just having fun at a rival's expense

If you can keep the distinction between the Atlantic and Coastal Divisions straight, you're a better man than I am, L.D. . . . although I tend to think Clemson or Boston College is going to hand it to whomever they face in Jacksonville.

I didn't mean to pick on Al Gore (to whom I am grateful for inventing the internet) or to demean government reform (a subject I actually find of interest . . . I once wrote an undergraduate political science paper analyzing the reasons for the success of Harry Truman's 1947 Cabinet reform proposal and the failure of Richard Nixon's corresponding consolidation plan in the early '70s), but, significance aside, both ought to be borderline-unwatchable. (If you were a betting man, wouldn't you guess that Calvin Johnson will be underutilized again?)

The only hope for this game is that another fight will break out between the 'Canes and the opposition . . . and, when that's the best option a sporting event has to offer, I might as well watch hockey. That's harsh, I know, but that's where I come down.

Anyway, thanks for making a legitimate and well-reasoned point to undercut my smart-aleck attempt at sophomoric humor, L.D. I'll be sure to return the favor sometime!

by T Kyle King on Oct 26, 2006 9:34 AM EDT 0 recs

Lots to respond to here...

I too would think that BC or Clemson will handle the Coastal representative, but last year I thought Virginia Tech would run all over FSU and I was quite wrong. A BC/GT matchup wouldn't be a rematch, and both teams are fluky enough to make you wonder how good the team that shows up will be, so who knows.
To follow up with what I'm prone to do, a reasoned response to humor: Tim Berners-Lee, who did invent the internet, if anyone can be called the inventor, actually has given Gore some credit. From a NYT article:

"As many as 10 percent of the questions, Mr. Sareen said, were about Vice President Al Gore. Students wanted to know how he could have claimed some responsibility for the Internet when it was Mr. Berners-Lee who had invented the Web. But the Web founder had only kind words for Mr. Gore, saying that ''he did have a vision of the information infrastructure.'' He deserves credit, Mr. Berners-Lee said, for ''sticking his neck out and saying, America has to got use this technology.''"

http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/technology/techreview.html?res=9D00EEDD1E3DF93BA25752C0A9679C8B63&f ta=y

As for Gore himself, he never said he "invented" the internet, but instead his own comment (bragging about early support in congress for the technology) was taken out of context, most directly by Wired News.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Yes, I would bet that Calvin Johnson would be underused again. If only he were wearing red and black...
I'm pretty sure you've done as much over at my site before, though more reasoned and reasonably. In fact, I think that responding to humor with annoying nitpicking is in some ways a prerequisite for being a blogger. Unfortunately.

by LD on Oct 26, 2006 12:15 PM EDT up 0 recs

Maybe it's me ...

... but I kinda find government reform discussions interesting. Then again, I'm a boring policy wonk kinda fella, so there's that.

by Jmac on Oct 26, 2006 9:37 AM EDT 0 recs

Jmac, L.D., I love y'all . . .

. . . but we're all hopeless dorks, you know that?

Not that there's anything wrong with that; I'm just saying, is all. . . .

by T Kyle King on Oct 26, 2006 1:15 PM EDT 0 recs

Government Reform

I find discussion on government reform quiet interesting as well.

Pretty funny to see you bring up Gore into college football discussion because I have been having a hard time from posting this picture on BN on how we can't afford to stay the course with the current leadership in charge of Bruin football:

Just sayin Kyle. ;-)

by Nestor16 on Oct 26, 2006 2:36 PM EDT 0 recs

Adverse possession ...

So guys, we were talking about adverse possession today in property, and I do believe it's the first topic in property all year that's gotten me truly exorcised. So I just thought I'd drop by where I could find the lawyers and see what you thought about it.

by The Drizzle on Oct 26, 2006 6:14 PM EDT 0 recs

Dude, if you don't update your blog someday

some commenter will just drop by and start posting things in a hostile, open, notorious and continuous manner. And then you'll totally be screwed.

by LD on Oct 26, 2006 6:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

It's one of those pragmatic doctrines . . .

. . . like the rule against perpetuities, which have arisen mainly out of the practical necessity of making lands freely alienable and not artificially limited by the hand of the dead. (As Jefferson said, the earth belongs in usufruct to the living.)

Speaking of the rule against perpetuities, I've always wondered whether a remainder interest left to Uga "and his heirs" would have to vest within three human years of a bulldog then in being, but I don't think there's any case law upon that point.

As for the rehashing of the 2000 presidential election I appear inadvertently to have initiated, I will simply say that I try not to get too political here at Dawg Sports and I wasn't trying to pass judgment upon the views of either major party's nominee . . . particularly since, during that election cycle, they both tried so very hard to be absolutely indistinguishable from one another in every respect.

I was just making an analogy based upon the fact that Al Gore is dull, which I think is a pretty uncontroversial statement, regardless of whether you voted for him or wished he would've won.

by T Kyle King on Oct 26, 2006 7:04 PM EDT up 0 recs

Thank you both ...

I guess as long as he does it as a good faith mistake, believing it to be his own internet property that he's inhabiting, I wouldn't have a problem with some sort an equitable settlement.

On the other hand, we had a guy raise his hand to say, "I mean, if a guy's got a bunch of land sitting around, you should let somebody else take it." Which I basically saw as a prelude to, "I mean, if a rich guy has more land than he can keep an eye on, why not give to some poor folks." It's the first time I've felt like actually calling down on someone in property. That normally gets saved for torts or even the occasional civ pro.

In other news, I've forced myself into hiatus for the duration of this first semester. Hopefully I'll return afterwards, well before the statute of limitations runs out and title vests in someone else.

by The Drizzle on Oct 26, 2006 7:23 PM EDT 0 recs

Good call on the hiatus

As with any legal doctrine, the potential for abuse is there (as we saw in the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision radically transforming the use of eminent domain by defining "public use" to include what clearly were private uses).

Adverse possession, however, requires both action on the part of the new landholder and inaction on the part of the old landholder. The absentee owner can still protect his interest by fencing off the property, posting signage, and contesting competing assertions of dominion in a timely manner, while the adverse possessor must take control of the land in an obvious way in the hope of gaining title after the fact of his affirmative act.

Certainly, the fellow student you quoted reveals the risk of misuse. While I would recommend that you give that classmate a copy of P.J. O'Rourke's Eat the Rich as a Christmas gift, in order to enlighten him ever so slightly, I would argue that adverse possession is farther from a Robin Hood-like redistribution of income and nearer to a John Locke-like (and, perhaps, Richard Posner-like) determination to reward those who put resources to their most productive uses.

While we miss deriving the benefit of your Drizzle good ideas, you are right to concentrate on your studies during the first year of law school. Keep up the good work and don't be a stranger.

by T Kyle King on Oct 26, 2006 7:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

Thank you for the kind words there ...

Speaking of eminent domain, when we had Clarence Thomas visting last week, someone asked him about the Kelo decision. Of course, there wasn't a whole lot for him to say beyond briefly explaining how the case came out and pointing out that he came down on the side that didn't want to take your house. He was also shorter than I thought he'd be.

Beyond that, just looking for a little shared experience, I was curious as to whether you or LD ever had Brussack or Coenan for a class?

by The Drizzle on Oct 26, 2006 9:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

I never took a class from Professor Brussack

However, I was one of several law students who accompanied him to the premiere of "Star Trek: Generations." Prof. Brussack wore a "Next Generation"-style Starfleet uniform to the theatre and had us all back to his house after the movie for a get-together to discuss the film. (I told you we were all hopeless dorks!)

I took a couple of courses from Professor Coenen, including one of the sections of Constitutional law. (As a strict constructionist, I have always enjoyed the unintended irony of the abbreviation "con law.") Prof. Coenen is a sharp intellect and a demanding instructor, but he is a genuinely nice man with a sincere concern for his students.

I know it's your first year, so he probably seems more intimidating than kindhearted right now, but trust me . . . Dan Coenen is a good guy who cares about the students who pass through his classroom and he is one of those special teachers (like Anne Dupre and Perry Sentell) who will make you better by demanding more of you.

by T Kyle King on Oct 26, 2006 9:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

Professors

I had Brussack for Civ Pro and didn't do so well. I'm still not sure if I understand anything about that class. It did, however, feature the first time I was called on (and stayed with the entire class) for a case of which I had not read the first word. Still remember the case though - the Burger King one.

I took Coenen for Con Law I, but I had a very odd experience that semester. Fall 2000 - Bush v. Gore pretty much dominated the last three weeks of the course, almost to the point where I don't think we covered much else. Naturally, the exam covered none of that case, but did cover all the other stuff we hadn't been focusing on very much. Coenen is a nice guy. He likes Schlitz beer and I've taken shots with him. My roommate once called him a c-sucker to his face and he loved it.

It's strange - UGA law students generally fall into certain categories, and one of the way they're apportioned is by the demanding teacher of the first year. I was a Sentell guy, and took all his classes and really thought he was what a law professor should be. Course, I also took everything Professor (now Dean) White taught, so I might be an idiot. She whooped me almost daily in class.

by LD on Oct 26, 2006 10:54 PM EDT 0 recs

UGA Law

All this talk about professors and such is making me homesick for Athens and the library on Friday night -- but you say -- "I have seen your legal work - you certainly didn't study that much and especially not on Friday night!" - True that - Friday Night was the time we went to the Varsity for dinner (after appropriate Friday afternoon libation) and came back to the library (wearing our paper Varsity hats, of course) and harrassed our studious friends until they agreed to go to O'Malley's with us. ---

Of course that was so long ago that George W. Bush was more likely a patron at O'Malley's than a subject of discussion in Con Law.

I was a Sentell guy 1st year -- I heard that he was a much easier grader in 2nd and 3rd yr courses ("Everybody gets High B's and A's in Muni Corps..."). Little did I realize that was because only the people who got high B's & A's would take him again. A B- student in first years Torts was likely a B- student in Muni Corps.

GO DAWGS!

by Blogger who came in from the cold on Oct 27, 2006 9:28 AM EDT 0 recs