With all the excitement over the Packers' win loss later today, I didn't want this local story to drop through the cracks.

The Crappiest Neighbor Ever [the smoking gun].


Iowa's Results

Iowa's Democratic and Republican caucuses took place yesterday. Here are the results. [from CNN]

Obama 37% 16 delegates
Edwards 30% 14 delegates
Clinton 29% 15 delegates

Huckabee 34% 17 delegates
Romney 25% 12 delegates
Thompson 13% 3 delegates
McCain 13% 3 delegates
Paul 10% 2 delegates

What does this mean nationally?

Obama has 16 delegates from IA. Edwards has 14 delegates from IA. Clinton has 15 delegates from IA. Huckabee has 17 delegates from IA. Romney has 12 delegates from IA...

The Primaries in Iowa are over. The other 49 states still have to vote. No one has won yet and no one will win until they have a plurality of the voting secured.

Is a basketball game won by just scoring first? Is a Superbowl won by winning the opening game? Or does winning require sustaining lead to the end of a game, to the end of a season? No matter how far down, until a team is mathematically out of it, they still have a chance to win. There is no mercy rule in politics.

So you can make your analyses about Clinton dropping or McCain rising. Just don't think that what people in Iowa think has to influence how you vote. After all, this is Iowa we're talking about. If you support Paul (and if you're reading this online, you might), then a 5th place finish in one state does not mean you have to start letting the air out of the blimp. If you support Biden (which one is he again?), he's got a ways to go and is going to need all the support he can get. If you support Huckabee (God help you), don't get complacent now. Do not grow apathetic or accept the results that the media tries to force on you. As long as your preferred candidate has not dropped out, you do not need to drop out as a supporter. Why does a candidate run, Herm? You run to win the election.


Playoffs? Playoffs?

Today the first of the BCS Bowls will be played. The BCS looks bad every year, but this year is the worst I have ever seen it. Hawaii, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, and LSU/Ohio State could all make a claim to be National Champions if they win.

Most BCS detractors say they'd be happy with a +1 change. 1v4, 2v3, and the winners play for the championship. But if we're going to fix things, let's fix them right. The only way to compare two teams is to have them play. You can't speculate across conferences. You can't even speculate within conference where teams don't play everyone else.

We first need to reorganize the conferences. Every conference needs to have 10 or 12 teams, split in two divisions. The Big 12, ACC, SEC, Conference USA, and the MAC are already there. Notre Dame has to finally join a conference; if not the Big Ten, then the Big East with Rutgers or Louisville switching over. Each team plays everyone within their division, plus a few from the other division, plus non conference games. There will then be clear division winners, who will play each other for the conference championship. There are 11 Division I-A conferences. The winner of each, plus 5 at large picks, go into a 4 round playoff. Sure, the winner of the Sun Belt probably isn't that good. But there are years when the winner of the WAC, or the MAC, or any of the smaller conferences are better than winners of larger conferences. The only fair way is to let them all in. Whatever team wins out would be the clear National Champion.

A 4 round playoff would also fix a few other problems I have with the current system. For the second year, the Buckeyes will go into the Championship game 50 days after their last game. A playoff would ensure that both teams entered the final game playing at their best. Also, one loss late in the season would not cripple a team's chance of playing in the National Championship the way it does now. Once a team has it's division clinched, it can play back-ups for the final game. Rankings would still have use to determine seeding. Non conference games would be as important as they are now. There would be less need to schedule easily winnable games like there is now. A non conference loss wouldn't matter to the team that won its conference, and the 5 at large picks would go to teams that showed they deserved to be included.

But the Bowls aren't about determining an undisputed champion, they're about making money. I would think, though that the 15 games would generate more combined viewers than the 32 bowls that we have now. (Or was I the only one who missed watching New Mexico beat Nevada in the New Mexico Bowl?) The games would be held at Bowl sites. And nothing would stop Chik-fil-a from hosting a bowl for two teams that didn't get in. Sure, it would be a meaningless game, but it's meaningless now. I do not understand why there would be any objections to having a playoff. So why does it seem like Jim Mora is running the NCAA? (at 0:44)