Well since West Virginia just ruined my hopes for an Orange Bowl visit, I'm a bit cranky.  Here's a few pet peeves.

Instant Replay- Game after game announcers laud the instant replay system.  "It's important to get it right," we hear the talking heads say again and again.   As a resident of the state where the mythical Sopranos once roamed, I say, "Fuhgedaboudit!"  I've been to three games this year, all televised on either ABC or ESPN.  It seems like every play gets reviewed now, even plays that no one would think of challenging.  So this takes tons of time.

"So what?", the perfectionists say. " We must be perfect and ensure that every call is correct."  Why?  Exactly what else about football is supposed to be perfect?  Certainly not the ball.  Try rolling a football straight some time.   Where I played sports, we were taught that the officials were part of the playing field, and you should expect the lucky bounce, the bad hop, the freak play once in a while.  As long as they are honest and experienced why do they have to be perfect?

"Because so much is at stake!" bray the perfectionists.  Ah, yes the dreaded game changing call.  But we're losing something else with all these replays.  Has anyone stopped to consider the emotional and physical effect on the teams of these frequent stoppages?  Here you are driving for a touchdown, adrenaline flowing , defense on their heels, apparently huge play and then!  .   .    .    .     . five minutes of watching a zebra huddle.  In a game where coaches will use one of three precious timeouts just to make a kicker stand on the field for an extra 30 seconds, how come no one cares when both teams stand around for minutes?  And are these timeouts so precious now?  Not when you can expect to have your QB trot over to the sideline an extra what? 7-8 times per game?

Now I'm not naive enough to think that the powers that be give a flying football about the fans.  I mean really, who cares if we have to sit there and watch this charade.  But it's also boring as hell. 

The goal of perfection, as far as officiating is concerned, will never be attained.  Witness, UConn/Louisville's phantom fair catch signal.  Ah, that's "not reviewable."  What? A call that's so egregious, the head of the conference apologizes to the losing team?  So where's the perfection in that? Or there's the famous, "Yeah he did fumble but the play was blown dead."  If you really wan't perfection, set the whole thing up like a big TV show, review everything when it happens, correct all the mistakes and show us a "perfect" game on tape.  Maybe that's the way we're going, we'll have the whole thing scripted and it will be a new kind of TV show.  Reality or virtual sports we can call it.  Me, I'd rather just watch a real football game, with real players, real officials and a real football that gives you those crazy bounces when you roll it.

TV timeouts- At Rutgers Stadium, the miscreant that calls these is dressed in referee pants, hat and a red shirt.  After enduring way too many five minute play stoppages for the benefit of the networks, I have been tempted to charge the field and deliver a savage high hit to this individual, including the illegal hands to the head.  I'm amazed that I could pick this guy out.  I remember reading that in the early 60's when NFL games first started getting televised, the fans figured out who was calling TV timeouts and started pelting them with trash.  The networks actually had to disguise these guys for their own safety.  Hey, here's an idea!  Can we save the TV timeouts for instant replay reviews? I'm being foolish.  No one cares about what the fan wants.

Commentator Jargon- Here on the banks, we're now accepting nominations for the most overused piece of commentator jargon, cliche or just stupid remark.  I'll start it off with my favorite. "That running back really runs downhill!"  Really?   Well so do I and I'm 6'4" and about  270.  Does this mean he runs uphill after the change of sides at the quarter?  And I always thought coaches were concerned about the wind when choosing which side to defend.  Seems the wind here is coming from every commentator who wants to discuss a back who runs between the tackles.  Looking forward to your nominations!

Yes sports fans, yet another blog.  The topics generally covered here will be college football, as seen from the eyes of a fan of one of those schools that doesn't have a proud winning tradition that can be thrown in the face of anyone who's good enough to beat his team. You know, the frauds, overrateds, pretenders, jokes, wannabees, really any team that's not in the SEC, Pac-10, Big-10, Big-12, or ACC (hereinafter known as "football's old guard heroes of righteous normalcy " aka FOGHORN).  So if there's anything of interest involving we barbarians and the Holy Roman College Football Empire, we'll offer some hopefully relevant comments.

Last week, several of us barbarians took Fox Sportswriter Matt Zemek to task for trashing the Big East in his Instant Analysis of the Rutgers/USF game.  Zemek argued in support of his article on the boards, which I thought took some guts.  This week, after watching the BC/Va Tech game, I was just waiting for Zemek to come out and claim that this matchup was a worthy match for such a prestigious conference as the ACC.  Unfortunately, no rapier like wit can be unleashed on Mr. Zemek because he ripped the ACC as well calling it an "emasculated and  hollowed out conference" and stating that ACC stands for "Acutely Compromised Conference."  Well Matt, get ready for the hate mail from the ACC.  But you are consistent and I was happy to see that you're willing to rip conferences other than the Big East.

It was also interesting to see not one, but two WAC teams listed as "sleepers" for the national title.  Hawaii's been getting press and  pundits believe that they'll make the BCS dance if they run the table.  Shocking though was Pete Fiutak picking Boise State as a sleeper.  A WAC team in the BCS with one loss? Are you trying to cause massive heart attacks of FOGHORN fans throughout the country?  Isn't there some provision in the BCS rules that says that any team from a conference that hosts a bowl game with no more than four losses trumps a non-bcs team with one loss?  I can hear the screaming now if Boise State makes it. 

Another nightmare for FOGHORNS appeared on the horizon after the last BCS rankings were published.  Connecticut, ranked at  23.  Ahead of Penn State and Alabama!  The Huskies have a tough game against an angry USF team this week. Regardless of the outcome, IMHO, it's always nice to seem some new faces on the bowl scene.  Miami and Virginia Tech didn't have football prowess dating to the 1920's, but the world survived during their title runs.  The more the merrier!