College Bowl Season

There are 35 college football bowls involving 70 (35 bowls times 2 teams per bowl; I used my calculator) Division 1 teams.  According to a newspaper article I read today, only "8 or 10" teams will make money from their bowl games.  In fact, a good number will lose millions of dollars.  Hmmm......

So, who's raking in all that money?  Why do teams--maybe 85% of more of them--play bowl games if it costs them big bucks?

No doubt, coaches will laud the extra practice time, four weeks or more, and the national exposure for their programs (not to mention any bowl-appearance bonus clauses in their contracts?).  Some will note the reward for players, a "reward" for mediocrity in most instances.  If there are 119 Division 1 teams, almost 60% of them go to bowls (I kept my calculator handy.).  What kind of "excellence" is that?

No, I haven't seen any of the bowl games yet, although I know some have been played.  And, as of now, I have no plans to watch any, although Michigan State might draw my attention on New Year's Day after the New Year's Eve gala.  In fact, I chuckled to myself as I read the newspaper article.  It mentioned "the national championship game."  I don't know which bowl is hosting "the national championship game" and I can't remember which two teams are playing in it, if I ever knew.

Regarding professional football and the Detroit Lions, Karen was out shopping last Sunday afternoon, but had been listening to the game on her car radio.  I wasn't watching here.  She came in and put on the game, toward the end with the Lions winning, but not for long.  She made a comment that the opposing team (I don't remember who it was) "shouldn't worry."  And, she was right.  The Lions lost in OT.  But, to me, that's neither here nor there.  I don't think I've watched any of the Lions' games in their entirety all season and maybe only parts of half a dozen of them.  (I did watch much of the Philadelphia game only because Matt called from Las Vegas to tell me to put on the game--because of the snow storm.  That was fun to watch!) My point is different.  Karen and I attended four parties or large gatherings this Chris week or so, since last Sun.  There were no, absolutely (and hasn't that become an overused word, bordering triteness?) none, conversations regarding the Lions--none good, none bad, none neutral.  I find that interesting, more so than the games.

My Comcast home page had an article about the 48 "celebrities" who died in '13.  On a lark, I went to it and counted up the names I knew or marginally recognized.  I came up with 19!  And, if I thought the name was familiar, I counted it.  I wonder if I'm that far "out of it" or if we have dumbed down our definition of "celebrity."  I don't discount either.

And, I'm just wondering, if President Obama can ignore enforcement (which is his Constitutional duty, with an oath taken to uphold that duty) of certain parts of "established law" (his words), can some future President ignore an entire law completely?  And, in that same vein, can law enforcement officials/officers, if they don't like legislation, refuse to enforce it?  I am reminded of two Presidents, one usually lauded by historians and the other given so-so marks, although usually with the proviso of being "a nice guy."  When Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supremes made a ruling that Andrew Jackson didn't like, his comment was, "John Marshall has made his opinion.  Now let's see him enforce it."  When the Earl Warren Court handed down a decision that Dwight Eisenhower disapproved, he announced his disapproval, but also that it was the law of the land and he had a duty to enforce it, which he did.  (Historians rank Jackson in the top half dozen or so and Eisenhower barely in the upper half of the pack.  I disagree.)  Regardless, such a practice, to selectively enforce or not enforce, sets a bad precedent.

Back to my biog of Frederick the Great, who, so far (more than a quarter of the way into the book--154 pages) is anything but "great."