Thanksgiving topics: Blogger Ethics (should I post that photo?) and Football (Why is Notre Dame's recent Bowl record so poor)

• Blogger ethics: cross posted at my DailyKos diary.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/23/20415/861

Blogger Ethics: Retaliation or High Ground?

by onanyes [Subscribe] [Edit Diary]Wed

Nov 23, 2005 at 06:41:04 PM PDT

Most of us remember what it was like from 1992-2000. While the Big Dog was president, his family was subject to numerous, vile personal attacks. Is some payback in order? Or is a blogger on our side obligated to take the "high ground"?
onanyes's diary :: ::

Remember Rush Limbaugh's noxious attack on the then 13 year old Chelsea Clinton: "you knew that the White House had a cat, but did you know that it now has a dog? And then flashed up a picture of Chelsea?
I've never forgotten that.
Anyway, I have a small, low volume blog (30-40 hits a day). I also have one of those free services that tracks the number of hits, the url of those who visit, as well as what search words they used to get there. As my blog grew, I thought it was getting more popular. But the reality was, the more I wrote, the more words there were that were available to be hit by the various search engines. Anyway, I noticed that someone came to my blog, evidently looking for photos of a certain well known relative of a very well known Republican politician. In fact, I despise that politician.
So I did a google search for that person and "presto"; there it was, a nice, very compromising shot, and it was very easy to download.
So, is it ethical to post this photo? Or to post a link to it? My only motive would be to stick a needle in the parent of this person.

And no, I won't post that photo or even say who it is of. There would be no moral or political purpose for doing so. But I did post a poll at the Daily Kos and you can go to that poll (via the link I provided) if you are interested in seeing the response (and reading the comments).

• Football: Why is Notre Dame's recent bowl record so lousy?

This is from my "imperfect" memory but here is Notre Dame's Bowl record:

1920's: won the Rose Bowl against Stanford 27-10 (Knute Rockney's "4 horsemen and 7 mules team)

Parsegian's era: lost to no. 1 Texas 21-17, beat no. 1 Texas 24-11, blown out by Nebraska 40-6, beat Alabama 24-23 (finished no. 1), beat no. 1 Alabama 13-11. Record: (3-2)

Devine era: beat Penn State 20-9, beat Texas 38-10, beat Houston 35-34, lost to no. 1 Georgia 17-10. Record: (3-1)

Faust era: beat Boston College 19-18, lost to SMU 27-20 (1-1)

Holtz era: lost to Texas A&M 35-10, Beat West Virginia 34-21 (no. 1), beat no. 1 Colorado 21-6, lost to no. 1 Colorado 10-9, beat Florida (forgot the score), beat Texas A& M 28-3, beat Texas A&M 21-16, lost to Colorado 41-24, lost to Florida State 32-26. (5-4, lost the last 2)

Davie era: lost to LSU (forgot the score but it was big), lost to Georgia Tech 35-28, lost to Oregon State 41-9. (0-3)

Willingham era: lost to North Carolina state 28-6, lost to Oregon State 38-21 (Willingham wasn't the coach for the bowl game). (0-2)

So, Notre Dame has lost 7 bowl games in a row after going 13-6. What gives? Is it pure randomness?

My answer is this: after deciding to go to bowl games, Notre Dame was very selective about when they would go. I've seen 8-2 (1971), 8-3 (1975), 7-4 (1980) and 8-3 (1996) Irish teams stay home. There were times during that 13-6 streak when the Irish went to bowl games that they didn't belong in (Sugar Bowl against Florida, Orange Bowl against Nebraska, Fiesta against Colorado, first Cotton against Texas A&M) and they went 1-3 in those.

So, my guess is this: because of their drawing power, bowls want Notre Dame. Notre Dame always wants to play in the best bowl game possible. Hence, recently, they end up playing opponents who are simply better than they are. During that 13-6 run, Notre Dame was an elite team (with some ups and downs) and therefore a threat to beat any time in the nation. Notre Dame hasn't been that kind of team since they went 11-1 in 1993, when they gave no. 1 Florida State their only loss (and should have ended up no. 1 themselves).

And, my guess is that Notre Dame isn't that kind of team this year; remember they were down 38-17 to a mediocre Michigan State team (prior to rallying to send it to overtime, where they lost). Yes, they gave a strong USC team a scare, as did Fresno State.

So, if (and that is a big "if") they beat a mediocre Stanford team, they'll probably get a BCS bowl and probably lose. Yes, they would have a 9-2 record and they do have a good team. But they don't have an elite team. Their best bet to win their bowl game is to lose to Stanford and end up in something like the Gator Bowl, where they would play the kind of team that they could compete with. In terms of who they would be competitive with, I'd say a Notre Dame-Alabama matchup would be just about right, as would a matchup with LSU, UCLA, Miami or even, perhaps, Virginia Tech. These would be "toss-up" types of games.

Yes, Ohio State also has a 9-2 record, but their losses are to no. 2 Texas and no. 3 Penn State. They handled Michigan State easily and won a close game with Michigan (as did Notre Dame).