I'm writing now, at 10 a.m., so that I don't have any excuse to not do anything tonight. ("I should work on my applications...wait, I've got readers by the quarter-score who need my musings to survive...always, always, devotion to the readers.")

Let's talk about my favorite thing in the world: College football. Really, I think college football is my favorite thing in the world.

I've not read enough to know, but my sense is that Ohio State and Georgia are the two teams in the national championship game. This seems wrong to me, as I think that LSU and USC are the best two teams in the country. (Or maybe LSU and Oklahoma.) LSU, as their coach said, would be undefeated "if it weren't for that stupid overtime system," while USC's two losses are directly related to an injury to their quarterback. (Of course, Oregon is probably the best team in the country if their quarterback's not hurt.)

In terms of quality losses, among the contenders, certainly Missouri has the most compelling case, except that it was Oklahoma, and twice. Or maybe it's Kansas, who only lost to Missouri, and once, and held it close. Ohio State lost to a top 15 team in Illinois, but a top 15 team that Missouri beat. Oklahoma's losses were to unranked Colorado, and (unranked?) Texas Tech.
Georgia lost to South Carolina, a non-factor (though not at the time), and got smoked by Tennessee. Had they beaten Tennessee, they'd still not be in the championship game, because LSU would've smoked them. West Virginia is my favorite team, and they'd be in the championship game had Pat White been healthy. (Or if they'd've just given the freakin' ball to Steve Slaton.) Also, from what I saw, which wasn't much, Pitt's tackling was unreal. Awesome. Virginia Tech avenged their loss yesterday, with their other loss was to LSU, a blowout, but at least a quality non-conference opponent. Maybe LSU and Virginia Tech are the two best teams in the country? I think they might be.

What's the point? Trying to determine a true national champion, among 119 teams, in only 14 weeks, is impossible. Absolutely impossible. And that's okay.

What's the real point? Go back to the old system. The old, old, old system. Firm bowl tie-ins. And see what happens.

Here's what you'd have, roughly:
Rose (B10 v. P10): Ohio State (11-1) vs. USC (10-2)
Orange (Big East v. At-Large): West Virginia (10-2) vs. Georgia(10-2)
Sugar (SEC vs. ACC[?]): LSU (11-2) vs. Virginia Tech (10-2)
Fiesta (At-Large vs. At-Large): Missouri (10-2) vs. Hawaii (11-0)
Cotton (Big 12 vs. At-Large): Oklahoma (11-2) vs. Florida (9-3)

Kansas left out. This is just a guess. Obviously, the Orange was a Big East-Big Eight game, and the Cotton was the Southwest Conference champion, but this is something.

The point is, some voters would believe that the USC-Ohio State winner was the best, and some would lean towards LSU-Virginia Tech, and some would feel that, hey, if Hawaii wins, why not? And some would think that Oklahoma deserved it, and all wouldn't feel a shred of guilt that not-that-good Kansas wasn't involved.

Who cares if we don't have a "true" champion. We don't need it. It's still a beautiful, beautiful sport.

Also, there's no way Ohio State's one of the two best teams in the country. They're most-quality win is Michigan, and they lost to the best team they played. I really wish West Virginia had won last night.

- - - - - - -

Also, I find presidential politics beyond exciting, or fascinating, I've decided. I've never really followed presidential politics, really, and obviously there's this odd vacuum where there's nothing resembling incumbency that has made this one particularly wide open but, wow, after this morning's Meet the Press, I'm all fired up.

On the Democratic side, Obama now leads in Iowa. Clinton in New Hampshire. It's close, with Clinton leading and Obama gaining, in South Carolina. And if Obama wins Iowa, he'd probably win South Carolina. Edwards remains done-zo.

On the Republican side, Huckabee has opened up a sizable lead in Iowa. He's now focusing on New Hampshire, where Romney leads and where the largest paper just endorsed McCain. I don't know who leads South Carolina. (And now I've just skimmed a British newspaper article that says that Huckabee and Giuliani have agreed to a "non-aggression" pact, in a tactic to knock Romney out of the race. How very WWF.)

What's silly is that, of course, this is pure Horse Race coverage, and talk about campaigning tactics and demographics, and it's a bit silly. And it's an awful way to pick a president. But, hey, what are you gonna do? It's the system we've got, right?

Now, I don't really feel passionate about any of the candidates, though I'm pulling for Obama to win the Democratic nomination. I think that a black man is more electable, on a nationwide level, than a white woman, especially when the black man has Oprah's endorsement. He's also a black man with a short, short, short record, which makes him eminently more electable with anyone who might've "flip-flopped" at some point in 20-plus years of public service. I think I could be compelled to vote for Bloomberg, not because I know anything about him, really, but because I really liked the profile of him in Newsweek about a month ago.

On the Republican side, there's not a real "Republican" candidate there, we've established, yes? Romney's got the religion thing that still makes people uncomfortable. Huckabee's a tax-raiser, and a hyper-religious-righter, which is acceptable, I guess. I don't even know how Giuliani considers himself a Republican, what with his anti-second amendment stance, and his love for illegal immigrants, and his torrid personal past. And Thompson's a putz. Ron Paul's a true Republican, I guess, but the only people who like him are libertarian kooks, mostly those who are under the age of 30.

Two points here, then:
1) It's fascinating, in an "I'm an old, old man" kind of way.
2) I wish I had caucused in 2004. But it was a bit snowy. And I didn't really know who I was supporting. And, perhaps, 24 was on. Had I caucused in 2004, I probably would've wound up on Edwards' side. And he might be president now.

- - - - - - -

On voting, is it okay to strategically vote? Like, do the people who voted for Nader eight years ago feel okay with their decision now? Probably not, right? Or maybe they do? (They should feel guilty, because it was really, really dumb.) So, is supporting Obama, due to electability, okay? I strongly feel that Clinton's negatives are too, too high for her to win. I don't know. It's strange.

- - - - - - -

So, Friday night, I was out at a thing, a 10 or 12 person mixed gathering of work friends and associateds, and I had met everyone there at least once previously, and it was a great time. The highlight was when I was making conversation with a coworker and her boyfriend, an aging hipster-type (actually, an aged hipster-type). I was looking quite sharp, wearing my royal blue 2008 college radio t-shirt under my half-open brown Goodwill button-up shirt (I mean, I'm stylish, dudes), and, because conversation was scintillating, I was asked, "So, what's with your shirt?" though in a nicer way. (Like, "That's a sweet black-on-blue t-shirt, Tell me about it.") But before I could start an answer, her boyfriend said, hipster-like, "Yeah, it's the college radio station that I used to spin at..." and I was flabbergasted, and then giggled loudly, and then explained that he was exactly, roughly, right, and then we laughed louder.

- - - - - - - -

It's December 2. I'm probably about two weeks from figuring out my albums of the year. It's interesting, because I'm not sure anything has stood out as Album of the Year worthy. (Lupe Fiasco's Lupe Fiasco's The Cool comes out on December 18, and I'm sure I won't have time to make proper judgment before making my list.)

I'm not even so sure what I'm considering, but I think it's a pretty uncool list. Old favorites.

Bloc Party
Spoon
Probably not Band of Horses
Probably not Kanye West
Of Montreal
The White Stripes
Stars?
The Arcade Fire
Maybe Jens Lekman?
Probably not Wilco
Maybe LCD Soundsystem, actually, really, maybe LCD Soundsystem
Okkervil River?

Probably Okkervil River, I think. And Okkervil River's relatively new, so that's cool.

But I don't think anything this year will prove to be as good as the Clap Your Hands debut, or Wolf Parade's debut, or either The Hold Steady's Separation Sunday or Boys and Girls in America or Destroyer's Rubies or The Mountain Goats' The Sunset Tree. I think those are all extraordinary. I think this year is just pretty good, but it's also possible that I've wasted so much money on music that I've not let anything sink in long enough to establish itself.

What's certain is that I'm a completed effin' dork.

- - - - - - -

I got a great, great letter from my sister on Wednesday. It was in bound-notecard-book form. The cover was genius - a stolen library checkout card from a book I recommended to her about a year ago. (I don't what to call those cards, but it's the system that's been replaced, obviously, by a computer scanning system.)

She's wandering through Europe right now, but she'll be back in Chicago right after the new year. From her letter, the excitement level is palpable.

Here's the highlight of the letter:
I like when my glasses fog up when I enter inside. I don't like when my glasses fog up when I drain boiled pasta, because that's dangerous.

This is a smart girl, clearly. I hope she doesn't mind that I replicated her words here.

- - - - - - -

Sometime in the next three weeks, I need to Christmas shop. I have no idea. Crap.

- - - - - - -

I bought and drank a carton of Egg Nog yesterday. I feel ill, but in a great way. I won't buy Egg Nog the rest of the season but, damn, it's great stuff. Ho ho ho.