A disaster for Stanford fans...I guess

This past Saturday night, the 2009 Heisman Trophy was awarded to Mark Ingram, Jr. from the University of Alabama. The sophomore running back won the closest Heisman race ever, with Stanford's Toby Gerhart and Texas' Colt McCoy falling just short. Since the announcement, I've heard how tragic it is that the Heisman went to such a fraud (Ingram), and that even though it's the most prestigious award in college football, or any college sport for that matter, it's lost all it's credibility. Coincidentally, every person I heard that from is a Stanford student or alum.

I get that Gerhart had a phenomenal year, and I understand his stats were more impressive than Ingram's, but you can't discount what Ingram did individually, and FOR HIS TEAM. They ran the table in the SEC, and he was clearly the best player. Essentially, that's what the Heisman has become, the best player on a top team. It's not surprising that the past eleven winners were all playing in a major January bowl (which Ingram is, Gerhart is not).
The Heisman winner is supposed to be, "The most outstanding player in collegiate football." (By the way - what an interesting choice of words right? "Outstanding". It can be interpreted so many ways... I bet they did that on purpose. So no matter what we think, they can counter with that the word really means. More on this in a minute.)

But that's rarely the case anymore, and Stanford fans - don't take it too personally. It's almost like Stanford finally has a football program worth rooting for, they're finally NOT terrible (first winning record since 2001) and they beat some pretty respectable teams to earn that. So it's like now they have a voice, now they can be heard and taken seriously.

I've even heard someone say that Toby Gerhart lost the Heisman because he was white, which is outrageous since seven of the winners since 2000 have been white boys just like him.

Anyway, back to the "outstanding" thing. If we take the word literally, and assume outstanding means "to stand out", is what Gerhart did REALLY more outstanding than Ingram? Gerhart rushed for 1,700+ yards and 26 touchdowns (also 10 receptions for 149 yards, 0 TD), on an 8-4 Pac-10 team. Mark Ingram rushed for 1,500+ yards and 15 touchdowns (also 30 receptions for 322 yards, 3 TD), on an undefeated SEC team, who's playing for the National Championship. It's also worth noting that Ingram averaged more yards per carry (6.2 to 5.6). So whose resume is more outstanding? (Damn I'm tired of using that word.) I'm not saying Ingram's is, because clearly it's debatable, but I'm trying to aid the Stanford fans in seeing the case that they're too blind (or biased, or both) to see. Just recognize that it's possible, it's actually possible, that even though you guys had better a better-than-average team, someone else actually deserved the trophy as much as your guy did, and though it was only slightly, the voters rewarded him instead of you.

The Heisman is never solely based on stats anymore, otherwise I'm pretty sure a guy like Deangello Williams would have won a few of them (holds the record for all-purpose yards and 100+ yard rushing games, sits fourth on the all-time rushing list - behind guys named Ron Dayne, Ricky Williams and Tony Dorsett. And yes, all three of them won the Heisman)

Anyway, enough about the Heisman trophy and college football. Let's talk about the real excitement of the weekend, the newest, (and self-proclaimed) biggest sport in the world... Mixed Martial Arts. (Just kidding. Never, ever will it be the biggest sport in the world. Never.) UFC 107 was on Saturday night, and BJ Penn thoroughly dominated another game opponent. He showed why, even though he looks kinda fat, kinda bald, super unathletic, acts like a huge tool, he's still the baddest lightweight (155 lbs) there is. If his past two challengers, Kenny Florian and Diego Sanchez can't even come close, no one will. He's too good at every aspect of the sport.
Anderson Silva (185) and Georges St. Pierre (170) have been atop every pound for pound ranking for basically ever, but after easily dominating two legitimate number one contenders in a row, (and in four months) BJ Penn really is making a case for himself. I know he moved up in weight to fight GSP, and even though I think we all know how it went, I'll recap it for you - BJ Penn throws a punch, misses, then gets thrown on the ground by GSP, who then proceeds to punch and elbow him repeatedly. Eventually they make their way back onto their feet, and the process repeats. For 20 minutes, it should have been 25, but BJ Penn's corner decided 20 was enough. It was embarrassing.

But is GSP destroying BJ at 170 really significant for pound for pound stature? He didn't fluctuate his weight at all, while BJ packed on the pounds for the first time since 2006, so it's hard to say. They're starting to remind me of each other though, it's pretty weird because they're such opposites. GSP is a nice, classy champion, never saying anything negative about his competition, while BJ feels it's necessary to start rumors and run his mouth. All the time. It's also worth noting, GSP is extremely ripped and LOOKS like a badass fighter, while BJ Penn looks more like one of my local mailmen - chubby, bald and harmless.

Inside of the octagon though, both have been beating opponents in similar fashion. When someone asks how GSP is going to win his next fight, almost regardless of who it's against, I say the same thing. "Via domination." He's going to win, simply by dominating the fight wherever it goes. If his opponent wants to stand and throw (see the Thiago Alves fight), Georges will do it, and he'll thoroughly DOMINATE (via domination means to DOMINATE) the fight. It's almost like, after a few minutes of that, he gets bored and wants to test his ground game, so he'll effortlessly throw his opponent on the ground, and start dominating (again, yes!) there too. If his opponent is a Ju-Jitsu guy (see second Matt Serra and Jon Fitch fights), he'll win the fight there too. It's like simply, barring a flash knockout or submission, he cannot lose. Many believe Jon Fitch is the guy who poses the most danger, because he is so versatile - a high level wrestler, black belt in Ju-Jitsu, pretty solid stand up - but when they fought, it was one of the worst ass beatings I've seen. If I can figure out how to post a picture on here, I'll do it, and you'll be pissed you had to see it. (I figured it out, isn't that gross?)


BJ is looking a bit like GSP now, Kenny Florian is a guy with a similar skill set to Jon Fitch - he's just really good at everything, and BJ Penn made him look like a guy who is just trying out MMA for the first time, he was never threatened the entire fight. He did the same to Diego Sanchez, who is effing insane by the way (just check out the vid)


Diego's motor is always running, he's always pushing forward. Always. And maybe that's the kind of guy it'll take to crack BJ's armor? Not even close, BJ won every round (including a 10-8 in there somewhere). He even licks his opponents blood off of his gloves after he wins, what a freak, right? Picture that - a bald, chubby, mailman looking guy, licking blood off of his glove.

Speaking of blood, conveniently (or coincidentally... or both?) the Dexter season four finale was on last night.
Through the grapevine, I had heard the ending was absolutely nuts. Supposed to be one of the greatest finale's ever. Cable TV, Network TV, Premium TV - doesn't matter, one of the craziest finale's ever.
And while I'm personally not too happy with the ending, the writer's deserve a ton of credit. The show (airs on Showtime) is about a blood spatter analyst for the Miami Metro Police Department, who's also a serial killer. Tricky, right? How could a show with that story line go on for 4 (and counting) seasons? With damn good writers, that's how. On a side note, I feel like writers/directors/everyone behind the scenes for EVERY good show/movie deserve way more credit than they get. It's really not the on-screen cast who make TV shows and movies good, it's the people who cast them, tell them what to say, when to say it and how to say it. They're the ones who deserve the most credit for making a production solid. I know actors and actresses are super talented, I'm just saying.

Anyway, the writers for Dexter really took a gamble here to end season four - they killed Rita. She's gone. And I don't think she's coming back. I'm not sure how I really feel about that, Rita was probably one of the cooler characters in the show, and by cooler - I mean she didn't annoy me at all, ever (and she was flyyyyyy in seasons two-four). They could have easily killed Debra, Dexter's sister who also works for Miami Metro PD. If Deb was gone instead of Rita, it would have made the show better for a few reasons - it would have been significantly less vulgar, because Deb unnecessarily drops the F bomb every 3.2 seconds. But Deb's disappearance also would have made the show, on average, better looking, something Rita's departure will affect as well. Right now the character hotness average is like a six, and Deb's right around a 5.1, bringing the average down significantly. Now that I think about it though, maybe it's just her unattractive personality that makes her ugly to me, there's just something about a chick dropping F bombs ALL the time that I just don't dig. Is that weird?

Lets not talk about her any longer though, I'm just really curious what direction the show is going to go from here. Is Dexter going to take care of Astor and Cody? (Rita's two kids from a previous relationship) How is he supposed to continue his serial killing ways if he has three kids (He and Rita had one of their own, Harrison) to handle by himself? That's basically what Rita did for him, she took care of the kids while he fulfilled his desire to clean up Miami. It's going to be interesting, we'll see in about nine months how the fifth season plays out.
All I do know though, is that Dexter is the best show on TV. Officially. It's not debatable either, because it's official. If you don't agree - that's unfortunate because it's my blog. I encourage to to keep reading and following, but you should know that I refuse to hear out your argument that might prove me wrong. Wont do it.

Finally - the first, hopefully not last, Song of the Week. This week it's "Seventeen Years" by Ratatat. I know it came out in 2003, but it's still great. If you disagree, re-read the last few lines about disagreeing with my blog. It's a great song, especially for those of you who like music that has no lyrics, because it has no lyrics. But also, it's a great song for all of you who like when people talk during the first few seconds of a song, because that happens too. They're words, but not lyrics. Ya know? Enjoy.