Nov. 23rd, 2007

maniacmarshall: (Default)
brought to you by the Arkansas Razorbacks.

Can we FINALLY get over the love affair with LSU?

I know, the LSU apologists will be quick to point out that their 2 losses were both in overtime, but lets face it folks. Kentucky has since been shown to be just a slightly above average team, and no one would mistake Arkansas for a top 20 team. They lost to Arkansas AT HOME for crying out loud.

LSU has played with fire all season. They play up or down to the level of their opponents nearly every game. For the second time, their own inability to play at their top level vs weaker opponents has come back to bite them.

Now that we have almost run out of not only unbeaten teams, but once beaten teams too, can we FINALLY give some respect to the winner of the MU/KU game, and admit that the winner of that game DESERVES to be in the title game if they beat Oklahoma in the Big XII Championship game?

Once again, let me stress, that I'm not asking for unfair treatment here, but only fair treatment. All I ask for is a little respect, just for a little, for whichever of the two teams wins that game if they also beat Oklahoma.

By the way, if Hawaii beats Boise State tonight, isn't it time we gave THEM a little respect too? I'm sick and tired of hearing how they played no one. They TRIED to schedule people, but, in the typical BCS powers chicken shit response, NO ONE wanted any part of Colt Brennan and company.

Michigan State used a buyout clause to get out of having to play them. They tried to schedule Michigan, but the Ferrets... err, Wolverines, prefered to play somone safe, and scheduled  1-AA Appalachian State. When they became the first 1-A team to lose to a 1-AA team, justice was served. They also tried hard to play USC, but they also wanted no part of them.

Hawaii can only play the people who are not too scared to show up and play them.

If we aren't going to have a playoff system in Division 1-A, then we need a rule that says any team that goes undefeated and at least makes a bona fide effort to schedule at least one non conference team that could reasonably be expected to be a top 25 team that season is automatically in the title game unless there are two other undefeated teams. Maybe then, people might be willing to play teams like Hawaii, so they could give them a loss and eliminate them.

Yes, I know a rule like this would be murky, and difficult to write, but the effort should be made. We need to encourage teams to play people like Hawaii and Boise State and the like, because right now the system DISCOURAGES it for two reasons.

1) If they lose to a "non BCS" school, the voters and computers will hammer them and, more importantly

2) If these non BCS schools actually win games against BCS schools, and especially if they do it more than once, they might actually start attracting recruits and respect and become a real, annual power, and, lets face it, the BCS conferences have a major vested interest in keeping that from happening.

I could go on and on about this, but, this is enough ranting for now.
maniacmarshall: (Default)
I got an email/call from [personal profile] acciochocolate tonight! Seems she is back in town and wants to see us before we return home.

The four of us have arranged to meet for dinner and a movie tomorrow up in Stockbridge. I'm glad that we could get together at least once while we were here.

We'll hopefully get to visit when we're back the week between Thanksgiving and New Years as well, though [personal profile] shishio might have plans for us as well (I sure hope she does. I really enjoyed going to the concert with her and Rain!)

Speaking of [personal profile] shishio I'm a bit worried about her, as she hasn't returned Rachel's calls the last couple days. She's been through a lot of stress lately, but had a job interview Monday, and was supposed to call us after the interview and let us know how it went. I'm guessing the fact that she hasn't contacted us means that she didn't get it, and is too depressed to want to talk about it.

I can completely relate to that kind of depression. I've been there.

I feel like I understand her as well as you can understand someone you've only met a few times and talked to a little online. Though we're different in a lot of ways, I think we're fundamentally alike in temperment and outlook. Maybe more alike than anyone I've ever called a friend.

Like I was at that age, and still am to some degree, she's a passionate person who really puts a lot of pride and self worth into her job, and to be laid off the way she was, for the reason she was has, shaken her to the core. It would have devastated me at that age as well.

She was loyal to a fault, even moving with her employer because she liked him so much. It felt like a family there, for her, so she loyally followed, and what did it get her? Other than a kick in the face, just a lot of vague feelings of anger and confusion. Now she wonder's what the point of being loyal at all is...

In time, she will learn that there is one, but that you just have to be careful about who you are loyal to. Sometimes, you'll make mistakes, and your loyalty won't be rewarded, but, sometimes it will, and building those relationships is worth all the failed ones. Even though the failed ones will cause a lot of pain in the short term, they will be worth putting up with because of the rewards of the successful ones.

I also suspect that she doesn't want to seem like a whiner/complainer, and doesn't want to get others down with what she's going through.
Therefore, she doesn't complain much, and when she does, probably only to a very select few... I can probably guess the select few...

Speaking of those select few, I hope she realizes how lucky she is to have a wonderful partner to help her through this. When most of the crap happened to me, I had no one to talk to, no one on who's shoulder to cry, at least not physically. I guess there was Susan... amazing how many good people I've met on IRC over the years... I really should call her up when I get home... I digress...

Maybe there is even a little bit of not wanting to have to rely on other people going on... I think I see that in her a bit too... I used to have the WORST case of that. I never wanted to even ask someone the time if I could walk down the hall and look for myself. I hated even asking someone for  jump for a dead battery. I was supposed to be a rock... never need anyone... I finally got past that and learned to trust... I finally learned that letting other people in was worth it.  I don't think shes got it as bad as I did, but shes had some people stab her in the back, and its understandably made her a little cautious. 

That all this has happened to her... It really sucks, because she's such a good person. She worked REALLY hard to get to where she is. She's no "princess" who had things handed to her all her life.  She really deserves something good to happen for her. --- I could say the same thing about someone I know in Pennsylvania too, but that's another story for another time perhaps ---

My great hope right now is that she can get past her feelings of failure and let her friends help her when she needs a helping hand. Not just Rachel and I, but all of her friends.

While it seems she sees herself as Vikki the failure, or, even worse, Vikki the fool for being so loyal to someone who ultimately proved unworthy of her loyalty, I hope she can realize that her friends don't think one ounce less of her now than we ever did.  To her friends, she's still the same fun loving, funny, wonderful person she always has been.

To us, she's still Vikki our wonderful, loyal friend. We miss her.

We certainly don't want to pressure her, we know she needs her space too... I know from personal experience... but, yeah, from a purely selfish perspective, I'm not afraid to say I miss reading her posts, and look forward to the day she's back and feeling like her old self.

You know, I dono why I worry so much about her, but I do. Maybe because, whether she knows it or not, she's Rachel's best friend. Maybe it's just because I see so much of me 10-15 years ago in her (thats kinda scary actually...), maybe it's something else entirely.

Rachel says that my latching onto people like this is one of my best qualities, but, sometimes it frustrates and annoys the shit out of me, and I wonder why I have to feel the way I do. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better if I could just not feel this way about people and things that are important to me.

There is both a positive and a negative to this of course. The positive is that when things DO go well, it can be almost a mania like high. The negative, of course, is that when things go bad, you can feel suicidally depressed...

While I may sometimes wish that I could be otherwise, I know deep down not only can't I, but that I wouldn't really want to. Of all things, a moment from the Doctor Who Story "The Invasion of Time" pretty well sums up.

The Doctor: People are dying out there. Men, Women, Time Lords even have died in that battle. Doesn't that concern you?

Borusa: It concerns you?

The Doctor: Yes, very much so.

Borusa: Then you should remember your training... in detachment.

The Doctor: I'd rather care.

Yes, in the end, I'd rather care. For those of us "emotional junkies" who feel things intensely, the good times really are worth the bad. Sometimes, we may waver in that belief, but it is true.

There will be good times ahead still Vikki, and the good times will be well worth the crap you are going through now, you just gotta believe.


maniacmarshall: (Default)

March 2012

2526 2728 293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 06:17 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios