They're not the only One-loss Team: LSU Cannot Lose and Be in the Championship

(Yes, I know this article is out dated; the person who usually edits my papers had a delay.)

            LSU's football team's record is twelve-and-zero and is currently and number-one in the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) Standings. Dennis Dodd, CBSSports.com's senior college football writer,'s piece, "LSU so Good It could afford to Lose and still Play for BCS Title," claims that if LSU loses, then they will at the same time play for the BCS National Championship. The BCS National Championship is the most important game in college football, not only for fans, but for the colleges playing in it. The game consists of number-one versus number-two, and the winning school receives multiple prizes, including hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to their official website (Bowls). Dodd's claim is false because he uses name-calling and bases his facts off of very few games.

            Dennis Dodd says that LSU can lose their final game against Georgia and still qualify for the BCS National Championship. He says this because LSU over-powered every opponent throughout the entire season. He also states LSU is better than the other one-loss teams—Oklahoma State, Stanford, and Virginia Tech—who, according to Dodd, have no right to be mentioned in the BCS National Championship conversation. Dodd's last saying is that LSU is one of the greatest football teams ever, and this will convince the USA Today and the Harris Polls, two of the three components that help calculate the formulae of the BCS rankings, to keep LSU number-one or number-two if they manage to lose.

            There are some flaws in Dodd's article. Firstly, he uses name calling. Near the end of the article, Dodd calls all the one-loss teams "wannabes" for the BCS National Championship and adds, "None of them have beaten seven ranked teams [like LSU has]." Even though Dodd name calls, this fact is false because LSU has only beaten six ranked opponents: Mississippi State, who was ranked before, has dropped out the BCS Rankings (2011 NCAA). Secondly, in Dodd's article he bases multiple facts on a small sample size. He says that Oklahoma State should not leap ahead because of a loss to Iowa State, and Stanford should not leap ahead because of an "embarrassing loss" to Oregon (Dodd). However, he is forgetting about the other ten games of the season. Oklahoma State has won every other game by an average of 25.5 points (Oklahoma). Stanford's only loss was against number-ten Oregon and has approximately a 24 point average margin of victory (Stanford). These are both winning margins of three possessions, a rather high number. It is hard for many teams to score three possessions at any point in a game, especially in the later times when such a high-scoring deficit can occur. Dodd also called Virginia Tech a "wannabe" team; however, he provided no rationale. A reason without a claim is very unprofessional and is hard to take seriously. With that being said, Dennis Dodd should have used more than one game-or sometimes even a game to determine what a "wannabe" is.

            Rather than have LSU number two if they lose, Oklahoma State or Stanford should be number two and play for the BCS National Championship. As of 25 November 2011, the top five teams in the nation are LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, and Stanford (2011 NCAA). If LSU loses, Alabama is certain to gain the number-one spot in the country, securing one spot in the BCS National Championship; their only loss was a 9-6 game against LSU in overtime (Alabama). A close game like this only shows one thing: Alabama can only lose to the best team in the country. Even ESPN, one of the top companies that cover multiple sports, as well as the Associated Press claimed Alabama to be the number-two team in the nation (Associated Press). So if LSU loses, they are no longer the best team; Alabama is. Still, there is one more spot to fill, and that is where Oklahoma State or Stanford steps in. Arkansas is out of the conversation because they lost their last game by twenty-four points to LSU (LSU), so there is no way that Arkansas will be able to shoot ahead of LSU after a severe beating. Oklahoma and Stanford are the second-best and third-best in scoring offense, averaging 49.8 and 43.6 points per game, respectively (Oklahoma; Stanford). The two have also manhandled multiple opponents: a two-possession win over number twenty-two Notre Dame (Stanford) and a thirty-five-point victory over number eighteen Baylor (Oklahoma), just to name a few. LSU on the other hand has had some trouble with even unranked opponents: they only won by thirteen points to Mississippi State (Louisiana). Another flaw is LSU is currently ranked one hundredout of one hundred and twenty in passing yards (LSU). If LSU loses, then the various people who vote in the polls will be able to look at these flaws and see that they do not deserve to be playing in the BCS National Championship.

There is a commonly known sports phrase "defense wins championships." However, if everyone on the offense does not do his/her job, the team will lose. In this case, LSU will lose. If they lose, they will fall below number two and not play for the BCS National Championship, Oklahoma State or Stanford will. A number-one team who loses to a team outside the top ten, without more time in the season to "make up," does not deserve to drop only one spot and play for the biggest college football game of the year and have the possibility to receive loads of money for their university.

Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A: Video Games Help Society

(Original writing date November 1, 2011. This is a casual essay.)

The primary reason people nowadays are more successful is because of video games. Contrary to popular belief, video games improve society; they help educationally and teach how to live efficient lives. The first home video game system was the Odyssey made by Magnavox in 1979. Since then, there has been many more systems, games, and expansions to where approximately forty-five million homes have video games and about seventy-five million Americans play them—according to the Seattle Times reporter Bob Feller—for nearly three billion hours a week (McGonigal).

Video games help students learn better. In 2009, a study was published by Issues in Teacher's Education about using video games as a "learning device" (Sardone and Devlin-Scherer 47). Twenty-five participants had to pick a video game, choosing from multiple categories: English, History, Health, and Spanish, among others. The participant played his/her game and afterwards taught a group of students by using the game. The results showed that students reacted differently. The students became more engaged in learning while playing video games, and it showed that teachers taught better using video games as a part of their curriculum (Sardone and Devlin-Scherer 63-64). The main reason this occurs, according to the Federation of American Scientists, is because video games teach children how to be analytical thinkers, how to multitask, and how to problem solve under pressure (Feller; Booth). Another reason, concluded by Rochester University, is some video games "change the way our brains process visual information" (Sherwood). This has led to some schools in Europe to consider using video games in the classroom (Booth). When students become more engaged in learning, they are in "intense concentration" (McGonigal); as a result, students learn more, become smarter, and accomplish more with their lives. These are necessary skills that people are required to have if they want to be smart and successful. When many people have these skills, society as a whole will achieve more because the overall population is smarter and more innovative. An example of this is possible by comparing the 1980s—when video games were first established—to nowadays. In the 1980s, examples technology were the Walkman, the desktop computer, and the Nintendo Entertainment System—things that constricted society to a single place. Comparing it to nowadays, there is the iTouch, high-powered laptops, and multiple video game systems. This makes it so society can accomplish more and learn more wherever and whenever they please.

Once people learn skills from playing video games, they will then be able to apply it in real life.  There are games like World of Warcraft, an online role-playing video game, which has been played collectively for more than five million years (McGonigal). Consequently, players have been more active in problem solving as well as being more collaborative in the workforce (McGongial). Jane McGonigal, a game designer, discussed three games she created, World without Oil, SuperStruct, and Evoke, during her TED2010 conference, and how they changed people's lives. The first was where players pretended the United States had limited oil; the second was humankind was close to extinction, and players had to do something about it; the third was how to become a "social innovator" (McGonigal). After the three-month trial was over, people were more efficient in their life because they kept the habits learned from the games (McGonigal).     

There are many other games out there that can teach people how to be successful in different categories. Researchers at Rochester University claimed that people who have played action video games on a daily basis have improved vision (Sherwood). The test had participants play either one of the two games, Unreal Tournament, an action video game, and Tetris, a puzzle video game. After a month, researchers concluded that "people who played action video games for a few hours a day over the course of a month improved by about 20 percent in their ability to identify letters presented in clutter" (Sherwood). 

            Video games can help society become extraordinarily great in whatever one wants to do. If society keeps playing video games, in twenty years who knows where this will lead. Nancy Sardone’s and Roberta Devlin-Scherer's study was for a semester with approximately twenty-five participants (Sardone and Devlin-Scherer 51); McGonigal's trial was for three months and only consisted of a few thousand people; the research at Rochester University was conducted for a single month. Imagine if this was increased for years and with millions of people? Today's technology can be seen as amazing, but if society keeps growing with the use of video games, technology in the future will be limited to society's imagination.

Works Cited

Booth, Robert. "Video Games Are Good for Children - EU Reports." Guardian.co.uk. The Guardian, 11 February 2009. Web. 21 October 2011.

Feller, Bob. "Scientist Say Video Games Can Reshape Education." Seattletimes.nwsource.com. The Seattle Times, 18 October 2006. Web. 20 October 2011.

McGonigal, Jane. "Gaming Can Make a Better World." TED2010. 10 February 2010. Conference Presentation.

Sardone, Nancy, and Roberta Devlin-Scherer. "Teacher's Candidates' Views of Digital Games as Learning Devices." Issues in Teacher Education 18.2 (2009): 47-67. ERIC. EBSCO. Web. 20 October 2011.

Sherwood, Jonathan. "Action Video Games Sharpen Vision 20 Percent." Rochester.edu. University of Rochester, 2 February 2010. Web. 30 October 2011.