Poor Arby's

I don't know what it is, but Arby's just can't cut a break. First, The Simpsons killed them in their Lord of The Flies spoof with the classic quote, "I'm so hungry I could eat at Arby's." Then I ran across the flow chart above the other day.

Arby's used to be the place to go (assuming there wasn't a Rax around) - I remember rocking 5-for-5's in high school before track meets, then promptly puking them up at said meet. Maybe it's the roast beef angle. Maybe it's that Colin and I went there last year while we were moving and ordered, in total, two Beef & Cheddar sandwiches, two curly fries, and two drinks and the bill came to a staggering $24. Whatever the case Arby's can't get any love, and it saddens me...

Let The Wild Rumpus Begin!

Well, I don't think there's any doubt that Charlie Weis' days at Notre Dame are numbered. So who will be the replacement? I may be in the minority, but I think the obvious candidates aren't necessarily the best...

Brian Kelly, Head Coach - Cincinnati - Yeah, he won a national title at Grand Valley State. Yeah, he made Central Michigan slightly better. And, yeah, he's done well with Cincinnati. But let's say for the sake of argument that Brian Kelly's name was Bill Krakowski, and that he was a Protestant and not Catholic. Would he still be the number one candidate for the position? I say no. I think people are putting too much emphasis on the Irish-Catholic angle and allowing it to blind them (just like they did with George O'Leary, and we all know how well that turned out). Kelly is Charlie Weis with previous head coaching experience. He runs a high-flying, fast-paced spread offense and calls all the plays. And he's benefited greatly from playing in the shithole that is the Big East. Pass.

Jim Harbaugh, Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football/Head Coach (I'm not joking)- Stanford - Oooooo... he's instilled his toughness in Stanford, molded them in his image. What a bunch of hooey! Let's forget for a moment the outcome of the last head coach ND grabbed from Stanford. Harbaugh has been blessed with having a big, white tailback in Toby Gerhart that has carried his team for 3 years. Take away Gerhart and Stanford instantly reverts to the mediocre, finesse passing team that they were before Harbaugh (and, more importantly, Gerhart) arrived. He's a big talker with a record of 16-19 at Stanford. That, and he's a Michigan grad. Pass.

Bob Stoops, Head Coach - Oklahoma - Just stop kidding yourself. Really, it reeks of desperation and vanity.

Urban Meyer, Head Coach - Florida - See Stoops, Bob.

So where should Notre Dame be looking? Well here are a few coaches that haven't gotten as much publicity as those listed above, in no particular order (actually, they're in alphabetical order - by first name!!!)...

Butch Davis - Head Coach, North Carolina
Chris Peterson - Head Coach, Boise State
Gary Patterson - Head Coach, TCU
Mike Riley - Head Coach, Oregon State
Paul Johnson - Head Coach, Georgia Tech

Maybe you think those are bad choices for one reason or another, whatever - you're not the athletic director so who cares. I guess my point is two-fold. One, I hope ND is only considering coaches that have extensive head coaching experience at the highest levels. Two, I truly hope that Jack Swarbrick is more intelligent than everyone on the ND bulletin boards (myself included) and is casting his net far and wide.

Regardless, the most important thing at play here is that the next Notre Dame head coach, whomever that turns out to be, MUST be able to return the program to consistent top-10 status. The cupboard appears to be as well-stocked as it has been in years, and another 5 years of failure would be a self-imposed death penalty for the program, one from which it might not recover.

Government Health Care: Why it is a terrible idea

I don't think anyone would be surprised at my total disdain for Congress, Obama and their proposed Affordable Health Care for America Act. As a physician, I have a little bit of insight as to how this will affect health care, and let me just say that it isn't good.

Full disclosure, I admit that I have personal reasons too. The $848 billion dollar plan will be financed by 2 primary means: reducing medicare reimbursements and increasing taxes on the "rich". Explain to me how it is fair that the very doctors who provide health care to America will get paid less to do so with decreased reimbursement, while paying higher taxes too. This is a recipe for disaster. Any smart person with half a brain would probably think twice about going into medicine. That means standards for doctors will decrease, and your overall health care will decline as well!

Anyway, a media firestorm that erupted this week gives a perfect example on why the Affordable Health Care for America Act or any other government run plan will fail. In case you hadn't heard, an independent panel of experts called the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended the guidelines for screening mammograms be changed. The current guidelines are screening mammogram yearly starting at age 40. The new guidelines are screening mammogram every other year starting at age 50. Why did they make this recommendation? Because there are too many false positives in younger women, and it was deemed cost prohibitive to screen that early and often. Of course, this opened up insane debate on every major news service.

The interesting thing is that if the government has more control of health care, this will be the way things are run. Independent reviews will make cost-benefit analyses for all kinds of health care tests and procedures. They will set guidelines, and the government will reimburse medicare, medicaid and the proposed new public insurance option based upon these guidelines. Then, private insurers will follow suit, because the government always pays the least because they are the biggest insurer. What this means using the screening mammogram example above is that your insurance will only cover biannual screening mammograms after 50. You won't have the option to start at age 40.

It just doesn't work. The government doesn't run anything efficiently (See the proposed organizational chart above) . This new health care reform will just put more money into the pockets of the government and less into health care. For an example of government inefficiency, look no further than the Cash for Clunkers program. Edmunds determined that of the 690,000 cars sold under the program, only 125,000 of them were sold because of the deal. The other 565,000 would have been sold anyway during that time period. That means the $3 billion taxpayer dollars used to give these rebates cost the government $24,000 per extra car sold. Good work America!

Review This

For the record, the odds of Notre Dame converting a 4th and 16 were slim. The odds of them converting that 4th down, then driving the field in 2 minutes and scoring a game-winning touchdown were slimmer. I expected Notre Dame to lose, and Pitt deserved to win. That said, the automatic review that overruled the on-field call of an incomplete pass and changed it to a fumble to decide the outcome of the game was terrible.

The biggest problem with this call is the referees immediately blew their whistles, signaling the play dead, and waived their hands for an incompletion. Thus, no Notre Dame player attempted to recover the "fumble" and even the Pitt player who did pick up up did so halfheartedly. This is the exact same situation as the opening drive against Navy where Robbie Parris was determined to fumble after a review overturned the on-field call of incomplete pass. Players are told to "play until the whistle". In both cases, the whistle blew and ended the play and in both cases Notre Dame was penalized for not continuing to play beyond the whistle. So now players are expected to anticipate how calls are going to be reviewed and risk penalties for continuing to play on after the whistle?

The college review system is severely flawed and HAS to change. If every play is reviewed, why are coaches given challenges? If Parris' fumble against Navy was really a fumble and every play is reviewed, why did it take a coaches challenged by Navy to get the play reviewed and eventually overtured? Did the review team look at at, determine the on-field call was correct, then look at it closer after the coach's challenge? If so, not only is this a indictment against the current system, it's an indication that the review teams are unqualified.

Notre Dame has benefited from as many review calls as they have been hurt this season, but that's not the point. The purpose of reviews is being abused and is having widespread effects across the college landscape. If you're going to automatically review every little minutiae in a game, why not review for penalties called or not called? Oh, because it becomes overbearing, slows down the flow of the game, and diminishes the role of on-field referees? Well, what do you think reviewing every f$%&ing spot and tip-toe on the sideline does? Worst still is the mysterious "review man" in his lofty booth, above reproach and scrutiny.

If you want reviews in college move to the NFL system, which seems to work just fine, thank you. Give the coaches a limited number of challenges and penalize with a timeout for those that fail. Make the on-field referees perform the actual review so there is accountability. If the system continues as is, games will continue to be decided in the booth rather than on the field, and that simply cannot continue to occur.

That Should Just About Do It...

I always used to say that Navy was the one team I didn't mind Notre Dame losing to because if they won, they truly earned and deserved that victory. Well, after two losses to the Middies in the past three years, I've realized I like ND losing to them about as much as I like ND losing to Southern Cal.

Here are the facts:

• ND was thought to have a chance to run the table this season, with a strong returning team and a favorable schedule.
• Weis was thought to have to bag at least 8 victories to keep his job after two abysmal seasons.
• After a blow-out win over Nevada, ND went on the road and lost to a Michigan team that is proving to be horrible.
• Aside from a easy win (that could have been easier) over Washington State, ND has needed to go down to the wire to win every game this season, including a down-to-the-wire loss to Southern Cal (8 in a row).
• Three games remain - @ top-10 Pitt, at home to UConn (who gave UC a mighty scare this weekend), @ top-20 Stanford.

Frankly, I don't see how ND can beat Pitt or Stanford the way they've played this season, and even topping an emotional UConn now seems suspect. Notre Dame finishes the season 6-6, with an outside shot at 7-5. Hopefully, a bowl game will be declined - ND doesn't need to play in another shoeshine bowl on Christmas Eve...

Notre Who?

Who needs that lousy college team from Northern Indiana. Give me the Bengals!





Who Dey!

Just a Thought...

As I drove to work this morning on the toll road some idiot who didn't have EZ Pass got in the EZ Pass-only lane at the toll booth, then realized his mistake, then tried to reverse out of the EZ Pass lane, then nearly caused about a dozen accidents and backed up traffic for about 1/2 mile. This led to the following chain of thoughts...

1. I live in a big city with a diverse, itinerant population.
2. Although we have an excellent public transportation system, a large percentage of our population still commutes via automobile.
3. 1 out of every 2 drivers sucks (based on a very scientific poll I conducted on my way to work this morning) - and either talks on the phone, texts on the phone, reads, uses a laptop while driving, or is foreign.
   
4. Almost every state has a vehicular 'points' system wherein drivers are alternately rewarded or punished based on their driving record.
   
5. Stereotyping is incredibly convenient.

Those thoughts in mind, I propose the follow - a color coding system for license plates and/or registration stickers to indicate your driving aptitude. For convenience and interstate coordination I recommend we base this system on the national threat level color codes as surely poor drivers are the greatest threat to this country.

Think about how helpful this would be! Not only would it make driving easier because you could avoid the majority of the knuckleheads on the road, but I'm betting the stigma of having everyone on the road know you're a s$%t driver would force people to hone their skill. On top of that - you could charge the bad drivers higher registration fees to cover the cost of their color coding and maybe even turn a handsome little profit. Everyone is a winner! Let's make this happen, folks...