I've noticed on the comments sections that Kyle will hand out 100 cocktails to, what seems to me, those comments that are perfectly on the mark and/or incredibly witty. I find myself jealous at times, as I would love to be awarded the cocktails. I haven't received my own 100 cocktails, but not because of any oversight on Kyle's part, but because no comment of mine has merited the recognition. Anyways, which cocktail would you want if you had to 100 to drink (and Kyle was offering)? Mine would be the gin and tonic.

ESPN recently did a study on the historical prestige of a football program (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3849468). While reading it, I recalled a certain Stewart Mandel article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/08/08/cfb.bag/index.html) that drew the ire of our own, Mr. King, and it occured to me that Mr. Mandel could learn a thing or two from ESPN's version of ranking the programs' status throughout history. I do not bring this up to either bash Mr. Mandel (as I, like College Buddy and MaconDawg, also find Stewart to be an underappreciated nitwit) or to promote ESPN. I bring this up, rather, simply to point out the difference in methodolgy between Mr. Mandel's rankings (more of classifications, in which he grouped teams into a handful of categories) and ESPN's. At least ESPN employed a statistical method with a set number of points awarded to (and deducted from) each team based on multiple criteria to ultimately rank them (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3836130). ESPN's methodolgy removes entirely any bias and their ultimate poll could be easily defended since the numbers don't lie. Mr. Mandel's assesment, on the other hand, was purely his own inkling of where a team sits (complete with 100 idiots "average" college football fans from Montana).