The news that UB's football team will play Auburn and Boston College next year, and possibly Wisconsin or West Virginia, guarantees pain on numerous levels. Regardless, lopsided losses are a necessary evil in bringing UB to the next level of college football.
An important component in building a successful Division I football program is scheduling against upper tier schools. That's because top-flight programs pay lesser schools handsomely for the privilege of being knocked around.
By scheduling losses that are practically guaranteed to championship-caliber teams, Athletics Director Warde Manuel is bringing in more funds for the program, which will both strengthen UB athletics and highlight football's crucial moneymaking role for the rest of the department. This year, UB made roughly $200,000 between playing Syracuse and Iowa. Next year, UB stands to make $650,000 playing Auburn alone. This is one of the reasons Manuel came here, and it's paying off immediately.
In addition, competing against teams at higher levels allows UB to promote itself on a national scale. High-profile games in the BCS spotlight will only help in future recruitment. For a school whose national reputation is based in research and science, UB will profit from a better sports dynamic focused around football (and basketball).
During Hofher's era, UB seemed to play only one or two games against a non-MAC powerhouse each year, followed by a succession of fluff teams, and they would still get blown out. Playing a higher level of competition in non-league games will render MAC match-ups easy in comparison, and make UB more money. This means improved performance within the MAC itself is in UB's near future.
Gonzo's lost stand
Attorney General's testimony betrays Constitution
The nation's top cop, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, outlined Bush's rationale for illegally spying on Americans to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday. His legal reasoning amounted to no more than Bush is the president and he wanted it done, end of story.
Gonzales, who was not placed under oath, argued the administration's reasons are moot point as to why the White House trampled the 1978 FISA law protecting privacy. He argued, with a straight face, the "inherent authority of the president" meant Bush could do as he pleases in wartime, and the president should be "trusted" as Congress's constitutional role slides further into oblivion. Gonzales refused to say if the administration had deliberately tapped Americans' domestic e-mails and telephone calls.
Gonzales's testimony is especially troubling because he made perfectly clear where his true priorities lie: protecting his former "client" rather than the citizens and laws of a nation he swore to protect. Our nation's Attorney General is nothing more than a figurehead for Karl Rove and company, powerless and reluctant to uphold the laws that restrain the executive branch. This doesn't bode well for the Justice Department, or the nation.
Thankfully, even Republicans found fault with Gonzales's charade. Even though Rove has made clear the White House will blacklist any member of the party that breaks ranks with the President over the spy scandal, Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.), who chairs the House committee overseeing the NSA, has called for full congressional hearings into Bush's surveillance program.
When John Roberts and Samuel Alito dodged throughout their confirmation hearings, it was no surprise. Supreme Court nominees always play down their ideological leanings so they won't be used against them. But Gonzales, as supposed protector of American rights, has no excuse.
Photo: Breadchastick / Wikimedia Commons
