Ten Years of BCS: 2000

(From BCS Guru)

The Guru's Note: Beginning in June, the Guru will publish a review of each of the 10 seasons since the Bowl Championship Series came into existence in 1998. In this series -- Ten Years of BCS -- the Guru will examine the results from these seasons -- who got lucky and who got robbed, what could've been, what should've been and other controversies of the day. The series will appear weekly leading up to the 2008 season.

========================

After two years of relative calm, controversy exploded on the BCS in Year 3. For the first time, a team's presence in the BCS title game was called into question. And the criticism went unabated even after an undefeated champion was crowned.

But if anything, this was a self-inflicted wound.

Bowing more to an ignorant media than any real pressure from public opinion, the BCS drastically changed its formula to retroactively make amends for an outcome it was powerless to change. Instead of defending its method and holding its ground, the BCS capitulated. This knee-jerk reaction would bring far more serious consequences in the years to come and compromise its claim to legitimacy in the system's formative years.

Oklahoma finished the 2000 regular season as the only undefeated team and its No.1 ranking was undisputed. But Florida State, despite ranking No. 3 in both the AP and coaches polls, leapfrogged No. 2 Miami in the final BCS standings to earn a date with the Sooners in the Orange Bowl.

The media went berserk, more so than even Miami coach Butch Davis. The credibility of BCS computers was called into question because it was the computers' preference for the Seminoles that carried the day. The main argument was this: Since both Miami and Florida State each had one loss, and the Hurricanes beat the Seminoles on the field, how could Florida State be ranked ahead of Miami?

The BCS panicked big time. Changes were promised and then carried out in the offseason. The computer lineup was reshuffled to de-emphasize margin of victory. And a dubious "quality win" criteria was added to the formula -- as if the existing arrangement wasn't convoluted enough.

But the BCS should've responded ith: "What's the problem?" and vigorously defended the system.

Florida State was a worthy No. 2 team. If you lined up FSU and Miami side-by-side, plenty could've been made in the Seminoles' favor:

1. Strength of Schedule: Florida State and Miami ranked Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, in the strength of schedule compartment of the BCS standings. But upon further examination, that was laughable. (the SoS, parroted from the RPI that the NCAA uses for its basketball selections, would prove to be the most destructive part of the formula -- but more on that later in the series.) Florida State played in a tougher conference (ACC)- than Miami (Big East). Its non-conference games consisted of Louisville, Brigham Young, Florida and Miami. The 'Canes played I-AA McNeese State, Louisiana Tech, Washington and FSU, plus Big East cupcakes such as Rutgers and Temple.

2. Losses: Florida State's lone loss was to Miami, 27-24, at the Orange Bowl on Oct. 7. The Seminoles rallied from a 17-0 halftime deficit to take a 24-20 lead late in the game, only to lose on a Ken Dorsey-to-Jeremy Shockey pass with 46 seconds left. The 'Canes' only defeat was a 34-29 loss at Washington on Sept. 9.

3. The Washington Factor: If head-to-head results were so paramount, then maybe Washington should've been ranked ahead of Miami. After all, the Huskies beat Miami and also only lost once -- a 23-16 defeat at two-loss Oregon.

4. Margin of Victory: If Washington was discounted because it won lots of close games -- eight of its 11 games were decided by seven or fewer points -- then the fact that Florida State won its games, against a considerably tougher schedule, by a wider margin than Miami (38.9 vs. 30.4) should not have been overlooked. And the computers didn't.

5. Historic Precedent: Even before the birth of BCS, there had been several instances that a team was ranked ahead of another despite losing head-to-head and possessing the same record. In 1993, Florida State finished ahead of Notre Dame in both polls even though the Irish won, 31-24, at South Bend. In 1978, USC finished second to Alabama (11-1) in the AP poll even though the Trojans (12-1) beat the Tide, 24-14, in Birmingham, Ala.

See, the body of evidence is pretty strong in the Seminoles' favor. Their presence in the BCS championship game was easily defensible. That they laid an near-egg in an ugly 13-2 loss to Oklahoma is immaterial. And that Miami defeated a Florida team in the Sugar Bowl -- a team that the 'Noles walloped -- is irrelevant.

And one more thing: Even if today's BCS formula, which gives two-thirds of its weight to the human polls, were applied to the 2000 season, you'd still end up with the same result. Florida State would've finished second, ahead of Miami (1.1093 vs. 1.1025).

Final BCS Standings: 1. Oklahoma, 2. Florida State, 3. Miami (Fla.), 4. Washington.

Alternative Methods:

* Using present day BCS formula: 1. Oklahoma, 2. Florida State.

* Using human polls only: 1. Oklahoma, 2. Miami (Fla.)

* Plus-One: Oklahoma vs. Washington; Florida State vs. Miami (Fla.).

Controversy:

* Notre Dame windfall: The Fiesta Bowl passed on four teams ahead of Notre Dame in the BCS standings to take the two-loss No. 10 Irish. Virginia Tech, ranked No. 5 with its only loss to Miami, fell just outside of the Kansas State-mandate and was ignored. Three other two-loss teams were also swept aside -- Oregon (out because two other Pac-10 teams were already taken), Kansas State (they're pretty used to this by now) and Nebraska. The Huskers also had a beef because they had defeated Notre Dame in South Bend, 27-24, earlier in the season. This occurred at a time when the Irish received a windfall of $13 million for a BCS bowl appearance -- as opposed to today's more balanced payouts. Notre Dame was promptly exposed as a fraud as it was annihilated by Dennis Erickson's Oregon State Beavers, 41-9.

BCS formula review: No change to the formula was made between the 1999 and 2000 seasons. And that's about to change, as the formula would be tweaked or overhauled in four of the next five years.

Analysis: The changes to the BCS formula prior to the 2001 season would prove to be simply reactionary and solved nothing. And while an argument may be stated on Miami's behalf, the results of the bowl games really made a case for Washington. The Huskies went 7-1 in easily the toughest conference in 2000. They beat Purdue in the Rose Bowl; and bowl wins by Oregon State and Oregon gave the Pac-10 three teams in the top seven in the final AP poll. The BCS was rocked by its first real crisis and another one would erupt the following season.

Ten Years of BCS: 1999

(From BCS Guru)

The Guru's Note: Beginning in June, the Guru will publish a review of each of the 10 seasons since the Bowl Championship Series came into existence in 1998. In this series -- Ten Years of BCS -- the Guru will examine the results from these seasons -- who got lucky and who got robbed, what could've been, what should've been and other controversies of the day. The series will appear weekly leading up to the 2008 season. 

=================================

Give yourself a big pat on the back, BCS. You deserve it. You got it right.

You matched up the only two undefeated major conference teams in the national championship game. Brilliant! Couldn't have done it without ya!

What's was left unsaid was: "Whew!"

Despite the obvious -- only Florida State and Virginia Tech emerged from the regular season unbeaten -- there were doubts about whether they'd face each other in the Sugar Bowl for the national title. At the end, Virginia Tech had a barely comfortable margin to hold off one-loss No. 3 Nebraska to play in the title game.

In the 10-year history of the BCS, 1999 had to be one of the most uneventful. The Seminoles went wire-to-wire as the No. 1 team, their place in New Orleans never in question. Upset losses by Penn State and Tennessee in the first two weeks of November paved the way for Virginia Tech to seize the No. 2 ranking.

The Hokies, led by redshirt freshman quarterback Michael Vick, had to sweat out the final four weeks of the regular season mostly because of a soft schedule. With strength of schedule a separate component accounting for nearly one-third of the BCS standings, Virginia Tech had a hard time gaining breathing room from the Cornhuskers, finishing just 1.30 points ahead in the final standings.

Just as in 1998, an undefeated non-BCS conference team finished the regular season unbeaten. And just like Tulane, a 12-0 Marshall team was shut out of a BCS bowl despite finishing No. 12 in the final standings. And one more thing like the Green Wave: The Thundering Herd, quarterbacked by Chad Pennington, completed a perfect season with a victory over BYU, in the Motor City Bowl.

In the Sugar Bowl, Vick rallied the Hokies to take a 29-28 lead at the end of the third quarter. But the Seminoles scored the game's final 18 points in the fourth quarter, giving Bobby Bowden his only, and perhaps final, national championship.

Final BCS Standings: 1. Florida State, 2. Virginia Tech, 3. Nebraska, 4. Alabama.

Alternative Methods:

* Using present day BCS formula: 1. Florida State, 2. Virginia Tech.

* Using human polls only: 1. Florida State, 2. Virginia Tech.

* Plus-One: Florida State vs. Alabama; Virginia Tech vs. Nebraska.

Controversies:

* Kansas State snub II: Well, it wasn't quite as egregious as the one in 1998, but the Wildcats once again earned the dubious honor of being the highest-ranked team not invited to a BCS bowl. K-State, ranked No. 6 with its only loss to Nebraska, was passed up by the Fiesta Bowl (No. 5 Tennessee) and Orange Bowl (No. 8 Michigan). But unlike the previous year, the Wildcats managed to hold it together and win the Holiday Bowl, 24-20, over Washington.

* Marshall snub: With today's arrangement, the Herd would've earned an automatic BCS berth. But with strength-of-schedule a key component in the formula at the time, Marshall was doomed by its 98th-place schedule. The MAC champs, however, would become the last undefeated team not to play in a BCS bowl.

BCS Formula Review: Five more computer rankings were added to the formula -- Billingsley, Dunkel, Massey, Matthews and Rothman -- bringing the total to eight. The lowest ranking among the eight was dropped and the remaining seven averaged to produce the computer ranking. Also, a "Kansas State clause" was added, guaranteeing any team finishing in the top four a BCS bowl spot, but the Wildcats weren't in position to benefit from it.

Analysis: Two years in, the BCS appeared to be producing the desired results. The title games matched deserving teams and the other BCS bowls featured interesting matchups. But this was only the calm before the storm, as raging controversies were about to envelope the BCS, forcing major changes almost annually in the coming years.

Ten Years of BCS: 1998

(From BCS Guru)

The Guru's Note: Beginning in June, the Guru will publish a review of each of the 10 seasons since the Bowl Championship Series came into existence in 1998. In this series the Guru will examine the results from these seasons -- who got lucky and who got robbed, what could've been, what should've been and other controversies of the day. The series will appear weekly leading up to the 2008 season.

 

=========================

On the precipice of a disaster in its infancy, the BCS was magically rescued by the hurricanes -- one named Georges, the other named Edgerrin James.

Three teams headed into the final Saturday of the season with undefeated records: Tennessee, Kansas State and UCLA. The Vols and Wildcats were scheduled to play in their respective conference title games; while the Bruins, riding a nation-best 20-game winning streak, were to play Miami at the Orange Bowl in a makeup game.

Originally, the game was to be played on Sept. 26. But because of the imminent threat of Hurricane Georges, it was temporarily postponed. UCLA had the option of canceling the game outright and standing on its performance in 10 games, but it took the risky move of rescheduling the game for the final day of the season.

The Miami team that beat UCLA, 49-45, that day was a vast improvement over the one the Bruins would've faced on Sept. 26. Behind James' 299 rushing yards (on 39 carries), the 'Canes shredded a shaky UCLA defense and benefited from an erroneous fumble call. Besides ending UCLA's quest to appear in the first BCS title game, Miami's upset victory sent the Bruins on a long descent into national irrelevance.

After UCLA's loss, it was up to Tennessee and Kansas State to hold up their end of the bargain. The Volunteers did but the Wildcats didn't -- losing to double-digit underdog Texas A&M in double overtime, 36-33. As a parting gift, K-State was handed an Alamo Bowl berth after being shut out of the BCS bowls.

While the Tennessee-Florida State title game -- played in the Fiesta Bowl -- was generally acknowledged as a fair outcome, there were a few minor controversies in the year of BCS's birth. Besides the snubbing of K-State, an 11-0 Tulane team was also shut out of the BCS. But thanks to the hurricanes, a catastrophe was averted.

Final BCS Standings: 1. Tennessee, 2. Florida State, 3. Kansas State, 4. Ohio State.

Alternative methods: 

• Using present day BCS formula: 1. Tennessee, 2. Florida State. 

• Using human polls only: 1. Tennessee (1-AP, 1-Coaches), 2. Florida State (2-AP, 2-Coaches).

• Plus-One: Tennessee vs. Ohio State; Florida State vs. Kansas State.

Controversies:

• Kansas State snub: Despite finishing third in the final BCS standings, the Wildcats found themselves in the non-BCS Alamo Bowl. The Sugar Bowl opted for Big Ten co-champion Ohio State, who was the top-ranked team for most of the season until a 28-24 upset loss to Michigan State. The Orange Bowl took Steve Spurrier's Florida Gators, who finished eighth in the BCS standings. A dispirited and disinterested K-State team lost to Purdue, 37-34.

• Tulane snub: An 11-0 record and Conference USA title weren't enough to get the Green Wave to a BCS bowl game, let alone a spot in the title game. Tulane, ranked No. 10, today would've received an automatic berth by being in the top 12. Nevertheless, playing without a head coach after Tommy Bowden took the Clemson job, the Green Wave romped to a 41-27 Liberty Bowl victory over BYU under some guy named Rich Rodriguez.

BCS Formula Review: The initial BCS standings, the brainchild of then-SEC commissioner Roy Kramer, was an unwieldy clunker divided in three -- human polls, computer rankings and strength of schedule. And each loss is tacked on as additional penalty. Only three computers were used -- Anderson & Hester, Jeff Sagarin and New York Times. Margin of victory was accounted for by all three computers and a 50% adjusted maximum deviation factor was applied.

Analysis: UCLA's loss, which occurred earlier in the day on Dec. 5, gave the BCS poobahs a huge sigh of relief. Tennessee's 23-16 victory over Florida State in the Fiesta Bowl, though underwhelming, was controversy-free. The BCS seemingly passed its first test ... only if they knew.

Game Over? Do the Math

Why isn't the Democratic nomination race over? While the pundits around the country are coming up with various explanations and speculations, no one seems capable of breaking out a calculator. Because if they did, they'd know that this contest is so over.

How is it over? With only three primaries remaining -- in Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota -- only 86 pledged delegates are left at stake. Assuming the worst-case scenario for Barack Obama (a blowout loss in PR and narrow wins in MT and SD), he'd earn 36 delegates with the remaining 50 going to Hillary Clinton.

If you do the math (with numbers provided by RealClearPolitics), you'd know that this race is over in many different ways -- and in every way:

1. Playing by the rules -- This would be the one that makes the most sense, but the one Clinton is fighting the hardest not to abide by. Under this scenario, Florida and Michigan don't count and the magic number is 2,026.

Barack Obama would have 2,001 delegates after the final primaries, leaving him 25 short of the majority required. He closes out the race if he gets just 25 of the uncommitted 209 super delegates to support him.

Result: Obama expected to clinch as of June 3.

2. Counting only pledged delegates -- Obama has favored using this as an argument to compel the super delegates to throw in their lot. To-date, he has 1,656 pledged delegates, already more than half of the 3,253 pledged delegates in play. If the super delegates are supposed to follow the lead of the pledged delegates, then this game is already over.

Result: Obama already clinched.

3. Counting only pledged delegates, including Florida and Michigan -- By adding the two renegade delegations, the pledged delegate pool expands to 3,570, meaning 1,785 would be needed to reach a majority.

The trickier part of this scenario is whether to allocate the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan to Obama, since he took his name off the ballot. If the "uncommitted" goes to Obama, then he'll have 1,826 pledged delegates, still a majority. If those "uncommitted" votes go to no one -- i.e. Obama gets zero delegates from Michigan -- then he'd fail to reach the majority. But he'd still have more pledged delegates then Clinton: 1,766-1,733, with neither reaching the majority because of the uncommitted votes.

Result: Obama wins as of June 3, whether he gets Michigan's pledged delegates or not.

4. Counting all delegates, including Florida and Michigan -- Hillary is fighting hard to reach this outcome, but the reality is she still has no chance to win. It merely puts more super delegates on the spot. By admitting all delegates from Florida and Michigan, the magic number goes up to 2,182.

If Obama is allowed to capture the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan, he'd have 2,135 delegates after the final primaries, leaving him 47 super delegates short of the majority. In contrast, Clinton's only goes up to 2,012, still needing 170 of the remaining 209 (81 percent) super delegates to support her. If Obama doesn't get Michigan's "uncommitted," he'd need more super delegates to put him over the top, but he'd still be ahead of Clinton, 2,075-2,012.

Result: Obama ahead in either scenario, needing either 47 or 102 super delegates for majority.

5. The popular vote -- This is Hilary's ace in the hole -- or so she thinks. When all else fails -- and they're destined to, as I have outlined -- this is the only thing she'll have going for her.

But even this specious piece of twisted logic doesn't necessarily work in her favor. Note her line: "More Americans have voted for me." What she conveniently left out is that since Obama's name wasn't on the Michigan ballot, he technically received no votes from Michigan. Even if Hillary wins a landslide in Puerto Rico, a territory that does not have a say in the general election, she'd still be trailing Obama in popular vote -- as long as Obama can claim the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan.

Result: Obama ahead if Michigan's "uncommitted" votes go to him. Clinton ahead if not.

As I had previously and presciently stated, it was stupid for Obama's people to bring the "popular vote" issue into the argument, and it's now biting them back something fierce. It was never part of the contest and now this becomes one last lifeline for Hillary's floundering campaign.

But no matter. Obama has a clear path to bring about the endgame well before the August convention. He should argue for seating Florida and Michigan's delegations, with the single caveat that Michigan's "uncommitted" delegates be allocated to him. Hillary will have virtually no rebuttal to this arrangement since she'd reap the benefits of the two contests she "won." And Obama merely has to persuade an additional two dozen or so super delegates (out of 209) to support him and make him the Democratic Party's nominee.

It all adds up. Really. Just do the math.

A Test of Heavenly Proportions

(From Sinotaenous)

In the most vulnerable hour, China has looked its most sympathetic.

If the Chinese communist government failed miserably in its first test of the year, during the Tibet uprising and subsequent worldwide torch relay, then it's getting at least a passing grade in its handling of the Sichuan earthquake tragedy. In some quarters, it's getting rave reviews.

The adroit and deft management of such a humanitarian disaster has earned the Chinese government some breathing room. But it should not be surprising. If anything, Hu Jintao has shown during his tenure that he's a quick study and much more in tune with the fast-changing nature of global public relations.

For starters, the quake came on the heels of Burma's devastating cyclone, during which its military junta deservedly earned universal scorn. So whatever Beijing did was probably going to be viewed more favorably. But Hu was even smarter than that.

Understanding that the flow of information would be difficult to stop in such a chaotic environment, he instead allowed it to transmit relatively freely. The world got a rare unfiltered glimpse of sorrow and grief of a nation and its people and understandably lavished them with ample amounts of sympathy. And China's surprising decision to swiftly allow foreign aid groups to reach the disaster area gave credence to the notion that its government took responsibility for the welfare of its citizens.

Rescue teams from Japan, South Korea and even Taiwan gained nearly immediate access to the disaster zone. Untold number of lives were perhaps saved because of this action. Contrast that with how Russia handled the sinking of the submarine Kursk in 2000, when Vladimir Putin let his sailors die on the sea floor instead of swallowing national pride to allow foreign help. In this case, China lost face hardly at all. Instead, it's widely viewed as a shining example of a growing global village that thrives on mutual assistance.

The cynical among us might question the true motives of the Chinese government, but no one can question that the event was unplanned and the swift response was un-rehearsed. The Chinese view momentous events, like a massive earthquake, as heavenly intervention. In this context, the communist government shook to its core, but came out with the right answers.

Hu and his inner circle know that the groundswell of sympathy and support will not last forever, so they best take advantage of this goodwill and use it as a foundation to build more trust. There are indications that they will. Hu's conciliatory gesture toward Taiwan, including the unearthing of the rarely invoked "1992 Consensus" was well received. His willingness to at least engage Dalai Lama's representatives -- whether it's somewhat coerced or not -- has helped to cool the Free Tibet fever.

So just where is China headed from here? That's becoming more interesting and complex by the day. If anything, the earthquake may have ended the days when China sealed all outside contact at the first sign of internal distress. And with that as the new reality, China might be on the verge of yet another transformation.

For the better, we hope. Perhaps it's a mandate from Heaven?

Losing Graciously is un-Democratic

If you lose, change the rules. If you can't change the rules, cry that the rules are unfair. If nobody wants to hear you whine, you throw a tantrum and refuse to go away. If all else fails, you can still go hire a lawyer.

Is this where we're headed with Hillary Clinton?

Taking a page -- heck, maybe the whole enchilada -- out of Al Gore's playbook, Hillary is fighting to the death because "people" exhorted her to. Yeah, people, like Bill, Chelsea, Howard Wolfson and a handful of others from the HRC campaign that's running low on cash and even lower on class and dignity.

If you thought Hillary already said some unbelievably crass stuff, well, the hits just keep on coming. Her latest gem: She's leading in popular votes. She should've had one of those announcers who can read fine print at warp speed (like the ones on TV or radio commercials) say the following: "That's if you count Florida and Michigan, never mind we all agreed beforehand that those two delegations broke the rules and should be excluded and that Barack Obama will have zero votes from Michigan because he took his name off the ballot, and if you don't count the results from Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington -- three of them won by Obama -- then Hillary Clinton would be ahead by 1/3 of one percent. Not all figures are reliable and restrictions apply. See HillaryClinton.com for details. Offer expires June 3rd."

Whew. But like the Bosnian sniper, Hillary is again hoping against hope that nobody would pay attention to details. And that the super delegates -- the real audience she's appealing to -- would be as stupid as the Florida voters who claimed that the butterfly ballots were too confusing in the 2000 election.

Hillary doesn't want to make sure every vote counts. She wants to make sure every vote that works in her favor counts. In her twisted logic, even though she will never surpass Obama's lead in pledged delegates -- even if Florida and Michigan's results are tabulated as the way they went, i.e. Obama gets zero in Michigan -- by coming close that ought to be enough. Never mind the pre-existing rules and the pledge by all candidates before the election to exclude those two renegade states.

Rules are for Republicans and everybody else. We're Democrats. We don't need no stinking rules!

The aversion to rules is right up there among allergies that afflict Democrats. And this sickness owes much of it to Gore's refusal to concede what was clearly a lost election. By contesting the 2000 election to its bitter conclusion, Gore ensured the kind of rancor and discontent that ensnared American politics for the next eight years. Whereas Samuel Tilden and even Richard Nixon(!) graciously conceded in elections they might have been robbed, Gore chose his own grievance over what was good for the country.

Much of his spurious arguments are given a rebirth by Gore's former housemate. Yeah, Hillary and Al might've despised each other, but they think eerily alike. Both are elites masquerading as champions of the people. Both possess a kind of supreme entitlement mentality as if democratic politics are merely a charade for imperial succession. Both have a penchant to exaggerate their credentials. And both envied Bill for his political gifts -- and neither has them.

If 2000 is prelude, this Democratic nomination process will go to the convention floor in August in Denver. Hillary won't let it die, even if she can't win. She has already done plenty to undermine Obama's electability -- and she'll do more to that effect, despite the rhetoric that she'll "work" for the Democratic nominee. Come to think of it, Hillary really is a lot like Tonya Harding. If she attacks Obama savagely enough, he'll become unelectable and therefore the nomination must go to her.

Will it work? That depends on the density of the super delegates' collective backbone. But if Democrats are known for their balls, why are they called the Mommy Party?

Coming Soon ... Ten Years of BCS

(From BCS Guru)

Yes, it's hard to believe that it's been 10 years since the Bowl Championship Series was foisted upon the unsuspecting college football fan base. And what fun have we had!

Just about every other year, there was a dispute and controversy. In 2001, it was Nebraska over Oregon and Colorado. In 2003, it was USC getting left out and a split championship. In 2004, it was Auburn's turn. In 2006 and 2007, nobody was quite sure who the real champion was -- except we knew it wasn't Ohio State.

In the years that the BCS got it "right," ... well, hell, did we really need a "system" to grant us such pleasure? Was there any doubt that USC should've played Texas in 2005 and Ohio State vs. Miami in 2002?

Every few years, the standings were tweaked to fix the previous season's mistakes. Then inevitably, a new problem cropped up. The current setup has remained stable for four seasons -- presumably because so far it's been the least offensive of all the cockamamie schemes.

Since we're stuck with this until at least 2013, and most likely, well after a man lands on Mars, peace reigns in the Middle East and the Los Angeles Clippers win the NBA title, we need to settle in for the long haul. And since we can't do anything about it right now, we should look back at the history of the BCS era, to see what we might learn from it.

Beginning in June, and all the way until the 2008 season kicks off on Aug. 28, the Guru will present an annual review of the BCS Decade that began in 1998. We'll look at what happened, what could've happened and what should've happened. We won't solve anything, but we'll leave you entertained and enthralled and for some of you, rue for what might have been.