The Browns suck. I know, I know; tell you something you don’t know. Well, here’s a try: the losing starts with you, the fan.

The Road Man posted a great article asking a very simple question: who is to blame? Now, don’t get me wrong, there is a lot of blame to go around, from Lerner to Savage to Crennel to the players. But allow me to point to something, mainly the packed stadium, week after week. The crowded parking lot, full of tailgaters. The abundance of Browns jerseys/gear around town. The inflatable yard ornaments. The flags waving. The blind optimism and free pass spilled every Sunday, year after year. As painful as it is, I listen to the post game every Sunday on WTAM. And every Sunday people call in saying the same thing: “we played hard”; “we’ll be ready to go next year with just a few additions in the offseason” and so on. It was so bad that after the Steelers loss, the host (the horrible Paul Ratto) actually blamed Joshua Cribbs, saying he returned the kickoff, putting a tired defense on the field when the Browns could’ve milked the clock. Uh, had he noticed that they had only put six offensive points on the board? Has he not noticed that the Browns offense is horrible, regardless of coordinator? And what may be worse, some fans called in and agreed with his point. They also blamed the refs, the weather and just about everything else - but not the Browns.

Another thing people still call in to defend is Charlie Frye. Why? Do you not notice he isn’t the quarterback of the future? Do you not notice he can’t scramble, runs into sacks, has no field vision and lacks the arm strength? Heck, even the PD’s Bill Livingston saw it. And he’s clueless. Remember Tim Couch? Frye will go that way in two years as well. Look at it like this: when you date someone, you can tell after a few months whether they’re “the one”. If they are, you keep dating. If not, you break-up. Think of this in relation to the QB - deep down, what does your gut tell you? You know that Frye isn’t the one. Yet he gets run out every week. And fans support him every week.

But I can’t say I completely blame the fans. Afterall, the team endorses losing just as much. Celebrating the Steelers near-win, Crennel gave the players a day off because they played so hard and were sore. Get that, football players sore. Who knew? And, despite being horribly exposed as completely inept against the no-huddle offense during the Steelers game, the Browns did nothing to improve a week later against the Bengals, falling prey to the same tactics. Maybe they should’ve practi…oh wait. That’s right. They didn’t. Because they were sore. And played so well despite losing.

And to that point, losing. It’s up to you fans. The organization obviously isn’t going to do anything to change it. Not as long as you’re selling out the stadium. Say what you want about Boston, New York, Philly, Chicago fans, et al; they foster a culture of winning. They don’t tolerate losing (Cubs aside). They’re vocal; they boo, pollute talk radio with complaints, hold signs, write letters, etc. And yes, I notice that some of those teams had long droughts of not winning a championship; but look at how many times those franchises were in contention. In the playoffs. In the championship series. Winning doesn’t start at the top; it starts at the bottom. With you. Losers.

Still on a high after Ohio State’s big win. (And the Steelers’ too. I told you they would win.)

Any way, now that the BCS rankings are out and Michigan is number two, it seems to all come down to the USC v. Notre Dame game next weekend. If USC wins, they need to win big. And that still doesn’t guarantee them a spot because they’ll be a one-loss team, like Michigan. And they will have rolled Notre Dame, like Michigan. However, unlike Michigan, they will have done it at home, meaning that voters will still have a tough time putting them over Michigan.

Two points: 1.) I don’t want to play Michigan again and 2.) The Buckeyes have to play Michigan again. As I’ll continue to say, if for no other reason than to prove the point that the BCS sucks, the system demands that Michigan play for the championship as they have been deemed the second best team.

But thanks to Mike Hart’s post-game comments, where he trashes the “unimpressive, nothing special Ohio State defense, the same defense/team that just beat him, I don’t have to worry about the first point any more. What is it with Michigan players? After yesterday’s loss to the Steelers, Braylon Edwards - one of the biggest mouths during Ohio State/Michigan week - refused to talk about the game. Instead, he focused his energy on the team that just beat him, the Steelers. And in typical Michigan fashion, proceeded to bash them, saying they’re a bad team; they’re not going anywhere; they’re under .500 too. Uh, Braylon? You just lost. Shut up. 

You would think after losing five of the last six rivalry games, Michigan would know how to handle defeat more graciously. So now, thanks to Mike Hart, I want us to play your lousy, overrated team again so I can make this guarantee: Ohio State by three touchdowns. I’m warning you, it will be a blowout.

You stay classy, Michigan.

Still on a high from Ohio State’s exciting win over Michigan. Now I’m watching USC v. Cal.  For most of the first half it was 3-2. Did I mention I’m watching football - not baseball? And, on top of it, Rutgers is getting killed by UC. So, this is fueling some spirited debate between John Saunders, Craig James and Doug Flutie regarding the national championship game.

I’m listening to all of it and it’s not changing my mind on how black and white this decision should be. It comes down to one question: who is the second best team? You just got done watching them as the answer is of course Michigan. So, they should be in the championship game, right? Well, Flutie is saying they had their chance at the title game, today against Ohio State. How so? This wasn’t the title game. This was a chance to play in the title game. So, to that point, they haven’t had their chance at the title game. They now fall into the shrinking pool of eligible teams to play in Arizona. Right now that should be Michigan, Arkansas, Florida, Notre Dame and USC (if they win). Here’s how I see this playing out, which should further the case for Michigan: USC will lose tonight. Notre Dame will lose to USC next week. Florida will lose to Arkansas in the SEC title game, leaving them and Michigan. Now, the question is still easy: who is the better team? Even if Notre Dame/USC makes it to the end with one loss, they aren’t better than Michigan. Same with Florida.

But the real easy answer is to revamp the BSC. A whole other post. I mean, you need look no further than the fact that going into this week the computer rankings had Michigan first, Rutgers second and Ohio State third for an example of how flawed this system truly is. However, this is the system. And if we’re going to determine who plays where based on this system, then we must stick to it. And as much as I hate Michigan, they are the second best team, right?

Still on a high from Ohio State’s big win. And I wanted to tell you that MSNBC.com columnist Michael Ventre is a wimp. He wrote in his Trash Talk column last week that the Ohio State/Michigan game is the college football equivalent of ‘Snakes on a Plane’ - as in, they are both overhyped.

What?

Is that possible? Is there such a thing as ‘overhype’ when it comes to this game? In the last six years of this rivalry, four games have been decided by six points or less. Throw in the fact that the two are ranked #1 and #2 for the first time. Throw in the fact that Ohio State had a chance to win its first outright Big Ten title. Throw in the fact that this is the first time they’ve faced off as undefeateds in more than 30 years. And so on and so on.

So, given all that, how can you say this overhyped? And, now that it’s over, how can you not list a comment section or an e-mail address so we can write and tell you just how wrong you are? Come on Ventre; trash talk goes two ways. Don’t make me send this to Samuel L. Jackson.

Still on a high from Ohio State’s exciting 42-39 win over that team up north. There are so many things to write about in regards to the game itself. And some very talented sportswriters will do that tonight and into early next week.

I’d like to write about what makes these types of games truly special: the people you get to watch it with. Chances are you watched this game with some of your best friends. Your brother. Your dad. Your son. Any combination of close friends or family. This is what makes these games memorable. I always try and watch these games with my dad. I spent most of the 90s watching Indians games with him. And now that continues with big Buckeye and Cavaliers games. (I’m a Steelers fan, so we don’t approach the Browns/Steelers rivalry with the same shared enthusiasm.)

Bill Simmons, The Sports Guy from ESPN.com and ESPN the Magazine does a nice job of bringing this point home, often writing about his experiences growing up, watching the Celtics and Red Sox (among other sporting events) with his dad.

I’m willing to bet that when you look back at this game or when it pops up on ESPN Classic you won’t remember the game as well as you will the experience of watching it. This is what makes sports so special. I hope you enjoyed watching the game today as much as I did. But even more importantly, like me I hope you enjoyed the company of those you watched it with.