Soxbadger

QUOTE (Rex Hudler @ Jan 8, 2013 -> 07:46 PM) I tend to agree, but there are issues with it. Under this format, the conference championship games become de facto quarterfinal games, giving the feel of an 8 game playoff. But this can't happen without getting to four conferences which will include Notre Dame which isn't going to happen overnight and not without completely blowing up all of the traditions of college basketball (though I think that is inevitable anyway). This model works for me when you have 4 conference champs that are 13-0, 12-1 or maybe even 11-2. But when a 7-5 team wins a CC in an upset, I have no interest in seeing that team in a "Final Four". There is no perfect scenario, I know. Im not saying that it will happen instantly. But as you said, it effectively becomes an 8 game tournament and because the CCG is the key to getting in, the conference schedule becomes even more important. As for the 8-5 part, it really is very unlikely that a team is a conference champion with that many losses. That being said, if they can win 3 games in a row (CCG and 2 playoff games) against the "best" teams, why arent they deserving? Something would have had to change (ie injury etc) for a team to make that dramatic of a turnaround.

Well my proposal forces the destruction of one of the big 5 conferences. For the simple reason that 5 is a prime number and therefore terrible .

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jan 8, 2013 -> 01:52 PM) I doubt that because they get more than everyone else right now by consistently putting two teams in the BCS. Why would they give that up? Because I believe that is the deal they already agreed to? From everything Ive read the Big10/SEC get the same payout from the new tournament regardless of how many teams actually end up in the tournament. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf...ayouts/1762709/ My plan of 4 conferences splitting 100%= more money for the SEC. As they currently split 20% (1 of 5) of 71.5% (they share with non-bcs). (edit) Let me clarify 1 point. With the new tournament you can still get a Bowl game (Rose, etc) so the SEC and Big are going to double dip, by getting tournament money and bowl money. Under the 4 team conference championship plan, this would also be available, you would have #2 Pac v #2 Big Rose, #2 SEC v #2 whoever, etc. I am only talking about the additional playoff revenue from the new games.

It is for fun. There is no empirical way to prove who the best team is, unless every team plays home and home against every team.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jan 8, 2013 -> 01:32 PM) The perceived strength of the SEC does matter though because they have significantly more barriers to winning their conference. How many SEC teams could have won the ACC this year? I'd lean towards something like 5. It's a disincentive to play in a good conference that will make more money for your program. You'll never get the SEC to agree to something that gives them one bid and that's it given their dominance the last several years. As for the first part, I don't think you really know who the SEC 2-5 is most years because they don't play equal schedules anyways. Alabama missed Florida and SC, A&M missed Georgia and SC, Florida missed Bama and A&M, ect. They'd take whomever they think is the best option. I believe the SEC would be willing to agree to a format that guarantees them 1/4 of the revenue no matter what happens. And you are making my point. With uneven schedules, etc none of this really matters. Its all just for fun, which is why I think the simplest solution 4 conference champs, is the best solution.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Jan 8, 2013 -> 01:29 PM) So this year you would propose that an 8-5 Wisconsin team should go to the playoffs over Texas A&M or South Carolina or Georgia, etc? That makes no sense at all. This year was an aberration as an undefeated OSU team should have been in the CCG over Wisconsin. And it makes perfect sense. AM and Georgia lost to Alabama (Not sure why you mentioned Scar, they barely beat Michigan and were trashed by Florida). The best team in the SEC was Alabama. Why should Bama have to risk going 1-1 against AM and AM being Champ? I dont like the idea of rematch games. Its just more fun for me to see the 4 conferences best teams play it out and see what happens.

My response was actually supposed to say (to Knightni) which is why it probably made no sense. It shouldnt matter the perceived strength of SEC, the reason is that if 2 SEC teams make it, likely they will be the SEC champion and the SEC 3, as opposed to SEC 2. The reason for this is SEC 2 may lose in CCG and thus SEC 3 will jump them. Which is why just taking the top team from each conference makes the most sense. If you want to be NC, you should win your conference.

No (referring to knightni's question). Unless the Big10 is guaranteed as much money as the SEC regardless of teams, then it would be considered. The playoff that makes the most sense is 4 Conference Champions (Big, SEC, Pac and whoever is left of Big12/ACC).

Im one of the few people who watched Pacific when it came out but never saw BOB haha. And I know Damien Lewis is in other things, it was more that I marathoned BOB then I switched to Homeland. (My new Samsung gets HBOGO so I was able to get all of the BOB).

These are pretty rare cases, I doubt many have personal experience.

So I had a really odd experience. 2 shows I havent watched were Band of Brothers and Homeland. Ive had some time off so I decided to watch them both. There is just something really odd watching Captain Frank Winters as Brody.

I like Lester, Ive met him a few times and weve discussed some sports stuff. That being said, I still think that Pennsylvania has a chance to argue standing. Can they demonstrate injury? I would say that if Pennsylvania can show that they lost money due to the sanctions, there is a potential they have shown injury. 2) Causation, do I think they can show that a connection between the sanctions and injury, I would say likely. Redressability is the easiest one, if you remove the sanctions the damage will stop. The second part is obviously the easier one. You cant bind up the food chain, no idea why Lester would not even mention this. But if I do not have the authority to bind the state of Penn, it doesnt matter if I bound PSU. Now obviously they could argue that I had apparent authority. But it should be absolutely obvious that PSU cant bind the state of Pennsylvania to the sanctions. Lastly, here is a much better post about the issue http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2013/01/...antitrust-ncaa/, that actually answers my first post. Which is that PSU is not a state school. Funny that Munson may have come to the right conclusion this time, but for the wrong reasons: Youll notice that Munson does not even mention that if it was brought by the attorney general, they could have potential standing under the doctrine of parens patriae. This is a complicated issue, which is why Im not going to be bold enough to claim I have any idea about it.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 03:24 PM) Perhaps (and I really haven't thought about it that closely), but does the state even have standing to sue? First, I don't think that the PSU athletic programs regulated by the NCAA are funded with state tax dollars. Aren't athletic budgets generally separate? Second, PSU administrators accepted these sanctions with eyes open, did it not? I really have no clue what they are going to argue. I could guess that they are going to argue that Penn State is Pennsylvania and they are therefore entitled to the same privileges and immunities. If the school (ie the state) stands to lose money due to these sanctions, they could definitely try to argue that NCAA went beyond the scope of their authority in their sanctions. There really are a lot of angles that Penn can try and use. It may not matter what the PSU admin accepted because the argument will be you cant bind a party that is higher on the food chain. They could also argue that the PSU admin acted in bad faith (even criminally) to try and cover up their own wrongdoings while not caring about the impact on Pennsylvania as a whole. I really dont know. But generally speaking, you dont want to be opposing a state in a lawsuit. Have to wait and see what the pleadings are.

This could potentially end really poorly for the NCAA.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 05:04 PM) Saban and Kelly you have to think would also come with pretty big pricetags. Mind you, Im not interested in either of them, but they both have been mentioned Its hard to imagine the Bears paying that type of money. I believe when Lovie was signed he was the lowest paid HC in the NFL. Granted he was now top 10, but I believe the Bears will have to pay Lovie + another HC next year. Which is why Im really not optimistic about the Bears shelling out a lot of money.

Muschamp would be pretty pricey. Probably talking about 4mil right off the bat. He already makes around $3mil in Florida.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 03:33 PM) Im not missing the point, The bosses arent the ones making the hire this time. I will go out on a limb and say the Bears are one of the first to make a HC hire. Id say doubtful. The Bears are not going to offer top dollar, so unless they are going bargain bin from the start I would expect the high profile/paying jobs to get filled first. And then the Bears to get whoever is left.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 03:25 PM) That is the "late in the game" part, badger. That is a full month after last years "black monday". Every other team that had axed their own coach had 4 weeks of a coaching search and hiring well under way, that is a terrible time to start hunting for your own coach. Angelos fire date is irrelevant. This year he is ahead of the curve, he has his pick of available candidates(that wish to interview with him.) I think you are missing the point. Angelo was fired January 3. It took the Bears almost 4 weeks to hire another GM. Those are Emery's bosses. They dont seem to care, so I really am not sure why they are going to change their stripes this year. Do you think the Bears will be the first team to hire a HC? Or do you think that they will be one of the last? My guess is the latter.

Angelo was fired on January 3, 2012 so not sure how that was late in the game, when the last day of the season was January 1, 2012. They hired Emery on January 29. Its just the Bears have a terrible front office that doesnt know what its doing. Which is why a coaching change makes me nervous.

Kyle, Its a ton of speculation, I have no inside information. With Angelo I would think Lovie had more say. I am more focused on this year and Emery, because this year is the year Lovie was fired and its been theorized that had Lovie done better, he may not have been fired. That is why I am only referring to this years draft and the oddity of the picks. The one thing we do know is that when Emery was hired he was explicitly told he could not fire Lovie for 1 season. The real point is, you dont hire a GM and tell them who their head coach is going to be. The Jets are about to find out why this is a bad idea as well. If you are hiring a GM to be the man, he needs to be able to make all decisions from day one. Otherwise you get this nonsense, where 2 years are potentially lost. Especially if the Bears defensive system dramatically changes. (edit) Maybe this will be clearer. It makes no sense to say Lovie is going to be fired unless he makes a deep playoff run and then not give him the necessary tools to actually try and make that run. I could be way off here, but I just do not see McClellin as a Lovie player.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) Well if Emery decides to move from a 4-3 to a 3-4 does getting McClellin make more sense. I would of rather had an OL, but that was the thought behind McClellin is he would fit more in a 3-4. In the short term he would be used like the typical 3rd down rusher that Lovie has used before. Of course if the Bears move to a 3-4 he makes more sense. But the only way the Bears were moving to a 3-4 was if Lovie was gone, and that meant the Bears would have to fail this year. The point is that most felt the Bears had a chance to contend for the NFC Division (turned out to be true) most thought the Bears needed help at OL, TE and WR. Imagine what could have been with 1 solid OL and 1 solid TE. The worst part is, I dont even really like Lovie. I just am really concerned about who the next coach will be.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 02:36 PM) How do you know what decisions were and were not made with lovies input during the Angelo era? I dont know, which is why I am asking. It seems that Lovie has had very little say in personnel, I could be wrong obviously. And to be clear I dont think Emery purposefully set up Lovie, but I also dont think he went out of his way to make sure the Bears had the best chance at winning this year. There is no way you can convince me that McClellin (1st round) and Hardin (3rd Round) were the best choices for the Bears to win this year, especially when the Bears did nothing for the OL.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 02:25 PM) Then the league hasnt made any sense for quite a long time Well the premise of my argument was can anyone name a longer tenured coach than Lovie Smith who had less ability to make personnel decisions. I think that the Emery/Smith situation was an aberration. Generally the GM hires the Coach, so the GM and Coach are on the same page from day 1. In this case you had a GM who was hired with a coach in place and told he cant fire the coach for 1 year. Thus if Emery didnt like Smith, he had every reason to screw Lovie so he could get rid of him. If Lovie makes the playoffs can they fire him? I doubt it. And since Emery seems to have wanted to fire Lovie, I cant help but wonder if last years draft wasnt a set up. Emery drafted guys that werent even healthy, how does that help a team that wants to win a Division Title?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) Holmgren was always a fantastic coach and terrible executive. I dont think 1 guy can do both jobs effectively, but when it comes to drafting, the coach really should have the final say. If you cant trust the coach to pick the right guys, how can you trust him to play the right guys etc? It just makes no sense.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 02:06 PM) Isn't it funny how scouts usually end up being GMs and not coaches? And when coaches do it becomes a miserable failure? There's a reason why GMs coming in usually get to hire their own coach. They hire a guy with a similar style, because those are the players and schemes they think will win games. That's where a coach GM relationship works. acutally I don't even know why i'm arguing this. Show me the situations where giving a coach more power over personnel has worked. It was the downfall of many great coaches. Bill Belichek Jimmy Johnson Bill Walsh I guess I could just go through the list of Super Bowl dynasties and list those coaches.