Soxbadger

There is no perfect system. I just would prefer one where it is 1 team per conference and preferably all of those teams had to play a CCG. As a fan Id rather see PAC v BIG, SEC v PAC, etc, I dont get a lot from a SEC v SEC rematch.

Where did I say the NCAA shouldnt have wild card spots? I havent said that at all, I personally think if you are going to call it a "Playoff" it needs to have more than 4 teams. I am trying to come up with ideas to get more teams in the playoff, and a good place to start is to have a conference championship game in every conference, that way you eliminate teams to start. Also I think the WC in baseball would be irrelevant if the AL East had a AL EAST Championship Series, where 1 and 2 played for the right to move on. 2. You brought up baseball, I said football was a BETTER comparison. There is no actual comparison, the other football division in the NCAA has an entirely different playoff, and I believe conference champs get a bid in the other division.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:38 AM) Exactly. And it's silly. And IMO, it's not a game of semantics when it comes to this. Otherwise precedent would be set so they can collect taxes in a millions of new, previously unthought of ways, without calling them taxes. It's much easier when you see a line item on everything you buy that says "tax", instead of the silliness that would begin to occur if such a bad precedent was set. It'd be just a few short years before you have no idea where your money is going or why it's going there. IMO, Roberts is the only justice on that panel which I believe is actually fair minded versus basing his decisions strictly on his political viewpoints (see the rest of the supreme court for a good example of this). It's why every semi-partisan law automatically goes 4-4 and he's the deciding factor...always. You are right, its not semantics. People shouldnt have to read between the lines or infer what the meaning is. If that is allowed, then Courts will become even more powerful and its even more problematic. Laws should be clear, a regular person should be able to read them and understand them. If they are not, they are poorly drafted. As for the Justices, I dont know which are good or bad anymore. I think a some of them would be more open if they didnt feel that a certain few were never going to change their mind regardless of the situation. I will say the only Justice who can change the Court's philosophy and actually bring it back to reason is Roberts. He is young and in charge, so he could make some changes.

Life isnt fair. The system rewards certain conferences more than others. How do we know BSU wouldnt have won every BCS if only they had a chance? Plus baseball is 162 game schedule, every team plays every team. Its not a good comparison. A better comparison is NFL where the division champ gets an automatic playoff spot, regardless of how bad their conference is. See the difference, in this system a division champ wont even potentially have a shot. So the Giants wouldnt have been super bowl champs, because they werent 1 or 2 in the NFC. And last year GB wouldnt have even been in the conversation, because they were #2 in the NFC Central which was considered a weak division. Football is not baseball, its not basketball. And regardless any system you bring up, the conference champ always gets an automatic in. Baseball, football, basketball.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:09 AM) It's one thing if they call it a tax...it's another entirely if they call it a mandate, which is what they originally attempted to do...which was wrong, and IMO, illegal. If it's a tax, that's fine...but using the word mandate is where they went wrong. Edit: Some will say this is semantics...but it's not. Just call a tax a tax instead of playing word games to skirt around the fact you are taxing people for a service. I agree they tried to get to clever with it and didnt want to use the ugly "tax" word. And another ruling for the Federal Govt. I think most people would agree Roberts is not the problem, it is some of the other Justices who would entirely rewrite history to somehow make a ruling that they support. I think what is best for everyone is that it is over. Certainty is always better than uncertainty.

I dont know how long he worked there, but he definitely worked there. And in an interview he said it was for the discount.

Illini, And what I am saying is its hard to argue you are one of the 4 best, when you didnt even win a division in your conference. The only way they are not playing in the conference championship game is if another team in their own division has a better record, and that almost always means that they lost to that team. I think it is far harder to win a conference + CCG, than to just be second in your division with 1 loss, especially if your division only has 1 other good team. So you beat a bunch of nobodies, have 1 loss, and you get rewarded because other teams who won conference championship games had 1 more loss? What about the fact they had 1 more win. There is no way to objectively determine who the top 4 are. Its merely guessing. So I would prefer a system with less guessing. How do we get that system, bar anyone that is not the conference championship game winner. That is fair and equal to all. If OSU f***s up in the CCG they are out. If Wisconsin f***s up, they are out. There are consequences, it makes sense. Otherwise every conference would be smart to get rid of the CCG. You might as well have undefeated Michigan and Wisconsin not playing each other, because that way they are both likely to make the top 4. Dont we want to encourage Wisconsin/Michigan to settle it before the playoff? Doesnt that actually increase the number of teams involved if you consider the CCG to be the first round of the playoffs? Now instead of 4 teams, we have at minimum 8 teams in the playoffs.

Why should it not have been LSU/Alabama? Simply put, they already had their chance. Wins and losses should matter, the playoffs shouldnt be about second chances, there should be consequences to the fact one of them lost. Otherwise you have a split, Alabama wins one, LSU wins one, how does that prove anything? It would be one thing if they played other conferences, but most SEC teams dont play Big 10, who dont play PAC 12, etc. This isnt the NCAA Basketball where you have volumes of ooc games between top conferences to judge which was objectively stronger before the playoff. What if the SEC had only 2 loss teams, and the PAC, Big and Big 12 had unbeatens or 1 loss teams, do you think the SEC should be out, just because they are not likely to have a top 4 team? Or maybe was the SEC just that good, that if their champion gets a shot at the title, they will actually win. Its redundant to replay games in a playoff and there is no way to definitely prove who the top 4 teams are. You may think the SEC has the top 4 teams, maybe someone else thinks the PAC has the top 2 teams, until they actually play each other no one knows. Its merely speculation, the best hope is to be able to compare how badly they beat a common opponent, which isnt exactly the greatest place to start. So instead of trying to worry about who really is the best, lets just only consider teams who earn a banner from their conference. That way the representative is picked by each conference, based on their own criteria for champion. I think its stupid for the Big 10 to have 2 teams, just the same as the SEC. The only way you really get 2 teams is if 1 of them didnt even play in the CCG, so they are getting the same chance as another team in their conference who had to play an extra game. Seems kind of backwards to give that reward.

There just is no good answer. Only having 4 teams and there being more than 4 conferences ultimately means someone is getting left out. I think Big 12 will get plenty of bids, I just more mean that its going to be about name teams, not necessarily the best teams. 1 loss Texas or OU, is different than KSU, etc. Just feel its going to be really restricted access. (Edit) And that is why I also think the agreement should have been 1 team per conference.

I have a feeling you are going to be disappointed.

The Big 10 wont be in the 4 only years where they are at least 1 loss behind the rest of the pack (ie 5 teams have 1 loss, Big 10 teams have 2 losses). The Big 10 is just to powerful in terms of clout and money. Its not about proving your better, its about money. The Big 10 has the most BCS appearances 25 and the most at large bids. Is that because the Big 10 has been the best conference over the last X years? No. So why do I think the Big 10 will get a spot? History, no one wants a 1 loss Ohio State sitting out in favor of the little sisters of the poor. No one wants Michigan out.

Well when you have Big, Pac and SEC all having a game with a champion, they are going to argue that is the equivalent of a mini-playoff for their league and thus the champion should always be in. Then you will have them argue that one of the other teams would have been one of the top 4, but for having to play in the toughest conference in the land. Add in the chance of a random other team like FSU, Miami, etc running the table and taking the 4th spot, its just not a great spot to be in. Do you really want to be arguing for a 10-1 team, when pac, big and sec have 10-1 teams that all won conference championship games? Thats 1 spot for everyone else, I think that is how it will go most years.

The Big 12 needs to have a conference championship game, otherwise the argument is always going to be against them unless they run the table.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jun 27, 2012 -> 09:29 PM) The Big 12 is one of the big four - easily - in terms of money. And the conference is stable through the grant of rights for the next thirteen years. Although, as a Big Ten fan, I can see why you'd want guaranteed access as opposed to actually having the best four teams included. I still don't know what the hell you're talking about with the Big East. They are barely relevant at all. As I said the Big 12 almost fell apart multiple times in the last 2 years. If you want to believe that is very stable, you can, but I see a conference that lost teams to the BIG, SEC and PAC. Its undeniable, Big 12 teams left the conference to go to those 3. So its really hard to say the Big 12 is on the same level. If they are on the same level, why would those teams leave? Does that make any sense? As for the Big East and the ACC, if this system would ever get off the ground you would need to at least offer them access, hence why the bid is split with them and the Big 12. If the Big 12 is so much better, theyll win it every time.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Jun 27, 2012 -> 09:22 PM) Why? The best 4 teams should be in regardless of conference. If that means the SEC gets 2 teams, so be it. Same with the B1G, Pac 12, etc. I think this is where many Big and SEC fans disagree, many BIG fans are usually okay with the idea that winning your conference, especially with a championship, should mean something. It would be pretty silly for a team that doesnt even get in the conference championship game, to then get a shot at a National title. "Wisconsin won the National title, but was 2nd to OSU in their division in the Big 10, so they didnt even have to play in the CCG." Id love it, but seems cheap.

Its not about being a football power, its about what conferences have the most money and stability. You arent just going to hand the Big 12 a place at the table after 2 years of will Texas leave, will the Big 12 fall apart. I understand that you are a Big 12 fan, but you have to recognize that it isnt about how good the teams are, its about the conferences. And the reason I mentioned the Big East is because back when Miami was on top, they were just as relevant as the Big 12. Losing AM, Nebraska and Missouri are pretty big hits to prestige, no matter how you try and explain it away.

Big 12 barely survived the last few years, they prove over the next 4 that they are better than ACC, Big East, they would get it. Its just hard to put a ton of faith in them when they lost 2 teams to the SEC.

http://espn.go.com/chicago/ncf/story/_/id/...look-every-team And so it begins. The one thing I liked about the BCS, was it was objective. You either win or you lose. I knew there was a reason I didnt want this. It should have been some sort of deal where it was 4 spots, 4 guaranteed bids to conference champions. You cant give access to everyone in a 4 team tournament, its going to be nonsense hearing arguments why 2 sec teams should be in because the other team "only lost to the sec team!?". You win your conference, you move on. Maybe they need to add a new division to football, where only the big conferences are. That way everyone can have access to a championship, but as a fan Id rather just see the SEC/PAC/BIG and whoever the 4th is, fight it out each year.

Lochte is in Phelps head, all through the race he was peaking to see where Lochte was and he went all out to beat him.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 27, 2012 -> 06:37 PM) Didn't Artest apply for a job at Circuit City when he was playing for the Bulls? He can't play anymore anyway. Artest working at Circuit City was kind of brilliant. He worked there so he could get an employee discount on all his electronics.

Isnt that the real elephant in the room, who will be the committee.

I remember when that seemed like it would never happen. Where are my flying cars!

To many good memories to list them all. This is a difficult day to say the least.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_...-pick-pau-gasol Gasol would seemingly not be an option for the Bulls unless there is a 3rd team involved. Even then it wouldnt really make sense. Article mentions Artest is available, I dont believe the Bulls would consider him under any circumstances.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8104029/...e-bucks-move-12 Rockets - Bucks trade At least Leuer is away from Skiles the career killer. Bucks seem to be on the short end of this one.