Just a few words on the BCS ...
by Truzenzuzex on Jan 9, 2009 10:43 AM EST
in Football
166 comments
... and I mean darn few (for me, anyway).
Most readers of this blog are familiar with my prohibition on mixing politics and sports. It is a staunchly-held principle with me, and I believe it is a principle well worth defending. But politicians, bless their self-serving hearts, can't seem to stop trying to turn college football into a political football.
A few days ago, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff announced his intention to investigate the BCS for violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Law with an eye toward filing a federal lawsuit alleging same.
Having read this blog before, you are probably thinking I am going to go on one of my long-winded tirades decrying this action. You will be pleasantly surprised to find, however, that doing so is a needless waste of my time. Why? Because virtually every aspect of this case has been handled competently by others, and frankly, I'll just add my voice to theirs. Here's how it goes:
- For the merits of such a lawsuit, Radley Balko has this great piece over at ESPN Magazine. But he doesn't stop with the merits, he also deals with the risible pandering self-interest arising from the recent players in this effort.
- CBS's Ray Ratto perfectly encapsulates how the actions of these political types have made it palatable for him (and me) to defend the flawed BCS, if for no other reason than to bollix these putrid poltroons.
- Finally, Pat at FanIQ has this piece that does a better job of explaining why I am so offended by this crass attempt to mix sports with politics than I could, and in fewer words. Therefore, I defer to him.
They said it. I join them all, 100%. That's all the words I need.
2 recs |
166 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I will summarize my feelings about the politics in this for you in 3 words:
Bread and Circuses
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 11:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Hehe.
Works for me. :-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Jan 9, 2009 12:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow! Wonder what per cent of the readership fully appreciates the historical reference?
I am personally greatly amused. Than you, hooper!
by Ken Pomeroy on Jan 9, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm guessing more than expected.
This is a fairly heady blog. And you’re most welcome.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Panem Et Circenses
Who would have believed it? Two quotes from Juvenal on ASoB in same day.
by Wild Weasel on Jan 9, 2009 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
BCS is Greedy
Politicians should stay out of sports, OK I get it. But that doesn’t point out the problem. The National Championship race is, for the most part, limited to the “BCS Conferances” and so they are the ones that split up the money. If all D1 schools are eligible to compete then you bring in more conferences and the pie gets cut into more pieces. I am not saying its right or wrong, I just don’t understand why no one seems willing to articulate the crux of the argument. As far as politics go, they can’t seem to fix or manage anything, but what choice do the smaller conferences, or for that matter, the average fan have?
by Slim Wagers on Jan 9, 2009 12:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
That's true
But why should the MAC, for example, share in the revenues for the national championship “series” (or whatever it would be called), when, quite frankly, they are not investing the resources to ever be competitive? While I would agree that the “big 6” conferences are keeping the lion’s share of the profit, the fact is, they are the ones that are making the investments and generating the revenue (profit) in the first place.
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
key
question is how hard would it be for say Utah to get into a BCS conference? Or how hard would it be for WAC to become BCS? I lived in Utah and they are very proud of their sports team but I would say BYU was the biggest there by far. Of course that is when Ty Detmer was there. But they do not generate near as much revenue as say Tennessee of Kentucky. You don’t see many Utah fans outside of Utah or even outside of Salt Lake. But does that mean they shouldn’t be allowed to compete for a national title?
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Boise joins the MWC, they might be able to pull it of.
The MWC is the closest, but needs its bottom end to appear a little tougher (including Wyoming, my alma…sigh) to get more respect.
I would favor the MWC adding Boise, Nevada and Fresno; then they could hold a conference championship game to give that potential 13th game boost to a team and to give more exposure.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this
brings up one question that I have………if the Big Ten and the PAC 10 doesn’t have a title game why are they in the BCS. If I remember right Big East had to do this to get into the BCS
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Rose Bowl.
Do you remember what kind of a pain the Rose Bowl was in the initial Bowl Alliance system? Evolving to the BCS meant conceding that those conferences would stay tied to the Rose Bowl. And even then, it took split titles to get the Bowl Alliance to concede.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't
really remember that. I became a football fan about fourteen years ago. Before that I was mostly basketball. I remember going to a BYU game with my friend(when Detmer played) and asking her why do they keep giving the ball up after a few plays(and she then had to tell me about downs).
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why is my wife posting on this site? :-)
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree (sort of)
I will stipulate that most politicians (including those referenced in the above articles), are self-reverential gas bags. And I really don’t think that many of them are qualified to opine on the sports issues that they do (that’s why we have blogs :-)). That said. . .
1) I firmly believe that without the Congressional hearings (and threat of legislation / removal of the anti-trust exemption), MLB would have done nothing meaningful regarding its steroid problem. Take that for what it’s worth.
2) I’m not a huge buyer of the “politicians have better things to do” argument. Quite frankly, if Congress spent most of its time on a review of the fairness of a 3rd grade tiddlywinks game in North Dakota, and less time legislating, we would be net better off. YMMV.
The main reason I wish politicians would stay out of the BCS argument (as referenced in the FanIQ piece) is that it takes what is essentially a trivial matter and tries to make it more important. Arguing about the BCS (or other sports issues) is one of the things that makes sports fun. Nobody should really get that bent out of shape when the arguments get ridiculous, the biases are obvious, and the logic twisted – it’s just bar talk. But when those arguments, biases, and logic get used to make the laws of the land, then one must necessarily take everything more seriously. And that’s not what I want sports to be. Sports should be a diversion, nothing more. I have enough seriousness in my life.
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 12:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I imagine we'll have differences of opinion on this, but here's my take on the MLB thing:
Congress had no authoritative reason to act on the steroids issue. Any players taking substances that were illegal by any relevant state or federal law could have been pursued by the appropriate legal authority. Any complicit actions by MLB (at the league, union or club level) could have also been pursued by existing laws. Other than that, MLB – like any business – supposedly has the freedom to act as they best see fit. There was no pre-existing law requiring them to drug test and the commission was not assembled with the intent of writing one.
MLB was already paying the penalty for their remarkable non-action idiocy in the form of dipping revenue, ratings, and attendance. But it’s up to MLB to figure out how to make their business run well, not Congress. I walked away from the MLB table for similar reasons a little over a decade ago, and I don’t miss it at all. Should football deteriorate far enough, I can do the same with that sport as well.
The business of sports is ultimately a business arrangement between the sports entity and the market. If a sports entity fails to deliver an acceptable product, the market will respond. If the market believes that a MLB game is worth watching, no matter how bad the product actually is, then MLB has no incentive to improve the product.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
now
here is where I disagree. If the MLB or any sport is not regulating drugs then government needs to step in. You are talking about loss of human lives here. Not business.
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It'll depend on how the law is written, but we actually agree on this.
The regulation of drugs is based on law and should be enforced by legal means, which is the purview of the government. MLB should be held accountable by whatever laws regulate their actions. If the laws prohibit complicit action by means of inaction of an employer, then MLB should be held accountable. If there is no such law, then the law either needs to be written or MLB left alone. But Congress exists for the purpose of legislative, not judicial, activity. There are exceptions (e.g. grand jury) as the branches are not wholly autonomous, but it’s an exception.
But yes, the drugs are illegal. Therefore, their use is a violation of law – as is the act of an accomplice. From there, it’s a judicial matter.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with your points (on a technical basis)
And I also agree that Congress had tenuous at best authority to “investigate” steroids. That is, at the end of the day if MLB had decided to tell Congress to pound sand, I’m not sure what could have been done about it.
But it was the very spectacle of ballplayers being hauled before Congress that prompted the change in policy. Sometimes, theater is all the legislation that is needed. A little embarrassment goes a long way. . .
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also very true.
MLB was obviously not going to do anything about it. I voted with my money (paltry as it is) and walked away. Many others had as well. But ultimately, the change did happen and Congress was the impetus, not me.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And also
I would disagree that MLB was taking much of a financial hit from the steroid issue. In fact, I would contend it was just the opposite – the surge in home runs “saved” baseball after the strike. It took outside pressure for MLB to act.
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yep
the race between Mark and Sammy started the ramp up in baseball
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is what ticks me off about Hall of Fame voting
Everyone could look at McGuire and Sosa and know they were juiced. (And by and large… no one cared.) The media could see it… but they hyped up that home run race like it was the second coming of Lou Gherig and Babe Ruth.
Now that what we already knew has been exposed as virtual fact (neither player has ever tested positive remember that) the very same media that made them heroes are refusing to vote McGuire into the Hall of Fame. Shameful hypocrisy IMHO.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on Jan 9, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hypocrisy in the media?! Say it ain't so!
Seriously though, much has been written about the recent era in baseball, but the majority of the best, most thoughtful writing has come from non-traditional media (blogs, internet writers, etc).
No one will ever know exactly who was doing something illegal and when. There’s wide disagreement about the affects of PEDs, so it’s impossible to even know to what extent players were aided or hindered even if it is known that they used. When it comes to HoF voting, recent players like McGuire, Sosa, Bonds, and Clemons have to be judged in the era they played in, just like players in the Deadball Era, the Segregation Era, the 60’s (before the mound was lowered) were.
And of course, there’s always the fun example of Gaylord Perry and his illegal spitball making the HoF while the media treated it like it was just some rascally fun.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 9, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed 100% on the era
Baseball’s biggest mistake was not sticking to their guns during the strike.
They had replacement players on the field for the new season, they should have just kept playing and instituted a salary cap and steroid testing. The on field product would have been below standard for a couple years, but then the farm systems and players dropping from the old MLB players union would have worked their way into the game and they would have had a cleaner and better run product on the field.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on Jan 9, 2009 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I'm against a salary cap
I really don’t think that will help as much as people think it will and it would make it harder to make trades (just look at the NBA and NFL). What’s really needed is a strong commissioner who can lean on many team owners to spend the money they make instead of pocketing it.
As for drug testing, that was needed and by all accounts there were many players who wanted it, but the union chief was more interested in sticking it to the owners than listening to his bosses. There is plenty of blame to go around, to the players, the teams, the media, and even the fans to some extent.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 9, 2009 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
NBA
I am strongly in favor of the NBA structured salary cap. It works very well for teams with good ownership and smart GM’s. Hello Joe Dumars. It also punishes stupid people and stupid decisions. Hello Memphis Grizzlies. I like the guarenteed portion of deals and the trade rules are pretty fun once you figure it all out. It also keeps spending down and encourages small market teams to compete. Im not much of a baseball fan and one of my biggest bones to pick with MLB is the absolute rediculousness of some of the salaries and payrolls.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Jan 9, 2009 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
salary
Well, the salaries are pretty big in a comparative sense, but if that money wasn’t going to the players it would be going into the pockets of billionaires.
The NBA structure certainly requires a lot of creativity and good sense, but it also limits the kinds of deals you can do. In baseball any player can be traded for any other player without any other considerations (aside from 10-5 status and no-trade clauses). The bigger pool of possible deals makes things more interesting.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 9, 2009 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pete Rose, dammit! Pete Rose!
Screw McGuire and Bonds. Save Charlie Hustle, who never used anything except an extra shot of the ugly juice.
by Ken Pomeroy on Jan 9, 2009 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As much as I hate to. . .
. . . I will have to disagree with you on that. Gambling infractions go to the very heart of the game – an honest competition between opposing squads, without ulterior motives. And since that is clearly posted in MLB clubhouses, it can’t be argued that he didn’t know.
Moreover, Pete is already in the HOF, in the sense that his key records are recognized. The fact that he himself is not so honored is alright by me.
And I say this as a life-long Reds/Pete Rose fan.
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 11:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
as grammie
used to say……..you made your bed know you have to lay in it!
by tenken on Jan 10, 2009 12:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but MLB is a lot of smoke and mirrors as well.
With 162 games and much lower per-game operating costs, it shouldn’t be hard for MLB to generate more revenue than the NFL. Yet many MLB teams survive only because of the revenue sharing and the marketability of the Yankees and Red Sox.
And the home run race was a short-term boost, but not a long-term solution. It was that very race that kept steroids in the game once the connection between home runs and revenue was realized.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
NFL
is about to get heated for this very reason. Revenue sharing!
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As Art Modell famously said
“We’re a bunch of fat cat Republicans that sit around and vote as socialists.”
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I should tell you this:
I’m an absolute diehard when it comes to minimal government. Whenever a reasonable interepretation can be made to keep the government out of things, I usually champion it. I also favor state intervention over federal intervention except for issues that explicitly fall within the federal government’s Consitutional mandate. I seem to push it to a decidedly minority position at times,
So if I seem a bit overboard with it, that’s fine. I don’t begrudge anybody for disagreeing.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you in principle re gov't action
Not arguing the merits of Congressional action, just laying out the facts (as I see them).
Now if they could pass a law to ban Duke from appearing on my TV ever again, that is change I can believe in! :-)
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Curt Flood
While I agree with much you and others have to say regarding the BCS situation in particular, to further prescribe an absolute “separation of sports and state” however is an oversimplification and would allow egregious affronts to organizations and individuals. This 1969 letter from Curt Flood…
’
December 24, 1969
After twelve years in the major leagues, I do not feel I am a piece of property to be bought and sold irrespective of my wishes. I believe that any system which produces that result violates my basic rights as a citizen and is inconsistent with the laws of the United States and of the several States.
It is my desire to play baseball in 1970, and I am capable of playing. I have received a contract offer from the Philadelphia club, but I believe I have the right to consider offers from other clubs before making any decision. I, therefore, request that you make known to all Major League clubs my feelings in this matter, and advise them of my availability for the 1970 season.15
…and the resulting SCOTUS ruling in Flood v Kuhn is adequate proof for the need of government/political periodic intervention in sports, especially sports as an interstate economic enterprise, a designation which the NCAA definitely qualifies.
by Wild Weasel on Jan 9, 2009 12:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
this
violated a human right to choose his profession so to speek. The whole NC thing is just that a National Championship which does not affect anyone personally since they recieve no compensation for it. Did Utah get the same amount as Bama in the BCS bowl? If they didn’t then the university can do something about that but it didn’t violate anyones basic rights.
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OT Reply > Curt Flood Came Up To MLB As Cincy Red
He was traded by Reds to Cardinals in late 1950’s.
Flood, Frank Robinson, and Vada Pinson all played OF at Oakland McClymonds HS in 1950’s.
Pretty good OF there!
by FortyYearCatFan on Jan 9, 2009 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you serious??
Did they play at the same time (in HS)? If so, that is flat out ridiculous. . .
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All In The 50's
Not sure if same OF or not.
F Robby a little older than Vada or Flood.
On top of that, McClymonds HS basketball team had Bill Russell and KC Jones in those days.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jan 9, 2009 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In this recession. . .
. . . you could save money on trips to two HOFs, and just look at the trophy case at that high school. Darn near the same thing.
Good info, thanks.
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Checked Wiki
Vada and Flood are same age. F Robby 3 years older, B Russell 1 year older than him.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jan 10, 2009 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hard
for us to be understanding to Utah since we are BCS. I feel very mixed on this. On one hand a National Championship is a luxury not a basic civil right or a danger like steroids to our lives. Utah knew going into the season that their chances were small getting into the NC. All non BCS schools know that. I think that they either need to get their conferences into the BCS system(I don’t know how that is decided) or switch to the PAC-10. I don’t think that its our governments responsibility to make sure that Utah is happy. We have a down economy and people without jobs right now. That is number one priority. We have millions with healthcare. Sorry Utah but I don’t want congress wasting there time on this issue when its just a pride thing. Ok on the other hand…………I would really like to know about the money issue with the BCS. Is it true that money plays a big hand in all this or is it just a made up farbrication by the sports pundits. If the NC is based on some big wigs with big money deciding who can play and who cannot play then first the NCAA needs to get involved. This problem will only get worse. You have universities who are hard up on money right now. If something happends with the bowls then their universities could greatly suffer. Those millions do not just go into the hands of bigwigs but it goes to athletic schollys and directly to the school. We are facing tough times right now and the last thing that the universities want to do is to take money away from themselves. There are lots of steps to be taken right now before big bad government steps in. If all is tried and failed then I think the government should step in if and only if it looks like money is being used to decide a NC. Honestly I don’t even know if that is approriate. I would have to know more about the system and how it works.
I think that if they would do a plus one game after the bowls and decide in January not Dec who plays for the NC it would do great things for the argument.
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 12:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
A very, very brief rundown:
The bowl system is something that has evolved rather slowly over several decades. Initially, it was little more than a college road trip for a dozen or so students (per school) to exhibition games for New Year’s celebrations. For a long time, the national champions of the various polls were decided before the bowls were even played, and some teams played in multiple bowls on rare occasion.
But as the sport grew, the revenue from the bowl games grew. Eventually, the bowl games realized that it was in their interest to invite the most widely recognized teams, as the sponsorship money would improve (money that was tied to the New Year as much as the game itself). Likewise, the teams realized that playing in bowl games brought exposure, prestige, and even a little money to kick back. It became a good business arrangement for the top bowls and top teams (read: conferences) to stick together.
That’s why the Rose Bowl has the PAC-10 and Big 10. When they cemented the tie-ins, those were the two dominant conferences and the Rose Bowl was the dominant bowl game. They had built good relationships over the decades and arranged a mutually beneficial partnership.
The BCS honors those arrangements, and the term “BCS conference” applies to the conferences that had the pre-existing arrangements with the BCS bowl games. Those conferences merely kept their affiliations for mutual benefit.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but
didn’t the Big East become a BCS conference? After the BCS came into existence…..if what you say is true and no one can get into the BCS then yes something should be done by the NCAA.
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Big East follows the same pattern, albeit not neatly.
At the time, they still had teams like Miami and Boston College and had affiliations with the Orange Bowl.
And it’s not that no one can get in; it’s that they’d have to establish a financially appealing reason for affiliation if the traditional model is followed.
I’m not saying I like it or don’t like it, but that’s how we got where we are now.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
then
we are getting into the Anti Trust laws……which spins my head around honestly and I havent’ studied since college. LOL, something tells me that Teddy Roosevelt would be spinning over at the thought of those going into effect for football
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
Aside: TR very nearly outlawed football, despite loving the sport. But that was because of the injury and fatality rate.
And anybody who uses TR as a standard of governmental conduct is alright with me.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I
didn’t know that about TR. He though was my favorite president besides George Washington.
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
IIRC, it was 1905.
You can thank TR for the 7-man offensive front, only one man in motion, no linemen linking arms, and honestly even the forward pass as a major offensive strategy.
He didn’t make a single suggestion, though; all he said was that football had to find a way to not kill players or it would be illegal. And so died the Flying Wedge.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
cool
I had no idea! I knew I loved him.
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I need to learn a lot more about him.
I’ve been meaning to read his biography for a long time. But he and Reagan are my top two 19th-cent. presidents. After them are Truman, Ford (!!) and Wilson, though not necessarily in any order.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
I think you mean TR and Reagan were your favorite 20th century presidents. I know Reagan was old, but he wasn’t that old! LOL
by Acdixon on Jan 9, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
loved
Wilson. I liked his ideals about the world. I loved TR. He was his own man. You know they put him as VP because he was too powerful and crazy they thought so they wanted to put him in a position where he couldn’t do much. Then after the assination he was president.
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ford?!?
I gotta say, I’m not sure he would have ever crossed my mind when compiling my own list. Heck, I barely recall that he was even a president. . .
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody really knows much about Ford.
Besides pardoning Nixon. I’m still not sure that was the ‘best’ solution, but it did get the nation to move on, which was a good thing at the time.
Otherwise, there’s really nothing to complain about him. He didn’t try to extend his power and he ran the office very well. He had zero chance of beating Carter due to the Nixon thing, but there you go.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ford
reminds me of Andrew Johnson
Johnson did a fairly good job in the aftermath of the Lincoln assasination. He tried hard to follow Lincoln’s plan for reconstruction but was absolutley maligned by the both parties at the time.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Jan 9, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Another guy with no shot.
I don’t know him as well. All I really remember is that he was Lincoln’s gesture to the Democrats for the hope of faster healing.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh ...
… OK, let’s not get off the subject here. If it doesn’t have to do with the interface between politics and sports, let’s leave it to the polibloggers.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Jan 9, 2009 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry.
And Ford was a Michigan Man and a good college player in his own right!
;-)
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed he was. :-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Jan 9, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
spoilsport
Off-topic nonsense is the next stage in a blog’s evolution! You shouldn’t stand in the way of progress Tru! ;-)
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 9, 2009 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah ...
… that kind of evolution is one I really want to engineer out. :-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Jan 9, 2009 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
seiously though
I think a little off-topic divergence once in a while is good for a site such as this as it allows the community to get to know each other a little better.
Obviously you don’t want it to become the norm, but I don’t think there’s much danger of that happening – we all love talking about UK too much!
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 9, 2009 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
when you want to speak seriously
It’s probably a good idea to spell ‘se*r*iously’ correctly.
Doh
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 9, 2009 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ken Pomeroy agrees.
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Was the flying wedge. . .
. . . the name of the play where they would literally throw the player over the line? A very effective play that was also banned by TR due to the high number of broken necks. Wimps.
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Flying Wedge
had the linemen linking arms (and often grabbing specially-designed loops on their belts for better grip) in a “V” formation, all moving toward the line prior to the snap. The running back would hide behind them and the whole thing would creep forward regardless of inuries, tramplings, whatevers until either the guy was tackled or an opening allowed him to run to daylight. It was a Harvard invention by a military guy who saw the game a little differently than most.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Flying Wedge
reminds me of the greek phalanx except for football.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Jan 9, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But could it handle SEC speed?
:-)
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The real question is, what would happen if the defense countered with the Flying Wedgie?
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 9, 2009 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In that case,
I’d feel really sorry for the tight end.
by Hooper on Jan 9, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh that's just not right. At all.
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OR the Wide Receiver
Slower Traffic Keep Right!
by SevenRings on Jan 9, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Boy, TR would certainly not have ascribed to the political statement you proferred above.
He was a pro-government activist if ever there were one, especially for the day. It’s frightening to me all of the things he tried to regulate.
I would have loved to have played ball with him and hunted with him, though.
by Ken Pomeroy on Jan 9, 2009 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Commercial Contrivance
The BCS system is first and foremost a commercial contrivance designed to maximize revenue for the NCAA and participating institutions. Secondary, perhaps tertiary or less, to the mercantile nature of this enterprise is the determination of a national football champion. It is just one, though perhaps the most glaringly obvious, of the manifestations of the NCAA’s commercial nature. As such it should be regulated as interstate commerce.
by Wild Weasel on Jan 9, 2009 1:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
then
it needs to be for all NCAA instutions not just a select few. Very good discussion here. Thanks everyone. I am learning more about this stuff.
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On what other blog
Could you get a discussion on presidential history, athletic economics, drug policy, anti-trust laws, and, oh yeah, sports in the same thread? And no one called anyone else a butt-head. Love this site. . .
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"No one called anyone else a butt-head"
Hear, hear.
And it made me laugh.
by Acdixon on Jan 9, 2009 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And so it is ...
… but that’s irrelevant to my point. You regulate things that need regulation, not things which don’t. What we are talking about here is a voluntary enterprise the terms of which all parties have explicitly agreed. It seems impossible to me to declare the BCS a “monopoly” in the sense that it is acting to restrain or distort free trade. All the BCS bowls pay the same amount to the teams participating, including the national championship.
In my view, it is not a winnable argument. I won’t argue that Congress doesn’t have the authority to regulate the BCS or the NCAA under the Commerce Clause, they clearly do, just as they have the authority to regulate professional golf tournaments, etc. The difference is, they should not be regulating something that isn’t engaging in some kind of illegal, abusive or morally reprehensible conduct, and I don’t see that going on in the case of the BCS. Everyone went into it with their eyes wide open, and agreed that it was a workable solution. To now claim victimhood seems absurd, and the political machinations are transparently only being done to serve the interests of the politicians in question, not the “greater good.”
I won’t even argue that the NCAA is not a monopoly under the definition of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act — I think if professional baseball is, the NCAA arguably is. But the BCS is not, in my opinion.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Jan 9, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but tru
Whew my head is spinning so I hope I make sense on this. Please forgive me if I don’t. But, BCS came in and said ok…….we determine the National Champion for the NCAA but not all NCAA schools are able to do this. So from a standpoint of non BCS school how is this ok? Money standpoint, what right does BCS schools have to dictate who gets money and who doesn’t(meaning the BCS committee is from BCS schools). But NCAA needs to step in and do something about this…not necessarily the government. Just like I read recently, can we imagine someone coming in and saying that they are getting rid of the basketball tourney in favor of a choosen system which only the BCS schools can determine the champion.
The bottom line is these “bottom feeder” schools don’t have the same “rights” as the BCS schools and that where it gets tricky.
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I've never been clear on the association between the NCAA and the BCS
I realize the schools make up both groups, but does the actual NCAA have any decision making power or responsibility in the BCS, or are they two entirely separate organizations? To put it another way, are the BCS and NCAA like two SBNation blogs, or is one like an SBNation blog and the other like a Blogspot blog?
If they are separate, then I think the simplest solution would be for the NCAA to declare that national champions for all sports must come as the result of a playoff system and refuse to acknowledge a champion in any sport that doesn’t follow that rule.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 9, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They are separate entities
The NCAA does not control the BCS, nor does it have any designated authority to control the BCS’s actions.
Now, to your point, they could declare a separate, NCAA controlled system for a playoff, and ignore the bowls, but the problem with that is: 1) some conferences are already contractually obligated to specific bowls (e.g., Pac-10, and Big-10 to the Rose) for years to come, and 2) you would have some mighty pissed off people who have a vested interest (financial or otherwise) in the success of the bowls. I think both problems are prohibitive to your suggestion.
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well, there would have to be some details to work out
I wasn’t suggesting the NCAA should come out tomorrow and simply declare that Div 1 football needed to ignore the bowls to have a recognized champion. They could make it as of (final year of current BCS contract) so teams would have plenty of time to prepare. Contract status with the bowls would be a hurdle, but it’s only a matter of money and there are always ways to overcome that problem.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 9, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The fundamental issue
is that the NCAA, in Division 1-A football only (I refuse to use the term FBS), does not control its post-season. So there is little the NCAA can do about it, given existing contracts, relationships, etc. The BCS is a creation of the schools (and conferences) that belong to it. They can invite whomever they want to their party.
And, all schools are technically eligible for the national championship – just finish high enough in the polls, computers, etc. This is definitely more difficult for the non-big 6 conferences, but there is nothing that prohibits a BCS “buster” from actually going all the way. For example, if Utah were to (hypothetically) return much of its team next season and do equally well, you could bet they would have a reasonable shot at winning the NC.
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
didn't
Boise State go two years undefeated?
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, just once - 2006.
I feel like FYCF with that response!
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The NCAA ...
… and the BCS are separate. There is no national championship in football in a true sense. The BCS invites the two top ranked programs to play for the BCS championship, and four other BCS bowls. Any BCS-participating conference, which as far as I know is all of Div 1-A, can play for the BCS championship. It doesn’t have to be one of the Big Six conferences who have a spot reserved in six of the remaining eight games.
So nobody is shut out. It all depends on where the media and computer rank them. If they are ranked #1 or #2, regardless of what conference they are in, they get to play for the championship. If the “bottom feeder” conferences can get a team to #1 or #2, they can win just like everyone else.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Jan 9, 2009 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I still believe in a "Plus-One" format to determine the national championship.
Sure I would love to see an 8 team playoff but a plus one seems more realistic at this point. I would set it up so that the top 4 teams as rated by the BCS would play each other in the traditional BCS bowls and have the 2 winners play for the national championship. The “Semifinals” could be played the weekend before Christmas or January 1st and then finals a week or two later. The season would only be prolonged one more week for only 2 teams.
Too bad this will not even be possible until around 2014.
Slower Traffic Keep Right!
by SevenRings on Jan 9, 2009 2:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I would be happier ...
… with the +1 as well.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Jan 9, 2009 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Rose Bowl was played 8 days ago
And the championship was last night.
I would take 8 teams into the four BCS bowl games and play them all on January 1 and 2. Then I would use the BCS rankings as they currently stand to select the best two from those 8 teams after the games are played and match them up for the title. Season is just as long as it was this year.
Of course, that would exclude two teams from the BCS which currently takes 10. I’m guessing that would have been Utah and Ohio State this year… so its not perfect, but its better.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on Jan 9, 2009 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Better solution
The real 1 solution should be:
One more game (1) in which the two highest reated chump teams play eachother (the Ohio States and Oklahomas of the world) play for the right to play the SEC Championship game champ. The winner of that game is the National Champ. Only one more game, they can make it a bowl. Easy!
by EEWildcat on Jan 14, 2009 1:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dan Wetzel has an awesome playoff set up
This is at least the second year in a row he has pitched his playoff idea which, by his own admission, is little more than a combination of the other division football playoff systems and the basketball selection committee.
Make sure you read the whole thing. Dan goes through each argument that is usually made in support of the BCS bowl system and shows how a playoff system makes each one look silly.
"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball
by JLeverenz on Jan 9, 2009 2:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
My most beloved President of all time who loved sports...
John F. Kennedy who started the call to fitness in the United States.
by kykat51 on Jan 9, 2009 3:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Hasn't worked, sadly.
Kentucky has turned red, in more ways than one.
Two months (!). Two weeks. Two pencils.
by Thomas Hunt Morgan on Jan 9, 2009 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was only 10 years old when he was elected as the youngest President in US history.
But he left a lasting legacy to me with his accomplishments in US history… and yes I can remember his few years as President and his assassination to this day…especially the Cuban missile crisis. That was very scary to me.
by kykat51 on Jan 9, 2009 3:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Trivia time
Actually… Teddy Roosevelt was the youngest president in US history.
Kennedy was the youngest elected president.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on Jan 9, 2009 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ehhh...
I read it “when he was elected as the youngest President in US history” instead of “when he was the youngest elected President in US history.”
Subtle different I suppose.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on Jan 9, 2009 4:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
IMO
He accomplished much less than he is given credit for.
I will cease with the politics now.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Jan 9, 2009 3:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Good Touch Football Player, Good Sailor
Decent (not great) athlete.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jan 9, 2009 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Forty
I never said JFK was a great athlete…his back problems hindered him even at Harvard.
My post was about the call to fitness in elementary and high school programs.
by kykat51 on Jan 9, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm Trying To Get Off Politics, Back To Athletics
That’s all.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jan 9, 2009 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Politics out of sports!
Regarding this topic: I like that the next Obama was asked a question during a “get to know the person” type interview and he responded honestly, as a regular sports fan like all of us, that he thinks there should be a play-off. Bush has said the same.
Now that it has happened AGAIN and he is now the new prez, the question was followed up yesterday and he said basically that Barak the guy wants a play-off but Prez Obama has much bigger things to worry about and congress should see that too.
Two wars of our own, 5-8 others (give or take webster’s definition of war) our new great depression and a national debt that’s about to make us all learn a new numeral term. Red or Blue, Lib or Con, Dem or Rep, Congress poking into sports is waste. PERIOD.
Every congressional hearing about anything related to sports makes me almost vomit with all “Government” should be doing and all it should be doing to back its way out of all the stuff it should NOT be doing.
Who pays for the actual time of the hearings? WE DO!
NO PARTY IS ABOVE THIS. Since the TV age and far more so since the devil unleashed at least 5 legit 24-7 cable news sources on the world, Congressional Hearings have become shell game parlor tricks to occupy our average of 37 min’s per day we Americans spend paying attention to “news.” Diversionary tactics to turn our heads.
Oh I would like to end by saying WHOLY CRAP TEBOW NEEDS TO GO PRO AND UF IS TOO FREAKING YOUNG TO HAVE TWO TITLES AND COULD RETURN 95% OF THE CONTRIBUTORS! CRAP’N CRAP!
Changing how you think will change what you think.
by wilson452 on Jan 9, 2009 3:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Prez Obama
Has much greater things to deal with besides a sport issue. Agreed 100%. Our economy is #1 and the war situation right in there also.
by kykat51 on Jan 9, 2009 4:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Its not like Obama is going to be sitting on a Playoff Committee in meetings with the BCS coordinators.
A few comments here and there are not going to take away any time from the pressing issues.
Slower Traffic Keep Right!
by SevenRings on Jan 9, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
The federal government has 14.6 million employees. If he truly wanted to fix the issue he can find five to ten from that pool to study that issue and report back to him.
Two months (!). Two weeks. Two pencils.
by Thomas Hunt Morgan on Jan 9, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly
about a hundred million folks study it every year and seem to feel a play-off is needed.
A handful of ADs, Corporate sponsors, Bowl officials, Bowl City officials, IMG, ESPN, CBS, FOX and the fans of the “NC” each year feel differently.
I actually love his and Bush’s and even Daddy Bush and Clinton too have leaned that way. Daddy and Clinton not as forcefull as Bush and Obama but enough to indicate the would like to see it. Prez comments take a second and twist the screws by way of fueling the media to talk about it. That is where this fight should be faught. Not wasting congress’ time in hearings.
“Fairness” will play ZERO part in the fight. When someone illustrates a rock solid plan of how more money (IMO) can be generated in a play-off system it will fly. even the shake down will not be fair as the BCS schools will demand more cut to do away with the monopoly.
Changing how you think will change what you think.
by wilson452 on Jan 9, 2009 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is this the first ever thread on ASoB to reach over 100 posts...
Without a discussion of the pros and cons of various past coaches at UK?
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on Jan 9, 2009 4:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Eddie Sutton stinks!
/fixed
C! A! T! S! CATS! CATS! CATS!
by NYCCats on Jan 9, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think Tubby was better than Pitino?
What are your thoughts on the issue Forty?…
Two months (!). Two weeks. Two pencils.
by Thomas Hunt Morgan on Jan 9, 2009 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
HOLY S...........
I am about to cry from laughing.
Changing how you think will change what you think.
by wilson452 on Jan 9, 2009 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A freakin' belly laugh, my friends!
As Mark Twain wrote, “Such a laugh is money in a man’s pocket, as it keeps the doctor away.”
by Ken Pomeroy on Jan 9, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pitino Better In 1990's
Tubby better in 2000’s.
The numbers are obvious.
COMBINED Pitino is 1% better in OVERALL record and 5% better in NCAA games.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jan 10, 2009 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wow, really can't take a joke, can you?
GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!
by UKWildCatFanatic on Jan 10, 2009 8:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Answered ? Asked
Don’t ask and I won’t tell.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jan 11, 2009 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
so the answer to my question is no.
GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!
by UKWildCatFanatic on Jan 12, 2009 12:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I suppose I am just really depressed with the ‘not job’ that Bush did in 8 years when he started with a hugh surplus after Clinton. I know wars can deplete a surplus but whatever. I sincerely hope as a US citizen that he can right the ship and I know it will be a tremendous job to do so. I wish him all the best as a citizen of my beloved USA.
by kykat51 on Jan 9, 2009 4:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
And as a BCS citizen
Changing how you think will change what you think.
by wilson452 on Jan 9, 2009 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am a USA citizen first before a UK sports fan.
by kykat51 on Jan 9, 2009 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
THATS OVER THE LINE!
You even have blue hair in your pic :-)
I too am many, MANY things ahead of UK fan. Just not a fan of another sport or team ahead of Blue Basketball. Blue Football is just behind.
I want a play-off but as long as we have this system, I’ll take 3 straight SEC schools as champs and 5 overall since the BCS was born of the unholy union of mass media and powerful mobs (major conferences)
Changing how you think will change what you think.
by wilson452 on Jan 9, 2009 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kentuckian
I consider myself a UK fan and Kentuckian before a US citizen.
Honestly if I met some foreigner that was a UK fan I would have more love for him than some random guy from South Dakota who is also an american citizen.
Dont take me too serisouly folks.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Jan 9, 2009 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok
I just have to interject……..clinton didn’t have the worst natural disaster, worst terroist attack in his tenure. Bush screwed up but lets give the devil his due.
by tenken on Jan 9, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am not going there as a respect to Tru...
by kykat51 on Jan 9, 2009 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bush or not Bush
Be careful how much power you think the president has to fix natural disasters, economic woes, gas prices etc. The average citizen too often attributes more power to effect change to the office than it actually has no matter who is president. Only history will tell how successfull or not successful Bush was as president. While his numbers maybe low now only the events of the future will decide how Bush is viewed historically. I dont believe you can get an accurate read on any President’s term for 20-30 years after it ends. Also remember that while the President does have sway the buck for spending stops at the desk of the congress. Congress spends the dollars.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Jan 9, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No president can fix those issues without a Republican controlled Congress.
by Ken Pomeroy on Jan 9, 2009 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
DOH!
You’ve done it now…:))
Slower Traffic Keep Right!
by SevenRings on Jan 9, 2009 5:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think she's already abandoned the thread...
… but it amused me to try to get a rise!
All in good fun…
by Ken Pomeroy on Jan 9, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Some truth in that
I actually believe that NEITHER extreme ideological “platform” is worth a crap when it has total legislative AND executive power. There is nobody to say “you know, that aint a good idea” and rubber stamping is the norm. If one side wants to get it past the desk of a VETO pen then they have to “work” as a total group to get it that point and no load of extreme base pandering crap gets passed. I would believe it is healthier for ALL of us carry a constant dislike for our government than the flip flop year after year of slightly more than half always hating the government and that being whipped into degrading and hatred for fellow Americans registered under a different party than ourselves.
Two best times I can remember in my life were Ronnie with Dem control and Clinton with Rep control. I just do not want Obama with Dem control to look like Bush with Rep control.
Checks and Balances were “designed” for a reason in our particular form of government. And as note, Checks were not lobby money when it was designed.
Sorry, but my job has shown me too deep into how it REALLY works in politics (which is NOT government and not on our side no matter who it is) and in that city. The best hearted person within 2 years is reduced to a party line driving, non-thinking check casher and we ALL loose for it.
God bless USA!!!
Changing how you think will change what you think.
by wilson452 on Jan 10, 2009 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
agree
I am a very big fan of divided government. It serves to make parties work together and forces a more middle of the road response to issues.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Jan 10, 2009 9:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No the best thing about divided government...
…is nothing gets done and thats for the better for everyone.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Jan 12, 2009 9:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes I do Wilson have blue hair...courtesy of a friend that did photoshops.
But…my country USA…means much more to me than UK basketball or football or any athletics at UK or any argument about the BCS and whatever.
I am out of this thread.
That is just the way I feel at this time.
by kykat51 on Jan 9, 2009 4:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
AMEN.
I hope you know I am joking with you. Jokes are what I do to get through tough times.
For me, UK is a diversion from worrying about my country right now.
Changing how you think will change what you think.
by wilson452 on Jan 9, 2009 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I will agree UK sports is a diversion
Love ya Wilson ;-)
by kykat51 on Jan 9, 2009 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To Everyone....
I am so proud about ASoB that we made it this far while riding the thin line of politics and no blood was shed.
BRAVO!
Changing how you think will change what you think.
by wilson452 on Jan 9, 2009 5:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Hooper
I just have to give you a big shoutout for contributing your knowledge on this thread. It most certainly enlightened me.
by kykat51 on Jan 10, 2009 6:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Hey, thanks!
Always happy to help. I get these odd little trivialities in my head here and there, and they come out in odd places. The intersection of football and government in the early 1900’s is interesting to me.
by Hooper on Jan 13, 2009 8:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
SNL BCS song
I’m a basketball-only kind of girl and couldn’t care less about this issue, but I was totally cracking up at Will Forte’s BCS song; did anyone else see this on Saturday Night Live last night? I thought of you guys when I saw it so I though I’d share for anyone who might be interested who missed it —those intrepid souls who are still following this mile-long thread, anyway : ) The humor is …. salty, to say the least, just as a warning, and there is some political content, but don’t shoot the messenger! I may agree with the sentiment, but I didn’t write it so cannot be blamed for inciting political discussion, right?
by blue kentucky girl on Jan 11, 2009 7:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Okay....crucify me
..but I like the BCS system. Granted it’s not perfect and I will be the first to admit, New Years Day isn’t like it use to be, but there is a valid reason to like the system. That’s because with the BCS, every regular season game means something.
If you had a 4 team or an 8 team playoff, the regular season would virtually be meaningless. That is, USC (for example) could lose one or two games and still make the playoffs….especially with an 8 game playoff. I bet USC is still kicking themselves for losing to Oregon…and they should. If we would have had a playoff system that lost wouldn’t have hurt them at all.
Besides, with few exceptions, the current system usually gets it right anyhow. I know…I know…I like watching the Utes beat Alabama, but nobody could see them winning 4 or even two straight playoff games.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Jan 12, 2009 9:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I used to get exercised ...
… about the BCS, but I have become much less so lately. The BCS needs a tweak or two, but those hoping for a real playoff should probably wish in one hand and poop in the other and see which fills up first.
There are some good things about the BCS, and some bad things, but I am convinced Utah wound up pretty much where they deserved. Maybe they could have raged through the SEC unbeaten and taken out Florida, Alabama and LSU, (at least one and possibly all three at their respective home stadium) but I’m not convinced.
Overall, I am growing less tolerant of the strident opposition to the BCS. Let’s have a little less hyperbole and a little more rational thought, that’s what I say, and accept the fact that change will come slowly, if at all.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Jan 13, 2009 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My favorite part about the BCS is this:
The bowl games get a chance to find interesting (and usually well-balanced) matchups. Since the teams aren’t hardwired by a seeding system, they can tweak around a little bit. For example, there was a very real possibility that a 4-team playoff system could have ended up with #1 Florida, #2 OU, #3 Texas and #4 Alabama. That would have had two conference repeats. It sounds mildly interesting on the face, but having interconference play gets a lot more people involved in the fun.
In that spirit, I’m really really happy that Michigan didn’t get a chance to replay OSU a few years ago.
But to me, the most important part is to watch the games. I don’t really care which system is used, so long as I see good football played once the opening kick is offed.
by Hooper on Jan 13, 2009 8:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
[UPDATED 3/31/2009]
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
