Derwood

I threw a vote at Chris Berman. I literally can't watch a baseball or football game when he's in the booth. I can ignore guys like McCarver, Buck or Morgan, but Berman is just too much Who was it that said "why does the Fastest Three Minutes in football seem to take forever?"

I think you need to define the Steroid Era, and then just vote for the best players from that era. If someone actually has a positive steroid test on their record, then fine, don't vote for them, but until someone like McGwire, Sosa, etc. has a positive test, then they remain among the best power hitters in history. BTW, I think 8 voters didn't vote for Ripken, so the asshat in Illinois isn't the only guy

The same few teams don't win the NCAA tourney every year. How soon do we forget Jimmy V's NCState team, or heck, last year's Florida team? How about Larry Bird leading Indiana St. to the finals? How about the 1985 Villanova team that won as a #8 seed?

Not necessarily. This happens a lot with top draft picks. They negotiate in an invite to spring training the following year. Huh, no kidding. Never knew that. Thanks! Also, I predict Colvin ends next season in Daytona. Different philosophies in different organizations. The Cardinals aggressively promote players (Mark Hamilton and Adam Ottavino were in full season A ball just 2 or 3 weeks after the draft, while John Jay and the other Miami U player started there) while the D-Rays had Evan Longoria all the way up to AA by summer's end.

The funny thing is that Miami just got burned by a "college coach"...why would they go after another one? After a couple of losing season some college school would come after Carroll and he'd probably go right back to it...not sure why you'd want to travel that road again if you're Miami. The difference being that Carroll is a former NFL coach and assistant while Saban wasn't (to my knowledge)

Me too. I was really glad to see OSU and Michigan crushed. Nothing like seeing those fans in deep sorrow to warm my heart. In general, I like to see the Big 10 "represent" in the bowls, but I took deep pleasure in seeing Michigan and O$U crushed.

What do you mean voted down? The poll rankings are meaningless after the championship game, and no big east team deserved a shot at the championship game. I think his point is that if voting would determine (in part) the BCS standings, and those standing would inform the playoff field, he isn't comfortable with a voter base who continously shows bias towards some conferences and against others (regardless of SOS or on field results)

One could argue that the bowl system as it is now is pretty pointless out of the financial considerations for the teams. The BCS title game is the only game that means anything at all. Winning any other bowl gets you an ugly trophy, a nice feeling inside, and your school a dumptruck of cash. I think it would be awesome if you took 6 "traditional" bowl games and rotated them through the first 2 rounds of the playoffs, with the new unnamed "BCS Title Game" at the end. For example, next year, we have the Sugar, Cotton, Capital One and Orange Bowls for the first round, the Rose and Fiesta for the semifinals, and the BCS for the finals. All the other bowls would just be your "play for pride" crap games. p.s. I think the fact that over 1/2 of the Division 1-A schools make bowl games (some with .500 records) has done plenty to ruin the integrity of the current bowl system. A playoff can only improve it. p.p.s. The travel situation for fans is definitely a concern, but isn't it the same for the NCAA Basketball tourney? If your team makes the Final Four on a Sunday, can you realistically buy tickets, schedule travel and hotel, etc. to get there by the following Saturday? No. But it's still sold out every year

Yes. I think I saw a 666 on his head in that picture they had. People like to whine about Delaney and the Big Ten, but don't pretend for a second all these other conferences aren't doing the same thing, looking out for their best interest. People bitch about the Big Ten only making decisions based on money, but all the conferences that decided to start-up conf champ games are doing the same thing. Boise State chose to schedule a weak OOC schedule, and you can be certain that choice involved money. This whining sounds to me a lot like all the whining about the cheap tribune not having a high enough payroll. People are motivated by money. Sports is extremely motivated by money. These small conf schools aren't just noble knights fighting against the tyranny of the evil kings of football. If anybody wants to instill change, then it's up to them to make it fiscally sensible. If the NCAA were to go to some drawn out playoff format, not only would they be stepping on the toes of the bowl system that pays much of their bills, not only would they be lessening the importance of every big regular season matchup, but they'd also be going up against the mighty NFL, which now owns Saturdays in December. When and where are these play-in games going to take place? Where will the playoff games play? A major overhaul to a 16-team playoff is completely unfeasible and unrealistic. You'd be asking people to risk massive revenue losses all so we can find a way to get the occasional undefeated mid major conf champ a shot at the title. Most of the time, there isn't much of an argument over who the champion of college football is. Occasionally a team or two will be left in the cold, but almost always there is a pretty good reason for that exclusion. Now, because people want to whine about the 5th, 9th or 16th best team, all that gets thrown out the window? I don't see why the major conference schools, that produce the best college football teams year in and year out, should just hand over their guaranteed streams of income, and a system that already awards the "true champ" the vast majority of the time, just so we can find a way to complain in a few more years why the 17th best team didn't get a shot, and how unfair it is that the 2nd best WAC team is getting passed over by the 4th best SEC team, or why the Big East only got 2 teams in while the Big Ten had 3. Of course your happy with the system becuse it benefits the already established leagues like the SEC, Big 10 and 12 which by far would have the most to lose. Let's see....the Rose Bowl Big 10 and PAC 10, Sugar SEC and Orange Big 12. Yeah, I can see why they don't want it changed. I want bowl diversity instead of these tie in's if this is the system they are going to keep for X amount of years. I'm sick of the second best Big East team always going to the Liberty Bowl to face the second best ACC. I see your point about somebody always being left out which is going to happen no matter what system they decide to pick. It's how they pick them that bothers me. I can understand how you're sick of the tie-ins, but the alternative is total chaos. With 28 bowl games, how do you propose they haggle over who gets who? Maybe they should keep the tie-ins but rotate them somehow.

Boise St. choosing not to play good OOC teams isn't based on finances. In fact, small conference schools make huge money by playing big conference schools. For example, University of Buffalo is getting paid something like $750,000 by Penn State to come play in Beaver Stadium next year. It's their bowl game (money wise).

An 8-team playoff means up to 2 extra games for the 2 teams that get to the championship game. Assuming those teams are from, say, the SEC and Big 12, that would equal a 16 game season for the NC game teams (12 game regular season, conf. champ game, plus 3 playoff games). I think the only way the NCAA would even start to consider this would be to mandate teams going back to an 11 game schedule with a bye week somewhere. Another random thought is the disparity in conferences (those with vs. those without a championship game) makes things a little unfair. Why should Ohio State get into the playoff by winning the regular season while Florida has to play (and win) an extra game? I know this was one argument for the Big 10 finally having a conference tourney in basketball. In other words, in a given year, a Big 10, Pac 10 or Big East team could win the regular season and be in, while an ACC, SEC or Big 12 team could win the regular season but be out because they have to play and win an extra game.

Hinrich frustrates me to no end. he's clearly not able to shoot himself out of a cold start. If he bricks his first 5 shots, he should shut it down and distribute the ball more.

USC is hardly the only team willing to schedule tough OOC opponents. OSU and Texas have been playing each other for a while, a few big ten teams regularly schedule Notre Dame. The Florida schools regularly play one another (yes, Miami and FSU are now in the same conference, but it hasn't always been the case). Purdue went out and faced 2 top 25 teams on the road this year, OOC. Lots of teams do wimp out in that regard, but there is opportunity out there. If you're in the WAC and have national title aspirations, you better do anything you can to try and schedule potential top competition, and eliminate any ridiculous Sacramento State games. With pretty much every conference outside of the Big Ten and SEC complaining about the dominance of the Big Ten and SEC, there should be opportunity to get the best of the rest of the conferences to play you. If you have to go on the road to get them to play you, then do it. I'm just saying that it's easy to say "Boise St. should play better schools", but who's to say they haven't tried and been rejected? It's not like they can just say "Oh, by the way, we're playing Ohio St., USC and Notre Dame this year." If other teams won't play them, then how can they improve their OCC?

So long as the 8 team field is the actual Top 8 in the BCS (with no conference tie-ins) I'm all for it. But if a #21 ranked F$U gets in from the ACC, or Wisconsin gets the boot for being the 3rd Big Ten team, I wouldn't be happy.

I blame this more on Hinrich (1 for 11 shooting) than the refs.

Boise St. won't get anyone to play them when all the "power conference" teams are scheduling creampuffs for their OOC schedules. Would you want to play Boise St., risk having a loss before conference play, thus effectively ruining your chances at a NC? USC is about the only conference team with the balls to schedule tough OOC games these days. I say this as Penn State fan, fully recognizing that PSU wrote the book on scheduling horrible OOC teams.

Eliminates the controversy? What if you have a situation (like this year) where there is one major conference undefeated team followed by a run of 1-loss teams. How do you justify these 3 1-loss teams over these other 3 1-loss teams? The preseason polls and voter bias suddenly reward some and screw others Selective reading? It eliminates the controversy from the top 4. That means the 3rd and 4th ranked teams that were bitching, will not be bitching because they'd be in. If you're 5th, too bad. No matter how far down you go, people will complain. There are idiots who complain about not getting into the basketball tourney, or about not getting a high enough seed, or easy enough bracket. None of that is meaningful. There is only one surefire way to guarantee a chance at the title, that is, schedule tough games and win them all. If you go undefeated but don't play anybody, it's your own fault. If you lose in the middle of the year to a tough opponent and end up on the outside looking in, too bad. That's how you keep the regular season meaningful. That's how you reward greatness. That's how you determine a college football champion. There just isn't a surefire way to fairly determine who the #3 and #4 teams are. And how do you say "too bad you played no one" to Boise St.? Is it their fault that their conference sucks?

Nice road win for DePaul at Villanova. Half way to 20 wins....

Basketball has a top 25 ranking and a championship game. That's not a fundamental flaw. The rankings are used to determine who gets to play the game, and the game determines who the champ is. A 4-team playoff doesn't eliminate controversy, but it certainly reduces it. If you take the top 4, that eliminates the controversy coming from the top 4. There will be bitching by the 5th/6th ranked teams, but I say too bad. If you didn't play well enough in the regular season to be ranked 4th, that's your own fault. And if you ended undefeated but were not ranked, schedule better opponents. The biggest problem with a large playoff is there is no motivation to schedule meaningful out of conference regular season games. The regular season is still the bread and butter of CFB, and I think it should remain so. I think it will change with a +1 game, then a playoff. The BCS setup was the first step in the gradual transformation away from voting for champs and playing for champs. A 4 or possibly 8 team playoff is the inevitable end. Anything larger than that would be absurd. Eliminates the controversy? What if you have a situation (like this year) where there is one major conference undefeated team followed by a run of 1-loss teams. How do you justify these 3 1-loss teams over these other 3 1-loss teams? The preseason polls and voter bias suddenly reward some and screw others

with that logic, brady quinn should definitely be a day 2 draft pick too. it's not like troy smith always sucks in big games. in fact, this is the first time he's laid a giant turd during a big game, he usually plays amazing. no one could have done well with the kind of protection he got today. Troy Smith was a border line first round pick to begin with. I'm guessing mid 2nd to early 3rd for him. That was my point. I think he already had some question marks concerning his ability to translate his game to the NFL, and that performance did nothing to help that. I would pick at least 3 or 4 QB's ahead of Smith this year.

Hey, Troy Smith, welcome to Day 2 of the NFL draft...

I don't see how tonight's game can live up to the glory and total unadulterated awesomeness of the GMAC bowl

But hasn't the AP disaffiliated from the BCS since then? Does the NCAA recognize the AP polls at all at this point? The NCAA has recognized the AP since the 1930s, I'm sure we would have heard if they'd changed their mind. Yeah, the AP isn't affiliated with the BCS anymore with regards to the computer rankings but it's still recognized by the NCAA. ok, recognized, but with all of it's eggs in the BCS basket, the NCAA is more likely to disregard the AP if they decide Boise St. is #1, right?

But hasn't the AP disaffiliated from the BCS since then? Does the NCAA recognize the AP polls at all at this point?

:-s Perhaps "back" means "back on IR" ;)