College Football 2009/2010 (R)
#1
Posted 01 May 2009 - 10:30 AM
#2
Posted 01 May 2009 - 10:35 AM
i really don't feel anything is going to come out of this particular hearing, but sooner or later the pressure will mount and something will happen. i am rather surprised that one thing isn't brought up . . . that the BCS operates as a college football monoploy for the BCS conferences. i am sure that is what was meant by the 'cartel' refernces, but i think they should start using the buzzword 'monopoly' more. i don't feel the average american believes monopolies are a fair business practice, so they might get more traction that way
nice idea . . . i like it.Among those participating at Friday's hearing is Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the committee's top Republican, who has introduced legislation that would prevent the NCAA from labeling a game a "national championship" unless it culminates from a playoff system.
now it all makes sense why sign guy seems so out of it with regard to college football. as the chosen one states, sign guy can't be a serious college football fan (being that he supports the BCS)The BCS has come under attack from a range of politicians. Last November, as President-elect, Obama told "60 Minutes" he would prefer an eight-team playoff system. "I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this," he said then. "So I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit."
finally obama and i agree on something.
#3
Posted 01 May 2009 - 10:57 AM
#4
Posted 01 May 2009 - 12:16 PM
Of course, all 13 Division 1-A conferences are members of the BCS, so the only who might have a legal gripe about being on the outside looking in are the likes of the Big Sky or the CAA, who are D-1 but not part of the BCS.i am rather surprised that one thing isn't brought up . . . that the BCS operates as a college football monoploy for the BCS conferences.
While I'd love to see a playoff, there is no legal recourse for the likes of Boise, Utah and BYU unless they all resign from the BCS and try and force change within the NCAA. All this posturing by the likes of Obama and the dicknose from Texas is annoying, a waste of time, and not even valid.
#5
Posted 02 May 2009 - 04:06 PM
let me understand . . . so to get change, we are supposed to do nothing and hope that magically the BCS is going to vote to eliminate itself? btw, i thought the dicknose was from the state of illinois?? when did obama relocate to texas?Of course, all 13 Division 1-A conferences are members of the BCS, so the only who might have a legal gripe about being on the outside looking in are the likes of the Big Sky or the CAA, who are D-1 but not part of the BCS.
While I'd love to see a playoff, there is no legal recourse for the likes of Boise, Utah and BYU unless they all resign from the BCS and try and force change within the NCAA. All this posturing by the likes of Obama and the dicknose from Texas is annoying, a waste of time, and not even valid.
#6
Posted 02 May 2009 - 04:43 PM
Proud "been a fan since '96" douchenozzle
Cogito me cogitare, ergo cogito me esse. Et futuito istam pullam!
http://www.nybooks.c.../15/our-moloch/
#7
Posted 05 May 2009 - 02:46 PM
Different dicknose, of course.let me understand . . . so to get change, we are supposed to do nothing and hope that magically the BCS is going to vote to eliminate itself? btw, i thought the dicknose was from the state of illinois?? when did obama relocate to texas?
I'm still not sure you're getting that the likes of BYU, Utah, and Boise are part of the BCS and have agreed to its terms. If Utah had been #1 in the final BCS poll, but the BCS said "no thanks, we'd rather have Florida play for the title against USC" then there would be something to squawk about, but other than that, the government angle is the studpidest fucking thing I have ever seen, and I hope fuck face from Texas is drummed out of the GOP for being such a schnozzle in the first place.
#8
Posted 21 July 2009 - 03:48 PM
#9
Posted 21 July 2009 - 03:50 PM
Crose enuf.
#11
Posted 10 August 2009 - 01:32 PM
1. Florida (53) 0-0 1,466
2. Texas (4) 0-0 1,386
3. Oklahoma (1) 0-0 1,358
4. USC (1) 0-0 1,321
5. Alabama 0-0 1,134
6. Ohio State 0-0 1,126
7. Virginia Tech 0-0 1,020
8. Penn State 0-0 988
9. LSU 0-0 917
10. Mississippi 0-0 889
11. Oklahoma State 0-0 861
12. California 0-0 711
13. Georgia 0-0 707
14. Oregon 0-0 694
15. Georgia Tech 0-0 559
16. Boise State 0-0 542
17. TCU 0-0 461
18. Utah 0-0 404
19. Florida State 0-0 371
20. North Carolina 0-0 293
21. Iowa 0-0 257
22. Nebraska 0-0 236
23. Notre Dame 0-0 194
24. Brigham Young 0-0 178
25. Oregon State 0-0 165
#12
Posted 11 August 2009 - 12:32 AM
I hate these things more and more. Pointless! Other than for selling papers and triggering arguments about which 0-0 team is best.USA Today Poll
Reason #128 why some form of playoff* makes more sense.
* Apologies for opening that can o' worms for like the 812th time.
#13
Posted 11 August 2009 - 12:42 AM
-H. L. Mencken
----------------------
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which "unskilled people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it." The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average.
#14
Posted 11 August 2009 - 12:53 AM
#15
Posted 11 August 2009 - 12:57 AM
penn st will be the suprise team. maybe even sneak into the bcs championship game.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users