I've seen these billboards around town with a picture of a familiar face that I couldn't place. (that sounds like a bad song lyric)
I checked out iamsecond.com just a minute ago. Very interesting concept. Interviews with Josh Hamilton (the Texas Rangers' resident home run expert), Greg Ellis (of Dallas Cowboys fame), Darrell Waltrip (NASCAR), Jason Castro (American Idol), Brian "Head" Welch (former Korn guitarist), and a bunch of others.
Give it a look. It's for people that have been damaged by something - addiction, ego, the Church, etc.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The BCS and Rationale for a Playoff, part II
With the updated BCS rankings, an eight team playoff would produce the following first round matches:
#1 Oklahoma v. #8 Penn State
#2 Florida v. #7 Texas Tech
#3 Texas v. #6 Utah
#4 Alabama v. #5 USC
The benefit of this new arrangement would keep Texas and Oklahoma apart until the national championship and would do the same for Florida and Alabama.
Regarding the bowl setup, I would suggest minor adjustment of the other bowls. There are a couple that are a joke anyway (the Meineke Car Care Bowl?). Just keep January 1st and January 8th free. I would also keep the Friday and Saturday that are two weeks after the major conference championship games free. This year that would be December 19 & December 20.
The weekend two weeks after the championships would be the first round - two games on Friday, two on Saturday. This will usually be far enough ahead of Christmas that travel should not be too much of an issue. The second round games would occur on January 1st. The highest remaining seed in the 2nd round would get the 8:00 PM Eastern prime-time slot while the other game would get a 4:00 PM Easter time slot. Finally, the national championship would occur on January 8th, convenient because it is exactly one week after New Year's Day.
This schedule would essentially offer the reverse playoff timing of the NFL. Instead of 1 week between preliminary rounds and two before the final game, this would offer 1.5-2 weeks between preliminary rounds and one leading up to the championship.
This creates minimal change to affect the other bowls. I think this would generate much more money for the NCAA, media outlets and involved schools. An Oklahoma fan would have much greater interest in the Fiesta Bowl and Sugar Bowl than they do this time around. All adding up to more money...
Thoughts?
#1 Oklahoma v. #8 Penn State
#2 Florida v. #7 Texas Tech
#3 Texas v. #6 Utah
#4 Alabama v. #5 USC
The benefit of this new arrangement would keep Texas and Oklahoma apart until the national championship and would do the same for Florida and Alabama.
Regarding the bowl setup, I would suggest minor adjustment of the other bowls. There are a couple that are a joke anyway (the Meineke Car Care Bowl?). Just keep January 1st and January 8th free. I would also keep the Friday and Saturday that are two weeks after the major conference championship games free. This year that would be December 19 & December 20.
The weekend two weeks after the championships would be the first round - two games on Friday, two on Saturday. This will usually be far enough ahead of Christmas that travel should not be too much of an issue. The second round games would occur on January 1st. The highest remaining seed in the 2nd round would get the 8:00 PM Eastern prime-time slot while the other game would get a 4:00 PM Easter time slot. Finally, the national championship would occur on January 8th, convenient because it is exactly one week after New Year's Day.
This schedule would essentially offer the reverse playoff timing of the NFL. Instead of 1 week between preliminary rounds and two before the final game, this would offer 1.5-2 weeks between preliminary rounds and one leading up to the championship.
This creates minimal change to affect the other bowls. I think this would generate much more money for the NCAA, media outlets and involved schools. An Oklahoma fan would have much greater interest in the Fiesta Bowl and Sugar Bowl than they do this time around. All adding up to more money...
Thoughts?
Friday, December 5, 2008
The BCS and Rationale for a Playoff
A tangent today:
Why does major college football not have a playoff system? I don't think anyone can convince me that the Bowl system, as it is, is the best thing we could have.
Imagine if there was an eight team playoff this year. Based on rankings before the Big XII and SEC championships, you would get:
#1 Alabama v. #8 Penn State
#2 Oklahoma v. #7 Texas Tech (rematch on a neutral field)
#3 Texas v. #6 Utah
#4 Florida v. #5 USC
What college football fan wouldn't want to watch each of these games? The game with the least appeal would be Texas/Utah because Utah is not generally considered a perennial powerhouse. But with Colt McCoy, a Heisman candidate, captaining Texas - it should generate a good amount of interest.
As far as the bowls, keep them the same. Take the top six bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, Cotton - once it's in the new Cowboys stadium, and... Peach?) and rotate who gets 1st round games and who gets 2nd round games. Then, one of those bowls would get the national championship game as well.
As far as the money-making goes, every six years, one of these major cities/bowls would get THREE bowl games. Talk about a shot in the arm for local economies. It would also give a more legitimate chance for a team from a "mid-major" conference a shot at the title. Plus, if the two best teams in the nation are in the same conference, they are more likely to get to play for it all.
Seriously, why isn't the NCAA doing this?
Why does major college football not have a playoff system? I don't think anyone can convince me that the Bowl system, as it is, is the best thing we could have.
Imagine if there was an eight team playoff this year. Based on rankings before the Big XII and SEC championships, you would get:
#1 Alabama v. #8 Penn State
#2 Oklahoma v. #7 Texas Tech (rematch on a neutral field)
#3 Texas v. #6 Utah
#4 Florida v. #5 USC
What college football fan wouldn't want to watch each of these games? The game with the least appeal would be Texas/Utah because Utah is not generally considered a perennial powerhouse. But with Colt McCoy, a Heisman candidate, captaining Texas - it should generate a good amount of interest.
As far as the bowls, keep them the same. Take the top six bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, Cotton - once it's in the new Cowboys stadium, and... Peach?) and rotate who gets 1st round games and who gets 2nd round games. Then, one of those bowls would get the national championship game as well.
As far as the money-making goes, every six years, one of these major cities/bowls would get THREE bowl games. Talk about a shot in the arm for local economies. It would also give a more legitimate chance for a team from a "mid-major" conference a shot at the title. Plus, if the two best teams in the nation are in the same conference, they are more likely to get to play for it all.
Seriously, why isn't the NCAA doing this?
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Christian Vote
Voting is hard. Let me re-phrase: deciding whom I should vote for is hard. Determining the big races such as President, Governor, US Senate seats is usually a relatively painless job; but who knows if I would rather have an ethnically named Democrat or a no-name Republican for the 7th District Justice of the Peace. And don’t get me started on the Libertarians…
To top all that off, I am a Christian. To be more precise, I am something of a neo-evangelical, moral conservative, social liberal guy who loves Jesus. I happen to attend Christian churches and am a member of a United Methodist congregation. All of this means that I bring extra baggage to the voting booth each cycle.
I cannot justify, for myself, voting straight ticket. I think a government run completely by Democrats or Republicans would be trouble; and don’t get me started on the Libertarians. So I like balanced government, largely because I am a liberal-conservative-moderate.
This last election brought up more of the religion v. faith talk than others I can remember. I live in a state that is solidly red – solidly; so, most of the talk was rather one-sided. “Obama’s a secret Muslim!” (If he is, he’s a really bad one.) “Obama supports abortion!” (So does McCain.) “Democrats are evil!” (Maybe...) However, I live in a metropolitan area, so there is a significant blue-ish population as well, providing for lively coffee shop and workplace discussions to be overheard.
For me, it comes down to this: there are moral issues and there are civic issues. Homosexuality is a moral issue; whether gay people have medical visitation and joint property rights is a civil issue. War is a moral issue; when a nation should resort to war is a civil issue. The national financial status is a civil issue; where those funds go is often a moral issue.
As a Christian citizen, where do I draw my line of demarcation? I do not think it is a clear point like so many do. I personally find abortion abhorrent, but we have had eight years of a rabidly more conservative President than this cycle’s Republican nominee. The status quo on abortion has not changed one bit. Why would anyone think McCain would have changed it? If that is one’s only delineating issue, then I think she/he is a bit mis-guided.
For me, the weighing back and forth of all these issues took a significant amount of time, thought, discussion and … prayer. I heard no ethereal voice telling me to vote for Obama, McCain, Barr or Nader, but I was ultimately confident in my choice.
Regardless of your vote, we – as Christians – can rejoice knowing that our nation has progressed to the point that we had the guts to elect a person from an ethnic minority. Whether that is change you can believe in, change you voted for or even change you can tolerate, we as a nation got there. We missed Dr. King’s attributed prophecy of a black President by about twenty years, but we got there.
To top all that off, I am a Christian. To be more precise, I am something of a neo-evangelical, moral conservative, social liberal guy who loves Jesus. I happen to attend Christian churches and am a member of a United Methodist congregation. All of this means that I bring extra baggage to the voting booth each cycle.
I cannot justify, for myself, voting straight ticket. I think a government run completely by Democrats or Republicans would be trouble; and don’t get me started on the Libertarians. So I like balanced government, largely because I am a liberal-conservative-moderate.
This last election brought up more of the religion v. faith talk than others I can remember. I live in a state that is solidly red – solidly; so, most of the talk was rather one-sided. “Obama’s a secret Muslim!” (If he is, he’s a really bad one.) “Obama supports abortion!” (So does McCain.) “Democrats are evil!” (Maybe...) However, I live in a metropolitan area, so there is a significant blue-ish population as well, providing for lively coffee shop and workplace discussions to be overheard.
For me, it comes down to this: there are moral issues and there are civic issues. Homosexuality is a moral issue; whether gay people have medical visitation and joint property rights is a civil issue. War is a moral issue; when a nation should resort to war is a civil issue. The national financial status is a civil issue; where those funds go is often a moral issue.
As a Christian citizen, where do I draw my line of demarcation? I do not think it is a clear point like so many do. I personally find abortion abhorrent, but we have had eight years of a rabidly more conservative President than this cycle’s Republican nominee. The status quo on abortion has not changed one bit. Why would anyone think McCain would have changed it? If that is one’s only delineating issue, then I think she/he is a bit mis-guided.
For me, the weighing back and forth of all these issues took a significant amount of time, thought, discussion and … prayer. I heard no ethereal voice telling me to vote for Obama, McCain, Barr or Nader, but I was ultimately confident in my choice.
Regardless of your vote, we – as Christians – can rejoice knowing that our nation has progressed to the point that we had the guts to elect a person from an ethnic minority. Whether that is change you can believe in, change you voted for or even change you can tolerate, we as a nation got there. We missed Dr. King’s attributed prophecy of a black President by about twenty years, but we got there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)