Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3443
  • Joined

Everything posted by hpslugga

  1. You didn’t even read it, had nothing to say in response, and all you had to contribute was that you’re butthurt that I negged you for being obviously dishonest. You didn’t make any “point,” much less did I “prove it” for you.
  2. High school? Yeah, it would, but not for reasons you think. You say that as if totally unaware of the existence of postseason tournaments in the other classifications of college football. Almost as if you completely ignored everything I said other than the letters "HS" FCS: 127 teams, 10 games against 10 opponents, 24-team playoff (maximum of 15 games) DII: 169 teams, 10 games against 10 opponents, 28-team playoff (maximum of 15 games) DIII: 246 teams, 10 games against 10 opponents, 32-team playoff (maximum of 15 games) FBS? 130 teams, 12 games against 12 opponents, and we'll not mention the playoff size because we haven't even established to which one you're referring. Oh right, but you brought up HS. Ok. Well I didn't look at the precise numbers in other states, but I'll just tell you how it works in one division in Texas (since they're all essentially the same): 5A Division 1: 129 teams, 10 games against 10 opponents, 64-team playoff (maximum of 16 games) It is dishonest to assert baseless speculation as though it were a matter of fact. There are 3 different NCAA tournaments in the sport of football, 2 of which concern leagues of noticeably larger size with shorter schedules. Tell me about all this trouble they've been having with achieving with "orderly post-season tournaments." I can't even believe I'm entertaining this because the notion is so stupid, but yeah they have, and the answer is the same: it'd be a logistical nightmare. The easiest way to even conceive of doing it is to construct a 50-team bracket of all 50 of the state champions in the top classifications of each state. Here are the problems with that: 1. There's no central governing body for high school football in the US. 2. You're, therefore, going to have to deal with 50 different governing bodies, and their rules aren't all the same, either. So whose rules are we playing by? 3. A 50-team bracket means 32 teams would get a bye. How do you go about sorting that shit out? 4. In addition to the 16 games that a lot of states require of their state champions, you're going to have to dedicate 6 more weeks of that. So that means that to play in the National Final, you'd have to play 21-22 games. Not even the NFL requires 22, and to get to 21 means that you'd have to be a wildcard team. You're comparing a seemingly impossible concept like a national high school tournament to a league that is as large as, or smaller than, its most immediate counterparts at the same level. That's about as dishonest as it gets. Oh and just FYI, no one serious gives two shits about that stupid, mythical "national championship" at the HS level. It's an absurd concept that includes an indefinite number of teams (there are between 4 or 5 every year), there's no governing body or any entity that even rewards a fucking trophy. It's just mumbo jumbo that websites and sports networks vote on every year. Meanwhile, the players and coaches can hardly be bothered to even care. They care about the state title, yes, but national? Shit, I even knew a guy who played for the 2004 SLC team in college that won it from 4 different services that year, and he wasn't even aware of it for like a month after they "won" them. The fucking guy graduated in the spring of 2006, which meant that he was at the school for 3 state championships they won in those 4 years and I never heard him say anything like "yeah man those 3 titles were really special but the 2004 one meant the most because some websites said we were national champions!"
  3. Lol. "Report"
  4. Who’s playing smart boy? You didn’t present it as opinion. You asserted it as though it were a matter of fact. You shouldn’t have to do such things if your opinion was so unshakable as to not ever be susceptible to change.
  5. The word "too" is a word that is used to compare. The alternatives to "too," in that context, are "not inclusive enough" or "sufficiently inclusive" It's basically a Goldilocks principle. So when you say that 16 is "too inclusive," by what comparison are you basing that? Well we can only assume that it's the FCS since that was the only thing to which you referred. That's a start. The FCS currently uses a 24-team model in its league of 127 teams. FBS is a league of 130, and we're talking about a playoff that would use 8 fewer teams than FCS. As a percentage, roughly 19% (18.897) of the FCS makes it to the playoff. With 16 in the FBS, that would constitute 12.3% of the league. So it'd be less inclusive by a factor of fully one third. On average, HS football includes 50% of its various leagues around the country In the NFL, it's 43.75% FCS is 18.9% Division II is 16.6% (28 out of 169) Division III is 12.8% (32 out of 250) So a 16-team playoff would make it the most exclusive playoff in the fucking sport, being surpassed by no league in that regard, and by that standard, you conclude it's...too inclusive?
  6. Right, this isn't about debating/discussing the merits of CRT. This is just another, as Bill Maher would say it, "thing to hate."
  7. Troubling for an average sitting Senator? Yes Troubling for Ted Cruz? No. He's been so wrong about every single issue of consequence that even Wolfgang Pauli would be impressed.
  8. Yes, the Artenik Arabadjian playbook.
  9. Let me be clear, he does not. For one, his political associations alone casts a tremendous amount of skepticism over this statement. More importantly, his conception of the two-state settlement runs in contravention to the international consensus. He has said that he wants to maintain all or some of the settlement blocs (the ones he definitely wants to maintain are the very largest of them, namely Ariel, Gush Etzion and Ma'aleh Adumim). So he won't adequately even define what the "Palestinian State" would be, he insists on settlement inclusion, he insists on said Palestinian state being demilitarized, he bitches about all the "threats" Israel faces while wholly ignoring the much bigger threats Palestinians face, etc. Furthermore, he's stated numerous times that he would only insist on negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, which is a completely illegitimate entity that does not speak for the Palestinian people, and they've been known not to for decades. They were created via a concession by Arafat in the Oslo negotiations, largely because it was the life preserver that Israel and the US were willing to throw to him after tacitly supporting Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War. It has since been maintained despite the fact that they were defeated in the 2006 elections and continue to do so mostly through intimidation, coercion and violence. This would be akin to some Arab leader saying that they'd only negotiate with the US via the Tea Party. Bottom line, this has nothing to do with the two-state settlement as it's understood by the vast majority of the world. That consensus includes, among other things, to quote the Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question: The Palestinians will never recognize those settlement blocs, which means they will never recognize whatever "borders" Lapid proposes. Yeah, Lapid is absolutely opposed to this. That advisory opinion, which to repeat was unanimous when you consider what Buergenthal said in his separate declaration, deemed that all segments of the wall in the West Bank that were built in Palestinian territory as a means to protect Israeli settlements are, to quote Buergenthal, "ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law" and that those segments of the wall must therefore be dismantled. Again, that can't happen when Israel is proposing preservation of illegal settlements. Lapid insists on maintaining large swaths of that territory. Again, opposed. You get the idea. What he has said about it is akin to when David Bar-Illan said back in 1996, "If Palestinian sovereignty is limited enough so that we feel safe, call it [the Palestinian State] fried chicken." It's that same dismissive, imperialist attitude that Bibi has about it. Again, they're changing the style. Not the substance. Just as a guide, if what Israel is proposing falls shorter of the international consensus than the Clinton Parameters did, it's a non-starter. Lapid knows that.
  10. Gee why would he say that?
  11. In furtherance of the wrestling analogy, we’re at a point in our history where Vince Russo writing for it would be an improvement.
  12. Shouldn’t take a confession in a lawsuit to establish that. His bewildering inanities should speak for themselves. But hey, feelings and emotions.
  13. He’s been a douchebag on several areas, to name just a few: -Israel/Palestine -Covert military operations -Obsessively equating right wing efforts to suppress freedom of expression with “left wing wokeness” -Not being able to connect dots on a host of issues (his gripes with K-12 education and college make it sound like they’re in completely separate vacuums, which is especially perplexing given his propensity to cite Scandinavia as a model of success) -Romanticism of Bill Clinton This latest New Rules segment is just more of the same.
  14. Certainly nothing else would explain why this moron has even a single person supporting him.
  15. Dude it’s the same guy that fathered Jake when his mother was 13. Just a fucking horrible person.
  16. You don't think 2020 perhaps softened UND's stance on joining a conference in any way?
  17. Btw, is anyone else feeling extra creepy that this story came out just days after the Dark Side of the Ring episode regarding Grizzly Smith?
  18. Depends on whether or not there's unanimity. If it's not a unanimous move, it'd have to wait 'til after the current CFP contract runs out (through 2025 season). Unless I'm mistaken, a unanimous vote means...immediately, right? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
  19. That's how much of an asshole he was. 34 years of death, and still isn't nice.
  20. Exactly. SMU was among the more saintly actors out there. There wasn't a campus-wide rape culture like at Baylor, there wasn't a campus-wide gun culture like at OU, there wasn't a campus-wide drug culture like at...well various places. No Joe, no Bo, no Woodrow getting a woody about dead kids in Vietnam or punching players in the throat on national TV. No, SMU was executed because some guys decided to pay football players and acted like asses about it when questioned by the authorities. Fuck. How else are you supposed to explain to a kid that the lessons you learn playing college football are anything other than "whatever you do, don't get caught?" And I'm not in any way suggesting that Michigan, or any other program, deserves/deserved the death penalty. But holy shit, each one of these stories actually makes the NCAA look worse and worse for doing that compared to other things that were happening right under their noses. That decision did not age well...at all.
  21. 1992, definitely not the first
  22. BUT BUT BUT THE REGULAR SEASON WON'T MEAN ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!THINGS!!!!
×
×
  • Create New...