CincySportsFan

Six years older than my wife. Don't go backwards and start doing the "when I was a senior, she was...", because, trust me, it gets kind of creepy. In all honesty, there was a girl I went to church with, who I had a massive crush on. But, never acted on it, because she was 6 years younger and still in high school. After she graduated, a mutual friend said "I don't think she's dating anyone right now, go ahead and ask her out." Did so, only to find out she started dating (her now husband of 25+ years) two weeks prior. A little over a year later, I met my wife. We've been married 24 years. Some things are just meant to be.

I watched a fair amount during week one, not as much during the second week. A couple of my observations... Mike Tirico was very smooth as the "host". On par with what I've come to enjoy from former hosts such as Dan Patrick, Bob Costas and Jim McKay. Dan Hicks and Rowdy Gaines are hands down the best 1-2 event announcers. Nobody else is even close. I really miss Tom Hammond doing the track and field events. Leigh Diffey (sp?) may be a true professional, but I just felt like I was watching the BBC coverage of the games, with his accent. Whoever the lady was that was the color-commentator during the diving portion...REALLY grated my nerves. Don't know what it was about her, but I had to eventually mute the TV. Finding when/where certain events were going to be broadcast was often very difficult. A lot of times I just gave up.

Actually, I was thinking of Beans. But, I believe there were several others involved in the lawsuit, so Moonbird could've been one of them. I think Florence Speedway might have been another.

Yeah, I think a lot of what we saw/experienced last year was mandated...anything this time around, will likely be voluntary. And yes, the businesses that do implement masks will likely do it more out of a fear of bad publicity, which could translate into a drop in their stocks. The small, mom and pop-type of stores that have survived last year are going to be more worried about being able to keep their doors open. Having enough to scrape by for one year is one thing. Having to do it in back-to-back years...totally different.

I think he's going to be alright without it. Just a guess. ?

Plus, hasn't there been a court ruling that's somewhat prohibited that (the implementation of lockdowns)? I'm thinking the restaurant in Dry Ridge was the driving force behind that particular lawsuit. I may be mistaken, though.

Gotcha. Makes sense. My next question is, how are they going to determine who's the conference champion. I think it'd be possible that you end up with multiple teams with an identical record and no head-to-head to break the tie. No way they're going to have a semi-finals with each of the four pod winners, are they?

Okay, that makes more sense than two divisions. However, are they going to split up the two "traditional" powers, as you put it, in the cross-pod scheduling? I mean, if you're a UK fan, facing Tennessee, Vandy, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Arkansas and Missouri is a heck of a lot different than facing Bama, Auburn, LSU, A&M, Texas and Oklahoma. That's a pretty wide spectrum in the SOS.

Off the cuff... 1) Scheduling. I like that teams are able to play out-of-conference games. But, with a 16 team conference, you're likely looking at 7 annual division games, and what, 4 cross-division games? That already puts you at 11 games, without even leaving the conference. And if you cut it down to 2 cross-division games, that means you're only playing half your conference once every four years. So...either you get one out-of-conference game a year, or you have schools that your team (as a player) faced one-time (even though they were in your conference) during your time in school. Not a fan of that. 2) Playoffs. I don't need/want 6 teams in a 12 team playoff to come from the same conference. And because of their inability to play each other during the regular season, there's always going to be a case being made for multiple teams within the conference to make the playoffs, even though they didn't even make it to their conference championship. Honestly, I'd be much happier with more smaller-sized conferences being able to send a "true" champion (and maybe a runner-up) because they've actually played each other, than a larger-sized conference and have to theorize who deserves to be in, just because they couldn't play each other.

Three teams that don't want a 12 team playoff...Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State. No surprise there.

I am beginning to believe that MLB is being run by a bunch of morons. Manfred is a joke, and the people around him have to be nothing but a bunch of stooges. Nobody thinks about the repercussions of anything. Idjits.

I'm sure we're all familiar with what Thom Brennaman said nearly a year ago during a Reds broadcast and what Stephen A. Smith said in the past couple of days regarding Shohei Ohtani and then, the Nigerian basketball team. Brennaman issued an apology within minutes, but was still taken off air, and eventually let go. Smith actually doubled-down on his initial take on Ohtani, and claimed that people were misunderstanding his point, before he issued his "heartfelt and sincere" apology several hours later to Ohtani, the Asian-American and Nigerian communities. Yet he still has a job. Are the two events comparable? Should the punishments be different? Why is one guy's apology deemed sufficient, while another's is not?

To the original question...the answer is no. The whole reason we are here is because the athletes have long been subject to different rules than any other student on a scholarship. That's finally changing. If TikTok wants to pay a girl for having 600,000 followers, why in the heck does it matter how her schooling is being paid for? We've never come back and said "Hey, college kid...you schlep pizzas 20 hours a week during the school year...you need to pay back part of the academic scholarship you're on!" have we? Didn't think so.

It's definitely a possibility. However, I'll be very interested in seeing how the "backups" (the 2nd and 3rd stringers) are going to view/use this. They could go to a Bama or OSU and maybe only sniff the field on special teams the first year or two, or maybe even be asked to red-shirt a year, because of all the players that are there ahead of them (both in experience and maybe talent). Now, if that same player could go to a different team (although perhaps not as much of a blue blood) and have a much more likely chance to start their freshman or sophomore season...which one is going to allow them to "cash in" on their NIL more? Look, the higher level talent is always going to get attracted by the big fish. That's not going to change with this. The kids will just be able to profit off of it. But, I do see a possibility (as naive as I may be) where the depth of a lot of teams could be challenged by other schools. Now, whether that other school comes from the lower-middle portion of another P5 conference, or from a G5 team, I don't know.

Just to give some perspective, as to how some of the extenuating circumstances (such as rules for DB's, number of teams, or league offensive philosophies) can impact stats... Cris Collinsworth ('83) - 1130 yards ranked him 11th in league. Only 13 players had 1000 yards that year receiving. Cris Collinsworth ('85) - 1125 yards ranked 8th in league. Only 11 players had 1000 yards. Eddie Brown ('88) - 1273 yards ranked 3rd in league. Only 12 players had 1000 yards. Carl Pickens ('95) - 1234 yards ranked 11th in league. But 23 players now had 1000 yards. Chad ('05) - 1440 yards ranked 3rd in league. 24 players had 1000 yards. Chad ('06) - 1369 yards led the league. 23 players had 1000 yards Chad ('07) - 1432 yards ranked 3rd in league. 19 players had 1000 yards. AJ ('12) - 1350 yards ranked 10th in league. 20 players had 1000 yards. AJ ('13) - 1426 yards ranked 5th in league. 24 players had 1000 yards.

As many may already know, I am an OSU fan...and even I use this example when people say "Well, they got it right. Those were the four best teams." Horse hockey. Nobody truly knows anything, aside from what was actually played. If you think a group of people and/or computer can accurately determine who the best FOUR teams are...then, it should be a piece of cake to have those same people/computer pick the best ONE team. So, why even bother having the playoffs? Might as well go back to the old bowl conference tie-ins. Then do your stupid poll afterwards and we can all argue over that. But, somebody said...wouldn't it be nice if we could get the top 2 teams to play each other? I mean, we already have had this season long poll/ranking that's determined who the top team is, but maybe it's wrong every now and then. Who knows how often...1 out of 10? 1 out of 5, or maybe a stretch 1 out of 4? So, for 16 years we play #1 vs. #2, and how many times does #1 win? Eight. Only 50% of the time! And of the 8 times that #2 won, 5 of them were by more than one score! So much for having an accurately predicted #1 team. Ahhhh...well, if the poll/computer can be wrong about #1 and #2...what about if we add #3 and #4 into the mix. Surely to goodness that's just a fluke involving the top, top, top teams. It won't come into play adding two more teams to the mix. We'll still end up with #1 vs. #2 the majority of the time, right? Well, in the 7 years of the CFP, we've had that scenario only 3 times! And #2 has won all 3 times! In fact, we've had the same amount of champions come from the #4 seed, as we have from the #1 seed. My point in all of this is we don't know crap. We can give it our best educated guess, but that's all that it is. Let's settle this on the field. Every 130 schools should have the opportunity to prove themselves against a team lined up across from them. They shouldn't have to show anything to anyone else, whether human or computer (because we all know how well that's worked out in the past). Give all the conference champions an automatic bid. Take four other at-large teams, to help compensate for "tougher" conference play...and let's play.

I'm assuming you already know the answer? Chad & TJ in 2006 and 2007 (TJ was short by 44 yards in '05, Eddie Brown was 36 yards in '86)

There's one stat, for me, that helped sway my decision. In fact, once I saw it, it actually made the decision process pretty easy. Yards per reception. (And yes, I know this can be a product of the offensive scheme...but, still...) '86-'88 Eddie...18.4 Tim...18.3 Cris...16.5 '05-'09 Chad...14.5 TJ...11.0 Chris...14.9 And for all of you who'll say that TJ's numbers suffered because he was doing the "dirty work" like a tight end (giving up big plays to be the check down guy, or to get the first down)...I say this...Rodney Holman (as a TE) and James Brooks (as a RB) still had 14.3 and 11.9 yards per reception, respectively, doing the same thing during the '86-'88 years. And as "unguardable" as we remember Chris Henry being...he, surprisingly, still doesn't match the numbers of that older bunch.

There's various stats you can look at to determine who "the best" is, but a lot of them come back to those extenuating circumstances that I mentioned in the original post. Chad/TJ/Chris put up some gaudy numbers during their four years together. 809 receptions for 10,455 yards. But, keep in mind that those teams threw the ball 56% of the time. The numbers for Eddie/Tim/Cris pale in comparison for their three years, with 336 receptions for 5,960 yards. But those teams RAN the ball 54% of the time. Chad's group scored 77 TD's (out of 97 thrown), while Eddie's trio scored 35 (out of 70). But again, when you factor in those other variables...the running game during Chad's 4 years scored just 45 TD's, while the ground game during Eddie's scored 64 times. I don't think it's a stretch to say that there was obviously a difference of philosophy when it came to the offense. One group passed it a LOT more, and maybe even relied on it in the red zone, when the other team may have been more likely to run the ball in for a score. Like I said...there are a lot of variables.

Yeah, when it comes to career numbers, it makes it things different, in my opinion. Chad and AJ throw things off so much by being there 10 years. So, I was just looking at the particular years that a particular trio all played together. So, for Eddie/Tim/Cris, that's 86-88...for Chad/TJ/Chris, that's 05-08...for AJ/Marvin/Mohamed, that's '12, '13 and '15...etc.

Yeah, that was pretty much my take, with regards to Chase. This guy goes to extremes on a lot of stuff...we're either winning the Super Bowl, or not winning a game. So, I've learned to take it with a grain of salt.

Was shooting the breeze with the neighbor over the weekend, and he made a comment about how this upcoming year with Chase, Higgins and Boyd might feature the best trio of receivers that the Bengals have ever had. This was after he had hydrated with a few brewskis, so I politely told him to pump the brakes. But, it made me think of what trio of WR's would be considered the best. There are obviously a LOT of extenuating circumstances surrounding these various groups...from who was playing QB, to who was the offensive coordinator, to how strong the running game was, to how bad the defense was (and forced the offense to play catch-up), to who were other passing targets (RB's and TE's), and even what the rules were at that time. But, if you had to choose?

It looks like progress, but it's still a lot of smoke and mirrors, in my opinion. Because here's what will happen...people will be foaming at the mouth arguing how a 2 or 3 loss SEC team (who didn't even play for the conference championship) is more deserving to get in, than an undefeated or just a one-loss team from the American, Mountain West or Sun Belt conference. Heck, even just this past year, you had 2-loss teams Iowa State, Florida and Georgia all ranked ahead of undefeated Cincinnati, Coastal Carolina and San Jose teams. And two years ago, you had 3-loss Wisconsin, Auburn, Michigan and Iowa all ranked ahead of 1-loss Boise State and Appalachian State. How exactly does this new setup address that? The truth? It doesn't. Oh, they'll take the highest ranked team from the Group of 5? How generous. Please. ? This is just another example of a bait-and-switch. They'll say it'll allow for the smaller schools to get in, but in reality, it'll just be used to get in 3 or 4 teams from the big boy conferences. I've said it before, and I'll say it again (and again, and again)...I want to see things settled on the football field, not in some hotel's conference room. Give every conference an automatic bid. Put every conference, every team and every player, in the same dang situation at the beginning of the year...the opportunity to play for a national championship. Create excitement across the board, not just for a half dozen fan bases. Conference championship games would become electric, with a berth on the line. As a side note, I'd give you 4 other "at-large" bids, where you can "right any wrongs" by someone obvious who happened to miss out on the automatic bids. Then, after you seed it, this allows for the top 2 teams to get a first round bye. What we have now is an invitational tournament. It's already great for the big schools. And for the most part, the proposed plan doesn't really change that.

I would agree with that. My point is that if that is happening now, what's it going to be like if a kid has the pressure of a shot clock winding down.

If you mean would kids be willing to jack up a shot, heck yeah. Doesn't mean the quality of the game would be better.