5wide

I find it a riot that the same people who use "the no scientific evidence" explanation for homosexuality are the EXACT same people who adamantly believe there is a God. :sssh:

Although I'm not in the aforementioned camp of the "no scientific explanation", I likewise find it curious that many who claim religion doesn't have the answers and have a problem with the faith aspect are generally quick to note that "an answer will be found" via science. :idunno:

I went to the game and it felt like watching a great team play an okay team.

I think that's exactly what it was. The Bengals are still a year off at least, IMO.

5Wide is the man!!!

I was pretty close...9 points off on Duke, 2 off on IU. Missed Kansas by more. Obviously, I either vastly over-estimated their AA's, or missed some sanction deductions. The clean programs were easier. Kudos to Duke and UNC for that.

I never got around to U of L, but I wasn't surprised they were ahead of IU, in light of past success combined with the recent Pitino era. That's why I didn't put a number by the Hoosiers with their point total. Here's what doomed IU - bad seasons in the 1960's and in the 2000's, and conference championships. They only have 13 Big Ten championships and zero conference tournament titles. The conference tourny thing is partly due to the Big Ten not having one, which is a de facto penalty to all their teams, unless they had some way in their calculations to offset that. But, even if you gave them 3 more points for each conference title, it wouldn't matter. They just don't have the tournament success to match the top schools.

The thing is, the huge title advantage doesn't give UCLA a big advantage as other rankings usually do, especially in light of a couple of droughts they had since that time. Look at it this way...UCLA gets a +175 over UK, Duke and UNC in the championships. However, they lose much, if not more back in runner-ups, Final 4 and Elite 8 losses.

Kentucky

• Titles - 4x25=100
  
• Runner-ups - 3x20=60
  
• Final Four - 3x15=45
  
• Elite Eight - 13x10=130
  
• Total - 335
  

Duke

• Titles - 4x25=100
  
• Runner-ups - 6x20=120
  
• Final Four - 5x15=75
  
• Elite Eight - 2x10=20
  
• Total - 315
  

UCLA

• Titles - 11x25=275
  
• Runner-ups - 1x20=20
  
• Final Four - 4x15=60
  
• Elite Eight - 3x10=30
  
• Total - 385
  

North Carolina

• Titles - 4x25=100
  
• Runner-ups - 3x20=60
  
• Final Four - 9x15=135
  
• Elite Eight - 7x10=70
  
• Total - 365
  

So, they have a big advantage in championships, but in tournament success over 50 years, the others close the gap considerably. And, with the titles only being 5 more points than the runner-ups, its not weighted to be a significant bump.

I would think those top two are accurate. Not sure if UK will be ahead of Duke, though.

My first and second team AA values are estimates/guesses, and to some degree the top 10 picks. And, the sanction deductions are tougher to track down, so I could only include the ones I was sure about, with a little guesswork. As is, I'm thinking it is something like this...

1. North Carolina - ~925 (928)

2. UCLA - ~850 (858)

3. Kentucky - 810

4. Duke - ~750-800 (768)

5. Kansas - ~700-750 (708)

Indiana, I'm thinking is in the 400-450 range.

The AA's and sanctions, depending on how much I'm off, could possibly flip flop 3 and 4, but I think the other ones are pretty solid (the positions, if not the point totals). Of course, I may have a huge mistake in there somewhere and be off terribly. I was trying to do it quickly but be as accurate as possible in that context.

When I try to do the "best program" evaluation, I basically go back to the 90's. That's when I really started caring. During that time, Duke has been the premier program. I feel like what Coach K has done might eclipse what Wooden did, because it's tougher today than it was back then IMO. Carolina & Kentucky would be behind them, though I'm not sure in what order.

It is tougher today, but 10 titles in 12 years including 7 straight from '67-73 and an 88 game win streak thrown in to boot dwarfs anything ever accomplished in college basketball. UCLA's overall record from '67-73 was 205 wins vs. 5 losses. A winning % of .976.

If they lose to WKU (which call me crazy, is more of a real possibility than some seem to think), Kent State, or Samford, he's gone IMO no matter what happens.

 

The major consideration is that they need to show marked improvement regardless of whether that translates to wins in the other games. I don't think it would hurt if they could manage to win a 4th game or even a 5th, but I think the only possibilities of that happening are against Vandy or at Tennessee.

I'm with you. I don't view Western as a win after last year. I don't know much about the other two small schools, but I'm still assuming wins for now. But, I think a 2-win season is a possibility. I'm thinking 4 is the maximum. Whether that's good enough for Joker to remain coach depends on how competitive they are in the losses, how much improvement we see, how entertaining they are to watch, etc. Lots of factors.

Based on Joker's tenure to date, I'll take a wait-and-see approach, but I'm not optimistic.

That has to be the absolute worst part of recruiting.

As stated earlier, recruiting is creepy. I wonder if some of these coaches feel dirty after a recruiting trip.

Depends. If it was determined that the staff knew about it then it becomes "recruiting."

What was determined? Do you recall?

Obviously, eligibility is related. Still, Cal isn't despised for cheating to get guys eligible. He's despised because people say he cheats to get them to pick his school. That's my point. Yet, he's clean on that count.

Either he's clean, or he's smarter and better than the you. (Not you in particular) Either option is something a hater would be loathe to admit.

For the record, I don't care about the perception and accusations. I just think it is interesting how it seems to be acceptable to accuse him and insinuate things, but many of these other guys are above reproach. But, such is the world. Perception becomes reality. Facts are of little import.

Not entirely true. He went from Chicago to Detroit (home of WWW) to take the test because his inner city Chicago family was going to a Bulls/Pistons playoff game. Plenty of red flags on the recruiting end of that situation...

Who asked you? :isurrender:

I don't like my team. I don't expect a playoff berth this season.

Considering holdouts and discontent at RB almost always results in a sub-par year at best and injury at worst, I hate my RB's. I don't mind Vick at QB as much as some would, but I know exactly what he is - high risk, high reward. My WR's I'm OK with. K and DEF doesn't matter. But, I fear the RB position will doom my season. I really wish the other slot was a flex and I only had to play one back on a given week. :lol:

Rose was indeed regarding a test which would seem to fall under becoming eligible.

 

Camby's issue involved an agent.

It was regarding eligibility, not the process of recruiting, which is where everyone says Cal is a cheater.

I'm not sure what the criteria are for first and second team AA's, since there are various lists - AP, NCAA, etc. Which do they go by or do they all count? And, I'm also not sure about the particulars of any teams past NCAA sanctions. I know UCLA has some, but I'm not sure how many nor what they were.

As is, I'm predicting...

1. North Carolina

2. UCLA

3. Kentucky

4. Duke

5. Kansas

By my figuring, UK should end up somewhere around 800 points. I got 810, but could be off a few points as I wasn't sure how the sanctions would end up tallying, and I'm not 100% sure on the AA's and top 10 picks. But, 810 should be pretty close.

That took a while, so I'm thinking I won't be figuring anyone else. :lol:

I think the end results might be a surprise to some. The last time they did something like this was prior to Cal's current run. Cal has netted the Cats a lot of points in his 3 seasons.

Here comes my homer rant in praise of the University of Dayton.

 

The points system is flawed. It places way too much on regular season and tournament titles. Weber State is seriously over-rewarded for dominating the near-irrelevant Big Sky conference. The University of Dayton was an independent until 1987. No conference titles to be earned there, but they did have six Sweet 16 appearances, two Elite Eights and a national runner-up in 1967. Weber State only needed to win the Big Sky regular season four times to cancel out Dayton's loss to UCLA in the '67 title game. In my opinion, a school like UD is under-rewarded for its performances pre-1987 while a school like Weber State is over-rewarded for winning a lower-tier conference.

 

There's no defense from me on the fact that Dayton has been nearly irrelevant since Jim O'Brien basically ruined the program in the early 1990s.

If you read the scoring explanation, they do have a stipulation that an independent gets the 5 points if they finished the AP Poll ahead of two major conference champions. Not sure if that would affect Dayton much or not.

That's what I have always felt. Coach Cal at UK is and will be the most scrutinized coaching stint in major college basketball history. You have a coach with a history of program infractions under his watch joining the one of the most prestigious programs in history, which has also been on probation almost every decade. Any misstep and the NCAA will be on it. As a result, I feel absolutely comfortable and delighted w/ last year's win.

It is interesting that all the suspicion toward Cal is directed at his recruiting and the two previous infractions are always brought up in that, yet the infractions weren't related to recruiting.

Rose's issue was regarding his entrance exam and eligibility.

Camby's was a tutor issue I believe.

I know it doesn't matter to anyone, but those are things that could have happened to any coach, IMO. And, the Rose issue has been thoroughly discussed, and IMO, unfair from the NCAA. They cleared the guy to play. At that point, what are you supposed to do?

It is obviously just based on comparing where you picked a guy vs. where he was ranked, assigning negative and positive point values for the difference and then summing them. It does not take into account how your league is set up, what you may have needed at that point, etc. The change in starting lineup this season will drastically affect this league, IMO.

Homosexuality is an affinity. I have an affinity for chocolate. I don't have an affinity for collard greens. I have an affinity for women. I don't have an affinity for hairy butts(it's a joke, lighten up). There are no genetic markers that indicate such, regardless of what some incorrectly claim. There are instances where folks have been gay then aren't. Others who aren't then are. It's an affinity.

 

If I let my affinty for women become an issue where I commit adultery, I sin. I have occasionally let my affinity for chocolate become an issue and I weigh a tad more than when I was in high school.

Interesting word choice...

Affinity is defined as "a natural attraction, liking, or feeling of kinship".

However you want to define it. An affinity for the same sex makes you homosexual.

Here is my biggest frustration with this issue (and many others).

 

Are we who call ourselves Christians reaching out and showing LOVE? Was there any LOVE displayed in the day Huckabee set aside to support CFA? Do we get too much enjoyment out of pointing fingers and looking down our noses while we clutch our Bibles and say "I am right and you are wrong"? That concerns me.

 

If we are who we say we are, then we should be most concerned with getting ourselves into Heaven, and secondly trying to take as many people with us as we can. If we adhere to Jesus' teachings, then the second greatest commandment is "Love your neighbor as yourself". I am not sure how to love anyone as much as I love myself. But if that is my mindset, it should grieve me to tears to know that any of my fellow man be treated the way some so-called Christians treat homosexuals.

 

I can say without any reservations that I am most thankful for the people in my life who prayed for me, tried to teach me the truth, taught me that I was living in sin and that I needed the blood of Christ to cleanse me of those sins. Although I resisted it at the time, I am forever thankful that they loved me enough to gently show me the error of my ways. I wasn't beaten over the head with the Bible, nobody pointed fingers at me and made me feel ashamed of myself. But they did show me love and genlty let me know that God also loved me and wanted me to be a part of His Kingdom. And they taught me that my sin was keeping me from being able to get there and they taught me what I needed to do to get forgiveness and have my sins washed away.

 

So I fully believe that there is nothing wrong with teaching the Gospel of Jesus, and helping those we teach to examine themselves and try to eliminate sin from their lives. Where we take a wrong turn all too often is in our approach. If we love our neighbor as we love ourselves, then I question whether we are fostering an environment towards the gay community in particular that would allow us to show them that love and afford us the opportunity to gently lead them to God. Perhaps instead of just telling them they are destined to Hell while we munch on our CFA sandwich, we could have spent some time with a gay friend and let them know that we feel their pain and that God loves them too just as much as he loves any of us. It must have been tough emotionally to deal with such a public condemnation.

 

I am not suggesting that we bend the scripture, we have to stand on truth. I am suggesting that if we take our mission seriously and set out to try and lead others to salvation, we need to do it with love and gentleness. This is true for everyone around us. This is a nasty sinful world and Satan is having a field day. Are we even trying to be the light to those around us? Or have we given up?

 

I'm sorry if I am rambling. I am praying for everyone and I try to please God. I fail daily and I ask you to pray for me too.

Excellent post. Sums up much of my feelings as well.

However, I think the issue of homosexuality presents a bigger challenge in that regard than many others for some of the reasons I've been trying to hash out. In general, addicts, alcoholics, adulterers and thieves aren't going to argue that what they're doing is OK. They may not like it if you talk to them about it, but by and large, they accept that its wrong and many will acknowledge that a change would be better for them.

This is a much tougher issue to confront in a way that will come off as caring and loving. We're not telling them that an act they've done is wrong, we're telling them that their core human desire for love and companionship is wrong, that they will never be able to experience that as others do. How do you lovingly tell someone that?

In my opinion, it is the act that is sinful. Having a weakness to a certain temptation is not a sin. Suppose for instance I have a weakness for pornography and I know that I am tempted by that particular thing. If I repent of that and try to avoid it, I am not living in sin, even though I may live the rest of my life with that weakness and every time I log on to my computer I may be tempted to view it. We all are tempted by something.

 

I know someone will throw out the well known verse about lust, and I would agree, it is a sin. Lusting is a verb, an action. If you lust after someone who is not your spouse then you are sinning according to the Bible teaching of Jesus. I know that I am attracted to women, and I can certainly appreciate a woman who is beautiful. For that reason my wife always gets her Victoria Secret catalog second handed because I am the one who checks the mail. However I do not lust after every woman I meet, I do not want to have sex with every woman I meet. If I took that VS magazine off somewhere and fantasized about those women or looked upon them with desire, then IMO that would be a sin that I would need to repent of. But simply being heterosexual, and attracted to women, doesn't make me sinful.

 

I don't think it is a stretch to apply that thinking to other temptations, that if acted upon would be sinful, homosexuality included.

 

Also I have to say, when I was a kid, Moses really threw me off with that "do not covet your neighbors a$$" thing. My Sunday school buddies and I had a real laugher out of that one. LOL

I agree. My question was simply asking what makes a person homosexual, or you could insert something else into the question. What makes a person an aloholic, drug addict, or an adulterer? Liar, thief, or glutton?

To me a person who is attracted to the same sex is a homosexual. I don't see that as the case in the other examples. A person isn't a liar or thief because they're tempted to lie or steal, nor are they an alcoholic or adulterer because they are tempted to drink or cheat. Committing the act itself is what would cause them to be labeled.

To some degree, the one thing I find that differentiates Catholics from some other Christian denominations is the acceptance of some theology for which there is little or no "proof". That is faith. Much as all faiths believe in God, without proof. Many of you will point to the Bible as proof. However, in reality it is of no more value than Harry Potter without faith. What is written is still only allegorical without faith in the existence of a God we've never seen.

True, the Bible without faith is of no value. However, faith in Harry Potter is equally as useless.

I think in both instances, you have an individual struggling with a specific sin. The internal struggle will always be there (sin nature), regardless of the outward action. I don't see the difference that you do.

 

"The good that I want to do, I don't do. The evil that I don't want to do, this is what I find myself doing." That's probably not a precise quotation of Romans 7, but it's pretty close. The general idea is that there will always be a pull toward sin for humans because we're all infected with an inclination toward doing what is wrong.

That's fine. We don't have to agree.

Exactly. And that is why I know that homosexuality is not a "Born" condition. It is very clear that the Bible condemns homosexuality (no on really disputes that fact they more dispute whether or not the Bible is true) and since God would not create sin because he is God, we can deduce that God did not create said person homosexual.

 

Do you understand my take? Not agree, but understand?

I understand your take. I do not agree, at least in part. When sin entered the world, it tainted God's creation. A person being born homosexual could be one of the results of that.

I won't argue that God created sin, but I'll ask - did God create you? me? Where we born with a sinful nature?

But do people claim to be BORN a liar or BORN a thief? Do thieves and liars attempt to have their sins accepted and affirmed by society?

Read Post #223.

I totally understand your argument. However, how would you consider a former homosexual that has since entered into a hetero relationship. Still a homosexual?

I thought about that. But, just to be clear, I'm not attempting to defend or justify anything. I'm just trying to explain why I think this particular issue seems a little different when trying to address than some others. In the end, things are the way they are and there's nothing we can do about it. We have to play the hand we're dealt. Some babies are born addicted to drugs. Would that make it acceptable for them to use drugs since they were born that way?

As to your question, I suppose it boils down to one question - what makes a person homosexual? An attraction to the opposite sex? Or, acting upon an attraction to the opposite sex?