5wide

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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?

Read Post #223.

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?