HuskerFanChuck

All I know is, when information like this comes out, I'm VERY glad that Spanier moved on. If someone is that lax on ethics in what SHOULD have been a clear cut situation, who knows what could have happened. Nebula was exactly right about the type of stand-up person that shed the light on this information.

Not so sure that they couldn't care less, but why buy the extra equipment if you're not going to have a team playing there regularly. They did plan it for ice so they could easily hold one-off events, like ice skating shows. But planning for a hockey team to play there takes more equipment. I would think they'd be happy to have a team, just not planning for it at this point, because nothing has pointed in that direction. In other words, it has the built-in capability for ice, but not all of the equipment you would need to house a hockey team, which could be purchased later. (And if this were to ever happen, that might be part of the funding given for the team is enough to purchase the necessary equipment (at least initially)... speculation on top of speculation, obviously, but that wouldn't surprise me that funding of that sort would be part of the deal/arrangement/funding to get a team going.)

Agreed. Stonybrook is an amazing story, though I think Kent State is kind of getting short shrift in this go round. Amazing stories for both of them. Should be fun to watch, and fun stories to follow!

Been playing for a little while now. Took me about a week to a week and a half after release to get started. I signed up for the annual pass for WoW, so I got it as part of that. Fun game, decided to do a monk on my first go-round. Haven't quite gotten through Act I yet. (Yes, been playing that long, and haven't gotten through yet. I have only had a couple or three sessions so far to play. I won't play it around the kids, so I have to wait for a time when they're not around. Can be really difficult to find the time. ) Had a lot of fun with it so far. Interesting story line. I want to go back up and pick up the previous ones to play through at some point. The monk is a nice balanced character, and gives you a nice feel for the first time you're playing through it. My friend is working on the top difficulty now with a demon hunter, and he says the demon hunter makes things a lot tougher with the type of character it is. Can't wait to be able to find time to play it again, but I've also been playing around a bit with the Mists beta too, as well as trying to finish leveling another WoW character, so the play time I do get is kind of split right now. Fun game to play, though.

The regular season IS diminshed right now, though. Because for essentially 95% of the teams, November has become meaningless. Whether or not they win those games doesn't matter. Heck, as it turned out, Okla St. and Stanford both ended up on the outside looking in after only 1 loss. And they ended up on the outside looking in to who? A team that had already lost to the other team in the national title game. And yet, THEY got a second bite of the apple. In other words, the regular season meant SQUAT in determining that. Subjective measure of a committee? You mean like the subjective nature of AP, UPI, ESPN/Coaches, USAToday/Coaches, Harris, to name a few over the years? I don't trust ANY of those polls any further than I trust any of them to vote against their interests in those polls. Which means I don't trust them at all to be 'fair and impartial'. I'll take a committee over polls any day of the week. Truth be told, I like the computer polls better than any human poll out there. The guys doing those seem to be more impartial than most. But even Sagarin has admitted that computer polls are better at judging strength the more information you have to input into them, so even those probably don't give a very accurate reading until deep into the season. Let it be played on the field, as best as it can be. And the best that I can figure that it can be is a playoff. Again, give me 16, 11 conf champs, 5 at large. But that won't happen, and the best we're likely to get to that out of the deal is to let a committee decide who should be in. So be it. I'll take that any day over the system we've had. IMO, worst system by far in terms of choosing a champion in athletics. And zoogs, if I came off heavy handed in that, I didn't mean to. Just brings out the fiestiness in me.

Not seeing a +1 being truly different than what we have now, zoogs. Again, 4 is better than 2, which is better than nothing. The regular season is already diminished with the fact that many teams are already done by late October/early November. Most November games mean squat in the general scheme of things. My assertion is 16 is the best simply for inclusion of conf. champs. I know that won't happen, and neither will 8. That's why I think 4, with a committee, is the likely outcome, and one that will likely get the most agreement. I'm all for that, and I think 8 will happen sooner than later. 16 likely won't happen soon, if ever, but I can at least live with 8, with likely some type of x number of conference champs, and x at-large. Either that, or all selected by committee. Best scenarios we're likely to see, I think, and one that I'm happy to see. I've been waiting for a playoff for a long time. I didn't watch the champ game this last year. Wasn't going to watch what I felt wasn't a proper pairing to begin with. Just happy to see us moving in a direction that will begin to actually decide a true champion in the sport.

Interesting. Good to see they invited UNO. I know when the move to DI news came last year that Doc had said at the time he had no plans on scheduling UNO. Good to see Miles at least willing to give them a tournie opportunity.

I think it was mentioned earlier, Foppa, but the place would have the capacity to hold ice, but that if they were actually going to hold regularly scheduled events, such as hockey throughout a yearly season, that certain equipment would still need to be purchased. I've had this conversation on another board as well, so I'm not sure whether that was in this thread or not, but I believe the person had talked to Dan Marvin, basically the city's overseer for the project, and I believe permanent dehumidifiers for the place would need to be bought. In other words, the capability has been built in to the facility, but a few extra pieces of equipment would need to likely be purchased for the permanency a hockey team would require. I've been searching for a bit, and can't find the thread, either here or on the other site I frequent that would talk about this, where the individual mentioned this. Anyhow... take that for what it's worth.

O-H : I didn't in this analysis. I believe in my analysis I left out anything N. Carolina and below on the East Coast, and left out all West Coast teams, including the Washington and Oregon schools. (I believe I saw Oregon, Oregon St., one the Washington schools, and Gonzaga in the Super Regional listings during that time) I pretty much limited my Northern schools analysis to those that would have an obvious snow/wintery disadvantage during the November - March time of the year. That being said, I didn't do an individual analysis on a lot of schools, but did a more blanket 'No Pacific coast schools, No Pac-12 schools, No SEC schools, No Nevada schools, no N. Carolina and below from ACC, Big East, East Coast schools' type of analysis. So a particular school that may not be fair to. (We were in Louisville in November in '06, for example, and their weather for that time of year certainly wasn't what I would have considered 'warm weather', but I was also told that was an aberration for that time of year. *shrug*) So I may have missed a few, but I pulled the ones that I thought were ones that there would certainly be no argument about them being Northern schools. Hope that clears it up, though I have a feeling I didn't express it very clearly.

So... to answer my own question about Northern teams in the Super Regionals, I used stats from d1baseball.com all the way back to '03. Before I list the results, one caveat: I did not include schools that could likely be argued as regards to their location whether the climate would classify them as 'Northern'. Those could include schools like UNC, NC St., Louisville, Coastal Carolina, Eastern Carolina, TCU, and Oral Roberts. A couple I am not entirely sure of the location (E. and C. Carolina). Other than those potentials, the rest would undoubtedly get the classification of 'Northern' schools for purposes here, I believe. '11 - 1 Northern school - UConn '10 - 0 Northern schools '09 - 0 Northern schools '08 - 1 Northern school - Wichita State '07 - 2 Northern schools - Michigan, Wichita State '06 - 1 Northern school - Mizzou '05 - 1 Northern school - Nebraska '04 - 0 Northern schools '03 - 2 Northern schools - Ohio State, SW Missouri These are just Northern schools that made it to the Super Regionals. When we get to the CWS, I'll go through and see what I can locate there. Interesting stuff. Shows that in most years, at least one Northern school makes it to the Super Regionals. Nice anomaly this year of 3 schools, though when you look at the Regional rankings of the 3, Stony Brook was 4, and St Johns and Kent State were both 3s. So some great achievements for those schools to even make it this far.

Correct me if I'm wrong... but am I seeing three Northern(ish) teams out of sixteen? St. Johns, Stonybrook, and Kent State? Anybody know how that stacks up against previous years? Edit: Should have said so, but obviously in the Super-Regionals.

Finally got a chance to come back to this. While I don't totally discount the professor's opinions, as canttakeit stated already, it was MUCH more of a 'sky is falling' approach, rather than what seemed like a reasoned analysis of the situation. I also haven't had a chance to look at the bill in its entirety, but I also doubt that the pieces of the legislation are quite as simplistic in their end result and analysis as the professor is trying to make them. I'll try to give an analysis after I have a chance to look.

I like them. Get really tired of directional names used in everything sports related, so was glad to see them try something different.

And yet, you just proved Saunders point, by needing that extra information. Who calculates SoS? What factors do they put in that are meaningful? What is the statistical formula used to come up with it? Even the best computer computation of SoS is only as good as the formula the programmer creates. And ultimately, when you have SoS, all of sudden you have bias enter into the system. How do you weigh an undefeated team with a low SoS against a 1 or 2 loss team with a higher SoS? At what point difference in the SoS measurements does that undefeated equal 1 or even 2 losses? Again, this becomes the problem with using ANY type of ranking system to determine the 'best 4'. As I stated earlier, 16 is best, but won't happen anytime soon, maybe never. 8 will likely happen at some point, but not now. So we need to figure out the best system to use now. We're unlikely to get either an all champions method or a 'best 4' method. I think there is enough resistance on both sides to each, that a hybrid is likely. I think Delaney, in the end, will get enough agreement for some type of hybrid. Be that 3 champs and 1 at-large, or 2 champs and 2 at-large. I'd be all for putting a restriction of top 6 or top 8 to the conference champs. I think that makes a ton of sense in a 4-team playoff. I just don't understand the resistance to such a hybrid, considering the inherent problems especially in a 'best 4' system.

That's okay. I just wanted to make sure that the calculation was what it looked like, and you verified that. Thanks!

ZRod - I've had personal experience with Dave. I stayed late one day in a temp position to work on something he was pretty upset about. This was after he had left the Treasurer's office to become Lieutenant Governor. Even though he was upset, he was never demeaning or nasty to me. He thanked me quite a bit after the incident. I've had several opportunities to interact with him since, and he's never been that way with me or the others I've been around. My wife was ina a position for about 3 years in state government where it would have been easy to be demeaning to her. She had to work with Dave's office and Dave on several occasions, and was always treated respectfully and courteously by his office. Regardless of what happened with his successor in the Treasurer's office (you want to talk about nasty, I would have NEVER supported that woman for office, and didn't when she ran for the office soon after that - as I recall I didn't vote for anyone for treasurer that go around). While those are simply two people's experiences, I've talked to a lot more that support that opinion of Dave. That's not to say that I haven't also heard rumblings from some of what Dave can be like when you're on the opposite side of an issue from him, but for the most part, I've never seen those disagreements as personal, usually. Not to say that there can't be... certainly the whole Heineman/Bruning feud is pretty well known. But I've seen a lot worse than him in my associations in state government, including many 'lifers' that are some of the meanest nastiest people I've ever dealt with. Certainly a great deal nastier than Dave. Sorry to hijack, but i thought it would at least be appropriate to respond, considering he had been brought up in the context of this thread.

You do realize that those types of descriptions of individuals are usually put in by the author and the publication to enhance the authority of the individual? 'Nationally recognized' without more should never be an automatic to authority on the topic. I had the same skepticism that gbgr had. This reads straight out of the typical horror stories that are used to frighten citizens into raising taxes, or at least not cutting them. I don't have time right now to dig more, but I'd certainly want more than one guy's opinion on the subject, and take a look at the law myself, before automatically assuming his conclusions are correct. I do appreciate your comments regarding your school district, huKSer. It helps to give at least a little local perspective on it.

I only have one question about the Director's Cup. Does it give any consideration to # of sports a school has? Because the B1G schools vary pretty broadly in the # of athletic programs the different departments support. Isn't Ohio State at some astronomical # of athletic programs? Over 30, I think? Tough to make that comparison when you have more sports to rack up points. That's the only particular point I would make about putting too much stock in the Director's Cup.

I thought I also recall the potential for a "BTN 2" or something similar. Seems like this would go right in line with that. I realize they have the extra channels now for football games in the Fall, but this would seem to start to build the concept for an actual second network. Could be wrong, but I thought I had heard at least mention of a second conference network.

I think 8 will happen and probably sooner rather than later Agreed, fro. I think once the $$ and the appeal of the four-team playoff becomes obvious to the power-that-be, that the next go-around even may be an 8-team playoff. And I really think that you'll probably see the four-four split. I would have said six-two originally, but I'll be surprised if the ACC or the Big East have the clout regardiing football at that time to make much of a push.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You make a 16-team playoff model, with all conference champs, and 5 best non-champs. Solves the problems, and realistically, you're not leaving anyone out that should even have a SNIFF of the title. And yes, I know... not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. Next best: Move it to eight, put the four 'power' conference champs in, and the four next best. And yes, that means B1G, SEC, Pac 12, and the Big XII. Again, not happening this time around. And so, at that point, the hybrid is, by default, the next best model that I think we can realistically hope for. Seal spots for the best couple or three champs, and leave a spot or two for the 'next best'. As Saunders said, you're leaving the system open for corruption, but the best we can do. I think the hybrid is what will win out eventually, because I think the parties will realize that no one is going to give fully on that issue. We'll see, though. Certainly Slive and the SEC seem to have had the most victories in the small battles lately.

Actually, KC, I wouldn't have a problem with leaving '01 Huskers out of the discussion. We were in because of the system in place. But I know many people that were Huskers fans that didn't feel we should have gotten in because we didn't win the conference championship. I don't have any problem saying that. And I've long advocated for Boise to be included in years where they were undefeated. I would have had NO issue including them over Alabama. You want to keep value in the regular season? That gives people the value they want to keep. Require them to win the conference.

I agree with Dirk. Point blank, Alabama shouldn't have been in that spot last year. They lost, and there were other one loss teams that actually won their conference. Was not a fan of that outcome, and refused to watch the 'championship' game because of it. I think either a 3-1 compromise, or even a 2-2 compromise might happen. Though I'd rather see a 3-1 compromise at least. And KC, it doesn't mean that, unless the MAC champ can earn a rating high enough to get there. The likelihood is the MAC champ still isn't going to be in a position to take advantage of a 'champions' only system. Saban knows the numbers he threw were skewed, and that last year, three of the top four were league champions. The likelihood that the numbers like what Saban stated ever occurring is next to nothing. Even in most of their undefeated years, TCU, Boise St., and Utah were still in the top 10 at the end of the year.

Mine goes like this: Play-by-play guys 1a) Lyell Bremser - While I don't recall too much, I do recall enjoying his broadcasts. 1b) Greg Sharpe - I love Sharpe style and the way he calls a game. Makes it easy to follow, and shows a great enthusiasm. 2) Kent Pavelka - Loved listening to Kent, and loved the Touchdown, touchdown, touchdown! 3) Jim Rose - While he could make the game incredibly difficult to follow, his excitement sealed it for me to place him ahead of Warren 4) Warren Swain - Warren was servicable, but it was noticeable they were going for a different call from Kent, and just went too far in the non-excitement, cool, calm direction. Just didn't really grab me. Color guys - 1) Gary Saddlemeyer - Best color guy that I can recall. He just seemed to be able to add little details at any time, and he and Kent just fit together really well. 2) Adrian Fiala - I really liked Adrian. Thought he added a lot more to the broadcast, and gave you a lot more insight into the mind of the player, than Matt is able to do. 3) Matt Davison - Matt's grown on me a bit over time, but I think he just still sounds out of place in offering color commentary. Too many comments that don't seem to give analysis, and offer way too much fluff. I tend to think his notoriety and youth got him the job over Adrian, though it's obvious others here would disagree. On a side note, I think we have the best set of broadcasters for all sports that I can remember in quite a while. With Sharpe, Baylor, Pavelka, and Coatney, I think we've got the five broadcast sports covered well, with good or great announcers for each.

Prayers sent for him, you, and his family. Our thoughts and prayers are with you through this. God bless you all.