McCall

7 hours ago, Digby said:

 

I think this is it, and you're right that it's NOT $700m in today money.

 

Very back-of-envelope calculations here, but $44 million dropped into an account right now, and given 10 years to accrue interest at the fed's current mid-term rate, gets you to the $68 million in annual salary that's deferred.

 

I keep seeing that the luxury tax hit for this deal stems from a $46 million AAV, and not knowing anything about the CBA rules otherwise, this is the only explanation for that number that I can think of.

I don't know how it works, but I kept reading that there's a formula to determine a player's AAV for Luxury Tax purposes when there's deferred money. Not sure what the formula is or how they come to the final number.

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

When the Dodgers owner opens up a restaurant in the Ozarks, or a car wash in New Mexico, we’ll talk about money laundering. 

Quite a few rich people actually open up restaurants in Branson.

8 hours ago, ruttep said:

 

I mention the money laundering part mostly because the most infamous deferred contract ever involved copious money laundering. Excuse me if it's stupid to find OVER 97 PERCENT of the contract deferred to be extremely fishy. 

 

That aside, I don't think the Dodgers should be allowed to defer that amount of money to have more available payroll to sign more players. You want to sign Ohtani to that ridiculous contract, you should have to deal with the consequences of spending that much on one player -- if that means you can't afford other expensive free agent, so be it.

How IS it money laundering, though?

9 hours ago, WestCoastBias said:

 

Like I said it was a bad year for the Heisman, no one fully grabbed the national attention like a lot of Heismans do. If Washington played on the east coast though then Penix and this Washington might of been the media darlings. Certainly no one will admit the Pac-12 was the deepest conference this year either. 

Yeah, Daniels did. Just because y'all ignored it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Penix was the favorite early on, but Daniels took over around mid-season and it wasn't even a question the rest of the way. 

57 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

 

I head plenty about Williams, then Penix, then Nix. Daniels captaining a team that had no expectation to win their division let alone their conference surely had something to do with the lack of hype.

So just the west coast guys. Got it.

On a national scale, however, it was pretty clear that Daniels was the best player and clear favorite.

The three OSUs, ranked by popularity/recognizability, IMO:

1. Ohio State

2. Oklahoma State

3. Oregon State

6 hours ago, Burmy said:

I believe this is the biggest Heisman upset since Charles Woodson winning it over Peyton Manning in '97...

Who did he upset? He's been  the odds-on favorite for several weeks. How can it be an upset when the favorite wins?

2 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

The Heisman trophy has reached its nadir. I never heard this guy's name all season, and I watched a good amount of football

Clearly you didn't or you would've heard of him. Plus, whether or not you heard of a guy is not exactly the barometer for determining the best player in the country.

2 minutes ago, LMU said:

Ohtani is starting to come across as the person who puts “I hate drama” on their dating profile then proceeds to end up being the most dramatic person on the planet. And, really, he’s coming across at this point as a ringless baseball Kahwi.

Not at all. It's the reporters and "insiders" who are more concerned with clicks and being first that are creating all the drama. From Buster Olney and another guy saying he's doing "a disservice" to baseball for being secretive about his free agency (which really means they're just whining cuz they don't have a story) to false claims of him signing with Toronto and then believing he was on a plane there when he wasn't. This is all on them. He's done nothing wrong or deceptive.

12 minutes ago, walkerws said:

If a Notre Dame team (12-0) is the best team, meaning all the champs have losses, then it's restrictive. It seems like a forcing  function to make the champions get seeds 1-4. 

Yes. That's the point. Only conference champions get a bye. Notre Dame doesn't have the possibility of losing in their conference championship game, like Georgia did this year, which knocked them out of the playoff. This takes away that advantage. While simultaneously only rewarding conference champions. So if this were next year, Georgia, who would still be in, doesn't get rewarded for NOT winning the championship.

4 minutes ago, walkerws said:

That makes sense but is so restrictive at the same time. It's like the CFP (not the NCAA) wants this craziness to continue

How's it restrictive?

1 hour ago, DCarp1231 said:

If that’s the case, the PAC name should die. Force them to have an unnecessarily long name.

 

Something like…

 

Pacific Northwest Coastal Mountain Valley Athletic Conference

 

PNWCMVAC  for short.

It depends. At the moment, it appears Oregon State and Washington State could maintain control of the Pac-# name and history.

1 hour ago, MJD7 said:

According to the NCAA website, you actually did Iowa a disservice, as from what I can tell they are ranked 5th. However, Louisville is 16th. Maybe these results are after the conference championship games, I’m not sure.

 

By that same measurement though, FSU’s defense is ranked 14th, ahead of Alabama (18th), Texas (23rd), and way ahead of Washington (90th).
 

Could that same argument not be used as justification for FSU’s strong defense to be put in, as well?

 

And even this is besides the main point that, if you are undefeated, I don’t see how you aren’t given even a chance to compete for the championship.

Yeah that was Passing yards per game. I corrected it in the original post.

And this was in reference to your quip about FSU having more yards in their conference championship game than Michigan. My point was Michigan was playing a better defensive team.

3 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

The most logical way to do this is to poach 4-6 Mountain West teams. Swinging for the fences would be just merging with the MW outright. They could even lure some FCS regional teams into the mix. Say South Dakota State, North Dakota State, Montana, and/or Montana State.

Yeah, they'd probably just take some of the top Mountain West schools if they could. But it's not gonna help them maintain Power 5 status. That ship has sailed.

7 minutes ago, MJD7 said:

FSU's offense had more yards in their conference championship game, with their 3rd-string quarterback, than Michigan did in theirs with their starter. Louisville is also ranked higher than Iowa.

Iowa is ranked 5th in total defense in FBS. Louisville is 16th.

2 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

I'm just waiting to see how many players the Buckeyes still have for the game. 

Don't make excuses.

41 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Yeah, I saw where you said "maybe" they should.  But I didn't see where you got indignant about Liberty's exclusion, and went on an extended discussion about why it's a travesty that teams with a worse record got in over them.  It's almost as if... I dunno... deep down you know that records don't tell the whole story.

 

But, honestly, I think we're all getting off the main point here.  This year's playoff is not about having the most deserving team get crowned. It's about making sure, at all costs, that team isn't Michigan. 

 

 

 

 

Cheaters.

Yes. Which will help soften the blow from Ohio State losing to Mizzou in the Cotton Bowl.

14 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

Would there actually be a PAC-2-PAC conference default championship game until WSU and OSU can find a permanent conference?

Maybe? 

It won't factor into the College Football Playoff, as they're amending the eligibility requirements to needing a minimum of 8 members to eligible for an automatic bid. But they are given a 2-year grace period to add enough members to reach the NCAA-required 6 for conferences or find a new conference.

4 minutes ago, sayahh said:

 

Just elaborated why I thought it was relevant. Mod removed it so I'll drop it.  Was looking for a dos and don'ts and didn't find it but I will respect the mods.

Just to help you out so you don't have any issues in the future.

2 hours ago, sayahh said:

MOD EDIT: Not necessary.

 

Hmm. Now I'm curious what was said.

Anywhoo, I'd say keep all 4 power conferences. I think some schools like the aforementioned Vanderbilt, maybe schools like BYU and others that may not want to put the required money into the trust that they're proposing, would probably stay in FBS, potentially whittling the power conferences down to more manageable numbers, like around 12 or so per conference (with some potential realignment). That's 48 teams. Hell even split them back into divisions.

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

 

Probably.  The NCAA totally stole my idea for the expanded playoff.

The Majestic XII...

It's clear as day. I think you totally have a case.

MOD EDIT: Removed quoted political content.

35 minutes ago, See Red said:

 

 

This is what I've been saying! Wait... did the NCAA just steal my idea?

JK

Move the power conferences up to their own level with more autonomy. Let the FBS (Group of 5/6 plus schools from FCS) be the "minor league" level, and so on down the divisional ladder.

P4 schools that don't feel like they'd be able to compete, NIL-wise, could remain in FBS (Maybe Vanderbilt, for example?) if they wanted.

16 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

 

And the Rock's Instagram indicates that the XFL is returning in 2024, meaning that the league will not be called UFL:

 

 

Which also means that everything he's involved with will still be league sponsors.  

That, or they're just waiting til everything about the new league is fleshed out and ready to be announced and is just using the XFL for now.

9 hours ago, PERRIN said:

Unless the 12-team playoff format guarantees slots to conference champions, and then sorts out the remaining seeds based on legitimate statistical tiebreakers like any sane league would, I'm not optimistic that the new format is going to be any less biased and miserable as the current, though the likelihood of an obviously competitive and deserving team being fleeced would be lowered. After the top six or seven teams, there's a point where any team with 2 losses has a legitimate case for a spot, and some teams will inevitably get left out, but it would be far less egregious than what happened to FSU.

 

I'd love to see a playoff formatted as follows:

Seeds 1-4 go to Power Four conference champions, regardless of record.

Seeds 5-8 go to the next four best at-large teams, by record.

9-12 is simply chaos. There isn't really a good way to determine for sure which teams are more deserving of others if they don't have conference accolades or as impressive records compared to the above teams. So long as no 3-loss teams sneak in, unless there simply aren't enough 2-loss teams, I'll be happy.

 

This is by no means an ideal solution, but it'd be something. Use computers to decide the final seeds for all I care.

The 12-team format was initially the top 6 ranked conference champions plus the 6 highest ranked non-champions. The top 4 ranked conference champions get an automatic bye to the semifinals. However, with the dissolution of the Pac-12, for the most part, they're amending it to be the top 5 ranked conference champions and 7 highest ranked non-champions. They are also adding that a conference must have at least 8 members for their conference champion to have an automatic bid.