sounds like the Ducks should replace that tree line silhouette graphic on their basketball court with a bunch of pot plants AMIRITE

Which turned out to both be incorrect (was based on nothing and the whole team was tested and barely anyone failed) and the characterizations of these kids as dealers with amounts so laughably small just beggers belief. They're looking at some misdemeanor charges at worst.

oh that's good about the testing.

but i read the dealing part of it was pretty big and was subject to months of undercover work scoping out this ring that involved multiple players and like 10 other kids dealing in large amounts. i think i need to do a google search, because i'm pretty sure what i saw was a photocopy of the actual charges and statements made by the cops.

i don't doubt the guy exaggerated about everyone failing a drug test though.

Well I didn't read the charging document but one of the partners in our office did and he said that at least for the football players the amounts were a joke and the fact that they were wasting resources on the months of undercover work is also a joke.

oh ok, that sounds he read more than i did. i mean i haven't heard much since then, other than a couple players were suspended i think, so it doesn't sound like it's a huge deal anyways. i mainly just thought it was funny that a player said that about his team, exaggeration or not, because of course tons of them smoke. adults seem so shocked.

What do you all think of this playoff mumbo jumbo? I'm a big fan of four-eight teams with home games for the first round or two and a neutral championship site.

Neutral championship site fine. Home games for the first round fine. Don't really want eight teams. I think 4 is plenty (I don't think we really need a playoff but I don't object to four teams).

i'm okay with 8 just because at the very least it will make for a slate of highly entertaining games, but dislike it because of possible injuries (see 2010 alabama vs texas...), and an elite final four of college football sounds like an awesome premise.

Big Ten gives up home field advantage; corrupt bowl system rejoices.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--big ... szGng5nYcB

How many years would the Big 10 reasonably have home field advantage. Also how would the bid system for all cities hosting the championship game be a fair process?

I don't know how many years the Big Ten would reasonably have home field advantage, but it would probably be more than never, which is what the Big Ten will get with the bowl system while other conferences get effective home field advantage.

And besides that it's not just about the Big Ten, it's about the fact that home field games make way more sense than bowl games for any conference. Right now the bowls simply swindle teams out of money; they get the profits and the teams playing in the game usually lose money. It's simply a stupid system. Right now a fan base of a championship team is going to have to travel three times within the span of a month; if a Big Ten team does happen to make the championship (definitely possible with Meyer at tOSU and the way that Michigan has been recruiting for the 2012 and 2013 classes so far) their side of the stadium will be empty since the fan base will be bankrupt by that point.

But the conference gets a big fat payout in the top case. As for the effective home field advantage it isn't a real thing. If you saw stuff in a neutral site city for the title game in the midwest there would be even fewer SEC fans (given the fan base is poorer). The Big 10 has the richest fanbase.

The conference gets a payout, but it's still not as large as it would be with home games. With bowl games you're splitting the money with the bowl site. This is quite obvious when you compare combined bowl money vs. combined NCAA tournament money.

As for SEC fans traveling, that's a terrible excuse and you know it. We're the ones with the declining population, the layoffs in the auto industry, blah blah blah. A set of neutral sites equally distributed across the country is obviously more equitable than bowl sites that are largely concentrated in five states.

Except that no one wants to play a title game where weather can have a major impact (although the NFL is about to try it in the Meadowlands for what I suspect will be the last time as a reward to the state for prostituting itself to build it). Pretty consistent throughout the sport. I'm assuming of course that you would give all revenue from playoff games to the conference whether neutral site or home. With that assumption yes the schools will get more money. They'll also have to take over all the promotional expense and local sponsorship (and have to figure out how to get alcohol sales involved in concessions). There would be a not insignificant administrative burden taken on. Schools would probably still get more money overall but it would depend. Big 10 sets a lot in store by the history of the Rose Bowl. Too much departure from tradition takes College further and further down the path of just being the inferior pro-league. The major bowls have very valuable brands. That's something you can't reproduce.

The Big 10 btw obviously has better off alumni and you know it.

Sure the alumni are better off but a significant portion of the fan base is not alumni. Michigan and Ohio State wouldn't fill their 100k stadiums if the only fans were alumni.

As for weather at a neutral site that's an easy problem to fix. Just have the game at Lucas Oil or Ford Field (Lucas Oil is probably the best). I believe Indianapolis just proved with this year's Super Bowl that it can be a fine host site; the city is basically built for hosting major sporting events.

As for a non-neutral site I don't have a problem with weather being a factor. The NFL does it and with great success. I think championship games should always be at a neutral site, go ahead and put it in Pasadena or New Orleans or wherever, but I don't see a major issue with the #1 team getting a little weather advantage over the #4 team.