Re: Needing tips
 

I don't think that the US group is too terrible. I mean, New Zealand made the tournament and they're ranked 78th in the world. I think they play countries like Tahiti and Tonga and Samoa. And North Korea is ranked 105th in the world, and they got in with the AFC behind Australia, Japan and South Korea. I'm still baffled that they got in over Iran* and some of the other Middle Eastern countries.

I think they're ranked high because they beat Spain in the Confederations Cup tourney and then kept close to Brazil 3-2 in the final.

*Ah, I see now.

Re: Needing tips
 

Well, the arm injury is a broken arm, which is never a good thing. It was bad enough to require surgery. He will still play, but given his style of play, it could severely hamper him. This injury is the one I am most disappointed about. Ivory Coast really good have put together a good run, and I love watching Drogba play. We'll see how it goes.

College Football (uh, College American Football)
 

I don't even really follow college stuff, but lots of big news today:

--USC out of bowls for 2 years, stripped of past wins and losing scholarships (makes me feel a bit prescient always mistaking USC for SMU).

--Colorado now part of the Pac-10.

--Nebraska rumored to be heading to the Big 10.

What caused the apparent demise of the Big 12??

Re: Needing tips
 

No, not the group. The region. The US gets a high ranking going into the World Cup because it has a strong record in the qualifiers, but it gets that record in CONCACAF, which is a very weak region.

IIRC, the US was ranked 10th by FIFA going into the last world cup.

Re: Needing tips
 

That's why I said "maybe second" -- the Asia group is probably worse.

That game with Brazil was heartbreaking. The US had such a tremendous first half. Then Brazil came back and proved why they are, well, Brazil.

Re: College Football (uh, College American Football)
 

The Big 1011 has a better television contract by far, so are able to pick off teams in the Big XII. And now there's blood in the water, so the Pac-1011 smells blood as well, and is picking off the attractive television markets (hence Colorado/Denver). (Well, that, and Colorado had to jump first because it was it or Baylor for the Pac-10 (plus Texas, A&M, Tech, OU, and Ok St.) and it wanted to make sure it had a dance partner.)

The interesting thing is whether ND will get screwed when the music stops and there are no chairs left at the big kids' table.

Re: College Football (uh, College American Football)
 

It will be the Pac-16 shortly, with Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Texas A&M joining the Pac.

Re: College Football (uh, College American Football)
 

TV money. Nebraska jumped at the big 10 offer (and a ~3x of conference tv money) and the pac 10 announced Colorado first b/c they *really* don't want Baylor, but do want Texas, A&M, Tech, OK and OSU, and wanted to avoid a repeat of Baylor leveraging itself into the Big 12.

Re: College Football (uh, College American Football)
 

The domers think that whatever table their at is the big kids' table.

Re: Needing tips
 

Are you talking odds or world rankings? Because I understand the rankings and their flaws.

On the other hand, looking again at the odds Less posted, I don't see any teams with longer odds than the US (50-1) that seemingly should be a better bet, with the possible exception of Mexico at 66-1. There just aren't too many teams that seem capable of winning the WC.

Re: College Football (uh, College American Football)
 

The arrogance works only so long. Assuming we end up with a Pac-16, a Big-12, SEC, and ACC (with absorption of some other schools, they may set up an 8-team playoff with ND getting in only if they deserve it.

Re: College Football (uh, College American Football)
 

Probably, which really means the Pac-8 and the SWC/Big-8 in a joint TV contract. They are talking about not even having a championship game. I imagine that there will be only nominal cross-division scheduling. How can you do more than two games each year anyway with 16 teams? So Texas plays USC once every 4th year?

Re: College Football (uh, College American Football)
 

If there isn't a playoff system implemented, they'll have a championship game. Maybe not right away, but they will.

And the once every 4th year seems right--play every team in your division and 2 teams in the other, leaving 3 nonconf games. Basketball would be the interesting one, as the current schedule would be radically changed--do they try to squeeze in 22 conference games (h-h w/in division + 8 agst the other) or what?

Re: Needing tips
 

I don't get this joke. Oh wait, it's like you're pretending to really care about soccer or futbol or some euro shit. That is funny!

Re: College Football (uh, College American Football)
 

My sense of the ordering of thinking on all of this, in every conference is:

1) Money/TV contract
2) Politics (will some government force us to take Baylor) and chances that it could reduce #1, above
3) Geographic considerations (are we all in close enough time zones to maximize #1, above)
4-98) a bunch of other stuff
99) Sensible conference scheduling in basketball.

As for games, I would guess 18 (4 against other, rotating), although I'm sure Arizona won't be happy playing UCLA, Stanford, and Cal only once every 4 years at home and instead spending lots of time in Norman and Stillwater.