A friend asked me about the american football in 2006 …

@frimmel:

@Jermofoot:

With all the talk about BCS, I wonder why there is need for one.

Also, the game last night was great.  8-)

There wasn’t a need for it. In Div 1 college football the champ has always been ‘mythical.’ The result of a vote. No. 1 rarely played No. 2 in the Rose Bowl or Orange Bowl although No. 1 might be playing in the Rose Bowl and No. 2 in the Orange Bowl.

I don’t have much preference either way, but I find it a ridiculous topic to spend so much time on.  People will complain about the system no matter what.  Look at the NFL this year and complaints about a team with a better record not making it to the playoffs compared to another team with a crappy record in a really weak division.

@ABWorsham:

I know, they knocked my 13-3 Cowboys out of the playoffs!  :oops:
And thats all I will speak of the Dallas Cowboys, I’m still in shock about this year.

Coming from another long time (casual) Cowboy fan, I’m not in shock that Romo choked once again when it counted.  And yes, I put the majority of the blame on him.  Had the offense been good, the minor problems the defense had would not have been so painful.

@frimmel:

So for you guys Champion is ‘playing best at the end of the season’?

I think that would make sense.  A team playing well throughout the season will get honors and benefits (home field advantage, first round bye, etc.) that should assist them/reward in the post season.  I know it’s more pronounced in the NFL, but it does exist to a degree in college.

But really, the season has to end at some point, and you couldn’t crown a champ midway or even before the last game.

Wittmann never disappoints.

cunning stuff - adroit cute

Appealing 🙂 If just I had somewhere to function I could really have on complete, I steady would get one. Luuurve them. Even if they¡äre mould season in Crazywood, amongst us routine peeps, they¡äre undisturbed fab.

@Bunnies:

3.  I don’t think Americans are offended by being stereotyped.  I think it’s the IDEA of stereotyping that pisses us off.  :x

No, I think there really is a constituency that gets pissed off when they are stereotyped.  But in general (and here I am stereotyping, 🙂 ), I think many of us don’t like the IDEA of stereotyping, even if it is done accurately, but especially when it is done in-accurately.

Not to mention that there were more than 10, and they can be found in 2 different locations in the Bible (with various differences): http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/tencommandments.html

But if we want to discuss borrowing ideas, Jesus sounds damn near like Mithras.  A beautiful concept though…proselytizing through assimilation.  Has worked wonderfully.

no…be a bacteria…you don’t care if you die!

Man Xi, no offense, but I think you are the only one laughing at your jokes.

Like, totally, OMG Stuka! (Sorry, I don’t do Valley Girl well enough….<sob>)  Seriously it would be great if we could require the elderly to take the train, taxi, limo or bus instead of letting them drive!

As for Social Security (and like programs)  i think they should be need based, not age based if you want my honest opinion.  If you are 65 with five different kinds of cancer and a missing leg, sure, you can get Social Security!  if you are 65, in great health, physically and mentally fit and employed full time, I don’t think you should qualify.

However, I could see just an elevated age requirement.  I think we would need to look at the statistical ages people die now versus how they were in the 1940s when the program was established.  If, and this is a hypothetical because I am using IF, men typically died at 45 years of age in 1941 and the age you were allowed to collect on Social Security was 56, then we should look at the actuarial tables to determine the odds of someone living to 56 when the life expectancy was 45.  Then we should look at the tables for today and find the odds that are closest to those of the 1940s and that should be the age.

for instance.  If you had a 3% chance to live to age 56 in 1941 and you have a 3% chance to live to 93 today, then you should not be able to collect on Social Security until you reach the age of 93.

That is purely a hypothetical example with every number pulled out of my little, “bubble-butt” to demonstrate my point.  Those numbers are not to be held as cast in stone, nor are they researched.  I just grabbed numbers that seemed somewhat realistic in my mind.</sob>