Jump to content

Wow at the headlines.....NKOREA LOADING ROCKET... CLINTON WARNS...


Recommended Posts

Senate reviewing how college football picks No. 1

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER – 19 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Everyone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series.

The current system "leaves nearly half of all the teams in college football at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to qualifying for the millions of dollars paid out every year," the Senate Judiciary's subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights said in a statement Wednesday announcing the hearings.

Under the BCS, some conferences get automatic bids to participate in series, while others do not.

Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.

Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season.

The title game pitted No. 1 Florida (12-1) against No. 2 Oklahoma (12-1); Florida won 24-14 and claimed the title.

The subcommittee's statement said Hatch would introduce legislation "to rectify this situation." No details were offered and Hatch's office declined to provide any.

Hatch said in a statement that the BCS system "has proven itself to be inadequate, not only for those of us who are fans of college football, but for anyone who believes that competition and fair play should have a role in collegiate sports."

In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

When will we establish term limits and throw these idiots out of power?

AP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the full collection already buddy, but your welcome all the same . BYOB

seriously I am so glad i didnt vote for any1 in congress. i voted for jim martin, but oncethe run off came up i said no thanks. we do not need one party controlling everything. wasnt that the point of separating government. congress is full of wackos who only care about lobbyist. i wish their was a way we could get rid of lobbyist, since they are only self interested and do not care about the people who voted them in. they only care about who was paying for their campaign. We are soon to be doomed unless one party can break though the rubble, which i think is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should have one year term limits and a 500 dollar cap on campaign money. f you cannot say what you have to say without millions of dollars.. I cannot relate to you thus will never vote for you.

And one year term limits would still make them more fortunate than most workers, who are not guaranteed employment tomorrow.

Also, while we are at it, do away with any party system and make everyone run on their merit and platform of true beliefs, not what the donkey or elephant tells them to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should have one year term limits and a 500 dollar cap on campaign money. f you cannot say what you have to say without millions of dollars.. I cannot relate to you thus will never vote for you.

And one year term limits would still make them more fortunate than most workers, who are not guaranteed employment tomorrow.

Also, while we are at it, do away with any party system and make everyone run on their merit and platform of true beliefs, not what the donkey or elephant tells them to think.

The rest I don't agree with, but this part makes a ton of sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should have one year term limits and a 500 dollar cap on campaign money. f you cannot say what you have to say without millions of dollars.. I cannot relate to you thus will never vote for you.

And one year term limits would still make them more fortunate than most workers, who are not guaranteed employment tomorrow.

Also, while we are at it, do away with any party system and make everyone run on their merit and platform of true beliefs, not what the donkey or elephant tells them to think.

the terms are okay with me, but mayb extend house, since they seem to be in office, then running every year. 500 dollar camp is low, but i agree on a reasonable cap. you dont need to spend money so wildly on a campaign, since that leads to companies owning the politicians.

i agree with the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the terms are okay with me, but mayb extend house, since they seem to be in office, then running every year. 500 dollar camp is low, but i agree on a reasonable cap. you dont need to spend money so wildly on a campaign, since that leads to companies owning the politicians.

i agree with the bottom.

I was using a little hyperbole for the 500 dollar limit, but it does need to be set low and strictly enforced. I get so tired of hearing how much candidate A has raised over candidate B. Seriously, why should that make a difference or be allowed to make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was using a little hyperbole for the 500 dollar limit, but it does need to be set low and strictly enforced. I get so tired of hearing how much candidate A has raised over candidate B. Seriously, why should that make a difference or be allowed to make a difference.

i agree with that. the money could be used to stimulate the economy, not buy one dude a 1k dinner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should have one year term limits and a 500 dollar cap on campaign money. f you cannot say what you have to say without millions of dollars.. I cannot relate to you thus will never vote for you.

And one year term limits would still make them more fortunate than most workers, who are not guaranteed employment tomorrow.

Also, while we are at it, do away with any party system and make everyone run on their merit and platform of true beliefs, not what the donkey or elephant tells them to think.

I really agree with this. People always claim that a 3rd party is the only option. But I'd much rather them get rid of both major parties and just have an open election. A 3rd party is only going to muddy the waters more than they already are....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really agree with this. People always claim that a 3rd party is the only option. But I'd much rather them get rid of both major parties and just have an open election. A 3rd party is only going to muddy the waters more than they already are....

OK, I'm gonna have to be devil's advocate here. The party system serves a useful purpose. If anything, I'd like to see expanded participation of smaller parties. I think this is much more feasible today because of the organizational capabilities of the internet. You could have a Tea Bag Party for example.

Without the party system you would have absolute chaos. Can you imagine dozens of Presidential Candidates on the ballot and the ensuing circus that would entail. You can vote for whomever you choose as it is. I once voted for Alfred E. Neuman during the Bush/Dukakis election. People with like ideologies are naturally going to gravitate towards each other.

The problem we have today is that the parties have become too dogmatic and resistant to compromise. They seem to value partisanship over good sense. The solution, IMO, is for us as constituents to encourage our elected officials to work together instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I'm gonna have to be devil's advocate here. The party system serves a useful purpose. If anything, I'd like to see expanded participation of smaller parties. I think this is much more feasible today because of the organizational capabilities of the internet. You could have a Tea Bag Party for example.

Without the party system you would have absolute chaos. Can you imagine dozens of Presidential Candidates on the ballot and the ensuing circus that would entail. You can vote for whomever you choose as it is. I once voted for Alfred E. Neuman during the Bush/Dukakis election. People with like ideologies are naturally going to gravitate towards each other.

The problem we have today is that the parties have become too dogmatic and resistant to compromise. They seem to value partisanship over good sense. The solution, IMO, is for us as constituents to encourage our elected officials to work together instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Amen brother.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...