Oh, ok. That is a good point. When you only had two teams, obviously even an SEC team (Auburn in 2004?) could go undefeated and be left out.

You'll need to articulate that better or differently in order for me to respond.

The clear reason why not is that those teams are not as good. And also last year already proved a great team/the national champion could come from a bad conference. No one is saying that. If anything, this season showed us that a mediocre ACC team could beat the national champions, because that is what happened.

Sorry that your life has been one disappointment after another. Only rational explanation.

Lincoln disobeyed SCOTUS CJ Taney in Ex parte Merryman. Though I guess that wasn't a Supreme Court decision as Taney wrote it from the MD district court bench, but only for convenience.

But the 17 paychecks are also for off-season workouts, training camp and the preseason games. In the playoffs, you are essentially just getting paid for 1 extra week of work. Not saying it shouldn't be higher, just trying to frame it accurately.

The games are scheduled for TV. ESPN isn't going to give up the early Sat./late Sun. slots of Wildcard weekend and a few more weekday prime-time slots. They have clearly crunched the numbers and believe they get better numbers than cramming another couple games in the week between Christmas and New Years.

Let's please please limit this discussion to football so you don't sound like a fucking retard.

I think he means backed in because if the Big 12 had a title game the winner of it would have likely gotten the 4-seed. Obviously Ohio St. dominated Wisconsin in the Big 10 game.

Without college affiliation, an NFL minor league would make about 5% as much money. If an NFL feeder could draw the crowds and TV numbers college games do it would have been done already. Same reason ESPN doesn't put AAA-baseball games in prime time.

So you'd would want Marshall, Memphis and Boise St. in the 8-team playoff this year?

The large playoff argument relies on the assumption that the regular season should be less important. That is fine, but the fact that this is ignored or intentionally obfuscated by those arguing for an expanded playoff is problematic.

This just isn't true. Look at the Vegas odds. Even a two TD favorite is only expected to win about 87% of the time.

I think the stronger argument is that typically the 9th or 16th best team has already had and blown chances to prove they even belong on the field with the #1 team.

Well the NFL was clearly banking on Mueller's reputation mattering more than his firm's ties to the NFL. At least as far as you're concerned that wasn't the case. But I'm wondering if there has been any criticism coming from anyone in the legal profession. So far, I've seen ESPN talk about the conflict of interest…

Great point! Do you argue in front of SCOTUS?

You are asking me to make a qualitative statement which is very difficult - Paul Weiss, Gibson Dunn, and Covington come to mind as a comparable firm in terms of NFL representation. I will flip it for you. Tell me the following:

When I say corrupt I'm not talking about this from a moral perspective, simply a risk analysis. But I understand the "everything is wrong and corrupt" approach is workable and simple.

I just think the argument that a former FBI director would corrupt himself and potentially destroy his reputation and harm his firm for the benefit of a few of the other 500 partners at his firm, that he might not even know, is a little thin.

What is Mueller's previous work for the NFL?