As I watched the Hockey Hot Stove on sjsharks.com a day or two ago. Two of the San Jose Sharks broadcasters, Randy Hahn and Drew Remenda, had a friendly argument over points in the NHL. Drew argued that teams should not get a point for an overtime loss or a shootout loss. His motive is that a team shouldn't get a point for losing whether it's in regulation, OT, or in a shootout.  Randy's point of view was that if a team went 60 minutes without a winner, then each team should receive a point and use OT, and/or shootout, to decide the second point. In my opinion, Drew Remenda is right IF we didn't have a shootout. If we had ties like we did a few years ago, then a team shouldn't get a point for losing. But since now the NHL wants to force a winner with a shootout, you kind of have to add the extra point. if it were up to me, 2 points for a win,  no point for a loss in regulation, no points for a loss in OT, but one point for a loss in a shootout. If you have a different opinion let me know

When David Beckham announced that he was going to MLS and the LA Galaxy, I'll admit as a diehard soccer and a MLS fan, I was very excited to see him play and to see soccer on the center stage of American sports. Recently, I've seen people that didn't even like soccer saying that their huge fans now that Beckham is playing. For a while, I wasn't mad at these people because at least their trying to know the sport. But now, they think that their fans their whole life. I finally lost it when I was driving home from classes and listening to the radio and a middle age woman talking about best players in their respective sports. First she said about basketball with Michel Jordan, football with Jerry Rice and Bret Favre, and hockey with Wayne Gretzky. Then she went with soccer with Pele, a common choice and one that I agree, and David Beckham. Beckham isn't the best player of all time by a long shot. These are the people I hate, people who think their soccer fanatics just because they can see David Beckham on a regular basis and if you have anything to say, feel free to post a comment.

As I watched the Hockey Hot Stove on sjsharks.com a day or two ago. Two of the San Jose Sharks broadcasters, Randy Hahn and Drew Remenda, had a friendly argument over points in the NHL. Drew argued that teams should not get a point for an overtime loss or a shootout loss. His motive is that a team shouldn't get a point for losing whether it's in regulation, OT, or in a shootout.  Randy's point of view was that if a team went 60 minutes without a winner, then each team should receive a point and use OT, and/or shootout, to decide the second point. In my opinion, Drew Remenda is right IF we didn't have a shootout. If we had ties like we did a few years ago, then a team shouldn't get a point for losing. But since now the NHL wants to force a winner with a shootout, you kind of have to add the extra point. if it were up to me, 2 points for a win,  no point for a loss in regulation, no points for a loss in OT, but one point for a loss in a shootout. If you have a different opinion let me know

With the College Football season just around the corner, I have an idea of a playoff system that combines with both the BCS and a single round knockout system. It will be a 12 team system with the top 12 teams of the BCS Poll after the final week of the regular season. For example, using BCS poll of Dec. 2, 2007, the top 12 are...

1   Ohio St.

2   LSU

3   VT

4   OKL

5   Georgia

6   Mizzou

7   USC

8   KU

9   WV

10 Hawaii

11 Arizona St.

12 Florida

But there's a catch, the top 6 teams on the playoff picture will be the top 6 BCS teams who are BCS Conference Champions. The other 6 are the top 6 BCS teams who are not conference champs. Also the top 4 teams will earn a first round bye while #5-12 will play in a single round knock-out system. So the top 12 BCS teams above would be altered like this....

1         Ohio St. (Big 10 Champs)......BYE

2         LSU         (SEC Champs)..........BYE

3         VT           (ACC Champs)..........BYE

4         OKL         (Big 12 Champs)......BYE

5         USC         (PAC 10 Champs)  VS Florida

6         WV          (Big East Champs) VS ASU

7         Georgia..................................VS Hawaii

8         Mizzou....................................VS KU

9         KU

10     Hawaii

11     ASU

12     Florida

  After the 1st round, the top 4 will join the winners in single round knock-out action. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Florida, WV, Georiga, and Mizzou advanced, than in the second round; #1OSU will play #12 Florida, #2 LSU VS #Mizzou , #3 VT VS #6Georgia, and #4 OKL VS #5 WV. For the sake of the topic, let's say that OSU, LSU, OKL, and Georgia advances. The semi-final matches would be #1 OSU VS #6 Georiga and #2 LSU VS #4 OKL.  And if Ohio St. and LSU are victorious, then it will be #1 OSU VS #2 LSU for the National Title and the winner of the match (LSU) will be the undisputed champion of College Football. If you have an opinion on my playoff system, please let me know.

The polls r in and the games r this and i give u my opions

Sugar Bowl Georiga vs Hawaii: i like it. WAC vs SEC. hawaii really earned it and i hope hawaii can be the bosie st. of this year

Rose Bowl USC vs Illions: i as a little suprised that Illions was in the rose bowl

Fiesta Bowl West virginia vs Oklahoma: i think that this is a right choice

Orange Bowl Kansas vs Virgina Tech: Eventhough Kansas didnt go to the big 12 title game, the jayhawks deserve the game

BCS title game Ohio State vs LSU: this is the right decision. i dont think that osu impress me enough, but, they're a 1 loss team

So thats the bowl games and what i think bout them so if  u think of something else, then...................................................... wait a minute, mizzo isn't in  a bcs gme. WHAT THE BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP? 2 losses, one in the big 12 title game, and their out? they been screwed big time.