SorceressKnight

Given the likeliness that this is it for Lesnar in the WWE, I'd assume that Sable couldn't be more of a lock as the woman inductee this year to get her in at the last chance possible.

The fact that this person had a ballot in the first place, and the Hall of Fame doesn't do like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and open one ballot to fan voting (top ten vote-getters OR anyone who gets more than 75% of the fan ballot get on the fans' ballot, whichever is higher) is living proof the HOF is broken.

These are why I personally would hope for a 5 percent rule for the BBWAA Hall of Fame voters instead: If you voted for someone who got below 5 percent of the ballot, you have to write an article defending why you voted for them and giving the reasoning that brought you to that point...and if you abstain for explaining why, you lose your ballot for next year. (if you do explain why, you don't lose the ballot). All articles would then be released in a book at the same time of the Hall of Fame ceremony the next year. This wouldn't be to shame the voters- but if you're a baseball fan, wouldn't you kind of WANT to read that book each year to find out why behind these votes? All it ends up that way is one last chance to remember these players before they officially get stricken to history forever...and really, that's what the Hall of Fame's all about, right? I love this idea. I'd like the same thing for anybody who does NOT vote for a 90% guy. I used to also agree that the same should be done if you do not vote for a 90% guy, but that'd invariably fail since most people who don't vote for a 90% guy come right out and say the reason is either strategic "Yeah, I know this guy's a Hall of Famer by any means too, but there's so many deserving guys on the ballot right now and only ten slots available, so I'd rather be the guy who doesn't vote for this guy so I can keep this other deserving Hall of Famer from dipping below 5% and being knocked off" votes, or navel gazing "Waaah, Babe Ruth didn't get 100% so that means no one should ever ever ever ever ever get 100% neither!" or "Waaaah there were actually people who used steroids in baseball during their career and so that means everyone everywhere is guilty until proven innocent, and even THEN they're still guilty, so I'll never ever vote for no one!" bullshit- and either way, doing this would only feed the trolls.

These are why I personally would hope for a 5 percent rule for the BBWAA Hall of Fame voters instead: If you voted for someone who got below 5 percent of the ballot, you have to write an article defending why you voted for them and giving the reasoning that brought you to that point...and if you abstain for explaining why, you lose your ballot for next year. (if you do explain why, you don't lose the ballot). All articles would then be released in a book at the same time of the Hall of Fame ceremony the next year. This wouldn't be to shame the voters- but if you're a baseball fan, wouldn't you kind of WANT to read that book each year to find out why behind these votes? All it ends up that way is one last chance to remember these players before they officially get stricken to history forever...and really, that's what the Hall of Fame's all about, right?

And get paid enough to permanently piss off Mick Foley and Steve Austin. Being fair on this, apparently it wasn't the money that pissed Foley and Austin off as much as the specific situation regarding their signing: Foley's said in his comedy show- when he and Austin were in negotiations with WWE, they both pushed for a WCW-style guaranteed contract, only to be rebuked by the company, under the claim "we give opportunities, not guarantees"- so both guys ended up taking the downside contracts WWF gave instead. Two days after Foley signed his deal with WWF, Marc Mero was signed to WWF and given the company's first-ever guaranteed contract. So...yeah.

For the people who still want to believe Back to the Future II will be the prediction, consider the following: We saw in the "original" BttF timeline: George didn't punch Biff. He was taking orders from Biff even in the current timeline, Biff was a big deal (and we know nothing of Biff's family). Marty goes back to 1955: Biff was a BMOC, and he and some of his goons were in varsity jackets (giving proof- Biff had enough athletic ability to make a Hill Valley sports team.) George punches Biff, we get an alternate 1985, Biff is subservient to George (no knowledge of his family as well- but even one punch doesn't change that, even if George McFly's punch ruined Biff's high school career, Biff, at one point in his life, had athletic ability.) 30 years later, Marty goes to 2015, where Biff is unknown for his own status since then, but he is still bitter with how his own life has gone- but with a time machine, his first idea for it to fix his own life is "make money by betting on sporting events" (so, sports is very important to even the older Biff as his way of life- and he is a bitter jerk even in 2015). He takes the sports almanac, goes to 1955, and changes history and obliterates that 2015 solely to make sure he, himself, had a great life, with no knowledge of the endgame of this change...but his life in those 30 years from 1985 to 2015 outside of working for George McFly is unknown, with the only clue: He views sports as his way to make money and had athletic ability, which was deferred. Conclusion: In the Back to the Future world, Biff Tannen's destiny was to be the father of the Chicago Cubs player who led them to win the 2015 World Series (Yes, Tannen's kids were also arrested to replace Marty's kids- but it doesn't mean he didn't have other kids.) . Because Biff stole the sports almanac in order to make "his own" life better, that 2015 never happened, but Biff had his own glory instead and didn't care. ...so, sorry Cubs fans, you're not winning next year either. Blame Biff Tannen for this one. (Yes, this may be insane troll logic- but so is the Cubs winning a World Series.)

Right. The leagues might be non-profit, but the teams are not. My point is the idea that owners shouldn't be holding city's hostage for stadiums and such in one breath then during CBA talk claim to have no money If they're going to do that, then the more natural option: -If a stadium is built using public funds, the owners must repay the money gradually, and cannot try for a new stadium until the old one is paid off... ...BUT, if the team in the stadium wins the World Series/Super Bowl/Stanley Cup/NBA Title while money's unpaid for the stadium, then the city must agree to forgive any debt for the stadium still out there. Because really, if you're trying to keep a team in the city with taxpayer money, the city and area's betting that "this team will win the title for our city before the end of this stadium anyway", so just make it all out there. In addition, you make it a premium for the team getting a stadium to give the city a contender [and thus lose hundreds of millions in debt from the record.]

If you're wondering why the Kings have to take the risk on Deron Williams, you also have to remember the other factor: It's Sacramento. Just...it's Sacramento. Right now, the chances of a top-flight free agent going to Sacramento are slightly below "the big market franchises", "the state income-tax free franchises", "the middling-market franchises", "the small market franchises", "Wait...you're SURE no team in Europe is interested?" and "...did you try China? No bites there either?". With that in mind, taking a chance on any big name who's on the block is really the only hope they'd have.

Your college football one I have some mixed emotions. On one hand, I love your creative thought. On the other, it's *my* creative thought that's putting a downer on it. I'm wondering if the ends will justify the means. Imagine Vanderbilt going to the ACC and FSU going to the SEC. SEC becomes even more powerful and the ACC gets watered down further. Or the following year ACC Champs Duke goes to the Big12. Not exactly the Jayhawk/Blue Devil match up many would want to see. Then again, this is *your* rule change, which is more than I can say for myself, as I have no ideas of my own, at the moment. To clarify it a bit better there- it wouldn't be between the "Big 5" conferences. Instead- each "Big 5" BCS conference would be connected to a "Little 5" BCS conference (for geographic purposes, it would play out as:) ACC connected to the American Big Ten connected to the MAC Big 12 connected to the Sun Belt Pac-12 connected to the Mountain West SEC connected to Conference USA And from there, the relegation would occur, which would end up instead of "Vanderbilt to ACC, Florida State to SEC", it'd be (for this year's example): ACC: Syracuse or Wake Forest out, Memphis, Central Florida, or Cincinnati in Big 12: Iowa State out, Georgia Southern in Big Ten: Purdue out, Northern Illinois in Pac-12: Colorado out, Boise State in SEC: Vanderbilt out, Marshall in

By the end of her time, around the feud with Kong, she was starting to put it together, and actually seemed like she could have been a decent babyface up against Kong. If not for her injury around that time, she probably could have been great as the "cute, plucky heroine that Kong makes die".

NHL AND NBA (same rule): Lottery percentages become ranked based on team's won-loss record after the first team in the league gets eliminated from playoff contention. This way, teams that fight and try to keep in the hunt for a title get rewarded, teams that play out the string or fall out of playoff contention get punished. BASEBALL: Legalize PEDs. Football uses them without a problem, and no matter what people want to say in the current era, the 1995-2002 era was exciting to watch when people were using them regularly. COLLEGE BASKETBALL: Expand the NCAA tournament to 96 and get rid of the NIT- with the same automatic bids as given in the NIT to regular season champs. FOOTBALL (NFL): Cut out Thursday Night games. FOOTBALL (COLLEGE): Institute relegation for the Big 5 BCS conferences- worst team in each BCS conference is replaced with the conference champion of one of the Other 5 BCS conferences.

Even that would be the better option- if Sony wanted to both "seem" like they kowtowed to North Korea, but in the process do the ballsiest thing possible- wouldn't the best way to do it be "To show that 'The Interview' will never be screened, we, and the people behind this movie, have officially surrendered our copyrights to the film." In one move, to North Korea- it "looks" like they just scrapped the movie in perpetuity for good...but then, in the process, "The Interview" would have just been released into the public domain, able for any and everyone to release as much as they want, in any form they want...and obviously to the real fear of bootlegs getting to North Korea.

The fact is- even with the indy superstars declining so rapidly, WWE still has to build around them simply because the fans won't LET them do otherwise. Quite frankly, the IWC has played its card many times- they won't truly accept any new superstar unless they worked Ring of Honor or SHIMMER (maybe they're getting more reasonable now, accepting people like Ambrose, who worked DGUSA, or Luke Harper, who was primarily a CHIKARA guy- but it's still the same form with a different super-indy.) Even when WWE does it right, the fans are dedicated to that- people like Roman Reigns already are getting slight backlash, even BEFORE they get the big push- and people who do this inherently make it clear they hate him either "because I want to hate Reigns BEFORE it's cool to hate him so I'm even cooler and more of a hipster than the cool IWC hipsters!", or "Because he's not Dean Ambrose/Seth Rollins getting the Jesus push of the Shield" (and inherently making the unspoken "because he's not Jon Moxley (NOT! Dean Ambrose!) or Tyler Black (NOT! Seth Rollins!) getting the push." The "indy superstar" experiment isn't working- but quite frankly, WWE has no other choice but to do it.

Even if- it'd probably destroy everyone's ears if it wasn't muted. It'd be a bad move as a whole. But admit it- if ESPN or NFL Network did a show next week: NFL Tryout motions tests- one on one, Tim Tebow vs. Brett Favre, The Cardinals agree to sign the winner- you'd watch, right?

I don't think that there'll be as much of a problem as it is 10-15 years from now, simply because people openly talk about it- both on the good and the bad. It's still not "perfect" for cases of sexual assault yet- but in 2014-15, it's far, far easier to come forward about being the victim of sexual assault- both to not feel like the victim did anything wrong and in people believing the victim-than it was in the '60s and '70s. It isn't perfect yet- I can't stress that enough- but if someone like a Cosby were running around now, it'd be far easier for the victim to come forward with it and get treated at face value, and far, far more difficult for anyone to cover it up- than it would be back then.

One of the things that I like about NXT is that it seems to be in a silo with a ton of old school influences like Dusty/Regal/Smiley/Brisco involved. Some of the characters stink and the promos shaky, but the overall gameplan is build star, build feud, blow off, on to next feud. It's all interwoven with a small roster. Feels Crocketty. Staying away from Stephanie's team of sitcom writers, the Scooby Doo crap, the egos/politics, seems to work for it. One caveat, I think it's a terrible idea for it to be pushed as a third "brand" and heavily advertised. If the model is train in NXT, go to main roster when ready with a character that feels like a debuting star, you are killing that mystique and overexposing people to a work in progress. Honestly, that's one of the weaknesses with how good NXT is- it's hard to remember that it is a developmental territory rather than a standalone brand. I've always thought it's better to just treat NXT like you would if you were watching Triple-A baseball. You'll have some guys who are the top prospects in the company (your Zayn/Neville/Charlottes), your guys who are AAAA-players or rehabbing major league guys (your Kidd/Sin Cara/Emmas), your guys who are going to be something special in a couple years, but aren't there just yet (your Mojo Rawley/Baron Corbin/Enzo Amores), and your Triple-A players for life (your CJ Parkers).

My picks, whether it's good or bad (trying to not use non-wrestlers or injuries): Brock Lesnar vs. Roman Reigns, WWE WHC. Reigns wins. Rollins cashes in immediately afterwards- and loses to Reigns in his cash-in. Reigns stands aloft both beating the unbeatable and still having enough left to dispatch the MITB winner. John Cena vs. Rusev Triple H vs. Sting- Career vs. Career Randy Orton vs. Dean Ambrose The Ascension and Bray Wyatt vs. Dolph Ziggler, Erick Rowan, and Ryback Nikki Bella vs. Brie Bella in a lumberjills match for the Divas' Title The Miz vs. Damien Mizdow Adam Rose vs. Whoever The Bunny Is Unmasked As Tag Team Match: Miz and Mizdow vs. Goldust and Stardust vs. The Usos vs, Big E and Kofi Kingston Seth Rollins wins the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal, also featuring: Sin Cara, Luke Harper, Erick Rowan, Bad News Barrett, Big Show, Cesaro, Chris Jericho, Christian, Curtis Axel, Diego, Fandango, Fernando, Heath Slater, Jack Swagger, Justin Gabriel, Kane, Mark Henry, R-Truth, Rey Mysterio, Sheamus, Titus O'Neil, Tyson Kidd, Xavier Woods, Zack Ryder, Kalisto Adrian Neville, Sami Zayn, Finn Balor, Hideo Itami, Tyler Breeze

That may also be the problem- For everything that HHH gets, the one difference is that he seems to get that pro wrestling is now officially "the geeks' sport" and is trying to adjust WWE as a whole to reflect that going forward, WWE is at its peak as one of many parts of geek culture. Vince McMahon, on the other hand- is an alpha male, and wants the WWE to appeal to other alpha males- so wrestlers who appeal to geeks and different subsets of it- which can make the casual adult fans get interested, will never succeed as well as someone who can presumably get those alpha males Vince WANTS to like the show back into the fold.

Even if there's a Curt Flood enough to stop the "independent contractor" thing in court on their own- it'd probably be a catch-22. There are people who had nothing to lose and were willing to retire to break the clause [not just this, but the Raven/Kanyon/Mike Sanders lawsuit years ago]- but even if a person does break it, then it wouldn't even hit the WWE since there'll always be people so desperate to MAKE IT to the WWE they'll agree to be independent contractors just to get signed- and even if they have to offer "contracted employee" status, the worker doesn't have to take it. Same with the "when will there be a wrestler's union" case- just because they're "allowed" to unionize may not necessarily mean the wrestlers HAVE to join the union- and doesn't mean they may not decide to hire non-union workers instead. (That doesn't even go into the Punk problems about not main eventing Wrestlemania when a union comes into play, and the non-zero chance union regulations could lead to real booking problems like, say, "I don't care if he's not over and really hasn't been- Diego has been in the company for seven years and hasn't gotten a big push yet, so you HAVE to give him a main event run or you're breaking the union regulations!")

A big reason I think the Stephanie hate has tapered off is because, quite frankly- there's nothing "to" hate or love with Stephanie. In recent years, we've kind of heard and accepted Vince McMahon micromanages the show to the point of nothing, which will crap all over any of the WWE Creative team's ideas for Vince's whims. Stephanie's reign as booker is the biggest question there for what she is due to that micromanaging. To put it the best way possible: Stephanie McMahon was the booker for WWE for 13 years, through most of the 21st century, so there should be a large sample size of Stephanie McMahon writing to look at. However- can ANYONE specifically point to any tics or trademarks of Stephanie McMahon's booking that are proof it's her? Short of "she loves building the Divas' division around a group of Mean Girls-style heels" and "she's very interested in booking the woman behind the man in power", there doesn't seem to be that many trademarks of a Stephanie McMahon wrestling show there. Quite simply, how can you hate Stephanie McMahon as a booker when you don't know if there's anything to hate?

For most of these, is there also the chance that it's not just "SEC SEC SEC" as much as, you know, it being the first results and the polls specifically saying they weigh "conference champions", not just conference leaders? It'll be a lot different if it's 4 SEC West teams in the final poll and non-conference champs ignored...eh, who am I kidding it still will be.

I can't speak for him but I thought Craig was making a point that the corporate higher ups say they "know whats best for business" simply because they are the higher ups and they may be wrong but they won't change their ideas because those below them want or think they should. So the Authority are just overinflated corporate egos who stubbornly cling to what they think is right or what they want. Orton, Rollins, Kane. suck ups and people they have some level of trust possibly due to longevity (why else would Kane be trusted the guy is a psychopath) Even with the questions on writing, that is a case for why HHH is better right now as the heel boss, simply because he was the exact same way as the face boss. As Craig said, people know corporate higher-ups who say they "know what's best for business" simply because they're the higher-ups, and they may be wrong but they won't change their ideas because people below them want or think they should. When you have the same person basically saying "I am the boss and that means I AM RIGHT because I am the boss. If I say that 2 plus 2 is 5, then it becomes 5 because I AM THE BOSS and I OWN YOU", and you're supposed to cheer that fact- like it was in 2011? It's far worse.

But that's the real issue- HOW CAN YOU change the reason teams have to tank in the NBA? No rule out there can change the simple facts that: In basketball, if all things are otherwise equal, the team with the best player on the court will probably win the game, that you need at least one All-Star...and probably two or three, to have a prayer at winning the NBA title, and most NBA players are good friends with each other and would quite like to play together, and will even take pay cuts if necessary in order to play together. Even just adding a franchise player option to the salary cap could help a little bit, but that'd be more likely to lead to players going into Vince Carter-levels of shutting down, demanding franchise money and not wanting to lead their franchise until their team gets fed up and trades them to a team with another star.

In theory, the reason for HHH to not like Cena comes from how the real Authority angle's weakness is it's not really "evil owner vs. heroic employee" as much as it seems to be "evil owners who have the power vs. THE FANS"- which the Authority don't exactly deny is the point of the whole thing. From there, that gives all the reason HHH would have to not like John Cena- the fans LIKE him, and so Triple H will hate him just so the fans don't get to be happy. It's no different than, on the opposite side, John Cena being good friends with and respecting Michael Cole for years, but the second fans hated Cole he's more than happy to turn on him, beat the crap out of him, and pour barbecue sauce all over him, just because the fans hate him and he'll turn his back on a friend for their applause. ...or maybe WWE has really poor writing and I'm overthinking it. Eh, whatever.

Well, that's also the problem- because there's also a lot of people who'd say it's all or nothing, and that Florida State (who have permission from the Seminole tribe to use the name) is no different than using the Washington Redskins. The line does vary from person to person on this issue, and there isn't ONE line that fixes it.