Welcome to PTI!

Here's how it works:

The host will post a topic from recent sports news, along with a prompt to go with it. There will then be a 72-hour period for people to post their comments and thoughts on the stories. The host will then pick the two best to continue on. The rules from this point will vary, as the two chosen candidates will compete in a random game such as they have on the PTI game show. (and specific game to be determined randomly by host in each round):

The game choices are: Over/Under, Oddsmakers, and Toss-Up (Role Play and other games may be added in the future)

The host will then post 4 questions, 1 at a time with 24-hours between each for contestants to discuss the topics. They can respond to each other as often as they like within that time span (or after 24 hours if the host hasn't posted the new topic), at the end of all 4 topics the host will determine the winner (if an earlier question deals with something that has then passed, result can be taken into account). The winner of each individual game will then get 24 hours to post "happy-happies" (a happy birthday, happy anniversary, and happy trails) and a TV pick if they wish.

Here's how colors and gamebans work:

1. If a player wins three games in a row in which they enter (defined as commenting on the initial topic in a game), they can choose either to get 24 hours of VIP colors, or to put those colors on the line and try for a fourth consecutive win and 48 hours of VIP colors.

2. When a player wins 6 games, regardless of order or whether s/he got colors for consecutive wins, s/he wins 48 hours of VIP colors. If this coincides with consecutive wins colors, the times will be added together.

3. Losses will be tallied as followed: Entering a game but not being chosen will count as half a loss, and being chosen and then losing will count as a whole loss. Players will get a 24 hour gameban for every two losses they accumulate.

Obviously, this system of colors and gamebans means that the host will also keep a running tally of each players participation, for wins, consecutive wins, and total losses. Each category would be reset when appropriate.


First topic coming soon!

 

And for your first topic...

<img src="http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008/0722/nba_g_kidd_bryant_580.jpg">

Team USA is getting ready for the Olympics with head coach Mike Krzyzewski and a roster of big time NBA stars, including MVP Kobe Bryant. But then, Team USA has had great looking rosters in the past, and they've still fallen short of the gold, such as in Athens 4 years ago with several of the same players on this roster. So, what will happen this year? Will they dominate the competition and bring gold back to the US, or will they fall short again? Further, what will be the cause, or perceived cause, of them winning or falling short?

 

I think the US is going to take home the gold this year and has to be considered the favorites. While the World has certainly caught up the US and can field good national teams while the US usually has a great collection of "individual" stars that fizzle out in National play, I think this year is different. I think Coach K is going to have these guys playing like a Team. Also the '04 Team that took the Bronze didn't have Kobe. He may be a jerk, but the guy can be clutch. Plus Lebron is great late in the games as well and I'm not sure there is anyone that is going to be able to cover them down the stretch. Unless of course Garnett and the Celtics defect to China or something.

 

I have never, never, been more sure of anything, than I am of the following statement:

The United States Men's Basketball Team is going to leave the 2008 Summer Olympic Games with the gold medal.

Period.

Let's talk about four things that are different from the 2004 and the 2008 team:

1) The coach. I'm not saying Coach K is the answer. But I will say that Larry Brown was part of the problem in 2004. He alienated his players. He stubbornly refused to give key minutes to guys like LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony. At the end of the tournament, and probably closer to the start of it, his team had tuned him out. For that reason, and that reason alone, this is a better squad.

2) Kobe Bryant. One of the two best players in the world, he was missing in 2000, and be he ain't missing this year. He's got the ability to to hit dagger shot after dagger shot, help set-up his teammates, and play very good defense. Not only that, but he's going to be surrounded by big men who can pass out of trouble, giving him open shots, and point guards, like Chris Paul and Jason Kidd, and point forwards, like LeBron James, who can get him a shot pretty much any time they want to. Plus, "playing nice" and helping Team USA to a gold is great for a rehabbing image. For Kobe alone, this is a better squad.

3) Continuity. This team wasn't just thrown together, with All-Stars and their egos expected to play together at an Olympic-caliber level. This team has practiced together, played together, and grown together. It might lack some true role players and true glue players, but it has the talent to overcome that, and the time together to gel as talent. There are true leaders on the team, like Jason Kidd, as well as a respected leader on the bench, and that will go a long way towards making sure the continuity means something. I'd have to think this is worth at least one extra win.

4) LeBron James. The kid loves to shine on the biggest of stages, and he has the talent around him to shine this time. The kid wants to be a "global icon", and this is his biggest stage yet. The kid loves to play with a chip on his shoulder and doubters talking trash to him (just ask fans in Toronto, Seattle and New York), and he's got plenty of motivation with other nations referring to him as "LeBronze". For my money, he's the best player in the world, and at worst he's #2. And he wants the gold medal, and he has the skills for himself and his teammates, to get it done.

It's not going to be a walk in the park. And there will be some close games.

But mark my words. Team USA is getting gold medals.

 

I'll not trying to interrupt your game, but I just want to say that you guys are nuts to assume the gold is guaranteed to be won by the US.

I'm certainly not saying it can't happen, but considering how many players the NBA has been importing the last 10 years ot so, and how many of them are clutch players who will be heading home to play for their respective countries, not to mention they're playing with people they've already played with, or against(hence knowing their game, and being able to mesh easier) before they ever got to the NBA, there's no way you can call Team USA a sure thing. The sport has flourished in other countries since the first two Team USA, that's ended up producing a lot of international talent. There's a reason why we haven't won since forever, a good part of the NBA's nucleus is made of players that either don't want to risk injury, or are going back to their respective countries and playing for them.



Sorry to interrupt the game again, I'd be more than happy to discuss this more in the NBA thread.

 

Yeah, most teams outside the United States are far more used to playing as a nation than the United States, especially when you consider the Euroleague and Americas league championships build a greater culture of playing for ones country than the US league does. I can understand that the US team is full of star power, but that does not mean that they are a forgone conclusion for the gold.

 

So, ASG, I take it you don't want to be considered part of this game?

 

Not now, I don't do games very often, and I just finished one. And again, I apologize for interrupting your game.

 

You can play the part of Lebatard. Bam!

 

I'm out of town on Dial-Up right now, I'll post the game and topic 1 tomorrow evening when I'm back to normal status. Everyone has until then to post their entries!

 

Game 1: Oddsmakers with DarthIntegral and JediCouncilMember!


<img src="http://www.mkesports.com/Brett_Favre_Passing.jpg">

For your first question, we turn to the ever-running story of Brett Favre and his retirement/unretirement/threatening to show up to Packers camp/being told he has to compete for a job/etc, etc, etc.

So tell me, what are the odds we see Brett Favre traded before the Packers' first preseason game (Aug 11)?

 

93%

There is still the slight chance Brett stays retired or that GB drags this out until the end of pre-season then cuts him, but I think every day of having him at camp and going through the charade that he isn't going to start or is competing for the job is a joke. If Brett is washed up and will hurt his legacy why is GB so afraid to trade or release him? Obviously he can still play, so If he does show up to camp they are going to have to make him the starter or ship him off as soon as possible. So I think they'll make a deal in the next few days and ship him out of GB. So 93% chance it gets done.

 

Part of me says 100% because the Packers have to get this over with, and from a football standpoint, trading Favre is the best thing for the club in the short- and long-term future. You don't want the distraction, you don't want to hinder Aaron Rogers, and you want to maximize his value by getting him to their camp as quickly as possible.

Part of me says 0% because it is all but impossible for me to imagine anyone in the Packers organization actually having the fortitude to go through with a trade and pull the trigger. I don't think anyone, for as much as they talk now, wants to face that scenario, and the fan backlash that will accompany it. No matter the damage to the long-term goals of the team and to Aaron Rogers.

So, I'm going to be like Wilbon here in another game and push ... put me down for 50%

 

Push? Really?

<img src="http://assets.espn.go.com/media/apphoto/55b2ee59-a9ef-485f-bbf2-990e515f5211.jpg">

For our next topic, we turn to baseball and the trade deadline, specifically one of the biggest trades of the year so far: Mark Teixeira to the Los Angeles Angels.

Tell me, what are the odds this trade propels the Angels into becoming the winners of this year's World Series?

 

39%

Right now the Angels are playing great ball and did just get better with this trade, but success in July doesn't equal success in October. I think they'll get through the first round pretty easily but then they are still going to have to beat Boston like they did this week and then one of the top two NL teams. The Angels do have outstanding pitching but so will the other playoff teams and 1-2 great pitchers can carry any playoff team for a series or two. I'll give them slightly more then a 1/3 chance where it is between them, Boston, and the eventual NL Champ, so 39% they'll win the WS.

 

Since I appear to be playing Wilbon ...

Between them, Boston, and the eventual NL Champ? Are you forgetting someone? How about a midwest team? With a crazy manager? That won the World Series just a few years ago. The Chicago White Sox? That ring a bell.

Now, as to the question at hand, if you're asking if the Texiara trade is the key piece in the team winning the World Series, that gets a big fat 0%. If you're asking what the odds are that they win the World Series, and are asking in light of the trade, that's a little more interesting. They've got a chance to have the homefield edge in the ALCS. They've got the best closer in the game right now. They've got good pitching, and an offense that just got a little better.

But, that said, I have to take the field, and in a big way here. The Rays, White Sox, Red Sox, maybe the Yankees and Pudge Rodriguez, and the contenders of the National League all have puncher's chances. And, I can't give the Angels, or any other team, a better than 1 in 4 shot, so I say 25%

 

<img src="http://assets.espn.go.com/media/apphoto/6523ab29-be8f-45e6-9df2-c16a65598dfc.jpg">

Sticking with baseball, we turn now to another trade: Manny Ramirez to the Dodgers, Jason Bay to the Red Sox, and 2 prospects from each of those organizations to the Pirates. The big news with that, of course, is Manny Ramirez leaving the Red Sox, where he's won 2 World Series and was still a big part of a contending team, and going to the Dodgers, to play for his old rival Joe Torre.

<img src="http://assets.espn.go.com/media/apphoto/f2f24827-07b0-4d0a-b566-f08ce5c74982.jpg">

So, what are the chances this trade puts the Dodgers into the World Series? Not that they win it (though you can give odds for that, too, if you like), but that they are the NL champions and play in the World Series.

 

0%!!!

There is no chance that this helps the Dodgers get to the WS! I think Ariz has the better team and will win the West, but even if the Dodgers do get in, the Cubs look great right now with their rotation and the Brewers have the arms too to shut down anyone. Then throw in the Mets or Phillies and there are just too many teams in the NL that I think have the better playoff quality pitching that even if LA gets in they won't advance to the WS. So Zero percent.

 

As the Cardinals proved a couple of years ago, all you need to do is get into the playoffs, and then anything can happen. For that reason, any team with a realistic shot to win their division and/or the wild card has some chance of making it to and/or winning the World Series. And in the NL West, the Dodgers very much have that chance.

I don't like them as well as I like the one-two pitching punches of Milwaukee and Chicago, but they can win that division, and they have some talent, and a manager who can win in the post season. Plus, something tells me Casey Blake has a real shot to be Scott Brosius.

I'll go with 5%

 

Ok, enough baseball.

The college football preseason coaches poll is out, and the top of the list looks like this:

1. <img src="http://assets.espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/ncaa/sml/trans/61.gif">
2. <img src="http://assets.espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/ncaa/sml/trans/30.gif">
3. <img src="http://assets.espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/ncaa/sml/trans/194.gif">
4. <img src="http://assets.espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/ncaa/sml/trans/201.gif">
5. <img src="http://espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/ncaa/sml/trans/57.gif">

What are the odds that one of these 5 teams wins the national championship at the end of the season?

 

100%!!!

As we all know college football has the absolute worst way ever invented to try and get a championship matchup. And as long as they use some version of the BCS scam the teams ranked at the top, even in preseason with NO games played, have a HUGE advantage among the remaining teams. And given that most of these teams have been hovering around the national champioship level for the past few years I don't see anything that will changes my mind now now. So there is a 100% chance one of these teams will win.

 

100??

 

Yes!
The college football season is now over.
If you don't like any of those schools, it is time to move on and worry about the '09 season. Even if all those teams lose 2-3 games some BCS moron will put two of them in the supposed championship game.

 

I'm going to put my money at ... 50% ... and that's not a push, it's because I think one team in the National Title Game will come from those five, and one team will come from outside those five.

Why? Because it's been that way for the last two years. And with the parrity in College Football, it's foolish to think that two teams are going to go through the season with targets on their back that large and not stumble. This isn't the year of Vince Young vs. Matt Leinhart. That's not gonna happen again.

So, give me the winner of Ohio State-USC ... against an SEC School or a Big Twelve school not in the top five right now. A team like Texas Tech, maybe.

 

So Inty goes right down the middle twice at 50% (and one was an admitted push), and JCMgoes all the way twice, guaranteeing that the Dodgers will not make the WS, and that the college football national champion will be one of those in the preseason top 5.

Going out on a limb is better than waffling down the middle, so even though Inty had some good analysis to help his case, JediCouncilMember wins our first game. JCM, post your happy-happies and a TV pick, then I'll get another topic to start game 2.

Wins:
Jedi Council Member: 1 (streak 1)

Losses:
DarthIntegral: 1
Kyptastic: .5

For the future, I'm going to add this:
I'm more likely to pick as a winner someone willing to go all the way and guarantee something will/won't happen (as above) but said win will be erased if you end up being wrong (i.e, you guarantee a team winning and they lose). Which, as it happens, is very much like Reali, so it seems appropriate.


Also, Inty, are you saying that the CF title game, when its reached, is a toss up?