TruffleShuffle
-
Posts
50,942 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by TruffleShuffle
-
haha juarez you douche
-
i don't understand why he keeps batting leadoff. well i understand that it's happening because lou is a bad manager... you know what i'm saying.
-
-
in the last 10 years? iowa. in the last 7 years or 5 years? penn st. in the last 20 years? penn st. in the last 30 years? penn st. 10 years was a good number for you to choose though. you chose 10 years. you just divided it in a way beneficial to PSU. i divided it in a logical way. they were mostly bad for a five year stretch; four of those years they finished below .500. then in the five-year stretch after that they were only good and had, at worst, a 9-4 record. there's no reason to be discussing this anyway. the point i was trying to make was that very good college football programs don't tend to stay bad for a long time. i don't know what point the iowa defender is trying to make.
-
in the last 10 years? iowa. in the last 7 years or 5 years? penn st. in the last 20 years? penn st. in the last 30 years? penn st. 10 years was a good number for you to choose though.
-
if you are talking across divisions, then i completely disagree. if you're talking about from top to bottom then i do agree.
-
yes, SINCE THE BIG 12 WAS FORMED. that's what i'm talking about. from what i see here: https://admin.xosn.com/pdf1/133593.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=600 colorado was sometimes good, sometimes bad through most of their first 75 years or whatever, then they were horrible through much of the '80s then very good from the late '80s through the mid '90s. there's really nothing to differentiate a team like colorado and iowa as far as their track record of success from beginning through the start of the 12 team league, except that iowa has been mostly good over the past 9 years and colorado was really good in the 9 years before the big xii was formed.
-
I haven't seen Colvin's minor league splits, so maybe that is what you are referring to, but I surely wouldn't wouldn't say that he can't hit LHP based on a .263 average over 19 at bats. The strikeout rate is a definite concern though. he hit .277 in over 500 ABs against minor league pitchers with an OPS that was something like 20 points below his OPS against RHP... i have no idea where people got the idea that he is wretched against LHP, but they really should stop saying it.
-
you're looking at the big xii the way things turned out in the 2000s, not the way it was when the conference was formed. in football, colorado was good every year and occasionally contended for a national title when the conference was formed in 1996; nebraska was a powerhouse and one of the top teams in the nation almost every year. kansas st had won at least 9 games in each of the past four seasons. in the south, oklahoma's best season since 1988 had been 9-3 and a gator bowl appearance, and they were downright bad when the conference started play. texas tech was usually average or worse. oklahoma st had been bad since 1989 and the success in the '80s looked like an exception to the rule. aTm and texas were the only good programs at that time.
-
I am very much opposed to adding unnecessary guaranteed games, and it absolutely does not need to happen. People seem to think Michigan/OSU HAS to happen every year, and putting them in the same division ensures it will happen. i guess what it boils down to is if you're okay with putting PSU, OSU and UM in the same division. if you are, then it's an easy split (PSU, OSU, UM, MSU, purdue, Indiana in one; NWern, Illinois, UW, minnesota, iowa, nebraska in the other). a lot of people are opposed to putting the three highest-profile football powers in the same division, though.
-
The problem becomes a team like Nebraska playing OSU once every 5 years because of the addition of a bunch of unnecessary guaranteed games. There is no good reason to base the divisions on anything other than geography. that wouldn't happen... if you have 5 division games and 1 guaranteed cross-division game, you'd play 2 out of 5 games against the other teams in the opposite division, or 2 games against each every 5 years. if you divide them by geography with no cross-division games guaranteed, then you'd play 3 times every 5 years. so the difference is that you face each non-divisional (non-rival) team once more every 5 years.
-
it doesn't have to be like that. you can put michigan and ohio st, illinois and northwestern, etc in different divisions and then make those guaranteed games against the other side. like michigan would play their divisional rivals every year (say, PSU, MSU, wisconsin, minnesota and northwestern) every year, then play ohio st on the other side every year, then rotate two of the other five (indiana, purdue, illinois, nebraska, iowa) on the schedule each year. lest anyone say this is unfair, purdue's "locked" games right now are indiana and northwestern, while ohio st has to play michigan and penn st every year.
-
penn state football, 2000-04: 26-33, 16-24 conference record, 1 bowl appearance. 2005-09: 51-13, 29-11 conference record, 5 bowl appearances people were basically throwing dirt on the psu program and saying they'd never recover until paterno retired and they brought in mostly new staff. the last five years they and ohio st have been the class of the conference. it's hard to keep great college football programs down for long.
-
Nebraska fans tried to make a similar video about Iowa football players, but they don't allow cameras in the courtroom. we also would have accepted "they couldn't find a video camera or electricity"
-
i'm unemployed (between jobs)... frankly with the world cup and nice weather, i've picked a good time to be jobless.
-
i think there are more pig farms in iowa maybe
-
okay michigan has been bad the last two years. do you have any other information that i am already aware of?
-
no, i'm telling you what i think will happen. you disagree. i follow college football plenty and i'm well aware that michigan has not been good the past two years. Michigan has sucked the past two years. When good teams struggle, they generally lose maybe 4 games. what point are you making here?
-
that greece sucks. maybe they can go far in this tourney if they can keep conning refs into giving out red cards.
-
no, i'm telling you what i think will happen. you disagree. i follow college football plenty and i'm well aware that michigan has not been good the past two years.
-
welp bye nigeria, good luck in 2014
-
that's true. nothing ever changes in cfb and michigan's program sure seems to be back on the upswing now. i'll take 100 years of history over how michigan has played the last 2-3 years. i guess we can bet a nickel now and stop back in 25 years to settle our bet.
-
lol CHOKE
-
because i'm pretty sure michigan has been better in every 25 year segment of college football history than iowa or wisconsin.
-
you're only thinking about this in terms of the last few years. going back 25 years, the top teams in the conference are michigan, OSU, PSU and nebraska. two should be in one division and two should be in the other. divisioning really shouldn't matter in basketball. Going back 25 years isn't important. Too many things have changed. over the next 25 years, michigan is a lot more likely to be very good than iowa or wisconsin