TruffleShuffle

this eagles-giants game is gigantic. if the giants win they get into a three-way tie for the division, hold the tiebreaker and have a relatively soft schedule the rest of the way in (vikings will probably be locked into the #2 seed by week 17 so the road game in minneapolis is winnable for them). if the eagles win, they go up in the division by a game and have 2 home games in the next 2 weeks.

this guy sucks

yeah it's really a challenge these days.

dallas was going to lose anyway, but why is dallas throwing slant patterns with 26 seconds left and needing 2 scores? kick the fg right away and then do the onsides kick. i swear, half the time they win in spite of wade phillips.

shocked the NZAA let a bama player win.

a few updates from the league... i don't really know everyone who's participating from the cubs so i will just give the ones i have found: jake fox (ok no longer a cub, but whatever): .293/.356/.415/.770, 11-41, 5 R, 12 H, 2 2B, 1 HR, 8 RBI, 2 BB, 7 K junior lake (estrellas): doesn't look like he's played john-ford griffin (estrellas): .136/.167/.182/.348, 3-22, 1 R, 1 2B, 1 RBI, 1 BB, 7 K mario mercedes (gigantes): 2-4, 1 K starlin castro (leones): .182/.280/.182/.462, 4-22, 2 R, 2 RBI, 2 BB, 5 K, 2 SB, 1 CS nelson perez (toros): .299/.333/.481/.814, 23-77, 12 R, 4 2B, 2 3B, 2 HR, 6 RBI, 3 BB, 22 K, 1 SB rafael dolis (estrellas): ??? don't think he's pitched. marcos mateo (estrellas): 4.1 IP, 4 H, 4 ER, 1 HR, 2 BB, 7 K, 1.00 GO/FO e. caridad (tigres): hasn't played j. antigua (toros): hasn't played alberto cabrera (toros): hasn't played

p.s. if alabama had been the undefeated team in the SEC that got left out of the "championship game" instead of auburn in 2004-05, does anyone think that redflash would support the current system? yeah, didn't think so.

ok redflash is fine with it and finds your outrage annoying, cease all discussion.

red sox would be weird because they already have logjams at a lot of positions (v. martinez and j. varitek at C, youk/martinez at 1B, lowrie/scutaro at SS, lowell/scutaro at 3B) and wouldn't really have room for bradley unless he or drew played LF and hermida became a backup. but supposedly they've been trying to get rid of lowell for a while; they could conceivably deal lowell for bradley, put youk back at 3B, put martinez at 1B, varitek becomes starting catcher again). that still doesn't solve what to do with bradley, but it does clear up some of their infield/C logjam and obviously lowell wouldn't have a position on the cubs so he'd need to be dealt away. Boston would definitely be weird. I can't see that being a good fit since it's perceived (right or wrong) as being one of the most racist cities in all of american sports. this doesn't matter. lots of minorities were beloved in boston if they worked hard and produced. and if milton doesn't work hard and produce then he'll fail anywhere, so who cares if they're yelling racist [expletive] at him.

i'd be willing to bet that within 10 years your prediction will be wrong.

red sox would be weird because they already have logjams at a lot of positions (v. martinez and j. varitek at C, youk/martinez at 1B, lowrie/scutaro at SS, lowell/scutaro at 3B) and wouldn't really have room for bradley unless he or drew played LF and hermida became a backup. but supposedly they've been trying to get rid of lowell for a while; they could conceivably deal lowell for bradley, put youk back at 3B, put martinez at 1B, varitek becomes starting catcher again). that still doesn't solve what to do with bradley, but it does clear up some of their infield/C logjam and obviously lowell wouldn't have a position on the cubs so he'd need to be dealt away.

That it's for someone getting flipped makes it hard to believe it's anyone to get overly excited about, especially since he won't be here. And if he's getting flipped, have we heard anyone other than Luis Castillo mentioned as a possible flippee? And if it's 3/4 of the way done, does that mean it involves 4 players instead of 3? I could see it being 2/3 of the way done or 1/3 of the way done, but 3/4 implies that 3 of 4 parts of a deal were required to complete a deal. plus if it's someone that has to be flipped to another organization, you should probably make sure you can do that before you pull the trigger on the first trade. the last thing you need is some high-priced DH or 1B or 3B that nobody else wants and has nowhere to play on the current team.

tim brewster??? what has he done well, at all?

There were 3 undefeateds before the bowl season in 2004 as well. So once in five years something like this happens. Doesn't mean we need a playoff. I mean people can't even agree on the playoff format, but people still want a playoff. We already have a playoff it's call November. I think Florida will beat Cincy, and one of Alabama/UT and Boise/TCU will lose, meaning at best there will be 2 undefeated left in FBS. I can live with that, even if my team doesn't win it. I used to buy into the playoff talk, but the more I thought about it the less it made sense to me. in 2008-09 there were 3 undefeated teams, two of which didn't get to play for the title (boise st lost to tcu, utah beat the #4 team in the country). in 2007-08 a two-loss team (lsu) was arbitrarily selected over a bunch of other two-loss teams to play ohio st. in 2006-07, one-loss florida played for the title over one-loss michigan and one-loss usc, while boise st finished the year undefeated after beating oklahoma. i could go on and on. i'm not sure how many teams from non-bcs conferences have finished undefeated - either boise st or tcu will this year, utah did last year, boise st did in 2006-07, utah did in 2004, etc) and none of those teams have gotten a chance to play for a championship. the system completely shafts non-bcs conferences and arbitrarily chooses teams to play in the "championship game" - see one-loss florida state playing for the title over one-loss miami in 2001, with fsu's only loss coming to miami, and miami's only loss coming to one-loss washington. the system is awful.

the MARINERS shot it down??? that means hendry was clearly going to do it but the mariners didn't want to. RICKETTS FIRE THIS BUM NOW.

you need to learn that every reported trade possibility is not actually something that jim hendry is eagerly pursuing.

](*,)

This site has it at 11. I must say none of these girls are nearly as good looking as Elin. http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2009/12/08/tiger-woods-mistresses-the-still-growing-cheat-sheet/ well yeah but there's a real number and then there are the people who have never met tiger woods and are coming forward because they want publicity.

no, he definitely was. i guess he just roots for the entire state.

shouldn't the yankees have given up someone good in a trade for a good player?

peter gammons' sunday columns in the boston globe were required reading back in the 80s and early 90s. i don't understand why people don't like him; he's smart, gets a lot of inside info and is really into baseball. compared to lots of other hacks out there he's miles better, and unlike most old men who cover baseball, he is progressive and open-minded with respect to new ideas/statistics. in my next life i wouldn't mind coming back as peter gammons part 2.

this isn't true either. just this year, i can think of two-loss ohio st playing psu, iowa and michigan and needing to win all three to make a high-prestige bowl (rose), and two-loss oregon had huge games at arizona and against oregon st to make the same bowl. if two-loss iowa beat minnesota in their last game, they had a good chance of going to the bcs and at very worst the capitol one; with a loss they could have ended up in the champs sports or outback bowls. penn state's last game (michigan st) possibly meant the difference between a champs sports trip and a bcs bowl. (as it is, they're playing in a very good non-bcs bowl). wisconsin and northwestern each had multiple losses but there was plenty of interest in that game; as a result of the upset, northwestern gets to play in the outback bowl while wisconsin was relegated to the champs sports. if you're looking at things purely in terms of the national championship, sure - losing a game or two reduces the interest. but there is still plenty of interest among fan bases because of the desire to see your team play in a high-quality bowl game.

I'm not all that much more in favor of a 16 team playoff over a 4 team playoff, but I've never understood this argument. To me, this argument is favoring the importance of the regular season over the importance of having a good postseason setup. The current postseason system sucks, yet you don't want to change the postseason system to something better because it might make the regular season less important? I just don't get that. (1) it definitely WOULD make the regular season less important - all but two of those teams do not have a chance to win a title under the current format. games like Iowa-PSU, Iowa-OSU, Florida-Bama, Pitt-Cincy, etc. become less significant because one or both teams is definitely assured of playing for a title. (2) it is your opinion that the 16-team format is better. it's better in that you're virtually assured of having a champion with no controversy, but look at the ways that things can be worse. again, i'm arguing that it makes every week of the regular season worse. i'd also say that it could make certain parts of the postseason worse. i mean, look at the sports illustrated bracket. you've got Ohio St-Iowa and TCU-BYU. would you prefer those rematch games, or Ohio St-Oregon, Iowa-Ga Tech, TCU-Boise St and BYU-Oregon St? To me it's not even close. (3) Once you do something like shifting from the current broken format to a 16-team format, you're not going back. The NCAA isn't going to shift to a 16-team playoff and then shrink it to 8 or 4 or back to 2 if people don't like it. So I'd rather stick with the broken format and then get it right with the next step than shift to another bad system and be stuck with that.

great first round matchup of iowa and ohio st. And TCU-BYU yeah i missed that one too. i get that people like big tournaments and a 16-team tournament is what they have in i-aa, but as i've said before, i think one of the things that makes college football awesome and unique is that every game could be the difference between playing for a title and being left out. i think that goes away when you expand the field to 16 teams. i would favor the current broken system over a 16-team field. to me, the plus-one option was the way to go.

that's amazing