adamb0719

I have heard of several instances where teams won't deal with Drew. However Drew denies all of that so who knows what is true.

Could possibly be the first time since Carroll was hired that Plaschke wrote something bad about USC. With USC's depleted LB corpse, it was much harder for Carroll to take action against Maualuga. Is this a somewhat big story out there, or is it no big deal?

Pete Carroll and UCS are getting some heat for letting a player who was arrested play. I have read about 5 articles on this and this one seems to have the most info. From what I know USC has run a clean program, and I am not sure why Pete would change that now. http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/usc/la-sp-plaschke13nov13,1,6252716,full.column?coll=la-headlines-sports-coll-usc&ctrack=1&cset=true

That is very annoying. I tried to get some medicine the other day and the pharmacist was on lunch so they told me I had to wait an hour before I could buy cold medicine.

Haha, I didn't even think about that, but it's a really good point. I don't really think it's a sham. The Cubs, unfortunately, were irrelevent this year. Lee was the best hitter in baseball, but Pujols was a very good hitter and played for a team for which his productivity actually helped to get into the playoffs. Just like McGwire had a better year than Sosa in '98, Lee had a better year than Pujols... but all his offense did was help the Cubs win a few more games that turned out to be meaningless. That is what bothers me about this award. Just because Pujols was on a better team, does that make him more valuable to his team? I just wish it were really an award for the most valuable player, period. What player is more valuable to their team than any other player. Even though Lee helped win meaningless games it should not be any less important in regards to this award. Gammons said this morning that had the Cubs been in the race at the end of the year Lee probably would have had a good chance of winning. Why does the Cubs standing at the end of th year matter? It doesn't take away from what Lee did, IMO. That being said, congrats to Pujols.

I know that it is not out of the ordinary to see players using some sort of substance. I didn't know of any LSD instances except for Ellis (I am sure there are though), but Meth just sounds crazy. What it does to your mind is different than LSD, coke, weed, uppers. I makes you absolutely crazy. I guess I just don't see how it can be the most common drug used among pitchers. Meth is a beast of a drug

Exactly, if the Olympics can test for it, congress should push around MLB some more and get this included as well. I am curious to see what testing pitchers for meth will do. Meth? Yep, methamphetamines/crystal meth It is the most common drug used in MLB, pitchers are the dominant user of it. Are you serious? Meth would not be good to use in a game situation. I find it very hard to believe pitchers smoke meth before a game. I can think of no way that would improve their game.

A I-AA win doesn't count as a win towards bowl games. You need to have seven I-A wins on the 12-game schedule to be bowl-eligible. And I believe it would really kill the SOS. Can they petition to have them count?

This team would not be nearly as good as it appears to be without Weis. Ty is just not a very good coach. Many players on the team have said they learned things about their position they never knew until this year. They have said they understand the game more and are more confident. There really is an attitude to this team that has not been seen since Holtz left. Ty did not just lose games, the teams he put on the field were dominated for the most part. While he did have some big wins, he also had some losses that should not have happened.

where'd you hear this? I just read on a Marlins board that it will be announced tomorrow, but it didn't name who we were sending. Not reliable but I thought I would throw it out there.

And ND very well could lose. I think ND would have a very legit chance of losing to any team they play in a BCS game. I would be OK if they lost also. I never thought they would be in a situation where I could be talking about a BCS game this season. It would suck if they lost, but they have already exceeded my expectations for the year. Adam, you and I finally disagree on something! I predicted ND to have 8 wins this year...while nine would exceed my expectations, once we get to a bowl I want to win it. I am so sick and tired of hearing about "we haven't won a bowl since 1994". I want to get a bowl win so that's not hanging over our heads anymore. I'd be upset if we lost a hypothetical BCS game - not incensed, but still unhappy. Let me rephrase. If they are in a BCS game I want them to win. However just the fact they are in this position shows me that the team is headed in the right direction. Just look at how many people are talking about an "irrelevant" team right now. ND is on the rise and that makes me happy. A BCS win would probably silence a lot more of the critics. And losing would just add fuel to their fire. But honestly I am happy with what they have done and, IMO a loss would not take away from what they have accomplished.

And ND very well could lose. I think ND would have a very legit chance of losing to any team they play in a BCS game. I would be OK if they lost also. I never thought they would be in a situation where I could be talking about a BCS game this season. It would suck if they lost, but they have already exceeded my expectations for the year.

You said OSU by 3.

Tennessee, BYU, or Pitt would be ND's second best win. You could debate on which one is exactly second, but they're similar. How are Pitt and Tennesse similiar? Every game Tennessee lost was to a top 25 team. A few of those games could have gone either way. Pitt is just bad.

Don't know if this was already posted, but here is an article about the Miller/Kruetz fight http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2223842

ND is guaranteed a spot if they are in the top 8, or if a non-BCS team is in the top 6, gets an at-large, and ND is in the top twelve with 9 or more wins. So right now they aren't in a BCS bowl? Eligible, but not guarenteed. They will get an at-large undoubtedly, but they are not guarenteed one. How the hell do you spell guarenteed? Is that right? Sure doesn't look right. It is guaranteed. ND will get in if they're eligible, except for 2002 when the at-large situation was very mucked up and BCS-eligible ND was passed over. Thanks for the spelling help :oops: 2002 they did not deserve it, IMO. They lost two of their last three and got smoked by USC. They also got killed by NC State, so I know they would have been embarrassed by any BCS team. The beginning of the end for Ty.

ND is guaranteed a spot if they are in the top 8, or if a non-BCS team is in the top 6, gets an at-large, and ND is in the top twelve with 9 or more wins. So right now they aren't in a BCS bowl? Eligible, but not guarenteed. They will get an at-large undoubtedly, but they are not guarenteed one. How the hell do you spell guarenteed? Is that right? Sure doesn't look right.

ND is guaranteed a spot if they are in the top 8, or if a non-BCS team is in the top 6, gets an at-large, and ND is in the top twelve with 9 or more wins.

Awesome huh? If FSU wins the ACC some team is going to get really screwed out of a spot they deserve. Didn't FSU go to a BCS game a few years ago with a 7-4 record? Question: Does every team have the same requirements as ND? The reason I ask is because if scUM beats O$U, they could very well be in the BCS top twelve with 8 wins, not the 9 required for ND. I'm guessing 9 wins is not a requirement for conference teams, but I may be wrong. If Penn State loses and Michigan beats O$U, Michigan would be in at 8-3. FSU would be in at either 9-3 (if they beat Florida and Miami/Va Tech) or 8-4 (if they lose to Florida but win the ACC title). South Florida could also be in with 3 losses if they win out. But the scenerio I wondered about was what if Penn State wins, and scUM wins out. Penn State is in, but Is scUM eligible for a BCS game? No, probably not, as they wouldn't be anywhere near the top 12 in the BCS rankings. But they could be in the top 12 in the BCS if they beat OSU. They are currently 15. Auburn and Bama play each other. USC and UCLA play each other. Plus there are still conference championship games. if scUM beats O$U they will more than likely jump TCU, leaving just two spots to overcome, which would be taken care of by the schedules of teams ahead of them. That was my original question, I may have just asked it funny. If scUM beats O$U they will more than likely be in the top twelve with 8 wins. Does that make them eligible?

So a 1 loss WVU is in. However if they lose to South Florida they are out, even though they have a better all around record then SF, in the same conference?

It is rivalry week? Who is ND playing? Oh, Cuse. I don't think it is rivalry week then. ND and their fans determines who are rivals. Of course, if they determine that Cuse is a rival then, rivalry week is back on. Holy bitter. My hate for all things Golden Domeish knows no bounds. May I ask why, without starting a huge debate? You state your reasons, I promise not to argue them, no matter how outlandish they are :wink:

Awesome huh? If FSU wins the ACC some team is going to get really screwed out of a spot they deserve. Didn't FSU go to a BCS game a few years ago with a 7-4 record? Question: Does every team have the same requirements as ND? The reason I ask is because if scUM beats O$U, they could very well be in the BCS top twelve with 8 wins, not the 9 required for ND. I'm guessing 9 wins is not a requirement for conference teams, but I may be wrong. If Penn State loses and Michigan beats O$U, Michigan would be in at 8-3. FSU would be in at either 9-3 (if they beat Florida and Miami/Va Tech) or 8-4 (if they lose to Florida but win the ACC title). South Florida could also be in with 3 losses if they win out. But the scenerio I wondered about was what if Penn State wins, and scUM wins out. Penn State is in, but Is scUM eligible for a BCS game?

Awesome huh? If FSU wins the ACC some team is going to get really screwed out of a spot they deserve. Didn't FSU go to a BCS game a few years ago with a 7-4 record? Question: Does every team have the same requirements as ND? The reason I ask is because if scUM beats O$U, they could very well be in the BCS top twelve with 8 wins, not the 9 required for ND. This is why these playoff games bother me. The Big East has all these rules that they have to abide by but the other 5 don't to play in the BCS games. Florida St. can lose to Florida and still go to a BCS game while West Virginia could get booted if they don't finish in the top 12 even if they only have one loss. I agree with your point. But the year that FSU went when they were 7-4 there was no ACC playoff. This is the first year for that. I think I just got confused. Isn't every BCS conference champion guarenteed (sp?) a BCS game, or does the BCS pick who goes out of the Conference champs and the at-larges? I always thought FSU went every year because they won the ACC. And didn't Miami always get in because the won the Big East? I thought the Big East champ was guarenteed a spot. I don't think it possible for WVU to not go if they win out.

LOL! Can you punch him twice, once for me?

11th in the CPU polls. ND is 13th. I will refrain from revealing my double standard. :wink: