Chocolate Milk

3/45. Take it!!!

Sure they did. Michigan had close games against Penn State and BALL STATE.

USC should get kudos for scheduling such a tough out of conference schedule. Arkansas, Notre Dame, and Nebraska.

I don't what that has to do with anything. Michigan doesn't have to play well enough to deserve another shot. They need to be the 2nd best team in the country. And I think there is a strong case that they are. There certainly isn't a stronger case that anybody else is better. I don't think they played well enough to remain the #2 team in the country. I don't understand where your confusion stems from. I think you could make a strong case for Florida or USC as the second best team in the nation.

agreed by nearly anyone who watched the game objectively. So anybody who doesnt agree isnt being objective? Interesting, good to know. Its ok to have different perceptions on said game. I dont think it was a garbage TD. Even after not recovering the onside kick there was 2.30 minutes left. Plenty of time if they would of stopped them for a 3 and out, especially for college football. Down 21-7 after being up 7-0 id like to see how other football teams would of resonded to that pressure in Columbus on Saturday. And since when did mistakes not matter in CFB? One of said fumbles was on a 3rd and 1 and would of resulted in a punt. Still that recovery didnt result in points. The other fumble was because he tried to get out of the pocket to quickly because an edge rusher was up the field. Mistakes are part of football. OSU had 3 really big plays and 2 huge runs on offense. Michigan had a more balanced offense in the game. Troy Smith was the better QB in the game and Henne had a great game, thats how good Troy was. But since see i see it differently and not as 'objectively' as you i must be delusional no matter how constructive my thoughts are on this. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Michigan didn't put up a fight but Ohio State played better than the score indicated. While turnovers are part of the game, QB Center exchanges have nothing to do with the other team. Michigan didn't force them, they just happened. Ohio State outgained Michigan 503-397 in the game with 81 of those Michigan yards coming in that last drive where Ohio State was in the prevent. I just don't think Michigan played well enough to disserve another shot in the National title game. You, and a lot of other people disagree with me, though so who knows.

Well, then. Let's cut them and wait for a flawless player to come along!!!

Since there is no "Other games" thread...

:D Me, too. The Grady Little signing column was a classic. I'll go out on a limb here and say there will be a reference to a dirty uniform in said article.

I eagerly await the Plaschke article about this.

I don't think the UM should still be #2. Sure the game ended up being close, but OSU fumbled 2 snaps on their side of the field, and Michigan got that garbage touchdown late. I think UM was signifigantly outplayed by OSU.

They did what they had to do to win this game, without showing anything to the Patriots. This had classic letdown game potential, but the Bears methodically beat a good team on the road. If anything, this game showed teams that you can't go into the Bears game thinking, "stop Grossman, and we win". Everybody talked about beating the Bears by forcing Rex into mistakes. But they just showed it's not that simple. This defense made Brady look silly the week before. I think this was a play it close to the vest type of game. They held almost everything back, and did the bare minimum to win. If I'm a Bears opponent in the coming weeks, I'm thinking long and hard about how I'm going to beat them, because there is no simple plan. Rex and Turner said they had a very simple game plan for this game. It does look like they played it close to the vest.

This is a good point. Some of the contracts that seemed way out of line when they were signed, are looking better now. Player contracts are trending up so it might take some of the sting off this one, down the road. That's what people thought when Hampton, Giambi, Jeter, and A-Rod signed their contracts 5-7 years ago. It's just something to consider. Jeter, Giambi, and ARod are all making more than Sori will, as well.

Does spending $17 million on Soriano mean the Cubs will win a WS though? I'm sorry, I'm just having trouble leting this go. It brings them closer, yes. But it's a pretty far cry from a sure thing that they would even make the playoffs with this team. More needs to be done. Okay, I'll stop now. Obviously more needs to be done. If this was it, and there was no room for anything else, then it's a terrible signing. But that doesn't seem to be the case. I guess I'm still skeptical. It's hard to believe that the Cubs would offer this deal without understanding the long term impact of it. Hey, it's the Cubs though.

This is a good point. Some of the contracts that seemed way out of line when they were signed, are looking better now. Player contracts are trending up so it might take some of the sting off this one, down the road.

What a terrible argument. Last I checked the BoSox won a WS in 2004. The Yankees have won a few in the past 10 years as well. The Mets could easily win it next season. No Big Spending does not equal championships, but it usually keeps you in contention year in and year out. Right now, as a Cubs fan, I'll certainlty take that. Why is it a terrible arguement. those three team have one championship between them in the last six years. the yankees went on their championship run before they started the massive spending the have today. the mets have been spending big for years and haven't come close to a championship. how many championships did baltimore win in the 90's when they were grossly out-spending everyone? it's relevant. Spending money doesn't keep you from winning. That's completely absurd. It will increase your chances of going to the playoffs and get you better players in the long run. Just because other teams who spend money haven't won the World Series in the last few years doesn't mean it's impossible to do so. I didn't say that. Of course spending money WISELY increases your chances to win. Also, it can allow you to cover up your mistakes by spending more money. What I'm saying is, I'm not going to write off the massive amount of money going toward Soriano at ages 38 and 39. I'm glad they made the move to get him, but I'm very worried about the long terms effect of the contract. Others aren't becuase they claim they say, "If it brings the Cubs a World Series, who cares?" If it does, yeah I agree. But I don't think they are even close at this point and I'm not going to just say "who cares" about 17 million dollars. Sorry. Looks like I miss understood what you were saying, my bad. I'm not as worried about the money as some are. Sori's contract is only cost prohibitive is the Cubs make it so. If the Cubs impose some sort of spending limit and refuse to go over it for any reason, then yes, obviously it will be a big deal. However, if the Cubs have decided to pay what it takes to improve the team, then it probably won't matter as much. I'm not sure what's going on at this point. This could just be a massive reach in the hopes one big player will fix everything or it could be a sign that the Cubs aren't going to let money get in the way of getting who they feel the team needs. I guess we'll find out this offseason as the Cubs still have many holes to fill. If they fill those holes with a patchwork of average and unremarkable players, then it'll look like Sori's contract is going to be an issue. If they go out and get Drew, for example, or a top of the line starter, then I won't worry about the contract as much. It seems like a lot of people here are upset about the money due to some issue with fairness. He's not WORTH the money he's getting. Well, you are right, he probably isn't. Then again, I don't think players view the Cubs as a premier destination. Sometimes you have to overpay to get what you need. I'd rather have the Cubs doing something like this rather than sitting on their hands because they can't get the perfect deal. If the last two years are option years, as has been widely speculated then the contract looks even better. I'm going to have to reserve judgement on the money issue. I'm more worried about how his performance will be. Will he be 2006 Soriano or will he be 2005 Soriano?

What a terrible argument. Last I checked the BoSox won a WS in 2004. The Yankees have won a few in the past 10 years as well. The Mets could easily win it next season. No Big Spending does not equal championships, but it usually keeps you in contention year in and year out. Right now, as a Cubs fan, I'll certainlty take that. Why is it a terrible arguement. those three team have one championship between them in the last six years. the yankees went on their championship run before they started the massive spending the have today. the mets have been spending big for years and haven't come close to a championship. how many championships did baltimore win in the 90's when they were grossly out-spending everyone? it's relevant. Spending money doesn't keep you from winning. That's completely absurd. It will increase your chances of going to the playoffs and get you better players in the long run. Just because other teams who spend money haven't won the World Series in the last few years doesn't mean it's impossible to do so.

I can't believe how much the national media is dissing Grossman for that game. I'm confused by this as well. Everyone had been saying he had to avoid a "blowup game" and "get out of the defense's way." Now he does that and he's "doing his best Kyle Orton impression." He had a low 80's QB rating. Not great, but not bad either.

So are the last 2 years option years as was originally speculated?

Who cares where he bats? Batting order isn't very significant. If anything, batting first will get him more at bats, which is a good thing.

Exactly. This signing is only cost prohibitive if the Cubs make it so. If they refuse to spend to sign other players because of this contract, then obviously it will be harmful. If it doesn't effect their spending too much, then it will probably be alright. There's no hard cap here. The Cubs can do whatever they want. This signing says to me that they are going spend more than they have in past. If that's the case (it's clearly pure speculation at this point), I'm not really worried about the money.

I'd just like the add that the Tillman injury was weird. Any word on this?

Oh man! I hope this doesn't put us over the salary cap!

And apparently never will either... Who is going to play CF and what happened to Murton and Jones? They said he's not playing center in the presser.

Also nice to see Rex avoid the blow up game.

QFT