bukie

Committee didn't like UNLV as much as we did. Otherwise, it's pretty close to our bracket so far.

Well, if you get the 2 seed with Kansas, it might be just as well if you're out there. Florida as the #1 overall just makes no sense. Yes, they dominated SEC West teams in the conference tournament, and they dominated the SEC overall, but the SEC simply wasn't that good this year.

Committee nonsensical decision #1: Why the heck do you put Florida in the Midwest and Ohio State in the South? There's just no reason to do that.

Starts at 6 EDT, 5 central.

I think that the conference tournaments don't mean as much as the media pundits think they do, and that the #1s are pretty much all set already in the committee. There's so much else to do in the committee that being concerned about the order of the 6 top teams at this point in the game is pointless.

Welcome to watching Illinois basketball. Paint dries faster.

Of course, the reason they haven't beaten anyone in the country is that they play offense like they do.

One thing I do like about this Illini team is they play defense so well, if they ever have a good shooting game they can beat anybody.

Well, at least it can be said that Illinois had a lead in the game.

Up your ASS.... We are 11-6 in conference, clearly showed we are at least 4th in the Big 12, yet we still get no respect. I love dilusional Big Televen fans..... Go win at Texas. Guarantee it wouldn't happen. So we lose to KU 2x....but only lose to aTm by 4 at their house, while we only had Walker for 5 mins of the game......no, that didn't matter.. We came back from that, without our best player, to win 12 of 16 and finish 4th in the Big 12...... If KSU is NOT in, I'll drive to Indy and show MANY people my ASS! Their statistical numbers are very poor. They played an easy schedule, and it is going to end up burning them. It's not a biased opinion that's keeping them out, it's their profile.

What's the process (besides the obvious of selecting the teams)? It sounds interesting. Sorry, missed this earlier. We do it over 3 or 4 days from Thursday-Sunday. We start with everyone submitting every team they think has an argument to be an at large team. I don't believe there's a limit on # of teams you can submit, but obviously you keep it within reason as it's unlikely anyone truly feels 70 teams have at large arguments. After all those are submitted all teams that reach a certain %, (I know in the past we had it at 7 out of 9 ballots, but it depends on the # of people participating) are put in as locks. From there, all teams that received at least one vote, but less than the percentage are put into the bubble pool. You can make your case for any team you wish in the thread, and then by Friday night you rank all the bubble teams from 1 on down. After that a composite ranking figures out who the at large teams are at that point. If the chalk holds up in the final conference tourneys, teams that were just out would then be moved in as necessary. Finally once all the at larges are taken care of, there is a final 1-65 ranking of all the teams we've put in the tourney, the rankings are combined, and we come up with our own field of 65. In the 2 years we've done it we haven't had to deal with any Sunday spoilers putting a non at large into the tourney, so hopefully that holds out(on a personal level too) otherwise things can get confusing. It sounds kind of daunting now that I re-read that, but really to participate doesn't take that much effort, and is fairly easy to zoom through if you've followed the season all year, which seems like you have. The tough stuff falls on the person who runs it compiling all the numbers which is why I'm shamelessly begging Bukie to run it again. Sounds interesting and fun. If you/bukie decide to run it, I'm in. Darn, they remembered it was me... :) I can throw something together quickly, but I likely won't be at a computer Thursday until late, so I'll have to see how everything works out.

Isn't that the kind of thinking that resulted in the Cubs trading for Juan Pierre, just because he was what was available last year? No use making a move simply for the sake of making a move.

I think Simmons' blurb at the end of his article is foreshadowing that he'll bet on the Bears in his SB picks. He likes to bet simply to go against the overwhelming consensus.

So if Dallas Clark goes in the slot, who would be assigned to cover him? Probably Urlacher or Briggs. If Wayne is in the slot, likely Ricky Manning.

The problem is every play can't be looked at objectively. A 15 yard TD run by Thomas Jones in the last 8 minutes of an 18 point ball game isn't worth the same as it would be in the first half, for example. We were kinda "padding our stats" at that point. DVOA doesn't look at every play the same. It's all situational. The defense was never "padding their stats", regardless. And offensively, despite getting short fields, they still punched it into the end zone half the time. And the Saints certainly hadn't given up until the score was already 39-14.

For what it's worth, the Bears had the highest DVOA of any playoff team last weekend, by a good amount, and were the only team that was above average in all 3 phases of the game (Colts were below average special teams, Pats were below average offensively, Saints were below average defensively and in special teams). The Bears did not win last week because of some fluke. They played really well, for about 45 minutes of the game. EDIT: Also, keep in mind, for as "ineffective" as Grossman was, the Bears did have 7 scoring drives (yes, there were 4 offensive TDs and 3 FGs), although one of said drives went about 3 yards and resulted in a 43-yd FG.

To be fair, you more resemble a form of hobbit or halfling than a troll. Seriously, though, if anyone has issues with what they think is "trolling", PM a mod. There's no need for anyone to be this generation's McCarthy just because not everyone agrees with what you think perfectly.

Agreed. If the Bears are going to win, Grossman is definitely going to have to make some big plays. Or no stupid ones. I'm not sure if Rex just playing safe is going to do it. The Colts are going to put up points. Rex might have to answer the call on one or more occasions. The one thing I'm nervous about is the mystique of the Super Bowl getting to a guy like Grossman. Manning seems to be the seasoned vet that might thrive under Super Bowl pressure. (Although I am aware of his past playoff problems) This is the type of game that could define Rex Grossman's career. If he does well under this type of pressure, I can see him becoming great. If he folds, well, lets not get into that. I heard one expert say that Grossman had a very good game yesterday. I suppose 11-26 and a little over a hundred yards is a very good game in some peoples book but I do think he got away with a couple of bad passes. He reminded me of Trent Difler yesterday. The running game and defense won that game and Rex made no mistakes. I will say Grossman had a very good series yesterday when the Bears needed him to, while the Saints were simply playing to stop the run and daring Grossman to beat them. The rest of the game, the playcalling was on the extreme side of conservative, and the running game was working so well (combined with insanely good field position) that Grossman didn't have to do much of anything else. He made one really bad throw, and the TD pass to Berrian wasn't so much a bad throw as a jump ball where Fred Thomas jumped early and Berrian fell down.

Oh noes! Hyperbole abounds!

I have no problem with anyone cheering a team on, no matter which team it is. That's not trolling. What I do consider trolling is posting something like "HAHAHAHAHA" over and over again every time something goes wrong for the Bears. I mean, who are you really laughing at by posting that? I don't think the Bears read this board. To be fair, it's largely trolling the other way when someone cheers on the misfortune of the other team.

It's only in part Grossman's fault, but the receivers should be expected to catch anything within a foot of their chest, regardless. Manning was starting next to Brown, but once Brown was out, and then especially Chris Harris and Todd Johnson, there was no realistic possibility of Manning getting benched for poor play.

The Vikings were solid defensively this year, they just had nothing on offense. In terms of interdivisional defenses, I think the Saints actually had it easier by playing the Bucs and Falcons twice. Given the Bears competition within the division and the fact that they were never fewer than 3 games ahead of the next closest NFC competitor, the Bears last 7 games were all "throwaway" games. They just won 6 of them. That's not to say the Bears didn't play hard in any of them. It's just to say that there was little to no reason to go all out from the Giants game on. Of course, their performance this past week means more, and they didn't exactly play a whole lot better defensively. So who's to say what's going to happen with the defense.

My "scouting report" on the Bears: The Bears are basically a fantastically inconsistent team. They have the ability to play like the best team in the league at any given moment, but they also have the ability to implode at any time (see: Third quarter yesterday). Defense: Losing Harris and Brown has really stretched the defense thin, forcing the Bears to blitz to put pressure on the QB, and forcing a rookie safety into the lineup. Blitzing from the LBs opens up the middle of the field for 5-15 yard passes, and Danieal Manning tends to count on his speed too much to catch up, giving a large cushion to throw to. To improve, Manning needs to react better and guess less, so that he's on the receiver much quicker, either breaking up the pass or being there right away for the tackle, giving the receiver less chance for YAC (something Tillman and Vasher are generally very good at). The line has been getting almost no pressure for weeks now, and I think the Bears are overcompensating by blitzing too much, allowing open routes and opening larger holes in the defensive backfield. The best the Bears did defensively yesterday was when they simply sent the front four in to rush, keeping the LBs back to react to runs or short passes. Urlacher and Briggs played very well yesterday to keep the Seahawks offense honest. Offense: Rex is both a boon and a liability. He always wants to make something happen out of nothing, and that was the main reason for the fumble. He generally had a good game yesterday, other than 2 passes about 6 inches behind where they needed to be, 1 to Berrian that would've been a TD, and one to Muhammad that led to the fluke INT. Rushing, Jones always waits for a hole, even if there is none, and Benson generally just charges ahead right away. Benson's approach has been working better lately, but the run blocking was pretty good yesterday regardless. Pass protection was OK, but blitz recognition was abysmal. Sure, rattling Rex with pressure will make him force things, but there was an unblocked rusher on about 75% of the blitzes, and there were blockers just standing around waiting for something to happen. Either Rex needs to recognize what's going on quicker, or the blockers have to recognize everyone that comes on the blitz.

Just curious cuz I know nothing of Gould, but if he sucked how did he get to the NFL? Basically, because the Bears needed something after Doug Brien didn't work out at all last year. Gould was essentially hammering nails last year.

Gene Wojciechowski = former disgrunteled Tribune writer. From the tone of that article, he's currently disgruntled, formerly a Tribune writer.