mul21

How do you make this argument when the team that's going instead of them is one they beat head to head on a neutral field? Because the season consists of 12 games, not 1. Over those 12 games, Oklahoma has been the better team. Re-read my 1st post on this page. I accounted for the whole season. And Derwood, TTU is out of the equation because the got beat by 44 by OU. They aren't in the discussion anymore. It's pretty obvious they aren't as good as either OU or UT. Edit: I would bet that if Mizzou and TTU had switched when they played UT that the scores in the games would have ended up similar to what they were. (i.e. UT killing TTU and losing to Mizzou instead of the way it happened)

How do you make this argument when the team that's going instead of them is one they beat head to head on a neutral field? And USC has won against a cupcake Pac-10 schedule and hasn't played very well in a few of their wins. Plus, the B12 schedule has just been ridiculously difficult this year.

I have very little sympathy for a team that got beat by 50.

Texas is getting screwed. I mean, the one game they lost was the 4th of a stretch where they played 4 teams ranked in the top 11 and lost the last of them at the buzzer. Plus, they beat the team going fron their half of the conference. I hope Mizzou beats OU and Texas plays whoever from the SEC for the title. God I hate the Big 12 rules and the CS. I just saw the SEC/ACC tiebreaker for a situation like this and they use the BCS standings unless the top 2 teams are within 5 spots of each other and then they go to head to head matchups. Makes a lot more sense to me. And just to clarify, I have no dog in the fight.

Not any sane ones. I really honestly don't ever remember hearing that.

This is exactly why I think they should have gotten more. They went out and hired him even though he was still on probation from his screw ups at OU. He didn't have a show cause. If the NCAA didn't want someone to hire him, they should have imposed sanctions against him moving jobs. They didn't; therefore, they implicitly gave other schools permission to hire him. I understand your point, but just because you aren't explicitly forbidden from doing something doesn't mean that doing it is a good idea. I'm an Illinois fan and I really don't hold any grudge toward IU now that they've gotten rid of the scumbag and appear to be doing things right now. I really hope all B10 teams do well other than when they play Illinois because it makes the conference look better and things easier in the postseason.

This is exactly why I think they should have gotten more. They went out and hired him even though he was still on probation from his screw ups at OU.

IMO, the punishment from the NCAA was just okay and probably should have included a 2 year post season ban. Anybody know off the top of their head what OU got from Sampson's transgressions? I think IU should have gotten everything OU did plus some extra for hiring a known cheater and not keeping a closer eye on him. At least they've moved in the right direction and put somebody in there who has a seemingly clean track record and appears to be a guy with good morals.

So apparently Indiana is getting off with really no punishment for the cheating under Sampson?

You've obviously never been to Pearl City, IL. do you know kc randall? I do. And his older brother Kort. How do you know him?

I hope Wood comes back too, but no matter what you say about Wood (loves Chicago, money isn't everything, etc.) he would have to be crazy to take the Cubs 1-year deal and leave $16 million on the table (in your example). I'm sure he knows his medical history better than any of us and he should take the most guaranteed money he can find in case his medical problems reappear. I don't see why that is being described as having to be crazy. He's already financially set for life. He can do whatever the heck he wants. And he could end up making a heck of a lot more than $24m over 3 years if he takes a 1 year deal and signs longterm after next season. It's a risk, but it's not a horrible risk or a crazy decision. But won't the players also be up in arms about Wood accepting a 1 yr arby deal over a 3 yr much more lucrative deal? I think they have a bigger problem with leaving dollars per year on the table rather than just years. In other words, they might be upset at taking a 2/$20 deal over a 3/$36 deal but wouldn't care if Woody was to take 1/$8 over 2/$16 or 3/$24.

My dad lives in Rockford and he has Insight that has picked up the BTN. Outside of that, you may try CSN or the local Fox station sometimes picks up games (at least they used to).

Well they barely beat a worse Detroit team at home a few weeks back, starting a huge stretch of bad play. At least we won this convincingly on the road. Our O-line opened holes and protected Orton decently, our pass rush showed signs of life, our secondary had 4 interceptions, our RB looked really good and broke a long run, etc etc. Even if this is a really really bad team that has given up (as Detroit is when we barely beat them), we beat them up and blew them out. So just enjoy it for 10 minutes and hope that we can carry it into next week. Detroit may have worse talent, but they are at least giving an effort. The Rams are just completely apathetic and worthless. It looked to me (I was there) that the Bears quit being aggressive and trying to go down field and score about halfway thru the 3rd quarter. I could be wrong about that since I was looking at it in person but that's just how it seemed to me. I think if they had wanted to, they probably could have scored another 10-14 points just with a little more aggressive play calling..

I think they're more concerned about the fact he may have trouble catching a cold out there, let alone baseballs.

League 1: 10-1 with 3 victories I didn't deserve because the other guy was awful that week. I was bailed out the last 2 Mondays by Warner and Lynch to pull of 5 and 1 point wins. League 2: 7-4 with 2 losses when I was in the top 3 in points of a 10 team league. I'm #2 in points overall and everything seems to be falling into place, assuming my receivers can perform decently and Addai remembers he was a 1st round pick.

Assuming Portis is okay, which I guess he is, I think you have to bench Bowe. This is the way to go. However, you're not going to know if Portis is healthy until late Sunday, so it might be wise to bench him. I have him and that's what I'm doing. Other wise, Jamal Lewis or DeAngelo Williams?

You all know who you are. i i was looking at old threads on desipio the other day for some reason and there was a really good one where people were like "WE ROSTERED THAT WORTHLESS IDIOT GEOVANY SOTO AND LET ANDY SISCO GO???!?!??!?" That was a bad move. Sisco's perceived value at the time was extremely high. If they weren't going to roster him, they should have traded him before the R5 draft came around. They could have built a heck of a package for a really good player around him. At the time, Soto wasn't MLB ready, and wouldn't have stuck with anyone. No one else in the league had high perceptions of him either at the time. Obviously, in the long term, Soto was the right keeper choice, but that move shouldn't be evaluated as if Hendry only had two options at the time: keep Soto and let Sisco go for nothing, or keep Sisco and let Soto go for nothing. He could have gotten value back on Sisco and kept Soto, or he could have kept both. I think the perceive value of a player, causes fans to overrate these guys. Personally I was upset when they let Sisco go for nothing. But I don't think Hendry is an idiot or most Gm's are in this situation. We as fans think we know how valueable these players are, but the GM's know how valueable these guys are. I'm sure months before Hendry even allowed Sisco to be in the rule 5 draft, he tried to trade him for something worth wide. I think he's in a simliar situation with Donald Veal this offseason. Too me it would seem like Veal would have some value still, since he was a high thought of prospect just a few years ago and still has good stuff. But I'm sure by now Hendry has shopped Veal name around alot, and knows he probably can't get anything of good value in return for him. So it's then up to a GM to decide, do I keep this guy on the roster. Even though he is probably less likely to make it to the majors then others, even though he has more upside? Do I just trade him for whatever I can get for him? Or do I take my chances he either won't get drafted or won't stick on a major league roster next year, and I have him back? In the Soto/Sisco(I know those weren't the only options) situation it worked out good. Just imagine if we let Soto go in the Rule 5, and some team decided to keep him as a cheap back up catcher for a year. Soto being ROY on another team, and the Cubs not making the playoffs this year(Soto not on the team would have made it alot tougher), could have caused Hendry to lose his job. Thats why sometimes with trade and other things us fans should sometimes just wait and see, before we start to chew out the GM. is this redflash in disguise? Nah, way too coherent.

Stare Oids.

Because in Chicago, Philly, New York, Boston and places like them, it's 25 degrees on November 1st a lot of times and that's not conducive to playing baseball. It sucks to watch these really good players have to fight the weather instead of just the other team.

Yeah, that's true for some of the games, but probably not for this one. What are you disagreeing with? The ticket availability and price? Or the fact the dome sucks to watch football? I'm pretty sure he's saying the giving away of tickets won't be as rampant this week because of so many Bears fans being around to buy them. And that place isn't terrible to watch the game when the Rams are doing well and people are excited. I'll be right next to the Bears tunnel for the game by the way.

I would think Bradley would take less to stay in the states and play for a winner. It should take less to get him here anyway just because of the tax situation in Canada. I'm not sure what the exact number is, but you pay something like 8-10% more in taxes up there than you would here.

Obviously not, but this may turn out to be a cost effective decision that ends with the Cubs getting 4 extra draft picks and having the ability to sign someone to help at another position. Granted, my whole scenario hinges on Gregg being reasonably effective and not blowing a whole bunch of games and Cubs management making the proper decision by leaving Marmol in the fireman role. Is it ideal? Probably not, but what other closer options are out there that won't cost $10-15M per year or a boatload of prospects?

On the bright side, he managed to survive doing that with a horrible defense behind him, and he's moving to a good one. On the negative side, everything else. His K numbers are like Howry. And he's coming to Chicago. You know, to pitch like Howry. Yea, no... And why are we only looking at 2008 numbers? Especially when somebody already showed that his numbers were skewed pretty badly by an approximately 2 week stretch where he forgot where home plate was and when he did find it he got crushed.

I'm pretty sure he's confusing you with JeffH, who would still bash Hendry even if he brought home 4 straight World Series titles.

SSR, I know you were being sarcastic for effect, but we certainly would not have been better of just releasing Ceda. Not only did we get a serviceable reliever back but also, as has been mentioned ad nauseum, the potential for 2 high draft picks next off season for the 2010 draft.