ConstableRabbit

What does crashing a car when drunk have to do with personality? Everything. Briggs will make for good TV.

By itself no, but every sports movie or show ever made has its religious characters. I would bet that Cutler and Cavallari, Emery and Trestman, Bennett, Marshall and Long would be headliners. Plus whoever gets drafted first and then some combination of veterans holding onto positions on defense plus young guys looking to take their spot. Briggs could be such a guy, but he's been around a long time and hasn't shown much of a personality. Yeah, not like he crashed an Italian sportscar on the Edens while drunk and covered it up. Bor-ring!

How exactly is he "entitled"?

He wasn't nearly as good as McGuire. McGwire had a 5.2 WAR as a skinny rookie. HOF voters that vote for him probably subscribe to the "HOFer without steroids" theory. Sosa was a good, sometimes very good player who suddenly exploded into a superstar for 5-6 year period. Also I think those that vote for McGwire probably took the fact that he basically owned up to his steroid use, while Sosa still refuses to admit he did anything wrong. He lost all credibility to deny cheating when he 1) got caught with a corked bat, 2) explained in extremely broken english that he accidently grabbed a batting practice bat 3) used more extremely broken english to not incriminate himself while being questioned about steroid use in congress and 4) was named in a report as someone who tested positive for steroids. It's a stupid reason why, but I definitely think thats the general thought process. Also, the numbers show McGwire was clearly the superior player, although just looking at the numbers and nothing else they both have HOF worthy numbers. The knock on Sosa using an interpreter always really bugged me. There's an immense difference from the English used to say "Beisbol ha been bery bery good to me" and the language skills required to testify before Congress. The man probably spoke more Spanish than English in any given year -- give him a break!

http://i.imgur.com/UbBLAI2.jpg

@WindhorstESPN: Bulls did well with picks, will get a 1st rounder the Cavs own from Sacramento, limited 1st swap rights from Cavs in 15, 2 2nd round picks.

LOL @ no one voting for Sammy.

Literal lol.

What has AJ McCarron done for the SEC? Contributed to the art community

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-cutler-bears-poll-20140102,0,4712.poll

Gymnasium!

or-gun-i-ZAY-shuns

Texas Tech is UA.

$9m guaranteed. Wow.

How does that differ from LD%?

so you knew what it meant, asked what it meant anyway, and then got pissy when somebody pointed out you should have been able to tell what it meant? So you wouldn't have made a big [expletive] deal about it if David had just said, "what an odd phrasing"?

It'd certainly up the intimidation factor. And that's without even mentioning their enormous ball.

I didn't say it was meaningless -- I said it was a throw-in compared to the reports of $100m in guaranteed money that it came with. Alabama can throw money at Saban, too. An ownership stake in a network is something that would be truly game-changing and that no other team outside BYU could offer.

Nobody was talking about 1% of the total valuation. The only thing mentioned was profits. A lot of media outlets were saying "1% of the Longhorn Network". To me, that doesn't imply 1% of profits; it implies an equity stake. The media in general, and the sports media in particular, is horrible when it comes to specific language related to business issues. I would have to imagine it would be a profit-sharing situation, as an actual equity stake in a television network is an entirely different beast. Sure, but when we're talking about figures already as large as $100m, 1% of profits from LHN is more of a throw-in than a deciding factor. Seems silly to offer. ETA: And by that I mean, I expected some sort of game-changing offer akin to what ther Angels tried to do with Pujols.

Urlacher being Urlacher, saying Cutler might be healthy and McCown needs to start. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-urlacher-backs-mccown-over-cutler-20131211,0,2762630.story

Nobody was talking about 1% of the total valuation. The only thing mentioned was profits. A lot of media outlets were saying "1% of the Longhorn Network". To me, that doesn't imply 1% of profits; it implies an equity stake.

Ah-ha! I hadn't heard that reported anywhere and glossed over it on the page. Thank you for clarifying. My head was about to explode.

The real RGIII!

If you're relying on profitability when creating a valuation, you're doing it wrong. If Texas is explaining the value of 1% of the LHN to Saban based on current profits, they're doing it wrong.

You honestly think the network is worth $15m?