SpongeWorthy

lol Knox lol

Pac's just a machine.

lol, Margarito messing around with ephedrine in his locker room.

How stupid is this announcer? He's congratulating Oregon for not trying to tack on another score as if it's some great moral act. They want to protect the lead dumbass.

Oh god. "I'm not sure why they wouldn't accept the penalty there" Well, it's academic now.

Why wouldn't Cal decline that?

If you're asking whether a Cal football team failed to capitalize on a golden opportunity then I think you already know the answer. (Yeah, they missed it)

It's really going to be a tragic day when Rose is literally stabbed on court and doesn't get a whistle.

Does anyone process what's happening on a basketball court more slowly and with more inaccuracies than Neil Funk?

Did I hear correctly? A Paterno team never had a passing TD in the Shoe until today?

San Diego State up 14-0 early on TCU.

I have a phrase for you..."process of catching the ball" that was just a shameful win. i'm talking about an exciting win where it looked like we would lose 10 times over. Arizona/Chicago 2006 MNF

Hell of a drive by Northwestern.

Wilt had 55 in a game. This was the most since Barkley had 33 in a 96 game. Everyone laugh @ the Knicks.

He finished with 31/31.

Arguably? How dare you sir.

And isn't the conventional wisdom that the first two Super Bowls were no bigger than the previous NFL championship games and didn't raise into "Super Bowl" stature until the Jets won SBIII? Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Championship_Game,_1967 According to that wiki the Ice Bowl game between Dallas/GB for the NFL title was clearly more important than Super Bowl II a few weeks later.

Oh yeah, that's a big reason. The NFL was definitely the red headed step child of American football compared to college for a long time.

I don't think the devaluing is as strong as you make it out to be. The marketing hype isn't as strong because the Super Bowl is a very, very strong brand in its own right. But teams like the Bears, Giants, Skins, Colts, even the Packers are considered some of the banner franchises because of success in the pre Super Bowl era. Plus the greatest game of all time is still widely considered the 1958 NFL Championship Game between the Colts and Giants. And if there's one thing that keeps the cache for the pre-color barrier/pre WWII World Series championships it's that the Yankees won so damn many of them.

I can't imagine why a Bulls fan would care about that, but Bulls fans are [expletive] nutjobs that can't get over MICHAEL 12 years later so I guess it makes sense. yea why care that our team holds the record for the most wins ever in a season? that's like, barely even an accomplishment. but holding onto a championship 12 years later is reasonable, right? Doesn't everyone think the '72 Dolphins are sad and pathetic? Yeah, but they whore themselves out to the media any time anyone threatens the mark. Mercury Morris would not shut up when the Patriots were on their undefeated streak.

Either obtuse means the opposite of what you think it means, or you don't get it. I'm just saying there are several statistic measures that indicate Miami, even now, isn't doing nearly as poorly as ignorant media pundits and schadenfreude-filled fans think they are. And you don't have to be stupid to believe it, either. And it's not just Sagarin, or just adding up individual PER's, either. Look at Hollinger's team ratings (which I promise you aren't doctored to favor the Heat), look at BP's SCHOENE projections (which, admittedly, costs money), or offensive and defensive efficiency, or adjusted scoring margin, or even basic scoring margin! At the end of the day, simply looking at W-L record has one purpose: whether or not you get into the playoffs. Beyond that, it tells very little about the quality of a team, the likelihood of a team winning, or even eliminate the possibility that the lesser team can win 4 of 7. And I'm pretty sure if you asked Sagarin (or even Hollinger), he'd give the Heat the best odds of winning it all, even today. However, even if those odds against the Lakers and Celtics were 55%, that still leaves a 45% chance they don't. Nobody's guaranteeing anything, here, just pointing out that the Heat are in fact playing better than their W-L record indicates. But you probably admit they wouldn't say the Hornets have the 2nd best chance of winning the title right? I mean maybe that's what their black box spits out, and that's why their models have value--because they don't fudge the numbers to their own eyeballs, but they don't REALLY believe that. The predictor is only taking this season's games into account. It doesn't take the last few years where teams like the Lakers and Celtics have clearly been superior to a team like New Orleans and where nebulous ideas about playoff experience, coaching, match ups come into play. I'm guessing the last ~200 games the Lakers and Celtics have played are a better predictor than just the first 7 New Orleans has played, especially when their core guys are still intact.

I'm guessing SSR had an adult beverage or 8 when he posted that.

I'm guessing if it comes out that Auburn knew they were playing a player that would be ruled ineligible that the punishments down the line would be more severe than if they got out in front of it.

I have no clue what you're trying to say because you're being intentionally obtuse about it. If Jeff Sagarin's life depended on predicting the outcome between a Lakers/Heat series, I very highly doubt he would pick Miami, at least at this point in time. I doubt he'd pick New Orleans over the Lakers or Celtics either despite what his predictor says.

If the "common sense" approach is seeing a 5-4 record and chuckling to myself while popping a bottle of champagne on behalf of the 1996 Bulls, I'll take the statistical model, thanks. Huh? So you think Miami is going 67-6 the rest of the way?