SpongeWorthy

yeah, i think hyperbole has made it more difficult, but foulacy's ultimate conclusion is right: there is no big 3 in the Big 12. OU/Texas are alone at the top. Well, Texas is alone at the top. Certainly historically and in the last few years. Though OU had a pretty good run there. I think the separation between Texas and OU (currently) is significantly smaller than that between OU and the rest of the field. They made the BCS title game 2 season ago. I guess Texas has a more recent championship and just played for one but there is barely separation there. It's like Alabama vs. Florida.

Doing what the Pistons did last offseason is basically the exact template to avoid. They felt obligated to use their cap money and ended up giving it to Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva instead of being players this year (ignore that it's Detroit). And they were still really bad, although not as bad as they should've been for drafting purposes.

Not on the football field.

At the same time, I am also nervous that Wade will snag Bosh, LeBron will go to NYK, and the Bulls will, as you correctly say, overpay for Joe freaking Johnson, and have a nice little 50 win team that won't get anywhere in the playoffs. Amare, Johnson, Boozer and David Lee are all gonna see nice paydays, but I don't think any of those four make the Bulls championship caliber. Basically, I'm really, really, really wanting us to snag LeBron or Bosh, or I'll be sadpandaland. I think the Bulls could be a 50 win team even if they didn't sign any of those guys, drafted a good shooter, and stayed healthy. But yeah David Lee and Joe Johnson ain't putting you over the top regardless. Much better to hold on to the cap space and hope for Melo or some other big fish becoming available through trade than give a non-star superstar money. We've already done that with Deng.

A&M isn't on Texas or OU's level. Texas Tech has gotten more nationwide attention in the last 5 or so years than A&M has.

I'm always surprised when preseason hockey starts up again. The offseason seems like nothing when you don't follow the sport much.

Utah is a nice program. Those games are gonna be a bear for anyone in the Pac 10. Although adding CU and Utah doesn't seem like the economic game changer that people said was the conferences primary motivation. I wonder where the Pac 10 championship game will be held now. Vegas would be great although they don't have the stadium for it.

nobody is saying paul is better right now Are we talking because of his health? A healthy Chris Paul is way better than Rondo.

Some people complain about specific NFL games being low scoring. I like a good battle in the 20s rather than a 13-9 game personally.

A buddy of mine insists that the 1970 Brazil team would dominate every international team these days. He's on a big kick about how the level of play is down in international soccer. What do you soccer geeks think?

I thought it was common knowledge that hockey players love to blow off some steam and get bombed. Isn't that part of the charm?

If Pelini is the right hire I don't see any real reason that NU can't be in national title discussion every once in awhile. They won't be an annual powerhouse like Texas or OU but they can be top dog if everything breaks right.

what does this mean? who is the conference killer? Texas. i guess, but texas is bigger and better than everyone else and they expect to be treated accordingly. and why shouldn't they? in tv deals, baylor and iowa st apparently stand to rake in $15M a year while texas could net $25M a year - really, texas is worth more than that and the dregs of the conference are worth less. texas has pretty much every conference in america chasing after it, and stands to make a lot more money in the big ten and sec or be a much better academic fit in the big ten or pac 10. texas isn't the big xii killer as much as the demographics of the conference and turds like iowa st, baylor, kansas st and texas tech which add little or nothing to national interest in the conference. Every conference has several schools who add nothing. Washington State, Oregon State, Arizona State in the Pac-10, Missisippi St., Ole Miss, Vandy, South Carolina in the SEC, Northwestern, Minnesota, Penn State in the Big 10, and yet all of those conferences manage to keep from the brink of destruction. And half the schools you mentioned weren't in the last conference that Texas killed. Nice slip in of PSU there. Even among the schools you listed I would say Wazzu, Miss State, and Minnesota are another level of add-nothingness. Oregon State is consistently decent. ASU has hot chicks. Vandy and Norhtwestern have great academics.

That would be like vuvuzela apartheid man.

So who are the better actors? The Chinese North Korean fans or Ronaldo?

Yeah but what about the rivalry?

Rondo was engaged in a bunch of goonery against the Bulls in last years playoffs. It's probably more of a Chicago-centric sort of hate. I used to be an unabashed KG admirer too until he started screaming at the opposing team from the bench. But Pierce is the one that really gets on my nerves. The wheelchair of death is just inexcusable in my book.

Without Texas? I mean I think it's really dumb the Pac 10 is now the Pac 11. If you're not going for the conference championship game at least have a round robin. 11 is a dumb number to settle on.

I can't understand the hate for any of those people. http://www.mouthpiecesports.com/blogmedia/2009/04/garnetttaunt.jpg http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2008/06/06/va1237312210745/Boston-Celtics-Paul-Pierce-6080583.jpg

I'll always hate the Lakers and will return to being fairly ambivalent about the Celtics once this crop of players is gone. Although it's entirely possible that I hate this current crop of Celtics so much that it'll outweigh my eternal hatred of the Lakers. I'm still conflicted.

I'm actually kind of a closet ND fan. They were on the Cubs-Bulls-Bears axis before I went to college. If the idea weren't so abhorrent to most people's sensitivities I'd probably root for them pretty hard in the next few years now that SC has been torpedoed. And if I'm being honest with myself, I was probably more of an ND fan than a Bears fan since the Bears were so nondescript in the Wanny/Jauron years while ND was always on TV.

2005 and 2006 were products of Weis-hype, getting a lot of mileage out of the USC game, and then being way over ranked to start the next season (preseason #2 IIRC). I'm not really talking about BCS exemptions or whatever. I would be surprised if there are any teams that have appeared in multiple BCS games that have won fewer games against good teams than those two Irish teams.

of course there was You can submit whatever you like, but you apparently have no idea what you're talking about. "trying" to be independent? it's pathetic. What were these significantly better achievements that occurred under Weis? I'm sure you'll point to the unwarranted BCS berths which I suppose plays. I'd say those are at least canceled out by the 2007 season, losing to Navy, the lack of a signature win, and the fact that he had a worse win percentage. In my mind the absolute apex of ND football in the 2000s was probably the win over FSU in 02, though. And I meant trying to maintain its independence. Sorry for the lack of clarity. I'm guessing if Weis' record had matched the bluster ND would be independent as long as it wanted to. And I'm not privy to any negotiations but if being independent is a priority then I would say having a strong product on the field is better than having a bad one.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the Emerald Bowl as if I mentioned it or it has any relevance here or would even submit that it's better than losing in a BCS game. The Weis era was not significantly better than his predecessors. That is a total fiction. Worse overall record than either Davie OR Willingham, 1 bowl win over Hawaii, coached probably the worst team in school history, ended the Navy win streak, and the biggest "win" under his tenure was a loss. At least Davie and Willingham had the temerity to beat a ranked opponent here and there. Anyway, I would argue that ND getting blown out in BCS games (hell, bowl games in general) is a part of why they're being pursued here. ND's fall from the absolute top was probably inevitable but nothing's been done to slow the decline. Hiring Kelly was a good first start. They've gone from bulletproof to looking seriously at joining a conference. If they'd been the ND of old, or something even approaching it, they'd be calling their own shots. Do you think if you just continue making things up, it will come true? I'm trying to find some nugget of truth in your blabbering on. Must be a trick you learned from Poodle. Next thing we know, you'll sneak out of town just before [expletive] hits the fan. What part of saying that Weis won one bowl game against Hawaii, had a worse record than Davie and Willingham, ended the win streak against Navy, and coached the worst team in Notre Dame history constitutes making things up? The Weis era was better for ND than either Davie or Willingham's. Weis beat ranked opponents, took ND to 2 straight BCS bowls and won their first bowl game in over a decade. But more importantly, he put the program in a much better position to succeed long term, undoing years of damage wrought by his predecessors. If you can't grasp that, you're just burying your head in the sand or you don't understand the most basic elements of CFB. Oh, and the calling their own shots things is funny. ND really caved under pressure. You have no idea how seriously they looked at joining a conference. You know absolutely nothing. Doesn't stop you from spouting off about it. Poodle would be proud. You said significantly better. There is nothing that happened on the football field that was significantly better about his era than Davie's or Willingham's. And I would submit that Weis did nothing to help the program maintain a position of strength in trying to be independent. I THINK he probably did quite a bit of harm if the goal is to keep ND independent long term. But you can continue to get bent out of shape over my completely innocuous opinions.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the Emerald Bowl as if I mentioned it or it has any relevance here or would even submit that it's better than losing in a BCS game. The Weis era was not significantly better than his predecessors. That is a total fiction. Worse overall record than either Davie OR Willingham, 1 bowl win over Hawaii, coached probably the worst team in school history, ended the Navy win streak, and the biggest "win" under his tenure was a loss. At least Davie and Willingham had the temerity to beat a ranked opponent here and there. Anyway, I would argue that ND getting blown out in BCS games (hell, bowl games in general) is a part of why they're being pursued here. ND's fall from the absolute top was probably inevitable but nothing's been done to slow the decline. Hiring Kelly was a good first start. They've gone from bulletproof to looking seriously at joining a conference. If they'd been the ND of old, or something even approaching it, they'd be calling their own shots. Do you think if you just continue making things up, it will come true? I'm trying to find some nugget of truth in your blabbering on. Must be a trick you learned from Poodle. Next thing we know, you'll sneak out of town just before [expletive] hits the fan. What part of saying that Weis won one bowl game against Hawaii, had a worse record than Davie and Willingham, ended the win streak against Navy, and coached the worst team in Notre Dame history constitutes making things up?