SpongeWorthy

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?

I figure OU/UT was already slated to move to Cowboys Stadium like every over sporting event in the world.

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.

Better to lose in the Fiesta bowl than squeak out a win in the Emerald bowl. Even better if you didn't have to cheat to get there. I was actually being serious. Seeing ND obliterated in games people already resent them being in doesn't help anything. Being in a BCS game, even if you lose, is good for the program. Financially, for fans, for recruiting. Cheating to get to the Emerald Bowl, or a national title game, is bad for the program. At least in my opinion. You have more direct experience, so you may feel differently. Getting to a BCS game when you have the deck stacked in your favor and then getting blown out by superior teams is a good thing financially, in the short term. It has diminished the brand though. If ND was putting the wood down on teams in big games they wouldn't even consider joining the Big 10 would they? And from a competitive standpoint, getting to those BCS games hasn't helped at all. The trend has been decisively negative except for Willingham's first 8 games and Weis's first year. It's not the unvarnished good thing you make it out to be.

Better to lose in the Fiesta bowl than squeak out a win in the Emerald bowl. Even better if you didn't have to cheat to get there. I was actually being serious. Seeing ND obliterated in games people already resent them being in doesn't help anything.

Getting ND in a conference so they can stop getting waxed in BCS games they don't deserve to be in probably helps the brand.

It's not like Nebraska was terrible or anything. I think most people think Pelini's got them on the right track. They could/should have beaten Texas last year.

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/statistics/players/distanceandspeed.html Apparently FIFA is using chips in players shoes to track speed and distance covered. Robbie Findley hit over 30 kilometers/hr and has the 3rd fastest top speed recorded thus far.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3x1hpbWR31qz82gvo1_500.jpg