Exile on Waveland

1) Forbes is lying? 2) Nebraska is 19-8 the last two years and 20-8 under Pelini (3-0 in bowls). So, as far as them not winning more than eight games for the next forever, they have actually won more than eight games the past two seasons.

Nebraska is Forbes No. 4 most valuable football program. It was the No. 20 revenue generating athletic program overall. Lots of people with no eyeballs must be Nebraska fans. All I know is I'm excited to add Nebraska to the Big Ten. I was firmly on the Notre Dame or Texas or bust bandwagon, but that was before I educated myself about Nebraska. I had no idea the revenue they generated. Couple that with geography and the AAU, I think it's an outstanding move. Of course, I'd still love to add one of the two aforementioned schools.

Nebraska is Forbes No. 4 most valuable football program. It was the No. 20 revenue generating athletic program overall. Lots of people with no eyeballs must be Nebraska fans.

Oh, OK. I was confused -- I thought you meant the ACC adding just Kansas. If the SEC added Kansas, Duke, North Carolina then an argument could definitely be made they have four of the top five.

So they'd turn down millions of dollars and the chance to play in a better basketball conference because they are basketball schools? the sec sucks at basketball And so would the ACC without Duke and UNC. Adding Duke, UNC, aTm, and Mizzou/Kansas would make it a very good basketball conference. I mean, just for argument's sake, if they added KU then they have maybe 4 of the Top 5 programs historically, and all of them are very strong now. Not to mention good programs like Vandy and aTm, and the team that won back to back titles just a couple years ago. Huh?

I'm not really answering your question. However, to say the Pac 10 is an academically strong conference isn't the entire story. It rivals South Africa for inequality from best/richest to worst/poorest. At the top, it's possibly to probably the strongest power conference academically. From top to bottom, it completely lacks depth. It has four outstanding universities (Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC), one very good (Washington), four decent/average (Arizona, Washington State, Oregon, Arizona State) and one poor (Oregon State). I see absolutely no reason Kansas wouldn't fit academically, especially when the conference is considering Texas freakin' Tech (and Okie State for that matter). What's so bad about Oregon State? According to USNWR, they're a tier 3 institution. Not sure where Exile is getting his breakdown but I've always gotten the impression ASU and WSU were just as poor as OSU. And similarly, I thought UW was up there with the 4 California schools. Again, just an impression from talking to people. No actual statistical backing for it. The key to the Pac-10 is the quality of the research at the college (but you know they'll take a school if the money is there). I really wanted to put Arizona State and Wazzou down with Oregon State, but I figured as soon as I did someone would point to the rankings and say I was a biased Big 10 fan. So I don't disagree there. On the other hand, Washington is really good, but I do think the four California schools have some separation.

I'm not really answering your question. However, to say the Pac 10 is an academically strong conference isn't the entire story. It rivals South Africa for inequality from best/richest to worst/poorest. At the top, it's possibly to probably the strongest power conference academically. From top to bottom, it completely lacks depth. It has four outstanding universities (Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC), one very good (Washington), four decent/average (Arizona, Washington State, Oregon, Arizona State) and one poor (Oregon State). I see absolutely no reason Kansas wouldn't fit academically, especially when the conference is considering Texas freakin' Tech (and Okie State for that matter).

Since I personally see Germany and Serbia as equals, I'm not sure that means anything anymore. Thats assuming they both advance. Even if they do, winning the group would be a IMMENSELY beneficial. (Never mind the fact that Serbia is seriously behind the eight ball to advance now anyway, and I do not consider Ghana and Germany equals.) So in that scenario, the first knockout game would be against equals -- Germany or Serbia. OK. While the US wouldn't be favored against either, they could certainly defeat either. If the US finishes second in the group, then upsets Germany/Serbia, they'll likely play Argentina. Goodnight. If the US wins the group, then upsets Serbia/Germany, they'd play Mexico/Uruguay/France/South Korea/Nigeria. Anyone still think winning the group is irrelevant? A 0-0 tie would have been great for Slovenia-Algeria, and the US has struggled defeating a bunker which Slovenia will now surely employ. And defending the counterattack is perhaps my biggest concern for this team. So the Slovenia games is worrisome in that way. However, they looked pretty poor in my estimation. Oh, and Torres must start.

Even if it is, so what? Obviously the Big 10 wanted to get stronger as a conference, otherwise they could have just added Creighton or any other podunk school. The point is, the Big 10 was fine as is, with annual television revenues $37 million greater than the almighty SEC (and $5 million more distributions per team). So the argument is that the Big 10 needed to make more than $37 million more than the SEC?

Money. You can say that's painfully obvious, but that doesn't make it any less true. The Big Ten wanted more money, they didn't "need" more. This isn't exactly a very sophisticated nuance.

So who is the most likely candidate for the SEC to pull over along with A&M? If texas pulls a fast one and goes to the Big 10, I expect OU to join us. If not, I'd guess the SEC makes a run at Virginia Tech. It would make sense that it would be Virginia Tech. Clemson, GA Tech( I hope the SEC never offers GA Tech) Florida State and Miami are not need teams for the SEC, cause the conference has their foot on those markets already. No need to bring in redundant schools. The SEC doesn't need to get to 16 teams like Pac 10 or Big 10, so the SEC doesn't need to take 4 teams and make it 16 teams. I will be more then happy with just A&M (Gene Stallings is really pushing A&M to the SEC, btw) and Virginia Tech joining the conference and call it a day. Now if Virginia Tech declines the SEC, then FSU would be my second choice. Yes, from I've heard the SEC doesn't consider GA Tech/Miami (FL)/Florida State as having much value add. Just another school taking a bite out of the pie, instead of adding to the pie (a la Texas A&M or VA Tech). I completely disagree that the Big 10 "needs" to get to 16 teams. In fact, considering the money the conference already rakes in, the Big 10 didn't need to do a damn thing.

Funny, I'm about to give three of four starting defenders (three out of five if you count Clark as defensive as a holding midfielder) solid marks, but I thought the defense was pretty lousy overall. Too many open passing lanes and unmarked players. Howard was excellent. Cherundolo was impressive. Demerit effectively neutralized Rooney though I though he was a little slow/soft letting Heskey post him up on their goal. Gooch wasn't perfect -- maybe a step slower and couple misplays -- but I thought he was very good and didn't let much past him. I was pretty disappointed in Boca, believe his positioning was subpar and Cole schooled him once that easily could have been a goal. Clark is worthless, no idea why he's first choice. I hope surely he won't be moving forward. Donovan and Dempsey were solid (running/defending as US put it best). Bradley was strong, maybe moreso in the first half I don't watch tons of MLS, but outside of perhaps some shoddy finishing, Findley has impressed the last three games. Altidore looked great in nearly scoring and was inches from getting a head on the ball for a possible goal as well. Other than that? Not much. Then again, strikers only need one moment and he was thisclose to his. Promising at times. Still don't understand the timing of the substitutions, or the actual substitutions themselves (having Buddle as the lone forward as a target/holder was fine, but wasn't the initial move).

I can't believe Bradley waited so long for subs (and not the ones I would have made). They were gassed, and I think fortunate it didn't cost them.

Actually, yes. He could be more British if he was actually, you know, British.

TORRES.

I root for the US first and foremost, of course. I also like Germany and Netherlands, if the US is out. Most fans I know have secondary teams after the US.

I'm sure it will be Clark too. Which is going to annoy me -- especially considering two players should be favored for that spot. I'm hoping it's Torres, but something tells me Bradley/US believe that's too big of a gamble.

About what I expected from that game. And, actually, the French in general. Here's why: France's last five tournaments with a healthy Zinedine Zidane: 1996 Euros -- Semifinals 1998 World Cup -- Champions 2000 Euros -- Champions 2004 Euros -- Quarters 2006 World Cup -- Runners Up France's last two tournaments without Zidane: 2002 World Cup* -- Group A last place (zero goals) 2006 Euros -- Group C last place (one goal) I tried to keep this in the Zidane era -- allowing leeway for 2006, obviously. It would look even worse if I included the era after Michel Platini and before Zidane. *Zidane was injured and hobbled around France's final game.

They want the NY/NJ market, the largest in the country. How is that dumb? I'd like the Big Ten to break into the Los Angeles market. So how about Loyola Marymount?

Also, I'm not a believer in any of these African sides. Me neither, exactly. (Says the guy with two in the quarters.) If the sides were better, I might have been even more aggressive. However, I do wonder if the continental home advantage is overblown -- Africa is freakin' huge and everyone but the hosts are from far away. Nevertheless, I think Nigeria/Cameroon got decent draws. I am not terribly fond of this sclerotic Italy team, and have visions of 2002. And Nigeria I don't think is much worse, or better, than Greece/South Korea and no one in Group A is dominant.

I think Group A is the by far the most difficult to predict, I could see them finishing in any order. And I'm so with USS that South Africa may be the beneficiary of some 2002 South Korea shambolic homecookin'. Still, can't pick them to advance, though I think they will get results (no worse than a tie in tomorrow's opener -- 0-0 maybe, but still). Group A: Mexico-Uruguay-South Africa-France Group B: Argentina-Nigeria-South Korea-Greece Group C: England-USA-Slovenia-Algeria Group D: Germany-Serbia-Ghana-Australia Group E: Netherlands-Cameroon-Denmark-Japan Group F: Italy-Paraguay-Slovakia-New Zealand Group G: Brazil-Portugal-Cote d'Ivoire-North Korea Group H: Spain-Chile-Switzerland-Honduras Sweet 16: Nigeria over Mexico, England over Serbia, Netherlands over Paraguay, Brazil over Chile, Argentina over Uruguay, Germany over USA, Cameroon over Italy, Spain over Portugal Quarters: England over Nigeria, Brazil over Netherlands (really wanted to pick the Dutch), Argentina over Germany, Spain over Cameroon Semis: Brazil over England, Spain over Argentina Finals: Spain over Brazil (Argentina over England)

Tons and tons of money is more than tons of money.

Yep. It was a great moment. They're popping the champagne. Kane's pretending to whack off. "for that little kid i saw crying after we lost game 4 in 1992, you waited 18 years, but i hope you're happy" "chicago blackhawks man. i didn't get to do that" love roenick Honestly, despite everything, despite the Hawks winning the Cup, despite it being only the second time one of my teams won something, JR's reaction might be the most memorable moment for me. Not sure what that means.

Thanks for the help guys. Maybe I was a bit hasty. . . I'm tempted to agree that even UTEP (OK, OK, just TT) would be worthwhile to get Texas. I could be swayed either way. Finally, snood, I seriously doubt Kansas is left in some junk conference. Not sure where they'd go -- and it may not geographically make tons of sense -- but they're not going to be somewhere good.

Yeah, made me think of 1992 as well. First I really watched hockey at all. I liked it before from playing video games, but not many hockey fans in southern Indiana. And, well, I was a little too young to force hockey onto my parents.