Andy

A poor college student can probably scrum up the money for a fee, but I won't object if I can donate my Google-ad revenues to the site in lieu of one.

I won't be able to draft either, I'm already in the league. I'll be setting my preranks tonight.

nah, Saltines. They are whiter, blander and they come free with a bowl of soup. Nilla Wafers. http://www.martinirepublic.com/wp-content/images/borat.jpg "What's up vanilla-face?"

I could consider being a blogger. These look like pretty great ideas.

I was hoping this would slip by. I agree with Wilbon's opinion: Weis can and should campaign for his players, but in reality, he isn't correct. Tennessee and Florida should have been ahead of ND to begin with, though, and this issue shouldn't have had a chance to come up. However, I don't see why Alabama is so good and UCLA sucks. There is a one-half game difference in their records, and while the SEC is the best conference, the Pac-10 has proven itself in recent weeks to be no slouch either. I like DJ Gallo a lot less than I did before though. Usually he's a satirist, but that article looked to be written pretty seriously and it takes numerous unwarranted potshots at ND and severely underrates their competition this year (GT is a very good team and Purdue, PSU and UCLA may yet turn out to be good teams as well). It's the most venomous article I've read about ND since Alan Grant wrote the most racist piece of blathering crap I've ever read on ESPN.com shortly after Weis was hired.

Especially for Twins fans who support a new stadium.

That's why he wears sunglasses at night games. I thought he was copying poker players and wore the dark glasses so opposing players couldn't read/see his eyes? If the Cards win it all, expect Hendry to suggest that to Piniella.

Paul Lukas's Uni Watch blog confirms it.

According to Paul Lukas's Uni Watch blog, Mizzou will wear all-gold jerseys this Saturday.

I'm tied for first among anyone who's picked in more than half the weeks this year. :D

OSU also beat some good teams that year. I suppose that would depend on your definition. They beat a decent Texas Tech team in the opening game, dominated Washington State in week 3 (easily their most impressive win as the Cougs went to the Rose Bowl that year) then didn't play anyone else worth a crap until October 19th when they edged Wisconsin by five (the Badgers went 8-6...then again, they lost to IU). (Along the way, they beat Cincinnati, who went .500, by four and Northwestern, who won three games, by 11.) They damn near lost to Penn State at home, who won 9 games but were far from world-beaters, should have lost to a 7-win Purdue team (that beat Western Michigan by four) in a game that was luckier than anything ND has had in the last two years, then had Illinois (5-7 that year) take them to OT, then needed one of the worst officiating calls of the last decade to win the national title. They beat Wazzou (10-3), Penn State (9-4), Michigan (10-3), and Miami (12-1). That's the difference between that OSU and Notre Dame. I could give a crap if teams almost win or barely win, it's about who you beat, and as of now that's 4 games in 1 season that are better wins than any of the 15* wins of the Charlie Weis era. *GT and PSU have a chance to make this standard, likely at the lower end. Well, you are one of the few on this board that don't care about almost win and barely win, and you were not among the people I was trying to convince if this is the case.

OSU also beat some good teams that year. I suppose that would depend on your definition. They beat a decent Texas Tech team in the opening game, dominated Washington State in week 3 (easily their most impressive win as the Cougs went to the Rose Bowl that year) then didn't play anyone else worth a crap until October 19th when they edged Wisconsin by five (the Badgers went 8-6...then again, they lost to IU). (Along the way, they beat Cincinnati, who went .500, by four and Northwestern, who won three games, by 11.) They damn near lost to Penn State at home, who won 9 games but were far from world-beaters, should have lost to a 7-win Purdue team (that beat Western Michigan by four) in a game that was luckier than anything ND has had in the last two years, then had Illinois (5-7 that year) take them to OT, then needed one of the worst officiating calls of the last decade to win the national title.

It's all based on Strength of Schedule. USC has Arkansas and Nebraska helping them out a great deal, plus their worst games are their bottom Pac 10 opponents, which are still usually rated higher than most teams non-conference schedules (their entire non conference schedule is Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame-of course Notre Dame doesn't factor in to their schedule so far). Ohio State though has one great opponent so far-Texas. Other than that, Penn State, Iowa, and Michigan State all have at least 3 losses, and they have Northern Illinois, Cincinnati, Bowling Green, and Indiana. Ohio State's schedule has not really been all that hard. Michigan is ahead of OSU for one basic reason-they both have played one great opponent (OSU-Texas, Michigan-Notre Dame), they both have several common games (Iowa, PSU, Michigan State), similar other non-conference games (OSU-Cincy, Bowling Green, Northern Illinois, Michigan-Vanderbilt, Central Michigan). So it basically comes down to their other conference games-and Michigan leads by having played Wisconsin. ND shouldn't be considered a great opponent. They are as much as Texas-definitely in the computer's SOS model, ND has 1 loss, Texas has 1 loss, ND has the harder schedule of the two. Plus, just because a team has a great deal of close games where they had to pull it out in the end doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad team. It's a warning sign, but not necessarily true. OSU in 2002 under that definition would be considered a bad team, but they won the national title (they had 6 games decided by 6 points or less, and at least 2 of those probably should have lost, similar to ND). Plus, every 1 loss team has had a scare or two-ND should be put at about the same level as all the other 1 loss teams who have played pretty good schedules. That's just crazy talk CCP. We all know that if ND struggles with some not-so-great opponents they are overrated and a joke, but if OSU wins half their games in a national championship season by 6 points or less, they are gutsy and come through when it matters most.

They'll bounce back Truffle. It's early in the season and they still have games left with the Cowboys and Giants. Donny made some bad reads and TB made him pay. Yeah, I've been telling myself that my teams would bounce back for the past 20 years. Games against the Cowboys and Giants don't cheer me up, because those teams are better than the Eagles and are playing at home. After the Eagles lose this week they'll be 4-4 going into the bye, and looking at their second half schedule, that will pretty much sink them. I guess the good side of this is that I'm not going to bother watching the games, since I just get pissed off and don't even enjoy it. And if you're not enjoying what you're doing in your free time, why bother even doing it? I guess it would be hypocritical of me to called you a pessimist. It must have been frustrating to watch them get through that 5 year stretch of greatness without a SB win. Worse than Bears fans who still regret only getting 1 SB out of that great 80's team. The Eagles should be able to win their next 3 games, but the playoffs are still in doubt this season. I remember listening to a lot of preseason talk, and the consensus was they'd suck, right up until around the Stallworth trade, and people really thought they were unfairly overlooked by the experts. The optimist inside me died and was replaced with a realist. Too many Flyers playoff chokes, too many Eagles disappointments, Cubs 2003, Penn State losses to Michigan... hell even Holy Cross got my hopes up 3 years in a row in the NCAA Tourney only to lose close games each time. I watch my teams waiting for the other shoe to drop. And on the rare occasion that I think they'll pull out a close one - after all, how can a guy make a 60+ yarder when he's never made one over 50? - they find a way to lose again. Anyway, I'll watch the Eagles when I don't have anything else going on. But I work overnights, so most weeks from now on I'm just going to sleep through the games after I get back from work. I got through Carolina Panthers 2001 (15 straight losses, 11 of them blown 4th quarter leads) and Carolina Panthers 2004 (1-7 start, most injuries probably ever suffered by a football team, came back to have a chance to make playoffs, choke to lose playoff berth to then-pathetic Saints at end of season). You'll be alright.

Rivers threw a pick and lost a fumble this week. Alright, complaint rescinded, and points lost by me for being stupid.

I just wonder if the Tigers were managed by anyone other than Jim Leyland if Larussa wouldn't have raised a bigger stink? If that was Dusty in the other dugout I'm sure Larussa would have been out there in a heartbeat. Hell, he went after Maddux when everyone knows he doesn't cheat because of Dusty, I'm pretty sure he'd go after the Pope if Dusty was managing him.

I like your team.

Donovan McNabb should not have outscored Phil Rivers in my fantasy league by TWENTY this week when he threw 3 picks to Rivers's 0. That is all.

Peter must be pretty sure to just mention this so non-chalantly. Baseball will be gone in 10 years if this happens Yeah, well that's just absurd. Sarcasm

If Mizzou had beaten aTm there is no way Gameday would have passed you guys up.

Sorry, but I already chose that one... In fact, we used pretty much the same language. It is because we're really the same person. You just don't know it yet. :wink:

Well, we could have problems here.

Honestly, I think Carolina is the best team of the bunch, but they have a way of underperforming (see 2005). I'm more worried about them playing to their abilities than about either the Falcons or Saints. Well, right now the Saints have a two game lead on them and the Falcons one. The Saints are better than anyone has given them credit for. They have a dangerous offense, a QB that doesn't make a lot of mistakes, and a coach that helps them stay disciplined and mistake free. The defense is the question mark, but if they can stay close, their offense gives them a chance to win. I wouldn't sell them short by any means. The Saints are good, no doubt about it. But if Carolina hadn't blown the Minnesota game and today's game with stupid turnovers, they'd be 6-1 and leading the division. Nothing's more maddening than trying to maintain title hopes for a team that has a tendency to make dumb mistakes like that.

Peter must be pretty sure to just mention this so non-chalantly. Baseball will be gone in 10 years if this happens

Honestly, I think Carolina is the best team of the bunch, but they have a way of underperforming (see 2005). I'm more worried about them playing to their abilities than about either the Falcons or Saints.