goonys evil twin

Well then you really need to take a step back and think rationally, because a 1-loss Louisville team doesn't have anywhere near the ammo to complain that Auburn had. There are 119 D1 teams and they play 12-13 games a year. There are always going to be "we just don't know" scenarios. Even a playoff system is going to be leaving people on outside claiming we'll never know.

Just curious, if you're wanting a QB taken, does that mean you're ready to be done with Orton? I'm just curious because I don't know if we've found out exactly what we have in the guy. His lows were nowhere near the lows that Rex has had this year (although admittedly the highs were nowhere near the highs Rex has had either). I'm just wondering if this year has helped his development at all, and what the coaching staff thinks of him. I won't cry if he's gone though. I just think it's a good idea to routinely draft QB's in the middle round. If you end up with a career backup, you've made it more than worth the effort. If you end up with a guy you can trade for a higher pick later (backups QB's are often traded for 2nd round picks) it's huge. And occasionally you'll find a guy who can start for you. I'm not demanding a QB in the middle rounds, I'd just like to see it. I'm fine with Orton 3rd in the depth chart. And depending on how he develops, I might be able to live with him 2nd next year (and the new guy 3rd).

Wasn't there some stat where Hill was the first LH to come out of the Cubs system and win 1 game since the 80's? It's a strange stat, but I don't think it's all that meaningful. What arm you throw with doesn't matter, and win totals aren't the end all of pitcher evaluation. It's not like the lack of 10 game winning LHP was the reason the team hasn't won much.

Some guys take longer to develop than others. Being that Danieal is swiching positions and coming from a smaller school, I think he's probably one of those guys. Goony doesn't think so and no one really knows. I guess we'll see. I'm not writing him off as a lost cause, I'm just saying he hasn't shown he's capable of being anything close to a very good safety next season. The only guy on the roster who has is Mike Brown. I want a defensive playmaker and O line help. I'd like to see them keep Brown and Briggs (and with their salary cap space I think they can) so they don't have to fill one of those positions, specifically. I'd take any DB, outside LB help if Briggs leaves, and then D-end. I think D-tackle is taken care of, as long as Dusty and Tommie can come back. If they insist on cutting Tank though, they might need help, considering Scott and Boone are FA (I think). I really want O line depth ASAP, and I'd like to see a QB taken in the middle rounds, as well as and RB.

I don't care if it was a small school, he was their first pick and he's been bad. I think Tillman and Harris played better in their first years coming out of small schools. Harris was worse last year and Tillman was the exception and not the rule. I don't think it's an exception for draft picks taken around that area to be decent in their rookie years. Mike Brown was. And I think Manning has made far more mistakes than Harris, although it's purely subjective. Regardless, Harris isn't even thought that very highly of now. And there's nothing about Manning's game to suggest he's capable of being a very good starting safety next season. Mike Brown is the only one of the radar who can.

I don't care if it was a small school, he was their first pick and he's been bad. I think Tillman and Harris played better in their first years coming out of small schools.

Well do be honest, I'm troubled by D. Mannings recent play. This defense is at its best when we get dynamic play for the safety spot. Whether it be SS or FS, we need somone making plays back there. Now if our draft pick comes up and Leron Landry is available, that is another story. Somebody mentioned their faith in Angelo's ability to find a replacement for Brown via the draft, but I have to say after seeing his DB heavy draft this year, I'm not so sure. Danielle doesn't look good. And while everybody keeps saying that Brown makes a lot of money, I think it should be remembered that he makes 2.4m, which is just 2.2% of the reported 2007 salary cap. When the cap was in the 80's (2005) that percentage was much higher. People don't seem to be calculating the large increases in the salary cap that have already taken place, and those that are on the way. Even if Brown only plays half a season in 2007, that's half a season of guaranteed better production than whoever ends up getting drafted.

I think Rex has more to do with the underestimation of the Bears than anything though. ESPN's poll says the Bears are the most likely favorite to lose. It's interesting considering they are playing the worst underdog in the playoffs.

He might not make alot, but when Benson beats him out next training camp, I bet he bitches a ton. If he bitches to the point of distraction, then maybe a cut is in order, but I'd much rather trade him, or just keep him as depth, even if he is disgruntled. He wouldn't have much leverage to sit out. He has to fulfill his contract if he wants to be a free agent before 2008. And the Bears wouldn't be in a great position of need since they'd have RB depth.

Why? Aside from his salary, sooner or later his annual season-ending leg injury is going to take it's toll on his on the field performance. I believe that with the way Angelo locked up so many players over the past few years, before the salary cap spiked, they will be more than able to afford to keep Jones and Brown, while resigning Briggs. I don't have the numbers, but it seems to me that before the increased cap number, they were already in great position with most of these guys, and the increseased space should just make it that much easier. I would not consider cutting Jones. He makes very little. And if they can't get a solid draft pick for him, then I'm not interested in a trade either. I can understand why somebody would want to get rid of Brown. But I think I'd prefer to see them renegotiate his contract (he doesn't have much leverage to go anyplace else) and keep him. Ideally they can keep all their guys, then use the draft to provide quality depth, instead of needing an impact starter right away.

Mike Fontenot never had a future as a utilityman, because he doesn't do any of the things you'd want a utility guy to do. He can't really play anywhere other than 2B (ruling out the utility part), his defense is average at best (ruling him out as a late-innings defensive replacement), he doesn't run particularly well (scratch pinch-running). If he can't hit enough to stick in MLB as an everyday 2B (or at least a platoon 2B), then he's out of luck. It would appear that with the Cubs anyway, he's out of luck. I don't see why you think defensive replacement and pinch running are the only uses for a bench player. If he can hit enough to be a quality pinch hitter, then a player is worth keeping around. A bench player's greatest asset is his bat. There's practically an unlimited supply of all glove no stick guys that can be brought in, there aren't many that can hit. I have no idea if Fontenot could, but his minor league numbers suggest he at least stands a chance. If he came close to replicating his minor league numbers in the majors (obviously not a guarantee), he'd be a perfectly suitable bench option. But I'm interested in this Kinkade guy on the bench. Career .350 OBP in the majors, 102 OPS+, and solid minor league numbers. With minimal compensation, a guy like this has a chance to provide some help from the bench.

That's one week, one of what would have to be 4 weeks under any system that accounts for more than 8 teams. A 4 week system that ends as late as this one ends would have to begin a week before Christmas. That also means contending with the NFL, which has moved in hard into Saturday games and has a lot of money. People like to spout off the virtues of giving everybody a chance, but nobody has put together a realistic plan that gets it done.

It's good to see you still had that level of gibberish in you, I was worrying you'd been running out.

Because the notion that anybody can win is a myth. It's a nice little storyline to pretend Podunk University has a shot at the title, but they don't. We can pretend anybody has a shot at the NCAA BB title, but they don't. Year in and year out only a handful of teams have a real shot, and the same group of teams win over and over. Football is just the only sport that doesn't pretend otherwise. People play because they like to play the game. Try telling the thousands of players that have no shot at the title that there is no reason to play. If winning a tourny title were all that matters, then everybody would being playing DII and DIII instead. Ivy League teams play every year without any hope of any sort of postseason play. They send guys to the NFL every season as well. I think a big problem here is that so many people think the only thing that matters is the national champ. Rutgers finished their season on the highest note they've ever finished this year, achieving a level of attention and respect that was unprecedented in their football history. I don't see how arguing about whether they deserved a shot for the field of 12 would have been any better. College football is unique in that 32 teams walk off the field feeling like champions at the end of their season. I'd like the national championship cleaned up a bit myself, but the idea that they must create a huge tournament where anybody can win makes no sense to me. College basketball holds the nation's attention for 3 weekends a year. College football has huge games for 4 months. I don't understand how anybody can say the only way to run a sports league is by finishing the season with a big tournament.

And Boomer is the Sharon Stone.

What's the point in giving Troy or Temple a shot? What's the benefit? The fact that basketball does it is hardly justification. The minute you start handing out invites to every conf champ, is the minute you reduce the incentive for teams to schedule tough OOC games. A tough OOC schedule not only increases your odds of losing that game, but it can hurt you the rest of the year. Nobody wants to see Florida, LSU, USC or OSU playing Central Michigan or BYU in December. And that is part of the reason why this won't work. And why should it happen? Because you say so? I think people need to get away from the "should" talk, as it's going to get you no where. Come up with a system that would work (ie, satisfy all participants economic interests), and you might have something. But simply being a D1 school doesn't guarantee you a shot at the national football title. There's no inherent right to such a thing. Schools that want to contend for a title invest in their program and take the necessary steps to make it possible. And before we get into the complaints about money getting in the way of what's right, stop. There aren't many successful ventures in this world, and especially in this country, that don't take economic factors into account. If we want big exciting matchups available for our viewing pleasure in various formats, you're going to have to just deal with the fact that money plays a huge role here.

Basketball only has that because it allows for 30+ regular season games and a ridiculously overstuffed tournament. Such a situation is not possible in football. Simply handing a spot to conference champs doesn't solve a thing, since not all conferences are created equal. Furthermore, while you can pretend they all have a chance, they don't. Both sports are still dominated by the select few.

As annoying as it may be, there's a reason. The goodoleboys routinely field the best football teams, with the exception of ND. If you want the system to change, you have to do more than just complain.

I personally enjoy reading Simmons, but there are more that a few people who find his incessant pop culture referencing and writing style to be annoying, so I put him on there. I think he's entertaining, but a terrible analyst of sports.

What do you mean voted down? The poll rankings are meaningless after the championship game, and no big east team deserved a shot at the championship game. My point is if they go to a 4 or 8 teams system if there is a Big 10 or 12 or SEC team with the same record as a BE team the Big 10/12 and SEC teams are always ranked higher thus getting an advantage. And Louisville did deserve a shot at the Championship game. They would have had that chance if they didn't lose to Rutgers. But they didn't "deserve" a shot anymore than any number of other teams. Not all records are created equal.

What do you mean voted down? The poll rankings are meaningless after the championship game, and no big east team deserved a shot at the championship game.

They have 20,000 seat arenas and tickets that guarantee you seats to multiple games. Bowl games are played in 60,000-115,000 seat stadiums in the middle of the holiday season. I think you have to differentiate between the generic bowl system, and the big time bowl system. There's quite a bit of difference between those played around Christmas and the ones played later. I agree that it doesn't mean much to "make a bowl" game, but it does mean something to play on New Years. There were 32 bowl games this year, but I think there's only about 8-10 truly meaningful ones. But then again, meaningful is relative, the Texas bowl isn't much of a bowl, but it was probably the most meaningful game in Rutgers' modern history.

Why "of course you're going to be happy"? I didn't go to any D1 school. I have no tie to any D1 school. I enjoy watching the games, that's about it. You're right, they don't want it changed, but why should they, because you do? What makes you and all the little schools so high and mighty that you should be able to have things run the way you want to and they should have to sacrifice for you? Come up with a reasonable system that doesn't take away from them, and you'll start to make sense. But simply saying "I don't like it, change it now" isn't going to make anything happen. The bowl tie-ins for the lesser games are a completely different issue in my opinion.

When you schedule an OOC schedule against one Pac 10 team and no other potentially quality opponent, it's pretty easy to evaluate. You obviously don't know much about college football. You could invite 10 conf champs, but there's no good reason to. A 16 team playoff would destory the bowls because there would be no use for the system. A 4 team playoff would easily preserve them, an 8-team playoff might. But a 16 team playoff would eliminate 8 potential bowl game matchups. You would have to start such a tourny no later than mid-December. 8 teams that would otherwise be preparing for games such as the Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl, Fiesta, etc. would be playing games in mid-December. A week later, around Christmas, you'd have 4 more games, then around New Years you'd have 2 games and a week later the champ game. Without knowing who will be available for the bowl games, you can't schedule any of those games. You aren't going to get 20,000 fans to travel with the team to these games, like they do now, with advanced notice for tickets and other transportation options. Tell me one good reason why the WAC winner should automatically get in over an SEC #2, when 9 times out of 10 that SEC #2 is going to be the better team.

Yes. I think I saw a 666 on his head in that picture they had. People like to whine about Delaney and the Big Ten, but don't pretend for a second all these other conferences aren't doing the same thing, looking out for their best interest. People bitch about the Big Ten only making decisions based on money, but all the conferences that decided to start-up conf champ games are doing the same thing. Boise State chose to schedule a weak OOC schedule, and you can be certain that choice involved money. This whining sounds to me a lot like all the whining about the cheap tribune not having a high enough payroll. People are motivated by money. Sports is extremely motivated by money. These small conf schools aren't just noble knights fighting against the tyranny of the evil kings of football. If anybody wants to instill change, then it's up to them to make it fiscally sensible. If the NCAA were to go to some drawn out playoff format, not only would they be stepping on the toes of the bowl system that pays much of their bills, not only would they be lessening the importance of every big regular season matchup, but they'd also be going up against the mighty NFL, which now owns Saturdays in December. When and where are these play-in games going to take place? Where will the playoff games play? A major overhaul to a 16-team playoff is completely unfeasible and unrealistic. You'd be asking people to risk massive revenue losses all so we can find a way to get the occasional undefeated mid major conf champ a shot at the title. Most of the time, there isn't much of an argument over who the champion of college football is. Occasionally a team or two will be left in the cold, but almost always there is a pretty good reason for that exclusion. Now, because people want to whine about the 5th, 9th or 16th best team, all that gets thrown out the window? I don't see why the major conference schools, that produce the best college football teams year in and year out, should just hand over their guaranteed streams of income, and a system that already awards the "true champ" the vast majority of the time, just so we can find a way to complain in a few more years why the 17th best team didn't get a shot, and how unfair it is that the 2nd best WAC team is getting passed over by the 4th best SEC team, or why the Big East only got 2 teams in while the Big Ten had 3.