BigSlick

SOUL AREHGHHGHASDFLKJSADLFJSLDAJFLKJASDF You don't have to be a moneyball "guy" for me to want you to be on my radar for Gm...BUT YOU BROUGHT UP SOME BAD EVIDENCE HERE. Kenny Williams is a terrible Gm, come on now, even morons can see that.

:shock: And the guys under 27, right? Christ.

Sounds like a bad first half on Monday night and Rex could be out. Well we're sure going to need some offense. Because with those starters out Monday? You can bet the Rams are going to put up some serious points. I'm worried we aren't even going to have the ball enough to score. SOUL JESUS CHRIST ENOUGH WITH THIS KINDA CRAP Its getting to the point where you start "OH my god, I'm afraid of Alex Smith and his tiny hands, OUR DEFENSE CAN'T STOP HIM" I'm not worried about our offense getting the ball at all. We just have to score with it.

Lets not get crazy. I don't think Griese can save us from having no Tommie in the middle, either. We get into the playoffs, where there will be good teams pounding the ball up the middle-------we're in deep crap without Harris. I think we just watched our Super Bowl dreams go down the toilet. a team capable of pounding the ball up the middle would have had success against the bears even with Harris. Maybe, but even more so without Harris, who has consistantly been drawing double teams from the O-Line all year long. Not to overreact more, but the entire D is likely to feel a ripple effect from losing Harris We may end up coming out of this with an improvement up front against the run. Ian Scott is a run stuffing specialist, and with him in on many downs now, we may help in that area. I'm also kind of excited with the prospect of seeing Alex Brown in at DT and supposedly Mark Anderson replacing. That would be some sick pass rush right there.

I cheer somewhat for the Bengals, and its a shame that they blew some fourth quarter leads this year. Its going to be tough for them to make the playoffs

Those are some beautiful plays. I'm not liking the nickname though, I wish he'd let it go. I think its slowly catching on (Joniak wont let it go). I don't mind it, but its not very catchy.

I believe the weight he holds has to do with a condition he has and is under very little control from himself. You can't honestly expect a legitimate "fat guy" to make the NBA do you?

Soul you've always worried too much. Ever since last year.

Instead of saying crap like this, why don't you actually bring some proof? Their performance against the Falcons last year makes me think that homefield advantage outweighs whatever negativity the weather brings...if its anything.

I don't think its contradictory to believe that Michigan is the better team but doesn't deserve to play in the NC game.

but they aren't good enough right now. sorry, I'm not going to give Louisville props because South Florida might be good in a couple of years. and for pete's sake, how many times does it have to be explained to you that it is not just about the records, it is about who you play. no matter how rosey a picture you try to paint of the conference, the bottom five of the Big East all suck big time, right here, right now, and their non-conference schedule sucks. that's not to say the bottom five of other conferences don't suck, but I'd still take the bottom five of the Big Ten over the bottom five of the 8 team Big East any day of the week. congrats that the Big East beat a few dregs of the ACC and other power conferences. they are still dregs. if the ACC had teams with the BigEast records, it would be teams like Miami, VTech, BC, FSU. teams that have been, you know, good, in the recent past. teams that have quality bowl wins the over the past few years. teams that have great talent, coaching, and facilities. I really think that Cuse does overrate the Big East. I think you underrate them though. Louisville is a Top 5 team. If you were to put their schedule up against Michigans and Floridas it would hold up. Maybe not as tough but certainly was credible. Yeah, and I want to make it clear that I don't think Louisville, WVU, and Rutgers are bad teams. I just don't think they're on that top level yet, and I'll need to see them beat the best before I put them there. I'm not going to consider them great before they beat the established powers. Call me a good old boy all you want, but unless there's a playoff system I don't see any other way. Can't just hand someone automatic top billing.....they have to earn it somehow. I definitely agree with jig that the mid and bottom of the Big East is just really, really marginal. I strongly suspect those teams would struggle to be at the top of much lesser conferences. And I also strongly suspect a Louisville vs. OSU matchup would be a highway slaughter not worth watching on New Year's day. The mid to marginal Big East teams beat the mid to marginal Big Ten teams but yet that proves the Big 10 is better, why? Because the Big 10 schedule is much tougher, against bigger, more punishing players all year long. I already argued this with you, I'm not going to circle around and around on it. Beat OSU. Beat Florida. Beat USC. Then I'll give the Big East some more credit. That's it. Who did the Big 10 beat to deseve credit? USC? Florida? Texas at full strength, ND (hahahaha, I kid) The truth is, you don't play that many powerhouse teams out of conference. First of all, it doesn't help you that much, second of all, you don't play that many OOC games anyway.

Louisville would give them a better game? Louisville has a pathetic defense. It'd probably be a similar game, at least in point differential, the over/under would be about 30 points higher. As a Buckeye fan, I really really really really don't want to see a rematch, because its always hard to beat the same team twice in a year. That, and, its kinda lame that we have to beat them twice in order to win the National Championship. While Michigan would only have to beat OSU once. Why should one game count more than the other one? As a football fan, I recognize that Michigan is almost certainly the second best team in the nation, and probably deserves a shot in the NC game. The simple and most obvious solution would be a playoff structure. The real loss in terms of adding a playoff structure is a loss of that "special" feeling from the regular season. And its not made up, the regular season in College football is incredibly more important than in any other sport. Unfortunately, year in and year out, the postseason continues to cause controversy. If you are going to award a national championship, you must institute a playoff structure. If you just want to have conference champions and bowl games, thats fine. But you can't legitimately declare a team better than another when they don't get a chance to play it out. BCS be damned. The BCS is not helping determine who the best 2 teams are. Louisvilles defense is decent and not as bad as you say it is. Also, when Ohio State opened up their offense they put up a lot of points on Michigan. Many, even the experts, think Louisville has a better offense than Ohio State. Michigan is good but I'm not so sure they are the second best team. While I credit Louisville with attempting to schedule an out of schedule powerhouse...I'm just not all that impressed with them. You can make a better argument for Michigan than Louisville just based on the strength of their losses. Louisville lost to Rutgers, who no one in their right mind would compare to a national championship contender, and Michigan lost to the best team in the nation. And I still hate on the Big East. I don't care what you say, you might say parity, I say mediocrity. West Virginia losing to South Florida? (South Florida is in the Big East? Thats absolutely pathetic) Rutgers losing to Cincinatti? Come on now. Don't compare the Big East to the Big Ten.

Louisville would give them a better game? Louisville has a pathetic defense. It'd probably be a similar game, at least in point differential, the over/under would be about 30 points higher. As a Buckeye fan, I really really really really don't want to see a rematch, because its always hard to beat the same team twice in a year. That, and, its kinda lame that we have to beat them twice in order to win the National Championship. While Michigan would only have to beat OSU once. Why should one game count more than the other one? As a football fan, I recognize that Michigan is almost certainly the second best team in the nation, and probably deserves a shot in the NC game. The simple and most obvious solution would be a playoff structure. The real loss in terms of adding a playoff structure is a loss of that "special" feeling from the regular season. And its not made up, the regular season in College football is incredibly more important than in any other sport. Unfortunately, year in and year out, the postseason continues to cause controversy. If you are going to award a national championship, you must institute a playoff structure. If you just want to have conference champions and bowl games, thats fine. But you can't legitimately declare a team better than another when they don't get a chance to play it out. BCS be damned.

What is this thread doing on the second page? I'll fix that.

Awesome. haha I love that image Looks like the top of the skyscraper is spearing the bear in the chest and it's crying in pain :wink: I thought the message initially was that the Bears rule NY after the sweep of the two NYC teams.

I just want Kansas to make a bowl game - only because their coach is a really bad fatty. http://media.kansan.com/img/photos/2005/09/11/mangino_t450.jpg He also has one of the best coaching rants in the history of the game. (Probably due to his fatness) After his team (allegedly) got jobbed by officials in a key game against Texas, he screamed about the BCS. Can't say I don't agree with him.

Laid eggs? They were outclassed. Their only other games were against second tier programs, so of course they looked better. Come on, man. Laid eggs? Yes, laid eggs. Quinn has thrown 5 INTs all year and 3 of them came against UM. That's a laid egg. Hell he didn't even have any against USC whose D is pretty damn good too. Rhema hasn't dropped passes all year until this game. Freeman looked like crap. USC outplayed ND but that doesn't mean ND played their best game. I give all sorts of credit to UM and USC for playing the way they did in those games, but they weren't responsible for Rhema's not holding onto the football today or for ND's offensive line crapping out in the UM game. The only consolation is that we likely didn't get beat bad enough to fall out of the BCS. Wait, the reason Quinn threw those interceptions was purely because of him laying an egg and not because of the UM defense ?(and the supposed best defensive line in the nation?) Yes, you can look really good against service acadamies, maybe only throw one or two picks. Congrats. USC and Michigan? More talented than ND. Maybe Weis can recruit very well, we'll soon see.

Laid eggs? They were outclassed. Their only other games were against second tier programs, so of course they looked better. Come on, man. Laid eggs?

I don't want to hear crap from any ND fan. This is your team, you deserve this for how highly hyped up they were from day one. Legacy of Brady Quinn: No big wins, against anyone. Heisman? Are you joking? The Great, fat, Charlie Weis: Not a single big win, best game of his career is a loss to USC in 2005. Wow. I can't believe what Bob Davie was blubbering out while he watched his beloved Irish go down: "Look, the only losses this team has had in the past year has been to three top 5 teams!" Yeah, and you got blown out in every single one of them. There are only 2 legitimate teams on the schedule, and ND lost by 20+ to each of them. Congrats. The Irish are back, indeed!

Two should be the limit. If you can't finish top 2 in your conference you shouldn't go to a BCS bowl. The problem is that there are 6 major conferences, 1 possible spot for a minor conference team, and 1 possible spot for Notre Dame. There are 10 spots overall. What happens if both Notre Dame has a year where they don't make the BCS and there is no eligible minor conference team? That means that there will be 6 conference winners, and then 4 of the conferences will be forced to send a 2nd team-and some of those 2nd place teams might not be deserving. This year in the conferences is an example, where there are at least 3 conferences with no at-large teams eligible at this moment. (Pac-10, Big XII, ACC) The BCS is just lucky that 2 of those spots will be filled this year by Boise State and Notre Dame, or else there would be an extra spot with no team eligible to fill it. That's a good point. I feel it should be an 'if necessary' sort of thing though. If no other teams are eligible then you can have a third team. I just don't like the idea of a third place team in the BCS. And we can solve that really easily by having a 16 team playoff.

Boise St. in a BCS bowl would be a travesty. Outside of an early win against Oregon St, they have played absolutely no one. Just because a team goes undefeated against a high school schedule does not entitle them to a BCS game. Although it would be kind of fun to watch them get massacred. you have to feel bad for them though. That program has done a great job in recruiting and building a good team....not their fault that the rest of the conference is a joke. I think it's elitist to say that only teams from the 6 BCS conferences should be allowed to play in a BCS game. Boise St. has been pretty well punished in both the polls and computer, but staying undefeated has forced them in there. If they lose today, then no problem, they go to the whatever bowl. If ND loses tonight, would you still put them in as an at-large over BSU? If they are punished by both the Polls and the Computers, doesn't that actually mean something? That they face weak competition and they really aren't that good? I sorta agree that it would be an embarrassment to see them in the BCS. They'll get steamrolled. If they want to go, let them go, but they will get destroyed. Also, LOL, ND is pretty bad. Notre Dame's victories are about on par with Boise State. In fact, has Charlie Weis really beaten any quality opponent? Just a team who is likely to be their conference winner in a major conference this year with a chance to beat a 2nd conference winner tonight. What throws a monkey wrench into it is a 3 or 4 loss team or 2 that wins the Conference Championship. The Big East could screw it up too as they only have 8 teams and that increases the chances for a 3 loss team like Pitt a couple of years ago . A big reason why i'm opposed to conference championship games. They usually just seem unnecessary, and tend to just mess things up. Why do we need 12 team conferences anyway? If we cut everything down to 9-10 team conferences and everyone plays each other....there goes the need for a conference championship game.

I dunno. Rex. Mike Brown. Bradley. To a lesser extent, Benson. We've had important players miss pretty significant time. We're just so stacked/deep that we've been able to soften the blows. For this year, Berrian, Ogunleye, Hillenmeyer, and other members of the secondary. Scott and Clark have also been banged up pretty good for a couple of games. We've been playing without our starting stud safety for much longer than the Patriots have. I know the Bears have been healthy, but there have been significant injuries as well. Just not the crushing onslaught of previous years, so it seems like nothing (*****KNOCK ON WOOD*****) I think a lot of it has to do with Rusty Jones. Everybody before 2005 was out of shape, even warriors like Brian Urlacher.

Boise St. in a BCS bowl would be a travesty. Outside of an early win against Oregon St, they have played absolutely no one. Just because a team goes undefeated against a high school schedule does not entitle them to a BCS game. Although it would be kind of fun to watch them get massacred. you have to feel bad for them though. That program has done a great job in recruiting and building a good team....not their fault that the rest of the conference is a joke. I think it's elitist to say that only teams from the 6 BCS conferences should be allowed to play in a BCS game. Boise St. has been pretty well punished in both the polls and computer, but staying undefeated has forced them in there. If they lose today, then no problem, they go to the whatever bowl. If ND loses tonight, would you still put them in as an at-large over BSU? If they are punished by both the Polls and the Computers, doesn't that actually mean something? That they face weak competition and they really aren't that good? I sorta agree that it would be an embarrassment to see them in the BCS. They'll get steamrolled. If they want to go, let them go, but they will get destroyed. Also, LOL, ND is pretty bad. Notre Dame's victories are about on par with Boise State. In fact, has Charlie Weis really beaten any quality opponent?

I'm gonna be honest and say if the Bears have to face the Cowboys at any point in the postseason, I wouldn't be afraid at all. I'm confident the Bears would absolutely dismantle them. They are just not really particularly good at anything.

I don't think anyone has been so head and shoulders ahead of the rest of their conference in a while like the Bears are this year. Maybe the Rams in 2001 but that's about it. As far as record? The Colts last year, the Eagles the year before that come to mind as teams who were so far ahead that they clinched the conference a month ahead of time. The Bears are enjoying a similar run this year, and it should be an easy run to HFA-my question to Bears fans is, do you want to rest starters or not? It's a very tough issue. I'd like to see the starters play entire half's at least. That would be fine for me. Plus- I'd like to see the Bears sweep the Packers, and defend their home turf in Favre's (likely) last game.