i'm less annoyed with Buck/McCarver than am I with how utterly horrible the FOX games look on my TV. The graphics are all out of focus, the picture is really dark (you can't even see the face of the batter). Horrible
my parents just came back from Cape Cod and they said it was just over run with Patriots/Red Sox stuff. Thing is, those teams are all they have in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine.....
again, i think naming names is going to damn the league an union more than the players. the only way they can name names is if a) the player(s) fessed up to Mitchell, b) they have records of positive test results from the playing days of the player(s) and/or c) they have testimony from those who provided the drugs (which seems to be the least reliable). If there are test results, that's a huge problem for the league, as it would come to light that positive tests for steroids were ignored.
and because they are michigan. I don't care because I think ratings are ridiculous (how is Oregon now ahead of Cal?) but I do think Michigan gets bias. Oregon lost by 7 at home to a very good Cal team. Cal lost at home by 3 to an average Oregon State team. Cal's loss is much worse than Oregon's is. EDIT: Let me add that I do understand the other side of the argument - that Cal beat Oregon - and that I'm torn on which way I would rank them. I was just making an argument for putting Oregon ahead of Cal. right, one could say "Oregon lost to a Cal team that lost to a mediocre Oregon State team", which hurts Oregon
if i learned nothing else this past week, it's that the Pac 10 has the hands down ugliest set of school uniforms ever. Oregon will always be worst, but Cal's were atrocious, USC's look like Jr. High uni's, Washington State's all-reds look like pajamas....FTH are the designers thinking?