NCCubFan

David Faber is all over it. I'm just providing a service. You think everybody watches CNBC? I surfed over there during a commercial on "Law and Order." The acquital of a cop killer leads to the murder of a defense attorney. Hey, I've seen this one, and I don't watch much L&O anymore. Free ad time for Fred! That's interesting because I remember when Reagan ran for President and they would not show any of his movies due to free publicity (Or some other reason) Basically, it was due to equal time requirements. If they showed his movies they would have been required to give the same amount of time to his opponent.

Davis is out of the picture. He just negotiated a better deal at North Carolina within the past week or two.

Yeah because Tim Tebow has a lot in common with all those Florida QB's, other than the fact he played at Florida. Same Coach? No. Same System? No. The argument was always the Spurrier system argument...Tebow probably has never even met Steve Spurrier off the football field. Really using that argument is incredibly logically dishonest and anyone who uses it seriously should be laughed at. That said, Tim Tebow is probably going to go in the first round if he's healthy, wins a heisman and continues to rock next year (see Alex Smith). However, how much of his passing success is because of his legs remains to be seen and he's a risky bet for a first round pick. I wouldn't take him before the second round at the earliest. His power running threat won't be much of a factor and his little fake QB draw thing won't be as potent in the NFL. Not only that he's likely to end up in a body bag if he scrambles as much as he does now in the NFL. He's probably a better FB prospect for the NFL than QB. If he was a pure FB he'd probably go in the first or second round. Homer. http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/tv/us/img/site/43/36/0000034336_20061020191519.jpg

lots of butter + lots of marshmallows + hot pan = melted goo melted goo + fruity pebbles = colorful goo colorful goo + square pan + refridgerator + knife = fruity pebble treats Basically sounds like Rice Krispies treats (which are fairly common) but substituting the cereal.Homemade peanut butter rice krispie treats are where it's at. One of my favorite treats when growing up was basically what you mentioned, but using Cocoa Krispies instead of Rice Krispies. They were called cocoa peanut logs.

He'll get an invite to ST from someone. That's fine as long as "someone" isn't spelled C-U-B-S.

lots of butter + lots of marshmallows + hot pan = melted goo melted goo + fruity pebbles = colorful goo colorful goo + square pan + refridgerator + knife = fruity pebble treats Basically sounds like Rice Krispies treats (which are fairly common) but substituting the cereal.

I'd go with Grant for the same reason. The Packers are more likely to be close enough to go with their running game instead of needing to pass more to come from way behind.

Because he's Hendry.

I will be in attendence at this instant classic. My condolences.

So that's what he's been doing when not with Van Halen. :lol:

http://www.kraftfoods.com/images/ocpimages/43000/12971CL.gif Yabba Dabba Doo!

that looked wrong to me before I realized that the Cotton is no longer a BCS bowl. It never was a BCS bowl. i'm old school. pre-BCS, the big 5 bowls were the Orange, Sugar, Rose, Cotton and Fiesta. when the BCS started, the Cotton got the boot Even more old school, I remember when the Fiesta wasn't a major bowl; it was just the Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Cotton. That was when the Big 12 was the Big 8, the Big 10 really was the Big 10, and there was a Southwest Conference (which was the host for the Cotton Bowl). Back then you could tell one bowl game from another based on what conference was involved and the bowl games wrapped up on New Year's Day (or Jan. 2 if New Year's was a Sunday).

Much less likely to occur, but Pittsburgh beating West Virginia would do the same thing.

Good for the NCAA; that's exactly what I think the ruling should be. I have no trouble with Miami getting a bowl bid as long as the MAC teams with winning records also get in, but not if one of them would be left out. Go CMU! If Miami does win do all of the outcomes you mentioned need to occur, or just one of them? All of them could occur (although I don't think that would be likely), but I'd be surprised if at least one of them didn't happen. If nothing else, ASU should beat Arizona.

I believe that all players with at least 10 years of MLB service time make it onto the HOF ballot. They also have to get a certain percentage ( 15-20% ?) of the vote to stay on the ballot after this year, unless they've changed those rules. A lot of those guys will drop off next year because of that. You're right, although I believe the actual percentage is 5%.

Since the airline gave away your seats even though you got there before your connecting flight left I think they owe you denied boarding compensation. I don't see how they could hold you to the rule of being at the gate 20 minutes before departure since it was due to the delay of their own flight that you were unable to. Their system certainly could have told them that your flight would arrive on time for you to have made your next flight by departure time or only a few minutes late (and normally airlines will delay a flight at least a few minutes to accommodate connecting passengers whose flights are late). And they certainly could have seen that you were actually on the originating flight by looking at the passenger log. They dropped the ball and owe you for the inconvenience. Last I knew American's standard compensation for denied boarding was a $250 voucher toward future travel. As far as the actual poll is concerned, I said leaving the airport (and by that I mean actually leaving the property completely, not just stepping outside the terminal building).

Which is more likely?

True, but no more so than the NFL thinking Dallas is in the east (and previously thinking Atlanta was in the west). Or when Northern Illinois temporarily left the MAC for one of the western conferences.

That would be pure bullcrap. There's no excuse for allowing a team with a losing record to play in a bowl game, division champion or not. They wouldn't be conference champions under that scenerio. If the logic is that they're bowl eligible because of having 6 wins the rule that a team with 7 or more wins from the same conference has priority should still be in effect. Even if they're considered eligible, though, I don't think that means a bowl game has to give them a bid, if they think Davis and a 7-5 BSU team would be more attractive. I remember reading or hearing a few years ago that, except for the conference champions, bowls don't have to award bids based on order of finish (even though more often than not they do). The second bid from a conference means that the bowl game has second pick from the conference, but it doesn't actually have to be the second-place team if another team would be more attractive. Thinking more about the MAC situation, I don't think that move would keep Ball State out. According to the most recent ESPN bowl projections (last Tuesday), three conferences (Pac 10, WAC, and Big 12) were expected to fall short of having enough bowl-eligible teams to fill their slots. Even with last weekend's upsets possibly giving the Pac 10 enough teams, there's still the WAC and Big 12. So perhaps the MAC believes that Ball State will get a bid anyway and they are trying to get 4 teams in bowls as opposed to leaving BSU out. I can see that logic. Had Miami been 6-6 but not in the championship game they'd be eligible. So if losing the championship game and finishing 6-7 would rule them out, that would in effect mean that they'd be punished for winning the division and playing for the championship, and that makes no sense to me. So I think what they're really looking for is an interpretation that an extra game playing for the championship shouldn't hurt a team with 6 wins in the regular season, and I agree with that logic. If the MAC isn't in line for an extra bid due to other conferences falling short I think BSU would still be protected by the rule that a 7-win team has priority over a 6-win team from the same conference.

That would be pure bullcrap. There's no excuse for allowing a team with a losing record to play in a bowl game, division champion or not. They wouldn't be conference champions under that scenerio. If the logic is that they're bowl eligible because of having 6 wins the rule that a team with 7 or more wins from the same conference has priority should still be in effect. Even if they're considered eligible, though, I don't think that means a bowl game has to give them a bid, if they think Davis and a 7-5 BSU team would be more attractive. I remember reading or hearing a few years ago that, except for the conference champions, bowls don't have to award bids based on order of finish (even though more often than not they do). The second bid from a conference means that the bowl game has second pick from the conference, but it doesn't actually have to be the second-place team if another team would be more attractive.

And it's the Cubs' offense that would be the murder victims.

That was done a few years ago when some people intentionally misspelled his first name to be demeaning.

I believe so since he earned his income in New York. States with a state income tax generally have a nonresident/partial year resident tax return for people who earn income in that state but live in another state some or all year.

Come on, no more of the Ramirez is lazy crap. That wore out its welcome long ago.

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=45507