Ryne Ween

This browns defense is awesome.

Nice play Ratliff. I assumed that counter would go for 15.

Why do so many of you guys care more about Jay's reputation in the media than anything else.

Go gettum Jay!

Jason Campbell is so terrible.

passer rating isn't a percentage (and jay's is 88.4... good for like 12th in the league) More like Jay Buttler if younask me.

in basically every advanced QB performance metric jay is mediocre compared to his peers. His passer rating this year is decent. Jay is ok he is not very good. Im not sure why you say Trestman's offense doesnt fit Jay either.

The problem is that Cutler isnt very good. So while he is better than McCown, he still isnt very good. You have to do a ton of gymnastics to find some objective, advanced, and non-usage based statistics that rank him toward the top of the league. With this new offensive genius and all these weapons, he should be playing really well, and while he was before he got hurt Mccown has looked better. Mccown outplayed him through some combination of the offense maturing, other guys playing great, bad defenses and good play from Mccown. The team's offense looks better than it ever had under Jay, combined with Jay's jerk face and boner personality and everybody is arguing about Mccown being better. I think it just shows how low the bar dropped for Jay who Id hoped would be a top 5 QB in the league when we got him. The argument isnt about Jay being an all-pro its about whether or not hes a better option than Josh Mccown and thats pretty sad. Of course hes a better option. I just hope that they dont sign him to a huge deal that he doesnt deserve.

Lets give Mccown some credit hes produced more DYAR in his couple games as starter this year than Jay in his entire career as a bear.

Here is the last 4 years. 2013 - 4 2012 - 5 2011 - 4 2010 - 3 And remember Sumlin's been around for only the last two. The argument may have gone a to a different place. I dont think the SEC is that great. Its the best conference because its best at the top. I agree that the depth is not there and I agree they dont play tough OOC (exceptions exist). But I was saying that its toughest to get into a BCS game from the SEC because no other conference has as many really good teams at the top. And people should stop using A&M and Mizzou's success as a counterpoint to SEC dominance. Those teams arent Big 12 anymore. They are SEC teams now, the SEC plucked two good programs from the Big 12 and made itself a stronger conference and made the Big 12 weaker. The success they are having in the SEC is not a boon for the big 12. 2010 - 2: http://bcscentral.info/h/2010/bcs_rankings.html This season isn't over yet, either. The success Missouri and A&M are having right away in the SEC should show that the SEC isn't some mammoth obstacle that other schools can never hope to ascend. Two decent Big 12 programs are decent in the SEC just the same. That should have dispelled the myth that a middling SEC team would win any other conference, but the SEC fan's hubris somehow thinks that just putting the SEC name on Missouri and Texas A&M magically made them better. I gave you the rankings after the season prior to the bowls. You gotta realize I am arguing that its hardest to make a BCS bowl out of the SEC than the other conferences. I realize that you do not like the SEC and I think that your passion is great. But A&M and Mizzou made the SEC stronger and the Big 12 weaker. Thats what actually happened. And I agree that the chasm between the SEC and everybody else is not as wide as most seem to believe. But lets be honest here. Mizzou is 9-8 in SEC conference play. They have been good, better than expected. Im not ready to use them as proof that the SEC isnt still the best conference. Just as easily as you can cite them winning the east as a reason why the SEC blows, somebody else could say their team improved and they caught the right schedule and the right time. And A&M had a new coach and a great player. And when A&M last year played the 2nd best team in the Big 12 they abused them. So im not sure that A&M didnt improve and Im not sold on Mizzou as a perennial conference contender.

Here is the last 4 years. 2013 - 4 2012 - 5 2011 - 4 2010 - 3 And remember Sumlin's been around for only the last two. The argument may have gone a to a different place. I dont think the SEC is that great. Its the best conference because its best at the top. I agree that the depth is not there and I agree they dont play tough OOC (exceptions exist). But I was saying that its toughest to get into a BCS game from the SEC because no other conference has as many really good teams at the top. And people should stop using A&M and Mizzou's success as a counterpoint to SEC dominance. Those teams arent Big 12 anymore. They are SEC teams now, the SEC plucked two good programs from the Big 12 and made itself a stronger conference and made the Big 12 weaker. The success they are having in the SEC is not a boon for the big 12.

Im not really saying this, obviously there are a billion variables. My point was in reaction to the poster who cited sumlin not making a BCS. I said making a BCS out of the SEC is more difficult than any other conference and posited that A&M would have made it out of any other conference last year. Does anybody actually disagree with either? The BCS rankings are an attempt to force rank all the teams from all the conferences against each other. 10 teams get BCS slots but only 2 from the SEC, despite the fact that routinely 4-5 teams from the SEC are in the top 10 of the BCS rankings. You can argue, and i think you did, that there is an institutional bias that benefits the SEC teams in all the rankings, which is true. But since, within the context of the BCS, A&M (or any other SEC team) is really only competing against other SEC teams, the bias doesnt come into play.

Everybody who disagreed with me on the extreme difficulty of earning a BCS slot out of the SEC is dumb and especially those who questioned A&M from last year. The SEC can only send 2 teams. If that rule didnt exist A&M, at #9 in the BCS going into the bowls would have empirically gotten into the BCS. The comparison to the Big 12, who only sent 1 team to the BCS last year, is easy because they pasted the sooners in the cotton bowl last year. Last year's SEC sent #2 bama and #3 Florida. Thus, georgia, LSU, A&M and USC, #'s 7-10 couldnt get an invite. If the BCS didnt limit 2 teams from the same conference, than likely most of those teams would have gotten in (especially the heisman winners team). This years gamecocks went 10-2, are #9 in the BCS and have beaten two BCS bowl teams this year and Mizzou. Clemson, after getting stomped by both decent teams they played is in the BCS. The BCS is designed to make good matchups you dont always see, not really to reward the very best teams.

I'm not a huge SEC guy but it's very very difficult for an SEC team to make a BCS bowl. Spurrier hasn't gotten one at USC and he's had a couple really good years. Last years A&M team makes a BCS bowl out of any other conference

Im saying "1% of profits" is the same as "1% of the network". The network doesnt have hard assets, it has a contract to with Texas that grants them rights to certain content thus you cannot sell your stake in the longhorn network, and 1% equity would be completely illiquid. The difference between profit sharing and ownershiop only matters when money stays in the business, and in this case it doesnt matter.

If it was a meaningless throw in than why offer it? It has such potential for negative publicity, if it didnt matter why include it.

These things, in general, are not a long term equity model. They are generally partnerships between the thing that provides the content (the school, team etc), the broadcaster, and the cable company. Pro teams or colleges need these things to cash flow immediately. Especially for a non-profit that doesn’t need to worry about the tax impact of taking a bunch of income. Also, the network has zero value when Texas pulls out or some ruling happens etc. So the cash is probably flushed every year. If the long horn network expands its content, puts more games on, and grows its distribution the 1% could be very meaningful to a coach’s salary.

Everything's OK No it's not. That was th worst defense I've ever seen. I bet anything Dallas turns this into a game. Anything? No not anymore.

Why would u onside there?

Everything's OK No it's not. That was th worst defense I've ever seen. I bet anything Dallas turns this into a game.

I've never seen a team down 4 Tds run this easily.

The OC makes all the difference. Well, that and actual weapons. They have certainly helped, but Caleb Hanie and Jason Campbell don't do this even in the 2013 offense. I'm fairly certain Campbell could be doing this. If Josh mccown can do this tons of guys can but definitely not campbell. Alshon Jeffrey would have 1 or 2 grabs a game fo 11 yards.

The OC makes all the difference. Well, that and actual weapons. They have certainly helped, but Caleb Hanie and Jason Campbell don't do this even in the 2013 offense. Mccown going downfield more than typical backups. Jason Campbell would go 22-23 for 150 yards in this offense.

My brother just finally told me that Bears should just play McCown the rest of the way and let Cutler go in the offseason. He's not a Cutler hater either as we would defend Cutler against our usually idiot Bears friends. The decision isn't between cutler and mccown. It's about cutler and his contract. Mccown is thawing what a replacement player can do with the rest of the offense.

It's funny people feel the need to get ahead of that.