UMFan83

Wow I cant imagine how unruly the group that bought tickets to the game, bundled up to survive the temps, came down to the game, and stood in line for a long time is going to be when they get turned away at the door.

I love the idea that only conference winners can participate in a playoff. It gives the traditionalists their season "that matters", which is not a bad thing at all. You lose a Big Ten conference game, that in some years could kill your shot of being in the playoffs. It also kills the "should have been selected" argument. The lines are black and white. You win your conference, you go to the playoffs. You don't win your conference, you play a bowl game. The only downside is that non-conference games will have almost no importance anymore. The only way you could make them important is to have overall record break 3 way ties for conference championship game opponents and help for seeding in a playoff. But if that were the case, the first 3 weeks of college football will suck because no one is going to schedule anyone dangerous.

Ryan [expletive] Harvey now that's a blast from the past. Who next, Brian Dopirak? Edit: Oooo...or maybe Nic Jackson will be making a comeback.

A team with a payroll recently in the 140m range has to spread out a 1 year contract over 3 years now. That's just awesome! That isn't really the case. He gets an immediate signing bonus, which has been a Cubs staple for some reason. The 2011 salary would appear to be $3m and he is reportedly due $5m in January 2012, which means $10m will be paid out over 13 months. I just wonder though if that last 5 mill shows up on the 2012 payroll though...... It does. Otherwise what is the point of doing that with his contract? It's not like the Cubs could not even afford to give Pena $5 million more dollars this year. When 2012 comes around and Pena is making $5 million to play for another team, just pretend that Hendry made another horrible multi year signing and had to trade him away and eat his salary.

Would Jenks have even gotten a major league contract 2 offseasons ago?

both please.

And with that the Tarvaris Jackson era has come to an unceremonious end. We're going to enter the offseason with Joe Webb as the only QB on the roster. They already signed Patrick Ramsey. And there's some thought he might start. Whether or not he does, it's unlikely he will enter the offseason as a Viking.

It's not awful though. It is when you consider nobody has to pass on them much since the opponent is usually ahead and Detroit gives up the 4th highest yards per attempt. They are in 6th place, 3 off the lead, in sacks. It's quite obvious the secondary is the weak link. I seem to feel like a majority of the games Detroit has played this season have been really close, and quite a few of them had the teams seperated by a score well into the 4th quarter. Some with Detroit leading until the end. Teams have thrown the 6th fewest pass attempts against Detroit and they have given up the 4th more yards per attempt. Nobody tries to pass on them, but when they do, they are successful. OK that refutes my research. In that case teams arent passing nearly enough on Detroit because the game situations and statistics certainly dictate that they should be passing more

GB - DET trailed 3-0 going into the 4th, won 7-3 CHI - DET led 20-17 going into the 4th, lost 24-20 NE - DET tied 24-24 going into 4th, lost 45-24 DAL - DET trailed 21-19 going into 4th, lost 35-19 BUF - DET trailed 14-3 going into 4th, lost 14-12 NYJ - DET led 13-10 going into 4th, lost 23-20 (OT) WAS - DET led 14-13 going into 4th, won 37-25 NYG - DET trailed 21-10 going into 4th, lost 28-20 STL - DET led 31-6 going into 4th, won 44-6 GB - DET trailed 28-20 going into 4th, lost 28-26 MIN - DET trailed 24-10 going into 4th, lost 24-10 PHI - DET trailed 28-17 going into 4th, lost 35-32 CHI - DET led 14-13 going into 4th, lost 19-14 That's 11 of the 13 games where the score was either within 1 score entering the 4th or the game ended with the teams being within 1 score of each other. And one of the two games that isn't, it was the Lions up by a ton, so it's likely the opponent was passing a lot. The Minnesota game is the only one I could say that without a doubt the opponent probably gave up on the passing game early on.

It's not awful though. It is when you consider nobody has to pass on them much since the opponent is usually ahead and Detroit gives up the 4th highest yards per attempt. They are in 6th place, 3 off the lead, in sacks. It's quite obvious the secondary is the weak link. I seem to feel like a majority of the games Detroit has played this season have been really close, and quite a few of them had the teams seperated by a score well into the 4th quarter. Some with Detroit leading until the end.

If it got anywhere close to happening, I would guess the NCAA would all of a sudden think a playoff is a great idea, and either set up their own, or get involved and sanction this one. If there were college teams play unsanctioned games for money, can't the NCAA bar that from happening? If anything I'd think they'd find a loophole that says doing something like that strips the athletes of their eligability even if the money isn't going to them.

Man I would love a playoff so badly. I know there are a lot opposed to a 16 team playoff but could you imagine the excitement of that first weekend. 8 playoff games, schools from tiny conferences playing the juggernauts. Maybe they would get blown out, without even an exception. Or maybe, just maybe there would be a few good games. Regardless, while I barely watch any bowl games now (just Michigan's bowl, snippets of the BCS bowls and the BCS Championship game), I would plan my entire weekend around watching a playoff round. This year I'm not even excited for the bowls because I'm pissed that for like the 3rd year in the last 4, there is an undefeated team that is left without a shot to play for the title.

Really? I am in the middle. On one hand it puts a dome team where it's most comfortable - in a dome. On the other the Bears don't necessarily seem like a team that thrives in the elements, so a dome might not be the worst thing ever.

I think we have a 5 game lead in the division now. I'm pretty confident we'll win the division too. We might be able to win it with 43 wins.

I'd consider 45 wins, even without Noah for 2+ months, a disaster considering the start we've had and the remaining schedule. I agree with whoever said we can still go something like 20-10 over the next 30 and would've expected better with a healthy Noah. The suggestion was that the Bulls would go 20-10 with Noah in the lineup, not without. I'd consider 45 wins a huge disapointment too, it was just a number I threw out. I think it will be something like 50-32, but at the same time its really hard to understand how much we'll miss Noah until he isn't out there. When the Bulls didn't have Noah last year, they were a completely different and bad team. Obviously the team is better and deeper this year (except at Center of course...) but there will be a definite and noticable dropoff in the teams play eventually.

They just said on CSN that the Cubs are close to resigning Wood to a 2 year deal.

It's hard to kill the momentum a championship brings. And even if the momentum does shift it will go right back to where it was in a year or two when we are likely back at the top of the conference.

dex, I hate this too but you gotta think this Rose-Boozer-Noah core will be together for multiple years. This is just the start. Maybe we only win 45 games this year or something, but we can still have a solid playoffs and scare some teams. I'm pretty sure everyone will know we are badass.

And while those games sucked they still had memorable moments in them. I flipped out when Sosa hit that game tying HR. Felt completely the opposite when Lowell hit his HR.

Maybe they should just forefit the game. That would be the break to end all breaks.

Wow this is just unreal, and Clayton is a guy I pretty much take to the bank. If he says there's a chance, there probably is. It would probably seal Favre not playing as well. I could see him wanting to give the home crowd one last hurrah, but I doubt he'll push his shoulder for what would virtually be a road game. I actually don't put a lot of stock into Clayton's comments about 50-50. He's just making that part up, and he does that sort of thing a lot. His schtick has always been to provide as many "gee whiz" headlines as possible instead of actually going in depth on any stories. That said, why is Indy more of a possibility than Detroit this time? I don't know, maybe the Vikings would prefer a game slightly closer to Minneapolis (if it even is). I know Lucas Oil was in the running for last week's game before it went to Ford Field. Keep in mind that they are probably putting on this game and losing money on it, or at best making a small profit. All the staff that has to come to the game on short notice, and everything else that goes into putting on an NFL game, I'd think Ford Field officials would rather it go to someone else this time. That's just my guess anyways, I don't really know for sure why but I know Irsay has been vocal about allowing them to play at Lucas Oil Stadium.

If they do the same thing they did for the Ford Field game, I'm taking Monday off and driving to Indy Monday morning before the sun comes up and getting some tickets.

He'd be back for the Giants game, so it wouldn't be throwing away the entire season. Even with Rodgers, we'd have very little chance of winning this game on Sunday. It makes sense to just hold him out and have him come back at 100% for the Giants and Bears. Hopefully scoreboard watching goes our way this weekend, although it hasn't at any point this year and I doubt it's going to start now. I might be crazy for suggesting this but I think the Packers have a fighting chance with Rodgers playing the NE game. The Pats have an amazing offense, but the Packers D has been playing really well lately I believe. If there's a defense that can slow them down, it's GB's. And offensively, assuming the conditions are much better than the other night, I would think Rodgers would be able to exploit that Pats passing D that is said to be so weak. I think it would be something like a 30-24 game in favor of the Pats, but one that could go either way.

Yeah its so weird how much this Minnesota/Chicago game means to the race. Sportsclubstats.com has the Bears at 69.7% chance to make the playoffs right now. If they lose to Minnesota, they go down to 41%, a drop of 28%. A Packerse win doesn't even really drop their odds much, only 6%. A loss to the Jets the next week only lowers the odds 12%. This Minnesota game is huge. If the Bears win, I think the Bears will win the division. If they lose, I'd have to probably admit the Packers probably win, even though they'd have to beat the Giants and Bears to clinch. I wouldnt give up on the Vikings in that one yet. First of all the Bears played awful last week and their confidence has to be shaken a bit. They will recover it enough knowing that their path to the playoffs is clear, especially because they will know how the Packers did. But the confidence can't be as high as it was before last Sunday. The Vikings however, have to be having this "us against the world" mentality going on right now. They did put up a stinker the other night, but I would expect that in a "home" game 600 miles away against a very good team. Bottom line is the players still want Frazier to be the head coach, they want to play hard for their fans who have gone through all this Metrodome crap with them, and the whole 50th anniversary stuff comes into play. Finally, the Bears and Vikings don't like each other, and it's a test of their pride to come out and help keep a division rival out of the playoffs.

I'm asking this impartially not as a Bears fan. Are Packers fans considering the division a longshot at this point and are setting their sights on the WC? Just curious. Most Packers fans I know seem to think it's not terribly likely the Packers beat NE this weekend. If you don't win that game and are still aiming for the division you are rooting for the chance that the Bears lose out. Which is obviously not impossible. Just wondering where Packers minds are. Because as Bears fan, as attainable as the division seems, I still can't get my hopes up for our playoff chances and probably won't be able to unless we officially clinch something