UMFan83

? He's saying that their power rankings have no meaning at all. I understand that. It's just that....well everyone knows that. Doesn't mean they aren't fun for other people do discuss as a measure of the mainstream media's impression of a team.

Some people are really into the 'baseball is a slice of americana' thing, and those people usually adore Wrigley. I'd say casual fans typically adore Wrigley as the media generally bows to it whenever they discuss these type of things. The bigger baseball fan tends to dislike Wrigley Field because they see past the romantic descriptions of the ballpark, they hate the baseball americana people and prefer modernizing the game, they disregrad a lot of the tradition that Wrigley supposedly has as it hasn't seen a WS game since 1945 and has never hosted a Cubs World Series champ. They think the cramped seats and lack of a jumbotron lessen the experience of the game, and many people think the stadium smells (lol).

Yes, please. Go Falcons too. C'mon, you know you want to say it...

Have they linked Bagwell to steroids yet? Then again he was winning MVPs in 1994 when supposedly the steroids epidemic wasn't in full swing.

It's really getting annoying how many ways the Cubs will find to spend Dunn's money on mediocrity. They don't need Hudson, they don't need Webb and if they sign Dunn they don't need Pena. THIS ISN'T COMPLICATED, CUBS. Agreed. I am not completely opposed to Webb because if he can regain his 08 form, he's a steal and you can always use more starting pitching. Even if he pitches to only 90% of what he was before, he immediately becomes the staff ace, and a pitcher that teams don't want to face in a potential postseason series. As decent as the Cubs starting pitching was last year, no current Cubs starter has that type of stuff. Back to the point, while that is all great, I think I'd rather have a Dunn then those 3. Hudson is nice but not our biggest need. Our biggest need is a legit middle of the order monster that teams have to plan ahead for when their lineup spot comes up. We have Ramirez, and we have Soriano when he's hot, but other than that, no one really strikes fear into opposing pitchers. Dunn would give our lineup a lot of legitimacy, and would give us that lefty power bat that we've always dreamed about. We are getting a pretty sure thing with Dunn while Hudson is potentially declining, Webb is still throwing in the 80s and a big risk to get back to his old self, and Pena qualified for the batting title and hit under .200 last year.

I thought it was more hilarious that according to Bradshaw, WilsonA was actually correct Re: Cutler vs. Sanchez.

i hope he waits another week or so Normally I'd agree, but we are playing the Magic, Celtics, Thunder and Lakers over the next 10 days or so. But then again, the Bulls might have difficulty adjusting to Boozer's presence in the lineup. IIRC, he was injured just a few days into training camp, so he's maybe had only 4 practices with the Bulls including today's. I'm sure he knows the playbook pretty well and I'm sure he's paid careful attention of the Bulls play during the first month but its a completely different game when they come out and actually play with him.

?

Yup. I never said I thought he shouldn't be in the top 10. I was saying that knowing how the media in general thinks I don't think cutler is gonna get much respect until he sheds the "all talent no brains"/"loser since high school"/"inconsistent" labels he has.

Semi-related topic, when is the next chance for Santo to get in with the Veteran's Committee?

Eh, I wouldn't expect the mainstream media to put Cutler in that category. While the Bears as a team won over the media yesterday, Cutler didn't win over everyone because everyone knows Cutler is talented but they all think he has a penchant for stinkers and inconsistent play, because that's what he's shown. Granted, at least with the Bears, he hasn't had many tools to be successful so its impressive that he puts up the numbers that he does, but the mainstream media doesn't see or care about that. Cutler won't get his due until he has a monster season and/or leads a team deep into the playoffs on the strength of his arm, not despite it. If he can put up a season where he has like 28 TD and 13 INT, throw for 4,000 yards, complete 62% of his passes, he'll quickly shoot up the list. Let's look at the list 1. Rivers 2. Roethlisberger 3. Rodgers 4. Ryan 5. Bradford 6. Flacco 7. Sanchez 8. Freeman 9. E. Manning 10. Schaub I'd definitely put Cutler over the bottom 4. Bradford has a ton of potential and has been awesome this year, which is the mainstream justification for his high ranking. Flacco is living off both potential and the fact that the Ravens are making the playoffs every year. The top 4 are just really good consistent QBs who have started a playoff game before.

Wow, ESPN has the Hawks 4th in their latest power rankings, up from 14th. I know they are playing better, and I'm pleased with the 4-2 road trip, but I don't see the quality of play being up to elite team status just yet. Despite the 4-2 trip, they got blown out by 2 teams they usually handle (SJ and Calgary), and won a couple of closer 1 goal games. They still have some work to do for me to consider them a top 10 team in the league this season. As it is right now the Hawks are in position for a playoff spot but only because they have 3-4 more games played than their opponents.

Of the seven teams ahead of them, who do you put behind them? I could see New Orleans...possibly. Utah had a better week. I don't know, I just wanted to bitch about power rankings like I do for every sport every week. They are all slighting my teams. I didn't really look at the other teams. Bulls are #5 in Hollinger's ratings. Are the Heat still #1 in Sagrin? They dropped all the way to 9th in Hollinger's

Yup...just waiting for that first idiot to somehow still have the Bucs (0-4 vs. +500) ahead of the Bears in their power rankings. But realistically no one will. Enjoy being the "team with good record that has beaten no one" Tampa!

Well, there is already a UIC (Illinois-Chicago), so that would get confusing. They are part of the same system. He's simply asking why the Champaign-Urbana campus gets the "University of Illinois" title over the Chicago campus Isn't the Champaign campus the main one? Seems that would be the obvious reason. Yup, as is the case in many state colleges where one gets "University of ____" and the others get "University of ________ - ______". That was my point.

I was about to say that tonights MNF game is one of the most meaningless MNF games ever, being between two 3-7 teams, but then I realized that the winner will be only 1 game out of a home game in the playoffs.

The Bulls drop from 7 to 8 in the ESPN weekly power rankings. I guess they lose a spot due to losing a close game in LA against the Lakers. Or maybe its because they lost by 1 point in Denver without Derrick Rose. Either way the Bulls sure do deserve to drop in the rankings based on their performance last week.

Does it have anything to do with the fact that the game was seen in something like 85% of the country? That's awesome either way.

Dodger Blues indeed.... LOL

Also its annoying how the big story of the game seems to be "the Bears FINALLY" got a win over a legit team, basically pretending that the Packers are garbage. Everyone respects the Packers and some still put them ahead of us in their rankings (which I'm fine with), but like I said earlier, the record of the teams the Bears beat and the Packers beat is even, except for the fact that Chicago's extra (8th) win is over the 1-10 Panthers.

That article annoys me because they imply that Lance Briggs (and Urlacher) is not an elite LB.

This is true. Heck, I'd almost rather have the 5th seed then win the division with the 3rd seed. Either way you are playing on the first weekend and either way, you are playing on the road in the next round and likely the next 2 rounds. I'd trade a home game against the Saints for a road game against the Rams or Seahawks anyday, and I don't care if both teams have good home records.

Actually I made a big mistake. It actually goes: 1) Record, 2) H2H record, 3) Division Record, 4) Record vs. Common Opponents, 5) Conference record. I forgot that common opponents goes ahead on conference record in divisional ties. An easy way to figure that out is to look at the records of the 2 teams that are not common to each team. Bears: W - @Carolina L - Seattle Packers: L - @Atlanta TBD - San Francisco So in a way, a win against SF is not a bad thing for the common opponents tiebreaker, as it means the Bears would tie the Packers in record vs. common opponents. Imagine this crazy scenario: Bears: @ Det - W NE - L @ Min - W NYJ - W @ GB - L 11-5 (OVERALL), 1-1 (H2H), 5-1 (DIV), 10-4 (COMMON), 8-4 (CONF) Packers: SF - W @ Det - W NYG - L @ NE - W Chi - W 11-5 (OVERALL), 5-1 (DIV), 10-4 (COMMON), 8-4 (CONF) Then it would come down to strength of victory....so this is how that looks right now: Bears: 2-9 (DET) 3-8 (DAL) 7-4 (GB) 1-10 (CAR) 2-9 (BUF) 4-7 (MIN) 6-5 (MIA) 7-4 (PHI) ----------- 32-56 (TOTAL) Packers: 7-4 (PHI) 2-9 (BUF) 2-9 (DET) 4-7 (MIN) 9-2 (NYJ) 3-8 (DAL) 4-7 (MIN) ----------- 31-46 (TOTAL) Right now the difference in strength of victory is solely in the Bears extra victory over the Packers being over a 1-10 Carolina team. Otherwise, their other 7 victorys each even out (5 common victories, plus the Bears beating GB and Miami evens out over Minnesota (#2) and the Jets). Unfortunately the Packers don't have any 1-10 teams to beat. If the scenario that produces this tiebreaker being needed happens, the Packers would win this tiebreaker easily with the remaining teams they beat having a 26-28 record (factoring W/L to the Bears and Packers) and the Bears 15-22. Even if these teams won all remaining games not against the Bears and vice versa for the Packers, the Packers would still win the SOV tiebreaker.

Disagree. Because we won the 1st game against the Packers, the Bears can come into that Packers game, with a 1 game lead, tied, or down 1 game to GB and still be in a position where a win would give us the division and a loss would lose it for us. Even if we lost 3 of the next 4 games and limp into the Packers game at 9-6, and the Packers win 3 of their next 4 and come in at 10-5, a win in Lambeau will still win us the division. Now if we came into the game up 1 game and the Packers lost to the Lions and we beat the Lions and Vikings, then the game wouldnt matter as we would already clinch the division based on division record. If we came into the game up 1 game and the Packers lost 2 of their 3 remaining conference games (@ Det, SF, NYG) and the Bears won both of theirs (@ Det, @ Min), it would be the same scenario, except this time the Bears would win the conference record tiebreaker. We are in a pretty good position right now where as long as we win 1 more game, that last game will be necessary unless the Packers win their next 4. If we win 2 more games, that last game against GB is guaranteed to mean something.

The Pats lost by nearly 3 TD's on the road in Cleveland. They aren't unbeatable. And neither GB or Chi plays NYG this season...unless I'm misunderstanding your post? The Bears already played NYG. The Packers play them later. Yeah, the Packers play the Giants and the Bears play the Jets, both at home.