UMFan83

rose came back in and played the rest of the game so i'm assuming he's fine. they'd know if it was broken and he wouldn't have come back in (when d lee broke his wrist they knew on the field it was broken) X-rays were negative. He has a strained wrist and will be evaluated tomorrow to see how it's looking. McGraw mentioned that Rose was having trouble dressing himself after the game because of all the pain (to be expected). Last year he had a similar injury when he ran into Howard and was out a little more than a week.

turco started and gave up 4 Whoops! My bad

And there's the empty netter. From 5-4 Hawks to 7-5 Avalanche in the blink of an eye. I hate this team. How many games did we give up 6 non-empty net goals in last year?

And there's another goal. From 2 points to 0 points in the span of exactly 60 seconds. Wow. 6 goals allowed for Crawford today.

Of course....2:24 from getting a great regulation win in a tough place to win and Crawford gives up a softie. Let's try to hang on for a guaranteed point at least.

To see what a superstar PG looks like.

Troll

Even Lions fans don't deserve to see a division rival's logo painted on their field lol: http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/1213/nfl_a_fordfield_mbl_600.jpg http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1194.snc4/154653_183568338320296_100000013932783_649164_642581_n.jpg

ITS OVER!!!!! The first week without Favre in 18 years. Now that the streak is over, it becomes much easier to sit him in other games. I wonder how many games Favre would have missed over the last 3 years if there was no games streak.

Maybe. However Iowa was actually a pretty good team, albeit one who was clearly struggling at the time. Illinois is an average team, but the fans probably thought the team was better than they were at the time, which is what made the loss so stunning (if it wasn't stunning enough to be the first d1a team to lose to Minnesota all season).

Backup QB is overrated, especially in a league where star QBs make all the difference. It just doesn't make a ton of sense to invest heavily in backup QB for guys like Rodgers/Brady/Manning. Right, until they get injured. Its not like Rodgers has had a clean bill of health his entire career. He took a lot of hits last year, and the line play has not been great in front of him. There's better options out there then Matt Flynn. Who Todd Collins?

Can you blame GB for not spending on a backup QB? They haven't had a QB miss a single start for them in over 18 years.

Blame your own city/team for the Ford Field issue. And yes there would be a huge difference between TCF and the dome. The Vikings are likely to know before anybody else if the dome will be playable, and they could easily gain an unfair advantage by preparing for a dome game while the Bears figure out if it's an outdoor game or dome. Also, being a night game it's even more of an issue. This is true, but just getting out of the dome makes me feel a lot better about our chances for the game. For one, it won't nearly be as loud as it would be at TCF. Also, while the Bears obviously suck in bad conditions, the vikings would probably equally suck as their team was built for dome conditions, as every year at least 9 of their games are in a dome. Also, there is little familiarity with the stadium, how the winds play out, etc. The comfort of home field is partially gone, although having your own fans at the game will help a bit. I honestly thought our chancs of winning in the Metrodome BEFORE the Pats game was 25%. Now I'd say maybe 45%

If you just wanted to say the Metrodome sucks you should have just said that and left out the first sentence. No one would disagree. It doesn't even make sense the way you put them together. And in case you hadn't noticed, they've kind of been trying to get a stadium for a long time. The game should be in Minnesota because a home game was scheduled, there's a viable alternative in town and ticket holders should be able to see the last two games of the year that they paid for. The 50th anniversary stuff is what seals the deal for wanting it at TCF instead of Detroit. Why not move it to Milwaukee? My teams certainly seem to do well when their games get randomly relocated there. Do you really want a stadium full of Packers fans rooting for the Bears to lose? Well I was originally joking, but I'm guessing if they moved the game to Milwaukee and gave out free tickets, there would be a ton of Bears fans willing to drive up and get those tickets. I would probably be like 40% Bears fans, 35% Packers fans, 25% Vikings fans. It would actually be a really nice nearly even mix of 3 fan bases that loathe each other lol.

If you just wanted to say the Metrodome sucks you should have just said that and left out the first sentence. No one would disagree. It doesn't even make sense the way you put them together. And in case you hadn't noticed, they've kind of been trying to get a stadium for a long time. The game should be in Minnesota because a home game was scheduled, there's a viable alternative in town and ticket holders should be able to see the last two games of the year that they paid for. The 50th anniversary stuff is what seals the deal for wanting it at TCF instead of Detroit. Why not move it to Milwaukee? My teams certainly seem to do well when their games get randomly relocated there.

When they make a trophy commemorating the most inexplicable loss of the Big Ten season. What did Zook have to do with Iowa losing to Minnesota?

There is 1 spot for 3 teams (technically 3 spots for 5) basically. Here are the games where 1 of those 5 teams interact with the other TB: None NYG: Phi, @ GB Phi: @NYG GB: NYG, CHI Chi: @ GB The Eagles and Bears have 4 losses, the Giants (if losing tonight), Packers and Bucs 5. None of the 3 teams fighting for the last wild card spot need to win out to get to 10 wins, so they all have a cushion of losing 1 or 2 games and still getting to 10 wins. I'm probably not explaining it right, but I feel like you must have calculated something incorrectly. I will leave open the possibility that I am just not comprehending you correctly though. I have respected your probability work enough in the past to know that I could be wrong here, but it doesn't seem like it.

wouldnt there be an outcry if Rodgers was allowed to play the very next week after 2 different concussions this year?

I don't know what you mean by that...I just pretty easily came up with a scenario where 2 10-6 teams miss the playoffs. Week 15: DET over TB NYG over PHI MIN over CHI GB over NE ATL over SEA NO over BAL Week 16: TB over SEA NYG over GB PHI over MIN CHI over NYJ ATL over NO Week 17: TB over NO WAS over NYG PHI over DAL GB over CHI ATL over CAR This would put the Giants, Bears and Bucaneers all at 10-6 with only the giants getting in. If I switch the result of the week 15 Eagles/Giants game, I get the 10-6 Bucs over the 10-6 Bears. Some of the results are not completely likely but I wouldn't say its close to 0 percent chance.

If GB loses to NE and the Giants, the Bears still win the division with just the Jets game. I just corrected that. I was thinking in terms of tiebreakers at the time, when I started talking about something else.

Yeah 2 wins and we win the division. Win 1 and it depends on which game we win. If we win the Minnesota game, any GB loss gives us the division If our only win is the Jets game, GB must lose to Patriots and Giants to win division. According to the ESPN playoff scenario, any tie where we don't beat Minnesota or GB, GB wins the tiebreaker. If our only win is the Packers game, we win the division with no other help. As far as wild card, we have the following teams/entities fighting for 1 spot. 1. CHI/GB loser (9-4/8-5) 2. PHI/NYG loser (9-4/8-4) 3. TB (8-5) I am assuming NO pretty much has a playoff spot locked up but techincally they could lose out and be in big trouble. I'll go over every tiebreaking scenario just to make you tear your hair out. CHI and TB tie: TAMPA BAY (wins all tiebreakers) CHI and NYG tie: NEW YORK GIANTS CHI and Phi tie: CHICAGO CHI and TB and NYG tie: NYG (83% of scenarios), TB (17% of scenarios), CHI (0%) CHI and TB and PHI tie: TB (100% of scenarios) The only tiebreaker that Chicago wins is straight up over Philly. All other WC tiebreaking scenarios are losers for Chicago (*there is a small chance Chicago can win the Vikings game and still not win the division, and because of the small chance I didn't actually see if it changed anything to have Chicago win over Minnesota instead of the Jets...it might have in the 3 team scenarios but if Chicago beats minnesota and GB wins out, whatever) I don't care about the ties for GB or whoever else.

No I'm pretty sure it is. That gives us a 2 game lead with 2 to play and we win on the tiebreaker if it ends in a tie. It is true. I just wanted to throw everyone off since we answered that a couple of times earlier in the last few pages. Sorry I'm in a sarcastic kind of mood.

No

Should have told Notre Dame we would call the trophy the Parseghian-Rockne Trophy if they'd join the conference.

Isn't University of Chicago still typically a member in an academic sense due to being a member in the CIC?