UMFan83

Yup. I remember them losing the 2nd to last game of the season against Indiana on NBC by one point. It annoyed me so much because A) I wanted the Bulls to lose less than 10 games. 73-9 sounds much cooler than 72-10, and B) Indiana was the only team to beat us twice in the season, and them the Sonics, the Nuggets and the Suns were the only 4 teams the Bulls didn't have a winning record against in the regular season that year. How spoiled was I back then to actually be mad about that? Also while I'm talking about this time period, after that Indiana loss, the Bulls last game of the year was preempted by a Sox game and was shown on tape delay several hours later. That would never ever happen in this day and age. There would be an outcry if a late September game between the Pirates and Nationals was not broadcast for an inning.

Even so Auburn has to lose twice for LSU to make the SEC title game. Without that I don't think they have enough to leap in front of TCU. Although that could be the final piece to destroy the BCS. I think the final piece to destroy the BCS would more likely be a Boise St/TCU Championship game and not a team from one of the power conferences jumping them to be in the Championship game And then as of TCU or Boise State wins the game, a 1 loss Wisconsin team wins the Rose Bowl and the AP selects them as their National Champ.

Even so Auburn has to lose twice for LSU to make the SEC title game. Without that I don't think they have enough to leap in front of TCU. Although that could be the final piece to destroy the BCS. Whoops, I did forget about that. Auburn could lose twice. They are a good team but I don't think they are so good that beating Georgia is a formality. And despite Alabama's up and down play, they are certainly good enough to beat Auburn, and might even be slight favorites in the Iron Bowl. But yeah it is pretty unlikely, though not impossible, that Auburn loses both.

I'd hope that they wouldn't sacrifice a lot of attention from an intradivision game for a non-conference game a few days later. I mean, they're all important, and the Bears should probably win both if they want to be serious playoff contenders, but if you had to pick one, the vikings game is clearly more important.

Speaking of Peter King.... I just skimmed his entire MMQB article, and there was not one single mention of the Chicago Bears, or the game they played yesterday. He did mention the Bills in the form of the Merriman signing, but no reference to the game, no Bears in his fine 15, nothing he liked or disliked about the game, nothing. I don't think I've ever seen a game get completetly ignored in one of his columns. In fact, up until now, I thought he had some short of guideline where he would make it a point to mention every game in his column, even if it is just a 5 word sentence about something he liked in the game.

lol ESPN now pimping the Lakers/72 wins discussion. Wonder if they will have a "Laker Index" special section in the coming weeks. Speaking of ESPN special team pages, all the hype and discussion about the Heat really died down after the first couple of games didn't it? Wonder how many hits the Heat Index is getting. When I went there last week I didn't see anything about their quest for 72 wins and their LBJ Triple Double progress like they promised when they launched it.

Imagine if that Tennessee too many men on the field penalty was the thing that kept a TCU out of the National Title game. I personally don't think LSU will win the rest of their games, but still.

Only 1 non-BCS team ranked 12 of higher is guaranteed, which would of course be TCU.

If there's one thing I am certain it's there is no way the voters will allow Boise State to play TCU in the title game. If they have to vote a 1 loss LSU, Ohio State, Wisconsin, etc over Boise they will. Sucks for Boise but the voters will not allow 2 non-BCS schools to play in their championship game.

This game would have been so much easier if the Vikings had lost last week. They looked like they were quasi-giving up at times on Sunday, until Favre led them back (ugh). As it is right now instead of 2-6 and their season essentially becoming a battle with the Lions and maybe Bears for 2/3rd place overall, they are looking at a scenario where if they win the next 2 gams, they will be 1 game in back of the Packers and possibly the Bears with 6 to play. Season saved. That said, the Vikings haven't looked like last year's Vikings in any game this season. Maybe a little bit in their win over Detroit, but even in wins over Dallas and Arizona they looked mediocre and could have easily lost both. So the game is winnable. And despite the negativity surrounding the win over the winless Bills, there were some things that I saw that I liked and encouraged me. For one I thought the offensive game plan was a lot better overall. Not just because it was balanced, but because for once they came into the game with a plan to use short drops and quicker passes instead of starting with the same 5 and 7 step drops. Cutler looked like he had more freedom out there was well, which is anti-Martzian in nature. He did a good job finding the hot reads and getting the ball quickly out of his hands under pressure, and if not moving around in the pocket and running when needed. He did throw multiple passes that went in and out of the hands of defenders, but I guess that's just going to happen. All of this led to the offensive line having a below average game, which is an improvement over the awful that they usually are. Cutler wasn't sacked and I don't recall him being hit very much. This is of course more because of the offensive game plan than it was the line actually doing good, but that's fine by me. Anything we can do to minimize the effect the O-line has on the game is fine by me. The running game was fairly disapointing as we still have extreme difficulty running the ball against one of the worse rushing d's in the league. Against the schedule we have coming up, there are not many teams that are going to let you run the ball, so it's gonna be an issue once the Bears surely give up on the running game and go passing in future games. Looking at the results of the game, its ok to be disapointed at the close result of the game yesterday. More than the close result the fact that the Bills probably outplayed us, and we're a blocked XP from being tied at 21 at the end of the game and possibly losing it. But lets not forget that the Bears have played 6 of their 8 games extremely close, whether it be lesser teams like Seattle, Buffalo and Dallas, or better teams like Green Bay. The only games we're played where the difference was more than a score was the very good Giants and the very bad Panthers. I don't doubt we can play most of our upcoming opponents close as well, its just going to come down to coaching and how we fare in the most important 3-4 plays of the game (I just head you groaning). Anyways, it's not all doom and gloom. It's not like the Bills have been getting blown out by every team they've played. They took the 6-2 ravens and 5-3 Chiefs to OT in their previous 2 games, and neither of them are giving up on their seasons. I would have liked to have seen us just overwhelm them with our supposed talent advantage, but I feel like the way our O-line plays, its gonna be the equilizer in most games, meaning expect a lot of close games. My early thoughts on this game are the Vikings win a close one, something like 23-17. I think the key is to keep Brett Favre in the game, as despite yesterday's performance, I'd actually rather see old man Favre in there than TJax.

I don't know if I can handle seeing him in purple. That [expletive] sucks. How about navy and orange? Doubt that would happen though. While Harris even at this stage would probably be an upgrade over our DBs, I don't see this being an Angelo type of move.

I dont fault ESPN for dumping the NHL. I don't either. It's just funny they want back in now.

when was the last time Gameday was on a campus that was hosting a 3:30 game? The primetime games must be awful Last week? Weren't they in Salt Lake City last week for TCU-Utah or am I imagining things

LOL ESPN basically left the NHL for dead several years back, losing broadcasting rights while dropping NHL coverage to nothing more than a 3 minute segment on Sportscenter. I don't even think they sent guys on location for big events like the Stanley Cup Finals (could be wrong though). Anyways, the NHL has a tiny bit of momentum now so it's nice to see ESPN wants back. It will be interesting to see if/when their hockey coverage explodes if they acquire the rights.

But the scenario is what would happen if the Packers were 1 game back and won the Week 17 game, which means that if both teams win the rest of their other divisional games, both teams would wind up 5-1 in the division. And in that case the tiebreaker would move to conference record where at the moment it's almost impossible to tell who would have the advantage. Agreed. Meaning, it's far too early to tell who would win the tie breaker if the Packers beat the Bears in week 17.

The packers don't even have to stumble against Minnesota or detroit due to the bears already having a game better than gb in the division. While it's not likely that the bears will win all 3 of their other divisional games it is still a scenario that could occur. Sorry I'm being a stickler but when I read your post it seemed like you were all but giving the packers the tie breaker which there is still a lot of stuff going on to decide that. Regardless being the negative bears fan I am, I don't see that game having any meaning for the bears.

Why would winning the game in week 17 mean they get the division. The Bears haven't lost the division record tiebreaker yet, in fact they are 2-0 in the division, and the Packers 2-1.

Cup hangover. Is there any other explanation for several of the top players from last year's team completely underperforming to start the year? I guess it could still be a slow start, and an adjustment period with all the new players, but even so the level of play right now is pathetic.

Way too many. Don't forget we played there in 2007 too. I remember the NFL giving the BS answer of 'well that's just how it falls with our strength of schedule formula." It doesn't happen that many times in a row by coincidence. Well considering the format for schedule making was set years in advance, I don't see how anyone could possibly claim a conspiracy. The Bears just played 3 years in a row against the Saints at Soldier field (2006, 2007, 2008) and won all 3. Coincidence? The opponents are choose years in advance, but I don't think the location is set in stone. I could be wrong tho. I'm almost positive they've always had a formula for home/road teams. It's just pure coincidence that it happened that way.

Way too many. Don't forget we played there in 2007 too. I remember the NFL giving the BS answer of 'well that's just how it falls with our strength of schedule formula." It doesn't happen that many times in a row by coincidence. Well considering the format for schedule making was set years in advance, I don't see how anyone could possibly claim a conspiracy. The Bears just played 3 years in a row against the Saints at Soldier field (2006, 2007, 2008) and won all 3. Coincidence?

Every week it seems Jerry Jones gives Phillips a vote of confidence that he's not going to make a HC change during the season, and every week the Cowboys keep getting worse and worse. What a trainwreck. The thing is, Dallas still has a good amount of talent. They've obviously completely given up, which says a lot about the coaching and makeup of the team. So what if you are playing for pride, you have half the season left and getting paid to give a damn and play harder than they've been playing.

They got to see some fights and hear Chelsea Dagger play. Why would they boo?

So...2 regulation losses at home in the span of 10 days to the team that finished last in the conference last year and appears to be just as bad this year. The Hawks are 1-4-0 in their last 5 home games. They lost 8 games all year at home last year. What a mess.

I'll just laugh

To the AFC... If Pittsburgh wins tomorrow... 1. Baltimore Ravens 6-2 (over Steelers due to 1-0 H2H record, over Jets due to 1-0 H2H record) 2. New York Jets 6-2 (over Patriots due to 1-0 H2H record) 3. Kansas City Chiefs 5-3 (over Titans due to 4-3 conference record) 4. Tennessee Titans 5-3 (over Colts due to 1-0 div record vs. 1-2) 5. Pittsburgh Steelers 6-2 (over Patriots due to 3-1 conference record) 6. New England Patriots 6-2 Ravens, Jets - Bye New England Patriots @ Kansas City Chiefs Pittsburgh Steelers @ Tennessee Titans If Pittsburgh loses tomorrow... 1. Baltimore Ravens 6-2 (over Jets due to 1-0 H2H record) 2. New York Jets 6-2 (over Patriots due to 1-0 H2H record) 3. Kansas City Chiefs 5-3 (over Titans due to 4-3 conference record) 4. Tennessee Titans 5-3 (over Colts due to 1-0 div record vs. 1-2) 5. New England Patriots 6-2 6. Pittsburgh Steelers 5-3 (over Colts due to 23-17 strength of victory record) Ravens, Jets - Bye Pittsburgh Steelers @ Kansas City Chiefs New England Patriots @ Tennessee Titans