dew1679666265

Gregg Williams' defense is giving the Pats fits right now. It'll be interesting to see what Belichick does as far as adjustments at halftime.

He got run out of UT despite winning 64% of his games since 2002 and having 10 win seasons three of those years. He did have 5-win seasons in 2008 and 2005, but had 10-win seasons in between those two. Fans were angry that he couldn't beat Florida and, thus, wasn't winning the SEC championship on a regular enough basis (he made the title game in 2007, but that was the only appearance since 2001). The recruiting classes were still strong, but I tend to think the development of some of those players were lacking in the past couple of years. Part of that, I think, is a lot of staff turnover (Trooper Taylor taking an OC job at Ok State, Cutcliffe taking the Duke job, etc). Overall, I think he made the wrong choice at the time in Dave Clawson. He needed to win immediately and Clawson's system historically has taken two years to really catch on (though that wasn't the case at Bowling Green). It led to a bad 2008 season that I think would have been improved on this year. If he makes the right staff choices at Kansas, I think he could have solid success. I don't know that he'd make the Jayhawks BCS title contenders, but I think he could consistently have them at the top of the Big 12 North. Sorry for the length, by the way.

See the problem there lies in the fact that Theriot>Blanco. Offensively Theriot is better. Defensively Blanco is much better. That said, I'd probably prefer to go with Theriot at SS and Baker/Fonenot at 2B this season. Agreed. I like Blanco on the bench as a defensive backup. But I don't want him starting. I'd be ok with him as a starter, but I'd want better offense than we currently have at second if that was the case.

http://footballcoachscoop.com/Scoop.html I think Fulmer would do well at Kansas. Especially in recent years he's had success recruiting Oklahoma, Texas and California, so he's got ties to the western/southwestern area already. Plus, he'd be out of the Oklahoma/Texas part of the Big 12.

Knoxville TV station WATE is reporting that Tennessee is headed to the Outback Bowl.

Matt Ryan has been ruled out for Sunday's game against the Eagles.

He was never offered. Tennessee had some early interest and I think AD Mike Hamilton visited with Leach, but an offer was never made.

Which really isn't all that bad of a fallback option. Meh. Cincy has no running game and no defense. Kelly openly admitted he entered the Illinois game trying to outscore them. Seems like if we wanted someone that fit those criteria that we already had him. Granted, Kelly has succeeded greatly at Cincy, but so did Rodriguez at WVU (also in the Big East). I'd be hopeful for Kelly but not overly confident if he was the guy. The Rodriguez verdict at Michigan isn't nearly final. Yeah, he's overhauling a traditional, power-I team to a spread option team. Two years isn't long enough to evaluate him. I think Kelly would be a very good hire for ND.

That would be a good hire, I think. that would be a great hire, but i'm not sure that's really an improvement for him. He'd move from a team perpetually stuck behind Oklahoma and Texas to a team that has no real stalwart in front of it for the Big East championship. Pitt, West Virginia and Cincinnati appear to be consistently good teams, but none of them match the consistency OU and Texas provide in the Big 12 South. He may not rise in prestige, but he would rise in opportunity for BCS berths and conference titles. I think that's worth it. Unless they go to Notre Dame, I'm not sure the openings are there for a big-name NFL coach. After ND, you have Virginia, Marshall, Kansas and Louisville likely opening up. The Cardinals might pay enough, but purely on prestige, I don't think any of those programs are there in football.

No worries, Weis is white and arrogant so no one will run around trying to credit him for the next coach's success (if he has any). Stoops just said he'll be at Oklahoma next year, so that might be scuttled. espn.com mentioned Butch Davis. No way. He wouldn't even consider the Tennessee job last year. Notre Dame is obviously more prestigious than UT, but I think Davis is pretty settled in at UNC.

That would be a good hire, I think. I'm interested to see where Fulmer goes, if anywhere. I think Virginia or, perhaps, Kansas would be pretty good jobs for him.

Looks similar to the penalty against the UGA player against Oklahoma State. Leading with the shoulder, it appears. Definitely led with shoulder, but they called helmet-to-helmet. I don't like the helmet-to-helmet call unless the player is leading with his helmet. It's too easy to just naturally bump helmets (like in that play).

I think they could beat either, though I think Bama would be a better matchup for them (based more on power than speed, much like, I think, TCU is). And I'd love to see TCU in the BCS title game.

That was awesome and I still contend that the penalty was BS. Looks similar to the penalty against the UGA player against Oklahoma State. Leading with the shoulder, it appears.

I'm curious to know how exactly you think the play on the field was affected. I know you can't put a number on it and that's not what I'm asking, but do you think it affected the players' focus or their preparation? Like I mentioned before, lack of chemistry can have a major impact on the connection between a quarterback and wide receiver or between two players in basketball, but I'm not sure how baseball players are impacted when they don't have any interaction with Bradley on the field of play. I can definitely see the potential detriment a negative player would have on wooing potential free agent acquisitions or the ability to get hometown discounts from other players, but I just don't know how chemistry can impact the play on the field in baseball.

You are correct. Looking at pure profit would be like looking at RBIs, while looking at profit margin would be like looking at OPS. Thanks for correcting me. Sorry to be nit picky. And I can't believe I spelled "know" wrong. Eh, wasn't that nitpicky. I used an improper, though well-meaning, analogy and you corrected it.

even if wisconsin fans/grads are tired of playing in the outback every year and tired of playing tennessee, there are a lot more wisconsin fans than northwestern fans and wisconsin people travel better. I'm not really saying the Outback would want Northwestern more than Wisconsin, I'm saying if the Outback wants Wisconsin then it'll likely try to get a different matchup than Wisconsin/UT again - something like a deal with the Cotton Bowl to trade UT for Ole Miss. If the Outback chooses Northwestern, though, I think Tennessee's a shoe-in because you don't have the dislike of having a rematch.

I don't know that it has as much effect in baseball (a team game based on individual performances) as it does in, say, football. In football, if the QB doesn't have good chemistry with his WRs, they won't be as crisp working together as a QB that has great chemisty with his receivers (look at Peyton with Reggie Wayne, for instance). In baseball, though, a first baseman not liking his left fielder isn't going to have a huge negative impact on whether or not the first baseman can field his position or hit the ball when at the plate. The positions where chemistry probably means the most in baseball are probably the battery relationships. A catcher liking his pitcher and knowing what he likes to throw and doesn't like to throw will likely mean a decent amount.

You are correct. Looking at pure profit would be like looking at RBIs, while looking at profit margin would be like looking at OPS. Thanks for correcting me.

I'd enjoy a UT/NU matchup or a UT/Ok St matchup. For some reason, though, I think I'd really enjoy watching us play against Northwestern. If the ESPN guys are right about NU getting the Outback, I don't see any way Tennessee doesn't get the Outback bid. With the Monte ties and avoiding another UT/Wisconsin matchup, I think it'd be the best deal for the Outback.

Stats should be 95% of what you use to evaluate a player, though. Intangibles should be considered, but not moreso or even closely as much as statistics.

See the problem there lies in the fact that Theriot>Blanco. Offensively Theriot is better. Defensively Blanco is much better. That said, I'd probably prefer to go with Theriot at SS and Baker/Fonenot at 2B this season.

I think this was expected. Danielson & Lundquist (?) were discussing this likelihood during the Arkansas-LSU game. There was an ESPN report sometime last week I think that reported sources were saying that Jerry Gray would be named the new HC. I guess it's been expected over the weekend since he agreed to it Friday night.

I've been muddling in mediocrity all year. My guys are performing each week but my opponent seems to do just a little better.

This kind of quote makes me laugh. When games are won or lost based on which team has a better ops, let me know. Do you think fans care about OPS when Bradley throws the ball into the stands with one out? Do they care about OPS when he turns and throws the ball over the cut off man's head allowing a runner to take an extra base? Does anyone care about OPS when Bradley fails to come through time and time again? There is nothing wrong with looking at stats, but to act like they are the only thing that matters is silly. Bill James himself has said the player's personality and ability to get along with teammates is a very important part of the evaluation process. Sometimes you just have to watch the game and realize the guy is not as good as his numbers might be. Say whatever you want, but in the month of June when Ramirez was out, Bradley had 77 plate appearances and drove in 3 runs. To say he is productive is generous. Stats are how you judge how productive a player is. If we ignore stats, what do we look at to consider a player's production? Simply saying he missed a cutoff man a few times or he made a boneheaded mistake once is not not enough to make the decision that he's not a productive player. I don't have a problem with you saying his inter-clubhouse relationships should be considered, but if you don't take stats very heavily into the equation, you don't have much to go on in evaluating players. It's like looking at Wal-Mart's profits and saying that doesn't show it's a profitable company.