dew1679666265

I don't think there's a chance it'd be half empty. If Ole MIss/Texas Tech in a meaningless game could pull 88,000, then Florida/Ga Tech for a chance to advance to the semi-finals of the playoffs would draw that many or more. That's a home game for somebody. You don't need to get 30,000+ from each side to travel thousands of miles, get hotels and pay for a more expensive than usual game ticket. Fans go to bowls as one off events, they will not go to multiple venues like they are following the Dead on tour. I think you could get away with a 4 team tourny with 2 bowls in which the winners face off in a championship game. But there's no way you are going to get fans to three seperate games in a multi-team playoff. It would have to be home games, which would be the end of major bowls. You can get 20,000+ fans for regular season road games without an issue. The SEC Championship game two years ago had half the Superdome filled up with Vol fans who made the trip. There is no doubt in my mind you could get 20-30 thousand fans from each side to travel to each game plus another 10-20 thousand local fans (both fans and non-fans) to come out to a game. There would also be little reason to make fans travel from Florida to Texas. Keep the games more regionalized (similarly to the regions in the basketball tournament) and the issues with getting fans out would be far less. For instance, put the hypothetical Florida/Ga Tech game in the Georgia Dome and fans would flock to it. Or if you want less of a home game, put them in the Superdome and the fans would still turn out in droves. If fans will travel in the regular season, they'll travel in the postseason as well.

I don't think there's a chance it'd be half empty. If Ole MIss/Texas Tech in a meaningless game could pull 88,000, then Florida/Ga Tech for a chance to advance to the semi-finals of the playoffs would draw that many or more.

You'll love this then. (posted in another thread, but I expect it's cool to repost it here)

Hey now, UZR rates Burrell as a 15.6 fielder in right field in his career. Ignoring the fact that the rating is from one game, that is.

At the time Lowell was a pretty good third baseman at the time and there were plenty of people who doubted Aramis. Hendry actually went against the tide a bit in trading for Aramis - I remember a number of "experts" weren't crazy about him (the lazy stuff was pretty big at the time). Lowell OPSd .881 in 2003 and .816 in 2002. He was down in 2001, but OPSd .818 in 2000. Aramis OPSd .885 in 2001, but hadn't been above .695 otherwise before 2003. He OPSd .778 in 2003. Lowell was only 29 in 2003, so he wasn't likely to fall off a cliff all that soon. I loved Aramis and was completely in favor of acquiring him, but Lowell was also a good option and probably better for a team in contention in 2003.

This makes me happy.

I don't have an issue with wearing black jerseys, I just don't really get wearing non-school colors. It seems odd.

Why is the Sosa situation the only one you're citing here? Why not bring up the Hundley situation - where Hendry waited a bit and made a good deal for Karros and Grudz (even if it might have been a bit lucky that they rebounded so well). Or the Jacque Jones deal that eventually netted us Jose Ascanio - and then Gorz and Grabow? Just because Hendry decides a player needs to be traded doesn't mean he's going to make a bad trade. In fact, generally he makes good to very good trades.

I would stay away from Indy's Pass Defense. I'd pick your poison between Bulger and Culpepper. Personally if Calvin Johnson starts I'd go Culpepper (assuming Stafford doesn't play), if not I'd go Bulger. I would go Wells as well. Thanks. Smith definitely has the worst matchup, but he's also better than Culpepper and has better weapons than Bulger. If Stafford ends up starting (sounds doubtful) then he's the guy I'll start. I'll probably wait til Sunday to make the call.

With so many teams now interested in Bradley, the Cubs can then say we will eat say less then $5 million or we don't trade him. I think there is a good chance that the Cubs don't eat all that much of Bradley's contract. The more teams that are interested in Bradley, the more likely it is we get a bidding war started for him. I don't know how much we'll end up paying of his contract, but having multiple teams interested (for whatever reason they're interested right now) is a good thing for the Cubs. I agree that having multiple teams interested is good for the Cubs, but I still wonder how many teams are interested only because of the perception that the Cubs are going to give him away (and pay a big chunk of his contract) or take back a terrible contract. Hopefully we won't have to wait too long to find out. That may be their interest at first (which I don't think is the only reason for their interest), but the key is to get their interest. Since we have that, it's possible it could bloom into more.

I'm trying to figure out two positions in two leagues: First, to fill in for Brady's bye week: Alex Smith v Indy Marc Bulger v Detroit Culpepper v StL Then, to fill in for Benson's bye: Shonn Greene v Miami Beanie Wells v Carolina I'm leaning toward Smith and Wells.

With so many teams now interested in Bradley, the Cubs can then say we will eat say less then $5 million or we don't trade him. I think there is a good chance that the Cubs don't eat all that much of Bradley's contract. The more teams that are interested in Bradley, the more likely it is we get a bidding war started for him. I don't know how much we'll end up paying of his contract, but having multiple teams interested (for whatever reason they're interested right now) is a good thing for the Cubs. Exactly, I doubt the amount the Cubs will be all that much. So I don't get why people think they Cubs will have to eat alot of contract to move Bradley, when that is simply not true. I don't think that's necessarily the case. We may well have to pay a decent portion of his contract (40-75%) or take a bad contract back, but the more teams that are interested the more likely it is we hit the lower end of that spectrum.

Go Panthers! Get... Oh right, we traded our top 10 pick for a backup DE. If it makes you feel better, I'm pretty sure we traded our 2nd round pick for Ryan Mouton.

Interesting . . .

Go Titans! Get Eric Berry!

With so many teams now interested in Bradley, the Cubs can then say we will eat say less then $5 million or we don't trade him. I think there is a good chance that the Cubs don't eat all that much of Bradley's contract. The more teams that are interested in Bradley, the more likely it is we get a bidding war started for him. I don't know how much we'll end up paying of his contract, but having multiple teams interested (for whatever reason they're interested right now) is a good thing for the Cubs.

There was talk at the start of the season that he'd be on the hot seat if the overall record wasn't better than right around .500. That's pretty ridiculous then. They're the Houston Texans and they play in the same division as the Colts. I don't think they've had a winning year in their franchise (they've had a couple of .500 years) but I think they should finally get it this year. That's the problem they have with Kubiak. They want a winning season and he hasn't delivered one yet. Not agreeing with that train of thought at all, just reporting why he's on the hot seat.

There was talk at the start of the season that he'd be on the hot seat if the overall record wasn't better than right around .500.

Berry forced that fumble. It wasn't luck, it was a good hit by Berry. It doesn't change the fact that the "fumble" was the first fumble in 322 chances for Ingram. Unless that becomes a habit for Ingram I consider that fumble an aberration, simple bad luck. And that is not a shot at Berry, cause Gawd dang I love his skillset, and I do believe he is the best safety in college. Regardless, it was good play on Berry based on desparation which equals luck, imo. No fumble there, and Tennessee is in no position to even sniff the upset. With that said, 9 of 10 times Berry doesn't stripe that ball from Ingram, I would put money on that. I understand it was desperation, but nonetheless, it wasn't just a fluke fumble, it was forced out by another player. That's not luck, that's a good play by a great player. Most of the time that doesn't happen because the defensive player is focused more on the tackle than on the strip, but at the end of the game the ball carrier needs to protect that ball more than ever. Berry took advantage of that. Thanks and same to you. I'll be pulling for Bama in the SEC Championship game (assuming Florida makes it too).

A win over South Carolina this week would be huge. Knocking off a top 25 team (regardless of opinions on whether they should be there or not) would be a great boost for the Vols after blowing out Georgia and (nearly) beating Alabama. That said, as long as the QB and WR play is what it has been the past couple of weeks, Tennessee should win. I wouldn't be surprised at all to go 4-1 or 5-0 the rest of the season if the QB/WR positions keep playing this well. Ole Miss will be the toughest test, but I'd be very happy with 7-5 or 8-4 this year.

Berry forced that fumble. It wasn't luck, it was a good hit by Berry. They should've stuck with their gameplan of staying away from him. He made a few plays in the game, but nothing major until that fumble.

Berry forced that fumble. It wasn't luck, it was a good hit by Berry.

Alabama needed THREE blown FG's by a 3-3 team who was starting 2 walkons and a converted TE on the offensive line and a 3rd string OLB who just got moved to the middle 3 weeks ago. They barely survived at home against a team who has lost to UCLA this season. I'd say the voters got it right, and believe me- I hate the Gators. Nitpicking, but I don't think Savion Frazier was a third stringer before Reveiz's injury. Wasn't he Lamarcus Thompson's backup?

And what makes you think Iowa can compete with those teams? Florida and Alabama don't have great offenses but the mighty Hawkeyes have struggled to win against UNI, Ark St, Michigan, and MSU. I'll give credit to them, they keep winning games. But if they somehow make the title game, they're going to get lit up. I don't think they'd get lit up. They've got a quality defense and a team like Alabama doesn't exactly have a great offense.

I think Florida and Alabama are better, but not by much. I would love to see an Alabama/Iowa championship. Both play similar styles (not much offense and great defense).