Soul

I don't think it should be viewed as odd. He was a longterm marketing man, then elevated to president right in the middle of a new ownership search. Seems pretty clear he wasn't going to be the top guy for long. It's part of the reason why Andy left when he did, he new the sale was coming and didn't want to be part of the transition group. Yeah, now the Orioles' owners are wondering if the Cub ownership change is happening just as a coincidence of Andy being on board, or more *because* Andy was on board 8-)

Hopefully it's an indication that new ownership will clean house. I pray to God it doesn't mean Hendry gets even more control.

Voters saw what Holliday did, I think they'll vote him in.

It takes very little to become the best SS in Chicago these days. Yes, Cabrera is clearly the guy.

It's a Chicago sports board. Look at the geography. The only thing that's absurd is coming to a Cubs board and expecting there to not be Big 10 fans.

I'll say it again: best college football season ever. This is going to be the ultimate demonstration of why the BCS is woefully inadequate. There's going to be at least 2 teams with a real good case for being in the big game who will be locked out, and probably a good many other teams that lost 1 more game, but everyone suspects would have a good shot at a championship if there was a playoff. The national championship game is likely to look like nothing more than an abitrary matchup with no ultimately defensible reason for being the game to decide the champs. Heck, at the risk of sounding real biased, one could make a case if there was a Big 10 championship game Illinois would wind up the BCS rep, not Ohio State. And in the SEC, it's probably going to be Tenn/LSU, when it's pretty clear Florida is better than Tenn. The system is hopelessly broken. Hopelessly. It's no wonder why people keep trying to come up with their own systems for judging which team is the best. The official system for doing so doesn't cut the mustard.

Sorry, I can't follow you there. There's something to be said for the relativity between bad wins and good losses, but you can't weight them equally like that, it's the fundamental purpose of the sport. sure you can. we're talking about predicting who is better. in terms of future performance, theyre identical. This may sound crazy, but why are we talking about predicting future performance? Ranking the teams should be a reflection of what has happened, not what the percentages are moving forward. we're asking which teams is better. Which is more important? what theyve done or how good they are? answer: how good they are Now you're just playing with words. What's more important in determining team strength, what might happen, or what actually has happened? what might happen because it pretty much uses what has actually happened as a basis...we're talking about looking at what has happened, and then saying what things in the past point towards success in the future. in reality beating a team by 1 point is roughly equivalent to losing to the same team by 1. that's the ultimate idea. And that idea is flawed. Actually getting the win carries with it a weight all its own.

Sorry, I can't follow you there. There's something to be said for the relativity between bad wins and good losses, but you can't weight them equally like that, it's the fundamental purpose of the sport. Yeah, I'll always give weight to actually posting the win. It's the ultimate objective of the game.

They'll be in a bowl game with Vandy sitting at home because they have a winning record and Vandy doesn't. The case I made is inarguable. You stated the two teams are the same. Mich State will be bowling, Vandy won't. Mich State has 7 wins, Vandy 5. That makes them clearly not the same, and that's the end of the story. You know what I think? You didn't realize Michigan State has 7 wins. You assumed they had around 5 wins because you really don't pay attention to much outside the SEC. Don't insult my intelligence. We both know my pinky's smarter than most. I knew they had seven wins. My lord. I don't just pay attention to the SEC. I bet you didn't know Vanderbilt beat South Carolina until I mentioned that. You probably thought they had 3 wins because you really don't pay attention too much outside the Big Ten. The fact that they'll be bowling does not make them a better team. If they have an easier schedule and the teams are the same wouldn't the logical conclusion be that MSU has a better record? Wins and losses are a poor way to compare teams. You know this. Nah, I knew they had 5 wins and beat South Carolina. They've got wins against SC, Ole Miss, Richmond, Eastern Michigan, Miami (OH). MSU has wins against UAB, Bowling Green, Pitt, ND, Indiana, Purdue, Penn State. Obviously there's no true objective way to compare the teams because they didn't play each other, but I think MSU's resume of wins is more impressive.

They'll be in a bowl game with Vandy sitting at home because they have a winning record and Vandy doesn't. The case I made is inarguable. You stated the two teams are the same. Mich State will be bowling, Vandy won't. Mich State has 7 wins, Vandy 5. That makes them clearly not the same, and that's the end of the story. You know what I think? You didn't realize Michigan State has 7 wins. You assumed they had around 5 wins because you really don't pay attention to much outside the SEC.

alabama lost to UL-Monroe and tennessee barely beat vandy at home... looks like the sec sucks sweet fake FG by that tricky JoePa... PSU up 24-7 over moo FLorida rules blah blah blah blah, Lil ten sucks blah blah blah Tim Tebow blah blah blah, bunch of numbers I made up, blah blah blah. Mature response. Regardless, you picked a really, really bad week to spew Big 10 hatred. SEC is not exactly having a great week with the loss by Bama and the escape of Tennessee in pure-luck fashion over Vandy. See above regarding Tennessee. Bama's stunk. Is it all that worse than losing to directional michigan? not really. I don't hate the Big Ten. There's no reason for me to hate them. I just say what they are: A weak conference. That said it's cyclical and they'll be fine in the future. I've been saying the same thing about the Big Ten since August. By your logic then, Iowa = Bama, and that's ridiculous and you know it.

iowa lost to directional michigan and penn state lost to michigan state... looks like the big ten sucks. And yes Vanderbilt ~ Michigan State ~ Texas A&M You can keep pretending that the Commodores are a bad team if you want to. When Mich State gets their bowl invite and Vandy doesn't, I'll leave it to you to console the Vandy players by telling them they are the same.

alabama lost to UL-Monroe and tennessee barely beat vandy at home... looks like the sec sucks sweet fake FG by that tricky JoePa... PSU up 24-7 over moo FLorida rules blah blah blah blah, Lil ten sucks blah blah blah Tim Tebow blah blah blah, bunch of numbers I made up, blah blah blah. Mature response. Regardless, you picked a really, really bad week to spew Big 10 hatred. SEC is not exactly having a great week with the loss by Bama and the escape of Tennessee in pure-luck fashion over Vandy.

YOU'RE bitter...I'M bitter. UM/OSU would be essentially meaningless if you guys had just beaten Iowa, because you'd have clinched a Rose Bowl berth by now. This has been said multiple times, but how is it true? If Michigan beats OSU it leaves them and hypothetical Illinois tied, with Michigan winning head-to-head. The Big 10's tie-breaker scheme is similar to what one would do in a pee-wee football league. Throw out the head-to-heads, throw out point differentials, anything objective that might determine who is the actual best TEAM in the conference. Whoever hasn't won it for the longest is simply declared the champs. And that would be Illinois this year. except there is 0% chance that Illinois can be Big 10 Champs this year. Yeah I know. I meant in the hypothetical tie. I'm sick about that Iowa game now. I can't believe they played so badly there. Kudos to Iowa though, they did what they had to for a home win.

Yeah, I heard a minute or two of that. They were wondering why every player busted for steroids weren't being prosecuted. They brought up Mcgwire as a counterexample. I wanted to scream at them that steroids weren't the reason that Bonds is being prosecuted, it's that he lied about using them to a grand jury. Mcgwire never did that, nor did pretty much everybody on the Mitchell list (another thing they brought up wondering if the feds are going to go after all of them too). It was a really, really poor argument, actually worse than ESPN usually is. It's amazing that people cannot grasp the concept of lying to a grand jury as being a crime in and of itself. Why can no one seemingly understand this?

YOU'RE bitter...I'M bitter. UM/OSU would be essentially meaningless if you guys had just beaten Iowa, because you'd have clinched a Rose Bowl berth by now. This has been said multiple times, but how is it true? If Michigan beats OSU it leaves them and hypothetical Illinois tied, with Michigan winning head-to-head. The Big 10's tie-breaker scheme is similar to what one would do in a pee-wee football league. Throw out the head-to-heads, throw out point differentials, anything objective that might determine who is the actual best TEAM in the conference. Whoever hasn't won it for the longest is simply declared the champs. And that would be Illinois this year.

Bonds hasn't failed any steroid tests that I know of. This indictment is about his testimony before the grand jury. The Feds know when they raided BALCO that Bonds was on steroids because of all of the data they found there. Plus, there is plenty of corroborating evidence. Bonds says he didn't knowingly take any which seems to be a lie. Bonds was given immunity from prosecution after the testimony, except if he would up committing perjury. Bonds is not in trouble for taking them, but for saying that he didn't take them when he knew he did. HGH wasn't the only steroid Bonds was on. He was on anabolic steroids (see the wiki page on "Game of Shadows") previous to HGH. HGH is not undetectable. It's just that blood test used to detect is is not allowed by the MLB for a number of reasons and the test is not as accurate as the MLB would like. According to the indictment Bonds failed a steroids test. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1115072bonds3.html

Yeah, he was one of 5 GMs to vote against it. LOL. Probably the same 5 GM's who have yet to embrace OBP, also. OBP is almost old school now. What does that make Hendry then?

Not a shock he was indicted though. They've been talking about it for a year. Some people need to quit with the fake suprise. Everyone knew this was a possibility.

Wow. I really should head off to bed. Just nutty. Crowd can barely stop themselves from rushing the field and there's still a couple minutes left. I don't remember a season that had even close to this many upsets. Big upsets.

Zona keeps it. OK, maybe the refs aren't being paid maybe they are just simply that bad :lol:

'Cuz he was paid to? I can't think of a better explanation. Zona fumbles, LOL. 'Nother booth review sure why not? QB might have been down there.

Well at least now people who didn't watch the first half will think the Ducks scored 2 TDs. 31-14 Zona.

He won't serve a day. Yes, I doubt that. You think Barry might bargain his way out and give up a few other people? If they won't nail him for significant jail time, is this about a shakedown or just so they can say they went after him?

Yes, that is Ryan Leaf's little bro, and he does look bad. Ahh, there's Ryan on the sidelines, looking pretty upset.