soccer10k

RAMMY!!!

I see the Cubs are still in midseason form getting only one run there.

Ump got hit with a bat.

if I was the cubs manager, a cardinal would get plunked next inning Did something else happen in the game? It just looked like an unintentional HBP to me. it was but that's the second guy that got hit... plus i hate the cardinals so why not Ah, I see. Well I was just referring to TLR automatically plunking somebody on the other team after somebody on his team gets hurt. There was a game last year where a Cub pitcher hit a Cardinal hitter with a curveball/slider and TLR had a Cub player beaned the next inning.

if I was the cubs manager, a cardinal would get plunked next inning Did something else happen in the game? It just looked like an unintentional HBP to me.

See, if TLR was the Cubs manager, a Cardinal would get plunked next inning.

In what sport? college football I really don't see where you're going with this. if conference champs "shouldn't" get a playoff berth if they have 3 or 4 wins, why have conferences at all in a playoff system? I don't know and don't care because I wouldn't be in favor of a playoff system that would be large enough to accommodate all the conference champions. I could get behind a plus-1 system and a 4 team playoff. Nothing more. with the teams determined how? Well I'd prefer it if the system stayed the same. But if there was a four team playoff you take the top 4 in the BCS. Make a special provision that if a team from a non-BCS conference goes undefeated and finishes the year ranked in the top 8 in the BCS then they will take the place of the No. 4 team.

With a runner on second?

Good to see the Cubs winning. Hopefully they can hang on.

In what sport? college football I really don't see where you're going with this. if conference champs "shouldn't" get a playoff berth if they have 3 or 4 wins, why have conferences at all in a playoff system? I don't know and don't care because I wouldn't be in favor of a playoff system that would be large enough to accommodate all the conference champions. I could get behind a plus-1 system and a 4 team playoff. Nothing more.

In what sport? college football I really don't see where you're going with this.

In what sport?

Pessimist. Um, who didn't K? I'm thinking the Cubs just decided to forfeit before he recorded the final strikeout.

He was okay. First half he was pretty invisible, but he turned it on in the second half and had a couple really hard shots. That's good to hear.

I don't need to see an 8-4 2005 Florida State team getting into any sort of a playoff system. I also don't need to see a two or three loss team winning the national championship. guess you would be in favor of just taking the top 4 teams in each League for the playoffs in baseball, right? no way you'd want to see an 83 win team from the NL Central go to the postseason Well, college football is different but... I think it was in another thread and I was talking with dew about a playoff system and I said something along the lines of that it was complete crap that sub-.500 teams make the NBA playoffs and that 83 win Cardinals and 82 win Padres and likely an 83 or 84 win NL Central team will make it this year when there are clearly more deserving teams. I wouldn't care if David Stern came out and announced that the NBA was only going to allow four teams from each conference rather than eight. But the two sports are different and you can't really compare college football and baseball. Even the top teams in baseball are only going to play a little over .600 ball. But in college football you will get three or four teams every year that finish with zero or one losses. I don't think a college football team that loses 3 or 4 of its 12 games should have a chance to win a national championship. I don't care if they played a brutal non-con because they proved with that non-con that they couldn't compete with the top teams.

I suppose this would be a good thread to point out Jerry Blevins' pitching line for the River Cats in one regular season and two postseason appearances: 8 2/3 IP, 5 H, 1 BB, 0 R, 17 K Not sure what he threw in his first two outings but he said he was throwing just a fastball and curveball tonight (no changeup) and was lights out. He had 3 IP, 1 H, 0 BB, 0 R, 6 K and all six strikeouts came in the first two innings. He looked very good.

He'll actually have that injury while he's putting on the uniform for the first time. :D ARod would get a papercut signing a contract and then accidentally stab himself with the pen so he got ink poisoning.

I don't need to see an 8-4 2005 Florida State team getting into any sort of a playoff system. I also don't need to see a two or three loss team winning the national championship. Then you're blind. If there was a playoff last season the most likely winner had two losses (USC). I guess USC shouldn't have lost to Oregon State and UCLA then. Beat UCLA and they get into the title game. Tough luck. Same goes for Michigan (though they only had one loss). If they beat OSU, they're in the title game. Same goes for LSU. Beat Auburn and they get into the SEC title game where they get their shot at a rematch with Florida. Too bad they didn't. That's how it goes.

I don't feel like going back for all of those years but just to look at last year, that 11-1 Louisville team was ranked behind 12-1 Florida (No. 2) and 11-1 Michigan (No. 3). In addition, 10-2 WVU (No. 13) and 10-2 Rutgers (No. 16) were ranked behind USC and Auburn. Might as well throw 11-2 Wake Forest (No. 15) because they are certainly not a traditional power. Most definitely there are plenty of instances where Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC teams with the same record get voted over Big East and Pac-10 teams. Just like there are instances where BE and Pac-10 teams will be ranked ahead of the other four conference teams. It happens, it's all subjective. And Cuse isn't arguing (far as I can tell) traditional powers being overrated, so much as regions and conferences being overrated. Wake Forest is in the south and he's said the southern teams are given the nod. Thus, they don't count against the argument. That's where I have the problem. I don't think the bias is for and against conferences and regions so much as certain teams. The teams I mentioned in my earlier post are generally given more benefit of the doubt than others even in their region. It's a team bias, not a conference or region bias. I'd agree with you in that the bias is likely for certain teams. I'd say the only conference that gets a bias would probably be the SEC but it's usually only a team or two within the conference that is actually overrated on any given year.

Can somebody tell me how Heath Pearce looked? I knew he was on the roster but I was surprised to find out he started and played virtually the whole game.

They lost to Texas in the Rose Bowl after a long break and lost to Oregon State after a bye last season. That defense will eat up Keller, whether the game is in Lincoln or not. They also pounded Michigan after a long break last year. I'd say USC takes it by 3 touchdowns.

I don't feel like going back for all of those years but just to look at last year, that 11-1 Louisville team was ranked behind 12-1 Florida (No. 2) and 11-1 Michigan (No. 3). In addition, 10-2 WVU (No. 13) and 10-2 Rutgers (No. 16) were ranked behind USC and Auburn. Might as well throw 11-2 Wake Forest (No. 15) because they are certainly not a traditional power.

I don't need to see an 8-4 2005 Florida State team getting into any sort of a playoff system. I also don't need to see a two or three loss team winning the national championship.

And Auburn gets more votes than South Florida in the good ole boy poll. And that's why the Coaches Poll is useless.

1. I thought they weren't eligible. 2. If they were eligible why did they have 0 votes last week? 3. If 1 is true and 2 is not true, then why did the AP change the rules? The AP changed the rules in the middle of last week because some voters expressed interest in voting for App State.