soccer10k

I, for one, don't mind this method too much. If you miss something in a 40-page thread it's hard to get caught up. Well, it's a concise 11 in premium format. hmmm . . . so Premium hides the worthless comments? :D Yes! Sign up today! :D Hey guys, I can't read what BBB said. Can someone summarize?

co-sign I've heard people say that, but what does co-sign mean? You completly disagree with the poster's opinion Not exactly.

He should go to an AL team so he can DH.

Way too many teams.

To be fair, some AP voters probably don't watch many of the games either. I doubt most have seen a team like BYU even once this year. I think if they look at box scores of games and read recaps, they can at least inform themselves enough to put a decent top 25 together. I'd also be willing to bet that a large part of putting most coaches' top 25 polls is done by someone other than the head coach. Someone probably puts a top 25 together and then the coach maybe makes a couple of tweaks before submitting it. I'm willing to bet that the AP voters do a hell of a lot more to stay informed than the coaches do. Obviously there are probably some exceptions but the majority of AP voters watch more than the coaches do. And that doesn't even factor in team and conference bias into the coaches vote.

yeah I didn't really hash out how the BCS rankings would be done in my system, because I liked the playoff that resulted, regardless of what formula the BCS was using that week. But I agree, get the AP back (I think they'd come back if you installed a 4 team playoff). I voted "2 but fix the current system". I don't mind having a 2-team national title and that's that, but the way they do it now puts too much variability in. There's really no way to eliminate "variability" if you stay at 2 and use human polling. I guess variability was the wrong word. I just would really prefer to eliminate the coaches' poll from the equation. One of these days the party-line voting by conference, the coaches voting their own teams way too high (Stoops had Oklahoma fourth, Schiano had RUTGERS seventh), and the ignorance (my own school's coach didn't rank ARKANSAS) is going to get catastrophic. Whatever system is implemented, the Coaches poll has to be eliminated from that system and the AP poll should be brought back. I don't understand how you can let coaches vote when they likely don't watch any other games besides their own. They might watch some if they play early in the day (like the Big 10 usually does) but there is no way a coach playing the night ESPN game is thinking about anything other than his game.

The whole team choked after his gaff. He does seem to escape criticism, doesn't he? 99.9% of non-Cubs fans mention Bartman whenever Game 6 is brought up and I correct them every single time.

If Gonzalez fielded the ball cleanly, it would have been hard to turn the double play. He would have had the out at second which would put runners on first and third with two outs and the Cubs up 3-1. Then Derrek Lee doubles. Cabrera stopped at third on Lee's double anyway which means only one run scores. Cubs still lead 3-2 with 2 outs and Lowell up. They walked Lowell - which they probably would have done in this situation as well - to face Jeff Conine. Conine popped out. Inning ends with the Cubs up 3-2.

I have a feeling that -9 line is more because they want action from ND fans than that they actually think ND is worth a crap enough to keep them that close. Yeah, I'll probably have to get in on that one as well. Hopefully the line will drop by a point or two before the game.

UCLA is a clear #1 in both polls this week.

Some early lines from sportsbook.com OSU (-8) vs UF LSU (-9) vs ND UL (-10) vs WF (I'm gonna have to get in on that) OU (-8.5) vs BSU UM (-1.5) vs USC Arkansas (-1.5) vs UW OSU (-4) vs Missouri UCLA (-5.5) vs FSU

I fail to see how either point is even worth mentioning. It was a simple comment, no need to rip him for it.

Just don't screw up too much on offense and you'll be fine against the Raiders. Our offense will set you up to score plenty of times.

Actually a Big 10 title game would have featured an OSU-UM rematch. Both UM and UW had 1 loss in conference and UM beat UW.

He obviously took a class in Pat Riley hairstyling.

The Problem is that not one of the so called elite SEC schools played a decent non-conference road game. Only Tennessee played a decent non-con home game. There really is no proof that the SEC is this superior conference that the persistant whining coach of Florida says they are. Truth is Florida would have lost 1 or 2 games in the Big Ten also. I am guessing that Penn St would give them all they could handle in Happy Valley also. The SEC schools keep saying how tough they are because they are ranked so high but seem to not consider that Michigan was ranked higher until some humans used poor judgement and put Florida in front of them because they dont want a rematch. I actually came in to post about how funny it was that Michigan didnt even take part in the hokey fox bowl selection pokey. Carr left a quote for them though that was pretty typical of him. The Fox guy than kind of called Carr out without mentioning all the incesant whining done by a certain Florida coach the last couple of weeks while Carr had been pretty classy even when past by USC. Lasty again I just think this whole thing shows the dire need for some sort of playoff. I mean LSU is completely locked out after 2 tough road losses. Louisville doesnt even get a shot. What happened to Oklahoma. Boise St being undefeated. All of these teams at least deserve a shot at playing for a title, not to mention the pissing match between Michigan and Florida supporters. I will give Urban Meyer credit for at least saying there still needs to be a playoff even after the BCS worked out for his team. I think it is getting a lot closer know that several SEC schools and I would think now Michigan are in favor. The point is that one could argue quite easily that two of the teams Auburn defeated (LSU and Florida) are very good teams. You can't make that same argument with a single team Penn State defeated. The argument defending Penn State starts and ends with the fact that the 4 games they lost were to teams with a combined record of 44-4. That's all well and good. But that says nothing about a team. You need to look at who a team beat. Penn State beat nobody. Not a single good team. That's why the argument that Penn State is comparable to Auburn is so ludicrous.

I would like to congratulate myself on my victory in the yahoo College Pick'em league. Not to brag or anything.

Hopefully they'll have a whole new offensive staff next year.

Don't worry. You'll get Calvin Johnson with the #2 pick. :wink: If they draft a WR I want Dwayne Jarrett. But as long as they draft offense, I won't complain too much. As long as the first round pick isn't an O-linemen. Just no defense. For the sake of my sanity. I hope the Pack take whatever WR Oakland doesn't take out of the combination of Jarrett, Johnson, and Smith, if they were to take a WR. I'd have to believe though that they would take a QB. As for the Packers, I don't know what we should do. A stud wideout would be nice. We already have our tackles and our center locked up long term, so I don't see us drafting an OL with our first pick. I'm pretty sure we'd either draft a RB, WR, or a safety. Michael Bush would be a real nice pick at the area where we'd be picking at as of right now. I hope the Raiders take a QB (hello Brady Quinn) and think they should. But remember, this is the Raiders. This was the team that needed a QB last year but passed on Matt Leinart to sign Aaron Brooks instead.

Don't worry. You'll get Calvin Johnson with the #2 pick. :wink: If they draft a WR I want Dwayne Jarrett. But as long as they draft offense, I won't complain too much. As long as the first round pick isn't an O-linemen. Just no defense. For the sake of my sanity. Calvin Johnson >> Dwayne Jarrett. Don't get me wrong, I like them both and would be happy with either but I would take Jarrett. I realize that Reggie Ball is a horrible QB and Johnson is the only good offensive player on his team but he's had too many games in which he's done nothing this year. I know that being the best offensive player gets you more attention but conversely, if you're so great, you should be able to get yourself open at the college level. 4 catches 26 yards against Samford 2 catches 9 yards against Troy 0 catches 0 yards against Clemson 3 catches 13 yards against UNC 2 catches 13 yards against Georgia 2 catches 19 yards against Utah in a bowl game last year I know Jarrett has had some off games as well (1 catch 5 yards vs UW, 4 catches 36 yards vs Arizona) but USC has more weapons on his team so Booty isn't always looking his way. Jarrett has played, and consistently played extremely well, in big games. I would be happy with either but if it was up to me, Jarrett would be my choice.

Don't worry. You'll get Calvin Johnson with the #2 pick. :wink: If they draft a WR I want Dwayne Jarrett. But as long as they draft offense, I won't complain too much. As long as the first round pick isn't an O-linemen. Just no defense. For the sake of my sanity.

Typical Raiders. Some stats from the game: -The Raider defense held Houston to 124 total yars including -5, that's right, negative 5, yards passing. David Carr was 7-14, 32 yards and was sacked 5 times for 37 yards lost -The Raiders outgained Houston 302-124 for the game -The Raiders turned the ball over 5 times -Drunkowski was obviously drugged up today as well as being hammered as he missed all three field goals on the day -The Texans were the first team in 25 years to be held to negative yards passing but still win the game I swear if the Raiders draft anybody on the defensive side of the ball in the 2007 draft I might go crazy.

Al Wilson just got carted off the field. Haven't seen a replay yet though.

Herman?

thats what I fear. I dont know what the problem is. Turner? Grossman's brashness? I dont get it. He was phenomenal early in the season, now just junk. I think he needs a mental break. He's still in his first full year starting so he's young. He's played more games this year than in the previous three combined. He's going to have good games and he's going to have bad games. This is why, at the beginning of the year, I didn't like when the media was going nuts after Grossman's first few games and were annointing him the next great QB in the league. It wasn't going to last. Now, the media has pulled a 180 and is ripping Grossman after a few bad games. He's not as good as he played those first few games and he's not as bad as he's played the last few games. Which leads me to Tony Romo. He's the media golden boy right now but you know that won't last. I doubt it gets as bad for Romo as it has for Grossman but as Romo proved today, he's going to have off games. He won't finish the year with a 110 rating. As for benching Grossman, I think it will happen but I'm not sure if it's the best idea or not. Didn't Rex play better than Romo @ NY though? Hmmmm...... In worse weather. Yeah, some of the facts just aren't fitting this convenient hypothesis that Rex just "sucks." It's all mental. Kid's got the skills, just needs to get his head right. Trouble is, with all the screaming I question whether it's even possible to focus and get back to where he needs to be. I really, really feel all this negative media is having an effect. I understand you've got to be able to deal with it, but still. Would be nice to see some more focus on the fact that the Bears are the first to clinch, and have the best record in the NFL. How often has this happened? You missed the point of my post. I wasn't comparing the play of the two QB's and I wasn't ripping Grossman. I was comparing the media's reaction to each of the QBs' play. If Grossman comes out the next four weeks (assuming he's still starting) and turns out four solid games, the media will love him again. On the year, Grossman has been an average QB. He's had good games and he's had bad games. He's a young QB and those types of things happen.