soccer10k

:pukel: Nay

Addai for sure and probably Jones-Drew. I would avoid Parker seeing as Baltimore has the third best run defense in the league.

Mark, you skipped the Minnesota-Arizona game in your picks.

Miami (-3) Dallas (-11) Denver (+1) Baltimore (-3) Cincinnati (-3) San Francisco (+5.5) Minnesota (-6) NY Jets (-6) Atlanta (-3) Carolina (-4) Jacksonville (-3) San Diego (-13) NY Giants (-3) New England (-3) Indianapolis (-9) Seattle (-9.5)

Week 11: vance: 10-5 Mark: - ndistops: 6-9 soccer: 8-7 Ryan: - Truffle: - UMfan: 11-4 rawaction: - ChiCubsFan: - Overall: vance: 69-71 Mark: 31-39 ndistops: 70-84 soccer: 73-81 Ryan: 27-27 Truffle: 45-37 UMfan: 46-76 rawaction: 28-35 ChiCubsFan: 30-37 Note: There have been 6 ties overall (2 in Week 3, 2 in Week 5, 1 in Week 7, 1 in Week 11)

They are in a conference and since the Big East is so terrible ND wouldn't even have to play their starters all year. Why not just make the Big 10 the real Big 10 and have Penn State and ND join the Big East. Not sure you pull Penn State out after 13 years in the conference. Whatever will become of the storied Land Grant Trophy game? And from my own biased perspective, I wouldn't want Penn State to have to deal with the BS that WVU, Louisville, etc. have this year. "Yeah, PSU is 10-1, but who did they beat? Pitt? South Florida? Rutgers?" Forget it. They have the recruiting power to hang in the Big 10 and I like the challenge Are you serious? ND and Penn State plus what's already in the Big East? In any given year it could be the top conference in college football. I do think that big rivalry game Penn State vs Michigan St is a good as it gets. Way better than a Pitt/Penn State game. Also, if Penn State were in the Big East this year they would have had anywhere from 2 to 4 losses in the Conference alone. Lets see how those 3 teams can sustain it over more than 2-3 years (UL, WVU, RU). Louisville is all about Brohm. Take him away and its nothing special. Sure they have a very good offensive coach but what else do they got. They havent recruited a high profile QB since Brohm. Sharp decline coming in my estimation. Rutgers, waay to early to tell. WVU has a mickey mouse offense with 2 very special players, how sustainable is that system in the long run? Their defense is poor. Wiscosin, Iowa, Purdue have shown they can at least sustain consistant success. UM and OSU have never had as strong programs as both they have right now. Louisville isn't all about Brohm. In 2004, Louisville went 11-1 - with their only loss being by 3 points at Miami - with Stefan LeFors at quarterback. Brohm didn't play much that year. So they have had a good team without Brohm as QB. This is also their fourth straight year with more than 9 wins (they went 9-4 in 2003). WVU and Rutgers, yes they have something to prove. But Louisville has been a solid football program for a couple years now. Bobby Petrino is a very good coach and I don't see Louisville going anywhere.

Gateway Redbirds suckered me in as well.

I realize this is 2 days after the fact but I just couldn't resist. GO LAKERS!! That is all.

You know he signed that deal at 28 and will be 36 when it's done. I'm pretty sure he was 36 when he signed it, 44 when it's done. The Cardinals thought it weird that one of his contract demands was to be paid in Confederate dollars. I thought he wanted to be paid in shekles. Would he get a free supply of HGH for the duration of his contract as well?

In other news, Florida eeks out a victory over Prairie View A&M today.

Depends which Morris shows up, more times than not he'll be soft. That's always been his problem. One day he'll come out and play like one of the best players in the nation and the next he'll play like he's never been on a basketball court before.

Look at that lazy bum on the phone. Why did we give him so much money? I hate lazy bums.

or Notre Dame to the Big 10, some combo of Boise St./Hawaii/BYU/TCU/Utah to PAC-10 I'm operating under the assumption that ND won't join a conference. Even if they'd be receptive to it in the future, they've got four more seasons of NBC dollars to look forward to at least (and that's assuming that NBC wouldn't want ND back, which considering the future of the team wouldn't be a good bet). Well then there's no point in making all these changes. It's either ND to the Big Ten or nothing. Why would you say that? I thought what I proposed was fairly reasonable. Because the whole point of this "solution" was to have every team join a conference.

After Celtic takes a 1-0 lead in the 80th minute, the referee awards Man U a penalty kick on a hand ball off a free kick but Saha was denied by the Celtic goalie in the 89th minute. Wow.

Once again, the answer is much simpler. 98 That and the fact that the Cubs have gone from 5 outs away from the World Series to worst record in the NL in just 3 years.

He'll be getting 1.2M per year from 2020-2029 in deferred money. Awesome.

It would be hard for me to see why you'd want to limit the number of teams competing for the NC. There are logistical problems and such but I would think from a financial standpoint the NCAA would want more than four. I think eight or 10 would be a good number. The top two teams from the major conferences would be a good start. How do you pick the 8 or 10 teams then? The major conferences won't go for a straight top 8 or 10 in the BCS because what happens if a major conference champion finishes outside of the top 8 or 10? How do you deal with the smaller conferences if one of their teams goes undefeated (potentially 2006 Boise St., 2004 Utah)? But on the other hand, if you take the six major conference champions, what happens when one of them has 3 or 4 losses on the year (2005 Florida State)? Do they really deserve it over a #6 Oregon team that finished 10-1? What happens if that team (in this case Florida State) gets hot and wins the title? Then you have a 4 loss team winning the national title. It certianly isn't perfect, but would be a giant leap from what is currently going on. One of the things I'd do if I were king of the NCAA is limit scholarships to create more parity. Then I'd limit the schedule to 10 games with no conference championships. Then I'd create some sort of playoff system like they do in divisions I-AA, II, and III. What type of system though? It's all well and good to say you would put in a system but how would you go about picking the teams? If the schedule is 10 games with no conference championships, how do you determine the winner of the Big 12, ACC, SEC if two teams go undefeated in conference or have the same # of losses but don't play each other?

It would be hard for me to see why you'd want to limit the number of teams competing for the NC. There are logistical problems and such but I would think from a financial standpoint the NCAA would want more than four. I think eight or 10 would be a good number. The top two teams from the major conferences would be a good start. How do you pick the 8 or 10 teams then? The major conferences won't go for a straight top 8 or 10 in the BCS because what happens if a major conference champion finishes outside of the top 8 or 10? How do you deal with the smaller conferences if one of their teams goes undefeated (potentially 2006 Boise St., 2004 Utah)? But on the other hand, if you take the six major conference champions, what happens when one of them has 3 or 4 losses on the year (2005 Florida State)? Do they really deserve it over a #6 Oregon team that finished 10-1? What happens if that team (in this case Florida State) gets hot and wins the title? Then you have a 4 loss team winning the national title.

I am not in favor of a playoff system but wouldn't mind a plus 1 set up like the one you suggested.

It's very possible with the Rose Bowl getting the first at-large pick, especially if Arkansas loses the SEC title game, leaving them as an at-large team. I think that if Arkansas wins the SEC title game, the Rose Bowl will select Florida rather than have a USC/ND rematch, though. Who knows what happens if Florida wins it, though, because Ark/SC would be a rematch as well - a rematch of a terrible game. Somehow I doubt that a USC/Ark rematch would be as big of a blowout as it was the first time. I think it would be a much closer and much more entertaining game but I realize that isn't really saying much. That being said, I would prefer to see two teams that haven't played each other yet this year. Really? You don't expect a 36-24 time of possession advantage? You don't expect a 5-0 turnover ratio? You don't expect a sixth string wide receiver at quarterback? You wouldn't expect having a Heisman candidate not recovering from a dislocated toe to make no difference? Funny, I don't, either. I think Mizzou should be allowed to replay their last two games once Brian Smith gets healthy in December. Circumstances are what they are. If you try to argue away circumstances that caused a loss you'd never get anywhere in ranking teams. He's not saying that Arkansas should be looked at differently because the circumstances are different. ndistops said a Arkansas/USC bowl game would be a "rematch of a terrible game" and, while the first game between the two was in fact terrible, a rematch between the two isn't likely to be.

I figured somebody would give him a crazy deal - and I hoped it wasn't the Cubs - but I didn't think it would be for this long and this much money.

<-raises hand I know the right answer. Wait for it... Wait for it... Wait for it... Underachieve. I win.

It's very possible with the Rose Bowl getting the first at-large pick, especially if Arkansas loses the SEC title game, leaving them as an at-large team. I think that if Arkansas wins the SEC title game, the Rose Bowl will select Florida rather than have a USC/ND rematch, though. Who knows what happens if Florida wins it, though, because Ark/SC would be a rematch as well - a rematch of a terrible game. Somehow I doubt that a USC/Ark rematch would be as big of a blowout as it was the first time. I think it would be a much closer and much more entertaining game but I realize that isn't really saying much. That being said, I would prefer to see two teams that haven't played each other yet this year.

So let's say Notre Dame beats USC, and Florida and Arkansas lose their games. Does ND really deserve to go ahead of Michigan just because they didn't play OSU during the regular season?? In theory it make sense, but there's far too much noise in a college football season to use something like that as a guideline. To be fair, they owe ND one after the travishamockery in 1993. :wink: I think it would be very interesting to see the voters be forced to choose between the head to head logic (send Mich to the title game) or the no-rematch logic (send ND) if they were the only viable options (Ark loses to LSU and then beats UF example). If this scenario happens UM should go to the title game over ND and it shouldn't even be a debate. I'm not for a rematch in the title game but that sentiment is more relevant if USC and/or UF both end up with 1 loss. But head to head takes precedence over not wanting a rematch. This is why Arkansas has no chance at the title game unless USC loses.

A pleasant surprise to say the least. At least "Captain Clutch" (ESPN's words not mine) didn't win it because he didn't deserve to.