soccer10k

I hope he gets a TD drive. As long as the Panthers win by more than 3, I don't care how they do it.

I made that same point in another thread on college football.

I too picked Texas. USC probably did have a better all around team, but I just love Vince Young. He doesn't necessarily put up great passing stats (though last year he was #3 in passer rating in the NCAA), but he wins. His Rose Bowl game was one of the best performances I've ever seen from an athlete in that big of a situation. That's why I really liked him this year in the NFL draft. Look at this year even - that team was awful last year, and even though his passer rating is pretty lousy, they've won 5 of the 9 games he started. I think he'll make several Pro Bowls before his career is through. I really dont care of follow pro football enough to make any judgements on his pro career. He does seem to have that I am going to win this game at all costs level that he can achieve. Similar to guys like Micheal Jordan or John Elway. John Elway? He was in the playoffs like 8 times and lost 3 super bowls before winning two of them. Jordan, can't disagree there. Some guys just have that "it". Vince Young single handedly beat Ohio State, Oklahoma State and USC. He took over those games in a way that only the transcendent athletes of our generation have done. I don't know how that will translate to the pros, but I sure as hell enjoyed watching him in college. One of the reasons I wasn't high on Young in the draft is because I didn't think his style would translate well to the pro level. So far, yes I know it's early, he's proving me wrong. Time will tell though.

Don't get your hopes too high on that. I said the same thing last year multiple times. And that team was less talented. The thing is, if Delhomme gets hot, Smith is hard to stop and that can lead to a prolonged playoff run. On the other hand, if Delhomme is off his game, an early playoff exit wouldn't surprise anyone. Carolina will probably be the most feared team in the NFC just because of their potential. I think the potential of the Bears, Cowboys, Saints, and Seahawks is far more scary than the Panthers. Carolina is just ok. The potential of Steve Smith outweighs the potential of the Cowboys, Giants, and Saints. The Bears and Seahawks are probably equal.

Don't get your hopes too high on that. I said the same thing last year multiple times. And that team was less talented. The thing is, if Delhomme gets hot, Smith is hard to stop and that can lead to a prolonged playoff run. On the other hand, if Delhomme is off his game, an early playoff exit wouldn't surprise anyone. Carolina will probably be the most feared team in the NFC just because of their potential.

TD PANTHERS!!! Nice play DeAngelo.

Damn you Jeff Garcia.

That's my other big issue. Every game matters in college football. If you lose one game your national championship dreams might be over. That's what makes college football different from the other sports and that's one aspect of college football that I love. Would the OSU-Michigan game have meant as much if both were assured of going to the playoffs? Of course not. It would still be OSU-UM but it wouldn't mean as much. The potential for one loss to end your title hopes adds that extra interest to the season.

YES!

Carolina needs to be up by more than 2 at halftime and win the game by more than 3.

Way too many teams. Why? How do you pick the teams involved? What happens if a team with 4 losses wins the National Title? I'm not concerned about this. I just don't see the point of putting teams in like Rutgers, Arkansas, West Virginia, Va Tech and Notre Dame in there. They aren't going to win and it just prolongs the season unnecessarily. That's why I wouldn't mind a 4 team playoff like you suggested. I think any more than that is unnecessary. The 4 team is also the most realistic because you don't have to appease all the conferences by having to take each major conference champion (like the current BCS or an 8 team playoff would force you to do). I like the BCS and don't really care if it's changed or not but if it is, I would support a 4 team playoff.

Week 13: vance: 6-9 Mark: 0-1 ndistops: 9-7 soccer: 5-11 Ryan: - Truffle: 13-3 UMfan: - rawaction: - ChiCubsFan: - Overall: vance: 87-83 Mark: 38-48 ndistops: 88-99 soccer: 87-99 Ryan: 27-27 Truffle: 58-40 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) EDITED for MNF game.

Week 13: vance: 6-9 Mark: 0-1 ndistops: 9-7 soccer: 5-11 Ryan: - Truffle: 13-3 UMfan: - rawaction: - ChiCubsFan: - Overall: vance: 87-83 Mark: 38-48 ndistops: 88-98 soccer: 87-99 Ryan: 27-27 Truffle: 58-40 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) EDITED for MNF game.

Also under that format, you could have major rematch issues bigger than what happened this year. In a conference that has a title game (SEC/ACC/Big 12) you could have Team A lose to Team B twice (once during the year and once in the conference title game) but still make the playoffs. What happens if Team A beats Team B in the national title game? Those first two games would be completely devalued.

Way too many teams. Why? How do you pick the teams involved? What happens if a team with 4 losses wins the National Title? What do you do about the current schedule? Theoretically that could mean 17 games for a team like Florida this year who has already played 13. This is one thing that ticks me off: people who just suggest a playoff system then give absolutely no insight as to how they would go about doing it. I have no problem voicing an opinion but back it up with something.

co-sign I've heard people say that, but what does co-sign mean? You completly disagree with the poster's opinion uh...co-sign? =D> :lol: :lmao:

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.