CuseCubFan69

if history is any judge, they'll just be in a lose situation no matter who they play. You're history or real history? Out of the last 4 years the Big East has had one of the top records in bowls but once again we don't want facts to get in the way. those wins in the Brillo pad bowl against Big Tree State are really standing up, now aren't they. what's Louisville's recent bowl history again? How did Georgia do against WV last year, I forgot?

The difference is that the NFL has a more balanced schedule and each team plays each other twice in their division. Ohio State didn't even play Wisconsin.

if history is any judge, they'll just be in a lose situation no matter who they play. You're history or real history? Out of the last 4 years the Big East has had one of the top records in bowls but once again we don't want facts to get in the way.

that's because a. there are no marginal teams in the Big East. there is one really good team, two good teams, and crap. and b. he just made up this point. there were few games between the two conferences, and their result says nothing about the two conferences. pick your winners Cubs OSU-Louisville UM-WVU/Rutgers UW-Rutgers/WVU South Florida-Penn State I'll even cut out the middle ground Cincy-Iowa Pitt-Northwestern UConn-MSU Syracuse-Illinois pick your winners. cut out two bowl eligible team and an 'up-and-coming getting better faster than anyone expected' Indiana team from the middle of the Big Ten, and the Big Ten still wins 6-7 of those games, five under a worst case scenerio. I'll take that bet. You're looking at the names and not the teams. Hopefully we'll see some games between these teams in the future so they can show the results on the field and not on perception.

Louisville would give them a better game? Louisville has a pathetic defense. It'd probably be a similar game, at least in point differential, the over/under would be about 30 points higher. As a Buckeye fan, I really really really really don't want to see a rematch, because its always hard to beat the same team twice in a year. That, and, its kinda lame that we have to beat them twice in order to win the National Championship. While Michigan would only have to beat OSU once. Why should one game count more than the other one? As a football fan, I recognize that Michigan is almost certainly the second best team in the nation, and probably deserves a shot in the NC game. The simple and most obvious solution would be a playoff structure. The real loss in terms of adding a playoff structure is a loss of that "special" feeling from the regular season. And its not made up, the regular season in College football is incredibly more important than in any other sport. Unfortunately, year in and year out, the postseason continues to cause controversy. If you are going to award a national championship, you must institute a playoff structure. If you just want to have conference champions and bowl games, thats fine. But you can't legitimately declare a team better than another when they don't get a chance to play it out. BCS be damned. The BCS is not helping determine who the best 2 teams are. Louisvilles defense is decent and not as bad as you say it is. Also, when Ohio State opened up their offense they put up a lot of points on Michigan. Many, even the experts, think Louisville has a better offense than Ohio State. Michigan is good but I'm not so sure they are the second best team. I hope Louisville wins there BCS game if they get in. I really hope they play Florida or LSU. Somehow I think Florida is going to the Championship game to get whooped and LSU is going to get ND in the Sugar so Louisville would probably get Wake Forest. Which is sad because Louisville wont get any respect for that game at all. I dont think they have a better offense than OSU though. That's one of things that bugs me. The Big East teams that play in the bowls won't get to play the Big 10's or SEC's so once again they'll be in a lose/lose situation.

Schmidt will probably draw things out ... ugh He's a top tier SP FA this year, so that gives him alot of bargaining power. It's pretty clear he's going to try and play the Cubs' offer against the teams he really wants to play for. Try to get more money from them. I wouldn't be suprised if the Cubs have absolutely no shot----Schmidt's agent just trying to get an overpriced offer from us to drive up the $$$$ from those West Coast teams. Well if that drives up an NL teams budget so they can't afford to get anyone else at least it may have some kind of benefit.

Can he play CF too?

Common sense would say that Bonds would go DH somewhere and an AL team would take advatage of that. What do the Yanks have for DH? Yeah I agree, that's what Bonds will try to do. He doesn't want to take the field anymore, just "break" the record. I'm really curious on how his knees really are. How did he hurt them in the first place?

but they aren't good enough right now. sorry, I'm not going to give Louisville props because South Florida might be good in a couple of years. and for pete's sake, how many times does it have to be explained to you that it is not just about the records, it is about who you play. no matter how rosey a picture you try to paint of the conference, the bottom five of the Big East all suck big time, right here, right now, and their non-conference schedule sucks. that's not to say the bottom five of other conferences don't suck, but I'd still take the bottom five of the Big Ten over the bottom five of the 8 team Big East any day of the week. congrats that the Big East beat a few dregs of the ACC and other power conferences. they are still dregs. if the ACC had teams with the BigEast records, it would be teams like Miami, VTech, BC, FSU. teams that have been, you know, good, in the recent past. teams that have quality bowl wins the over the past few years. teams that have great talent, coaching, and facilities. I really think that Cuse does overrate the Big East. I think you underrate them though. Louisville is a Top 5 team. If you were to put their schedule up against Michigans and Floridas it would hold up. Maybe not as tough but certainly was credible. Yeah, and I want to make it clear that I don't think Louisville, WVU, and Rutgers are bad teams. I just don't think they're on that top level yet, and I'll need to see them beat the best before I put them there. I'm not going to consider them great before they beat the established powers. Call me a good old boy all you want, but unless there's a playoff system I don't see any other way. Can't just hand someone automatic top billing.....they have to earn it somehow. I definitely agree with jig that the mid and bottom of the Big East is just really, really marginal. I strongly suspect those teams would struggle to be at the top of much lesser conferences. And I also strongly suspect a Louisville vs. OSU matchup would be a highway slaughter not worth watching on New Year's day. The mid to marginal Big East teams beat the mid to marginal Big Ten teams but yet that proves the Big 10 is better, why? Because the Big 10 schedule is much tougher, against bigger, more punishing players all year long. I already argued this with you, I'm not going to circle around and around on it. Beat OSU. Beat Florida. Beat USC. Then I'll give the Big East some more credit. That's it. Who did the Big 10 beat to deseve credit? USC? Florida? Texas at full strength, ND (hahahaha, I kid) The truth is, you don't play that many powerhouse teams out of conference. First of all, it doesn't help you that much, second of all, you don't play that many OOC games anyway. You're right but yet the Big East has to prove they belong while the others get a free pass along with an extra loss to get a chance to play in the Championship.

but they aren't good enough right now. sorry, I'm not going to give Louisville props because South Florida might be good in a couple of years. and for pete's sake, how many times does it have to be explained to you that it is not just about the records, it is about who you play. no matter how rosey a picture you try to paint of the conference, the bottom five of the Big East all suck big time, right here, right now, and their non-conference schedule sucks. that's not to say the bottom five of other conferences don't suck, but I'd still take the bottom five of the Big Ten over the bottom five of the 8 team Big East any day of the week. congrats that the Big East beat a few dregs of the ACC and other power conferences. they are still dregs. if the ACC had teams with the BigEast records, it would be teams like Miami, VTech, BC, FSU. teams that have been, you know, good, in the recent past. teams that have quality bowl wins the over the past few years. teams that have great talent, coaching, and facilities. I really think that Cuse does overrate the Big East. I think you underrate them though. Louisville is a Top 5 team. If you were to put their schedule up against Michigans and Floridas it would hold up. Maybe not as tough but certainly was credible. Yeah, and I want to make it clear that I don't think Louisville, WVU, and Rutgers are bad teams. I just don't think they're on that top level yet, and I'll need to see them beat the best before I put them there. I'm not going to consider them great before they beat the established powers. Call me a good old boy all you want, but unless there's a playoff system I don't see any other way. Can't just hand someone automatic top billing.....they have to earn it somehow. I definitely agree with jig that the mid and bottom of the Big East is just really, really marginal. I strongly suspect those teams would struggle to be at the top of much lesser conferences. And I also strongly suspect a Louisville vs. OSU matchup would be a highway slaughter not worth watching on New Year's day. The mid to marginal Big East teams beat the mid to marginal Big Ten teams but yet that proves the Big 10 is better, why? MSU whooped Pitt at Pitt. Iowa beat Syracuse with their 3rd string QB. I dont remember any other Marginal Big East team playing a Marginal Big Ten team. I remember Indiana and Illinois losing but they arent marginal they suck. Syracuse and UConn are the 2 worst teams in the Big East and unless they changed conferences Illinois and Indiana still play in the Big 10 and have to play the rest of the Big 10 teams. Pitt was third from the bottom.

but they aren't good enough right now. sorry, I'm not going to give Louisville props because South Florida might be good in a couple of years. and for pete's sake, how many times does it have to be explained to you that it is not just about the records, it is about who you play. no matter how rosey a picture you try to paint of the conference, the bottom five of the Big East all suck big time, right here, right now, and their non-conference schedule sucks. that's not to say the bottom five of other conferences don't suck, but I'd still take the bottom five of the Big Ten over the bottom five of the 8 team Big East any day of the week. congrats that the Big East beat a few dregs of the ACC and other power conferences. they are still dregs. if the ACC had teams with the BigEast records, it would be teams like Miami, VTech, BC, FSU. teams that have been, you know, good, in the recent past. teams that have quality bowl wins the over the past few years. teams that have great talent, coaching, and facilities. I really think that Cuse does overrate the Big East. I think you underrate them though. Louisville is a Top 5 team. If you were to put their schedule up against Michigans and Floridas it would hold up. Maybe not as tough but certainly was credible. Yeah, and I want to make it clear that I don't think Louisville, WVU, and Rutgers are bad teams. I just don't think they're on that top level yet, and I'll need to see them beat the best before I put them there. I'm not going to consider them great before they beat the established powers. Call me a good old boy all you want, but unless there's a playoff system I don't see any other way. Can't just hand someone automatic top billing.....they have to earn it somehow. I definitely agree with jig that the mid and bottom of the Big East is just really, really marginal. I strongly suspect those teams would struggle to be at the top of much lesser conferences. And I also strongly suspect a Louisville vs. OSU matchup would be a highway slaughter not worth watching on New Year's day. The mid to marginal Big East teams beat the mid to marginal Big Ten teams but yet that proves the Big 10 is better, why? Because the Big 10 schedule is much tougher, against bigger, more punishing players all year long. I already argued this with you, I'm not going to circle around and around on it. Beat OSU. Beat Florida. Beat USC. Then I'll give the Big East some more credit. That's it. Who did the Big 10 beat to deseve credit? USC? Florida?

but they aren't good enough right now. sorry, I'm not going to give Louisville props because South Florida might be good in a couple of years. and for pete's sake, how many times does it have to be explained to you that it is not just about the records, it is about who you play. no matter how rosey a picture you try to paint of the conference, the bottom five of the Big East all suck big time, right here, right now, and their non-conference schedule sucks. that's not to say the bottom five of other conferences don't suck, but I'd still take the bottom five of the Big Ten over the bottom five of the 8 team Big East any day of the week. congrats that the Big East beat a few dregs of the ACC and other power conferences. they are still dregs. if the ACC had teams with the BigEast records, it would be teams like Miami, VTech, BC, FSU. teams that have been, you know, good, in the recent past. teams that have quality bowl wins the over the past few years. teams that have great talent, coaching, and facilities. I really think that Cuse does overrate the Big East. I think you underrate them though. Louisville is a Top 5 team. If you were to put their schedule up against Michigans and Floridas it would hold up. Maybe not as tough but certainly was credible. Yeah, and I want to make it clear that I don't think Louisville, WVU, and Rutgers are bad teams. I just don't think they're on that top level yet, and I'll need to see them beat the best before I put them there. I'm not going to consider them great before they beat the established powers. Call me a good old boy all you want, but unless there's a playoff system I don't see any other way. Can't just hand someone automatic top billing.....they have to earn it somehow. I definitely agree with jig that the mid and bottom of the Big East is just really, really marginal. I strongly suspect those teams would struggle to be at the top of much lesser conferences. And I also strongly suspect a Louisville vs. OSU matchup would be a highway slaughter not worth watching on New Year's day. The mid to marginal Big East teams beat the mid to marginal Big Ten teams but yet that proves the Big 10 is better, why?

Louisville would give them a better game? Louisville has a pathetic defense. It'd probably be a similar game, at least in point differential, the over/under would be about 30 points higher. As a Buckeye fan, I really really really really don't want to see a rematch, because its always hard to beat the same team twice in a year. That, and, its kinda lame that we have to beat them twice in order to win the National Championship. While Michigan would only have to beat OSU once. Why should one game count more than the other one? As a football fan, I recognize that Michigan is almost certainly the second best team in the nation, and probably deserves a shot in the NC game. The simple and most obvious solution would be a playoff structure. The real loss in terms of adding a playoff structure is a loss of that "special" feeling from the regular season. And its not made up, the regular season in College football is incredibly more important than in any other sport. Unfortunately, year in and year out, the postseason continues to cause controversy. If you are going to award a national championship, you must institute a playoff structure. If you just want to have conference champions and bowl games, thats fine. But you can't legitimately declare a team better than another when they don't get a chance to play it out. BCS be damned. The BCS is not helping determine who the best 2 teams are. Louisvilles defense is decent and not as bad as you say it is. Also, when Ohio State opened up their offense they put up a lot of points on Michigan. Many, even the experts, think Louisville has a better offense than Ohio State. Michigan is good but I'm not so sure they are the second best team.

No it doesn't. But on the other hand I don't like 3 or more loss teams getting a shot at the title either. unless it's a Big East team. I wouldn't want a 3 or more loss Big East team to get a shot either. The problem with the loss thing is that you would have teams playing a Wisconsin or Auburn like out of conference schedule and that is why I want these teams to play at least 2 BCS conference teams minimum. what good does that do? you can always line up Kentucky and KState. that proves nothing more than beating SDSU and Bowling Green. Kentucky and Kansas St are good, there's a difference. Good's a relative term. They're both in the bottom half of their conference, 6th or 7th. And they were both bottom feeders when they were scheduled. no, don't you see. bottom half of the power conference teams suck when used to evaluate the power conferences, but are good when evaluating the Big East. the conference as a whole is great because they beat Kentucky and Kansas State, but Wisconsin beating Purdue and Penn State means nothing. And Purdues big out of conference wins are Ball St...hmm...sounds familar, Indiana St, and Miami (O). Penn States are Akron, Young St and Temple while getting blown out by ND. Yep...very tough teams to measure yourself.

Common sense would say that Bonds would go DH somewhere and an AL team would take advatage of that. What do the Yanks have for DH?

No it doesn't. But on the other hand I don't like 3 or more loss teams getting a shot at the title either. unless it's a Big East team. I wouldn't want a 3 or more loss Big East team to get a shot either. The problem with the loss thing is that you would have teams playing a Wisconsin or Auburn like out of conference schedule and that is why I want these teams to play at least 2 BCS conference teams minimum. what good does that do? you can always line up Kentucky and KState. that proves nothing more than beating SDSU and Bowling Green. Kentucky and Kansas St are good, there's a difference. Good's a relative term. They're both in the bottom half of their conference, 6th or 7th. And they were both bottom feeders when they were scheduled. Kansas St and Miami were bottom feeders when the schedules were made? I don't think so. Kentucky has had their struggles.

From what I've heard about Joe Jackson and Pete Rose, neither are/were very intellegent/educated people and I'm curious if people took advantage of that.

No it doesn't. But on the other hand I don't like 3 or more loss teams getting a shot at the title either. unless it's a Big East team. I wouldn't want a 3 or more loss Big East team to get a shot either. The problem with the loss thing is that you would have teams playing a Wisconsin or Auburn like out of conference schedule and that is why I want these teams to play at least 2 BCS conference teams minimum. what good does that do? you can always line up Kentucky and KState. that proves nothing more than beating SDSU and Bowling Green. Kentucky and Kansas St are good, there's a difference.

Welcome to my world.

No it doesn't. But on the other hand I don't like 3 or more loss teams getting a shot at the title either. unless it's a Big East team. I wouldn't want a 3 or more loss Big East team to get a shot either. The problem with the loss thing is that you would have teams playing a Wisconsin or Auburn like out of conference schedule and that is why I want these teams to play at least 2 BCS conference teams minimum.

Urban Meyer is a douchebag extraordinaire. Ive learned that tonight. At least he wants a playoff. who doesn't want a playoff? maybe JoePa? everyone wants a playoff. me more than ever because it would shut you up about the Big East. Or you about the Big 10. I'd be glad to take my chances, but I don't know why you confine your statement to the Big 10. my arguments with you on this subject are not only about the Big 10. they are about the SEC and the Pac 10. the Big 12 and ACC in most years. What you just don't realize is that the Big East is talented. You just can't discount them out of hand like that. I would agree 2 years ago because the league was in a mess but these teams are all young that are winning and just going to get better and they got better earlier than expected. If the ACC had the same records as the Big East you would have accepted them as being good, as good as the SEC or Big 10. But yet, the Big East has crushed that conference this year but yet is still considered not on par as the Big 10 and SEC? I see a double standard here.

No it doesn't. But on the other hand I don't like 3 or more loss teams getting a shot at the title either.

I'm curious on how many points the Gators get on the computers for a win over a 10-2 team. I dont know. i think UM was 3rd behind USC today. Also UM had the 3 toughest schedule. (at least thats the graphic i saw in the USC/UCLA game) I think it's going to be close. I think the voters are going to bump them up to #3 and that's going to help them on the computers along with a win over a 10-2 team.

Nah, it's an exciting win for the Gators. I think the voters are going to pitch Michigan out and send Florida to the title game. Yes it is. I'm not so sure about that. I hope this whole thing gets people riled up enough to get a playoff. On that we can agree. I wish the powers that be would get it. If the SEC doesn't get their team in this year my money is on them getting this changed.

Imagine if Oklahoma didn't lose to Oregon? Well they shouldn't have but that would have given the BCS another team to think about.