CuseCubFan69

I still don't think Sandberg is ready. Of course, if Lou stays for 2-3 more years after this one, then Sandberg might be ready. If he continues to manage. I'd hate to see Cubs fans turn on him if he didn't work out though and I'm not a believer in the hometown guy coming back to play or manage thing. Pub wise it would be nice but it seems more often than not it comes back to burn both sides.

Fair, yes. To say they are the hottest team and one of the two best, no. If they won their division and played/beat LSU I'd be fine with them being recognized but they never even played them. They lost to an average SC at home and were crushed 35-14 by Tennessee and their best win was over a 4 loss Florida. At least Missouri won their division so that gives them an edge over them. WV out right won theirs, won their last 3 BCS games and yet they are 6th? OSU gets embarrassed by LSU after getting killed by Florida the year before but yet somehow command the respect to be ranked ahead of WV who beat OU by 20? We probably both agree that final rankings other than #1 really have little significance. I wouldn't have any problems with West Virginia being ranked #2. They dismantled OU, but I still think it would be tough to say that WV should have without a doubt been ranked ahead of Georgia or USC given all of their resumes. However, WV should have certainly received the nod over Missouri and OSU in the final rankings in my opinion. I suppose it's just the frustration of the BE teams always being ranked behind teams from BCS conferences (name teams) with the same record. I agree it doesn't mean a heck of a lot but it does help the recognition of the BE if writers or coaches actually do move them ahead. If OU beat WV 48-28, they would have been 4th at the worst and possibly 2nd. This has happened to eastern teams since I've been a fan. The undefeated Penn State teams that were loaded always got ranked behind the Texas and OSU teams. Georgia beat some solid teams but not an elite one. They didn't play USC which they should have in the bowls but thanks to the Rose bowl they didn't. They never played LSU and the second best team in the SEC killed them. I'm just not impressed with their resume. USC gets a lot of credit for beating a 3 loss Illinois team, solid but not a conference winner. Look at their resume, who did they beat? They lost to Oregon and their best wins were Illinois and Arizona St. I blame the bowls, especially the Rose, for this as we should have had better matchups than we did.

You know they played Texas last year. And play I wanna say USC next year. And that effected 2007, how? Sure sounds like you're implying OSU never plays anyone out of conference. They didn't in 2007 and will play 1 BCS team in 2008 out of conference. After USC kills them they will still win the Big 10 and get a chance to play in the BCS big game and prove they don't belong. i see, so when you realized the fact they do schedule premier programs in the OOC schedule, you simply say they will get blown out and that will further prove how much big ten sucks. just like they got blown out by texas, right? and man miami took them to town in that NC game. They just keep winning the Big 10 and by playing 1 good team OOC every other year it keeps them in the hunt for the Champ game. They are a solid team but somethings wrong with the system if OSU keeps getting chance after chance of going to this game.

I thought Fontenot could play 3rd too?

"Jack Biddell ain't a looney, he's a hero."

If the Cubs continue to get better I wonder who the next manager would be, Tremmell or Listach? I'd have to guess Alan if he were still in Chicago.

We have two pages....can I have a third. Come on come give me a third, do we have a bidder for a third. Going once going twice....

Every year we hear Petey is going somewhere. If it isn't a California team in a good situation, I might believe the rumors. Yeah, you're probably right but your coach Rick should take advantage of that if he can! Washington and Miami are both storied franchises though and Miami has nice weather much like California. He already said no to the Dolphins once - and that was when they weren't coming off a 1-15 season. I don't know that much has changed between the last few offseasons and this. Parcells. He's a respected football coach and will add stability to the team. IMO, Pete wouldn't go there because I don't think Parcells would want him but I do think the Snyder of the Skins would give him a lot of cash and a team on the rise.

Every year we hear Petey is going somewhere. If it isn't a California team in a good situation, I might believe the rumors. Yeah, you're probably right but your coach Rick should take advantage of that if he can! Washington and Miami are both storied franchises though and Miami has nice weather much like California.

how can someone write that article and never once type out "Southern Methodist University'"? What if a casual fan thinks this is Southern Miss? Dumb Isn't Southern Miss USM? maybe. it's just a pet peeve when writers use the acronym seven times in an article and never spell it out. it's lazy But it's SMU. It's practically the name. SMU and USC are the two schools that are most readily indentifiable by their acronyms. I really don't think it's lazy. By the way, first paragraph: I would have thought it was the $10 Million, and the fact that he didn't seem to get along with the AD who was promptly let go once Jones left. There was some kind of brief comment this morning on the radio about the Falcons having a high interest in Pete Carroll. I would be shocked if that happened, but thought it was worth mentioning. If I were Pete I'd go to Washington or Miami before Atlanta. He certainly has a sweet gig at USC though and it's going to take a boatload of cash to get him away from there.

Fair, yes. To say they are the hottest team and one of the two best, no. If they won their division and played/beat LSU I'd be fine with them being recognized but they never even played them. They lost to an average SC at home and were crushed 35-14 by Tennessee and their best win was over a 4 loss Florida. At least Missouri won their division so that gives them an edge over them. WV out right won theirs, won their last 3 BCS games and yet they are 6th? OSU gets embarrassed by LSU after getting killed by Florida the year before but yet somehow command the respect to be ranked ahead of WV who beat OU by 20?

Politics my ass. If your conference champ didn't play like gutless choking dogs against a horrible Pitt team they woulda gotten the chance to smoke OSU. They didn't. They had the same record as LSU and all the other 2 loss teams. Never will a BE team that has the same record as one of the Big 3 (Big 10/12 and SEC plus ND/USC) get a chance to play in the BCS Championship game. Look at the rankings...WV killed OU but yet they are behind Missouri who beat that ever so tough Arkansas team. Again, the politics of this make it suck. If West Virginia lost to a non-horrible team 5 weeks earlier, they'd probably be in the title game. They lost to a horrible team on the last week of the season. You didn't see any Mizzou fans around here thinking they should have been in the title game. They lost in the last week to a much better team than Pitt. Like it or not, teams are rewarded/penalized for how they finish. West Virginia finished about as poor as you could to a regular season, and therefore were knocked out of the title game. I can't imagine how you could possibly be making this argument when heading into the last week of the season West Virginia was one of 5 1 loss or less teams and they were set for the national title game. Mizzou didn't win their conference. The season should be looked at as a whole and not just the last game as they always drop after a loss when it comes to the final poll before the Bowls. These assumptions of who is good by coaches who don't even watch the games is ridicules and that's all this is based on as the computers matter very little. USC got penalized just as much for losing to Stanford as WVU did for losing to Pittsburgh and USC's loss was in their fifth game of the year. I guarantee that USC would have received more of a push for the title game if it had beaten Stanford and lost a 1 point game at Arizona State on November 22. Yes I know that had USC lost to Arizona State they would have finished second in the Pac-10 but that's not the point. WVU got penalized just as much, if not more, for losing to a team that it was a 28 point favorite to beat than it was for losing it's last game of they year. Don't get me wrong, losing it's last game definitely hurt, but the fact that the lost to a crappy team at home hurt more. So along with those lines they should be rewarded for winning against OU while Mizzou lost twice to them while beating Arkansas. Also, Georgia beat Hawaii? They are rewarded with that by being ranked so high? Please tell me who they beat for this recognition? They got crushed by Tennessee and finished second in their division.

And 4 of those 5 defensive starters USC loses are probably 4 of their 5 best defenders this year (LBs Ray Malauga [JR who hasn't declared yet] and Keith Rivers, DT Sedrick Ellis, DE Lawrence Jackson). Of course they probably can plug in Everson Griffin at DE and any of their multiple 5-star LBs and not miss a beat. They always lose a bunch of kids don't they? They just reload with more.

Politics my ass. If your conference champ didn't play like gutless choking dogs against a horrible Pitt team they woulda gotten the chance to smoke OSU. They didn't. They had the same record as LSU and all the other 2 loss teams. Never will a BE team that has the same record as one of the Big 3 (Big 10/12 and SEC plus ND/USC) get a chance to play in the BCS Championship game. Look at the rankings...WV killed OU but yet they are behind Missouri who beat that ever so tough Arkansas team. Again, the politics of this make it suck. If West Virginia lost to a non-horrible team 5 weeks earlier, they'd probably be in the title game. They lost to a horrible team on the last week of the season. You didn't see any Mizzou fans around here thinking they should have been in the title game. They lost in the last week to a much better team than Pitt. Like it or not, teams are rewarded/penalized for how they finish. West Virginia finished about as poor as you could to a regular season, and therefore were knocked out of the title game. I can't imagine how you could possibly be making this argument when heading into the last week of the season West Virginia was one of 5 1 loss or less teams and they were set for the national title game. Mizzou didn't win their conference. The season should be looked at as a whole and not just the last game as they always drop after a loss when it comes to the final poll before the Bowls. These assumptions of who is good by coaches who don't even watch the games is ridicules and that's all this is based on as the computers matter very little.

Hey maybe you guys could have 3 4 team divisions in 2008 and have a wildcard team so you can play even more game$. Plus, then you could say a team like Georgia won their division.

No, no, football. I can't imagine what that could be a ranking for. Wrestling?

I thought we got a lump of coal and a lump of coal. Well imagine what the Cubs will get if they trade for the Dreaded Pirate Roberts. I'm sure he won't be the original Roberts though.

You know they played Texas last year. And play I wanna say USC next year. And that effected 2007, how? Sure sounds like you're implying OSU never plays anyone out of conference. They didn't in 2007 and will play 1 BCS team in 2008 out of conference. After USC kills them they will still win the Big 10 and get a chance to play in the BCS big game and prove they don't belong.

Politics my ass. If your conference champ didn't play like gutless choking dogs against a horrible Pitt team they woulda gotten the chance to smoke OSU. They didn't. They had the same record as LSU and all the other 2 loss teams. Never will a BE team that has the same record as one of the Big 3 (Big 10/12 and SEC plus ND/USC) get a chance to play in the BCS Championship game. Look at the rankings...WV killed OU but yet they are behind Missouri who beat that ever so tough Arkansas team. Again, the politics of this make it suck.

You know they played Texas last year. And play I wanna say USC next year. And that effected 2007, how?

I have to imagine the conversation would start with Billingsley/LaRoche/Kemp + some guys from the lower levels of the Dodger system and go from there. It could be the motherload. I doubt they'd trade the face of the team but wow, he could bring in a lot of talent.

I wonder if Pettite and Clemens have talked recently and how that could sway the vote. It just seems to me Rog made his calls and covered his butt before he took the stage. For the lawyers on here, doesn't his lawsuit limit what he can say to congress?

Hey, look out for Syracuse! Believe it or not we are having a pretty good year recruiting.

Missouri has an easy schedule in 2008 and if they have their guys back it ought to make them a 2 loss team at the very worst. Kansas and USF ought to be interesting.

Is this thing actually happening? If it does, who is going to be the backup SS? Does it kill the depth at the starter position?