Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About rowandrules83

  • Rank
    Great Falls (R)
  • Birthday 01/23/1983

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Location
    by my computer

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Sox Minor League Affiliate
    Charlotte Knights (AAA)
  • Favorite Sox player
  • Favorite Sox moment
    winning the '93 division
  • Favorite Former Sox Player
    Robin Ventura
  1. rowandrules83

    Video Game Catch-All Thread

    Not sure if this has been posted, but this is pretty cool. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if it will make me buy MLB 2K10 instead of The Show. http://www.cnbc.com/id/35124184/
  2. rowandrules83


    QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Jul 17, 2009 -> 05:56 PM) Do you know where else they sell it? GNC had it for $55. I'll be more willing to look around after my next purchase, which is 20% off because I bought one of their Gold Cards. I go to a place called FitRx in Roselle, there's also one in Algonquin. It sells for around $42 there. With that big a price difference, I'm guessing there's other retailers that also have competitive prices well less than GNC.
  3. rowandrules83


    QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Jul 16, 2009 -> 08:35 PM) Optimum Nutrition's 100% Whey Protein. I bought it at GNC. Before going to the store I did some research and found ON to be consistently rated among the best protein supplements for both content and value. There are approximately 80 servings per container, and each serving has 24G of Protein. Compared to other supplements I plan on taking six scoops a day on weight training day and three on cardio days. This should hold me over for three weeks. I agree, ON Protein is a pretty good brand, tastes great too. The only thing I'll add is to shop around for a good price for it. In my experience, it's roughly 10 bucks more at GNC than it is elsewhere.
  4. QUOTE (Shadows @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 12:40 PM) You're right, the only true way to find out is with a playoff.. but common sense can dictate that the only teams who will benefit from it is the big players.. Utah is going to a BCS game, I am sure that their team is excited as well as the school.. I don't think that same excitement is there if its a 12 team playoff and they are one of the last seeds and have to go to Florida for their first game.. And yes, it is ideal to let the computers and voters decide who goes where.. Who you play matters, USC didn't play a tough schedule at all and lost to a solid Oregon State team.. OU lost to Texas, Texas lost to Texas Tech, and Texas Tech lost to OU.. I don't think there is any argument that all three of those teams would get greater consideration than USC for who they played and who they lost to. Actually, I think there would be excitement about a playoff. A little non-BCS team is one of the last 8 or 12 teams standing with a shot at a title? Maybe it's just me, but that's exciting in itself. In terms of the ideal scenario, letting computers and writers pick is not at all the best. Is there really anything that separates the top 3 Big 12 teams? How is the system fair to Texas and Texas Tech? They both had great seasons, lost 1 game to a very tough conference opponent...just like OU. What makes OU any more deserving? A computer formula? And if USC looked dominant against so many teams, but lost one game very early in the year to a pretty good Oregon St team, shouldn't they be considered? If Alabama, who has been dominant in a tough SEC loses the title game to a very tough Florida team while OU plays a good but not great Mizzou team, why shouldn't Bama get another crack at the BCS title game? With the BCS, almost every year there is legitimate questions that are raised over who deserves to play for the title. I don't see how a playoff would make the regular season meaningless. The NFL has been doing playoffs since God knows when, and I can't recall hearing any complaints about the regular season meaning less because of it. But I guess we can just agree to disagree
  5. QUOTE (Shadows @ Dec 2, 2008 -> 04:10 AM) You cant counter argue that though.. thats just you saying a bunch of stuff, not an argument There is absolutely ZERO chance that Boise State/Utah could beat Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, USC in consecutive weeks Of course everyone can compare professional playoffs, but all those playoff teams are around even ground.. each team will have some all stars.. Boise State doesn't have that.. Utah doesn't have that.. The difference in talent between Florida, Texas, OU, Alabama, USC, Penn State, etc and those two schools is so ridiculously large.. Talent will always win out in the end, always.. and that's why there is no chance these small school and their 2-3 star recruits will ever do anything in a playoff.. and all we've done is make a season even longer when its just going to be the same teams at the end anyways.. You can say zero chance all you want. Hell, I'm not even saying that I disagree with that. But the only true way to definitively know that is by a playoff. And it's not just the Boise States and the Utahs. You named about 6 teams as examples of big, tough teams. Well, Texas, Florida, USC, OU, Penn St, Texas Tech, Alabama all have one loss or less. Is it really the ideal solution to let a computer and sportswriters decide which two are the best? USC had an easier schedule than any of the Big 12 teams and is a longshot to get to the title game. But talent-wise, they match up with any school in the nation. Why shouldn't they get a chance? Or any one of the several one loss teams for that matter? Look, if it's just gonna end up being the same 2 teams in the end like you said, then a playoff wouldn't hurt. It would eliminate controversy and leave the results on the field. And seeing as the regular season ends this weekend, a hypothetical 8-12 team playoff could start next weekend, which would have the season end the first week in January, the same week it ends now. So making the season longer wouldn't be that much of an issue.
  6. QUOTE (Shadows @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 03:53 PM) Come on man, I don't care if they were undefeated AND won their bowl game.. So Boise State has to pull all their trick plays out of their ass to edge OU.. there is zero chance they can then go the next week and beat Florida, and then the next week and beat USC.. and so on It aint gonna happen, and all you do with a playoff in college football is pretty much come down to the same teams who would be fighting for a BCS spot anyways.. The reason teams like Utah and Boise State go undefeated and don't get a chance to play for a national title is because they don't play anyone in the regular season I could counter-argue that I think they would've beat Florida and USC and whoever else they could've played, but neither of us could be proven right or wrong. That's the flaw in the system. The only definitive way to decide how good or over-rated Boise State really is is in a playoff. If we were to argue who would win a particular matchup in any other sport's championship, no matter what we said, the result on the field would speak for itself. Any system where there has been multiple times where there have been national co-champions, decided by computers and sportswriters, probably isn't the best system.
  7. QUOTE (Shadows @ Dec 1, 2008 -> 12:42 PM) Thats not true How many times has there been an undefeated team that wasn't in the title game? All I can think of is Auburn, and even then you cant really say the two teams who did go weren't deserving.. Boise State and Utah both did it a couple years ago AND won their BCS game. And they're both undefeated again this year. I know the standard argument is that "Well, they play in weaker conferences, so they would get killed in a title game", but the problem with the current system is that there's no way to definitely know that's true. And in the case of Auburn, even though the two other teams that went were very deserving, it does not change the fact that Auburn still went undefeated in arguably the toughest conference, and still did not get a chance to win the title. That's not the fault of the other teams or conferences (USc and Oklahoma IIRC), but the fault of the system. And in your example of the Giants in the NFL, I agree they were the not the best team in the NFL, but unlike in college football, they won their title truly on the field, not based on some computer formula.
  8. rowandrules83

    Ozzie calls out Javy

    QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 22, 2008 -> 11:45 AM) Vazquez's answer when his head coach calls him out to step up and perform in the biggest game of the year is not to respond to said point, but instead to pontificate on his retirement and the millions of dollars he will have, and state that he doesn't care what anyone thinks. I can't think of a worse response. Not sure if this matters, but Javy's statement was made a day before Ozzie called him out. I'm not sure the context of what Javy was actually asked, but he certainly was not responding to Ozzie's criticism.
  9. rowandrules83

    where do you buy Quentin Tshirt jerseys?

    I got mine at Champs Sports. They always have a 2 for $35 deal there, with several other sox players as well.
  10. rowandrules83

    Tornado sirens

    Funnel clouds were spotted in Franklin Park, moving toward Cook County.
  11. rowandrules83

    Tornado sirens

    QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Aug 4, 2008 -> 07:36 PM) My electricity better not go out. Anyone else around DuPage County have sirens or warnings. Lots of wind and rain/thunder/lightning, but I haven't heard any sirens in Dupage County
  12. rowandrules83


    QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 30, 2008 -> 12:16 AM) A grocery store is friendly too...probably has about the same amount of people as well. On top of that, those good deals on tickets, drinks, food, and seating...yeah, that's a byproduct of low attendance. With high attendance, ushers are dicks, tickets are expensive, food costs an arm, drinks cost a leg, and the seating is obstructed/nosebleed. So you can get b****ed at by an usher while hobbling around on one leg, somehow carrying a drink and some food with one arm while you're nose is bleeding and you essentially just got pickpocketed. No, I've never been there and I'm still not ashamed to say it's a dump. It's dark, it's dreary, and the team has been downright dreadful in it's entire existence. One the new park opens, it'll be a completely different story. All valid points. But it is not as dark and dreary as it appears on TV. I personally thought it was more comfortable to watch a game there than at a place like Wrigley (although that might be because Wrigley is always filled to capacity with complete douches). I think the low attendance has more to do with the fact the Rays have been so awful from the beginning, it can't be easy building a fanbase when there's nothing to cheer about. Also, a new park won't guarantee that attendance will increase greatly. If you want proof, look at the Nationals, who haven't seen any meaningful spikes in their new park. It could be that Tampa was just a crappy city to give a franchise to.
  13. rowandrules83


    QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 29, 2008 -> 10:24 PM) The Sox are drawing 28,500 a game this season and have drawn atleast 1.67 mill every year this decade (and it's pretty much right around 2 mill per season...they drew 1.76 in 2002, but it's been 1.9+ mill every other year and three straight years of well over 2 mill and on their way to a fourth). Sox fans have always come. Meanwhile, Tampa hasn't drawn more than 1.56 mill since their inaugural season. That said, Tropicana Field is a dump. When/if their new park is built, their attendance will most definitely rise. Just curious, have you actually been to Tropicana Field? I went there for last month's series, and I didn't feel it was nearly as crappy as I had been led to believe. It was a very friendly, comfortable environment. Good deals on tickets as well as drinks/food, and the ushers pretty much let you sit wherever you want. I couldn't figure out why attendance isn't higher. I do agree that the new ballpark by the waterfront, combined with their young core of talent, will likely draw many more people.
  14. rowandrules83

    Films Thread

    QUOTE (Kalapse @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 01:27 AM) Does it show Eckhart as Two-Face? If not I'm all over it. Nope, no Two-Face. Supposedly footage of that comes out in mid to late May
  15. rowandrules83

    Films Thread

    QUOTE (Kalapse @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 12:37 AM) I think I'm going to go out of my way to NOT see them, I'd rather leave some things as a mystery. It may or may not interest you then to know that there is a bootleg on Youtube of the latest Dark Knight trailer