Chisoxfn

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 3, 2011 -> 07:52 PM) Ryan Mallet hasnt played yet. I still dont know if Luck is the #1 QB. Luck has all the tools and is incredibly smart. The guy has "it" and any team that needs a QB and passes him will regret it, imo. Stanford with an impressive performance and you have to like Luck's 3rd down completion percentage of 70%. Freaking unreal. This Stanford team was a reason why I support a playoff. They killed Oregon for one half in Oregon and than got tired and routed in the 2nd half by Oregon. Only loss in the season. Wisconsin was another reason, but they lost.

Sounds good. We have the list and than in about a month, we'll do the 2010 Soxtalk awards Just before spring training starts.

Any good new shows starting up that people can recommend? My DVR is solely lacking after most of my shows ended last year. I know V starts back up this week.

Good reminder Wite. I'm sure we'll be doing it. Any Mod or Admin willing to lead the effort? Or any poster volunteer?

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jan 3, 2011 -> 06:15 PM) BTW Gage, Robinson officially booted today. Good riddance. I like Coker a lot and they have McCall coming in plus they are working on landing the #2 tackle prospect in the country (who played with Coker in college). Sucks cause Robinson was a solid player but a dumbass is a dumbass and the program needs to get rid of those type of guys. A year ago, Iowa was loaded at RB, now anyone that wants to play at a D1 school early has a great shot at Iowa playing behind Coker.

What the heck do I know, LOL. The two non National Championship teams I thought were above and beyond the rest (e.g., other than Oregon and Auburn) were Wisconsin and Stanford. Still lots of time in this game, but it looks like it might be a real good game, which would be awesome.

I think Stanford will rout. Luck is an absolute stud. Slam dunk #1 pick, imo.

Maximus Aurilius....just so I can state that I defeated the gladiator!

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jan 3, 2011 -> 01:46 PM) 0% interest is not actually 0% interest in all cases. The financed price of the car is usually adjusted to get to the monthly payment that you agree to. I bought a car for $28K for 0% interest but the actual financed amount was $24.5 with an interest rate of 4.5% or something like that. This was 10 years ago when these were hot. Jason try and go into the loan and see what the current payoff of the loan is compared to your purchase price. It may be different now. Mine is 0% interest. If you agreed to 0% interest and didn't get 0% interest, I would have went ballistic on the dealer or the auto finance company you are using. However, I don't negotiate based upon monthly payment. I just agree on the price of the vehicle and than my rate. In this case, it was easy because Toyota Financing had some great incentives. So you take the rate and terms, plus the price you pay and the actual monthly payment is simple math. I also know my credit score so I know I can qualify for the lowest financing available (in this case after doing research I learned that while Toyota didn't advertise 0% financing they were allowing dealers to give it so I made sure to negotiate that in at the end of the day). Internet is a really really amazing tool to purchasing a vehicle (you can get stats on what cars were being purchased for in your area and when, plus all kinds of other great info). Than again, I was in the loan business through college so I'm well aware of all of the s***ty games a finance guy/dealer can throw on unsuspecting people. And its pretty s***ty. Prior to buying this car through my friends dad, I was looking at another vehicle and they tried every trick in the book and I just got up and walked out. Never get duped on a warranty, them needing to run your credit super early in the process (be aware of your score) and don't just take any rate they give you. Have an idea of what a good rate is, what isn't. See what other places can give you that way you know what is going on. And I say don't get duped on a warranty because on all new vehicles you have up until 3 years or 36,000 miles to do an extended warranty and the vehicle and you can purhcase it (if you are buying one through Ford, GMC, etc) through any dealership. Check the web, find the cost, and you'll find out you probably pay double if you buy it through your finance guy. You can also look to 3rd parties. And this is if you want to get a warranty.

Thanks for the news/information. Hopefully Royse can make a full recovery.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 3, 2011 -> 11:06 AM) I just read the same thing. Ya, I already have plans to drive up to Oakland to watch the game. I went up there a few years ago when they played too (when Grossman replaced an injured Orton and threw a late game winner).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 3, 2011 -> 10:50 AM) Just curious Jason, what did you end up getting, if you don't mind me being a little nosey? We ended up purchasing a Highlander. Got it for about 5500 off sticker plus 0%. Replacing the wifes old car (2000 Isuzu Rodeo). Not sure how we ended up with 0% either, since it wasn't even an incentive, but my friends dad is a GM for a Toyota dealer and he hooked it up.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 2, 2011 -> 06:50 AM) So yesterday I was bored at work and was playing around on the interwebs and decided to check on the resale value of my vehicle. I have a 2001 Audi TT Quattro coupe. While researching this, I discovered that apparently there is an issue with the timing belt on my particular make, model and year vehicle. The belt can go at any time and cause "catastrophic engine failure," requiring repairs well into the $5k range. I've read that once you surpass 60k miles, you are playing "russian roulette" if you drive the vehicle without getting the belt replaced. However, the manufacturer (Audi) suggests in the owner's manual that you need not change the belt before 105k miles or so, but then they discovered the flaw and intentionally concealed it from owners. They were sued in a class-action lawsuit, and have since settled. Basically, the settlement provides for the free inspection of your timing belt during any regularly scheduled maintenance, but if the belt needs to be replaced, it is the owner's responsibility. This costs some $1,400. The settlement also puts the owner on notice of a new maintenance schedule, which requires you to replace the timing belt every 30-40k miles, at $1,400 a pop. I decided I am not sure if I have a desire to deal with this issue, especially for a vehicle that is only worth about $10k at this point. So I began looking into getting a different vehicle. I've always thought there was really no debate - used was the way to go. But apparently, used car prices are at all time highs and new car prices are fairly low because of intense competition. Between these prices and the difference in financing, I am starting to think buying a new vehicle may be smarter in the long term than buying a used vehicle. What do you guys think? I went through both options and we just recently purchased a new car (week ago). Got a great deal. I actually looked at 2-3 year old vehicles but the difference in price was so miniscule that it really didn't make much sense to me. Difference was about 2500 verus the new price we got. Plus we got 0% interest which was nice. But I know there were other cars we were looking at, where we would have went the used route. I think it very much depends on the specific vehicle.

s***, I had read that the Raiders game was going to be in Oakland.

Not gonna lie. I'm glad to see our defense stepped it up and offensively it was ugly, but we've seen this offense respond from ugly performances. I am less concerned about the oline than I would have been in the past becuase GB has a very very good pass rush and Martz decided to be a moron going with a 70/30 pass to rush play set which is just idiotic, especially since Forte was running the ball well. Knox looked like complete ass at times and I'm almost convinced there were times Jay was doing anything necessary to make sure he didn't get hurt. Rough game for Jay though, he wasn't very accurate, but by and large, I'm more confident after playing GB this tight in what was a meaningless game. GB is a good team and the Bears are a good team. Anything can happen and lets go Bears!!!

QUOTE (MuckFinnesota @ Jan 1, 2011 -> 11:21 AM) The "woe is me" attitude stems from the fact that I don't know where I fit in an organization. I'm more of a written communications guy than spoken anything. The reason I didn't choose marketing is that I couldn't do sales (which is all I see out there for entry level jobs - they could fire me when I don't make the numbers since I know I couldn't cold call). The reason I didn't chose accounting or finance is because those bore me to tears. Administration/Management was pretty general so that made sense, but unfortunately none of what I've looked at in terms of requirements for communications jobs wants a business degree. So I either shot myself in the foot or I made a genius move - I don't know that yet. This is why I really just feel the need to sit down with people in different fields (comm, university work, etc) and see what further education that I need so that I have a path to go towards. Certainly not many of you can see this, but I do my best and apply myself, as the GPA indicates, along with recommendations from professors. And it should be noted that several twentysomethings who are about to graduate have the exact same problem as I do in thinking, "What did four years of higher education do and where can I go since I don't have one of the hot degrees?" Let me tell you one thing, you don't even know what goes on in any of those professions by and large, I pretty much guarantee it. Why don't you quit micromanaging everything to death and change your mind every 10 minutes and instead do something. And outside of having a degree to help establish you, your undergrad doesn't give you the skills necessary to become a millionaire or make 6 figures, etc. It just shows employers that you are capable of going through and accomplishing things. After that, most of what you learn that relates to your profession you learn in the field.

QUOTE (MuckFinnesota @ Jan 1, 2011 -> 10:47 AM) I would agree that a college degree isn't necessary for a lot of jobs that require one. I look at the entry level jobs and think to myself, why did I major in something more challenging than a liberal art when I have the skills that this job description requires? I guess what I wonder about is what exactly does an employer look for in terms of skills? Sure, I got a business degree, but it doesn't mean I remember a lot if any of what I studied, and I got at least 3.3 GPA. What I'm feeling is that I should have studied something more communications oriented (like Public Relations) because I would have had some actual skills to an employer in terms of how to write in a PR setting. Now I wonder if I should go get a Master's in PR at DePaul, even if it is real expensive, just so I can get some skills. Otherwise, I'm just going to have to see all of you at Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and tell all of you that I should have partied harder in college if I knew I was going to have to do menial jobs with my unique skill set. Get off your high horse. Clearly you are pretty ignorant given the fact that Enterprise has been ranked many times over as one of the better places to intern and move your way up and is considered a good place to work in college and even after college you are given a lot of opportunities to shine and run the show. I think the best advice is you need to quit crying and whining about things and putting down a ton of people every time you post because you have no idea what the real world is like. The real world is hard, it ain't easy, and you know how you make it in the real world, you combine smarts with a can do attitude and you bust your ass. If you have it, over time you'll rise to whatever point necessary. Sure a little luck plays into the equation, but take a smart enough person with a college degree and a work ethic and they'll go far.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 09:24 PM) Well Mizzou was 12 before losing to an unranked team. Still really f***ing good? No. Iowa might now be ranked after this, but it's still not a good loss for Mizzou by any means. Everyone expected them (this includes some Iowa fans I know, but not you) to win comfortably. Bolded is a complete oxymoron. I don't want to go all Lovie Smith here, but you are what your record says you are. Ok, I'm calling BS. IF everyone expected them to route, why was the spread in Vegas less than a field goal? And if Mizzu would route Iowa, they must be one hell of a team. No team routed Ioaw and that includes Wisconsin and Ohio State.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 08:52 PM) Jason, please give it up already. Iowa was not very good this year, I don't care how much they lost by in each game. It's not like they even looked good last night, either. Could Iowa have been good? Sure. However, they were the biggest disappointment in the Big Ten this year. They started out the season ranked 9th. Also, I'm not really knocking Mizzou, they are pretty decent, but they are not really f***ing good, or whatever you think they are. I think you are trying to make last night's game into the BCS championship. Mizzou is really f***ing good, Iowa is really f***ing good, it was practically the championship I guess. Real f***ing good would be a #12 team in the country. You give it up. Iowas is a top 25 team just as Missouri is a top 15 team. In my definition, a top 15 team is real f***ing good. And no, Iowa did not have a very good record, but they are a good team. Great team, absolutely not.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 05:33 PM) Illinois lost a lot of close ones too. Hell, they're last 3 losses were by a total of 6 points. That does not make them a great team. You know what does? Winning. A lot of that too has to do with Iowa having a larger fan base and being a known name in the CFB world whereas Missouri, well, isn't. Sure. They just gave up 219 yards to Iowa's 7th string RB. You mean a highly recruited RB who also had a nice game in limited against against TOSU. Give me a break.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 09:11 PM) Apparently Iowa is like top 50 nationally in 3pt fg% coming into tonight, which I refuse to believe, because Scott Christopherson is still being left open by them. Defensively you mean? They left a lot of wide open threes and Illinois just burried them.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 08:58 PM) LMAO. That is all. I second that. You guys hit your threes but were in control of that game. I was happy it stayed close though, haha.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 03:29 PM) This. Honestly, how does the number 12 team in the country not crush a completely depleted Iowa team that was 7-5? Not to mention they lost on top of it. Maybe because that Iowa club had lost all 5 of its games (4 of which were to top 25 caliber teams) by less than 7 points in each game and in 4 of them, a late drive cost them the game. Maybe because Iowa is a loaded team with a good amount of NFL talent. There is a reason Iowa was playing the #12 team in the country and there was a reason they weren't huge underdogs. Vegas knows this squad is talented. Oh, and Illini fans knocking mizzu is sorry. This Missouri team was very good. If you want to tell me that they aren't a top 12 team, go right ahead and show me proof.

I'll take my win and the fact that they had the lead the majority of the game. Coker setting Iowa's single game rushing record too!!! Mizzu is a f***ing really good team though. I'll say that much.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 11:43 AM) It can touch the ground if its being controlled and you can't tell that from a still. Yes it can, but from the angle that the ball is, it can't be controlled. Mizzu fans and Iowa haters seem to be the only people having a serious problem with the call. And even than, I've seen plenty of Mizzu people indicate it was the right call.