Rex Hudler

Hoosiers win easily over Eastern Michigan tonight, 79-63. Evansville beats Purdue tonight, 75-69. Man Purdue is bad..........

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 3, 2005 -> 05:58 PM) My dad opened the trash can yesterday (in our kitchen) and I saw 5 bucks sitting in there. I looked at him and said man what a fool you are, you just threw out 5 bucks on accident so I'm going to have to take it. After poking fun at him for being senile (which he isn't) I than realized it was me who had just thrown 5 bucks out and well he had the last laugh. That just cements my belief that YOU are senile Jason. I first suspected it this afternoon after reading your UCLA-USC prediction!

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 12:31 AM) Can ND take credit for beating Michigan then? At the time they beat them, Michigan was a very average team. That's why you can beat "strength of schedule" like a dead horse and never get anywhere. SOS should factor in to deciding how good a team is, not be almost the sole measure, which it seems people want to do these days.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 3, 2005 -> 09:11 PM) what you mean College Football isn't more serious than poverty? I agree with you 100%. Also let's see how this 5th bowl game works out. It might solve some of the problems. But Congress has other things that they need to worry about. Let College Football solve this themselves. The BCS needs work done on it but i think they might be smart enough to know that. Like I said let's see what the 5th BCS Bowl game can do. This will make sure 2 more teams get into the BCS. The 5th Bowl Game won't solve anything...... in some years it will all work out fine. In others there will be controversy. What if there is one 12-0 team and three 10-2 teams. Are you going to make the 12-0 team beat two of them to claim the National title?

What is the score now and how are they running it up any more than Texas did? Last I saw it was 45-6. The last TD at that time came from a fumble return, which doesn't constitute running up the score?

Josh, let's widen the view here. Michigan State was playing very well at the time they played Notre Dame. You can't with any logic or fairness call that a bad loss, just because Michigan State tanked their season after losing to Michigan. If you did, that would be like Auburn fans taking credit for killing South Carolina, a much improved team at the end of the year. But when Auburn played them, SC was terrible and without their starting QB. Can't count that as a "good" win, nor can you count Notre Dame's loss to Michigan St a bad one. The bottom line is, that like it or not, Notre Dame has a deal with the BCS and will get in because of it. If you think the deal sucks, then why not crow just as loudly that the Big East gets a bid? The BCS is what it is. It is designed to do the best possible job to pick the top 2 teams. Anything beyond that is nothing really different from the old days when the conferences were tied to bowls without the BCS. The BCS just puts the top two teams together rather than having them play in separate bowl games. That's it.

From the Indianapolis Star: Big ratings The IU-Duke game averaged a 2.5 rating, making it ESPN's highest-rated and most-viewed ACC/Big Ten Challenge telecast ever, the network said. In addition, it was ESPN's most-viewed men's college basketball telecast ever during November.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 3, 2005 -> 07:50 PM) How crazy would it be if USC lost tonight? I'm assuming PSU would get into the national championship game against Texas but just think about how out of whack the whole picture would be. All of a sudden the Pac 10 gets two teams (or I'd assume two of USC, UCLA, and Oregon would get in) while the Big 10 or ND would get hosed out of one game and there would be at least a few teams that could make claims of being worthy to play in the national championship game (I'm biased though cause I have my belief that there are at least a few teams better than PSU). I don't see how the PAC 10 would get two bids. It is my understanding that USC would win a three way tiebreaker for the BCS bid even if they lose today. Not that it matters. How is this for a prediction.......... USC by 3 touchdowns today!

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Dec 1, 2005 -> 04:00 AM) Killingsworth is a beast, Rex and Zach you guys were right. Could easily be the best big man in the Big 10, among the best in the land. Nice pre-emptive post. I was all ready to come up with some smart-assed comment for you. ;-) What everyone didn't really see tonight (I think he made two shots outside of 5 feet) is that Killingsworth has a real soft touch from about 15 foot and in. He'll make an occasional 3-pointer, but that is not his game and he doesn't need to be firing up 3-5 a game. While I am disappointed in the outcome of the game tonight, I am very much excited about IU's prospects for the year. I really like this team and I am looking forward to seeing them get better. Earl Calloway really impressed me tonight too!

One of my favorite corner bars in Chicago is Salukis. I've only been in there once and the past two times I have been there, I couldn't find it. Actually, last summer I finally saw it, but it was too late. Still couldn't tell you where it is, but it is all about Southern Illinois. Nice comfy place!

palehose, do I have any hope IU could pull off an upset Wednesday night?

Owens needs AAA AB's. He's not MLB ready for 2006. Owens did hit .500 as a CF this past year though. 2-4

I could care less about all of these scheduling arguments. I honestly believe if you watch Notre Dame play and have an ounce of an open mind, you will see them to be an extremely exciting team to watch and one that finds ways to win. They do it differently every week. They find ways to beat you and Quinn has stepped right into the role of the guy that can do just that. Notre Dame's defense isn't great, I don't think that is a secret. But I do believe their offense has shown it can score against anyone. I have no doubt that playing OSU in the Fiesta Bowl will make for an outstanding game, regardless of which team you foot for (or against as many here seem to do).

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 27, 2005 -> 11:08 PM) Well I still think they should have lost that ASU game to start the season. Very true, they were lucky to get out of there with a win. LSU is very talented and JaMarcus Russell has some amazing skills. The guy is big, yet pretty mobile (and he's from Mobile!) and can throw the ball half a mile without much effort. But he is certainly not as polished as some other QB's at this point. LSU and Auburn are the two SEC teams that have enough strength on both offense and defense to beat you. I really think Auburn is better than LSU, but they didn't get it done on the field, so Auburn has nothing to complain about. Alabama and Georgia are very good defensively, but lack the offensive firepower. Georgia is better offensively with a healthy DJ Shockley, but they still aren't as good as they have been the past few years. Florida, while impressive yesterday has been pretty lucky this year. They got Georgia without Shockley and barely beat them. Tennessee had a bown year. Florida was a s***ty "celebration" penalty from having to defend a two-point conversion in a win/lose situation against Vanderbilt.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Nov 27, 2005 -> 10:58 PM) IMO, LSU is pretty damn elite. Maybe not in the Texas/USC class but they are good. I would agree with you though, while lacking elite teams, the SEC is pretty damn deep 1-6 who are all top 30. How many SEC games have you watched this year? I mean actually sat down and watched the whole game? How many in previous years so you will have a point of comparison? The teams in the SEC are not as good as they have been in the past. Trust me, I live this s*** down here.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Nov 27, 2005 -> 10:48 PM) Down for it's own standards but. LSU, Auburn, Alabama, Georgia are all top 15-20 Florida and SC are 20-30ish Which means they are about the same as the other power conferences. I'm still not convinced LSU is as good as their ranking, but that team has been through a lot and has persevered. In reality, they should be undefeated right now, causing everyone to be in an uproar about the BCS.

QUOTE(Felix @ Nov 27, 2005 -> 08:21 PM) erm.. shall we look at Auburns schedule? They beat 4 teams with winning records, compared to 3 wins over winning teams by ND, and two top 10 teams, compared to 1, overranked top 10 team win by ND. The three teams with a winning record that ND beat? Michigan, BYU and Navy. The four teams with a winning record Auburn beat? Western Kentucky, South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. Western Kentucky is Division I-AA. South Carolina while playing now, was terrible when Auburn played them. Alabama is NOT that good. Auburn completely overmatched them. Auburn, while a very good team, has one real good win (Georgia) and a good win (Alabama). You can't give credit to Auburn for beating up a SC team that was playing crappy, yet not give Michigan State any credit for beating Notre Dame when it was playing very well. Michigan State fell apart after losing to Michigan. I don't know why, but they were definitely playing very well when they beat ND. Lastly, one of the biggest things Notre Dame has going for it is that it has a National audience and will draw ratings. Auburn and Oregon are definitely more regional teams. Plus, watch a Notre Dame game. They are an unbelievably exciting team to watch!

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Nov 27, 2005 -> 08:59 PM) The SEC is DEFINITELY down this year. No question about it.

QUOTE(Felix @ Nov 27, 2005 -> 07:35 PM) Auburn beat two top 10 teams at the end of the season, Alabama and @ Georgia, how about ND? Alabama is not that good. The past two games have exposed that. Notre Dame would kill Alabama. I really think you could make an argument for Oregon, for Notre Dame, for Ohio State and for Auburn. No matter how you slice it, there are no clear cut winners or losers in that group. Obviously those that don't like Notre Dame will bark that they don't belong. But I don't see any big differences amongst the four. I'd like to think I can be as objective as anyone in this situation. -- My ex-roommate and good friend is an Oregon grad and has had me watching Oregon games a lot over the past 5-6 years. I don't call myself a Duck fan, but I quietly hope they do well each year. -- While I have always liked Michigan in football, I am a huge Big Ten fan living in the South, so I have no problem rooting for Ohio St. except for when it directly affects Michigan. I always root for the Big Ten in bowl games. -- Growing up in Indiana, despite beng more of a Big Ten fan, I have always quietly admired Notre Dame. I consider myself a lukewarm ND fan, but have really enjoyed their resurgence under Charlie Weis this year. -- Living in Alabama, I hear about Auburn on a daily basis. I have grown to have a good level of respect for their program and enjoy watching them play. I do think they are playing very well right now, but that opening game loss to GA Tech is really killing them. So in essence I have at least a little bit of dog in the hunt for all four teams. Looking objectively, I just can't see a huge difference between any of them.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Nov 27, 2005 -> 05:50 PM) Auburn An argument could be made for Auburn. Believe me, down here I am hearing it every day. Personally, I am kind of hoping Oregon gets in so Auburn and Ohio St can play each other in the Capital One Bowl. I think that would be one of the top 2 or 3 bowl games. I think it is easy to make argument for teams, but difficult to make arguments against teams that outweight the "for" argument. At some point, other factors will come into play and don't kid yourself if TV ratings, tickets sales, etc. won't or shouldn't come into play. The BCS has always allowed for this since they don't automatically slot teams. They allow the bowls to choose their teams after the 1-2 game in some order that I can never figure out.

Team #3 9-2 Lost to the #4 team and another ranked team Beat 3 top 30 teams Which team might this be???

Umm, I feel ignorant here........ What is Black Friday?

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Nov 24, 2005 -> 07:24 PM) I stand by what I said and I think it's a trend that you'll see as time goes on. The Sox could have easily given up Liotta or Tracey but they didn't for whatever reason, either the Phils didn't want them or the Sox kept them. Those two, with the addition of Broadway, kill worms in front of home plate. Both Gonzalez and Haigwood have a very bad G/F ratio, something that wouldn't work in Charlotte, Chicago or Philadelphia. While people can drool over Haig's stats in AA, and come on they're amazing, you still have to look at his stats at Winston-Salem which weren't that eye popping. I just don't think Haigwood is a front of the rotation staters like everyone predicts, but I've always said Haig knows how to pitch and could be a pretty damn good anchor at the back of a rotation. And for a 40-50 HR guy, you give up a guy like Haigwood. First of all, I never said anything about Haigwood being a front of the rotation starter, so I am not sure where that came from. And second, you said his success in AA was because of the park he pitched in. While your ground ball/fly ball theory may hold true down the road, that statement still isn't true. He pitched just as well on the road in hitters parks and wasn't helped at all by the big ballpark at home, at least in the two games I saw. Statistical progression as guys move up the ladder is not always neat and tidy. Some guys do better at higher levels. Some have a bad year and then rebound at a higher level. Just because he pitched better in AA does not mean the park had anything to do with it.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Nov 24, 2005 -> 03:53 PM) In your list, we only drafted and developed Buehrle and Wells and Wells is hardly anything special. We got all the other guys on your list through trades. I'd include Garland and Cotts on the list despite the fact that the Sox didn't draft them. I would not include Foulke.

Maybe I didn't interpret it correctly, but my take on the ruling is this. If a woman is drunk and consents to have sex, then she cannot come back and use her drunkenness as a defense, saying that she didn't know what she was doing or wasn't of right mind to give consent. If a woman is drunk and some idiot manhandles her, then that would still be a rape case. Where this gets murky is when two people are drunk, get into it hot and heavy and the girl finally gives in and they have sex. I think this ruling sways the responsibility back to the girl rather than the guy. I don't think this ruling makes for open season on drunk women. But it will definitely make it more difficult for them to prove they said NO, rather than "no.... no... take me!". I am of the belief that people should be responsible for their own actions. Regret the morning after drunken is not grounds for a rape charge. Then again, overly agressive guys who refuse to take no for an answer or use some kind of intimidation to get a girl to agree should be catrated. I don't think there is ANY way a law or court ruling of any kind can take the gray out of some similar situations.