whitesoxfan101

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 23, 2008 -> 04:43 PM) USC has talent but they can't be in the same equation as those other three teams, plus Alabama because USC hasn't played s***. USC's defense can be just as dominant as the offenses as the other 3, that's why they belong in that equation IMO.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 23, 2008 -> 05:10 PM) Angelo doesn't spend cap money just for the sake of doing it when it's there. He isn't "cheap," that's just the battlefield cry of the meathead fans, but he doesn't sign big-name FAs unless he needs them. I don't see how anybody can call Angelo and the Bears cheap right now. Most of their defense is VERY overpaid.

Illini 4-0, they really appear to have found something in Mike Davis as well. He and Dominique Keller combined for 36 points on 17-18 from the field today, wow.

Forte entered today averaging 3.8 yards a carry. That will go up after beating on the pathetic Rams, but to compare him to TCQ is laughable. It appears he can join Orton in the overrated pantheon at the moment.

RR won't get fired, and neither will Zook for that matter. Bielema isn't on the hot seat yet, but he is one 7-5 season away from it in my opinion. Weis SHOULD be fired, and I think would be but for the fact that Notre Dame would have to pay that huge buyout, so they are stuck with him.

Still think the Bears are mediocre, still think the Bears need to draft a QB within the first 3 rounds in April. It was a nice surprise to see them do as they were supposed to today though.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Nov 23, 2008 -> 12:42 AM) 101, your argument doesn't work because OU beat the hell out of Tech. That could trump the neutral field vs. home field argument. The bottom line is that you can go back and forth about all 3 teams right now. It's best to let the rest of the season play out and then reevaluate. How doesn't it work? If you are going to have an argument between who is better, Texas or Oklahoma, it's impossible to ignore that they played on a true netural site. Now, the fact Texas Tech got it's ass kicked tonight is noteworthy, but the only note to it is that it elminates Texas Tech (unless OU loses in Stillwater) due to how far they will drop in the polls. HOPEFULLY, something happens to sort it out though because you are right, this could be argued about all day. I am hoping Florida State SOMEHOW beats Florida, unlikely as it is. Because if they do, Florida beats Alabama, and then Mizzou wins the Big 12 title game, all hell breaks lose.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 22, 2008 -> 11:39 PM) Well, there's some other things to consider...will OU jump ahead of Texas (all the way to #2) in some of the polls? Heck, they might even get some #1 votes as far as I'm concerned. Second, beating OSU on the road has to improve their BCS Standings a lot more than for TEX to beat Texas A&M, and, by the way, the Longhorns have lost those last two games, so that's not a foregone conclusion. Not to mention the fact that it's a 3 way tie...why can't TT argue they deserve to go, based on their head-to-head win over Texas??? A win is a win and a loss is a loss, right? Third, momentum...if OU closes out the season trouncing TT and on the road at OSU, that's a lot more compelling to the voters than the way TEX is finishing out the season. Yes, they won on a neutral field in a game OU choked away, but Texas lost to TT, and TT was blitzkrieged by OU. I think that equalizes that argument in the eyes of many fans. If OU does beat OSU and finishes behind TEX, you will have the most heated argument/s ever about the playoff system and BCS. Nope. The whole "we beat them though!" argument among the three tied teams, to me, is decided by the fact that Texas has the only win in the 3 team round robin that wasn't on it's home field in the neutral game against Oklahoma. A win is a win and a loss is a loss isn't how it works in college football (that's why the system sucks), and yes OU beat Texas Tech, but it was at home, and yes Texas Tech beat Texas, but it was at home and on a miracle last second play. Texas beat Oklahoma in a true neutral site game, and that decides it for me based on the system we have right now. We have to keep in mind though, Texas Tech is no longer in this argument. They were pathetic tonight, and they will drop so far in the polls that they have no shot in the BCS 3 way tie. Their only chance is Oklahoma losing to Oklahoma State in Stillwater, and I wouldn't bet on that.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 22, 2008 -> 09:59 PM) Wow. I turned the game off when it got to 3-0. I clearly have a lot to learn about Hockey. Ehh you aren't too far off. A lot of teams are dead when it's 3-0 (especially on the road), but the Hawks have a lot of firepower and thus aren't among those teams.

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 22, 2008 -> 10:36 PM) The freshman class in college basketball absolutely sucks. Guys like Derozan and Hopson are mediocre so far. Speaking of recruits, I bought Gunnin' For That #1 Spot today. I can't wait to watch it. This is going to be a rough year for college basketball in my opinion. The freshman suck, the 2009 NBA draft class sucks, and even a lot of the top players (here's looking at you Tyler Hansbrough, Hasheem Thabeet, Kyle Singler, Luke Harangody, etc) are guys that have little to no shot at being worth a damn at the next level, something that sticks in my mind if I watch a guy who is a great college player.

I have a hard time distinguishing who the best team is between Texas, USC, Oklahoma, and Florida. I think Texas has to be ranked ahead of OU due to head to head on a neutral field, but a little round robin between those 4 would be nice. Too bad it can't happen. In regards to relevance though, Texas is in great shape to play in the Big 12 title game if BCS expert Brad Edwards of ESPN is right. He predicts Texas will be #2 and Oklahoma #4 in the BCS standings (with Florida #3) tomorrow. I'm not sure I buy that, but if he is right, I can't see any way Oklahoma can jump Texas, and the BCS standings are the 3 way tiebreaker of course in the Big 12 South. That is how it SHOULD be though, I don't care how good Oklahoma looks, Texas beat them on a neutral field and there is no way for OU to dispute that argument.

QUOTE (Rex Hudler @ Nov 22, 2008 -> 10:35 AM) One can argue that UM and Rich Rod could have made the transition more smoothly. They could have done so by hiring a different coach or Rod could have done so by bending his philosophies more. Is that the right answer for the long run. Personally I am not smart enough to know for sure. I am confident Michigan will be back and Rich Rodriguez will be a successful coach there. Could he have done things differently? I'm pretty sure he'd tell you yes. But I also remember reading a few things that Nick Saban said at Alabama and he stated that in order ot have success your way, you have to take total control. He also admitted to that last season he had to make some tough decisions because of a lack of depth and there would have been some guys that would have been invited to leave had the situation not been what it was. I have NO DOUBT that Michigan will be back eventually, the doubt is whether or not Rodriguez will be their coach when they are. I still know he's a fine coach, but so much has gone against him this year that it will take a lot to turn it around, and I'll give him all the credit in the world if he is able to do so. It's hard to compare this years Michigan squad to Alabama last year though. Yes Saban's first Alabama team struggled and lost it's last 4 regular season games, but they did start 6-2, end up 7-6 after winning a bowl game (Independence over Colorado), and their losses were by 3 (OT), 7, 7, 5, 7, and 7. Plus, they are on their way to an SEC title game if not National title game appearance this year, and I can't see Michigan starting 11-0 next year.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 08:28 PM) I backed up my statements with facts. You guys could talk baseball, but as far as basketball, just wow. I even gave you stats which are equivalents to OPS+'s for basketball and such and you choose to ignore them. You have said nothing other than LULZ, OMGZ BEN GORDON IZ SO SHORT HES THE SUX0RZ!!1! Huh? I've just said he's a very poor defender, short, and going to be very overpaid this offseason. You have yet to make a point to prove any of those lack validity, and you also seem to be implying that Gordon is as good as Rose based on statistics, and I would hope you know better than to use small sample sizes and assume that as fact. He's a very explosive offensive player, but besides that, he leaves a lot to be desired and I see no way as to how you can win a championship relying on his specific skill, which is quite useful, but often erratic.

I despise Urban Meyer, but you can't be a good college football program without having some bad guys on the team. Sad but true.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 04:11 PM) I'm not sure if I like Versteeg more or less. I think more. For sure more, that is great. We all know the words to stupid ass songs like that, the fact he's willing to admit it and actually sing (or whatever you would call that) it on youtube is great.

QUOTE (rangercal @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 04:09 PM) Davis Kaman Randolph Thornton Camby Looks good. But, somehow I suspect they will manage to win only 30 games. They are still the Clippers. I really like Thornton, but beyond that, all that group really is in my opinion is veteran, expensive, and going nowhere in the west. That has perrenial 7 seed, 1 and done in the west written all over it. Now obviously, that would be a HUGE improvement for the Clippers, but it's all about the summer of 2010 in the NBA if you are a team not near a title, and they have no shot now to get anybody at that time.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20081121/pl_...s/ynews_pl158_4 I thought this would make for interesting discussion. If this didn't deserve it's own thread, my bad and feel free to move it.

People like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson lost a lot of the ground they tend to stand on with Obama's election in my opinion. It's hard to play the "we're oppressed" card when somebody like Obama is running the free world. There are a lot of people who do good things for the down trodden, including in poor communites with a lot of african americans, that I have a lot of respect for (community organizers for instance), but I've never been a fan of Sharpton and Jackson's antics.

I knew Michigan was going to be absolute trash this year, but it's even been worse than I thought. I thought Rodriguez would be a good hire that long term works out for Michigan and he still might, but I am starting to have my doubts.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 02:21 AM) This post shows me you do not watch much basketball. Gordon's defense is a non-issue. Skiles has said he's vastly better since his rookie year and is above average and that was before he left/was fired. Ben's an even better defender this year and he has great technique. The fact that he's 6'2 does not mean a thing. He's by far the best SG on the team and by far a top 2 player on this team and it's not even close. He's a SG. No one said he was a super duper star. He's an All-Star maybe, but no one called him Kobe. And by the way, his PER before the last 2 games was ridiculous on the season. I believe he had a PER of 24 which IIRC was better than Rose this season. And I'm pretty sure his PER is still at around Rose's level or near it. So Gordon's not only an efficient shooter, he's an efficient offensive player. Gordon's PER on the season is 19.51 including the last two games. Rose on the season has a per of 18.18. There are so many things inaccurate in this post that it would take me quite a while to address them. However I will say there are a LOT of GM's who agree with you on Ben Gordon, which is why he will be badly overpaid this offseason and spend the next 5 years driving a different fanbase and coach crazy. I don't realistically see a way you can win a championship with Ben Gordon as your starting 2 guard with as important as that position is, but if it ever happens, I'll admit I was wrong. He's not a bad player, but he's just very overvalued by a lot of people.

Wow I did not know that, thanks guys. All of that stuff isn't going to happen, but I've always heard there was a rule against 3 teams, and I always heard it falsely apparently.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Nov 20, 2008 -> 11:05 PM) Yeah. I already bought my tickets. It's official. One of my friends showed me a site that had a scenario where the Big 12 could get 3 teams in. BCS 1 vs. 2 are Big 12 and Mizzou wins the title. I don't believe the scenario. Obviously, this is with a million teams losing. No conference can get 3 teams in the BCS, it's an official rule. A dumb rule, just as automatic bids for the ACC and Big East is, but a rule nonetheless.

Ha sounds like he was drunk based on the last 2 posts. That is funny stuff if true.

I guess I should also point out that Howland's resume, and three straight finals fours in counting, is hard to argue with. But playing that style and keeping inferior opponents close seems like such a waste to me with their talent. I don't get how he gets so many blue chip players knowing they will play that style, but to each his own.

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ Nov 20, 2008 -> 10:13 PM) I'll NEVER understand Ben Howland. He recruits bluechip after bluechip, and then muddles up each game and gives much worse teams the chance to stay in the game with UCLA each time. Agreed, and I think considering SIU's talent level in relationship to their league, they do the same thing in a lot of Valley games. UCLA vs. SIU will be quite the taffy pull. Wow, Michigan defeats UCLA 55-52, HUGE win for them. Between this results, Illinois winning at Vandy, and Seton Hall beating USC, it was a good night for the Big 10 and a bad one for the Pac-10.