iamshack

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 12:47 PM) WTF? A bit of an exaggeration, obviously....but there was a good percentage that was in favor of dealing Paulie in 08' or 09', myself included.

QUOTE (Brian @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 11:43 AM) Upgraded to it yesterday. Is there a way to take songs from the iPod portion of the phone to make them my ringtone? So far, all I see is that I can buy ringtones. Do you have Garage Band?

QUOTE (zenryan @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 11:10 AM) The same amount of losses as any other team in the country if they lost their starting QB. After reading about the depth, are you seriously only bringing up the QB situation? I disagree. I think Auburn is a decent team with a superstar qb.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 11:55 AM) Definitely, IMO. Got it for $36 and $4 shipping. Not bad.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 12:01 PM) Yes, a different Boise team would have a deeper team. But this Boise team isnt deep so this Boise team couldnt last through a conference slate of games. Oh that is such bs. Look at Auburn. They are not deep at all! They just happen to have one of, if not the, most dynamic players in college football as their quarterback. How many losses do you think Auburn would have without Cam Newton as their quarterback?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 10:50 AM) I guess the kicker isn't important in the Big 10? That doesn't make any sense at all. Every player on the field is important. Why if it is just the kicker, does that somehow excuse it? That also goes along with the whole point of not being able to handle a real schedule. Having those kind of weaknesses makes it easier for you to be exposed, and you have more chances of being exposed with good teams on your schedule. Is this how you judge a team? Is this how you handicap games? By solely considering the final score of the game and win-loss records? Do you really think you can determine the overall talent and capabilities of a team in this manner?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 10:50 AM) I guess the kicker isn't important in the Big 10? That doesn't make any sense at all. Every player on the field is important. Why if it is just the kicker, does that somehow excuse it? That also goes along with the whole point of not being able to handle a real schedule. Having those kind of weaknesses makes it easier for you to be exposed, and you have more chances of being exposed with good teams on your schedule. Are you serious?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 10:35 AM) It absolutely does. A Nevada isn't a big deal on the schedule for a Big10/SEC/Pac10/BigEast/Big12 type team, because they see them almost every single week. Auburn has beaten 5 top 25 teams this year. It proves that there is a massive difference between Boise State and anyone who comes out of a major conference schedule undefeated, because they have beaten good teams. Not being able to beat a Nevada makes the point that BSU wouldn't have survived a single one of the major conference schedules. No, it doesn't prove anything. While Auburn has beaten 5 top 25 teams this year, they could have lost any number of games this year, especially if their kicker blows a few chip shot field goals. While a loss would had an impact on their record, it would have done nothing to prove whether or not they could win other games on their SEC schedule. They still would be a quality team and one of the best teams in the nation. But what you're saying is that because the Boise kicker blew two easy field goals, that somehow goes far in determining whether Boise could compete in a traditional power conference. It simply does not.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 10:30 AM) Well, you can clearly take a look at the difference in the quality of players they both possess and face on a weekly basis. Take a look at recruiting rankings, and then compare that to how many NFL players go on from the schools in the conference. Boise just doesnt face nearly the quality of talent that an SEC, B10, B12 Pac10 team does every week. They run the table in what amount to be almost a MAC-type conference in terms of talent and we are supposed to believe they could compete in a power conference? ANyone who thinks BSU would be more than avg to below avg in the SEC is clearly ignoring just about every piece of truth out there. Once in awhile a small conference school can beat a serious team out of a power conference, I watched my alma mater in 2003 be that team. But that one game doesnt mean that they could last a season, because they couldnt. I don't really know how to make it more clear that I don't disagree with you. I don't have an issue with the opinion that teams such as Boise and TCU would be two and three loss teams if they played in power conferences. I absolutely understand the talent that is present in the SEC, and the Big 10, Pac 10 and Big 12. My point is simply that a blown chip-shot FG on a cold night in Reno on the road against a quality opponent does not prove that argument.

Red Dead Redemption for $40 on ebay, free shipping...worth it?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 10:10 AM) What it does show is Boise State doesn't deserve to play for a championship and the president of Ohio State had a point. I have a hard time believing Boise State is ranked anywhere near the top 15 if they played a schedule that featured at least 8 or 9 games they actually could lose if they played poorly. They really only had 2 or 3 tests. Va Tech, but they caught them at the right time, as Va Tech lost to James Madison the following week. After that they hadn't played anyone ranked in the top 20 until yesterday. I understand their position. But if you really want to play for national titles you need to join a better conference. This is absolutely true. They lost the game, they do not deserve to be in the national title discussion any longer. And this is the price they pay for playing in a weak conference - there is ZERO room for error, unlike a team that plays in a power conference, which may be able to enter the championship picture as a one-loss team. I am certainly not someone that ignores the difficulty of playing a schedule that can occur from playing in a power conference. The schedules that come out of the SEC, the Big 10, the Big 12 in recent years, and the Pac 10 can be absolutely brutal. Teams that play in power conferences do deserve more credit for playing the schedules they do, which really has a cumulative effect that is difficult to quantify. But I also find it difficult to claim from one loss that resulted from a blown chip-shot field goal on the road against a quality opponent, that it can be discerned how Boise St would fare in a power conference. The sampel size is simply too small.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 11:00 AM) A quality schedule gives you more chances to blow games. If you are playing awful teams, you aren't having much competition to put real pressure on a team. Absolutely it does. It also probably creates more injuries and exposes your weaknesses more. But this loss to Nevada does not prove anything in regards to the argument you are making.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 10:50 AM) Holds more than enough weight IMO. Boise's defense got worn down again last night. Just like VT did in week 1, Nevada ran all over Boise as the game progressed. Finished with 270 yards on the ground. Imagine what Wisconsin,Ohio St,LSU,Auburn,Alabama,Arkansas,etc would do against that defense. Hell, even Louisiana Tech's RB finished with 150 yards. ESPN wants to tout Boise's great run defense. ESPN also likes to forget that Boise is usually so far ahead that teams dont run the ball. And the teams that do run are horrible football teams to begin with. Of course Boise will put up great defensive numbers. Nevada is the 4th best rushing team in the entire nation! The 4th best scoring offense in the entire nation!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 10:48 AM) Its exactly the point. If they had a schedule full of quality teams, instead of just a few, that goes a long way towards proving that argument. A schedule full of quality teams proves what argument? For instance, Auburn won @ Miss St 17-14, at home against Clemson 27-24 in OT, and @ Kentucky 37-34. Had they missed any of those fg's at the end of the game, they could have lost, and therefore, under your premise, that would prove they could not make it out of a power conference undefeated, which is exactly what they have managed to do. One close game is not indicative of the argument you are trying to make, especially considering the manner in which Boise blew that game.

QUOTE (He_Gawn @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 10:28 AM) Holds enough weight for me. Go through OSU, Wisconsin, Iowa, and MSU in a season, and thats not even the best lineup of teams I could put together. One can absolutely make an argument that Boise could not handle the brutal schedules that can come about from playing in a traditional power conference. But the fact that they lost for the first time in 25 games, on the road, against a quality opponent in a difficult environment, by missing a chip-shot field goal at the end of regulation is not a particularly strong argument to make that point.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 10:10 AM) Well there you guy. If Boise can't survive Nevada, there is no chance they run the table somewhere like the Big Ten, Pac10, or SEC. Oh come on. So because they lost for the first time in 24 games to the 19th-ranked team in the country, on the road, by missing a chip-shot FG as time expired in regulation, that means they couldn't run the table in any of the power conferences? I'm not shedding any tears for Boise, but that argument holds no weight whatsoever.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 09:56 AM) LSU lost to Auburn. Yes, and if Cam Newton were to be declared ineligible, it is possible the NCAA would disqualify all their wins, making LSU undefeated on the year.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 07:13 AM) Paulie is a great guy and has been a great player in a White Sox uniform. Comparing him to Jeter though is ridiculous. First off, 95% of this board wanted Paulie gone and wanted the Sox to pay at least part of his contract to do so before 2010. Secondly, the White Sox don't throw money around like the Yankees. I think giving Paulie a 3 year $45 million contract will eventually be regrettable. Giving Jeter $20 million a year and he stinks the place up wouldn't be much of a blow to the Yankees. They have made a lot of money because of him.If you go by the 2010 season alone, Paulie is probably more valuable, but like him or not, Jeter is a first ballot HOFer. Agreed. I think you've got to try and view Konerko through what he has done over the course of the last three years, not just his great 2010 season. If I was KW, I wouldn't want go any higher than 2/$25 or 3/$33, and that honestly scares the heck out of me.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 07:20 AM) I think Jeter's name alone would get him a bigger contract than the Yankees are offering him, but I don't think anyone really believes he would actually leave the Yankees, therefore will not get a legitimate offer. From whom though? I am trying to imagine Derek Jeter honestly being available as a FA. I suppose some team might offer more than the 3/$45 because of the media attention and short-term boost in revenues he could bring, but I really can't fathom him being worth any more than 3/$50 or 4/$60, and that contract has a real possibility of being a disaster, should Jeter see a sharp decline in his late-30's seasons...

QUOTE (zenryan @ Nov 27, 2010 -> 02:05 AM) TCU better pray Newton gets suspended because that is their only chance. Yeah, but then LSU gets in ahead of them as a no loss SEC team, don't they?

And suddenly TCU is cursing Alabama...and pinning all their hopes on Oregon State in the Civil War...

QUOTE (Stocking @ Nov 26, 2010 -> 07:19 PM) Go get GT5 yesterday, sic. I haven't bought a PS3 game in a long time, but I will go get this one soon...

QUOTE (MurcieOne @ Nov 26, 2010 -> 05:13 PM) If Nike had any balls . . . they'd pay the person who made this ad and run it on ESPN. Truly inspiring. Somehow I doubt this would be good for their relationship with LeBron...

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 26, 2010 -> 02:48 PM) I like Fowler but if we're going to trade one of Floyd/Danks we should look at a deal with Texas with Holland as a centerpiece (I love that kid) plus Moreland who looks like he may be another solid player, overachiever type, and then another piece or two depending on what it is (i.e. prospect, spare part, etc). I think Holland's ceiling is very high and I think he could be available in the right deal should the Rangers miss out on Lee. I'm also a Borbon fan, but I wouldn't want him as a centerpiece. If a Danks/Floyd + prospect for Holland, Moreland, and Borbon deal could be done I might just do it, considering Borbon would replace Pierre (and be a better player IMO over the long haul) which could allow us to dump that contract if anyone wanted him, plus we'd fill the rotation hole immediately with an already MLB-ready lefty with a high ceiling, and Moreland at worst would be competition or a platoon partner to Viciedo at 1B. Then we'd have more cash to throw around, say at Dunn for DH and (yeah I know I'm dreaming) Werth! for RF. I wonder if Jon Daniels would be a bit hesitant to make a trade like that again after the McCarthy/Danks fiasco...

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 20, 2010 -> 07:48 AM) Are you suggesting that players are worth the same regardless of city? And as soon as other factors are tossed in, on both sides, the dollar values change. Take something as easy as state income taxes. Playing half of your games in Texs, without a state income tax is worth something to a player. Living in New York, with it's cost of living, is different than living in Minneapolis with theirs. Then the marketing department gets involved. Some players will sell more tickets in one city than another. Are you serious? Don't you think that is a bit laughable considering the amount of money most of the Yankees' star players make? I can understand if you're talking about a six-figure job, or even a low-seven figure job...but once you get into the eight-figures, the difference in living expenses is probably not making a huge dent in your overall compensation package. If I were Cashman, I'd offer the 3/$45 and say take it or leave it. That's a fair amount of money, and any team that pays him above that amount would be overpaying themselves. What a joke.