bartshan-83

Really? The Ohio St. President is the one making this argument?? Let's examine his comments: Agreed. Great way to start your argument. You played Marshall, Eastern Michigan and Ohio. Are these all fine schools? Boise St. played Toledo this year...YOU played them last year! Strength of Schedule OSU: 59 BSU: 73 Remaining Opponents (Sagarin Rankings): OSU: Michigan (41) BSU: Nevada (24), Utah St. (115) 2010 Opponents Ranked in Sagarin Top 25 (as of today): OSU: Wisconsin (14), Iowa (21) BSU: Virginia Tech (18), Oregon St. (22), Nevada (24) 2010 Opponents Ranked in BCS Top 25 (as of today): OSU: Wisconsin (7), Iowa (24) BSU: Virginia Tech (16), Nevada (19) Oh yeah...world of difference between the schedules. Night and day for sure. Murder's row my ass...

Since everyone else is off stroking each others light sabers, I'll give an honest answer from someone who probably leans more liberal. I don't hate Sarah Palin, I just don't care for her because, like most people, I don't care for the way the majority of politicians act and she embodies a lot the reason why. I don't dislike her because she's different, I dislike her because she is the same. Specifically: 1. She is the prototypical hatchet thrower whose idea of leadership is to rile up the people on "her side" into a frothing frenzy. No one will ever convince me that their side is 100% good and the others is 100% bad. My mother, love her to death, is like this and drives me nuts. Both my parents are liberal and therefore I was raised from that point of view. So I still carry many of those viewpoints but I can barely have a conversation with my mom because she is just too partisan. When normal people discuss politics like this, it is irritating. But when political leaders do it, it is harder to stomach because they are causing real damage. She speaks in talking points and engages in acts of false-indignation which open her up to charges of partisan hypocrisy (her ridiculous facebook letter to Rahm Emmanuel for his "retarded" comment comes to mind). The fact that she has now become more of a celebrity than a politician, has allowed her to ratchet it up even more. Twitter? Really? Tweeting 140 characters of canned partisan rhetoric is embarrassing enough when it comes from some actor or football player. But coming from a tenured politician who is actually seen as a viable presidential candidate by many? Jesus... 2. I think she is phony. Obviously this is based on nothing more than my observations and feelings, but I find her canned expressions and mannerisms to be hokey. Her debate winks, her "hockey mom/lipstick" and her "Gee, dontcha know" speaking style just strike me as contrived. I was watching GMA the other morning and they interviewed her about Bristol and Dancing with the Stars and she gave this line about how she just told her daughter "Doggone it! Just go and have fun!" I just can't believe that she actually speaks and acts in such a caricatured way when the cameras aren't rolling. 3. I didn't much care for the reports of the whole "Ex-brother-in-law cop" thing and I didn't much like that she quit her Governership early so she could start to cash in on her newly found celebrity. Now I know, wow, a politician who wields their influence in an underhanded way and who abandons their current duty for higher personal gain...nothing new here. But again, it's how she is similar to the average slimy politician that draws my ire, not how she is different. Other than that, there is the incredibly obvious reason that her viewpoints don't align with mine. I don't think she is stupid. I think that is a cop-out. I don't think she is a beacon of knowledge and sophistication either. She was thrust into the national spotlight before she could be expected to be ready. But she's had a few years now of center stage and her actions have done nothing to convince me that is she anything more than what I described above. If anything, she has regressed. If I had to choose the core reason, it's paragraph 1. I would think even the most conservative among us would agree that this is how she operates. Some people might like a leader who demonizes the other side and divides. I don't. It is a guaranteed way to make me tune out and it is insulting. I remember GWB in one of the 2004 debates where he kept using the word "liberal" like it belonged in Carlin's 7 Words You Can't Say routine. He might as well have been saying faggot. Let me stop anyone whose first reaction is to point out all the democrats who do this. Save your breath. I'm well aware the sword cuts both ways. If there is one thing that I'm most disappointed in Obama about, it's this. Hope and Change wasn't realistic. But the one area that I allowed myself to get my hopes up about was that he wouldn't engage in the blame game and he might actually be a unifier. He has miserably failed at that and it's embarrassing. Finally, if you're actually looking for a reason why many people have a strong dislike of her, I'd offer that all you need to do is turn your own question around. Why are so many people infatuated by her? I'd bet a lot of the people that don't like her have the same reasons I do (and probably many more stronger ones as well). If you don't like someone, but no one really seems to disagree, then emotions tend to stay cool. It's when you don't like someone whom a lot of people love that your dislike is fueled further because you can't figure out why. No one really cares about the girl who can't sing. It's when the girl who can't sing has 10 million fans and puts out platinum records that you go "WTF?" I could ramble on and make this even more boring than it already was if you managed to reach this sentence. But maybe that will shed some light if you were actually looking for an answer. ~Mace Windu

Count me in, if needed. I'd be way better than Beerball.

Not so fast...contract details make this a lot clearer. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5812371

Schopp realized he was wrong: link He even got Thurman jumping there...

Hey now! That ain't right...

What's funny is, when I first typed that out, I wrote "brewed over" and I my first thought was Witch's Brew. Totally missed it the second time. No doubt. The one truly insulated demographic. I think if I were a hot girl, I'd spend a lot of time not really giving a ****.

Er-Sinus (as in sinus infection).

I certainly got the sense that the National Republican Party was not behind O'Donnell. The local party was definitely not in her corner. A lot of that bubbled over from the primary where she launched a very negative campaign (not normal for Delaware) against a very iconic and well-liked candidate in Mike Castle. And it was just such a shock that she won, I don't think the party ever stopped to think that they might want to ease off the gas in their attacks on her. Put it this way, Chris Coons didn't even acknowledge her in his campaign before the primary. Didn't speak her name. All the early attacks that you probably heard about on a national level, they all came from the republican side. So the mainstream republicans pulled out all the stops to tear her down in the primary and the wounds never really seemed to heal after she won. I think it a lot of it was pride. Hard to shake hands after a dirty fight. But it was clear that she did not have the support of "everyday" republicans and I believe a lot of that trickled down from the top. If she had better handlers, like you alluded to, and more of a unified front, I think she could have won. But from what I've heard of her, she's not exactly the type to take a lot of advice. Interesting side note...I'm by no means the Mayor of Delaware, but I've spent most of my life here and I know a lot of people and I don't know a single person who knew her personally before this whole thing. Not one. Delaware (especially northern Delaware) is a very small place. I'm not sure how it translated on a national level, but her campaign presence within the state was very odd. Most of her events were comprised of invite only guests, hardly any true public appearances (at least in New Castle County...she did most of her work downstate where it is far more conservative). She might not be a witch, but she sure seemed like a ghost. I only hope the national money and attention she received doesn't promote her to some sort of Palin-esque quasi-celebrity status. I'd be quite pleased if I don't hear her name again in 2012.

Yesterday at lunch. I moved 6 months ago (same state) and never changed my drivers license so I had to drive back to my old district. But it was worth it to vote against Crazy O'Donnell. Sorry, babe...you can try again in 2 more years.

This is mostly an embarrassing thread. Grown (maybe not) men (most likely not) wishing failure upon another person they never met because he didn't meet their expectations as a football player. I assume none of you have any actual real problems in your lives (besides mental illness) that you have the time and desire to put energy into this.

All of them! Why? 3 reasons. 1. Losing sucks and it is not enjoyable. 2. I'd rather be a 9-7 team with the 21st pick than 2-14 with the 1st pick. The goal is to get better. 9-7 > 2-14 with expensive crapshoot rookie. 3. Madden Franchise Mode may have dulled peoples' perceptions, but a team's record does not exist in a vacuum. Cash still rules, but you'd be wise not to underestimate the importance of our team's perception amongst the league's players (both on other teams and our own). You think Buffalo is unattractive to FAs? It is. Yeah it's cold and small and Dave & Busters is the only game in town , but more importantly, it is a franchise cloaked in failure (credit that line to Jerry Maguire). Winning breeds enthusiasm, losing breeds indifference. Once a losing culture has become entrenched, it is very hard to wash off the stink (I'm a Notre Dame fan, I might know a bit about this). This team slept-walked last year. You saw it. I saw it. T.O. saw it. Why do you think he freaked out during the Tennessee game? He wasn't used to it. Jauron was. The team was. Now if this team fights its everloving ass off and only pulls out 3 wins, I'll stand proud. But if they are 3-10, you won't ever catch me hoping for 3 more losses. It's this type of thinking that perpetuates the cycle. That some shiny new toy is going to fix us and if we have to throw in the towel to get an even shinier one, then that's okay. I don't buy it. The goal is to win every play, every series, every quarter, every game you play. And I can't enjoy rooting for anything else.

Congratulations to the Giants. Hardworking "TEAM" in every sense of the word. Undoubtedly the one team I did NOT want the Phils to face in the playoffs. They did everything I hoped/expected Philadelphia to do...good pitching and timely hitting. I like Burrell a lot too and I'm happy to see him get to contribute to another ring. Good for the city too. I'm sure a relatively smaller market will really get to savor the hell out of this one. The Phils' 2008 Championship really did knock a collective chip off the city's shoulder. I'd say it made a small, permanent change in the attitude of the fanbase. Even two years later, it still feels a little different. Now I'm sure SanFran is about as far from Philadelphia on the fan reputation scale, but a championship to a long suffering sports city really can do a lot for the place. ENJOY!

I don't know. I think you could be right, but I think it might be more of a headache/distraction than it's worth. At best you get a disinterested player who will dog it until you are forced to suspend him. This will create distraction and probably an unwanted media circus. At worst you get a faction of players on your own team who say "Hey, you knew he didn't want to be here? Why'd you sign him and cut a good guy and THEN shut him down when you knew how it would play out anyway? Why you sign him if you were just gonna can him up and send him home?" I think it is a tricky situation that has the potential for creating a dysfunctional team environment in a lot of ways. As much as I hate the Patriots, I respected the hell out of the way they were able to reel in a wild bull like Moss by saying "Yo, we win rings here. You either shut up and get on board or you'll find your **** in a box outside your locker. We don't need you either way." Kind of what like the Chicago Bulls did with Rodman. Few teams have the leadership, track record and cajones to make a power play like that. And this time around, Randy is in a whole nother stratosphere.

To those of you who think Miami or NYJ would put in a claim just to prevent NE from getting him, I posit a few questions: 1. Do you think they would contact Moss first to gauge his interest? 2. If they did and he said "don't sign me", do you think think they still would? 3. If that happened, would they just stash him on the bench? 4. If so, do you think that would sit well with the other players on the team or around the league? I'm just curious because I think Randy has all the cards here. He made the Vikings look like fools, BIG fools. No other team is going to want to be the one who cuts him AGAIN in 4 more weeks. So unless he explicitly gives the green light ahead of time, why would you touch him? Grabbing him and then deactivating him or just benching him I think would piss off a lot of players. A lot of these guys are real close and there is definitely a common bond in the league among all players. I would think you'd risk losing your team if they thought you signed a player and then shut him down just to screw another team.

I'm not going to argue because obviously coaches think it does something enough to want to keep doing it game after game. And I spoke poorly...I didn't mean slows down the game, I meant delays the outcome. But that doesn't change the fact that it has no correlation to the kicker's success whatsoever. If every time you and I flipped a coin to decide something, I would catch the first flip in the air and yell "STOP! Let's do it again!" it doesn't mean that my "method" was successful if I win the second flip. On Sunday, luck smiled on Todd Haley and the Chiefs. But to call it a successful strategy, or a strategy at all is silly. It's a stupid superstitious practice that for some reason coaches have collectively latched onto. I and personally think it makes them look like idiots as they gallop down the sideline and then creep all close to the ref to make sure they can unleash their final "ace in the hole." Bunch of girls. Just let the players line up and play out the final play of the game like men. No need for your predictably cliche "icing" after which you can claim genius if it works and shrug your shoulders if it doesn't.

I'm actually on your side. I was mainly playing devils advocate. I think it is a stupid use of a time out which, if anything, gives the Kicker a better chance. I'd rather the coaches just not do it as it is a useless tactic that only serves to slow down the game.

Crazy, but Randy and Belichick might just have the league by the nuts the here. NO team wants a surly, disinterested Randy Moss. James Hardy is a better use of a roster space. So no team is going to put in a claim without contacting him first. Bottom-feeders know better because Moss wants nothing to do with that. Middle-of-the-road teams know better because unless he explicitly signs on, they don't want to be the even bigger joke who cuts him AGAIN in 3 weeks. Contenders know better unless he explicitly signs on because why mess with what they have? What can anyone do? If it gets to the Jets, is Ryan really going to mess with his already delicate season by signing the biggest malcontent as a defensive move? He'll lose the team for sure. Well played...

I agree...it's an awesome experience. It's like hearing about a badass movie that you never saw and all your friends say is great. Except this 'movie' is 60-70 hours long.

I agree with you (CJ) that this isn't a bad rule because to arbitrarily decide when a team can and cannot use its 3 timeouts is stupid. But, the caveat here is what I could be persuaded to agree with. Maybe the players on the field should have to call the TO so that the they are in the line of sight of the offense. This prevents the "double kick" which is irritating.

Cool topic. I'm actually doing the same thing right now. When I hear about a TV show that has created a significant buzz by Season 2 or so and I HAVEN'T been watching it, I do everything I can to block it out for the remainder of the series. Because I know some years down the line, I can do the DVD thing and enjoy it. I'll throw in another vote for The Wire. 5 Seasons, slow methodical pace but NOT boring. Great plots, EXCELLENT characters and character development and good action when the time is right. I just wrapped up Season 4 and I'm actually sad that I'm coming to to a close. I've been watching it since mid-August. It's been like a 3-month-long awesome movie. I've been pondering your same question lately too...what next? I always heard great things about The Shield so it's near the top of my list. I tried to do Lost while I was doing The Wire but it was too much. So I might get back to that one. Caveat, I don't like doing it with shows that are still on TV. It's too frustrating for me once I catch up to real time. I did that with Nip/Tuck and I got so used to being able to watch 3-6 Episodes back-to-back. When I caught up and had to wait a week, I felt like I was going through drug withdrawals.

Wait....WHAT? Not to hijack this thread, but YOU voted for the legalization of marijuana? I only caught the game in bits and pieces as I was at the Sixers-Heat game. Were the Giants just tagging Lee all night or was it just a 5th inning meltdown?

Yup. First thing I thought of was . Possibly one of the funniest commercials of all-time I think.

Sorry, Fez...I'm pretty sure I got one free preview of your link. You can sue me next time. So what's the bottom line? They're just too lazy to setup an actual paywall but instead think IP address gathering and case-by-case lawsuits are a better use of their time and money? Am I missing something?

Did you ever imagine when you posted such an obviously tongue-in-cheek link (with the added bonus of being kind of interesting) that you would actually have to take 5 minutes out of your day to EXPLAIN to someone that you don't ACTUALLY think it's a cell phone, you don't ACTUALLY think she is a time traveler?