Chilly

I could believe that he's telling the truth. I'd rather talk to the fans then watch my team's offense at that point.

I was wondering that myself as I was posting it, lol. As far as I could tell when I was reading his plan, he didn't mention the financial aspects of it. Please read previous post.

I guess you have a different notion of what it means to be in the hunt for a national championship. Seems to me that if you aren't ranked 1 or 2, you aren't in the hunt for one by your definition. I'd beg to differ and say that any team which was close at the end of the year to being in the National Championship game was in the hunt for one. You have your priorities wrong though when you are talking about experience. Experience is not the end-all be-all of what makes a team good. Take a look at Ohio State this year, they are starting 7 sophmores and/or freshman, and lost 9 senior starters. Altogether, they lost 12 starters from the year before. Ohio State sure did have a dropoff this year, didn't they? Yeah, experience will count for something, but good coaching and talent more then make up for the lack of experience on a football team, so I don't buy for a second what you're saying. You're other observation, that Texas needs to win out in order to have a shot at the National Championship, is stating quite the obvious. However, they *do* still have a pretty decent shot at the title, therefore they *are* still in the hunt.

Its an okay site. One of the reasons that I don't like it is that they just give states within the margin of error to one side or another, when in reality a 1% or 2% difference which falls within the margin of error doesn't mean anything. In fact, all it means is that the candidates are very close. Another thing I don't like about the site is that they use Zogby. Zogby is a crap pollster in my opinion. Their latest methods include internet/email polling, which means that its not nearly as random as a simple random sample. They claim that they account for it by weighting the data from minorities versus non-minorties and other data; however, by doing that you are assuming that the minority data that you have is representative of the sample as a whole. When you're using the internet and email to do polling, that presents a problem, as typically you're leaving out the lowest-income voters. Rasmussen is another one that is kind of shaky. Scott Rasmussen has been using a lot of robotic polls, which while they're not as problematic as Zogby's email polls, pose problems. A typical resopnse rate with a live person in polls is around 20-40%, whereas a typical resonse rate of a robotic poll is 3-5%. Robotic polls also provide other biases - seniors typically would hate to talk to a robot more then younger people would and other caveats of not talking to a real person. All in all its a useful site because it allows you to easily and quickly access poll data, but they aren't reliable or always accurate by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm sure its not the only difference, but its most likely the largest difference and what can set him apart easily as a candidate from Joe. Lamont probably views his best chance of winning as to make the Iraq war the key issue, appealing to the democratic-base in the area, which is why he's pounding it over and over and over and over and... Yeah, you do see Iraq, but you also do see other things. Taking a look at Ned's website, he has two paragraphs on education before the Iraq thing: He also has a 10 page PDF document on education, linked from the same page that you are looking at, which provides the following: So, really, his policy on education isn't only Iraq. You may not agree that its the best policy, but the information that you omitted is there. Compare that with Lieberman, who doesn't even list education on his issues page: http://www.joe2006.com/issues.asp Take another one of your issues with Ned, Health Care. Here's another area where Iraq is mentioned once in the 3rd paragraph of the webpage, and theres a word document linked for this views on it, which gives us three highlights: Now, lets compare that to Joe's page. His bullet points are: Sounds familiar, doesn't it? The reason why Ned is throwing Iraq into it is because he feels that its his best chance to distinquish himself from Joe. On Infrastructure he also gives the following blurb: Joe Liberman's headline for Transportation states "Fighting Congestion and Gridlock - and Adding Jobs". Hmm, sounds somewhat similar. The big difference here is that Lamont is stressing lower-income areas, while Liberman is keeping it generalized. Still, the ideas to improve transportation as a major campaign theme are there. This is why Iraq is getting tossed around by Lamont a lot, its the easiest way for him to distinguish himself from Lieberman. KRC, while I do understand and agree that people might be annoyed with the mention of Iraq multiple times, I do not think that its the only thing Lamont is running on. A quick check of his webpage shows that. But it is the thing that he's trying to drive home the most for electoral reasons.

He's good because he's a dual-threat RB, receiving and rushing, which adds to his point total as a fantasy RB. That being said, the Raiders are overall worse then anyone expected I think.

I find your assertion strange, given that anyone who is even remotely interested in politics has multiple ideas on what should or shouldn't be done. Thats evidenced on this board. Lamont is most likely presenting himself this way to set himself apart from Lieberman. Most likely the political team felt that the difference between Lamont and Lieberman was biggest in the Iraq war, so they are presenting themselves as the alternative to the Iraq war. While you may request deeper differences and a stronger candidate, the American people on average won't. Typically there is one defining issue, and lately its been Iraq. Lamont is trying to capitalize on Lieberman's support of Iraq by playing his cards this way. Its one of the biggest reasons why people who are above-level intellectually on politics see all politicians as stupid, and one of the smaller reasons why a 3rd party candidate (who typically focus on lots of specific issues rather then large, general ideas in my experience) won't be easily swayed.

Yeah, there were issues in the secondary (Chizik screwed up and I think the loss of Tarrell Brown hurt us more then I thought it would), but the Horns still held Ohio State to 24 points. Ohio State is considered one of the top, if not the top, offense in the country. The computers might end up hurting Texas, you're right. However, this post has more to do with being anti-Texas then with your claim that the Big 12 won't produce a real national title contender. Guess what, if Texas is in the hunt for the national championship this year, but the computers keep them back, they were still in the hunt for the national championship, which is exactly what you claimed that the Big 12 wouldn't be. The Big 12 and Pac 10 are very similar. There is one or two teams that have distinguished themselves, and then there are usually several pretty good teams after them. This is one of the reasons why the national title contenders have come from the Big 12 and Pac 10 lately - while there are multiple top 25 teams, there aren't multiple top 10 teams to lose to "on any given saturday".

I was being sarcastic, lol.

Its ESPN, what do you expect?

el oh el As much as you Sooners would love to think that Texas was out of the national championship picture, it relaly depends on how the rest of the year plays out. If there are a bunch of other one-loss teams, its quite possible that losing in the 2nd week of the year to the #1 ranked team wouldn't hurt us all that much. As far as your prediction that the Big 12 will not produce a national contender in years to come, again you dismiss my Horns. Sorry, but with the player turnover in college and consistently strong recruiting classes Texas brings in, we will be competing for a national championship once again. Whether or not we make the game and or win it is another story obviously. Again, the important thing to note is that player turnover in college football shakes up how good teams are tremendously from year to year. Also, recruiting classes need multiple seasons before fully making the impact that they do. To look at how strong the Big 12 still is, all you need to do is take a look at the recruiting rankings for last year. CSTV's 2006 Rankings Texas #3, OU #9, Nebraska #21, Oklahoma State #22, Texas A&M #24, Texas Tech tied for 25. Guess what? Thats 6 teams in the top 25 recruiting classes for the last year. Or, if you want to look at another source: 2006 Rival's Rankings 5.) Texas 9.) Oklahoma 20.) Nebraska 22.) Oklahoma State 25.) Texas Tech 27.) Texas A&M 6 teams in the top 27, again thats half the conference. Guess what? 6 teams received votes for the AP top 25 this week in the Big 12. What I'm not going to try to claim is that the Big 12 is going to produce multiple BCS candidates this year, like the Big 10 or SEC could. What I will say, though, is that the Big 12 is not the horrible conference everyone portrays it to be. My point is that there are five major conferences ahead of everyone else: Big 12, Pac 10, SEC, Big Ten, ACC. All of these conferences are capable of having a down year, and all are capable of having years better then the other conferences. It really all comes down to player turnover year in and year out.

He's funny on the daily show too

There is no difference. People support what supports them, people will threaten what threatens them.

Oh, you mean it wasn't that the train crashed? It happened for you too? Damnit!

Yeah, I was wondering about that game as I was following the box score. Was Plummer bad moving in the pocket or was it mental mistakes in reading coverages/timing of the defense? I'm not surprised St. Louis couldn't move the ball with a brand new O-scheme, but I was surprised at how bad Denver seemed from highlights.

They were asking for 2 1st rounders, not one, so they got half of what they wanted.

Not exactly. - They portray Macs as immune from viruses and spyware: they aren't. - For PCs, it depends on the manufacturer what setup you have to do, if any, in order to use an office productivity suite or anything else. - Macs have plenty of devices that need drivers which aren't built into OS X, and Windows has devices that have drivers built in it which function out of the box. The degrees to with which it happens to Mac/PCs is what varies really.

**WARNING: WALL OF TEXT INCOMING** Thanks to the miracle of having multiple TVs side by side, I got to watch some extra games this weekend. PHI vs HOU was a strange game in the fact that Carr and Houston looked great for the opening series, then just sucked. My roommates (Texans fans) by the end of the second series were ready to give up on the team again. Donte' Stallworth looks great with McNabb. He looks really natural as a #1 WR and made some good catches. McNabb is also much healthier then last season. It was the old Donovan that we know and love, not the new Donovan. Buckhalter was a nice change from Westbrook and really looks like he's fully recovered from injuries too. I didn't realize how good of a backup he is for Westbrook and the diversity that he brings to the table. Carr looked a bit better then he did last year, and I think having Moulds as the #2 WR is really helping them. Houston's O-line is still complete crap, but Carr at least had more outlets that he felt comfortable getting the ball to, and it showed. The style of play for the Texans really didn't change much from last year, even with Kubiak as the head coach. Houston still can't block or run the ball, and they're a one-dimensional offense. Not as bad as last year, mind you, but still bad. They'll be up near the top of the draft again, if not at the top. On defense, Demeco Ryans is a monster for Houston. He was flying around all came and seemed to always be near the ball unless it was a long bomb from McNabb. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up winning defensive rookie of the year this year as long as he is consistent. Bunkley was just kind of there. He wasn't bad, and wasn't good, just took up space. I think his role this year will just be to get Kearse freer from the OL. Philly's LBs are the strength of the defense, and their CBs are the weak spot. A good passing team that isn't one-dimensional will pass all over the Eagles this year. I thought the pass rush was average considering their opponent. I also watched TEN vs NYJ. All I can say is wow. I did not expect Vince Young to look as good as he did. He only played one series, but as soon as he came into the game the whole team seemed more confident. Vince handed the ball off a couple of times before his first completion. After that, they got a few 5-10 yard, quick passes. One of Vince Young's passes was especially good, when he completed it even though he knew he was going to take a hit. He even celebrated a small bit after that pass, and you could tell he was getting comfortable. Vince looked like a pocket passer, which surprised me. His passes were sharper and crisper then what I remember at UT. Until his last throw. He had 1-on-1 coverage on the outside for a touchdown, but underthrew the ball and it was picked off. Still, I was skeptical of Vince being able to go from a one-read UT offense to a multiple-read pro offense, but all of the decisions I saw him make were to single coverages, never forcing a ball. His one mistake wasn't reading a defense but underthrowing a ball, something which I've seen him do once in a while at Texas too. He's showing signs of being the special player that I think he can. The game as a whole was a sloppy, crappy game. Collins looked horriffic in his first start, much more then the stats indicate. Both teams are bad, but in the end Tennessee's defense was just so bad that the NYJ won. TEN's defense has a good front 7, but they can't stop the pass for the life of them. Bulluck is still as good as advertised, as is Vilma. Both were all over the field. Other then that, no one really impressed me on either defense. And thank God we didn't draft Mike Nugent. Missed XP, 2 missed FGs, all from short distances. I don't have anything to say about Dallas vs Jax that hasn't already been said other then Matt Jones looked good today as a WR. He's a big guy that can outplay most smaller DBs. One bad part though is Leftwich was having problems putting the ball where this would happen. The Manning bowl was fun. I was hoping NYG would pull out the win. Eli is not as good as advertised. Without Burress, he would have looked pretty bad. He needs to learn ball placement on his throws. Peyton also didn't look that good. He could have easily had 4 interceptions if it wasnt' for some dropped balls. I wonder if the whole brother thing really did effect both of their games. Tiki's as good as ever and is really the Giants' offense. Without him, their offense would not be nearly as good as it was last night. Both defenses are average. If this game is any indication as to how this year will go, I only think that the Giants have a real shot at going to the superbowl. Indy will get beat by a team that can run the ball and has a good pass defense. Buffalo/Miami is a huge game for the young Bills, and strangely (unlike previous years), I'm confident that the Bills will play well enough to make it a game. Not necessarily confident that they'll win, but that they will come out and play hard. I think a win would be a huge step forward for this team. A win will build confidence that the Bills can win. After a couple wins in a row, I really think that this team will build the swagger that they WILL win every week. Thats what I like about young teams - its a lot easier to do this with younger players then veterans. Also, I think JP needs to get some of that confidence in him as well. I think an 8-8 year would do wonders for this squad. That being said: Is it Sunday yet damnit?

Oh god, not again

I believe tackles aren't an official stat and can therefore vary widely. However, I have no problem combining tackles and assists because its a good measure of whether a player actually had an impact on a play or not.

The ones that traveled to Austin were generally very nice and relaxed. It was funny how much Buckeye fans were like "wow, I don't think the horns could have treated us any better here in Texas!" I think the ones that can afford to travel are the good fans, and the ones that can't set fires instead.

Agreed FFS, mirrors my thoughts on the game.

Depends on which team. Plummer and Delhomme for sure. Also Cadillac Williams.

"Winning is better than losing." - Tom Brady's Press Conference

This is the stupidest reasoning posted so far for not taking the points. Congrats! No you don't. Rather, you're pulling sh-- out of your ass. Again, congrats on the stupidest thread about the call on all of TSW so far!