Chilly
-
Posts
12,485 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Chilly
-
-
I didn't know that Cleveland played against both us and New England yesterday so we could compare stats.
-
Good post.
-
Haha, never been to cincy, and never want to go.
-
Agreeing with Trev Alberts in one week just means that you are watching way too much of that sh--\tastic show.
-
-
hell, why not Cedrick Benson, the only RB in the history of the NCAA who finished top 5 in career rushing and didn't get the heisman?
The award is pretty dumb, voting is unfair.
-
What made me laugh even harder was that I LIVED in Cinci for a year (with apologies to our resident Stuck in Cinci fan on the board).
I went to several games including a few Bills losses in Cinci. I found the average Bungle fan to be fairly rabid, but they drew more than their share of liquored up moonshine drinking backwoods, "who dey" shrieking yahoos who really had nothing to lord over Cleveland.
I will say this about Cinci - the most ENJOYABLE 3- 4- and 5-ways I ever had!!!!
I hope you were really drunk, cause most of the chicks in cincy have, well, male gentalia.
-
http://www.lexandterry.com/photos-show/fea...-deformity.html
Crazy. A pierced nipple on the back of his leg. Can't say I've heard of this before.
-
Sorry Bluefire but that doesn't wash. The Coaches scream about integrity and then these wild swings in the final vote, hidden from the public. Gutless and screams of lobbying. Doesn't look good no matter how you window dress it.
I'm an Ohio St. fan and have no feelings for Cal. I can still smell a rat named Mack Brown making calls to other Coaches. Boy, his respect level just keeps getting better. Can't beat the Sooners and crys for past BCS snubbings. Sounds like payback and the press is right to point it out.
Did you even read the post?
Here's a shortbus version of it:
If none of those votes changed, Texas STILL would have leaped past cal.
I suggest you find a school to root for whose academics matches their football team.
-
-
Courtesy of SynTex on HornFans.com
The Pac 10 commish, the Cal coach, and many others are harping on some of the voting patterns that may have tainted the BCS. Let's talk about it. Let me take item by item some of the problems that have been discussed (and I will make adjustments accordingly).
-- You complain about the 3 Texas based AP voters who switched and put Texas ahead of Cal. I'm gonna switch it back for ya. (typing). There you go!
-- You complain about the Alabama jerk who suddenly realized Texas is not the #9 team, but he suddenly moved us up to #5. Bear in mind, he still had Texas behind you guys, but what the hay? Let's take away those four points from Texas, shall we?
-- You are offended (and you have a case) that some coaches put Texas #2 or #3. You are right. That is wrong. I'm taking it all away. I will take away those points from Texas, and because y'all are so damn confident that you unequivocally outrank Texas, I will reassign all these #2/#3 Texas coach votes to Texas as a #5 vote. (More typing). There we go! And I'm being so nice today, I'm gonna go ahead and leave the pro-Cal #3 vote that mysteriously appeared in the final coaches poll.
-- You are offended that 6 coaches put you #7 or #8. Yes, that's wrong, too. Forget the fact that 8 coaches had Texas #7 or #8, the media is not mentioning that fact at all, but whatever. What I will do for y'all... I will take all 6 Cal #7/#8 votes, and because y'all are so convinced you are the better team, I will magically turn those into #4 votes, ahead of Texas.
So where do we stand after all these very generous changes?
#4 Texas 0.8442
#5 Cal 0.8397
0.0045
That's right. We eliminated a little more than half of the difference. So much for the razor thin margin. So much for the conspiracy taking away your Rose Bowl bid. Y'all need to get together, figure out another injustice, and let me know, so we can try to plug a way for you guys to win.
OK. Now that I have mathematically shown (and given you all are very smart students at Berkeley, and you know based on what I said above, I'm right), let me give you all the reasons why you need to shut up already and just accept your damn Holiday Bowl bid.
1. The "Conspiracy Effect" Doesn't Add Up
This is what was just proven above. In the end, it makes for a neat Trev Alberts, PTI, New York Times, Seattle Times story, but it didn't really matter.
2. You Outranked Us in Both Human Polls
Al Gore wanted a recount, investigations, because he had LOST the human vote. You guys won it, damn it! Not only do you outrank us #4/#5 in the coach's poll, but you have the added benefit of a wedge (Utah) to outrank us #4/#6 in the AP poll. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?? How can you allege fraud in the human polls, when in the end, they WENT IN YOUR FAVOR?
Forget the fact that both teams have identical records, and a good case to make as both teams lost to undefeated national title contenders. It's understandable that some voters will vote Cal #4/Texas #5, and vice versa. If you refuse to accept that premise, you are being naive. It is not a slam dunk case, that in every voter's mind, that you are better than Texas. You know it and we know it. I will never argue that every voter should have Texas higher than Cal, and you should never argue the opposite. It's a grey area.
And in the end, the grey area was in your favor. You are unhappy, because it wasn't overwhelmingly ENOUGH in your favor. Oh well.
3. There's a reason the computers liked Texas
Cal's cumulative opponents win/loss was 61-61, a perfect breakeven.
Texas' cumulative opponents win/loss was 67-56, 11 games over 0.500
That's right. The best way we can try to demote our schedule to your level, is to pull out the undefeated 12-0 record of our best opponent, Oklahoma. But given that you guys [censored] and [censored] and [censored] how close you came to beating your undefeated opponent, I don't think we can accomodate you there.
We beat 5 teams that had 7 or more victories. You defeated one. One. One team that won 7 or more games.
4. Be fair about each of our losses.
I am more than willing to grant you that you played USC better than we played OU. But don't go saying that you practically beat USC (because you outgained them, and your wideout tripped on his route), while we got blown out by OU. The score of the OU game at halftime was Oklahoma 3, Texas 0. It was Oklahoma 6, Texas 0 up until 8 minutes in the 4th quarter. I realize that given you are Pac 10 fans, you must shiver when you see such a defensive struggle. But this was a very close game.
Again, we did not do as well against our rival as you did against yours. You guys were close. But don't go saying that we were blown out by OU.
5. Be fair about each of our sloppy wins.
Kansas. Boy, the media sure loves that game. We played sloppy in that one no doubt, but you guys know that as time was winding down, the Oregon WR dropped a wideopen, easy pass that puts them well within field goal range. So those are both near misses against sub-0.500 teams.
Arkansas. Well, I was happy with that one, it was an electric environment. It was probably closer than it should have been. Honestly, I do think this is a wash with your Southern Miss game. On the road, close at the end (game was nearly tied 17-16 with a mere 6 minutes left). But in the end, the better team won.
If you try to assert that any of our wins beyond KU and Arkansas were low quality or squeakers in nature, you are wrong (in my opinion). I attended and re-watched each of these games. Kansas and Arkansas made me sweat, but as the games concluded, none of the others were really in question, and they were all by reasonable victory margins. Yes, a comeback was needed against Okla State, but we won that game by 21 points.
6. Quit harping on the Big 10/Pac 10 sanctity crap.
For years, the Rose Bowl has been diligent in preserving tradition by always inviting the champion of the Big 10, to play the champion of the Pac 10.
Three teams: Michigan, Cal, and Texas. Only one of them meets this tradition, and last time I checked, that team is going to the Rose Bowl. Tell me, again, how the tradition is being violated.
7. Quit saying Mack Brown's "whining" did the trick.
While you and Utah were off, and after we defeated a ranked A&M team in a rivalry game, Mack Brown made public statements asking for voters to reconsider their votes. Some have portrayed this as "whining," some may say he was politicking, but whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. He was certainly making an appeal to voters.
When the polls came out merely 2 days later (again bearing in mind that Texas beat a ranked team, Cal and Utah were off), here's what happened: Cal GAINED 4 points relative to Texas in the human polls. Texas LOST ground after defeating a ranked team by 13pts, while Cal was off. If ANYTHING, the "whining" backfired. It clearly didn't help.
Here's a thought.... maybe Cal lost ground in the human polls in the following week (a full 9 days after Mack's "whining") because of a subpar performance against a mediocre conference USA opponent. Because they were virtually tied with Southern Miss with only 6 minutes remaining in the game. Not because of Mack's "whining." And if you think it is wrong for Cal to be penalized on ballots because they didn't look good against a mediocre opponent -- welcome to college football. Teams have constantly been tweaked because of soft performances. Nebraska, in 1997, lost considerable votes (relative to Michigan) when it needed some luck to squeak by Mizzou. The precedent is ample, and reasonable. In fact, Texas according to many voters was being penalized for its performance against Kansas. What goes around, comes around.
(Edit: Sincere apologies, slight math error on BCS estimate now corrected. Clear I didn't go to Berkeley! Net effect of edit only 0.0006, so immaterial to the conclusion)
-
lol wait
people were mad that the defense wasn't making turnovers, and now people are mad that they are? lmao
-
I didn't know that 2 INTs was accurate passing.
-
The quickest way to improve a football team is to improve their special teams. That just might be true, I think we are seeing that with the Bills.
Good job McGee and nice blocking.
-
-
totally agree with "guest". Kids are going to play that and try to shoot JFK along with his wife and everyone else and think it's funny. Although, I can see this "game" being used in History classes in High School until there are complaints. I really think we could do WITHOUT this "game"
Maybe we should blame mommy and daddy instead of the game maker if the kids think its funny. Mommy and daddy should have taught the kid the difference between simulation including entertainment and simulation designed for entertainment. Mommy and daddy should also control what the hell their kids do.
If you really think you could do without the game, then do without it. You are in no obligation to buy. Neither am I, and I'm not going to buy it either.
-
Wrong, the EU gave them permission to go ahead just a week or two ago. Iran stated that they understand there are some countries who are concerned with what they ae doing and decided to maintain the peace the will suspend operations. This absolutely means either Israel or the US said it won't exist for very long if they started up and decided to back down. To sit there and say the EU convinced them not to is a flat out lie.
Have you even read anything about what took place or why Iran suspended production of it?
They were in a conference with 3 countries when they agreed to do it: Germany, France, and Britain. The IAEA had a deadline of November 25 for them to stop before they threatened to bring it to the UN security council. Its been the US' position on it for a long time to just bring it to the security council a lot sooner, but the EU would not agree to do it.
The EU felt that they could reach an agreement with Iran to stop or at least suspend the enrichment for a while. The tentative and rather shaky agreement between the EU and Iran was first talked about on November 5th, with Iran compromising on November 11th during the next series of talks.
Iran's decision came based on a couple of things - they wanted to avoid a November 25th deadline from the IAEA to take it to the UN Security Council, and they also wanted an opportunity to have a voluntary compromise in which they would be able to negotiate a solution which would help their country in other ways if they could not continue to pursue their enrichment programs.
The United States was not involved in the discussions, and the United States had been pressing since October to take it to the security council, back when Iran was still defiant about suspension of their uranium enrichment programs. To claim that the US or Isreal had to threaten them for Iran to agree my friend is the flat out lie. Iran was concerned with the IAEA deadline of November 25th and did not want it to go in front of the security council.
-
Yes it would have, because they are listening to the European Union's attempts at diplomacy.
It was the EU that convinced Iran to stop enrichment temporarily, not Bush.
Hopefully It'll last, but a year ago a similar agreement was made and then not kept.
-
Err, Justice is the Judicial Branch, I don't exactly understand what you are trying to get at here.
The Attorney General represents the US Government. That is why he is part of ht exeuctive branch. If you meant the Department of Justice, then yes that is part of the executive branch.
Let me give you an example from FOX News (I can't believe I am agreeing with them so much about Gonzales).
You remember that CIA case about the leaked name Valerie Plame? The Justice Department are the ones responsible for the grand jury probe into whether someone at the White House committed any wrongdoings. However, the Justice Department reports to the White House. Big conflict on interest there, and the Attorney General should be allowed to be kept somewhat apart in investigations like that.
It was relevant as far as Bush making fun of Edwards for being a trial lawyer then supporting a Lawyer that represented Enron. I was drawing a parallel here, and I stated it had nothing to do with his qualifications as AG, just showing hypocracy by Bush.
Somewhere else is the phrase: "We shouldn't expect more from the leaders of our country then we get and we don't have the right to B word when we don't like it."
Technically, such combattants aren't covered by international treaty - they can't be, since they by definition belong to no country that's a signator of the treaties. And even if they were...a goodly amount of them, were they covered by the Geneva Convention, would be subject to summary execution anyway as non-uniformed civilian agents provocateur.Although, to be honest, it's not even that cut-and-dried. But my interpretation is certainly a valid one, and has been for at least 60 years.
That's just the way the treaties were written, that's no fault of Gonzales'.
While thats true, you have to realize that other countries in the world don't view it that way, especially the terrorist groups that are going after us. It might not be Gonzales' fault that it was written that way, but it sure is his and the rest of the administration's fault for entertaining the idea and taking it a step further by using the idea.
Like I said before, the Terrorist groups and other countries see us as a nation that proclaims we treat everyone with respect, and that all people were created equal. By putting into motion this and other similar arguments, we proclaim to them that we are just the opposite and are hypocrites. This jsut adds fuel to their fire. Its not a problem that its written that way, its a problem that we proclaim one thing then do another.
Uh, do you have any idea how many law firms, accounting firms and other professional organizations 'represent' a company as big as Enron? Are you suggesting that anyone who was a partner in one of those organizations is complicit in the Enron scandals?Was Enron even one of Gonzales' CLIENTS???
Haha, like I said, I was just pointing out the fact that Bush was so quick to attack one lawyer then he promotes another with connections to a "shady" law-firm to a top-level cabinet position. Just pointing out the Irony here. I was hoping people wouldn't take it more or less, but I guess I shouldn't have expected anything else with some of the people on this forum who can't read.
I have to go now though, have some errands to do.
No more monster replies from me for a while. -
lol I love that soundbite. Its way too hilarious.
The Democratic party is a joke. Theres no other way you can describe it.
Before this past election, I probably would have said Tom Vilsack would have done the best job. However, he did a pretty piss poor job as co-chair of the platform committee and failed to help out Kerry or Edwards at all. Hell, Bush won Iowa, his state.
I say they might as well make it Harold Ickes. He was an aide to Clinton, maybe he understand what it takes to win.
-
Me, and my convervative friends biggest fears are coming true: People even crazier then Ashcroft are being appointed to top level positions.
Lets look at Gonzalez's list of accomplisments (according to the "fair and balanced" republican, I mean fox news):
- Gonzales has been at the forefront of developing White House policy about detaining terror suspects for extended periods without access to lawyers or courts.
- He wrote the February 2002 memo that allowed Bush to claim the right to waive international treaties when it comes to prisoners of war who do not represent other countries.
- Some administration officials say that the choice of Gonzales is a "concern" to them because the Justice Department should have some independence from the White House, and Gonzales is "weak" and "controlled" by the White House.
- Gonzales also has served as a partner in a Houston law firm that represented the scandal-ridden energy giant Enron Corp.
But wait, Fox News doesn't mention one good thing about this guy!
Now lets review why this is a bad choice for Attorney General.
We claim we are the leaders of the free world, the rest of the world views us as the leaders of the free world. We claim to treat everyone with respect and believe that all humans were created equal, and the rest of the world views us as stating that as well. Then we appoint a guy to be the attorney general who wants to detainee prisoners without rights. Its very clear here: We are sending mixed signals, and unfortunately actions speak louder then words. Want to know why people hate us? Its because of this type of hypocritical stevestojan.
Oh yeah, I mentioned the lawyer thing because I think its funny that Bush was bitching about John Edwards being a trial lawyer then appoints this clown who was at one point part of the firm that represented Enron. Not real relevent but funny nonetheless.
-
Enjoy the freaking win, and enjoy that we played SMASHMOUTH football successfully and mixed it up with passing plays, finally executing Mularkey's offense the way HE WANTED.
Oh and guess what, it produced a dominating win if it wasn't for McGee falling down. Be happy, enjoy it, and realize that this team might (might being the key word here) be coming together the way Mularkey envisioned it.
-
The Jets won the toss and chose the wind in the first half, which meant we got to kick or receive.
Since we lost the toss, we got to decide whether to take the wind, kick, or receive in the 2nd half. We chose to receive, therefore getting the ball in both halves.
-
Seriously the kid took a hell of a beating but kept on winning.
OT Rap is not Music!!
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
If you don't like rap, fine. But don't B word about it.
Why do I and others like rap? Its great party and adrenaline music. Great bass lines work well in clubs and bars, not to mention at apartments and homes with the right systems as well.