smokinandjokin

I hear you. That's as good a logic as any. I'm giving props to Cal for scheduling Tennessee on the road the first game of the year...Not even a 'Utah State' game to work out the kinks. But you also have to give props to Arkansas for playing USC in week 1. The only thing is, USC has really struggled against some middle-of-the-road teams, and has now been fully exposed by a bad loss. Arkansas' blowout loss to the Trojans at home suddenly doesn't look so good. I suppose the real question is if Auburn is the truth or not. I have a hunch they are not. Tied 17-17 with Ole Miss in the 4th quarter on Saturday??? I firmly believe LSU and Florida are better teams, and Auburn was very fortunate to win those games.

HSBC Arena- Sabres vs. Leafs

Hey blue...I'm not trying to dog your rankings here- I like hearing all the different opinions and perceptions of different teams. My one question- You like Arkansas at #10, even after losing 50-14 to USC at home? But Cal doesn't get in the top-10 because they lost in front of 106,000 fans on the road to your #6? I'm telling you, watch out for the Bears. I think with Peterson hurt, Lynch is up there with Slaton as the best two RB's in the country. Tennessee had the benefit of some HUGE plays when they beat Cal- 42-yd TD pass 80-yd TD pass 50-yd TD pass 43-yd TD run Four serious defensive breakdowns in the first game of the season, and they have been rolling since. But both the Bears and the Hogs will have a chance to prove themselves, as Cal has a shot at the Pac10 title when they play USC in LA, while Arkansas still has to visit South Carolina for a night game, as well as Tennessee and LSU at home. I don't think there's any doubt that the SEC is the best conference around top-to-bottom, but four teams in the top-10? You were that impressed with Arkansas' trouncing of Louisiana-Monroe this past Saturday? I think the best team in the PAC10 deserves a little love over the fourth best team in the SEC, but others may not. It's all good...

I loved that Wake game early in the week but then forgot to jump on it on Saturday. I thought they would've covered easy. I had Notre Dame -13, Boston College -32.5, Georgia Tech -5, and Washington St +2. All winners, with the heavies being ND and GT. I lost two light bets- Wisconsin -22 almost lost outright to Illinois, and I took Missouri -1 over Oklahoma. I didn't love the Wisconsin line, but I've been riding them hard every week so I decided to stick with them. Yesterday I lost Saints, Rams, and Carolina. Gotta be Pats -1 tonight, right???

1. Ohio State 2. Michigan 3. West Virginia 4. Florida 5. Notre Dame 6. Texas 7. Tennessee 8. California 9. Auburn 10. Louisville Outside looking in (11-16): USC, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Boston College, Rutgers, Boise State. That's how I see it. -I say WVU overpowers Louisville this Thursday. -USC fell out of my top-10. It was evident the last three games that something was not right with the Trojans. I was expecting them to lose eventually. But to Oregon State? The same Beavers who got ran off the blue turf 42-14 by Boise State? And USC had two weeks to prep? Ouch. No bonus points for the comeback try, when they shouldn't have been down by 23 in the first place. -Notre Dame and Texas are MUCH more dangerous than Tennessee and Auburn, IMO. -I shudder at the thought of Ohio State losing at home to Michigan and still potentially playing in the BCS title game. It would be less-criminal if Michigan plays VERY well and loses, and still backs in to the title game. However, if WVU runs the table, they HAVE to be in there, right? I hope so. -Florida never seemed to be in any danger against Georgia, but they never put the Bulldogs away, either. I think a better team would've blown UGA's doors off, but it was a rivalry game, and as we have seen many times this year, winning ugly is often a necessity.

I have no idea what to make of that line. Typically, spreads in the 3.5 to 5-point range are Vegas' way of saying, "Yeah, um, we really have no clue what's going to happen either." I have been getting my ass kicked by the book this year in the NFL. Thank God for NCAA just keeping me afloat. I win a nice chunk on Saturday and then give it all back on Sunday. My theory is that every NFL team sucks. The hard part is figuring out who is going to suck less that week.

Most dangerous citites: 1. St. Louis 2. Detroit I think it's clear what we can deduce from this information: Violence = A good baseball team

smokinandjokin on June 26, 2006: The team I think has a VERY good chance of going undefeated is West Virginia. They are a little under the radar on a national scale, but the Big East knows who they are. A huge win in a BCS bowl game last year- beating Georgia in Atlanta in the Sugar Bowl- could propel this team to a huge 2006. From the National Champion Predictions thread in this forum.

Yep, bound to happen eventually. USC just isn't that good. With all the close calls in the other games, I almost felt like they were going to win. They've been limping past bad teams all year, if they didn't lose yesterday, it would only be a matter of time. Unfortunately for ND, they would have preferred if the Trojans were undefeated for their game in Nov. Tigers, USC, Sabres...what a weekend.... at least the Bills didn't lose....

"Concussions don't do nothing, and alls the players should be okay to play, no questions asked," said New York Jets concussion analyst, 'Baby' Joe Mesi.

Yikes!

I'm sure Texas has something in the works. These things are typically done WAY in advance. I believe USC has one opening on their 2010 schedule, to replace the OSU game from '08 and '09. Everything else is pretty much set.

A friend of mine used to have seasons in "Leonard's Corner" in the upper deck, and Leonard Smith used to fire footballs up there before and after the games. It was a rowdy time. I know I saw the "Skid Row" sign up last Sunday in the scoreboard end zone. That one is a classic.

USC and Ohio State have set up a home-and-home series for 2008 and 2009. I give Tressell, the AD, and the Buckeyes credit- they aren't dodging anybody.

YES! Well done.

They just don't compete with the "Mair's Office" at HSBC Arena.

I suppose the second year in a scheme allows the athleticism to shine through. More reaction and instinct rather than worrying about if you're in the right spot. They definitely appear quicker on the defensive side of the ball. I noticed that UCLA punted at the end of the game last week and the safety Zibikowski (pretty sure I butchered his name there) was not back to return. Anything up with him?

Every team that ever won a national championship or a major bowl game has had at least one regular season game where, for whatever reason, they didn't bring their best. And when you are a Michigan-ND-USC-Florida-Texas-type school, you take your opponent's best shot every week. In the end, all that matters is that you escape that game with a victory. Whether it's 6-3 in a defensive struggle, or 41-40 on a late TD, the key is that you were able to find a way to win. The pollsters, like Bart mentioned, are skeptical because Notre Dame has had several of these games this year (UCLA, Mich St, GaTech.) When that happens, people question the possibility that it was just a 'down week,' and start to wonder if that's the 'true' team. I can't figure them. Personally, I still rate them very high, and I think they can beat just about anyone in the country. The defense looks better than last year- definitely more athletic, at least. The offense SHOULD be as dynamic, and probably more dynamic than last year, but they haven't been. I don't know why. Did Weis put the entire arsenal out on film last year? Who knows. Anyways, they have four weeks (@ Navy, vs. UNC, @ Air Force, vs. Army) to figure it out before the big showdown in L.A.- and I will be there for that one!

I'll tell you what: THE SABRES ARE UNDEFEATED, BABY!!!

I hear yah, one building certainly doesn't mean that Buffalo has dug itself out of it's slump. However, any groundbreaking around here (or potential groundbreaking) is cause for celebration. I think what's different about this one is that it is 100% privately financed. A British businessman, who has not gotten to where he is by losing money, sees Buffalo as viable investment. That's definitely progress. Additionally, this is a building that can house office space for businesses, adds hotel space to downtown, and will include several high-end condos on the top floors. I would assume this only helps fringe businesses such as restaurants, shops, etc. And, this is not a Bass Pro- this will be the tallest building in Buffalo and alter the city's skyline forever. That's why this one seems to be more of a 'bigger deal' than previous announcements. And the fact that no public money is needed gives it an obvious advantage.

Chef doesn't need to read articles. He knows everything about Buffalo's dismal past, present, and future, and he does not let facts or potential good news get in the way of his disdain as he glares down at WNY's unwashed masses.

Office space, hotel, and condos. Commercial skyscrapers typically have tenants other than that where you come from?

Can one of the mod's write some code which would merge every PPP thread into one monster thread after four or five posts? They all dissolve into the same mindless posts threatening other posters over the same mindless garbage. I realize why I never drop in over here. Some of you are WAY too dumb to be posting your opinion on these issues, and those of you who are smart are still dumb enough to argue with these idiots. I can't tell you how many thread titles over here have looked interesting, and really had the potential to provoke thought and challenge assumptions. Then post #3 is: Thanks for the insight.

Sounds like you shoulda voted for the Islanders in this poll to set up the reverse jinx!