VeeshanVault

With the exception of Winnow, who is obviously trolling, I think every other person on this forum is pretty knowledgeable about sports and football in particular so I am not sure who you are talking about. OSU got schooled again, deal with it. I mean come on, I am a Notre Dame fan, it could be worse. You could have lost to Navy. At least you get to lose a bowl game every year.

Tyek wrote: You could have lost to Navy. At least you get to lose a bowl game every year.

I was attending OSU (during the Earle Bruce/John Cooper Years) while my sister was at the USAF Academy. They beat Ohio State in a bowl game and my sister laughed at me. True fact.

I loved how ESPN pointed out last night that USC cannot complain about their final pole position. They pointed out the Big 10 and the Pac 10 are to blame for their holding out on a playoff system.

Dan Patrick was saying this morning that the BCS was looking into a 4 team playoffs.

I'll say that my knowledge of college football is pretty weak. Anything in the last 5 years and I'm pretty up on it, but beyond that there are millions of people that know a lot more than me.

That said, USC fucked themselves in the ass. Sure Booty broke his thumb on his throwing hand during the Stanford game, and continued to play (poorly), but the reality is USC's defense should have stepped up and locked that game down. Had they not lost to Stanford, they'd be looking at a national championship this year instead of a Rose Bowl victory where they (once again) decimated their opponent. The loss to Stanford was inexcusable.

All that said, I will not listen to the bullshit argument (no matter who's advocating it) that SC's loss to Stanford was a bigger upset than Michigan (I like Michigan a lot so don't fucking accuse me of hating on them for fun) losing to Appalachian state. I'm fully aware of what a good team Appalachian state is, but it's still a retarded argument. Jim Harbaugh thought he could beat USC. He said as much during the summer. The Stanford program is always going to suffer their academic requirements, but I strongly believe that they'll be playing better and better in the coming years with Harbaugh as their coach. Bottom line is that Stanford is a Div-1 school in the Pac-10 conference, and Appalachian state... isn't.

I totally agree Noel, a conference game should always have a possibility of an upset. These team know each other better. USC should have won, but it is different then App State coming into the the home of the winningest program in Div 1 football and walking out with the win.

noel wrote:Bottom line is that Stanford is a Div-1 school in the Pac-10 conference, and Appalachian state... isn't.

And what does that mean? The worst D-1 team is automatically better than the best D-1AA? I'm not implying that Stanford is the worst D-1 team, but App. State has proven that they are the best 1AA team for 3 years running. Statistical analysis that compares all the competition that the both of them have played says that App. State is better than Stanford by at least 25 teams.

To say "a conference game should always have a possibility of an upset" is retarded. Every game has the possibility of an upset, that's why they play the games. In fact, if you paid any attention to this season, you noticed that there was a big upset every single week and no less than 3 different "greatest upsets of all time" (Michigan-App State, USC-Stanford, Louisville?? or someone). I also won't agree that "knowing each other better" means you're more likely to be upset than "not knowing anything about the other one" does. Or "totally overlooking someone who you think is way beneath you".

USC is better than the Stanford loss would indicate. Michigan is better than the App. State loss would indicate. If you matched Michigan up with USC, with both of them playing at the levels they did in their bowl games, I think it would have been a hell of a game. If Mike Hart doesn't fumble for the first (and second) time in over 1000 touches, I think Michigan wins that game.

Sylvus wrote:

noel wrote:Bottom line is that Stanford is a Div-1 school in the Pac-10 conference, and Appalachian state... isn't.

And what does that mean? The worst D-1 team is automatically better than the best D-1AA? I'm not implying that Stanford is the worst D-1 team, but App. State has proven that they are the best 1AA team for 3 years running. Statistical analysis that compares all the competition that the both of them have played says that App. State is better than Stanford by at least 25 teams.

To say "a conference game should always have a possibility of an upset" is retarded. Every game has the possibility of an upset, that's why they play the games. In fact, if you paid any attention to this season, you noticed that there was a big upset every single week and no less than 3 different "greatest upsets of all time" (Michigan-App State, USC-Stanford, Louisville?? or someone). I also won't agree that "knowing each other better" means you're more likely to be upset than "not knowing anything about the other one" does. Or "totally overlooking someone who you think is way beneath you".

USC is better than the Stanford loss would indicate. Michigan is better than the App. State loss would indicate. If you matched Michigan up with USC, with both of them playing at the levels they did in their bowl games, I think it would have been a hell of a game. If Mike Hart doesn't fumble for the first (and second) time in over 1000 touches, I think Michigan wins that game.

App. State would [most likely] destroy Stanford. You're exactly right when you say that's 'why you play the games'. In reality, as much as I like Pete Carroll and Lloyd Carr, I believe both teams lost to their respective opponents for the same reason... they took them for granted and underestimated them. That's a coaching mistake in both cases.

I do think 'knowing each other better' if you 'know the other team generally sucks' can lead to an upset because you take them for granted. I also think 'knowing each other better' leads to a better more competitive game. Like say... Michigan - OSU or the Pats and the Colts. Both Michigan and USC were great teams this year, they just overlooked their shittiest opponents and paid for it. That said, if I have to rank the two losses as which was a greater upset, I'm giving it to Michigan's loss to App state. Pretty clearly by the end of the year, they were taking nothing for granted and their record and bowl appearance reflected that.

I agree every game has the possibility of an upset, but you are going to tell me that familiarity with an opponent does not help in some way? I know there were 3 "greatest of all time upsets" this year and 2 of them were conference games. I never said you had to agree with me, but I don't think it is a retarded comment.

Even coaches talk about the danger of playing a team you already know. Granted Lou Holtz and a few other talked about the Dangers of playing a high school team too, but all in all, I bet if you asked, most coaches would agree with my statement.

I agree every game has the possibility of an upset, but you are going to tell me that familiarity with an opponent does not help in some way? I know there were 3 "greatest of all time upsets" this year and 2 of them were conference games. I never said you had to agree with me, but I don't think it is a retarded comment.

Even coaches talk about the danger of playing a team you already know. Granted Lou Holtz and a few other talked about the Dangers of playing a high school team too, but all in all, I bet if you asked, most coaches would agree with my statement.

I certainly don't expect you to agree with my Sylvus. Hell I don't even think Jim Rome agrees with me, and he's probably my favorite sports talk person on the planet.

[quote="Tyek"]. OSU got schooled again, deal with it.[\quote]

I am saying OSU played poorly and lost. Watching the game you could clearly see they had the talent to play with LSU and could have even won if they had not executed so poorly in some phases of the game ie: throwing horrible INT's, losing fumbles, bad play calling, etc. The speed OSU had this year actually surprised me. With most of those kids being Juniors and newer, they could be a serious force next year if they all stay.

Killmoll, I am having a little fun with you. I think OSU is good, I don't think they had a chance in hell of winning last night, but they are one of the top teams in the country. People get Wayyyyyy to serious here sometimes. If my having a little fun is bugging you then sorry. At least we both like Pittsburgh

As for the Appalachian State thing, yes they have accomplished an amazing feat. Winning 3 titles in a row in anything is incredible, but Hawaii dominated its opponents all season and looked like crap against Georgia. App State just had the right combination of offensive speed and style that Michigan was weak against on that specific day. The USC loss to Stanford was unforgivable and it cost them a shot at the title, but year in year out I would take Stanford in a game over App State. I would bet they would win 7 or 8 meetings against App State out of 10 this season. I don't give a crap what some statistical analysis says. Didn't that same report show OSU was the top team in the country????

App State is a GREAT D2 school, but don't try and make them out to be more then they are. Hell even they lost 2 games this year, which in the crappy Division 1 level would knock them out of contention in every year but this one, but with a playoff they showed they were champs. Think the NCAA would actually figure out maybe that system works??

Tyek wrote:App State is a GREAT D2 school, but don't try and make them out to be more then they are. Hell even they lost 2 games this year, which in the crappy Division 1 level would knock them out of contention in every year but this one, but with a playoff they showed they were champs. Think the NCAA would actually figure out maybe that system works??

huh? They aren't D2. They are D1-AA or Football Championship Subdivision. That is "above" D2. Also:

Subdivisions in Division I are important only in football. In all other sports, all Division I conferences are considered equivalent

Thanks Boog, I meant 1AA. not D2.

I think there is not only a difference in 1AA to Whatever the new names are. I think there are serious divides between the top conferences and the secondary ones. You might find one team like Boise that could win some games, but in a major conference, they would be near the bottom on a pretty regular basis.

Again, App State has done something amazing winning 3 straight titles, but lets not make them more then they are.

The Big Ten blows. Lets not lose sight of that in these "what if" scenarios.

One Big Ten team finished above Arizona State, a team that most here don't think is that good. Big Ten performed horribly in the post season. The fact that OhioSU gets to the championship game again is more about their weak schedule than being deserving. I'd take USC any day. They don't hide behind playing 1-AA teams or other weak out of conference teams. They lost to an in conference team in a conference that was second best in the nation this year, not fighting for sixth best like the Big Ten. If we're going to be making up excuses, USC had a shitload of injuries going into the Stanford game. There's an excuse to throw in with all of the Big Ten excuses...except when all is said and done, OhioSU lost again in a bowl game, and besides continuously losing bowls and OhioSU avoiding difficult out of state opponents, the entire Big Ten conference was worse than Arizona State, a team that wasn't even ranked at the beginning of the year and probably 4th best in their own conference.

Sueven's year-end conference rankings:

1. SEC. Don't think an explanation is necessary.

2. Big 12. Champion Oklahoma shit the bed against West Virginia, but is still a good team with some impressive wins. Missouri, the runner-up, hammered a decent Arkansas team. Kansas, the third place team, beat the ACC champion. Texas, the fourth place team, humiliated the Pac Ten's number two team. The Big 12 is weak in terms of depth, but the strength of their top 4, plus a good year from Texas Tech, makes them the no-brainer choice for this position. Not even close.

3. Tie. Pac Ten and Big East. This was a very, very close call. I changed my mind four times while writing this post, so I decided to leave it a tie. Both conferences had one top-notch team who was a legit title contender, USC and WVU. It's criminal that West Virginia is ranked #6 in the final AP poll. Are you fucking serious!?!? Ranked BEHIND Ohio State? Fucking outrageous. Both teams have similar resumes, having torn through weak conferences, both with a bad loss (Stanford, Pitt) and a decent loss (Oregon, South Florida). Neither out-of-conference slate is all that impressive, although neither is horrific (Mississippi State is a good win for WVU, and USC at least made an effort by scheduling Nebraska and Notre Dame). So, while USC probably gets a slight edge, the top teams are basically a wash. Neither conference has another top-tier team, with the Pac Ten's second tier offering up, in order, Oregon (would have been top-notch if not for injury), Oregon State (improved as the year went on), Arizona State (your classic good bad team). The Big East's second tier consists of Cincinnati (surprisingly strong year, including easy win over Oregon State), South Florida (played great except for one three-game stretch, and then blew it in a bowl game), and Connecticut (the anti-Oregon State). Third tier in the Pac Ten consists of California (one of the most embarrassing collapses I've ever seen) and UCLA (finished 6-7, lost to Notre Dame, and was still in contention for the Rose Bowl up to the bitter end), while in the Big East it's Rutgers and Louisville. The dregs of the Pac Ten are Arizona, Stanford, Washington State and Washington (who may be on the rise,) and the Big East features Syracuse (not on the rise) and Pitt (potentially on the rise).

If you can choose between those slates, good for you, but I can't. I think it's a draw at the top tier, a slight edge for the Pac Ten at the second tier, a draw at the third tier, and a slight edge for the Big East at the bottom.

5. ACC. Mediocre all the way through-- 2-6 in bowl games, few compelling players, few compelling teams, few compelling games, the champion lost to Kansas and lost 48-7 to LSU.

6. Big Ten. Worse than mediocre. Michigan's win over Florida was literally the ONLY bright spot in a season that also featured Michigan losing to Appalachian State, Northwestern losing to Duke, Penn State running potentially the most boring offense I've ever seen, The Big Ten Network, and Ron Zook somehow leading Illinois to glory. It's entirely possible that the Big Ten has better teams than the ACC, but on the strength of the most horrific year any conference has had since the Big East defections, this spot is reserved.

Winnow wrote:The Big Ten blows. Lets not lose sight of that in these "what if" scenarios.

One Big Ten team finished above Arizona State, a team that most here don't think is that good. Big Ten performed horribly in the post season. The fact that OhioSU gets to the championship game again is more about their weak schedule than being deserving. I'd take USC any day. They don't hide behind playing 1-AA teams or other weak out of conference teams. They lost to an in conference team in a conference that was second best in the nation this year, not fighting for sixth best like the Big Ten. If we're going to be making up excuses, USC had a shitload of injuries going into the Stanford game. There's an excuse to throw in with all of the Big Ten excuses...except when all is said and done, OhioSU lost again in a bowl game, and besides continuously losing bowls and OhioSU avoiding difficult out of state opponents, the entire Big Ten conference was worse than Arizona State, a team that wasn't even ranked at the beginning of the year and probably 4th best in their own conference.

You're completely right. Next year we loaded up our schedule with more cake opponents. We play USC in week 2 or 3.

Zamtuk wrote:
You're completely right. Next year we loaded up our schedule with more cake opponents. We play USC in week 2 or 3.

I already addressed OhioSU's next two years that they play USC and have removed the Buckeyes from National Contention for those reasons....although...I think this is a scam...pretty smart on OhioSU's part....get blown out by USC but cruise through the rest of the cream puff schedule and you'll probably get back to the Championship game again while USC has to go on to play some real teams to get there.

I was going to respond to Sueven's conference rankings until I realized he must have been ranking them in order of which one he'd like to date or something. I'm not sure how "The Big Ten Network", Penn State's unsexy offense, or Ron Zook have anything to do with the strength of a conference.

Winnow wrote:

Zamtuk wrote:
You're completely right. Next year we loaded up our schedule with more cake opponents. We play USC in week 2 or 3.

I already addressed OhioSU's next two years that they play USC and have removed the Buckeyes from National Contention for those reasons....although...I think this is a scam...pretty smart on OhioSU's part....get blown out by USC but cruise through the rest of the cream puff schedule and you'll probably get back to the Championship game again while USC has to go on to play some real teams to get there.

So if the Buckeyes beat USC will you shut the hell up?

Ashur wrote:So if the Buckeyes beat USC will you shut the hell up?

I will. You'll forgive me if I don't lose sleep wondering if OSU will beat USC.

noel wrote:

Ashur wrote:So if the Buckeyes beat USC will you shut the hell up?

I will. You'll forgive me if I don't lose sleep wondering if OSU will beat USC.

Winnow?

Nothing.....and I mean nothing will ever shut Winnow up. His non-stop postings and relentless stupidity are the only thing he has. It was the same exact type of postings we had to deal with for eons in CT until he was booted basically for his unending postings alone.

Right now, the Big Ten(11) is at or near the bottom of the BCS competitive NCAA football conferences so there's not much to argue about.

Hopefully whoever mistakenly has ranked OhioSU so high the past few years will do it again next year. Make them #1 heading into the USC game.

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:

Tyek wrote:. OSU got schooled again, deal with it.

I am saying OSU played poorly and lost. Watching the game you could clearly see they had the talent to play with LSU and could have even won if they had not executed so poorly in some phases of the game ie: throwing horrible INT's, losing fumbles, bad play calling, etc. The speed OSU had this year actually surprised me. With most of those kids being Juniors and newer, they could be a serious force next year if they all stay.

I must have been watching a different game. Except for around the last 10 minutes, I did not see an Ohio State team with the talent to play with LSU or win. I saw a defense that was too slow to respond, unable to tackle, an offensive line unable to stop the LSU D-line from assaulting the QB repeatedly, and receivers unable to break free of the coverage.

Boogahz wrote:

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:

Tyek wrote:. OSU got schooled again, deal with it.

I am saying OSU played poorly and lost. Watching the game you could clearly see they had the talent to play with LSU and could have even won if they had not executed so poorly in some phases of the game ie: throwing horrible INT's, losing fumbles, bad play calling, etc. The speed OSU had this year actually surprised me. With most of those kids being Juniors and newer, they could be a serious force next year if they all stay.

I must have been watching a different game. Except for around the last 10 minutes, I did not see an Ohio State team with the talent to play with LSU or win. I saw a defense that was too slow to respond, unable to tackle, an offensive line unable to stop the LSU D-line from assaulting the QB repeatedly, and receivers unable to break free of the coverage.

I think you were watching a different game. Ohio State absolutely had the talent to play with, and even beat, LSU. LSU could not stop Beanie Wells, to the tune of like 120 yards on 10 carries with 1 TD in the first half. Ohio State had more total yards, more yards per carry and more yards per pass. Mistakes lost that game for Ohio State. The FG that they had blocked allowed LSU to get some momentum, and then it was mental errors from there. They had LSU stopped before that dumb roughing the kicker penalty resurrected that drive and allowed LSU to score. Two of LSU's drives were buoyed by 60 yards of Ohio State penalties. Add in the 3 turnovers and we get the final result that you saw on Monday.

Sylvus wrote:I was going to respond to Sueven's conference rankings until I realized he must have been ranking them in order of which one he'd like to date or something. I'm not sure how "The Big Ten Network", Penn State's unsexy offense, or Ron Zook have anything to do with the strength of a conference.

Ranking by strength of teams, I'd put the Big Ten at #5.

Sylvus wrote:I think you were watching a different game.

The one place where Ohio State looked reaaally bad was along the offensive line. Those poor tackles of theirs are leaving this with two consecutive utter humiliations on their record.

Aren't penalties and turnovers part of how you judge the performance of a team? At some point, it's not just bad luck.

I think the problem with OSU and Michigan in general is that they care more about beating each other than winning the national championship.

Flame on, boys.

I'll not argue with that statement, but I don't see the relevance. You try to win all your games, no?

Of course. But as an example... To UCLA, beating USC traditionally has more important than anything else (which is fucking stupid). To USC, beating UCLA is just another team on the path to what they're really trying to accomplish. Their records reflect that.

Edit: Here's how stupid it is... Karl Dorell wasn't fired LAST year because he managed to upset USC.

Winnow wrote:Aren't penalties and turnovers part of how you judge the performance of a team? At some point, it's not just bad luck.

Who said it was bad luck? The statement was presented that OSU did not have the talent to play with LSU. They definitely had the talent, they made too many mistakes. They performed badly, yes. It's not like the talent disparity was as great as, say, USC and Stanford.

Sylvus wrote:

Winnow wrote:Aren't penalties and turnovers part of how you judge the performance of a team? At some point, it's not just bad luck.

Who said it was bad luck? The statement was presented that OSU did not have the talent to play with LSU. They definitely had the talent, they made too many mistakes. They performed badly, yes. It's not like the talent disparity was as great as, say, USC and Stanford.

Watching the game you could clearly see they had the talent

That is the section I was responding to, and I stand by my statement that you could NOT "clearly see they had the talent" during this game. Playing like shit does not "clearly" show anything, other than the ability to play like shit.

Sylvus wrote:

Winnow wrote:Aren't penalties and turnovers part of how you judge the performance of a team? At some point, it's not just bad luck.

Who said it was bad luck? The statement was presented that OSU did not have the talent to play with LSU. They definitely had the talent, they made too many mistakes. They performed badly, yes. It's not like the talent disparity was as great as, say, USC and Stanford.

Texas vs. ASU is a more apt comparison, Sylvus.

If there's any truth to this. OSU's chances to beat USC next year are looking up!

I hope he stays.

Tyek wrote:But Noel, They play USC next year. And the powerhouse grouping of Ohio, Troy and Youngstown State!!!

USC Plays Virginia, Ohio State and a better Notre Dame team.

lol, i just noticed this little gem. A "better" Notre Dame team? So, what, they are planning to build on their amazing 3 win program from this past season? That is almost winnowish right there.

I thought it was a good move that you didn't really say much about your team after they got beat by Stanford, but now that you won your bowl game and we lost, here you come. Good for you, we did lose, a second one in a row! Penalties and INT's (good for LSU's defense, bad for Boeckman) cost us the game. But say how outmatched we were. Hence four personal foul penalties, since we were so outmatched...

Take your sour grapes up to northern California and have them make a great Pinot Noir that you can drink while you are masturbating over the Pac Ten and the one week or so you become a rabid SEC fan.

Not sure if that was aimed at me, but I have stated MANY times, I like UCLA and Notre Dame. Fire away at them, I don't care, they both suck and have sucked for a long time. They are the reams I grew up liking so they are the teams I am sticking with. Yes, I think Notre Dame will get better, whether that means 5 wins or not I am not sure. I will be happy not to lose to Navy!

Being a fan of those teams actually makes USC's dominance painful, but it is nice to see a Pac 10 team get some credit. The best part of this is that I actually complimented your team, pointed out I was having fun with you, but the OSU fans seem so myopic that any inference that they are not the world's most perfect wonderful team seems to generate anger. Oh well.

I actually think you have a shot to beat USC next year. I also think the rest of your schedule SUCKS.

Zamtuk wrote:

Sylvus wrote:

Winnow wrote:Aren't penalties and turnovers part of how you judge the performance of a team? At some point, it's not just bad luck.

Who said it was bad luck? The statement was presented that OSU did not have the talent to play with LSU. They definitely had the talent, they made too many mistakes. They performed badly, yes. It's not like the talent disparity was as great as, say, USC and Stanford.

Texas vs. ASU is a more apt comparison, Sylvus.

It sucks that the Texas team which showed up in this year's Holiday Bowl was not the same team that showed up all season. If it had, I believe it could have been playing for the BCS Championship!

Tyek wrote:Not sure if that was aimed at me, but I have stated MANY times, I like UCLA and Notre Dame. Fire away at them, I don't care, they both suck and have sucked for a long time.

I can relate, as one reason I like college football so much is I'm a Bengals fan.

They looked damn good Boog, but then again, they were only playing ASU. That might have been part of the reason they looked so good.

Am I the only one not making excuses for their team losing? Kilmoll is a classic excuse machine when it comes to the Steelers. "Big Ben would be more relaxed and throw less picks if he let me give him a rim job before games"

Teams don't make mistakes. They're either not coached well enough, forced into making bad decisions, or not talented enough. That's usually because a better team is forcing them into bad plays and decisions. The player may also be too dumb to be coached.

As for OhioSU, it doesn't matter how many of those stickers players put on their helmets. If stickers were taken away for bad plays, they'd have nice clean helmets. OhioSU might start playing better if they worried less about stickers, more about team play, and maybe recruit someone that's not a hillbilly corn farmer once in awhile.

lol @ sylvus defending ohio st. and the word "winnowish"

I really can't talk because my beloved Sooners were fucking embarrassed for the 2nd consecutive year in the Fiesta Bowl. FUCK.

This has been a very disappointing football season for me. I was last place in both my fantasy leagues, my sooners lost and my bucs lost. I was so disgusted I didn't bother watching the national championship for the first time in a decade. I looked at the score at halftime and cheered.

I hate the big 10, fucking hate them. They are the scam of the bcs. It is because of their politics that a (generous) rank 13 Illinois even gets to participate in a fucking bcs bowl game. It is because of their politics that there is no playoff system. It is because of their politics that an undeserving ohio state gets to go to the national title game, not once, but twice in a row. You can make all the excuses and justifications you like, but the system is rigged for the big 10, plain and simple.

Ahh, I do get a chuckle listening to an OU fan complain. They are like the one team who has it worse than we do!

Sorry Tyek, I keep thinkng your a USC fan for some dumbass reason! Change that damned location.

LOL Zamtuk, UCLA is based here too!

Since the school I went to hasn't been known for football (or even had football) since Tom Cruise wanted to get a scholarship to it in "All the Right Moves." I picked Notre Dame in the 70-80's when I was a kid. They were good then, I am assuming that is why I am a Yankee, Notre Dame, Steelers, Lakers and New York Islanders fan as well. I decided to stick with those, although being local I did start to like some local teams. The Kings and Angels (who my friend played for) and then UCLA.

I worked at Angel Stadium in High School. I worked the food bar at Angel Stadium for Angels and Rams games. Damn I am old!!


<-------Check out the location now Zamtuk

Winnow wrote:Am I the only one not making excuses for their team losing? Kilmoll is a classic excuse machine when it comes to the Steelers. "Big Ben would be more relaxed and throw less picks if he let me give him a rim job before games"

.

Listen here you stupid arizona suckign fuckstain, I am not an OSU fan nor a Big (insert conference here fan). I went to a mid-major and am a fan only of that team in the college ranks. I can be a hell of a lot more objective than you and quite frankly I know more about football than you know about being an annoying asshat. So yea....when I say that Pitt's offensive line blows nutsack and is a major reason we struggled at times this year, it is because I watched the games and I see all the little shit that adds up to losses. If you actually wanted to debate on something and had even the ability of a gnat to actually understand what people tell you, then I could guarantee you a crushing loss like you are used to as an arizona fan of (name your arizona sport).

Careful people ASU basketball is off to a good start and I smell their own thread about to kick up here. Back away Winnow, back away.

The excuse thing is funny though. Doesn't Winnow think the Suns are the defending champions because of a bad refereeing job and a Stern conspiracy? That is not an excuse?

I think I've said this before, but here's my rooting order:

1. UCLA - Sucked this year mostly due to (in this order) 1) a recruit that didn't live up to the hype (Ben Olson), 2) Injuries (riddled the entire Pac-10 so what're you going to do), 3) coaching (head coach should have been fired the previous year but he managed to beat USC so he got to stay ><)
2. Any Pac-10 team playing any out of conference game - Pretty simple logic here. Wins for the Pac-10 indirectly help UCLA.

That's it.

As I said, he is a complete sports moron. He is one of those people that looks solely at big numbers and and thinks they always corelate into wins. He probably also thinks John Madden is a genius.

Teabagger!

Go Devils! Finally beat UofA in hoops even though the Wildcats are washed up, it's nice to see.

I know enough about sports to see the Steelers are overrated. That doesn't take a sports genius though.

I've also said multiple times on this board that I'm a fan of Arizona sports teams and am no expert on sports in general. Neither are any of you so don't kid yourselves. Sueven seems to know the most, generally speaking.

My "rooting order"

1.Arizona teams
2.Pac 10 teams
3.West Coast Teams vs East Coast Teams
4.Any team exposing the overrated Big Ten schools.