droid327

is calling it a "rumble" a played out cliche of a joke? :)

I was just watching Full Count on Yahoo, and it said "SLN @ ARI". I was a little confused as to when Salinas or San Leandro had gotten an MLB franchise, but apparently they were talking about the Cards...

Its not something new, apparently there's YouTube clips featuring "SLN" going back to at least 2009. Where is the N coming from? There is no N in St Louis, unless you spell it out, but even then the N comes before the L...

There's 6 SEC squads and 6 Pac squads currently in the BCS rankings. How do you think they'd fare if they all squared off in order? Tell me what you think the outcome of each game would be, assuming neutral site:

Oregon-Alabama

Georgia-Stanford

Florida-Oregon St

LSU-UCLA

TAMU-USC

S Car-Washington

I always figured the SEC has their rankings inflated by about +10 because of all the hype, which would put them right about the same spot as the Pac-12 teams...and most of these matchups sound pretty even, which would support that.

I'm just saying, I wouldnt mind being embedded in her for a year....

Also, has no one made this joke yet? Her biography of Petraeus is titled "All In". I mean come on, someone take a swing at it.....

Right now both the SEC and the Pac-12 have 6 teams in the BCS top 25. Keep in mind that that's fully half the Pac-12, while the SEC has 16 teams. Its been that way for most of the season, actually; also, I think 9 of the 12 have been ranked at some point, showing what a top-to-bottom conference it is. When are people in the media going to start entertaining the idea that the Pac-12 may be stronger than the SEC this year?

Two of those six are the Gators and Gamecocks, who seem to be in there just solely based on the fact they're SEC. Both have done nothing in the last two weeks except squeaker wins against way weaker programs, yet both seem to be immune to losing any standing whatsoever in the rankings.

The Aggies werent supposed to do good this year. New QB, new coach, and it was the first year they were "moving up to big boy football" in the supposedly glorious SEC.

They've done the opposite, though, culminating tonight in handling a Bama team that was supposed to be better than some NFL teams, on an inexorable road back to a national championship.

Does this finally show that the SEC is not quite as head-and-shoulders above the rest of college football as people have been repeating? Does it perhaps show that the gilded SEC is partly just a product of ESPN hype and relying mostly on beating other SEC teams to reinforce their rankings each year?

I'm thinking Oregon-ND might be in the works now for the championship game...

The Dodgers put in a waiver claim on Cliff Lee from Philadelphia...how many freakin' Phillies are they going to pick up? They already got Victorino and Blanton from them...they have one bad season and the Dodgers raid their roster like it was an estate sale.

The Phils beat the Dodgers two years straight in the postseason a couple years ago, and I remember Victorino had some big games in those series - now it seems like LA is having the last laugh :)

I was just reading something that brought up how comic books have been "breaking down barriers" with openly gay heroes, mixed-race characters, etc. And thats all well and good, I dont have a problem with that or anything, but it made me wonder how many, or if there are any, comic book characters that have come out as a social conservative.

Obviously you can make the case that someone like Tony Stark probably is, because he's a rich industrialist, but have any actually overtly stated anything, or at least had it heavily suggested? Said something in support of the comic book proxies for real-world conservative figures, etc.?

Someone else pointed out to me that, when you do have a character taking a clearly conservative position, its rarely a sympathetic character and almost always just so they can be "proven wrong" somehow, ultimately.

I know he's not as newsworthy as Manning or Tebow in the AFC West, but he really came into his own last year once he learned the system.

If you look at his stats over the final quarter of the season (in which the Raiders were competing for a playoff spot up until the very end, against good teams like GB and DET with an angry Suh, no "garbage games"), and project that for a full season, he's throwing for over 5000 yards and 20 TDs. That's potentially Pro Bowl numbers in the AFC, especially if Manning doesnt pan out in Denver as hoped. And that was without McFadden, to boot.

The Raiders are going to return most of their passcatchers (they released TE Boss), so he's going to keep the chemistry he has with guys like Moore. Al Saunders is still on the offensive coaching staff, so there should be some continuity in the offensive scheme as well. McFadden is a good receiver out of the backfield, too, when healthy, and will force more defenders up to the line.

On paper, everything looks great - so why isnt he getting any buzz, and many Raider fans still acting like the trade is already a bust?

He's worked great as a tandem with DMC, filling in as the starter when Darren (seemingly inevitably) gets injured. However, you cant blame the guy for wanting a chance to be the opening-day starter somewhere.

I dont think he's cut out to be a 16-game starter. I think he's too physical to last a full season without too much injury and wear (see: Shaun Alexander), and he needs a complementary back. I think he's at his best in a system like Oakland's, and I think Oakland needs a runner of his style to complement and back up McFadden. But he's not going to come back for "backup money".

What do you think? Should we sign Bush back and pay him feature-back money to be the 3rd-down/backup RB? Or should we let him go, and go after someone else like Mike Tolbert, who could fill that same role as a runner, red-zone back, and pass-catcher out of the backfield, but wouldnt command as much salary?

I dont see why the media is making it out like if the Colts draft Luck, they're going to trade Manning, and both can't coexist on the same team for a while yet.

I seem to remember there was another star QB taken in the first round of the draft, that sat behind a future hall-of-famer for several years until he finally got his shot, and Aaron Rodgers seems to have done OK for himself since then.

Now, granted, he wasnt the first overall pick, but his 6-year, $65 million contract is still more than the roughly 4-year, 22-million (with a team option 5th year) that Luck would get under the new CBA, similar to what Cam Newton got this year. The Colts can definitely afford to pay Luck that to be the backup for a couple years, especially given how much they sucked this year when Manning was out. He can sit, learn a while, and then in a few years when Manning is declining or wants to retire or gets injured, he's ready to take the reins for the Colts (pun intended).

I just dont see what all the drama is about...

DEN behind Orton went 1-4, giving up ~28 ppg

DEN behind Tebow went 5-1, giving up ~21 ppg. A difference of one TD per game.

3 of those 4 losses under Orton were by a touchdown or less. 4 of the 5 wins under Tebow were by a touchdown or less.

That means that if the defense had played as good all year as it does now, Orton would have been 4-1 as the starter. Conversely, if the defense had stayed as bad as it was at the start of the year, Tebow would be 1-5.

Now tell me that its because of Tebow that the Broncos are winning, and its not because Von Miller is getting acclimated to the NFL and Elvis Dumervil is getting back in form after missing last year with an injury. Tell me how Tebow manages to hold opponents to 7 points less per game, from the sidelines while DEN is on defense.

Say that Stanford beats OSU soundly (or vice versa) in the Fiesta Bowl, and then Bama beats LSU, but in another boring and thorougly unconvincing win. This leads the AP to hop Stanford up over both the SEC teams and declare them the end-of-year #1, like what happened in 2004. Would you consider it another split championship?

I know the BCS was created to be the "undisputed" championship for college football, but really, its legitimacy has been questioned more and more every year since 2004. What makes it more legitimate than the AP poll, if the grand majority of the fanbase wont be satisfied until there's a playoff system? When most people recognize the current arrangement is meant more to serve the monetary interests of schools, conferences, and bowl organizers, than to actually determine a champion?

Of course, maybe LSU wins by 28, and its all moot this year...but at some point, doesnt the BCS have to re-establish its credibility with fans, before it can claim to be the sole arbiter of champions?

Here's my suggestion for restructuring NCAA football. Please tell me what the arguments would be against it, why it wouldnt work or be a good idea....

Eliminate all the current conferences, and restructure with 4 12-team Major conferences with 6-team divisions. The remaining FBS schools would fill out 6 10-team Minor conferences.

The 4 Major conferences each year would be made up of the top 42-ranked teams from the previous year (the exact rankings formula for this TBD), plus the 6 winners of the Minor conferences from the previous year. The conferences would be seeded by rank, so that Major A would be #1, 5, 9, 13, etc. and Major B would be #2, 5, 10, 14, etc. The 6-team subdivisions would be divided by geography within the 12-team draws, so the 6 western/northernmost teams in Major A would be one subdivision, and the 6 eastern/southernmost would be the other.

The 6 Minor conferences would be divided geographically, since those smaller schools can't handle the cost of traveling as much.

Every year the conferences are reseeded, so that smaller teams that play well have a chance at promotion to a Major conference, and Major teams that dont play well are relegated to the Minor conferences. If you win your Minor conference, you get a guaranteed promotion, which gives meaning to Minor conference standings.

Scheduling for the Minor conferences would be the other 9 teams in your draw, plus 3 carte-blanche dates. You are only allowed one non-Major/Minor school per year, so you dont just pad with cupcakes from Division II or III. Of course, you have incentive to schedule quality opponents, to increase your ranking and try for promotion.

Scheduling in the Major would be the 5 other teams in your subdivision, the 3 teams in the other subdivision nearest your slot (ie, the #3 team in one subdivision would play the #2,3,4 team in the other. The #1 team would play the #1,2,6 team), 3 carte-blanche dates, and one mandatory team from the Minor conferences, so they have a chance to prove themselves vs quality opposition. Only one non-Major/Minor school is allowed per year, so again no cupcake-padding.

The carte-blanche dates would allow schools to preserve traditional rivalries, if they wanted.

Scheduling for open dates is only done in the offseason for the following year, to prevent anyone from having conflicts if they are relegated/promoted. Teams would find partners for their 3/4 non-assigned opponents, and then submit their schedule to the NCAA, who would determine actual dates for games and home/away status, with every team having 6 home games. You would not know when you schedule an opponent if it will be a home or away game for you, with the idea that in the long run, you'll get as many quality opponents visiting you as you're forced to visit. The NCAA's priority would be to avoid any extremely taxing scheduling quirks, such as @Hawaii one week and @UCF the next and @Nevada after that.

The postseason would include Championship games for each Major conference, followed by a 4-team playoff of the Major conference champions. That only adds 1 postseason game compared to the current system, and even then only for the teams in the National Championship.

The BCS would be eliminated and Bowl games would be free to return to bidding and inviting whichever teams they liked, or if they wanted, the BCS bowls could create new automatic tie-ins between the Major 4 conferences.

There would be no Independents, and really there'd be no reason to stay independent anyway, as each school would have the ability to market their home-game media rights as they saw fit...year-by-year contracts, long-term contracts, create your own network, whatever.

I realize this would mean that current contracts and scheduling agreements would have to be broken, but that's going to be true of any restructuring idea. I also realize that this would eliminate the current conferences entirely, and that would get a lot of resistance from the powerful conference offices, but they're really whats keeping football from moving forward, so any meaningful plan is going to hurt them regardless.

I know its a lot, but tell me what you think :) The current musical-chairs game being played in Division I right now with all the AQ conferecnes is essentially just a relegation system, anyway, so might as well make it official and fair.

LeBron James after "The Decision", or Kim Kardashian after "The $70 Million Wedding"?

She does like the athletes, maybe they'll end up together once Kris Humphries is done turning her public bitchery into fame and endorsements :) They'll be the most hated celebrity couple in America.

Is she still having surgeries and treatments on her head? Does she think it just looks good?

Every time I see her now, the cynic in me thinks she's doing it on purpose just to keep looking like she's just recovering from brain surgery, for political advantage, but I'd really like to give her more credit than that...

Traditionally, North American sports teams are referred to in the plural sense...ie, "The Oakland Raiders HAVE won the AFC West". However, in world soccer, team names are usually referred to in the singular, ie "AC Milan HAS advanced to the Champions Cup"

Case in point is from Martin Roger's column on yahoo: "The Los Angeles Galaxy has the chance to win a league championship for the first time...". It would definitely look weird to see someone write "The NY Yankees has the chance to win the World Series".

Which convention do you think is "right" for MLS soccer? It looks weird when you read a team name in the singular, because I tend to think of them as a team, or as a franchise representing a city made up of many people, not representing just the singular entity of the club. I actually think its a little disrespectful of the fans and the players and all the team staff to refer to a team in the singular, as if their victories belong only to the Club.

Should it just vary depending on what the team goes by, if they follow the North American "City-Title" format (ie Philadelphia Eagles) or the more European "Club Name" format (ie Chivas USA)?

And if you just dont care and think it doesnt matter, then dont bother to post a snarky reply either :)

Seriously, this guy never gets a break. He had like 5 different systems in 5 years in Washington. Comes over to Oakland, and finally seems to be in a good stable situation. He's comfortable with the system, the coach looks like he's got the players buying in, and he has the respect of his locker room. Breaks a bone, and all of a sudden he's on his way out again!

Raiders have mortgaged their future on Palmer, so no way Campbell gets to "compete for a starting job" next year, or even likely this year if he doesnt get put on the IR. I'm sure he'll get another chance with another team, considering he did pretty good this year, that endzone interception against Buffalo notwithstanding, but just...damn, all the guy does is work and take his shots like a good soldier, granted he never looked like he was going to be Tom Brady but he just never seems like he'll ever get his chance to prove what he can do...

For sending an open invitation to the Internet to come to a street party that was not planned and could not be accomodated. Seems like there was a reasonable expectation that a large number of people would show up, and somewhere like Grauman's Chinese, thats going to lead to logistical headaches at the least, if not trouble and violence.

With LA so strapped for cash, you hate to see resources being spent on stuff like this. I dont think he did it maliciously, but a precedence does need to be set, I think, that you can't use internet "flash mob powers" irresponsibly without repercussion.

I cant seem to find any plans for a homemade version. Just based on the principle, it seems like you should be able to do it with soda can bottoms for your plates, a water bottle for the chamber, some pieces of aluminum foil for the "hail", and hook it up to a VDG generator...but I just tried it and it doesnt do anything.

Is it trickier than I'm assuming to get the effect right? Is that why no one has DIY-style plans for one?