5wide

Anybody but Steve Kragthorpe?

I don't think Texas will lose until the bowl game, if then. I expect to see the Horns in the BCS Title Game. I expect they'll be playing Florida, 'Bama, or Southern Cal. But, college football never goes as expected, so I'm not sure if I expect any of this to happen.

I doubt it. I've long since given up on seeing the two best teams in the National Title game, i.e., USC vs. the SEC's best.

Upon initially reading the article, I didn't think it was negative. I did, however, question the motivation for including so much about Patrick Patterson's new Lincoln Mark LT. That he made up part of the story regarding the new ride certainly makes him look bad.

By that logic, the Pac-10 should be getting way more credit than it does, because it typically produces a lot of offense. I think the SEC often gets judged against itself, and generally its hard to win that fight. Take Doyel's article as an example...basically all he says is that the SEC isn't as good as it has been. It's what he doesn't say that says more to me...he makes no argument for any other conference threatening the SEC this season, because a good one can't be made. It's down, but so is the rest of college football. He focuses on the #1 ranking. He throws Texas, who has been in the same boat as 'Bama and Florida...winning, but not as impressive as expected, as an option to be #1. Then, a one-loss USC...then a Cincinnati team that he admittedly downplayed a short time ago.

:laugh::laugh:

Not to mention 'Bama won that game by what...17? It might be a tiny stretch to suggest that the safety that wasn't would have lead to a Crimson Tide loss. :idunno: 'Bama has just been winning ugly in recent weeks and people don't like for the top teams in the nation to win ugly. They want to see suffocating domination. McElroy has been struggling and its really hurt 'Bama's production. They need him to get it turned around. Everything else is in place.

:thumb: I don't see a valid comparison...Fisher and Muschamp were coordinators at other schools that their current programs hired away and eventually designated as head coach when (blank) retires. Sounds like wishful thinking...extremely wishful. I hope Kelly stays at UC for a while.

Doyel is doing his job and trying to stir the pot. College football as a whole is down in 2009 and that includes the SEC. Is Doyel making the mistake of judging the SEC against its past rather than judging it against the rest of the nation? Down, yes, but its still the top conference in college football. So, I ask, how can it be overrated? His support of Texas is laughable. People have been saying the same things about Texas this year as they have Florida and 'Bama. They haven't looked as good as advertised. Their most impressive victories are against a Bradford-less Oklahoma (by 3 points) and a 34-point beatdown of a Missouri team that's winless in the conference and hasn't played within 14 points of any Big 12 opponent. Regardless, I wouldn't argue if they jumped to #1. Those three teams are all in a position to control their own destiny and prove it on the field...it doesn't matter where they're ranked within that trio of spots. USC lost a game...Barkley or not, they can't leapfrog those teams as long as they're undefeated. If you want to make a point that the SEC is down in '09, few would argue. But, its disingenous to act is if the rest of college football has remained static while the SEC has suddenly forgotten how to play football. The fact that the SEC is almost always judged against itself speaks volumes about the conference.

Didn't Bill Clinton basically end welfare? Or am I mistaken? Somebody set me straight here.

:thumb: No doubt the ratings skyrocket when the Yankees are involved. People tune in en masse in the hopes of seeing them lose. I dare say more people will tune in for that reason in 2009, than watched to support Tampa last year.

This decade... 23 of 30 MLB teams (76.7%) have made at least one playoff appearance. Nineteen teams have made multiple playoff appearances. Seven teams have made 5 or more playoff appearances in that span. The Yankees lead with 9 and the Cardinals are second with 7. The Red Sox, Angels and Braves have 6 appearances, while the Twins and A's round out the list with 5. There have been 14 different teams in the World Series out of a maximum of 20. The Yankees lead the way with 4 appearances. The Red Sox, Cardinals and Phillies have all appeared twice. The other ten teams have one appearance each. Of a possible 10, there have been 8 different World Series winners. The Red Sox have won two and the winner of the Phillies/Yankees series will claim their second this decade. That leaves six teams with one World Series title each. Conversely, the NFL has seen 29 of its 32 teams (90.6%) in at least one post-season this decade. The three exceptions are Buffalo, Houston and Detroit. Its possible Houston could make that 30 of 32 by the end of this season. Twenty-six teams have made multiple playoff appearances. Ten teams have made 5 or more playoff appearances. The Colts lead with 8, the Eagles are next with 7, the Patriots, Steelers and Giants have 6 each, and the Ravens, Titans, Packers, Bucs and Seahawks all have 5 appearances. (Note: The Broncos are a good bet to make that 11 teams this season, and the Jets and Chargers are also possibilities.) To date, of a possible 18 teams, there have been 13 different Super Bowl contestants. New England has appeared 4 times. The Giants and Steelers have two appearances each. Of a possible 9 champions, there have been 6 to date. New England leads with 3, Pittsburgh has two, leaving 4 teams with one Super Bowl win. The actual results on the field do not support the myth that the "Yankees" are destroying baseball. These teams are doing what anyone would do. They're doing what they can to win with the system in place. Even if two new teams play in the Super Bowl this season, the NFL will have one more team make it to the big show, while having one less different team win a title. But, I won't argue that the NFL executives are doing a better job with their product and they have a better system in place. However, small market baseball teams can be successful with good management. Too often, I think they use it as an excuse so they can make a profit without actually attempting to put a good product on the field.

Chicago. No question. Any respectable defense facing Cleveland must be started, unless you have a similar matchup with your alternative. I don't see it here...the Dolphins and Jets have decent offenses that can be really good on any given week.

Rich Brooks laid the foundation for the success Oregon football enjoys today. He took over a program, that by all accounts was worse than UK situation he stepped into, and ended his tenure there with a trip to the Rose Bowl. So, it's not like Rich Brooks coaching career started at UK. Perhaps he's just one of those guys with a knack for getting the job done in seemingly unwinnable situations.

I had that book once. I read the first chapter and then lost it (the book that is). I took it as a sign that I wasn't supposed to read. :lol::idunno:

That can't be...luck doesn't factor in to the BCS Championship.

I was just making sure Rivers was who you intended... Is Andre Johnson playing? If he isn't, then I'd definitely go with Rivers. Both guys are facing defenses that statistically are bad against the run and strong against the pass. I believe they aren't that great against the pass either, but their run D is so bad, teams don't have to throw. Regardless, Jake Delhomme threw for 300+ against Buffalo last week. Oakland does have some talented corners. This one isn't an easy call, but I'd probably go with Schaub if Andre Johnson is OK. Schaub has been on fire. The Chargers are at home, so Rivers might be a safer play. I wouldn't fault either choice, but I'd play Schaub (contingent on AJ's status).

Schaub and Rivers?

Plus, Cleveland added a guy or two that would have helped in those matchups this year.

:thumb: I'm hoping for a repeat, of course, but I honestly don't see anybody beating this Boston team in the post-season if they're healthy. With KG in the lineup, their defense will be the difference...Rasheed just makes them better across the board. To me, Boston getting him was the biggest addition of the off-season. He'll allow them to rest KG more, gives them another solid post-defender and shot blocker, he can post up, shoot threes, and he's a very, very smart basketball player. Plus, he's not a guy who demands the ball...he doesn't care about points, so he should integrate into the rotation nicely.

It depends on whether you want consistent production, or whether you want monster days and can endure a few bad ones to get it. Ocho has been rock solid this year...9-15-5-14-7-10-23...that's his week by week scoring line. Jacksons is...4-17-20-0-9-25...bigger scoring days, but more inconsistency. Ochocinco 9.1 Targets/Game 5.6 Receptions/Game 81.9 Yards/Game (14.7 ypc) 5 TD Jackson 7.7 Targets/Game 3.5 Receptions/Game 70.5 Yards/Game (20.1 ypc) 3 TD With Jackson though, you always have the possiblity of a return or a rushing TD. I could see it either way, but personally, I like Ochocinco better. His history shows that when he's healthy and his QB is healthy, he's good for 1300 yards and 7-8 TD's at a minimum.

You think...or you hope? :lol: I'm not sold on Orlando with Vince Carter. I think last night was an Eastern Conference finals preview with the top two teams in the conference. It's a moot point though, IMO. If Boston can stay healthy, they're the best team in the league and should hang another banner.

What on earth has Lane Kiffin proven? They're riding a stout defense, but we all knew daddy was one of the best defensive coaches in the business. With one coach you throw up his resume and say it's better than Richt's...then with the next you say his resume isn't as good, but he's just better. I think Richt is just better. That seems like a good place to end the debate.

That's comical. Luck doesn't play a role in a championship decided by human voters and computers. Are you kidding me? Just like LSU took care of business, right? By losing to UK and Arkansas. Just so happens, they didn't get screwed over by a tiebreaker and prevented from playing for the SEC Championship. Georgia finished with the same record as LSU, but was denied the opportunity to play them...everybody knew the Bulldogs and Tigers were the two best teams and that's the game that should have been played to eliminate one from contention. Also, should Auburn have taken care of business when they went 13-0 and didn't get invited to the big show? I would say that it was just bad luck, but luck isn't a factor in the only major championship that's not decided on the field. :idunno:

Georgia was sure tearing it up before Richt got there...how many titles did they win in the 90's? I can't seem to remember.