1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in football? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in football?
Doubtful. Irvin was amongst the elite WR's in the early 90s, but it's difficult for any WR's to receive such honors.
2. Was he the best player on his team?
Doubtful. Emmitt Smith is regarded as the best skill position for that Cowboy dynasty. Larry Allen was also probably their most dominating player.
3. Was he the best player in football at his position? Was he the best player in the conference at his position?
Doubtful. Jerry Rice was still playing from 1990-1995. And very well.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of great seasons?
Yes. Irvin was one of the best receivers in the league for a team that won 3 Super Bowls.
5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?
Yes. Irvin remained a solid top receiver until his career ending injury in 1999.
6. Is he the very best football player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No.
7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Mostly. Longevity is a weakness for Irvin, who started out slow in his first 3 years, and then had to retire at 32. So, he only had about 7 years of pure starting WR duty. But, in those 7 years, he was top 10 in receiving for six of those years. Top 5, four times.
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Yes. 3 Super Bowl rings. A big part in all of those teams. His previously mentioned statistics. He's easily in.
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
No. If anything, his stats could have been better without Emmitt Smith who had a heavy workload during the Cowboys' dynasty run, and vultured many TD's away.
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?
Many would say yes. But, I don't believe Irvin is.
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
None. Although, he did lead the league in receiving in 1993, and had a huge 1995 (The year Rice had a ridiculous season, unfortunately). But, not enough for serious consideration.
12. How many Pro Bowl-type seasons did he have? How many Pro-Bowl games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many Pro-Bowl games go into the Hall of Fame?
5 Pro Bowls for Irvin. He deserved that many. There's some players with less than 5 who are in, so it's enough.
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win their conference?
I think so.
14. What impact did the player have on football history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he change the game in any way?
None.
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Lolz. Here would be Irvin's achilles' heel. Irvin has been arrested at least 3 times for drug possession. He's been noted as a sexual abuser, but not proven. He's made racist statements. He's a stupid loudmouth clown on ESPN every week.
Would he get my vote?
No. Because I hate Michael Irvin. If voters can not vote for certain for silly reasons, then I can too. And I can use the lack of character as a reason. I don't want to picture his induction ceremony. As for just basing it on Irvin's playing career, he's easily in. 3 Super Bowls, an elite receiver for most of the 90s, his talent and accomplishments cannot be denied. The only thing Irvin lacks is the longevity and the gaudy stats that types like Art Monk and Andre Reed have, and I don't put much weight into that.
1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in football? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in football?
No.
2. Was he the best player on his team?
All-time, no. KC previously had better defensive players. But, Thomas was the face of the Chiefs' franchise during his time there.
3. Was he the best player in football at his position? Was he the best player in the conference at his position?
If by position, we mean OLB? Then, no.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of great seasons?
Before Thomas went to KC, they were a dismal team. Nearly every season Thomas was in KC, they were a playoff team. But, never a serious contender for a championship. All in all, we'll give a slight lean towards yes.
5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?
Yes. Thomas was still putting up his usual stats until his death at 33.
6. Is he the very best football player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No.
7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Since sacks have only been recorded since 1982, it's difficult to compare. However, I'd go with no. Since Richard Dent has comparable sack stats and is not in.
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Not enough of a sample to properly judge.
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Lots to suggest Thomas was worse since sacks are a horribly overrated stat. Thomas was a weak run defender with few tackles for his position, and a noted liability in pass coverage. Thomas' position was OLB, so these are significant weaknesses.
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?
Most would say yes.
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
None. He was never a defensive MVP.
12. How many Pro Bowl-type seasons did he have? How many Pro-Bowl games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many Pro-Bowl games go into the Hall of Fame?
9 Pro Bowls. Easily enough for HOF consideration.
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win their conference?
No, and they didn't.
14. What impact did the player have on football history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he change the game in any way?
It could be argued Thomas revolutionized the purely pass rushing OLB/undersized DE.
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Yes. He was noted for being a good man in KC. And his untimely death further adds to the positive feelings people have for him.
Would he get my vote?
No. Being one of the best at 1/3 of the responsibilities of your position is not enough. Inducting Derrick Thomas all comes down to your believe of what a Hall of Famer should be. The glamor of bringing down the QB, or choosing players who were the best at their position. If Richard Dent is struggling to get in, I don't see how Thomas has any shot unless he gets the sympathy vote.
92.
1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in football? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in football?
No. The only year where Monk would receive any consideration would be 1984 where he broke the single season reception record. And that was the year of Marino throwing for 5000+ yards, and Dickerson rushing for 2000+.
2. Was he the best player on his team?
Doubtful. Monk was the best skill player for them in 1984, and probably 1985. Not enough to be considered one of the all-time best in the franchise.
3. Was he the best player in football at his position? Was he the best player in the conference at his position?
No, and no. Even in his huge 1984 season, he was 4th in receiving yardage. Then Jerry Rice came along.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of great seasons?
Leaning towards no. For each of the Redskins 3 Super Bowl appearances, Monk did not have a big year. In 1983, Charlie Moore was still WAS's main target. In 1987, Monk was injured. And 1991, Gary Clark had better stats. Monk, however, did have solid playoff performances.
5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?
Yes. Monk was still a productive player into his upper-30's.
6. Is he the very best football player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No. He's not even the best receiver not in who was eligible last year.
7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Eh... most. WR is a tough position to rate when guys like Lynn Swann are in. Also, many players around Monk's level have recently qualified for HOF voting, so many of them are not in.
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Yes. 8th in receptions. 12th in receiving yards. 2 Super Bowl titles. That would be more than enough in most circumstances...
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Monk's vast amount of receptions definitely overrate his value, statistically. The longevity of his career hasn't hurt.
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?
No.
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
A tough argument for 1 in 1984 if there were lesser competition. Other than that, never close.
12. How many Pro Bowl-type seasons did he have? How many Pro-Bowl games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many Pro-Bowl games go into the Hall of Fame?
2, maybe 3 if you include 1989 which was a stacked year for WR's in the NFC.
3, he probably shouldn't have made the 1986 Pro Bowl.
All have higher or equal amount of Pro Bowl appearances. He's only tied with the highly debatable deserving PIT's receivers, and Charlie Joiner.
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win their division/conference?
Probably not.
14. What impact did the player have on football history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he change the game in any way?
No.
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Yes. A quiet WR. A rarity these days.
Would he get my vote?
No. I flip-flop on Monk often... but I can't ignore that Monk wasn't even the best WR on his TEAM except for at best, a three year period. Most agree that Gary Clark was the playmaker for the Redskin offense, especially in the Posse days. And the stats agree with that. It's unfortunate that these great Redskin teams get shafted with the amount of HOF's. Monk simply was not a great player for long enough. He was a top tier WR for one, maybe two years at best. Monk was a very good WR for 15 years. But, it's not the Hall of Very Good. No matter how many pretty stats you rack up, and how many championships your team wins, in that amount of time.
91.
We take a break from stuff that PISSES ME OFF, to another HOF list. Except these are for football... not baseball ones like alkeiper and other inferior posters do.
For each player, I'll be using the Keltner list. Because I've always wanted to.
We'll start with Thurman Thomas.
I should note beforehand that I'm a huge fangirl for him and thus biased.
1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in football? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in football?
Not by many. Although, I feel he was in consideration for this in 1991 and 1992.
2. Was he the best player on his team?
Yes. He was the best player on the best offense in the league for multiple years. If we include defensive players, Bruce Smith had occasional injury problems and was arguably slowing down after his huge year in 1990. Cornelius Bennett was Defensive MVP in 1991, so he's in consideration, also.
3. Was he the best player in football at his position? Was he the best player in the conference at his position?
Arguably, and definitely yes. It's very difficult to beat out a Barry Sanders in his prime, though.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of great seasons?
Yes. He was the starting HB of every game but 1 in the Bills' four Super Bowl runs.
5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?
Yes, up to the point where injuries curtailed his career. Although, his quality of play did drop significantly after the Bills' Super Bowl runs.
6. Is he the very best football player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
Yes. Every comparable skilled possession player got in 1st ballot. If it wasn't for a stacked class last year, he would have been in. And should have been in, regardless.
7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Yes.
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Absolutely.
Led the NFL in yards from scrimmage from 1989-1992. Enough said.
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Arguably. His stats are boosted because he played on one of the best offenses in the league. And he got many looks as a receiving threat, much more than his equal counterparts Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders. And he was on a quick-paced, often no-huddle team that gave more chances. But, I don't put much credence into this for football.
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?
Yes.
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
I'd say 5, from 1989-1993. He was the majority MVP once in 1991. I'd guess he was in the top 5 the other 4 years.
12. How many Pro Bowl-type seasons did he have? How many Pro-Bowl games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many Pro-Bowl games go into the Hall of Fame?
5. 5. It's on the lower end of HOF RB's, with only Dorsett (4) and Riggins (1) from post-merger being lower. But, it's enough.
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win their division/conference?
Yes, and he did.
14. What impact did the player have on football history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he change the game in any way?
None. Although, he should make future Super Bowl players remember where their helmet is before the game.
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
He was arrested for marijuana possession after his career, and confessed to being an alcoholic before that. There's been other rumors, but Thurman is not noted for being a bad guy.
Would he get my vote?
Yes. He should have been in last year on his first try. He was statistically the best player at his position for FOUR straight years. And reached the Championship Game FOUR straight years. No other player can boast that, and it's unlikely that it will ever be equaled. 8th in career total yards. 12th in rushing. And that's with a relatively short career. A no-brainer for this overlooked player whose prime was shared with 2 other all-time greats.
90.
Things that PISS ME OFF: Part X.
Forcing Spanish on US Citizens.
I'm definitely not as hard on this as most other right-wing wackos are. I fully understand the importance of speaking multiple languages. Infact, it's a little embarassing that just about all of my European and South American friends can speak, or at least try to speak, many languages including English.
But, when a different language is FORCED on a country, that's wrong. If you're moving to another country, you still have to give the effort to learn that language. I'm sure it's an inconvenience for those people, but it's definitely worse to force this on millions of others.
One of the toughest parts of finding a job in Arizona is the bilingual factor. I'd say at least 1/3 of the jobs I was looking at REQUIRED you to speak Spanish very well. And that's just getting higher and higher. Even in Western New York, which has amongst the lowest amount of Hispanics in the nation, had a significant amount of jobs requiring this. When it reaches this point, this is simply WRONG. My career and well-being should not be damaged because people don't want to learn a fucking language. If you don't want to learn English, stay in Mexico. Thanks.
After all, English is not my first language. And I speak it better than most people who've been here their entire life. Lazy fucks.
89.
Things that PISS ME OFF: Part IX.
NFL Popularity.
We already know my feelings on the current mediocre NFL product.
Currently, the top 4, and basically only active threads on TSM, are about the NFL. Grar. Give other sports a chance.
88.
Things that PISS ME OFF: Part VIII.
ESPN's tennis coverage.
Dear ESPN, we know you really don't want to show tennis.
Most of your viewers want NFL NFL NFL. Show them 24 hours of NFL NFL NFL STEVE SMITH TOM CAPTAIN CLUTCH BRADY.
So, please stop with the tennis. We won't miss you. Please spare us. Because, really, you know Chris Fowler fucking sucks with every stupid thing he says about tennis. He does college football so well. Keep him there.
87.
Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
Why must types of storage constantly change? It's a ripoff.
So, in 5 years, DVD players will be dead. And we'll have to spend hundreds on whatever stupid new thing is the "winner" of the media wars.
Fuck that. Technology is a bad thing when it rapes my wallet. Put everything on DVD. Sell a 100 pack of DVD's for fifty cents. I'm content with that.
"OH, BUT HDTV!!! IT'S SO NEATO!!"
Fuck you. I just want to watch shit. If I want to see pretty, realistic stuff, I'll go outside. Which I can do, unlike hermits like Marvin. And those hermits can go commit suicide and not drag worthwhile people like me down.
86.
DRM (Digital Rights Management).
If you've downloaded any illegal movies or music in the past year or so, you've probably got some of these. I fucking hate them. HATE THEM. I just want to watch my porn.
So, I downloaded basically the entire Hustler site the past 2 days. And now I have to run programs to delete all the damn DRM's so I can play them on my XBox. Fuckers.
I'd be so pissed if I actually paid for this stuff.
85.
Wii.
I want one of these things. I have for over 2 months. And they're still nowhere.
The worst part is that stores are still holding them for "sales" on Sundays. Fuck that. You're feeding into people with no lives. I'm not getting up at 4am just to get a console. I have respect for myself. I have responsibilities.
Fuck people.
84.
The NFL.
Good crap, does it blow. I'm studying up on my gambling picks this week, and it's depressing.
Seattle @ Chicago? Like, WTF. They're awful. AWFUL. How can I seriously take a team starting Rex Grossman that giving up 9.5 points?
I want dominating teams back again. Where wins meant something. Now it's like one team wins and there's no shock at all. Whoever gets the luckiest. Usually whatever team has the least injuries. Lame.
All sports suck. Especially, tennis.
83.
Randall Orton.
Why does he have to be such an asshole and keep fucking up? He doesn't need to add fuel to the many hater's fire.
Be hot. Do your job.
Or, better yet. Get out of wrestling and do porn. He'd be perfect there. Plus, I could watch him more regularly.
82.
Mole.
No, not because he's the new leader of TSM that will be banning me shortly.
Because he's the perfect example of that asshole you have to deal with in life, no matter what. I know this all too well since I went to Catholic school with a bunch of rich yuppies and I was one of the poor city kids. There's always the braindead moron who starts shit with everyone and gets away with whatever because he's got a rich daddy.
How does this stupid asshole have the extra money to buy TSM. To buy whatever HD garbage he wants. The ability to con an attractive, yet stupid girl to be with him. Yet, after blowing all his dough on drugs on Lord knows what else.
Rich daddy.
This is why I feel it's always right to steal. Because we should steal from people like that.
81.
The Williams' SISTAHZ.
Serena Williams' comments after losing to Sybille Bammer in Hobart last night (whatever time it is in Tasmania).
""I think she played the match of her life," Williams said. "I've never heard of her quite frankly. (Oh. And we know Bammer played the match of her life because...) I didn't play that well and I made a lot of unforced errors. (Of course, you didn't have your A-Game.) I think I'm a little rusty. You wish these players would play like this all the time instead of just against me. (Or, it's because you suck now because you're a fat pig that would rather be in the Bahamas 40 weeks of the year.) She played unbelievable. (Just say that next time. Ass.)"
http://cache.gettyimages.com/xc/72961961.j...B7040F59BAB34AD
Meanwhile, Venus withdrew from the Australian Open due to a "left wrist injury".
Of course, if you speak one bad word about either of these lazy bitches, you're RAYCIST.
80.
So, I don't really like it here at forums.thesmartmarks.com. I guess I just come here out of habit, and the usually good sports forum. I've always found most of the "established" posters here to be very annoying and put them on ignore... but, it's gotten even worse in the past couple months here with the stupidity, especially in the modding ranks, and the "let's side with the biggest loser to make us feel good about ourselves" garbage in HD has gone into overdrive. I'm also not a wrestling fan, whatsoever, any longer.
I need to leave here. And the only way that will happen is if I can find another board. Because my internet addiction will never die. I've tried finding board with my interests with not great results...
1) Sports boards. I've tried many, and these are always a no-go. They're either: 1) Dominated by homers (ala Damaramu) who are stubborn and impossible to have any discussions with. Or 2) Dominated by gambling types (ala iggymcfly, but MUCH worse). As for tennis boards, where there's few hardcore fans, I already post at a couple smaller ones. But, the issue with tennis fans is that most are gay. And when there's a large group of gay people, mixed with gay extremists, bad things happen. If someone could direct me to a quality sports message board, it would be very appreciated.
2) Games boards. See the ""let's side with the biggest loser to make us feel good about ourselves" garbage" line.
3) Fashion boards. There's one I post at sparingly, but the problem are teenage girls. Most of which who purposely type like fools.
So, suggestions are welcome. Thank you.
79.
It was kinda fun doing this last week. Plus, I'm brutal with NFL Picks, so it's funny.
Thursday 8:00:
Cleveland (4-8) at Pittsburgh (5-7): I have to fade the Browns here starting Derek Anderson with 4 days preparation time. Plus, the Steelers still have that tiny glimmer of hope that the 5-7 teams do (like Buffalo), so they should be enthused for this one. Only question is how PIT deals with their injuries, especially on the defensive side. But, odds are with PIT here. PIT 23, CLE 13.
Sunday 1:00:
Indianapolis (10-2) at Jacksonville (7-5): JAX should have won their 1st matchup of the year, and I really like them here. Almost enough to bet on them... JAX is a strong running team, IND's run defense is crap. JAX is fighting for their playoff lives, and are a great home team. JAX 38, IND 24.
Tenneseee (5-7) at Houston (4-8): No real reason for this one. I'm just not sold on VY's abilities as a true QB. His completion percentage remains horrid. After two home games crushing the Manning family, I can see TEN having trouble on the road here. And Houston has been playing good football lately, too. HOU 27, TEN 17.
Baltimore (9-3) at Kansas City (7-5): I can't go against the Chiefs' 18-game winning streak at home in December, or whatever it is. BAL's offense looked so poor at CIN, and has been inconsistent all year. This isn't the place where they'll probably kick start it again. I don't see them doing significantly better against a very hungry KC team that can't afford any more losses. KC 17, BAL 13.
Philadelphia (6-6) at Washington (4-8): Yuck. Nothing is worse than a bad NFC East game. I'll be fading WAS the rest of the year with their injury issues. So, whatever. PHI 28, WAS 10.
Minnesota (5-7) at Detroit (2-10): MIN has won the last 9 games in this series. I see no reason this changes vs. a team that's great at finding ways to lose. And MIN better be fired up after blowing a huge opportunity to win @CHI last week.MIN 20, DET 17.
NY Giants (6-6) at Carolina (6-6): NYG seems to be in total disarray, but CAR may well be the same. The Giants still do have a lot of talent, and haven't been playing that badly. Just blowing games. Eventually, things must go right for them. CAR is a very overrated team. Their lines are weak, and the running game is not what people think it is. NYG 34, CAR 17.
Atlanta (6-6) at Tampa Bay (3-9): TB can't score. Vick had a solid game vs. TB early in the season, and it looks like he can play against them now. So, looks good for ATL. ATL 24, TB 7.
New England (9-3) at Miami (5-7): Jason Taylor's availability will be important here. It seems like everyone and their dog is taking MIA in the upset here. But, MIA's performance against JAX last week was very disappointing. I think it's possible they've thrown in the towel. NE 37, MIA 21.
Oakland (2-10) at Cincinnati (7-5): Bengals are red hot lately, on both sides of the ball. However, OAK's pass defense is the only positive they have. I just don't like a blowout here. CIN 24, OAK 14.
4:00:
Green Bay (4-8) at San Francisco (5-7): GB's run defense is poop, and after last week, things look very bad for them. GORE GORE GORE should at least get 150 rushing yards here. SF 38, GB 26.
Seattle (8-4) at Arizona (3-9): As unimpressive as SEA may be at times, they just don't lose with Hasselbeck and Alexander. ARI still blows despite beating the Rams. Sorry ass team. Sorry ass franchise. SEA 35, ARI 24.
Buffalo (5-7) at NY Jets (7-5): The Jets got all the breaks in the previous game, and the Bills are very capable of beating them. Yeah, biased. THE BILLS STILL HAVE HOPE. Plus, the Miami game has to have some meaning... BUF 17, NYJ 16.
Denver (7-5) at San Diego (10-2): LT = good. Denver = YAWN. I don't even like thinking about Denver games, let alone watching any more of them. SD 42, DEN 10.
8:15:
New Orleans (8-4)at Dallas (8-4): This is the week teams will start figuring out Tony Romo (HOF QB). Please. DAL's streak of good luck has to end lately. Us Cowboys haters beg for it. Of course, New Orleans would become AMERICA'S TEAM with a win, and Reggie Bush would be MVP. Especially since he can't stretch the field for Colston anymore. Or, something. NO 27, DAL 24.
Monday 8:30:
Chicago (10-2) at St. Louis (5-7): Total fade on the Rams here. They're getting into the competition for worst team in the league with their play lately. Grossman throws for 300 yards, just to confuse everyone. If he's gonna do it, here's the chance. CHI 38, STL 24.
xoxo.
78.
So, it's time for my ignore list again. It's great filler for my blog.
It may seem like I have fun doing this. And, I do. But, the reason my list is so huge is because I really REALLY hate reading stupid things. And when I read stupidity, we know how I respond. Therefore, ignoring them is optimal for all parties.
surreaList: Constantly rude to people. Rather dumb as proved by most of his decisions. Plays the whole "I'm too cool to care about boards" bullshit.
The Thread Killer: Just a horrible poster... tries to be funny, and always fails. Easily the most pathetic person on these boards.
bob_barron: Nothing really against him, he's just kind of a pompous jerk. Only posts crap in sports. Only stuff worth reading from him is SNL reviews or stalking celebrities, and I don't care about any of that.
Marvinisalunatic: Decent guy... but, he's on ignore until he stops the WP v2.0 gimmick. Although, it seems he's adopted the Comic Book Guy-like pissed off nerd gimmick lately, which may keep him here longer.
Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye: "Established" poster who only posts lame garbage like so many of them do.
tominator89: Unnecessary dickish comments towards me.
Kinetic: "Established" poster. Or one the lame "clique gimmicks". Either way, whatever.
kkktookmybabyaway: We've already mentioned him.
netslob: Useless, sad person.
Invader3k: Stupidity.
godthedog: Jerk. Maybe gimmick.
Mole: Stupidity. Stalks me.
RavishingRickRudo: "WWE suckz" troll.
Lord of the Curry: "WWE suckz" troll, and constant annoyance in other forums.
Blue Bacchus: Stupidity. Troll.
CheesalaIsGood: Stupidity.
alfdogg: Immature. Obvious gimmick account user.
snuffbox: Stupidity. Possible gimmick as a purely awful poster.
Sandman9000: Troll. Absolute joke he's not banned.
Sex Machine Gun: Ok, sometimes... but, has too many issues. Nice one day, then rude as possible the next for no reason.
Part II, later.
77.
So, the general opinion is that we're glad Florida is in the title game. Unless you truly believe Florida is the 2nd best team in the nation, or that Florida's overall resume is stronger than Michigan's, then you are wrong. And by judging by the voters' history in the past weeks, they believed Michigan was the best team. That opinion can not change when Michigan didn't play for 2 weeks.
So, if the voting was decided on who the best team was... it was Michigan.
If the voting is decided on who deserves the chance, what would be fair... then, it's Boise State. They did not lose a game.
The argument that Michigan already lost to Ohio State, so they don't deserve another chance... but, Florida is more deserving because they lost to a 2-loss team, is ludicrous.
Florida got their spot because less people would bitch about it. See, kids, no matter how far you go in life, you all end up being mindless followers. "The Computers" are more knowledgeable than human voting.
As for the solution, it's obviously a playoff. More money would be made. It would be very easy to keep the "integrity" of the bowls. There'd be a point to watching more than 1 bowl game other than gambling, or being linked with one of the schools. Plus, it would make the regular season much more fun to watch.
Leelee.
76.
So, I want to change my name here. Princess Leena sounds so heelish. I need to show what a face I've become.
All suggestions are appreciated. Except Princess Cunt. You'll be banned for that.
Oh, and my Negatives about TSM thing is done. Sorry.
xoxo.
75.
This will be more of a sad entry. And although it doesn't entirely have to do with TSM, it's a fine example of the mentality we have here.
I'm saddened I had to end a friendship with the poster Ortonsault today. A victim of the high school mentality that many grown-ups have... which also happens here. The high school mentality of going with whatever your friends say. And since this mentality is so childish, usually the dumbest people get the ball rolling within it.
It's sad to think that I'd probably have more good acquaintances on this board if it wasn't for this mentality. Which is truly a shame.
And does it make me better than most of you because I don't think this way? Yes. It does.
74.
So, Princess Leelee has decided to once again liven up this blog. No more gambling, unfortunately. The next group of entries will be purely on the many negatives of forums.thesmartmarks.com. Think of this like HTQ's blog, except I'm not some wrestling geek that sucks on Dave Meltzer's teat.
Part I:
kkktookmybabyaway.
This poster is a fine example of what's wrong with this board. Stick with some lame, negative shtick long enough, and people will like you. This poster probably should be banned for his constant derailing of topics in the conversation forums. He's aggravated many a new poster with his silliness. But, it's ok, because kkk is a "good guy". That's just "how he is".
That's fucking bullshit.
The point of a message board is to have conversation and this poster only tries to defeat this purpose. And the worst part is that he can show he's intelligent at times (as he often does in his blog), but he just continues the bullshit. That's the definition of someone who needs to be told to cut it out. If he wants to do that, go post in the flaming folders.
And the worst part is that so many people like this poster. For reasons completely beyond me. If any of you find his shtick funny, then you're just pathetic.
We'll continue on later with Part 2, a poster fairly similar to this, but posts exponentially more.
73.
Last week was still a success, but a disappointment after my perfect 9/22-23 week. Ohio St. and Navy won 2 of my big 3 bets, so I still came out in the positive.
Bets this week so far (I'll probably have some O/U by the weekend):
Hawaii (-9) vs. Nevada - 1 unit.
Historically, the home team dominates this series. I don't see anything different here. And I think Nevada is overrated by many because of the NW and UNLV blowout win. And Hawaii is underrated, since they lost two tough road contests. Nevada's defense still has many holes, especially in the running game. I'd be shocked if Hawaii doesn't at least put up 42 here with their high-powered offense. I'm pretty strong on this one, and the line is just to keep going up throughout the week, I could even see this hitting -14.
Tennessee (-2) @ Georgia - .5 units
Georgia is desperate and starting that Polish QB who sucked ass last year, and their depleted offensive line. UGA will struggle to score anything. But, this is the SEC, and Tennessee probably fucks up just as well, and someone wins 13-10 in a hideous contest. I'm more on the under here, but I'll wait to see possible weather conditions, and such.
Oklahoma (+7) vs. Texas - .5 units.
Wish I could have nabbed this at +8 when it first came up. I'm not very confident on this game... 50/50 on who will win. Texas obviously has more talent, especially on the defensive side. But, Texas has Mack Brown, and he always loses these games, until VY could run around the field and nullify Brown's ineptitude. The line sucked me in, and I couldn't pass it up.
NC State (+11) vs. Florida State - .5 units.
With Weatherford starting, I just don't see FSU putting up many points. 20's, at most. Not that I have any confidence in NC State, but their defense is holding teams to respectable point totals. 11 just seems like too much to give here.
Buffalo (+5.5) vs. Ball State - .5 units.
Alumni bet. No other reasoning here. MAC games are probably the toughest to pick in the nation.
Air Force (-3) vs. Navy - Undecided
If this stays at -3, I might put a .5 unit on this. Improves any, I'm all over this. These teams are very similar except for one big difference. AF's run defense has been stellar against good competition. Navy's has been weaker against worse competition. Like AF here, but points will be at a premium.
72.
Ohio St. @ Iowa. -6
I'm lost on this one. Although, the line has rightly gone up to 7+ since I jumped on it this morning. Have people not noticed how horrible Iowa has looked at times this year. I know it's a night game at Kinnick, and OSU wins games like this in ugly fashion sometimes... but, OSU is miles better. Iowa's secondary has been burned all year. They have virtually no big play potential.
Vanderbilt over Temple -34
I have no explanation on this one, except Vandy is not as bad as their record, and Temple is much worse than 0-100. And Vandy should enjoy another rare chance to blow out a team. A negative is that Vandy only beat Tennessee St. 38-9 last week. But, weather was shitty in that area last week. A fun play.
I haven't seen MIN at BUF at my betting place yet, but some are saying it's a pick'em, or even MIN +1. If so, I am betting heavily. Anything -3 or better for MIN, and I'm putting a healthy bet.
And another college game that I'm very high on, but I don't wish to share yet, due to my competition with Jeffrey C. this week.
