iggymcfly

OK, I'll admit I didn't remember the details of what the receivers did on his picks, although I did remember that the injury came after most of his mistakes. The fact is that he's made it to four NFC Championship games, and this is the third one where he's heavily favored. In all three so far, the defense and running game have played well, but McNabb and the passing game sunk the Eagles. If they still had TO, I could see the point that the passing game was improved enough to make the difference, but the fact is that Pinkston guy is still their top receiver right now. Westbrook looks good catching balls out of the backfield when TO's there to spread the defense as a deep threat, but if you're counting on his receptions as the difference to carry them to the Super Bowl, you're really grasping at straws.

You know, for a little bit, I was getting worried about this Atlanta over Philly pick. I wasn't sure if it was really that secure, and if maybe Philly couldn't just win the game like all the television people say. Then I went back and read this line: D. McNabb 10/22 100 yds. 0 TDs 3 INTs Oh, the greatest playoff choke artist isn't the corny little white boy from Indianapolis. He's a big black man from Philly.

Whoa, whoa. This thread can't get lost when we're only a week or two away from Marissa and Alex making out! Anyway, I was watching some of the first episodes the other day from before I started watching the show, and I can't believe what a pussy Ryan's turned into. I mean, he used to be a badass and now he's bitching out Marissa for giving someone alcohol? WTF! They need to get some decent male characters on this show. Maybe Marissa can fill the void. She can be the one that screws all the hot girls, tells people off, and gets in fights. When Ryan said that she was bringing him down, she should have said, "Oh really, I thought it was the whore from Chino that didn't make you wear a rubber."

The point is that the players and owners don't have enough money to go around between them, and as a result, they're not having a season right now. Giving money away from games that both parties are willing to play is not a solution in any way, shape, or form. And as for the 60 grand comment, that's the kind of stupid communist attitude that keeps every other country in the world behind the United States. If you don't want to succeed, you never will. Of course, it's bringing down the US too, but at least we've got another 10 or 20 years left before we're all out socialist.

Yeah, I watched the end of that Zags game, but as for Stanford, there's no way that they belong in the tournament. It's more a matter of them winning a few games because the Pac-Ten sucks this year than that they're recovering from a bad start.

No, I think that the caveat is that he can't do a full 180 if they have a crappy year. The headline "Oklahoma gay, OSU cooler" when the Sooners lose their first game next year probably won't go over too well in Norman.

Damn, how can you not love this show. The second episode was even better than the first. There's enough depth to the characters to make them interesting, and yet there's plenty of new stuff every episode. This show's definitely on my can't miss list now, and I'm about one more episode away from calling it my new favorite.

They've done the whole homefield thing once now, realize it's meaningless, and have decided that getting a 6 or 7 seed this year's good enough. Really, the NBA's all about motivation in the regular season. I don't know if it's the guaranteed money, or the fact that defense doesn't show up in the stat sheet, but if they don't care they just won't play well.

I just think it's funny that I used to be a hardcore fan of the show, and I'd never miss a Raw or Smackdown, yet just a little bit ago, I was going through what a great night Thursday is for TV, and I forgot this show was even on today.

That's just because there's a smaller sample of games to choose from. If you go to the NBA, the Hornets probably started out something like 2-14 this year, and I know for a fact that baseball teams have started 0-16 before. If your only goal is to increase parity, a salary cap will do it, and you won't find more parity than exists in the NFL. I personally, am not a big fan of parity for parity's sake however. I don't like the idea that a team will continue to be the best when all their players leave because they can overspend like the Yankees, but the "disastrous" NBA model that allows players to stay with their teams is fine. If a guy like Duncan spends his whole career in San Antonio, or KG spends his whole career in Minnesota, then great for them. It allows a connection to build that's just being instantly wiped away in the NFL. I like it taking three years for someone like the Pistons to dethrone the Lakers, or letting MJ stay in Chicago to win championships until he retires. I was a Mavs fan through all the lean years, and it just makes you appreciate it more when things finally do turn around. It's not instant gratification where a team can go from 4-12 to the Super Bowl, but it's more meaningful. The problem with MLB is that a low-budget team knows it can never turn around unless a new owner buys the team. That's long-term desperation that hurts the market and depresses the fan base. It might take time between the Mavs losing Jason Kidd and Jamal Mashburn and them picking up Michael Finley and Dirk Nowitzki, but the possibility's always there. The NHL model was actually working pretty well from a competitive balance standpoint, as the Red Wings built a dynasty for a while, but the Lightning were still able to rise out of nowhere and win a Cup. If they just took reasonable measures to roll back salaries, there would be no need for radical change or institution of a salary cap.

I actually like the basketball "soft cap" system a lot. It keeps teams from going all out to dominate the league through pure force of their checkbook like the Yankees, but it doesn't force teams to break up, and dynasties can stay together for as long as their egos will coexist. In the NFL, the turnover's too much from year to year, as the Patriots are the only thing even remotely approaching a dynasty in years, and usually there is little correlation from year to year. I really don't think the NHL has many problem with competitive balance though (Flames/Lightning anyone), so as long as the players' association is agreeing to roll back salaries, I really don't see what the problem is.

They don't need any real dramatic changes. It only would take a few things to fix the NHL. 1) The financial changes that the players would already agree to would keep the owners from losing too much money right now. A salary cap is gratuitous and unnecessary. 2) Some minor changes to increase scoring. They don't need anything radical, but when I watch the Senators play three playoff games and get one goal, it makes me less likely to make sure to catch the next one. 3) A good TV deal. They need a network or two that will really market the NHL, treat it like it's important, and show regular season games other than Avalanche/Red Wings. When you can only follow one or two teams during the regular season, and sometimes you can't even find the playoff games, it's hard to get excited.

Tina Fey is the least funny person ever. I hate her and I hope she di....OOPS, don't want to get banned.

Yeah, I actually really like the show. I think the cheating aspect is good, because while the straight poker obviously neess to be involved, there has to be something to differentiate it from a game that you could go play yourself right now. The idea of building a bankroll to go in at ridiculously high stakes to bust a known cheater is just more intriguing than a straight up poker show. This show's number 2 on my weekly most anticipated list behind the O.C.

I'd definitely say Joe Louis. The whole nation adopted him as their own, and he really is the one that first brought the black athlete into the 20th century. Also, boxing is a real sport, whereas track and field's kind of stupid.

That's a terrible idea. Are you telling me you're going to have teams practice and go through training camp, pay their players, and then have close to half of them be done after 2 to 3 games? That's ridiculous. They'd be better off running a 20 game season than trying that. As it is, if they run a 36-game season, they might actually be more appealing to casual fans since they will have had a longer break and the regular season games will be more meaningful. If they can get an abbreviated season in, then great, but this tournament idea's retarded.

What, you expected OU to make up 14 places in a single week? Please. Actually, the reasonable thing would be for UConn to drop. They're coasting by because they won the title last year, but based on their play, they don't even belong in the Top 25 right now.

Hey I did these Sunday night, and I've been doing them every weeek throughout the season, but I just now felt the need to post them. Without further ado, here's my college basketball rankings. 1. Illinois 18-0 2. Kansas 13-0 3. Duke 13-0 4. Wake Forest 15-1 5. Oklahoma State 13-1 6. Syracuse 17-1 7. North Carolina 14-2 8. Kentucky 12-2 9. Boston College 14-0 10. Gonzaga 13-3 11. Washington 15-2 12. Oklahoma 13-2 13. Texas 13-3 14. Louisville 14-3 15. Georgia Tech 11-4 16. Cincinnatti 14-2 17. Michigan State 10-3 18. Texas A&M 12-2 19. Pittsburgh 12-2 20. Arizona 14-3 21. George Washington 11-3 22. Marquette 14-2 23. Wisconsin 12-3 24. Alabama 13-3 25. Maryland 10-4 NOTE: I did these Sunday night, so they're not accurate up to the minute. If I'd seen Monday and Tuesday's games, OSU would be down around 9, Alabama would be a little higher, etc. etc.

The thing about being "Top 15" is that it's relative to the other teams. Mississippi State (who just lost to Alabama by about 50), Georgia Tech (with four losses), and Arizona (with a road loss against a Stanford team that's not good at all this year should not be ranked ahead of Oklahoma. I guess to really discuss it clearly I'll just have to post my rankings in another thread.

I hate to say it with Damaramu here, but Oklahoma's actually really underrated this year, as is the Big XII South in general. When I did my rankings this week, I had the Sooners at #12, and that was before they beat A&M on the road who I have ranked at #18. Oklahoma, Texas, and OSU should all be in the Sweet 16, and one of those teams will probably be in the Final Four.

Just follow the train over on the right side of the road. I really didn't think this mission was hard at all; I beat it the first time I tried it. I will say that "Supply Lines" is impossible though. I can kill everybody, but I can't imagine how I'd ever make it back to the roof with fuel left.

Everybody's role is diminished after losing the belt, that's just natural. People just acted like it was a new thing, because they missed not having anything to complain about when Benoit and Eddie were champions. And for the record, I like the JBL/Rock idea. If it was me, I would have pulled the plug on JBL about 18 different times, but if he is going to be in one of the Wrestlemania main events, Rocky's about the only one that can make it interesting.

What people don't get is that Vick's been playing not to get injured all year with the playoffs pretty secure, and the defense playing awesome. Vick can do this 100 yards on the ground thing pretty much whenever he wants, but if he tried it every week, he'd only have about a 50/50 chance of making it through the season. Now that the playoffs are here, we'll see a few controlled passes, and the rest of the time Vick's going to be running all over the field. I'm not saying it's going to be enough to beat the Pats or anything, but it's not really the same offense that got shut down by Arizona and Tampa.

The Falcons are playing awesome, and their secondary will be primed to take advantage of Donovan McNabb's tendency to choke in big games. I say the Eagles actually lead 10-7 at the half, before McNabb throws three picks in the second half and Atlanta wins 34-10. The Patriots strengths are their D-line and linebacking corps, so if anyone can shut down Bettis and Duce, they should be it. When the Patriots lost in Pittsburgh the first time, they still thought they were coasting through an endless win streak, and they couldn't have been playing with the intensity they will next week. I say the Patriots go into Pittsburgh and come out with a win, 17-10.

The point is that they earned it with the ten wins they had throughout the season, whether they won on the last day or not. Besides, the Jets knew they were in before the game was over anyway. I'm sure they didn't quit on the game or anything, but I think they might have beat the Rams if they needed the win to get in.