iggymcfly

I refuse to believe that someone can go from 17 posts a day to having a real life that fast. I only average three posts a day, and I'd still have a difficult time making the transition.

Wrestling forums are gay.

I thought it was a good episode. The characters from the other office are taking shape a little bit, Michael was good in his limited role, and I thought the Jim/Pam thing was just right. They were still really glad to talk to each other for a while, but they've also got other things in their life, and aren't necessarily eager to start a relationship. They did a good job of not having the eager sense from last season, and are instead just friends that live in different cities.

No dice on that one. I was very careful not to post anything that might jinx the Cardinals before the game. I said that I thought it was weird that Perez was starting and just left it at that. Not that I really believe in such things, but it has seemed to blow up some of my larger wagers in the past. (Yeah, I was on the Cards. Won $600 on the NLDS and another $1150 tonight, although I did lose $450 on Games 4 and 6.)

Just a great all-around series there capped by a tremendous Game 7. From Chavez's catch to Suppan getting out of the bases loaded jam with one out to Wainright finally striking out Beltran, it was just tremendously exciting baseball. Honestly, the last time I felt this way about watching a baseball series was when the D-Backs beat the Yankees in 2001. (iggymcfly: On the Cards bandwagon since about a month ago)

Yeah, I think two "iggymcflys" with Georgia Tech avatars would be beyond the realm of reasonable coincidence. What's your name on 2+2? Don't think I've noticed you there.

That movie was fairly amusing, but it was pretty far from reality. No one on earth pays thousands of dollars to a tout service, let alone millions, and no one expects to get every game right either. Real winning sports bettors just try to find a few games where the lines are off a little bit to grind out a 55-60% winrate and beat the juice which costs 1.2% in the long run if you're betting at a reduced juice book. You certainly don't bet every game, and you never risk more than 5% of your BR on any one bet, except for a few specific situations like where you're betting a large favorite and the risk of ruin is tolerable.

Not really. I got my DUI almost a year ago, and quit driving drunk after that. I also quit drinking when I went on probation, and while I don't know if I'll hold strictly to that for the entire year, I'll be drinking rarely if at all. As far as the gambling goes, I've been betting college football really seriously this season. I've been posting regularly on the sports betting forum at 2+2, and tracking my results. I've also been watching a ton of college football, and spending a couple hours every Sunday morning analyzing the next week's games so I can get the best prices when the lines come out Sunday afternoon. On the year, I'm 77-50 and up $5,000 or so betting $100-$500 a game. At this point, I feel pretty confident that I'm a long-term winner.

People always like to bitch. I think that's just a fact of life.

It's funny. Sometimes I forget that this is even a wrestling forum. I was just thinking "wow, how weird is that that alkeiper used to be into wrestling".

That's true of pretty much every single article ever written for the Onion. Well except for the ones where even the concept's not funny.

Does anyone else think it's crazy that Oliver Perez is pitching tomorrow? I mean I could have seen Trachsel or Oliver, but pitching a guy with an ERA north of 6.00 on three days rest just seems stupid to me.

If you want to go the other way too, Portland State lost to Montana State who lost to Division II Chadron State. A simpler shorter logic chain though is: Chadron State > Montana State > Colorado > Missouri Only three games to go from a D-II squad to a Top 25 team. Kinda makes Arkansas > Auburn > Florida > Tennessee look a litle credible doesn't it. Edit: see you got there ahead of me, but I kinda like the side-by-side visual, so I'm going to leave my post up.

You can actually slide it right on to the edge of my logic chain. Tulane lost to UTEP who lost to New Mexico who lost to Portland State. Hence, Portland State's better than Boston College.

OK, apparently I need to spell it out for you. Vanderbilt had a game winning FG try to beat Arkansas that their kicker narrowly missed. If Vandy had a little better kicker, they would have beat Arkansas. Alabama had a game winning FG to beat Arkansas in regulation that their kicker narrowly missed and another potential game winner in OT that their kicker missed. The Hogs finally prevailed when the Alabama kicker missed an extra point in the 3rd OT. If those two kickers had performed their jobs decently well, then Arkansas would be 3-3 right now. Arkansas also lost by 36 points to USC. Their win over Auburn was a fluke, predicated on Auburn not taking them seriously and the matchups working out perfectly in favor of the Razorbacks. There's no way that Arkansas can be a legitimate contender for the national title, especially ahead of an undefeated West Virginia or Louisville squad. If you put Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, and Cal all behind Arkansas, then you pretty much guarantee that an undefeated WVU or Louisville squad does get in since you're putting all the legitimate contenders behind a team that can't possibly get in. You say that the Big East teams shouldn't get on the basis of "one good win" but that's all that Arkansas has, and if you look at the WVU/Louis winner's resume and compare it to Arkansas, there's no way in hell you'll be able to say Arkansas's is better. These logic chains basically mean nothing anyway. BC lost to NC State this year who lost to Akron who lost to Kent State who lost to Army who lost to Tulane. Does that mean that Tulane's better than Boston College? Of course not. The good thing about this argument is that will be short-lived, as pretty soon Cal's going to beat USC, and then instead of a logic chain, we'll have a logic circle where you can change the order to "prove" that any one team in the chain is better than any other team in the chain.

You haven't been screwed until you've missed out on a big national game 11 weeks out of the year to watch Montana State Bobcat football. I tried going to the sports bar to watch football the last Saturday I was in town, but if I try that now, I'll be breaking my probation. Meh. I've got a couple hundo on UNC. I'll watch it.

I don't know. I actually thought that episode was pretty weak. The bear subplot seemes like random filler plucked completely out of nowhere, and there was absolutely no explanation for how Locke, Desmond, and Eko survived. So the hatch imploded, and that somehow through them all outward in different directions, but none of them were injured at all. That just makes no sense. Oh, and I didn't really like seeing new people for the first time either. If they weren't in the first two seasons, then as far as I'm concerned, they weren't on the F-ing plane. At least the stuff with Jack, Kate, and Sawyer follows somewhat of a logical progression. The only character I really like now is Ben.

Just watched this Monday's episode now and... wow! That's about 10x better than I thought this show was capable of. There were about 6 spots that were laugh out loud hilarious. (My favorite was when we see the van's parked in the handicapped spot.) And yet the ending was still really poignant. Even though he's been kind of an obnoxious character, you really felt for the DEA guy at the end. All in all, just a tremendous, tremendous episode that makes me really sad the season's almost over.

Does this make sense to anyone? I feel like I'm missing something here.

The computers know that Cal lost at Tennessee, and beat some good teams the rest of the season. They have no way of knowing that Tennesse had them completely dominated.

Can I amend my Cards in 7 pick to Cards in 6? To be fair, at the time, I thought Carpenter would be starting in Game 7. As things stand, I don't see any way the Mets win with Perez starting tonight and an exhausted bullpen, and you know Carpenter's going to get one good start after having a terrible outing in the Cards' win in Game 2.

I'm talking about putting Arkansas ahead of Auburn and Florida. There's no way in hell the Hogs are #6 in the country right now. Also, Brohm's back. He was a little rusty last week against Cincy and the offense was a little out of synch, but he should be good to go by the time they face West Virginia. I still think they beat the Mountaineers at home.

CFN's just playing around now. If you don't believe me, look at the ranking for Arkansas and look at the ranking for Louisville. Also, this is what happens when you make too much out of head-to-head results. With CFN's tumble in credibility this week, Iggy's rankings are now the most credible in all of college football.

A few things just to clarify: 1. Michigan's better than USC. You can figure this out by watching them play just about any week or even just by looking at boxscores, and seeing the teams USC struggles with, and how Michigan dominates everyone. 2. The computer rankings can't possibly know this. They are not allowed to take margin of victory into account. If you look at the Sagarin ratings, the rankings used for the BCS have USC at #1, but the ones with margin of victory taken into account have them at #4. 3. Re: whoever said they'll find a way to put Michigan at #2 when they face Ohio State. Uh yeah, it's pretty simple. It's called Cal's going to beat USC. Obviously, if USC makes it through that ridiculous slate of games, they'll be #2, but if they play anything like they have been, they won't.

It's pretty simple really. The computers aren't allowed to take margin of victory into account. All they see is that USC beat Arkansas, Nebraska, Washington State, and Washington. The fact that the Trojans didn't play any I-AA or mid-major opponents helps them a lot too, as the computers don't tend to overweight the top part of the schedule as much as humans do.