iggymcfly

Who will be number one? Yeah, it's gonna be UConn. They're one of the teams that the media loves to hype up, and they're the highest ranked team that didn't lose this week. As for who deserves to be number one though, that's a totally different question. At this point, I think it still has to be Duke. They've played a much tougher schedule than UConn regardless of whether they lost to a common opponent. Some quick comparisons: Wins over currently ranked teams Duke: Memphis, at Indiana, Texas, Maryland, NC State UConn: Gonzaga, at Syracuse, at Louisville Loss Duke: by 3 to Georgetown UConn: by 15 to Marquette Overall SOS according to Sagarin Duke: 4th UConn: 217th

Well, in a day in which all three undefeated teams lost, I don't think Bob Knight's whiny interview is really a major story.

Well, so much for Florida being #1. They blew their chance tonight against Tennessee. I guess that with two wins over Top 5 teams now, you have to take the Vols somewhat seriously.

Well Duke lost. I think the weak link for the Blue Devils right now is Paulus. He was clearly rattled down the stretch, made a lot of bad turnovers and bad fouls, and even missed an open layup in the closing seconds. I know he's just a freshman and he should get better throughout the year, but if he gets this rattled in a non-conference game in January, I can't imagine what he'll be like in the NCAA tournament. Honestly, if Duke doesn't win it all, I think Paulus will be the reason why.

Redick's having a tremendous game and Duke's making a comeback. Georgetown's still up 4 with 2:30 to go.

More or less. It's something you're either good at or you're not. Were The Rock, Ric Flair, Jim Cornette, Steve Austin or countless others cutting money promo's their first time out? It's not Shelton's "first time out". He's been in the company three years. When The Rock hit his two year anniversary, he was doing well enough to be WWF champion, and by the three year mark, his money promos had already made him the #1 face in the company.

If you say that the RVD/Eddie ladder match was better, I can't really argue with you because it was pretty close, but that's about all I can think of. I'd be really interested to see three TV matches from 2002 that were better than the fatal four way. There might be two or three matches in history that would be better depending on your point of view, but there's no way that were three better TV matches in 2002 alone.

The fatal four way was 45% Edge, 35% Angle, 10% Benoit, and 10% Guerrero, and it's the best TV match in the history of professional wrestling. Edge may not be good at carrying a shitty opponent, but if you put him in there with someone who knows what he's doing, he's an excellent wresltler.

I watched most of the last Raw after not watching more than 15 minutes of a show since Summerslam. Basically, I thought Cena was boring as shit, and I wanted to see where they were going with Edge as champ. It's at least somewhat "different" and "fresh" even if it's nothing major. The Angle/Shawn match and the TLC match didn't hurt either. They definitely kept me interested when I would have turned away if we had the typical Cena vs. Masters and Carlito shit that's been main-eventing a lot of Raws lately.

Just now getting around to my thoughts on this. When I watched the movie, I initially assumed that it was all in his head. It just seemed like it was being revealed that way with the crazy last night followed by the apartment being different followed by his lawyer saying that he'd had dinner with Allen. My roommate was adamant that it was real though, and that it was just that no one around him noticed. From what I've seen on the internet, the actual author refused to say definitively what was going on, saying that he wanted to leave it open to the interpretation of the reader. There have been reports he said the killings were real and reports he said they weren't but nothing credible as far as I can tell. Anyway, my take is that since it can be interpreted either way, the best interpretation is that he actually killed the people. It's just more substantive and interesting that way. However, I think that the director of the movie took the opposite interpretation, and was trying to show that the killings were indeed in his head. The ATM machine talking to him, the emphasis on the pills, and even the emphasis on the video tapes all seem to point toward the killings being imagined. It seems like the director was trying to say that he was just projecting things he'd watched in movies on to his real life. Anyway, since it's unresolved, I just wanted to take a poll to see where the majority opinion is on this. Again, I haven't actually read the book, but it seems like its best interpretation would be of a real killer whereas the movie took a different perspective completely.

COULDN'T care less. Either way is correct, Faulty Grammar Nazi. How is that correct? "Could care less" means that there is already some level of caring being done, which you could do less than if you wanted. Do you use "literally" to mean "figuratively" too? Actually, "could care less" implies that he could indeed care less, but that it would be difficult. I'm pretty sure that it's still correct, if a little less intuitive than the preferred form.

I refuse to believe that HHH/Edge will be the main event to Wrestlemania. I mean that's just terrible. If they want HHH in the main event that bad, they'd be better off just letting him win the title on Raw, and then running HHH/RVD as their main event. Hell, HHH/Flair would be better than HHH/Edge.

If it's mic ability you're looking at, then Shawn Michaels has to be right up there, if not in the Top 5, at least in the Top 10. The problem is that he doesn't let that ability show through too much. For example, his promos on Hogan were dynamite, as were his promos on HHH when he first came back. If he doesn't have a hot feud or a little heelish edge however, he gets kinda boring. His typical stoic face routine that we see week in and week out on Raw is extremely stale. As far as the best of all time go, I'd say: 1. The Rock 2. Ric Flair 3. Steve Austin 4. Shawn Michaels 5. Kurt Angle Admittedly though, I haven't seen enough of Jake Roberts' work to accurately judge him. I wouldn't argue with him in the Top 5.

That fatal four-way leading into Armageddon 2002 is still my favorite TV match of all time. It was supposed to be Eddie vs. Benoit vs. Angle vs. Edge, but over half of the match was just Edge vs. Angle. They had a really good story with Edge selling the pre-match beatdown (from A-Train of all people), and it was one of the first times where they set up the whole babyface fights all the odds only to have him just lose clean to the heel at the end. The story was woven into the match so well though, that were at least ten believable near-falls for Edge, just off of random semi-finishers that you wouldn't expect to end that kind of match if it hadn't been done so well. I must have watched that match 20 or 30 times before I lost the recording.

Texas and Pittsburgh both passed UConn, because they got wins which made their overall resume better than UConn's. Pittsburgh just equaled Villanova's best win on the season by beating Louisville on the road, and at this point there overall schedule is just about as good as UConn's whose best win after the Gonzaga game is probably at home over Cincy. Before the UL game, you could say Pitt was just untested, but now the only major difference between Pitt and UConn is UConn's ugly home loss to a mediocre Marquette team. Likewise, Texas now has better wins than anyone in the country outside of Duke, beating WVU and Iowa at neutral sites, Memphis on the road, and now Villanova at home. In that light, the only way to characterize the Tennessee loss is that it was a fluke due to Texas being unable to deal with the embarrassment of the Duke loss. And if Texas really is the third best team in the country, (which I think they are now), then why should I punish Nova for losing to them by three on the road? The Wildcats really did all they could be expected to do, and I see no reason to believe that UConn would have done any better in the same situation. To be fair, Villanova and UConn are extremely close right now, and I could see either one being placed over the other, but right now, I think the Wildcats are just a tiny bit better. Oh, and finally, I had the wrong previous rank up for UConn before. They were actually 5th going into last week, so they only dropped two spots.

I was going to just put these in the new college basketball thread, but since there isn't one up yet, I figured I'd just go ahead and put them up here again. January 16, 2006 Duke 16-0 (1) Florida 16-0 (2) Texas 14-2 (6) Pittsburgh 14-0 (12) Memphis 15-2 (4) Villanova 11-2 (3) Connecticut 14-1 (5) Illinois 16-1 (9) Gonzaga 13-3 (11) Washington 14-2 (16) NC State 14-2 (17) Wisconsin 14-2 (18) Michigan State 14-4 (22) Ohio State 12-2 (7) Indiana 10-3 (8) West Virginia 12-3 (19) Louisville 13-3 (14) UCLA 14-3 (10) George Washington 12-1 (20) Iowa 13-4 (23) Tennessee 11-2 (13) Syracuse 15-2 (NR) Michigan 11-3 (25) North Carolina 10-3 (15) Xavier 11-2 (NR) Dropped out: Wake Forest (21), Boston College (24) Just missing the cut: Maryland, Bucknell, Boston College, Cincinnatti, Northern Iowa

You could be asking both; you never know. OU seems to have a penchant for winning games in the 40s.

Yeah, it's just a biological thing. People of Caucasian descent don't run as fast as African-Americans. I always kind of wondered if it had to do with the slave ships, as the 90% of the populace that wasn't physically fit died, and only the "cream of the crop" survived. That doesn't explain the Kenyans though.

I <3 wildpegasus too. Not only does he amuse me with his zany antics, but he also makes me feel a lot better about myself.

Actually, I'll agree with that too. When he was working on his own, and trying to sneak by the FBI agents, it felt fresh. However, when he's on the phone with CTU guiding a team to take out the terrorists with hostages, it felt like it was back to formula pretty fast.

OK, fair enough. It is a six month old comment, but like I said, I just now wandered across the blog section of TSM.

Was anyone else kind of pissed off that Jack gave in to the terrorists just to save that stupid kid? If they were even mildly intelligent, they would have noticed the "Flank Two" thing right off, and then he could have blown the whole mission. I have to say, tonight's episodes were nowhere near as good as last night's.

1. Wrestlemania X-7- Probably the best PPV the WWF ever put out. Great card from top to bottom. 2. Summerslam 2002- Loved this show. There were lots of solid matches, but HHH/HBK really made the show. From a dramatic standpoint, I'd say this is the best match in WWF/WWE history. 3. Vengeance 2003- Really solid card from top to bottom. The triple threat match was awesome, and the TWGTT/Filthy Animals match was about as good of undercard match as you can have. 4. No Mercy 2002- I'd say that this was the last HIAC match that actually meant something, and the tag team title match represented the absolute peak of the Smackdown Six days as well. Very good card. Yeah, that's about all that really sticks out as meaningful. WM X-8 was pretty good at the time, and Summerslam 2001 should be up there too, but those were the four shows that still seem really memorable.

I can't believe that everyone's talking about the competition tonight between Raw and UFC. Did everyone forget the show with the best worked fights and storylines on television? 24, bitches!

There's no Raw GM, and the acting Raw GM is Vince who controls both shows. Thus, with Batista going down, Vince could easily just decide that Smackdown needs more star power and send over Kurt Angle. Vince makes a decision and it doesn't need an explanation. Hey, it's just like real life.