USC Wuz Robbed!

Good pick on Dean.

I would but the wife wouldn't be so receptive to it.

You suggest I go to a restaurant every Sunday to watch Bears? Yeah the wife and kids would love that.

Don't drink, therefore no reason to go to a bar.

Nevermind all that. Zoo helped me see the point more clearly in AIM. Yeah chalk this up as me being an idiot, I suppose. Sorry to waste everyone's time. edit: To clarify, see, I had a certain strong belief that quarterbacks only pass, not run. But since I am an offensive coordinator for a local high school team, I run a certain set of gimmick plays, and it pisses the other coaches off in the league. Well I just realized I sounded like those coaches. So, yes I'd still hate it if the Bears hired a scrambler, but I have to let them do it, if they really believed it meant success for the team. Porter= Hypocritical, bad at debates and prone to overreactions.

Way to miss the point.

Oh so you'd sacrifice personal beliefs just for a win? Gotcha.

If the organization supports a player I can't support, then how can I support that organization? Suppose Rae Carruth came out of jail and Michael Vick came out of jail, and the Jets signed both. How can you support a team with two bonafide criminals on it? Same concept. I can't support a team that supports something I immensely dislike. Call me disloyal if you'd like, I call it being true to my beliefs.

Oh? Where and when's the next NOAH show in USA?

Then you're not loyal to yourself. I'm more loyal to myself than a sports team. I know what I like. I know what I don't. Simple as that. If you don't understand, then that's fine. That's the beauty of sports. There's many things you can like and many things you don't have to like, and it all works out in the end. I guess under some of you guys' harebrained criteria, the only team I'm truly a fan of is USC.

Once again, it isn't going to happen. So it's a moot point.

WWE travels globally. Japanese wrestling promotions don't. Therefore, WWE is the biggest promotion. Period.

I root for the Bears because they were the first and only team I was aware of in my early childhood, and obviously my parents' fandom of them rubbed off on me. They took me to Super Bowl XX when I was very young, so you'd see how dedicated they were to the Bears. And Chicago is pretty much a Bears-first city, Cubs second. So it's hard not to grow up a Bears fan there. In all honesty though, the Bears' offensive philosophy was not one that I grew to like as I got older and understood more about football. This is why I was so thrilled in September of 2006 when it looked like the Bears could be a shoot-out type offense, because that's what I like. A show in the air. However, I'm still a Bears fan because I appreciate what they do on defense. I appreciate the whole "Monsters of Midway" mystique of the defense. edit: Besides, I don't expect the Bears to draft a scrambler, so rest easy, I'm pretty much a Bears fan for life.

That's crazy man. All those years rooting for the team coming to an end because of one player? An overreaction if you ask me. What happens if they won the Super Bowl with that guy? Winning is winning. Or what if they dump him, would you come back to the team? I don't care if they win the Super Bowl with the scrambler. It's not playing football the way I like it played. Call me crazy but I like my quarterbacks to make his money with his arm, not legs. If they drop him, I might return, but obviously it wouldn't be the same again.

I was thinking that. That this is probably Vince's way to reprise his Hirohito idea.

Yeah. If I lose the Bears/Raiders, I'd just be a casual fan of the NFL with no real allegiances. I cannot see myself rooting for anyone else. I just REALLY REALLY REALLY hate scramblers. Luckily the Bears are never going to pick up someone like that because that's just not their style. Neither will the Raiders under Davis (Russell isn't a scrambler, before anyone asks. He's a passer first and a runner last.)

I do have one hang up that would completely sever my ties with a team like Bears or Raiders. If they draft a pure scrambler (Vick or Young types), then it's over for me. I just cannot get behind a team that uses a gimmick. Yes, I would literally prefer Rex Grossman and his million turnovers over a guy who's first option is to take off.

I'd agree actually with parts of that. It's despicable to switch teams at the drop of the hat, depending on who's good or not. That's why I don't actually really consider myself a Chargers fan. I'm only interested in them because they're good. However I've stuck with the Bears through the 90s when they were just bad. So I don't think anyone can question my loyalty to the Bears. Same for the Raiders, but I am just not as vocal about the Raiders as I am about the Bears.

Next time, I'll do your way.

A main eventer/upper midcarder who loses a match. You sure apply the term rather liberally that this has essentially become your definition.

909, bolding is how I roll. What is wrong with that way?

I thought the rule was you can't like two teams that run in direct conflict with each other (ie: Matt Young liking White Sox AND Cubs) but beyond that, it was ok? The Bears are in the NFC, the Raiders in the AFC. I don't see what's wrong with that. And obviously everyone is going to prefer one team over the other (Bears here). Especially when you are in a situation where you live halfway across the fuckin' country and find it hard to follow your true favorite team. Here I get maybe 4 times more Raiders games than I do Bears. Are you telling me I'm not allowed to express a sense of admiration for the Raiders when I see them nearly every Sunday as opposed to waiting for whenever SNF/MNF/national game of the week that doesn't interfere with the local interests to see Bears?

Most people have the ONE team that they hold in a higher regard above all.

What I mean is a smashmouth, defense-oriented team with a rich tradition. The Bears fit that bill, although I think the Steelers have a bit more tradition. And much better quarterback play. Unfortunately I'd agree on both counts. Pittsburgh established themselves as a dynasty in the 70s and it stuck ever since. Since the NFL came to be (post AFL merger) the Bears had done almost nothing of note outside a few strong seasons. At least we have the arguably most dominant Super Bowl team ever? That something to hang a hat on? 2000 Baltimore Ravens. Now that was a fucking defense. The Bears had the better running game and the more memorable team, with all the characters on the team like Fridge, Ditka, McMahon, etc. but the Ravens were just a fucking killer defense. I knew from midseason on that no team was going to get in their way for a Super Bowl, even with the total lack of an offense that they had. I think an argument can be made for the Ravens, obviously, but the Bears' D did kinda help the team go 15-1 and you said no team was going to get in the Ravens' way, well what about the Bears completely shutting down everyone in the playoffs, including the Super Bowl? For christ's sake, they shut out everyone they faced in the NFC side of the playoffs! Just food for thought. And after looking at things, Ravens did not even win the division that year. How can you say you knew they were going to win the Super Bowl from midseason onwards when Tennessee had a better season? In conclusion, when I say "dominant SB team" I don't just mean the game itself. I mean the whole season. The Bears were just ridiculously good. I will say though, Ravens were better at the average points allowed through the season than the Bears, but Bears pitched 4 shutouts that year to Ravens' 3.

On tonight's episode of Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares, they did a restaurant in Long Island, and of course, Long Island's own Mick Foley appeared for the grand re-opening. edit: And he was completely unacknowledged by the show or Ramsay. The "star guest" was Dee Snider, and I guess Foley was portrayed as an ordinary friend of his who came to eat too. He was shown maybe three or four times, but never mentioned.