cabbageboy

I have actually heard the RVD/Kane stuff before, that they were supposed to beat HHH in Sept/Oct. of 2002. I even remember an interview with Kevin Kelly where he laughed about HHH refusing to job to either and saying "I'm better than both of those guys, why should I lose to them?"

I actually think they are doing a really goofy sell on this PPV. All I hear on Raw is people saying "This PPV is a crap idea" or "You people shouldn't be able to vote on my match." Seriously, what exactly is there to vote for here? Whether Michaels or Benoit gets their umpteeth title match, as Edge said? Which JTTS jobs in the IC match? Pointless stips to matches? Tonight's show was bleh. The only thing I had any deranged intrigue about was Snitsky/Kane, and they didn't do much with that.

Well, the era you mention in the 90s is when I most remember Harry. Trust me, there were some truly underachieving dipshit Cubs teams during that era, and Harry would let them have it. I remember that he used to just trash Brian McRae on a regular basis, badmouthed his lack of hussle, etc. Then the Cubs got rid of McRae. I think it was one of the Benes brothers who earned Harry's wrath as well (Andy or Alan, I can't recall...likely Andy). I remember Harry was like "This guy is supposed to be one of the star pitchers in the league, but LOOK at him." Then Stone fired back by saying "People have said Benes is one of the best pitchers in the league?" I miss the old Harry/Stone team...they were great.

Here we go: Braves over Astros in 4. Houston has had a great run to get to the playoffs, but if there's one thing they've never been able to do it's beat Atlanta. It's the worst possible matchup. They'd trash the Dodgers and probably take the Cardinals to 5, but the Braves seem to have their number in the postseason. Cardinals over Dodgers in 4. Dodgers will maybe win game 3 in LA, but otherwise I don't see them having enough pitching (or hitting either) to take out St. Louis. Red Sox over Angels in 5. This is a tough series but for some reason I can't possibly see Anaheim winning this series. And it wouldn't be the Red Sox unless it was a nerve wracking pushed to the limit series. Twins over Yankees in 5. Someone had to have the balls to predict it. This is based on one key thing: I think Santana will win 2 games in this series for Minnesota. And I think SOMEBODY else on their staff with have a solid game (Radke maybe?). Thus, the league series: Cards over Braves in 6. For some reason I just can't see the Braves getting to the World Series this year. It isn't a flameout by any means but this doesn't seem like one of their absolute best teams. Red Sox over Twins in 6. In a longer series it'll be harder for the Twins to advance. I think Santana will do well here as well, but the Sox will take the games he doesn't pitch. And finally.... Cardinals over Red Sox in 7. Let's face it, we all know the Sox can't WIN the series, but they'll make it a thriller. Manny Ramirez will make a bonehead play in the outfield and cost them game 7, heh. Thus, the Sox will do as much as humanly possible without achieving their major goals (beating the Yankees in the playoffs, winning the World Series).

I too wondered about the sample used in that Gallup. When I saw that it's a tie in Gallup I was shocked quite honestly. If they did a more feasible sample, then these results make fairly good sense. Hell, if they just did an even sample of Rep/Dem then Bush has worries. And if they are still doing the goofy 39-40% Republican sample then Bush might have big worries. If Kerry is tied with that goofy Rep. sample, he'd actually be up by something like 7-9% if they used a sample similar to the last election. As far as Zogby goes, yeah I realize he's a Democrat (while Rasmussen is a Republican). But one thing that can't be argued is that he's at least using a legit sample similar to 2000 turnout, and that can't be said of Gallup lately. Here's the interesting thing about that Newsweek poll, if it's true they did 37% Dem, 35% Rep. In the last election Democrats were actually 39% to Republicans 35% (thus showing how even more insane it is to use 4-5% more Reps in these polls). So they might have undersampled Dems by 2% or so, in which case Kerry would be up 4-5%. Here's an interesting look at the debate: www.americanresearchgroup.com They have 2 panels there with similar results, and these aren't as bad for Bush as some of these post debate polls. Note that on avg. 7% of the Reps. polled thought Kerry won. 3% of Dems. thought Bush won. Now, Bush will likely get most of that 7% anyway in Nov. but just look at the startling gap in the independent voters. In panel 1 Kerry had a 19% margin with independents, 16% in panel 2. Mind you, I'm not totally sure what that will mean in terms of independent votes, but it's interesting. It'll be interesting to see what their final results are in terms of a real poll. The next two debates will likely determine the winner. Or at least the last debate with the economy talk and all that....I doubt the "field questions from the crowd" debate will cause seismic shifts in the electorate.

No boo hoo, Satanico. OSU finally jobs out to someone in a close game as NW gets the TD in OT to win it 33-27. You know, the Big 10 seems awfully down this year. I think Purdue might win the conf. by default.

Is anyone else just sick and tired of fucking Ohio St.? Seriously, every week these guys have a life and death struggle, often against teams that aren't really particularly good (NW? NC St? Marhsall?). Will someone in the Big 10 like Purdue or Michigan just wax these clowns by 30? Oh, and being probably the only Louisville fan here I gotta pimp my boys: beat E. Carolina 59-7 today to move to 4-0 and now we get a biggie on Oct. 14 in the ESPN Thursday game vs. MIAMI. I'm not going to predict an upset since it's at the Orange Bowl, but don't be shocked if it's a game. I haven't been too thrilled with Miami from what I've seen against FSU and Houston. For what it's worth, FSU beat UNC today by 22 and U of L beat UNC last week on the road by 34.

Today was a big letdown in a lot of ways. I was wanting to see a more interesting scenario for tomorrow. As in hoping to see a wild 3 team race for the wild card with the Astros, Giants, and Cubs...but of course that isn't happening now. The Cubs coughed up another one today, but I wasn't even sad...I expected it once they put Farnsworth in with a shaky 1 run lead. Fitting isn't it? The Dodgers are better than the Padres, so I don't think they'll get swept by the Cardinals. They'll at least win 1 game, might even take it the full 5 but I can't see them winning that series. If there's one thing I know, it's that the Braves own the Astros in the postseason...now that I say it watch Houston sweep them. I think the Yanks should lose tomorrow and Sox win just so they can finish all of ONE game ahead...it'd just frustrate and piss off the Sox fans all the more, heh. If there's one thing I can take consolation in, it's that the A's might have tanked worse than the Cubs. God, they had a series against the team that was tied with them and proceeded to flop in two straight at home.

Keep in mind these are mostly pre debate polls that are being used here. I almost can guarrantee you that once the new post debate polls come out Kerry will fare better. Let me take a look at what Teke had to say: "In order for Kerry to win, he'd need to keep his leads in Washington, Oregon, Maine, New Jersey, and Minnesota. He'd also have to take the currently-tied states of Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire, and a Bush-leaning state worth 6 or more electoral votes such as Iowa." Washington and Oregon aren't even really swing states. I have yet to hear anyone who would suggest Bush will take those. NJ is closer than 2000 but Bush won't win it by any means. Minnesota is a close state but the easiest of the 3 in that area (WI and IA being the others). Also Michigan isn't tied at all in reality (Kerry is up by about 5-6 there). As far as NH goes, Bush won that state mainly due to Nader getting 3.6% in 2000, which he won't do again. In addition, FL isn't remotely for Bush by this margin...bear in mind that is the Gallup poll this site is quoting and it's ludicrously oversampling Republicans. Rasmussen and Zogby basically have that state as a tie, with either man getting a 1% lead. Ohio is a complete tossup, one of the few in the election where I don't think anyone has a clue what will happen. There are some other states here that don't look right either. NM for instance. This poll has Bush up 47-43 there, but he lost that state in 2000 by like .1%. Nader isn't on the ballot in NM this time, so I think Kerry will win that state by a bit more than Gore did. Also, Wisconsin and Iowa were two other states that Gore won in 2000 that could really go either way. Keep in mind that these states as well were both so close due to Nader getting 3.6 in WI (not sure what he got exactly in WI but I'd say about 3%). Nader isn't going to get that sort of support this time, and I think people tend to view this election as though he'll get exactly what he did in 2000. Thus, Bush would have to seriously increase his amount of support in those states. Anyway, this map as it currently stands is meaningless since it's using pre debate info. I'm waiting to see what the new polls on Monday (Rasmussen, Zogby) say. I'll say this: If the new Gallup comes out and Bush is winning by less than 5% in it, he should start worrying.

You can just do what I do: Blame Farnsworth. They better not bring this guy back next year. Know who chiefly blew it in that 11-8 loss to the Cardinals? Or who blew a big lead in another game with the Cardinals that could have forged a tie for 1st (which the Cubs never recovered from)? My boy The Farns. Hell he was even the guy who gave up the winning run to the Reds yesterday, though it being the 12th I suppose he was the last option, heh.

I don't know what is going on with the Gallup poll, but I do know that it's the most scandalously underreported issue of this whole campaign. This poll is a fraud, a flat out fraud. Take a closer look at that poll. Note that Bush is now ahead by 8% in this bogus poll, but that they're using 5% more Republicans. Thus, it's a very deliberate oversampling designed to make Kerry look bad, and give the illusion that he's tanking, when in fact he's really doing ok. In an even poll Bush would have a 3 pt. lead, that's taking away the crazed oversampling of Republicans. However, take into consideration that the past two elections have had Democrats outnumbering Republicans by 4-5%. With that in mind it's entirely possible that Kerry in reality is WINNING right now. That's more likely than him being down 8%. Take a look at much more legitimate polls like Rasmussen or Zogby, who use 39 Dem, 35 Rep, 26 Ind. Those polls look little like Gallup's. Interesting someone mentioned FL. In this goofy Gallup poll they had Bush ahead by an absurd 9%. Where exactly is this 9% going to come from? Let's see, they oversampled so the lead is automatically cut to 4%. I'm not entirely sure of what FL's vote distribution was in 2000, but using the national avg. of 2000 the FL race is basically tied. Which would be comparable to Rasmussen and Zogby, who have the FL race deadlocked (which it is).

Bush got owned tonight. I mean, as bizarre as some of the above statements about living in big cities and dumb hicks was, the main point there was clear. Bush was inept tonight, he stuttered, stammered, even mixed up Bin Laden and Saddam at one point. I'll also say that Kerry owns Gore in terms of debating. Gore was much too passive in 2000 and it hurt him. Right wing people like Rush can try and spin doctor this all they want, but Kerry clearly won this debate tonight on Bush's STRONGEST issue. National security, Iraq, and terrorism were Bush's strengths, this debate in theory should have been right in his wheelhouse.

Hey, the Giants and Cubs both lost extra inning games yesterday and get to play division winners in the last series (Braves, Dodgers). The Braves might put forth some kind of effort, so I doubt the Cubs can sweep them. Dodgers we know will try their best to stick it to the Giants, so the Giants are even more fucked. At this point, it's Houston's to lose. They just have the Rockies remaining.

Well, all I can hope for is the Giants losing this one tonight, then the Cubs are only down 1/2 to the Stros and can win tomorrow to tie that up. Ah who am I kidding? Anyone who loses 2 games to both the Mets and Reds doesn't even deserve to make the playoffs.

At this point I don't think the Cubs can afford to lose a game. At this point I'd have to go with the Astros as the favorites to win the wild card, as much as it sickens me to do so. It's really sort of lame if the Stros do win it...they'd play the Braves and if there's one thing the Braves can do in the playoffs it's beat the Astros. At least the Cubs/Braves series would prove interesting.

They shouldn't change his name. Part of his whole charm is that he has this horrible sounding name in Snitsky, it makes him seem like even MORE of a jobber than he is. I almost kinda hope he has a reasonably competitive match with Kane. Angles this historically hilarious don't come along every day, you know.

The thing about these spoilers that I found particularly disgusting was the main event result. They've got Eddie and RVD jobbing out to Luther and Mark Jindrak? Do you know how insulting that is to any sane person's intelligence?

I can't believe the Cubs. They go from losing 2/3 to the Mets to now losing to the Reds. Well, I stated before that anything less than 3/4 against the Reds is pathetic...the margin of error is thin now. Incidentally, it seems like the best teams to play when you REALLY need the wins to get in the playoffs are teams that don't give a shit because they've locked up the division. The Cardinals are just dicking around right now, and I'm hoping the Braves will be. Yanks should have nothing to worry about with the Twins, since they are in full "don't give a shit" mode. So in bizarre reverse logic the Cubs might be getting a break to get the chilling Braves for the last 3 games, and the Stros might be awaiting an ambush with the seemingly hapless Rockies. Either way the Giants look screwed...even if the last series with the Dodgers wasn't for the division title you know LA would want to screw them out of the WC.

I'm sure the Cardinals are just shaking in their cleats over the prospect of facing Jake Peavy. Okay, I'll amend it: Padres might take 1 game if Wells is out of his mind, but that's about it. Hektik, I noticed the Padres logo on your posts so I take it you're from the SD area or somewhere in S. CA? My original post doesn't really apply to you since you're a fan. I'm just saying that for most of the country the Pads are mostly viewed as a spoiler. As far as teams still contending for the WC that people would want to see, they'd finish a distant last behind the Cubs, Giants, and Astros. You can argue it all you want, but this is reality.

Why would anyone outside of SD want to see the Padres in the playoffs? These guys bring nothing to the table in terms of intrigue or fan interest, particularly when compared to the Bonds led Giants or the Cubs. What if the Padres do make the playoffs? They'd be swept in 3 quite easily by the Cardinals. That said, I'll be rooting for the Padres to take out the Giants the next 3 games to help the Cubs out.

Snitsky is in the so bad it's good category to me...he's absolutely horrible on every level, but lord he is entertaining. Haha.

Hey, the Cubs at least won tonight 12-5 over the Reds. That puts them now 1 game over the Giants for the WC, which is nice. 3 more with Cincy and the Giants have a tough series with SD and then finish at LA. I think the Astros will end up giving the Cubs more of a headache than the Giants at this point. SF has too many tough games left and Houston has the Cardinals (who are likely resting guys at this point) and hapless Rockies left.

I have to say this was a fairly uninteresting Raw aside from one thing: Gene Snitsky. This guy is so hilariously horrible on the mic that it actually ADDS to his so called feud with Kane. "Okay, Kane and Lita, I'm sorry about your baby...but it's...not...my...fault!" The sad thing in this whole angle is that Val Venis is now reduced to jobbing to a guy no one had ever heard of 3 weeks ago.

I know that Johnson is on a shitty team that doesn't score, and what I'm saying is that while his numbers look Cy Young worthy he's still 14-14. Being on such a bad team is probably going to cost him the Cy Young. See, in the AL Schilling might have 1 more win than Johan Santana but we're talking 21-20 here. Since Santana has better numbers, give it to him. In the NL Clemens is 18-4 and on a contending team, so he'll likely get it. I could be wrong, but that's usually how these things go. When did a .500 pitcher last win the Cy Young?

Damaramu, it's not that people begrudge your loyalty to your team, but right now isn't really the greatest time to hype OU. After the way they crashed and burned last year against Kansas St. and yet still got to the nat. title game (where they again crashed and burned against LSU), people simply don't want to hear about these guys at the moment. It'll probably take running the table and winning the Big 12 title game to get people off their backs...an insanely high standard perhaps, but a standard they get for being an elite program. I also think there is some resentment towards Jason White for winning the Heisman, given his dreadful outings in the last two games. Certainly few people want to hear about him trying to repeat as Heisman winner.