smokinandjokin

Well-funded, adept at recruiting, and able to raise and transfer funds where he can put the money to use. His death would be a big deal; not your typical "Al Qaeda #2 killed in Iraq today." His death would have name value as well as operational value.

Brownie?

Can I still get drunk in the parking lot?

I'm assuming these are from Bill Maher?

Ah yes good point. I guess it just doesn't seem possible that we would have a home playoff game.

No question we lost to a very good team in San Diego. But just because we are still in the race, it doesn't say much for our football team. I was at the game in San Diego, and the talent gap between the two teams was immense. The Bills were outclassed in the warmups. I appreciate the positive post and I would definitely love a playoff game, but it is hard to get excited knowing that it will be a road playoff game against a good team, and we are 0-5 on the road. The loss at New England was supposedly a way to validate that this team can play well on the road, but what if New England isn't very good either? That puts us behind an average team, and ahead of the Jets and Dolphins. Woohoo. (Don't get me wrong- ahead of the Jets and Dolphins is much better than behind them; it's just not saying much, as I think we expected to be ahead of them.) So yes, while we did lose to a very good team, it further exposed our major problems for which there is no quick fix. Our O-line can't pass block, and our D-line can't get to the QB without blitzing (and even then they have trouble.)

Of course I hope over. My bro and I will account for 2. Not nosebleeds though; my sis has a friend from college who works for the Chargers, and she got us pretty good seats: Plaza level, 25-yard line, eighth row. Might be with the caviar crowd.

I don't know R.Rich, that doesn't sound like oozing confidence for your Nittany Lions vs. MSU...

I fully grasp that concept. But just because the conference as a whole is better does not mean the teams are better. LSU losing to Tennessee is a perfect example. Should we place LSU ahead of USC, when LSU's loss (at home) is to a team who got destroyed by Notre Dame, who USC beat on the road? Penn State, same thing. You have to put yourself in a postition to argue that you have the tougher schedule, and losing is not how you put yourself into position. And you're right, Georgia and Auburn would probably go 50-50. The fact that USC would go 80-20 against either of them makes USC better. One team in the past 43 games has been able to beat USC, in 3OT at their field, no less. That zaney media must be writing their own scores every week. I've already included some of the teams, which were conference champions, who have lost to USC over the past 43 games. That was irrelevant for you. You call yourself a rational football fan, just take a look at post #1 of this thread. That's as rational a ranking as the judges in your favorite sport, figure skating. I think you have a future. If USC is not the best team, why hasn't somebody stepped up and proven it? I guess as you concede this argument, we'll just have to wait until December's rankings, at which time USC will have won 34 in a row and will be on track to meet Texas in the title game. I can't wait to see which two-loss teams are more deserving than the undefeateds, according to the Polish judge.

Those teams, whoever they are, had the same opportunity to show the Soviet judge what they could do. Actually, using your logic, they had a better opportunity to show what they could do, seeing as they play "real" teams in "real" conferences. Perhaps Miami should have scored more than 7 points vs. Florida St. Maybe Penn State's vaunted defense should have made a 4th down stop with the game on the line. What if LSU didn't blow a 21-0 lead at home against Tennessee? Virginia Tech already had Texas sweating out the #2 spot, as they were gaining ground every week. Then they forgot to show up for a home game. Don't blame the "judges" for rewarding the two teams who have gotten it done week in and week out, home and road, against good teams and bad. Last year, USC was leading #7 Cal 23-17. Cal drives to the 8-yard line at the end of the game, behind Aaron Rodgers' 23 consecutive completions. What happened? The defense tightened on four straight plays to the end zone to preserve the lead and the win. USC loses, they're out. No excuses. But a good team will find a way to win. You have to win games Simon. That concept seems to be lost on you. You said it all. LOST is the key word, but you also could have included lost at home, or in Georgia's case, my #2 lost for the second time. Try winning your home games before you try winning a national championship. Once again, just because you say something doesn't make it true. I said NW plays entertaining games. I like they way QB Basenez plays. But their 52-21 loss to Arizona State (from the soft Pac-10) this year proved that they are not worthy. I respect the Big 10. My rankings have PSU at #4 and OSU at #7. Please don't write my posts for me. And as far as predictable, I had a large chunk of cheddar on Ohio State giving 19 points to NW. My wallet suggests that I do know what I'm talking about. Oregon won on the road in the freezing rain. The teams you've been slurping on all lost at home. Nice. I'm not trying to say WSU is a good team. 0-7 in the conference speaks for itself. But what 0-7 doesn't mention is the scores. Throw out a loss by 11 at Oregon State and a loss by 42 at USC, and they've lost the other 5 Pac-10 games by 3, 3, 4, 3, and 3 points. Winning on the road in a rainstorm against a team who plays everyone tough is nothing to be ashamed of. And lose!!! At home!!!! You continue to make it easier and easier to tool on your posts. Simon's mid-November Top 10 1. Texas 2. LSU- Simon thinks they played well in the loss at home to Tennessee (goff!) 3. Alabama- Where's the defense? Bama O put up their usual 10 points, D let LSU get 13! The nerve! 4. Ohio State- Simon really thought they were going to win those two they lost 5. Georgia- Second-best two-loss team in the country 6. Penn State- Not fair! Their defense thought UM was going to kick a FG on that 4th down play, down by 4. "But we stopped them on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd down!" 7. U Buffalo- Big win against a powerful Kent State team vaults them into Top 10 8. Florida- Third loss of the year drops them down a spot. 9. USC- Cal sucks this year and Trojans only won by 25. Chumps. 10. Virginia Tech- Simon thought about Miami at #10, but if they played again, Virginia Tech might win.

Another Big 12 team rolls through the conference only to get blown out by a real team. USC 55-17? No, not a beating like that this year. Vince Young is not Jason White. 34-24 USC.

Come on man, use your head. I said the BCS is not perfect. I, like everyone else, would rather see a playoff. But read this thread over and look at the points you and I have been arguing. We are trying to determine who is good, who plays soft teams, which conferences suck, etc. You say Texas is better than USC. Without the BCS, that argument would continue on into infinity. At least now, those two teams, which are the clear-cut Top 2 to 99.9% of the United States (no matter what you think) will actually play each other. What an amazing concept. You can't tell me that looking back at the way the Bowl system used to be, the BCS is not an improvement. USC would win the Rose Bowl, Texas would win their Bowl game, and you and I would argue all through January about who was better. At least now it can be determined on the field. Sick post Simon. Oregon, the 2nd best team in the PAC-10 (#10 in the AP), won 34-31 on the road at Washington State. UCLA, the 3rd best team (#12 in the AP), won by 10 vs. Arizona State. But Texas MUST be awesome. The 2nd best team in the Big 12, Texas Tech (#21), lost 24-17 to Oklahoma State, who was winless in the conference. The 3rd best team, Colorado (unranked), lost at home to Iowa State. Losing is different from winning. You sure know your college football. Solid work when your #2, #3, and #7 all lose in the same weekend. Your #8 won though. They have been playing playoff games. You lose and you're out. Only two teams haven't lost yet. Make all the excuses you want- all that matters is winning.

does that mean that there's a party in your a$$, and it's the sh*t?

Was it live from St. Peter's Cathedral in Vatican City?

In my humble opinion, the Bills are 4-5 with Losman starting all nine games. I believe the Bills would've toppled the Phins and the Jets at home with JP in there (all other aspects being equal, play calling and such, etc.) But maybe the benching was an alarm for JP. He seemed to handle it well, at least on the sidelines during the games Holcomb started. He may have realized that the job can be taken away just as easily as it was given to him.

It was basically a joke when Mularkey was pulling this secretive crap when Losman was yanked. I think everyone in the world knew Holcomb was starting, so nobody really took MM seriously. I wonder if now, the Chargers will have some extra work to do just because it really is up in the air as to who will be starting. In the first two plays Losman was in the game, you could immediately tell how different they are as QB's. But, SD might not be worried about either of them. Not sure, just asking your opinion.

Now that Losman came in and threw two deep balls and scrambled for a first-down, do the Bills have an advantage by keeping the starting QB a mystery? There was an immediate contrast between Holcomb's immobile style and short-passing attack and Losman's ability to move around and hit Evans downfield. Do the Bills really have an advantage by making the Chargers prepare for both QB's, or are they not going to really worry about either guy? Obviously, any game involving the Chargers revolves around Tomlinson- the guy is a TD machine. The Bills will need to put up some points to win this one.

The only thing I expect is that it will be 75 and sunny. Bills are +9 on the betting boards right now.

MooGoo's new tshirt

Everyone was REAL high on Villanova this past offseason, with most publications placing them in the Top 5. I don't know much about them (like you, familiar with Allan Ray, not much else) but I do know that forward Curtis Sumpter injured his knee and is likely out for the year. From what I heard, that takes them from a Top 5 to a Top 20 team. As for the age limit, I like it. I think it will make college and pro ball better. If you can get prep players to go to one year of college, it will no doubt help them. And they just might end up staying for two or three years.

1. Southern Cal 2. Texas 3. Miami 4. Penn State 5. LSU 6. Virginia Tech 7. Ohio State 8. Notre Dame 9. Oregon 10. Auburn How bad is the Big 12? Texas is obviously nasty, but not much else going on there. The "second-best team" Texas Tech lost to OK State, who was winless in the conference. Colorado loses to Iowa State, but will probably still make the title game, even with 2 conference losses. The SEC, home teams had a chance to git 'er done and couldn't. Alabama's charade is finally over. Nice D, pathetic O...You knew eventually somebody would score 13 points and beat them. Auburn hands Georgia their second loss with a big road win. Florida's quest for mediocrity continues with another loss, and this was a stinger: to Spurrier at South Carolina. Southern Cal has two games left: home vs. #16 Fresno State, and at Pasadena vs. #12 UCLA. Both teams are used to winning games this year (only 1 loss each) so neither game is a complete gimmee, but I don't see USC having much trouble with either team. Texas will clearly win out, so we should have the matchup everyone wants to see: #1 vs. #2, both undefeated, facing off in a bowl game. Several years ago, it would be USC-Penn State in the Rose Bowl, and Texas-Notre Dame in the Cotton Bowl. The BCS is far from perfect, but it DOES work.

Link?

I refer to grass as practically legal, as in: "You're gonna smoke that right here?" "Yeah, this sh*t is practically legal anyways." And thank God it is.

They didn't have to change a thing for this one: Deep Impact

I really doubt that Byron Brown will have an impact on the rise or continued decline of our beloved city. The problems are systematic and run much deeper than a mayor. The voters know the city is in it deep, and yet, were very apathetic towards the mayoral campaign and vote. Why? Because we know it is going to take a lot more than Brown or Helfer to lift the city out of the deep end. I personally voted for Helfer, but didn't place a lot of stock in the outcome either way.