LongLiveRalph

I LOVE MCGAHEE!!! With the two 3rd round picks from Baltimore, the Bills: -Drafted Trent Edwards in 2007 -Traded the 2008 3rd rounder to Jacksonville for Marcus Stroud SWEET DEAL!!!

I don't disagree that Canseco has lived the life of a scumbag. And there's no question he's trying to make a buck when he's releasing books naming certain steroid users. However, without Jose Canseco, Congress NEVER would've gotten involved, Bud Selig would've done NOTHING, there'd be no steroid testing in baseball because the Players Union would still have the league by the balls, and Ryan Howard probably would've hit 84 HRs this season. You don't have to like Jose. But give him some credit for opening some eyes to the situation, even if his intent was for personal gain rather than "sanctity of the game." It still took guts, turning on the fraternity like that. And as far as we know, EVERYONE Canseco has mentioned has eventually been proven to be a former user. That's what makes his ARod claims compelling. As far as McGwire, he was proven guilty the day he refused to talk to Congress. Defendants plea the 5th to avoid incriminating themselves, not because they're feeling shy. I don't think Sosa ever failed a test either, but when you go from charismatic good guy to "No hablo ingles" when someone asks about steroids, your guilt is written all over you. And I agree, they SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame. It's a museum celebrating the game's history. Unfortunately, it's a sad part of the game's history, but they should be there. Include on their plaques that they are suspected steroid users. Writers can't start picking and choosing who from that era goes into the Hall, based on their opinions of who used and who didn't. Either include them all whose numbers warrant it, or they can't include any. I think Chipper Jones is probably clean, but who knows? REALLY KNOWS?? Nobody. So why does he get a pass, and McGwire is left out?

So what about your "big boys lining their pockets at the expense of the small schools" righteousness? How does this system above make that better, and not worse? The conference championship games are the BIGGEST single money grab of the last decade, and that big money stays within the power conferences. Also, in your system, why would USC and Ohio State EVER play each other in the regular season? All you have to do is win your conference to make the playoffs. Why do you want to risk another loss (and risk losing an at-large bid) in case you stumble in a conference game? And if they did play, why would it matter, and what would make people tune in??? It was essentially a PLAYOFF game this year. In your system, the loser would say, "Ho-hum, see you in the tournament." By the way, "the writers" have no say in the current BCS set up. The AP poll is its own entity. College football has NEVER been more popular. EVER. The money is the biggest it's ever been. The ratings are the best they've ever been. The regular season matters more than it ever has. Why mess with a good thing? Add the Plus 1 game and be done with it.

Right back atcha...What happens to your 8-team or 16-team playoff when you have two teams with one loss, and 16 others with two losses? How do you decide who gets in??? What if one school goes undefeated? They get punished for a perfect regular season by having to play three or four playoff games against teams who "stumbled" twice, or have shown some weaknesses? I always laugh at the "big schools holding down the small schools" argument. Every team is on TV nowadays. Every team gets that ESPN money, and you can go to any school (Troy St.) and become a 1st round NFL draft pick. The reason the best teams are always the best teams is because they get the best players!!! The best players want to play somewhere with a rich history, a tradition of success, the best facilities, and a track record for putting players into the pros. That's just the way it is. A playoff would only reinforce the same Texas, USC, Ohio St, LSU dominance every year. Boise State aside, the VAST MAJORITY of the David vs. Goliath matchups would end up like Hawaii-Georgia last year: Unfair. By the way, BCS bowl money is distributed throughout the conference. So when LSU wins the Sugar Bowl, Vandy and Kentucky get a piece of that $17 million also. Washington State benefits from USC going to the Rose Bowl. There's 65 teams in the BCS conferences. That's more than half the schools in Division 1-A. The "big schools" are holding down the "little schools" because the best players would rather play for LSU than Kentucky, or Toledo for that matter. And last time I checked, there were 20+ bowls outside of the BCS and top-tier bowls, for the "little schools" to line their pockets. What happens to those games, in a playoff system? Like I said, it will only INCREASE the gap between the haves and the have nots.

Agreed, good post. I feel the same way you do, and I think the +1 holds onto some great Bowl traditions, while allowing for a reasonable national championship on the field. The bold part...You're never going to satisfy every school, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY LOSE!! The system works when teams win. When teams lose, they like to B word about the system. In 2003, Auburn ran the table and was left out of the NC, because USC and OU both ran the table as well. That's where the +1 would be perfect.

It wasn't a pass to write home about, no question...However, the Bills did bring a little heat...It can't be easy to step right into a blitzing MLB and deliver a 20-yard strike between layers of coverage. Poz looked pretty close to getting a piece of Green's arm, and was at the very least distracting him...

Yeah, the numbers were pretty overwhelming. There were thousands of Sabres fans packed into the bars around the arena before the game. I asked a bartender at the place we were at, and he said he had NEVER seen it like that for a hockey game. They were calling around for staff who could possibly come in!! I think that most were like me...Hopped in the car with the boys for a quick weekend trip, got a little pickled, watched the Sabres play uninspired hockey, and had a good time in Columbus. Like usual, there are your azzholes who can't help but being an ****, and you had some clowns who couldn't quite control themselves after a few cocktails. As for the national anthem, I only recall some "Lets Go Sabres" yelling at the very end, when typically everyone starts clapping and hooting. It wasn't out of the ordinary from any crowd in any arena as I remember it.

Playoffs? Don't be an idiot dude. You should be thinking HOME playoff game!!!

This is newsworthy? Have you watched a football game this decade? I was at a friend's house watching the games yesterday, he has a nice setup in his basement with pool table, bar, etc. and he sets up four TVs for the games. There were multiple occasions where all four games were at commercial at the same time. It's a 60-minute game that has become a 210-minute TV show. As for the announcers, I thought at TBD that all announcers suck and we have to harp about how idiotic they are??? Isn't it good they're not finishing thoughts?

Definitely not. I believe Canseco, probably more than anybody. The point I was making was that ARod hit .314, 54 HR, 156 RBI...A great, all-time statistical season, like I said it was on par with Mickey's best...He was leading the league the ENTIRE season in HRs, starting with his hot April...And he wasn't even a blip on the record chase. If the record was where it should be, in a human range of 61 or so, it probably would've been an exciting chase. I'm not saying ARod is clean or isn't clean. I'm saying, an INCREDIBLE season like that, by Ryan Howard or David Wright or Justin Morneau or anybody, is trivialized by comparisons to a ridiculous HR total that was obtained artificially. It's unfortunate. It's hard to imagine someone hotter than ARod was last year, and he was 20 away from breaking the record!!!! That's TWO MONTHS worth of games!!! Howard led MLB this year with 48!! 73??? That's too crazy.

Timothy Tindale!!!

Love the article preview in the corner about "Manning and Leaf Debut"....Wonder how that ever worked out... I'll admit, it was pretty cool to go out to dinner, and everyone in the place would turn and watch the TV above the bar when ESPN broke in with one of McGwire's at bats as he was getting close to the record. It's a shame that since the 1920's, the most home runs that a man could hit in a season was right there, either 60 or 61. McGwire artificially shattered that mark with a seemingly unattainable 70, and Bonds jumped that with a steroid assisted 73. What a shame. ARod hit 54 HR's last year, and generally had a season comparable to Mickey Mantle's best ever. And ARod wasn't even a blip on the radar in the HR chase. He needed 20 more!!! That's CRAZY! Ryan Howard led the bigs by a mile this year, and he had what? 47 or 48??? It's a shame that number is so skewed. There's a reason it was where it was for 70 years.

I don't recall any apologies last year when teams beat up on the Bills who were pulling players off the street to cover injuries. I don't recall Denver and Dallas apologizing for kicking the winning points on the last play of the game. I don't recall any of the teams on our schedule NOT taking part in recent drafts to attempt to make themselves better. I don't think Jacksonville is "weak" when you consider they beat Indy on the road. I don't think Oakland looked "weak" yesterday when they were up 15-0 on San Diego. It's hard to win in this league, especially on the road. But since these were easy games, sure go ahead and put your asterisk. All I know is, 4-0* looks MUCH better than 1-3.

Illinois went the Rose Bowl last year. Seriously! I like the BCS, there have been some incredible games that have been created...Including all-time classics like USC-Texas and Boise-Oklahoma. Texas-Michigan in the '04 Rose Bowl was another incredible game. You don't have those matchups under the old bowl system, so it's a definite improvement. I like the current system, but...I'd like to see a conference rating system...Maybe the #1 rated conference AUTOMATICALLY gets the winner of their conference championship game into the BCS title game. I think a Plus One system would work too, having one last game a week after all the bowl games to establish the national champion. I think everyone would love an eight team playoff as well. I don't know what the answer is so I just enjoy the good games that I get to watch. As for the rest, I don't think many people have a "crush" on Hawaii, they played in a BCS bowl. You think West Virginia is a perennial favorite??? They were in position to moonwalk into the national championship game, but got upset by Pitt in the last game of the season. Same thing with "historical football programs" Kansas and Missouri, who BOTH had chances to win their way into the title game, and BOTH lost. The system works if you win. People like to B word about the system after their team loses. THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA could've played in the national championship last season if they won all their games, as they were #2 in the initial BCS rankings. So what, exactly, are you saying??? I love the current setup because it does place a major pressure on teams to show up every week. You can't go on the road anymore in college football and expect to win an "easy" game, especially in-conference. Oregon St has proved that to USC each of the last three games in Corvalis. The USC-Ohio State game, and the Alabama-Georgia game are essentially PLAYOFF games in the 2nd and 3rd week of the season. I personally think it's great.

I was at a bar that had on TV: Mets-Marlins, Cubs-Brewers, Yanks-Sox, college football, and a great live band (possibly the best cover of Petty's "Mary Jane's Last Dance" I've ever heard, harmonica and all)...With the debate on a corner TV with no sound... I'm declaring myself the winner last night.

How much does his time cost? Is this related to him paying big dividends?

Solid

Beavers?

My handle is because Mr. Wilson gave me 5 years-$25 million after playing just one game as a backup in Jacksonville!!! It was a pretty sweet deal.

That's not even the point. I agree and disagree with MANY politicians and their various positions. However, I admire someone who can eloquently argue their point and at the very least, sound like they are as intelligent as you would expect a high-ranking national government official to be (notice I said "sound like"; it doesn't even really matter if you are smart, you just have to be able to fake it well.) Palin is only a few years removed from being a mayor of a suburb. I wouldn't expect her to understand the complexities of the financial markets, or have a solution for the trade deficit with China. However, you WOULD expect that she could communicate her party's beliefs and stances and have a general understanding of national and international affairs, enough so that she could complete sentences with coherent answers. Even if you knew you were getting the bullshiit, she should be able to deliver it. She sounds like she's trying to talk above herself, and stammers through answers even she doesn't understand, which makes her come off worse.

If you think she is even in the SAME LEAGUE as the other three, I'm wondering what you have been watching. At least if I'm going to be bullshiited by a politician, I like that politician to be smarter or have more worldly experience than I do. She couldn't bullshiit a 7th grade social studies class. Let's be honest here, these are softballs lobbed in by KATIE-FREAKING-COURIC that she's stumbling over. I thought GWB was the worst "think-on-my-feet" politician I had ever seen. But at least his handlers can get him to a place where he can give some semblance of an answer to a question. He has his own limited understanding of the answers he's giving. Palin is painful to watch, much more so than ANY national politician I can recall, and it's not even remotely close. She's a disaster.

He's a tortured artist from Buffalo who makes shiity movies. I guarantee that 99% of the people nationwide who read Simmons' article have no clue who the guy is either. Simmons got SO LUCKY in that his sports teams got hot just around the time he started writing for ESPN. Interest in his articles picked up because the Pats and Red Sox (and now Celtics) are actually relevant teams. It made his fans love him more, and it made people who hated his articles hate him more. The thing about the Internet, the stats don't lie. If X amount of people have clicked on your webpage to read your article, that's hard data. A newspaper, somebody might buy for your article, but they also might buy it because they're looking for a lawn mower in the classifieds. I'm sure Simmons generates a lot of traffic. [simmons haters, feel free to insert "ass traffic" joke now.] All I know is, if my ditzy wife who spent all day watching MTV "reality" shows and reading gossip magizines was beating me at football picks, I'd stop gambling ASAP.

I hear what you're saying, but it's not like the "system" is gifting a national championship to them. When they're 11-1, and the "eye test" suggests that they can play at or above the level of any of the other one-loss teams, that's the way it goes. It's not like USC goes 9-3 and gets pumped into a title game over more deserving schools. Like I mentioned, they have lost. Other teams just need to take care of business and it won't matter what USC does. Once everyone loses, the door opens for all others. An SEC team actually has an advantage in that an early loss, with the schedule, will afford them other opportunities against highly-ranked schools to get their mojo back. They will have an opportunity in the SEC title game against a likely top-5 school. USC does not have those opportunities, and is at the mercy of others. If the others lose, that's the way it goes. They can't complain. My point also to Ramius was that USC has suffered these conference losses before. It has always been more about them not playing well THAT DAY, rather than them not being a very good team. When given another opportunity, they have always made the pollsters look smart in inter-conference matchups, and they get rewarded for that (subconsciously or not.) No, not a direct reply to your quote, I just saw you mentioned the Gators and brought up the scheduling quirk. There's no even playing field and there's no balanced schedules, so these things will always be open to debate, that's the point I was making. I agree about Ben Hill Griffen, which is EXACTLY why they should do away with the Lamest Cocktail Party game. There's too much money at stake and it makes it unfair for everyone else in the conference. I'm sure Tennessee would love to play Florida in Mobile, AL every year. At the very least, they should rotate every three years between Athens, Gainsville, and Jax.

Don't be naive my friend. You know it matters, it has always mattered. Past performance is the best indicator of future results. My point in making the comment you replyed to was that USC has almost ALWAYS made the pollsters look smart when they have moved them back up into the BCS picture. Ohio State has consistently burned the pollsters who rank them among CFB's elite. That's why Ohio State's drop might be more profound than USC's. If you think pollsters aren't considering previous seasons, then you're crazy. Call it USC bias, but they have performed. You can call it an anti-OSU bias, but they haven't performed. Simple as that.

The funny part is, Nader was never a candidate because he wanted to be President. He wasn't trying to win, he was mainly firing at the stupidity of the two-party limitations, while also trying to shine light on issues that were perceived to be "lesser," or forgotten by the mainstream candidates. The Washington Expos try to win every game, but they....ummm....[trailing off...]