Soxbadger

For player versus player games we need to have a rule that both players must post times in this thread when they are available. That way we can enforce it if some one is blowing off the game.

I just wanted to do speed option with Wildcat. None of the Wildcat plays specifically state option, but there are several that can be run as an option play. I was practicing with it last night, worked pretty well but unfortunately my playbook does not have wildcat.

Aka some one loved Fox Friday night 15 years ago when Sliders and X-Files was on and decided to make them one show. Who can forget Rembrandt Brown.

I meant see if there are wildcat pitch plays. I didnt really look at it because I didnt think you could pitch so thought it was stupid.

Nice. And during the break I can practice pitching. I dont ever play NCAA so im not that great with it.

If a player requests a team in this thread, the team is off limits to be traded with. IE Kev has claimed Steelers, no one can trade with the Steelers. And I dont think so Steve, the level doesnt really change. Some teams just seem to play dramatically different. My score was low because Broncos held the ball a lot (keeping me off the field), I threw a stupid pick and I was screwing around running the ball and trying out new plays. Once I cant break my goal of 100 points I just practice.

Damn they added pitch, nice. I was looking at wildcat formations the other day but didnt see any speed option plays. And I only won like 59-17 last game so maybe Im regressing!

How do you pitch? I thought only NCAA had the pitch option.

That trade must be vetoed. Im not even going to go into a discussion. If you want to trade a guy like Will Smith, you can get a 80 or so DE who is Williams age.

How can you not like Garcia being brought back for $1mil? The guy has always pitched well for Chicago and am glad he is back.

Whoever joins for the reminder of the league should be allowed a few trades to set their team. I would think the same rules as Rangercal and my trades apply, you can trade for lessor ranked younger players. We havent had some one trade for a older player so we will cross that bridge when we get there. But we should encourage more people to play and allow them to trade.

I actually went through the MLB and he is right unless he wants a guy who is 30 or older the drop is down to about an 88 for MLB. If you move Ware to MLB hed probably be some where around a 95 is my guess. If it was anyone else but Willis Id probably not care, but there are about 5 defensive guys who I felt were off limits in terms of adding and Willis is #1.

I wasnt able to draft the guys I wanted either. There are plenty of good MLB's who you can choose. Just the other day you proposed a deal that you said you were fine with. Now you want to get arguably the best defensive player? If I had been there Willis would have been my first pick, I didnt trade for him because I felt that was unfair as I would not really have had the opportunity to select him.

Willis is more valuable than Ware and wouldnt have been available at that pick (imo). Id say that you have to downgrade so youd have to select a lower mlb.

Well if Matt agrees I say we process Ranger and my trades and have Steve post his trade so it can be voted on and we can get this league back in gear.

I believe that the computer accepts all trades my suggestion is as follows. Rangercal and myself get to trade players we did not select for other similar ranked players. All GM's can make 1 trade per season and 1 trade per offseason, or 2 trades per year, as long as they are approved by a majority of the gms. Gms will be required to submit the trade in this thread and there will be a 24 hour voting period. If a GM does not vote in 24 hours it is considered a "yes". For the purposes of this season the 2 trades include next off season, so if Steve was to make a trade today, he would only have 1 potential off season trade. If he was to make no trades he would still have 2.

id say before we start this week we decide on definitive trade rules.

What are we doing about trades?

Thats not what Im saying at all. Im saying to be a world class city, the citizens some times have to foot the bill for international projects. If Chicagoans are unwilling to pay $1,000 a person to hold the Olympics, what future international events do you think Chicago will be in the running for? Read international comments about Chicago, many people do not think very highly of it. This was a chance for Chicago to show the world who we are and why we matter. But Im proud of being from Chicago, I think that Chicago is one of the best cities in the world and was the best representative. Im just saddened that there are other people who live in the same city and dont feel the same pride. When you say "Go Rio" you are saying that Rio is greater than Chicago. So if Rio is so great, go ahead and move there.

Last I checked Knight pays federal taxes and federal funds would have been used for a variety of the projects. I pay cook county taxes, I pay Chicago taxes and I pay Illinois taxes. But Im not about to belittle Knight's opinion just because I may have had a slightly higher financial burden. As expressed previously in this thread, even if the games resulted in a 1billion liability for the tax payers, thats the equivalent of $1,000 for 1mil people. You can be against the Olympics, but actively rooting for another country to get it over the US is disloyal. Basically you are saying that $1,000 is more important than being a world class city and having international recognition. I guess as some one who has paid more than $1,000 in parking meters last year ($8 a day for 200 days), it really is very little money compared to how much free press and international recognition Chicago would get.

I kind of wish all the people who didnt support Chicago would move to Rio. Its such a joke to sell out your own city, I just cant stand disloyalty. I dont care if you hate Daley, hate the Olympics, you should represent for your home no matter what. Its shameful and now Chicago looks like an international joke.

No Im suggesting that if the IOC treats US bids like dirt, why should the US care anymore? I dont mind losing, I mind that Chicago should have been at worst 3rd and didnt even get that far. What legitimate argument can be made for giving Europe the Summer games in 2016, when they will be held in England in 2012?

Just because in the past American's watched the Beijing Olympics does not mean that 2 Olympics from now Americans will stop watching. Prior to Beijing the US had the Atlanta and Utah games, there wasnt as much belief that the US deserved the games, and there wasnt a blatant screw job by the IOC.

I wouldnt have cared if we lost to Rio in the finals. But the fact Chicago lost to Tokyo and Madrid just shows that this is ridiculous.

Nah IOC has to give the US games if they want the US sponsor money. Do you really think that all of the US sponsors are going to continue to fund the Olympics if we arent getting games? The answer is no.