Soxbadger

You speak english so at least thats a start... (i kid i kid)

In college, there was one class that I never attended except to turn in papers (after the class ended). Anything else I can really think of would be like writing a check to Mr Mcnamee.

Good Thing about Dictator's: They can keep factions in line. Bad thing about Dictator's: They die. (Amongst other things)

I think what Slav is trying to get at is as follows: I live in Chicago, therefore I can call myself a Chicagoan. Chicago itself is not recognized as a nation, therefore my national idenity can not be Chicagoan. But if Chicago declares independence and is recognized, my national identity becomes Chicagoan. I think he is trying to point out that if these countries start to recognize every small state/city, that eventually you will have no "nations" left. Most of eastern europe is all messed up because of how boundary lines have been drawn over time. As for the comment about supporting muslim extremists, we supported Saddam too. Why the US support's things is complex and most of the time has nothing to do with whether or not its "right", but more what supports our long term position. My guess (and this is a complete guess), is that Russia has been annyoing the US lately, Kosovo moving out of serbia is a slap to the serb/slav's, thus we let them do it.

Ive got a Blackjack (not the 2 just the old one). It syncs with microsoft, has a full keypad, etc. The only downside is its one of the smaller pda style phones and even thought it has windows media player and supports microsd, there is no headphone jack so you need to get bluetooth headphones to take advantage. I like it better than my old Razr, does everything and the memory card is nice.

Yeah this really looked like you had done X and were asking if anyone else had lol

Um of course im not using RPI because they are worthless if teams dont play OOC games: Unless you think Drake is a top 10 team??? (Edit) And I just checked, in the SEC the only 2 teams with top 10 RPI are Vandy and Tenn. Miss- 48 Miss St- 45 Florida- 58 So even if we use your RPI, not one of those teams was top 25 by any stretch of the imagination. So not sure what you are even getting at by saying im using rankings not RPI.

I just said kentucky because you made a huge deal about how Kentucky was going to be great blah blah, so i didnt want to disrespect your team. I dont consider it a good win. Its funny you keep wanting to expand expand expand. Racking up big win totals against lower ranked RPI teams really doesnt mean much. 47 Ohio St. B10 Of course you want to point to RPI, because the big 10 only has 5 teams in the top RPI, therefore at maximum they could only play 8 IC top 50 RPI games. Of those 8, 6 are going to be against top 15 RPI teams... LOL And where did I say that Memphis, Tenn, Kansas, NC, Duke, UCLA, or Texas were over rated? Just because you keep saying the Big 10 is over rated, dont try and switch my argument to saying that other teams are over rated. Thats called a straw man argument, keep it on point. Prove that the Big 10 is over rated, That means proving: 1) Wisconsin does not deserve to be 10 2) Purdue does not deserve to be 14 3) Indiana does not deserve to be 15 4) MSU does not deserve to be 17/19 Please dont try and change the argument, Ive never really said any of those teams are over rated. Ive just said if the Big 10 sucks like you claim, then why are teams like Texas losing to them?

And lets use a little integrity with your lies Kentucky Tenn's "Top 25 wins" Current Ranks: Mississippi- unranked Miss St- Unranked Florida- Unranked Xavier:10/12 Vandy:20/16 So no, Tenn has only beat 2 teams that are currently ranked in the top 25, and only 1 of them is in the top 15. I have only been using current ranks, why do I care that people thought Mississippi was a good team and ranked them 15? Miss. is 3-7 in the SEC and probably wont make the tourney... The odds are stacked of course youll take the bet. Even if 5 big ten teams make it, tahts 5/64, who wouldnt take those odds? Now what about this: Big ten gets more teams in the sweet 16 than the SEC.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/schedule?teamId=2633 Tenn has 1 top 25 OOC win against Xavier. What are you talking about 5 top 25 ooc wins?

Which goes entirely against your argument that the Big 10 has no national title contenders. That is exactly my argument by the way, that the Big 10 teams are good and but nothing spectacular. Because they are all good solid teams that play hard defense, they have a legitimate chance because if one of those contenders goes up against Purdue and has an off night, than maybe Purdue beats them... For being the head and shoulders best team, how have they lost to K-State and Texas? Head and shoulders to me means that they dont lose. I agree they are the most talented and have the most potential, but I think they have to prove that they are the best TEAM. That means winning games like Texas and K-State, as they do not play Texas again this year so they might have lost their chance at a Big 12 title. UCLA beat MSU... Both Indiana and Wisconsin have been ranked higher than MSU this season. The reason why MSU was ranked so highly is because the "experts" put Indiana and MSU very high on the rankings to start the season and left Wisconsin completely off. As for it being a "bad thing" no, it just disproves your point that no team in the Big 10 has a chance to win. If MSU, the team that will most likely finish 4th in the Big 10, only lost to a national contender by 6, perhaps the 3 other Big 10 teams may have a shot at beating them... Well thats actually not true. Right now Wisconsin has played 25 games: 13 IC 12 OC Of the IC games: Michigan x2, Iowax2, Ill, PSU, NU, Purdue x2, Indiana, Minnesota You said that Iowa isnt dangerous (strange they beat MSU), but Ill go with your words: So far Wisconsin has only played 7 games against the teams at the bottom. 7/25= 28% Is 28% now the majority? What math are we talking here?

Hell yeah with Brown. I got so sick of seeing Manderson over pursue and leave contain. ( I love him as a pass rusher, he just doesnt play the run that great) Brown is a stud and should keep the 3 headed monster in tact.

whitesox101, Purdue beat Wisconsin @ Madison during the weirdest game I have ever seen. Wisconsin shot .327% over all, going .167 from behind 3, but shot 30-33 from the line. I dont even know what to make of the game, but Im not about to say that I dont think Wisconsin could beat Purdue if they played tomorrow in the BTT (even though it will be at Indy). Kansas is a national title contender, Im not the one making crazy arguments that a top conference has 0 title contenders. Im just saying based on this season, Wisconsin and MSU, both have beat teams who have beaten "title contenders". If that does not make them good enough to be a "title contender" I dont know what will. The main point of my argument though, was that its impossible to say the Big 10 is over rated, when no teams that they are rated higher than have better wins, better records, etc. Maybe they are not that good, but no other conference has stepped up and said that its that much better (outside of ACC, but then again ACC v Big 10 is some what slanted because the ACC has more teams and therefore gets to sit its worst). I guess in my mind a "legit" title contender, is any team that "legitimately could win the NCAA title". In the Big 10, I think there are 4 teams that could win depending on seeding, match ups, and luck. But then again every team thats won the NCAA tournament must have been a 1 or 2 seed, because according to most on this site, only 4-5 teams have a legitimate shot.

Well the big 10 has NU, so its some what odd to compare "top to bottom" as the bottom teams arent going to any tournaments, so who cares what there rpi is? Isnt it more important to compare the RPI of teams that will be in the NCAA tournament? Itd be like arguing that the Pac 10 is the worst academic conference because it has Arizona, ASU, and Oregon State. Instead of comparing the schools at the top of the conference, like Stanford, Cal, UCLA... Want to bet on that? Top Big 10 team will get at minimum a 3-4 seed guaranteed with there being no way that the top big 10 team is a 5 seed (barring all of the top 4 teams losing a bunch of upsets). How can the Big 12 have a legit national contender but the Big 10 not? Last I checked the Big 12's top team Texas lost to 2 Big 10 teams. Or if you want to say KU is the best team, they lost to Texas, who lost to 2 Big 10 teams. The top Pac 10 team, UCLA, lost to Texas, and was down 13 to MSU before beating them by 6 points on a neutral court. So if you want to change that to: Only the ACC and Big East have title contenders at the top, go ahead. But to argue that the Big 10 has not proved itself against the Big 12 is some what remarkable.

Yeah but who cares: Wisconsin is 13 MSU is 14 Indiana is 23 Purdue is 28 That is 2 teams top 15 in RPI (for comparison: RPI Top 15: BE 3 ACC 2 Big 12 2 Big 10 2 Sec 2 Pac 10 1 MVC 1 CUSA 1 A10 1 So really in comparison, the Big 10 only trails BE in terms of its top 15 placement (and its 2 top RPI teams are also 2 of its highest rpi teams) Disagree, Tenn hasnt really beaten anyone, either has Vandy. Just because you look good beating cupcakes doesnt mean that they could beat top teams. Tenn will play Memphis, so we shall see. This right here is odd. You act like Purdue is head and shoulders above the Big 10, when Wisconsin played them really close (they shot ridiculous in the second meeting and the first one at Purdue came down to a blocked shot). MSU beat Purdue 1 time and Indiana has not even had their shot at them. As for this being the worst big 10 youve seen, ive already posted how thats just not true as almost every team outside of OSU is better than last year, especially in the top 4. 08 Purdue > 07 Purdue 08 MSU > 07 MSU 08 Indiana > 07 Indiana 08 Wisconsin > 07 Wisconsin The teams that have declined are: OSU and Illinois. The rest of the teams were not NCAA tourney contenders last year, but some of them have seen drastic improvements. (Minnesota) The only argument I could perhaps understand is that the Big 10 is lacking a true "elite" team like OSU, but last years OSU was beat by Wisconsin, and the Wisconsin team this year is better than last years, so its really just a hard argument to make.

Actually I disagree with that. This is the type of season where the Big 10 gets a bunch of teams deep in the tourney. Last year Florida was quoted as saying that Purdue played them the toughest of anyone in the entire tourney (they also had to beat OSU mind you). I just watch a lot of college basketball and I feel that almost every conference is vastly over rated outside of the Big 10. Of couse im biased towards the big 10, but I also feel like I call them like I see it. At the beginning of the season I said Wisconsin would be a title contender, but at the same time I completely missed the mark on Purdue. But as the season progressed and I watched Purdue more you can see me changing my tune and saying that Purdue may win the rest of the Big 10 games. The reason why the games are played is because they have to mean something. I just dont understand how a team that is ranked 10 in the nation, only has lost to top 25 teams, and has beat a top 10 team, is over rated? It just isnt true. Now if you want to argue there are more "TALENTED" teams, go ahead. No one will say that Wisconsin with 1 5 star recruit is the most talented team in the nation. But rankings depend on what youve done this season, not what your talent/potential is. And this season the Big 10 teams have earned the rankings that they have received, unless there are a bunch of other teams with 20+ wins and top ten ooc victories?

How can the Big 10 be over rated: Wisconsin: Losses: @ Duke (ranked #2), vs Marquette (24), @/vs Purdue (15) Wins: vs/@ Indiana (ranked 14), @ Texas (7) MSU: Losses: UCLA (6), Purdue (15), Indiana (14), @ Iowa (unranked), @ PSU (unranked) Wins: Purdue (15), Texas (7) Indiana: Losses: @ Xavier (12), Uconn (13), @/vs Wisconsin (10) Wins: MSU (17), Kentucky Purdue: Losses: @ Clemson, @ Missouri, Wofford, ISU, @ MSU (17) ( 4 of those losses are 3 points or less) Wins: @/vs Wisconsin (10), MSU (17) Outside of Indiana, every one of those 4 teams has 2 wins against top 15 teams (Wisconsin has 3). Texas has only lost 4 times, the only loss at home its suffered is to Wisconsin. Texas is ranked #7 ahead of both Wisconsin/MSU, but has lost to both of them. Texas has beaten UCLA, KU, and Tenn, yet is 0-2 versus the Big 10. I guess the Big 10 sucks though... So I guess in the end: Texas sucks (it lost both big 10 games it faced.) KU sucks (lost to texas who cant beat the Big 10) Tenn sucks (lost to Texas only beat OSU by 5 @ home for comparison OSU lost by 9 away to Purdue and 6 at MSU) UCLA is average (lost to Texas, but beat MSU) Butler (would be fighting for 5th in the Big 10 for example Bulter was taken to OT by UWM, Wisconsin beat them 61-39 and Marquette beat them 100-65) Stanford (lost to Sienna, have they beaten an OOC team in the top 15?) Georgetown (have they beaten an OOC team in the top 15?) Xavier (beat Indiana) Uconn (beat Indiana) Vandy (have they beaten an ooc team in the top 15?) When you actually look at what the teams have done, its hard to take the opinion the "Big 10 sucks" Wisconsin and MSU both have OOC top 10 victories, checking through the other top 10 teams: Memphis (1 arguable top 10 ooc victory over georgetown) Tenn (0 top 10 ooc victories) UNC (0 top 10 ooc victories) Duke (1 top 10 ooc victory versus Wisconsin must not count because big 10 sucks) Kansas (0 top 10 ooc victories, 0 top 20 ic victories) UCLA (0 top 10 ooc victories) Texas (2 top 10 OOC victories, versus UCLA and Tenn) Butler (0 top 10 OOC victories, have not even played ranked opponent) Stanford (0 top 10 OOC victories, has not even played OOC ranked opponent) So my question is, how can the Big 10 be over rated? The Big 10 owns 2 victories over Texas, who has beaten the top Big 12 team, the top Pac 10 team and the top SEC team. If anything based on the information that I can find, the Big 10 is actually under rated, as its hard to understand how Wisconsin can be ranked lower than Butler, Stanford, or Texas. But lets not let the actual results of this season get in the way: Big 10 sucks, they never beat anyone. Not one of their teams has a top 10 victory!!!! BOOOOO@!

Why did Frank Thomas learn from Walt Hriniak? Hirniak only had 99 plate appearances and a career ba of .253, he also never had an extra base hit. So I guess its not really about how well they played, but more about what they know about hitting. Just because the person did not have the physical gifts, does not mean they dont know how to swing a bat. /shrugs And your right im sure this has been posted before, it just doesnt make sense.

There are only 2 times I can remember going to Barnaby's 1) For the end of the year baseball party (the pizza seemed good enough but I was about 12 years old) 2) Being in the parking lot of the one in Northbrook and getting in a huge fight with my ex-gf about what I wanted to do for my birthday and then it turning out that she had gotten Sox/Cubs tickets for my birthday thats why she didnt want to do what I did. Hence why I didnt give it a rating.

There is a Barnaby's off Dundee Rd by the Highway in Northbrook. And Lou's is good, but I like the real Uno's or Edwardos better, Giardono's probably as well. I like NY style as well, they are just 2 different tastes so its really no use to compare them. As for NY style, I used to love this place back in Madison called Ian's, they are supposed to be creating one in Lincoln Park, but we will see.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,1558272.story That is just messed up.

I wish I could see a clip of that haha. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...rankings/2.html

Middle Buffalo, Interesting points. The difference with Clemens and Bonds is that they have a myth to protect. They have the best lawyers money can buy, and their lawyers have told them simply: You have 2 options, 1) Fall on your sword, admit to susing HGH or something 1-2 times and call it a day. 2) Deny, deny, deny. Both Clemens and Bonds chose option 2, once you have chosen that option you can not go back. There will be no, "Oh Bonds decided to come clean and tell the truth, so its all forgiven." Once you pick option 2, you are in it to the end, win or lose. And when you look at the people Bonds and Clemens are, there is no question as to why they chose option 2. They are fighters, they never give an inch, that is what has made 2 of the best baseball players in the history of baseball. But that same mentality is what led them to fight the US govt, every opponent, every obstacle in their life, they have almost down the line triumphed. To them this is just another game, another battle. As long as neither of them confess, neither of them will ever really be guilty. Their fans will always believe them a conviction cant even change that. Just as an off beat side comment, The Black Sox were acquitted at trial...

The Crumpler cut is puzzeling. Jimbo, Its classic cover up, thats why Specter was all over him. Specter was a DA in Philly, and the first rule of any case, is that you keep the evidence. With out evidence, you have nothing. As for why Goodell is covering this up, plenty of theories and ideas, but the reality is we will never know. My guess, multiple super bowl's undermined, multiple playoffs undermined, a scandal that would be far worse than "asterisk" . How do you go back in time and fix whats been done? You just cant, and Goodell has been doing a good job of keeping people off the path. Parade enough "convicts" in front of the tv, throw them out of the league, give them suspensions, and your the "tough commissioner." That way people just assume that your always going to be tough. Smart guy.

And most state prosecutors also have a conviction rate of about 90% (find me evidence that feds have well over 90%) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb52...06/ai_n19914079 Thats Cali because you tried to argue that OJ only won because he was in Cali State court. Now compare to Fed stats: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/fed.htm Notice the important part: Only 4% of the entire federal case load is violent offenses. They are very very rare because almost every single murder prosecution is done at the state level. So to argue that a federal prosecutor would have more successfully litigated a murder case than Marcia Clark. http://law.jrank.org/pages/5265/Clark-Marcia-Rachel.html Well State prosecutors only go after some one when they have a lot of evidence. Most wealthy county's boast about an 80-90% convction rate as well, they just generally handle more difficult cases than the Fed so their statistics suffer. I also find it interesting because I was trianed in trial technique by both state and federal prosecutors. Its generally believed amongst attorneys that state prosecutors are much tougher to beat at a murder case because they are prosecuting those cases with much more regularity where as the fed mostly goes after : 1) 37% of felony cases were drug offenses (almost impossible case to lose because they generally have a witness who has flipped) 2) 36% public order offense (19% immigration even easier to win, 11% weapons once again easy win) 3) 15% property offense (failure to pay taxes, the govt never loses) So 85% of the felony cases that the govt even brings to trial are winners to start. I just am some what intrigued by this view that the federal prosecutions are better than state prosecutions, the figures are really negligible (90% to 90%), except for the fact the state almost exclusively handles the more difficult felonies (murder). But thats just my opinion, Id be interested if there even is a Federal Prosecutor who has 19 successful homicide convictions. Anyways, in my opinion, the difference between a federal case and a state case (for most crimes) is negligble. So to say that there is a huge huge difference between OJ beating the state of California and Clemens potentially beating the United States, in my opinion, is just not true. At the end of the day Clemens has the resources to fight this if he chooses, and a perjury charge will still remain almost impossible to prove. As for Pettite, here is how I would cross: "So you saw Roger take steroids, correct" Pettite: No "But you remember that Roger said XXX, correct? Pettite: Yes "And you said that happened on XXX day correct? Pettite: Yes "And that was XXX years ago correct? Pettite: Yes Now in the pretrail deposition of Pettite, I would have asked him a million questions about things that have happened over the last XXX years. Whatever questions he couldnt remember or answered wrong in the dep, I then ask at trial. "So on XXX you remember roger arrived at 2:30 pm correct? Pettite: I dont remember or (worst case scenario he says yes) Now we call Roger: "Roger can you explain to me about XXX." Roger: Oh yes it was a wonderful day at Andy's house. Everyone was there and we were having a great time. I remember that I arrived at 4pm because my son had a high school baseball game that I attended. Closing argument: Members of the jury, today you are asked to decide whether or not Rogers Clemens knowingly made a false material statement while under oath. The only evidence that has been presented to you that Roger has lied is from 2 witnesses, 1) of them has been convicted by the United States, has on numerous occasions lied and the 2) Cant even correctly recall the events of the day that he supposedly heard Roger tell him that he took steroids. (Here is a little sidebar for anyone interested, generally Pettite could not say what he heard clemens say, that would be considered hearsay evidence, and therefore inadmissible under the federal rules of evidence. But because Clemens is a party to the case, his comment on using drugs would be considered a statement against party interest, and therefore be an exception to the rules of evidence and therefore admissible.) So I ask you, is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Can you say with 100% certainty that Roger took XXX, or perhaps is there a little doubt. Because if you have any doubt, any doubt whatsoever that Roger may not have taken steriods, you have to acquit, the law requires it of you. So I ask you as the jury to apply the law of the United States, to ask yourself has the govt met its burden of proof, the burden that they convince you beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any second guessing. Because if they have not, it is your duty as a citizen of the United States to find in favor of the defendant Roger Clemens and acquit him of all charges. Sorry for the long post, I just get really frustrated with the reporting of ESPN in regards to legal proceedings because for the most part they are not attorneys (with the exception of Lester Munson who is an attorney but I believe works for SI) and they often just blatantly mislead the public in terms of the reality of trial. At the end of the day, if the case goes to trial, it is well known amongst attorneys that the conviction rate is: 50% Basically if you can afford to go to trial and there is no smoking gun, its a toss up. Just in case you dont believe me, here is an article that basically says how impossible a perjury conviction for Clemens will be: http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-...0,2193837.story It quotes Alan Dershowitz, hes got some street cred.