Soxbadger

In the last 5 years I believe that Wisconsin has a better or equal record. I know they were Big 10 Champs 3 in a row, went to the final four, and won the Big 10 Championship all in the last 5-6 years. Illinois is today a better program, and at the end of this season will probably make Illinois a better program. But as of right now I would say that with Weber at Illinois and Ryan at Wisconsin, a recruit would look at the programs evenly. I mean I was going to stay that Illinois had a better program, but by that point I was so tired of hearing other people get to boast so much and trying to say neutral that I said "screw it" let them bring me facts to suggest Illinois has done better. He Gawn, How am I whining? Not once have I said that we got screwed or that Illinois did not win. All I have said is that Wisconsin has to be pissed at itself, that seems like the exact opposite of whining, blaming your own team/players. ::shrugs:: (EDIT) I believe he gawn is referring to the fact that Illinois fans have said, the Illinois wont lose another game, that they won the Big 10 because they will not have 2 losses, that it will be impossible for another team to win the Big 10 because the Illini will not lose 2 games, how they will not lose another game at Assembly Hall, etc etc. May not be the exact quote, but it gets the point across. SB

lol Cheat I may usually be mild mannered on this board, but there is only so much pushing that you can take before you just have to call people out on the fact that they are living in a "dream world". But Odoyle is the best sports program in the NCAA. SB

Football, Hockey, Track... Um I guess Illinois is better at Baseball, but we do not even have a team... Come on, atleast be reasonable with your biases. UW Hockey >>>>>> Illinois Hockey UW Football >>>>>>> Illinois Football UW Basketball = Illinois The only people talking out of their ass are: IlliniKrush and Man of Steel Everyone else seems to see a similar thing. But come on, tell me how in the last 5 years Illinois has even closely held a candle to Wisconsin sports. Prior to last year Wisconsin had tied for Big 10 basketball championship 3 years in a row, has done consistently better in football (ranked in top 25), and always has a pretty good hockey team. Im sorry, but I dont have time for people who have absolutely no idea about college sports and think that the world revolves around the University that they support. To all other U of I fans, I know your not as arrogant and simple minded as IlliniKrush and Man of Steel (both of whom I have no idea if they even have attended U of I), but I have really nothing negative to say about your team. You guys earned that win, and it should be a major accomplishment. But when people just start talking like fools, I will put them back in their place. Good luck, hopefully you are undefeated when we see you in Assembly because I think we would relish the chance to return the favor. SB

Man of steel, Yeah Id call it panic when people like Head are drinving the line throwing behind the back passes out of bounds. You want to live in your delusional world where Illinois was at all times in command, go ahead. Personally it matters very little to me that we lost our streak and that we lost to Illinois. Streaks are made to be broken, and I would rather that they learned from this loss, and became a better team, than won and thought highly of themselves. Anyways have fun, Id hope your athletic program atleast was better than Wisconsin at 1 sport. Wisconsin is a football school, Illinois is a basketball one. The fact that Wisconsin's program is even remotely competitive is enough for me, let alone the fact that we our finally getting national press. Give us a few years. Whitesoxfan99, Illinois may be the best Big 10 team in years. There back court is far more talented than any I have seen in a while. And that is why last night was a bitter game, it was not Williams, Head, and Brown that brought Illinois back from the depths, it was that Ingram guy. But that is the difference between good teams that we have faced and great teams. The great teams find a way to win. SB

Where have I made on excuse? Go through the thread, If I was the Wisconsin coach I would say that is a game that we "should" have won. Whenever we are up at our home we expect to win. Whenever we play at home we expect to win. So when we are up 8 and 2 consecutive possessions have a chance to put it at double digits, I consider that a game we should have won. You all seem to forget that while Wisconsin was up 8, Illinois started to panic, and if it were not for Ingram's 2 three pointers, they game may of very well ended up in Wisconsin's favor. But that is what happens, some times players come up big at critical moments, where as other times the ball just does not seem to fall (lay up by Wisconsin to bring the game back to 3 missed and then it was a roller coaster.) The hype is that Illinois can not lose. I grew up as an Illini fan, I have spent every year of my life except for 4 in Illinios (while at College). If I sincerely thought Illnios was unbeatable, I would post it, it would be easier to admit that Illinois just flat out played Wisconsin than to say, Wisconsin could have won. You can all think what you want, but there is no way Illinois ends up undefeated. SB

If Illinois is up 8 at home with 10 minutes left, you would not consider it a game they "should" have won? lol Its amusing to see all of the Illini fans come out of the wood work, but at the same time I hope that all of you do not believe the hype... SB

No Wisconsin should have won. Up 8 at home with 10 minutes left, where they have not lost in almost 3 years. That is a game that "SHOULD" have been won. Had they only ever led by 2, etc, that is a game they "could" have won. It was an anomoly that Wisconsin lost that game, to say anything else is to deny what really happened. And for all of the bragging in this thread, Illinois had to eventually beat Wisconsin. I mean Wisconsin beat Illinois multiple times last year, I do not think any reasonable Badger fan would think that it would happen two years in a row. But if you think, Wisconsin does not have a shot at Assembly Hall... There is a reason why they play the game. SB

I think Wisconsin should of won, but at a critical time when they were 8 up they got complacent and pulled both Tucker and Wilkinson. Illinois played a very good game, and I think that they are far more talented in the back court than Wisconsin is. That being said, I do not think Illinois is unbeatable, and I think a lot of people are getting ahead of themselves thinking that they are going to sweep the Big 10. Congrats on the win, hopefully Wisconsin learns from this and is ready for Assembly Hall, the Big 10 tourney, and the NCAA. SB

Why is no one else willing to offer more for Urbina? Harris right now has almost no value, every GM has to know that if they get a call from the Sox about Harris its because they want to dump him. You do not destroy a young players value unless you really can not stand the guy. Seems to me that the Cubs would gladly pay more than Harris for Urbina... There are pleny of teams looking for a closer, who could offer more than Harris. Maybe the Tigers are doing us a favor because they want to sign Maggs to a real cheap contract. And no way is Harris worth Baez either at this point, Harris could maybe get us some type of guy who has potential but has not worked out and has been relegated to the pen, or an injury risk. SB

According to ESPN, Valpo. Not that hard to research hehe Number one guy is: L. Spencer Gardner, out of Oral Roberts. SB

Farve did face competition: September 2, 1989: Favre leads the Golden Eagles to a convincing victory as they upset the sixth-ranked Florida State Seminoles, 30-26. With FSU leading 26-24 midway through the final quarter, Southern Miss put together a six and a half minute drive topped off by Brett’s winning touchdown pass with 23 seconds remaining. He put himself on the national map with this game. He also played against Alabama, and in a few bowl games. For every player, there is usually atleast 1 or 2 games in their career where they play top talent. SB

Its doubtful that 2 losses will make it impossible for a team to win the Big 10. Last year Illinois won it with 3 losses, unfortunately I cant find any archive sites but I believe the 3 prior years (each of which Wisconsin tied for Big Ten Championship) that no team had less than 2 losses, ( I think 3 losses was the best). I doubt that any team runs the table, and even Illinois if they win tonight, will probably still lose 2 games during Big 10 play. And the pressure is from being "1", not from undefeated season. The hardest thing to do in any sport is to continually win while the big target of "1" is on your back. Every team gets up to play you, where as every game you have to look at as one that you should win. I know that Illinois is trying to paint themselves as underdogs, and that the pressure is on Wisconsin, but while the home streak is important it is something that everyone knows will come to an end at some point. If Wisconsin loses it will at worst, make it harder for them to outright win the Big 10 championship. They probably will not fall in the rankings unless its a blow out, they still be in the 64, they still can win the Big 10 tournament, and hell for the first time they are actually getting respect, as opposed to the last few years screw job they have gotten in terms of seeding. As for Illinois, if they win, they did the job they were supposed to do. They momentarily are seen better, until they have to play the next game in which they can be knocked from the pedestal again. If Illinois loses, they will fall in the rankings, (how far will depend on the game, but they will not be 1). Also it may potentially put in jeapordy their 1 spot, as well as hurt their confidence. This team has not lost, so you do not know what will happen should they lose. Wisconsin really has nothing to lose (except for a win streak that eventually will be broken and will probably never be the best streak ever), and everything to gain should they beat Illinois. Illinois has everything to lose, and nothing to gain. When you are at the top, there is only one way you can go... SB

Take out Konerko, AJ, and Iguchi and that would be the line up. 1) Pods 2) Uribe 3) Maggs 4) Everret/Thomas 5) Gload 6) Rowand 7) Crede 8) Davis 9) Harris Not nearly as deep. SB

We cant even find ab's for Gload at DH, let alone for Larkin. I think we are done for this off-season, unless something falls into our laps or a guy like Larkin will sign for cheap and play whenever we need him. SB

A few things, 1) The pressure can not possibly be greater on Wisconsin than it is on Illinois. Even though they have a long win streak at home, they are still going to be under dogs in this game. Even if they lose, it will unlikely hurt them in the grand scheme because they are playing the number 1 team. Illinois on the other hand has to live up to expectations of being the best team in the country, and playing at a very hostile atmosphere. 2) Im not sure you can call Wisconsin slow footed, they just play a half court game. Eventhough they had Harris last year, they still played half-court style, which has been the stape of Wisconsin since Dick Bennet was the coach. They are built to slow and disrupt high scoring fast teams, where as they have generally had a bigger problem with other great half court teams, ie Pitt of last year. If a team tries to run, Wisconsin usually is able to force turn overs and eventually control the tempo. Most likely the game will be determined beyond the 3-point arc, which ever team is hotter and can stay hotter for the longest period of time should win. And it seems like Im the only person from Illinois to have gone to Wisconsin, so I guess I will have to post more often to try and even out the biases. SB

I do not try and hide my bias, just it is very hard for teams to win on the road, especially when you are playing against defensive minded teams. Also I think its going to be a real rough environment, just have a feeling that most who are attending have been sitting around drinking all day just waiting to go to the Kohl Center. I think it will be more important for Illinois to get off to a good start than Wisconsin. Sb

If Illinois can handle the crowd, then they can win. I predict Wisconsin will win in a defensive game, although I think Illinois is probably more talented. SB

Yeah its incredibly stupid for the Sox to keep a dirt cheap player around, when we can put all of our eggs into the Iguchi basket. I hope Iguchi is outstanding, but to say it would be stupid to have a cheap plan B, I just dont understand. For all the hate for Harris, I wonder why so many people dont hate Crede? Ah well, I hope the Sox do not knee jerk sell Harris at the lowest possible price. SB

If there is a spot open in a keeper league, I would love to join. SB

Winodj, Well its pretty hard to try and put your statement into the context of Cold War policies, because nothing in your post suggested I should be looking back that far in the past. Also your statement holds no real water, because Reagan was doing what he thought was "overall best for running our government" As at the time most would of said opposing Communism, and destroying the USSR was better for our Government than the chance that Afghani's would some day use our techniques against us. Suprisingly, its not like this has not happened hundreds of times before. You could talk about training Vietnamese to fight Japan, training them to fight Communists, and so on and so forth. But I doubt that at any point they would say that there decisions were not in the long term best interest of the US. I mean the destruction of the USSR probably still outweighs the fact that a few terrorist groups have splintered off. Seeing as its likely that there would be fundementalist terrorists against the US anyways. SB

I have no idea how Bin Laden has anything to do with present day interest versus future interest. Bin Laden's goal is for future interest, he is willing to sacrifice his people today, so that in the future American planes will not fly over holy land. In effect he is using "god" as a rationale for why he can do this today. Even though most people would consider suiciding bad, he can say it is good, because the type of suicide he is promoting, is holy, and for gods cause. Not sure how to disect the rest of your argument, you say they should do what is best for running our government, but you at the same time they should not be focusing on the present. So when should they be running the government well? If not in the present, and certainly not in the past, should they run the government in the future well? Mr Eye, I dont care what they say. First Amendment should allow them to profess any religion they see fit. But just as god could humble a man, he can also make a man believe he has a "divine mandate" in which his actions are being endorsed by god. It is something that cuts both ways. SB

Well when you only quote and do not use any substance in your own arguments than all we can work with is what is inferred by your statements. Lets look at the chain of events: Yasny says he prefers god fearing man, to non god fearing man. I post that is illogical. You sarcastical post: "Best argument I have ever heard, I am converting." Your response intuitively suggests that you are in disagreement with my statement. If you are in disagreement with my statement which was in disagreement with Yasny's statement, than you are in agreement with Yasny's statement. So therefore, eventhough you have tried to weasel your way out of taking a position by merely quoting and throwing in 1 or 2 liners, it is clear to probably anyone that knows what the word "infer" means, can understand that you infer a position with your posts. It may not be your position, but when you do not explicitly state a position, and rely on piggy backing on some one elses statement, Yasny, than it is reasonable to believe you are taking a similar position. Whatever the case, I really do not have time to argue semantics. I would be interested in why believing in god would make you any better at a job than some one who does not believe in god. But that is not the way this thread is heading. SB

So your saying that its more important that a lower level person do their job well than a higher level person? The President should base his decisions on what is best for present day United States. Not what is best for the United States should it turn out that god is a christian. Not what is best for the United States should it turn out Bhudda is God, or any other omiscient ideal. To some how equate "believing in religion" with "better president", with out any form of proof or evidence of why, believing in religion will make some one a better president, is kind of silly. I mean, its not that hard to do, but atleast present an argument. I mean I wouldnt want you to be considered "slothful". SB

Just for claritys sake, I am not saying the belief in god is right or wrong. But would you want an accountant who kept saying: "You know its harder for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle." Or would you want him to carry out his mortal role, and let you worry about your own sanctity, religion. SB

Yasny, That is illogical. A god fearing man, will believe that so long as his actions are right in the eyes of god, it will not matter what the consequences are to the mortal world. A person who does not believe in god, will only worry about what the consequences are in the mortal realm, and not base policy on the immortal realm. Most poeple would never accept an atheist, but in reality you should want a person that only is worried about now, as opposed to what might happen after you die. SB