Palehosefan

If you can develop players, its just as good as recruiting top players every year. Take a look at Gary Williams compared to coach K, they have had similar success lately and they do it completely different ways. K gets top players every year and doesn't really develop them, Gary gets lower rated players and molds them into very good players. Similar to what Roy Williams did at KU, Paul Hewitt at GT, and Tubby Smith before this year at UK. They got commitments from top 100 guys that left some people scratching their heads, then developed them into top players. Now Roy Williams, Tubby, and Hewitt for different reasons, have improved recruiting this year into top 5 classes. The question is, which method will work for Weber? Will he develop these lower rated players until he get more accomplishments at Illinois, or will be stick with lower rated guys and turn them into good players? You sure don't want the alternative of recruiting lower rated guys and not developing them. I think Illinois program is good enough that it will recruit some guys on its own, Weber just has to help prod. Either way, before you can claim someone as a bad recruiter, you have to see what they do with the talent that comes on campus.

I have to have alot of pillows. I put one under my head, one in between my legs, one in my arms, and another just in case I guess :-). Needless to say, it took some adjustment sleeping with my g/f. I also have to sleep with the tv on sleep timer, I can't fall asleep in complete silence, I try to find something boring on that lets me fall asleep.

Alot of times thats indeed the case, whether its for certain products, or certain views not even about politics. But how many Republican's do you know that love a magazine or are a fan of a magazing that is "stumping" for a Democrat? I ask because I know there are alot of Republican fans of Springsteen and other entertainers etc that are "stumping" right now. Say if ESPN the magazine started stumping for Bush openly, alot of sports readers that aren't interested in politics would "Vote or Die" for Bush simply because of their favorite mag told them too. You know there would be alot of dissapointed ESPN subscribing democrats. I know its a stretch, but its hard to make a point without stretching on this issue. Also, how many times do you read about ranchers in magazines? :-).

Its the first part of that quote, there are a few vocal celeb's for Bush also, just not enough. I'll try to put it in perspective, say you put the ranchers on the tv as much as the entertainers. That could be an equal fight based on air time, however, not many people follow ranchers around wanting to know all about their life and idolize them. What I'm getting at is this, alot of entertainers are born into Democratic families, or choose to be Democrats based on the environment around them, mainly LA/Hollywood area which is a democratic hotbed as you know. Most ranchers are born into Republican familes etc etc. It just happens that entertainers are on tv alot more and get a chance to speak their minds to a national audience. It doesn't have to be ranchers either, you can use any group that is and has been pro-Republican for my argument. I would have no problem if the people that vote for Kerry, research the facts, and become educated about their choice. Don't base it solely on what someone tells you to do, that's almost totalistic. That goes for Bush supporters also. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your view, an ignorant vote counts the same as an informed vote. That seems to be whats fueling the Vote or Die campaign. I know its asking to much to ask for all votes to be an informed vote either way, but I can dream can't I :-).

As much as I believe OU is the better team and the best team in America. I can't really argue Miami being #2 either. One team beat FSU and Louisville, and the other beat Texas, and K-State. Some would consider those equal victories, but I would take my chances with FSU over Texas and Louisville over K-State. Either way, its tough to argue one is deserving of the spot over another. Depending on which Berlin shows up this week, Miami could have a tough time with NCSU's defense.

Without stupid threads, message boards would die...

Yep, UNC had Brian Simmons, Keith Newman, and K. May at LB, Vonnie Holliday, Russell Davis, Greg Ellis, and Ebenezer Ekuban on the DL with Dre Bly and another solid corner Robert Williams at CB's. Those were the days :-).

Duke's team is going to have alot of struggles this year. Sean Dockery has to be the man this year, that has to terrify Duke fans. They have 8 scholarship players, and are 1 injury of Shelden Williams away from a 1995 like season.

I think Peppers red-shirted that year. We had an amazing defense and that was the most hype our program has ever seen. Too bad we didn't live up to it. FSU's teams in the 90's were amazing, Mack Brown never stood a chance against them and he knew it everytime.

I think he ended up as a QB in the CFL and other various football leagues. Its too bad also, he had alot of talent. Just never put it together.

Stanford always wins the Sears trophy for top athletic programs and UNC is always second. Its not suprising either, Stanfords athletic endowment is insane.

Louisville should definitely be in that group. They should have beaten Miami 2 days ago, and they have talent everywhere. They have arrived. Wharris1 had a great list. Texas Tech is another team that should be mentioned, maybe a tier lower than the others though. FSU also, football is there and basketball is definitely improving.

lol I think her name is Mandy. She's "real" good friends with Sean May. Take a look at the difference in the two, amazing to be a star basketball player. UNC's campus is made up of about 70% women, and alot of them look like that. Thats partially why UNC was my dream school, lol. Just walking around campus, you almost break your neck. Here's another dancer with Sean May in the background to the left.

Yeah it wasn't even that close of a game either. MSU's QB can really run, and their defense really stepped up. They moved ALL over Minnesota, I was shocked.

Here's a couple of photo's from UNC's Late Night with Roy. Stuart Scott MC'd again. They did a hilarious skit with Wes Miller dressing up as Roy Williams with a band following behind singing the "Roy.. Roy, Roy, Roy" from the Starbucks commercials while Wes yelled at Rashad McCants for his defensive play, it was great. They showed alot of UNC's late night on CSTV, it was great stuff. Damion Grant blocking a David Noel dunk.. Felton showing off his 44 inch vertical...

Here's some more reality for you. Getting ahold of the house and senate come in cycles. One party holds it for a decade or so and then it shifts back. Right now the republicans have it and I don't want them to give it back. But good debate, I'm off for the night and probably the weekend.

Yeah I agree 100%. Its the same way with the Dean Dome. Its so freaking huge that its tough to get a ton of noise unless its packed with 20,000 screaming fans. Assembly Hall and the Dean Dome are great for tradition and IU and UNC are always tough at home, but the atmosphere's aren't really the toughest. UNC used to play in Carmiechal, it was about 4,000 screaming students almost on the court, made Cameron Indoor look huge. BTW, you guys should see Cameron stadium up close, its smaller than my old high schools gyms. Amazing how much it can change to gameday with the retarded nerds jumping up and down.

I can agree a split government would be better for all of us. The problem with hoping for a split system is that both the democrats and republicans are hoping for a majority. It would be nice if you could trust both parties to keep it split, but you know as well as I do we can't. The minute the democrats have a chance to take the majority, they would jump at it, as they should. They want what they want passed and the best way is to have your party in control as you know. So in eseence you are asking me to vote for the Democrats by asking for balance right now, and thats not gonna happen until we can have complete trust in politicians. Thats not happening.

and thats EXACTLY my point. Why would Bush veto a bill thats been hand-picked for him from his Republican Senate and House?

What's he gonna say? I have voted for every bill that would increase the budget but I promise not to in the future even if I agree with it? Don't forget who's hand-picking these bills for Bush to sign. Its gonna take more than just Bush gone for big economic changes from the house and senate. Kerry's economic plan is flawed also. "Despite Kerry's attempts to outflank Bush on the deficit issue and portray himself as the more fiscally responsible candidate, the data behind Kerry's rhetoric tell a different story," said NTUF Policy Analyst and study author Drew Johnson. "Enactment of Kerry's 'revised' spending agenda in its entirety would still mean higher taxes, a larger national debt, or likely both…… By exempting a series of major discretionary categories, Kerry's so-called 'strong' spending caps are actually so porous as to be no more effective than the restraints George W. Bush has sought," Johnson concluded. "In the final analysis, the 'winner' of the 2004 election could very well be the federal deficit -- leaving taxpayers with a landslide loss of their economic freedom." (Source: "Study: Kerry's Fiscal Agenda "Makeover" Won't Improve Budget Picture for Taxpayers," NTUF, http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?...9&org_name=NTUF, 7/12/04) Doesn't look good for us from either side :-(.

Rex does it say who was asked or how many? That could make a big difference. Its a good list, just some odd choices that I've never seen mentioned before.

Thats my problem with all of the stars "stumping" for Kerry. You know damn well there will be thousands of people that vote for Kerry just because Bruce Springsteen or Joe Blow told them too. You see it all over hollywood, its an unfair advantage, but its life unfortunately, just another reason for me to never be a democrat.

You gotta atleast have a plan to make something work. Kerry didn't even have a plan for SS, he just said when the problem arrives they will take care of it. How easy of an answer was that? Bush could have said that about everything. The war and defense spending account for the majority of the deficit. Take a look at this. "The President's FY 2005 Budget manages to accommodate a 10 percent increase in discretionary homeland security spending and a seven percent increase for defense while limiting total discretionary spending to just under four percent. While in office the President has restrained the growth of non-defense, non-homeland related spending, slowing it from 15 percent in 2001 to below one percent in 2005. " ("Mid-Session Review," OMB, 7/30/04, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/05msr.pdf) Here's another quote backing up the assumption that Bush can cut the deficit in half in 5 years. Unless you consider the Wall Street Journal biased also. Bolten: "By continuing the President's plan for economic growth and spending restraint, we can continue to strengthen the economy and cut the deficit in half. The MSR estimates the deficit will decline from 3.8% as a share of the economy in 2004 to 1.5% of GDP in 2009." (Joshua B. Bolten, "We Can Cut The Deficit In Half," The Wall Street Journal, 12/10/03) The end of the war and a steady defense budget will cut the deficit significantly for ANY president, whether it ends up as Bush or Kerry. Here is a quote from Alan Greenspan on what needs to happen with Social Security. "Greenspan, who turns 78 next week, said that the benefits now received by current retirees should not be touched but he suggested trimming benefits for future retirees and doing it soon enough so that they could begin making adjustments to their own finances to better prepare for retirement." That sounds eerily like Bush's answer to social security. I would be willing to trust Greenspan over any Kerry advisor. Is asking today's youth to save money possibly a disaster waiting to happen? Sure. But do you or does Kerry have a better answer?

I gotta disagree about Manual and Scott being a big drop off. Manual is the teams best defender and possibly the best defender in college. He has been working hard on his 3 point shooting this offseason also, he is very athletic and was the first to buy into Roy's system. He averaged 6.5 points a game in 21 minutes. He also shot 55% last year from the field and shut down the opposing teams best player many games. David Noel is the most athletic player on the Tar Heels team, he was at some points, the best player from the freshman class two years ago of Felton, McCants, May, and Noel. He averaged 5.5 points and 5 boards a game in 21 minutes a game while shooting 56%. As for Melvin Scott, he was one of UNC's 5 players that averaged over 10 points a game, he also averaged 3 boards and 2.7 assists a game, while shooting 37.3 % from 3 . Are they a dropoff from McCants, Felton, and May? Yes, but then again 97% of players in college would be. But I don't think they are as much of a drop off as people think. Not to mention they will have to shoulder even less of the load with Marvin Williams joining the squad and likely getting 30+ minutes a game. Byron Sanders, Damion Grant, Jonathan Miller, Quentin Thomas, and Reyshawn Terry are definitely unproven as of now.

Thats exactly my point jackie, its about which one you can trust more. I trust Bush more, though not 100%. As for the quotes, its not about WHO its from, its about the facts themselves. If the statistics aren't true, it would be libel. There are lies coming from both sides, as in every election. But I've found more inconsistencies with Kerry's speech vs. actions than with Bush.