ilsox7

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 29, 2005 -> 03:26 AM) no i am not talking about the last play. This was the whole game. These were Sun Belt Refs. Michigan played a good game IMHO. Henne played well, Avant got to 1,000 yards, Mike Hart showed what he can do when healthy, the pass rush defense was scary good, and Lloyd coached a very good game. This was officiated like a junior high game. And this is the first time I have ever blamed the refs for a loss like this but it just makes me want to hurl. The officials did not fumble twice with the lead in the 4th quarter. You can thank Avant and Henne for those give-aways. Bottom line is this was a pathetic, underachieving Michigan team. Has been since the NIU game.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 11:54 PM) The officiating was indeed bad. But Michigan has no one to blame but themselves for the loss. They did not play well at all. Yup. And that was par for the course this year. You could tell from the NIU game on that this team just didn't have it.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Dec 28, 2005 -> 11:39 PM) So where are all the Michigan fans now...? As far as the officiating goes...yeah it was terrible. But i don't see how a penalty could have been called on the last play, as both teams had guys on the field. I still don't understand why that guy didn't lateral to Breaston...he could have made one cut to the middle of the field and scored easily had he had the ball. I'm a Michigan fan. We've sucked all year, that's why this game did not surprise me. This was a team we should have beaten easily and we blew it. I didn't see the whole game but all accoutns say the officiating sucked. Doesn't matter, Michigan sucked this year. Lloyd is probably another bad year away from early retirement. And hopefully Henne removes his head from his ass this spring.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 08:03 PM) That's definitely forgot about defense. The past few years, defense was something we could hold our hat on. This year, we think we can just outscore everyone, and defense doesn't matter. Apparently it f***ing does. Dumbass has flat-out said that he wants to run all the time this year. That basically means no defense. I swear, if this team doesn't go to the Elite Eight, they had better fire his ass.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 08:01 PM) f***ing pathetic. 20+ turnovers. We'll be lucky to beat Kentucky. Ah turnovers again. Looks like Davis has decided all that matters is running up and down the court. Forget about defense and handling the ball.

Someone who watched the game can chime in, but how does Marco only shoot the ball 10 times? He is the best player on the court. Nice job "Coach" Davis.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 06:51 PM) Hoosiers started out very slow, but they're up 35-30 at the half. Ben Allen with 13 points and 5 boards. Aussie Aussie Aussie! OY OY OY! I can only follow on the internet and we're losing. Is there a reason Marco is not getting the ball every time down the court? Way too many 3's tonight.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 11:31 PM) How in any way is the poll system better than the BCS? You're going to let a bunch of sportswriters and errand boys for the head coaches determine the national championship? The BCS isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than the polls. If we still had the old system, USC would be playing PSU in the Rose Bowl and Texas would be playing Georgia in the Fiesta Bowl (or Sugar Bowl, whichever that setup used to be). Both teams would have a very good chance of winning, and we'd have solved nothing. About every other year, their isn't a whole lot of controversy with the two teams and they get a chance to settle things on the field. Even some of the other years the controversy is a bit overblown. Yes, a 4 team playoff would probably work the best. That way the regular season is still as meaningful as in any other sport, and you get a little more chance to settle things the right way. Then the controversy is a little lower on the totem pole, and there are usually only about 4 teams that stand out (this year isn't really one of them, although it probably would be USC, Texas, PSU, and OSU). The BCS only works when there are two undefeated teams. Any other year, it does not work. I'd much rather go back to the traditional bowl tie-ins with the occasional split championship than allow some system to hypocritically choose who should play in a pseudo National Championship game. Last year, you had 3 major teams undefeated and 1 mid-major. Why was the BCS formula good enough last year to choose which 2 teams got to play for all the marbles, but that same ranking formula isn't good enough to use to fill out the remainder of the BCS Bowls? Or how about those years when there is 1 undefeated team and 4 or 5 with 1 loss? Again, you allow some formula to choose which of those 4 or 5 teams gets to play for all of the marbles. The BCS solves absolutely nothing unless the perfect scenario of 2 undefeated teams come to fruition. And time has shown that this scenario does not happen al the time. In fact, since 1998, a season has ended with exactly 2 undefeated teams only 3 times. So what about all of those one loss teams or 3rd undefeated teams that get screwed by the BCS formula? It's no better than the traditional bowl system, IMO. Of course, to end all debate, hold a 16 team playoff. You cut the season back to its original 11 games, therefore 2 teams in the country play 15 games. Big deal. They are playing 13 as it is.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 05:59 PM) I think we are all being too selfish. He is a countryman first and a White Sox player 2nd. I'm sure most would accept the offer to play for their country. I am somewhat concerned but definitely won't lose sleep. The problem is, this little "baseball" classic is a complete crock. First, let's make up random rules about who can represent what countries. Then, let's limit the amount of pitches a guy can throw. And finally, guys can only play a certain amount of innings in the field. That is NOT baseball. This all about Unclue Bud trying to make some more money.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 05:35 PM) A chimp could have got it right this year. It actually says a lot that they got it right considering the idiot who runs the NCAA.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 05:34 PM) the BCS got it right this year though. Well in terms of the #1 and #2 teams. The BCS is beyond hypocritical. The only reason is works is b/c when two teams go undefeated, it places those two teams in the same game. But then it ignores the "logic" it used to place those two teams in the same game when it comes to the other BCS games. If you're so confident in your little formula, why not let it decide all four BCS games? Also, the BCS is a piece of s*** when there are more or less than two undefeated teams in the country. I'd much rather the fairly rare years when there is a split National Champion than the crap the BCS pulls by changing its formula every other year and STILL not coming up with an appropriate result. And they will NEVER come up with an appropriate result unless it's a playoff. And if they refuse to go to a playoff, then just go back to the traditional system.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 05:29 PM) Playoff? Worst. Idea. Ever. It's a long debate. But the current BCS system is worse than both a playoff and the old system.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 05:20 PM) The Alamo Bowl was targeting Michigan all the way. It will be against Nebraksa because they wanted the history of the matchup. 97 Split Championship. You should be happy then. You'll get to see Michigan kill a s***ty Nebraska team. I, for one, will try to find something better to do with my December 28th than watch another underachiever from Michigan take the field. It's all really a moot point anyways b/c college football in the last decade has gotten consistently less exciting to watch. Either go to a playoff and determine a true National Champion or go back to the original bowl system with 3 million bowl games on New Year's Day. Neither will happen, so who cares.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 05:15 PM) i went to the Capital One Bowl against Auburn in 2001. 85% of the Stadium was Michigan. They also got a ton of Michigan fans against Florida in 2003 for the Outback Bowl. Wonderful, you've introduced anecdotal evidence. As I said, Iowa travels just as well or maybe even better to these crappy bowl games than Michigan does. Did I say Michigan did not travel well? No, I didn't. I simply said that Iowa will bring the same amount of fans and maybe even more. Do you really think the business persons running these bowl games would invite an Iowa team if they knew they would not get as many fans if they had invited Michigan?

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 05:09 PM) look at strength of schedule. Look at the fact that Michigan travels much better than Iowa. A lot of that is what is selected for going into these games. And the Outback Bowl is still a pretty good bowl game to get into. Actually, Iowa probably travels just as well or better than Michigan. Especially when it comes to these crappy bowls. Michigan fans want to go to the Rose Bowl or a National Championship game. Most won't spend the time and money to go to Florida or Texas for a meaningless game. With Iowa's recent resurrection, their fans go just about anywhere. And, as I already said, Michigan is slightly better than Iowa. Not "much better." You can look at strength of schedule and all of that crap. Both teams had the SAME record. When they played each other, Michigan won a CLOSE game by 3 points. It is what it is.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 04:59 PM) Michigan didn't play well. However they were better than Iowa. They also didn't have Mike Hart for that game. Michigan doesn't deserve to go to a BCS game. I am not building them up as some supreme football team. However with the criteria that goes into picking the bowl games Michigan deserves to go over Iowa. You said Michigan was "much better" than Iowa. They are not much better. Slightly better is accurate. And who really cares when it comes down to the Outback Bowl and the Alamo Bowl. In fact, Michigan deserves the shaft for the way they played most of the year. The team should not rest on the shoulders of one guy, which it pretty much did this year. And if you have not figured it out yet, college football is one big clusterf***.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 04:55 PM) Iowa lost to Michigan. Michigan beat Iowa at Iowa. That put a stop to Iowa's win streak at home. Look Michigan shouldn't be in this position because they didn't play well this season however they were much better than Iowa. They were not much better than Iowa. Slightly better, yes. Much better, no. Then again, maybe in your world 3 points and the same exact record is much better. Don't go around flaunting Michigan as some supreme team that just played poorly this year. We were a slightly above average team. Deal with it.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 04:46 PM) they don't even deserve to go. They have no place in a Major Bowl Game. I am sorry but that is the truth. Iowa was just about 1 notch below UM. And that comes from a Michigan fan.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 03:34 PM) and the coaches know that by Grossman being 3rd string. Isn't that message enough. AGAIN, all I said is that your assertion that Orton sucks b/c he has no WR's was wrong. I then went on to say that Grossman, IN MY OPINION, would probably not be worse than Orton. HOWEVER, it is up to the coaches to determine when he is ready and if he should take over. What part of that do you not understand?

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 03:31 PM) no they are winning with Orton. Did you see what i posted? Grossman isn't even ready to become a 2nd String QB yet. He is ready to play in an emergency. If he did come in probably every play would be a run and he wouldn't pass the ball. You said the reason Orton sucked is b/c his WR's suck. I simply pointed out that you were wrong. And, I went on further to say that only the coaches really and truly know if Grossman is ready and able to take over for Grossman.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 03:18 PM) who does he have as a Wide Receiver? Moose will be double covered. This is why the Bears need to draft a Receiver with the first pick. He has no Receiving talent around him if Moose is double covered and that is what has been going on. If you seriously think Orton's problems revolve around having no WR's to throw to, then you don't know much baout football. He's a rookie and struggles are to be expected. However, this team is winning in spite of him and not b/c of him. With Orton, you know you're getting the league's worst QB statistically. With Grossman, you don't know what you're getting. The question is: is he worse than Orton. Common sense says no, but the coaches will determine that.

QUOTE(timotime @ Dec 4, 2005 -> 01:46 PM) This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you. Are you a lawyer? Any good, upstanding lawyer abides by his oath and works in an ethical fashion. Of course, there are plenty of bad lawyers, just as there are plenty of bad people in the professional world. But it does not make it right.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Dec 3, 2005 -> 06:28 PM) What is the score now and how are they running it up any more than Texas did? Last I saw it was 45-6. The last TD at that time came from a fumble return, which doesn't constitute running up the score? The difference between USC and Texas today is that Texas threw twice in the 2nd half and that was the back-up. USC is going deep with Leinart still in there. I really don't care either way, but Texas did not run it up. USC looks like it is just having a lot of fun at the expense of UCLA. Then again, UCLA isn't that great, and USC is.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 10:26 PM) Indiana will AWESOME inside with White and Killingsworth.....but their guards are awful, and Mike Davis blows as an in game coach. Should be interesting to see what they do this season. The guards aren't awful. They're not great, but I think they will do the job they need to do, which won't be a ton with DJ and Marco.

QUOTE(Jimbo's Drinker @ Nov 30, 2005 -> 10:13 PM) I hope teams dont start double teaming Marco..if so uh oh Doubling? Uh, hello triple teams. That's why DJ will help and we need AJ or Strickland to step up and make shots on a regular basis. Without that, it will be DJ White and Marco Killingsworth versus the other team.