Moiraine

If anyone ever wonders why people say "thug" is a racist word, this is a good example of it. It is almost exclusively used for Black people. Sometimes when they're not doing anything wrong.

Go home, MattyIce, you're drunk.

I'm going with 24-10 Wisconsin. Hope I'm wrong.

#3 if Clemson and Washington bosh lose Louisville is now up 4, crushing my dreams.

Louisville's down 3 in 4th quarter. I'm going to fantasize about being #5 before our game starts.

If Clinton wins after this I don't want to hear any sh#t about election rigging from the right. Also, I'm not buying Comey's claim that he did this because he said under oath the investigation was over. The situation changes doesn't automatically make him a liar 4 months ago.

Can we clean this thread up? Go back to the OP. This was NOT the point of this thread. Can these people manage to let one positive Mike Riley thread go by without ruining it?

I have no idea the right approach but sometimes this backfires. The best example is Texas 2010.

Cracks me up when people say things like the bolded. It's either a huge exaggeration or they don't have any idea what a bottom half team actually plays like. We're clearly a top 30 team. It's easy to argue we're not a top 10 team. Stick with that. But we'll see how the next 2 games go. Well, it is an exaggeration but only slightly. According to Sagarin, the best team we've played is #44 Northwestern. It's a huge exaggeration. You aren't slightly better than the best team you played. That's bad logic. If you managed to beat every team you played that's something in itself. Teams that aren't in the top 50 manage to lose some of the types of games we played, even if they're playing teams ranked worse than them. I know there are way, way more factors involved but let's say a team has a 80% chance to beat each of the first 7 teams on their schedule. Even then, their probability of beating all 7 is 21%. Any team who does that is almost assuredly top 50 unless they're playing only teams in the bottom 10%, e.g. an Ivy League school.

Nah. The best team wins a large percentage of the time. Way too many times do teams who really shouldn't win a game pull out the best game of their season while a good team is struggling. It happens a lot in college football, which is why it's my favorite sport. The way I see it is to think about what a team's record might be if they played another team 10 times. In 2009 if Nebraska and Iowa State played 10 times, Nebraska likely would have won 9 of them. Because Nebraska was the better team overall. Those are those rare ones. But way more often does it happen when you have two teams where one is slightly better and would win a series 6-4. That doesn't mean the would-be 4-win team is the better team because they won the game. It means they were the best team on that day. Hell, a much better example is all of the sports where they play multiple times in the playoffs. There's a reason most sports have series. Many times series are 4-3. Does that mean the better team won "almost every time"? No. the better team won either 57% of the time or 43% of the time. Though with 7 games the likelihood that the series winner is the best of the two teams goes way up because the sample size is much bigger. In college football the sample size is 1 (or 2 at most).

Agreed. Gets really old.

Cracks me up when people say things like the bolded. It's either a huge exaggeration or they don't have any idea what a bottom half team actually plays like. We're clearly a top 30 team. It's easy to argue we're not a top 10 team. Stick with that. But we'll see how the next 2 games go.

Hilarious

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html So these could either be duplicates of the thousands of e-mails we've seen before, or maybe they're e-mails that Clinton deleted and they're actually new. I probably shouldn't say this given the idiocy of what Clinton did, but I wouldn't think Abedin would be stupid enough to send or receive classified info on a shared phone. There were 30 "brand new" e-mails everyone got all excited about 3 months ago. They turned out to all be repeats of what was already out there.

But... he's been wrong every time he picked against us. I guess picking a tie means he's wrong one way or the other.

Or if she was Colin Powell. Or Condoleezza Rice. "But he did it too" is a poor defense for what happened. Besides, those aren't apples to apples comparison's, but I'd be fine with going after them too. Most republicans aren't fine with it. Otherwisw they'd be going after them too. their situations weren't even the same that's already been debunked. and they aren't running for president. they aren't even in public service any more. the democrats are free to start up an investigation on them if they want. what a terribly weak deflection from the real issue. some of you just embarrass yourselves with the msnbc/huffpost scripted defenses of hillary. i know you are more intelligent than that. I haven't watched msnbc or visited msnbc's website (if they have one?) in at least 10 years, nor do I read huffington post unless it's posted here or on very rare occasions when I run across a story that happens to have them as a source. Also, I don't feel embarrassed. Are you saying we should only try to investigate people who are running for president?

Correct. At the time we played Oregon, they were undefeated and there was no indication that there was a let up. They had won their previous two games on an average of 48.5 to 27. The team could have easily come into the game tight and unconfident. It's going to be really interesting to see how this team performs tomorrow in an even bigger game on the road. The team also could have easily lost that game to Oregon but benefited from some breaks (breaks they were due after last year but breaks none the less). Anybody who watched Oregon play a currently 2-5 UVA team and a 1-5 FBS UC David team recognized the problems Oregon was facing. There were a lot of indications. In fact some duck fan was on here talking about how they'd be lucky to win 5 games this year. The whole notion of "tightness" and "momentum" is overrated, imo. But it makes for a good news spin. I don't see how it is overrated...if the team is playing tight how in the world do you expect them to play to win?? Momentum is huge...case and point...a team jumps out on a team that has a hard time playing through adversity. This team puts their head down and says, "here we go again." game over! There is some truth to it being important and some truth to it being overrated... In the end, more times than not, the better team just wins. I would say 99.99999999% of the time the best team on that day wins. The only way that doesn't happen is if some outside influence affects the game. I can only think of one or two times in all the college football I have seen where that has happened. CU's 6th down at Mizzou is an example. The key here is definitely "on that day." Upsets are pretty prevalent in college football based on psychological factors or kids having really up and down days. I'd say the best team overall probably wins 75% of the time. Although sometimes the best team is only marginally better than their opponent. Even the much worse team wins at a surprising rate in college football. (Surprising to me would be anything above 5% of the time).

I guess my question would be how things Weiner or his wife were writing would impact an investigation into Hillary Clinton. What if Weiner was like "Yo Huma, remind me what time that drone strike at lat-long X that Hills e-mailed you about yesterday is gonna be. I have someone I need to warn." ? But seriously, maybe Huma borrowed his phone and logged into her own e-mail account with it to receive e-mails from Clinton. Can't imagine she'd do something as dumb as forward an e-mail to him that she shouldn't...

And as I've said all along, Obama will pardon Clinton so guilty or not, she'll never see a penalty for this. They operate under different rules than us. Trump, while not the solution to America's problems, is indicative of the growing schism between those in power and the rest of us. Trump's run shows that people are tired of these separate sets of rules. It'll come to a head sooner or later. I'm all for it coming to a head. With a leader who's not amoral.

Or if she was Colin Powell. Or Condoleezza Rice. "But he did it too" is a poor defense for what happened. Besides, those aren't apples to apples comparison's, but I'd be fine with going after them too. Most republicans aren't fine with it. Otherwisw they'd be going after them too.

Wonder if they're unique. The last ones they found weren't.

President Tim Kaine

It's all been debunked but that's not important to him.

Example?