Nebula

Bad year all around for Big 12 refs. Just another major problem for a conference rife with them. Par for the course, 'eh Daniel?

Sure, I can see that. What's the old saying, absence makes the heart grow fonder? My wife likes it when I'm gone, though. Without exception. (j/k. I think.)

NO! PaulCrewe, the only way to ever win, EVER, is to recruit kids strictly from the Empire of Texas. And of course, now that we're headed to the Big 10, we'll never get another high caliber athlete out of that sovereign nation again. What? Who is this "Aaron Green" you speak of? Sarcasm aside, I totally agree with what you wrote on the DT front. That is a hard position to fill...like you said, quality DT's are a rare breed. With Ankrah and Meredith and Williams (among others,) we have some depth there at the end spot. Truthfully, I would take another quality DE recruit if we could sign one. (pfff. Who wouldn't? ) But if only one could be had, I'd take the DT over the DE. I'd take a big time LB over anything at this point, though.

Wow, that's like the fourth awesome thing I've seen from LSUfreek today. They've got some creative and humerous folks down there in Baton Rouge

I like the ISU pick nuance...and I think you even gain a point because I believe the spread is now -2 1/2 instead of -3 1/2. I'll take the Cardinal over Arizona State at -5.

Hysterically embarrassing. Those things look like something out of a mescaline nightmare. "Oh my God I can't breathe. I can't breathe! It's like the whole Universe is rejecting me...I'm changing dimensions and I can't gain a foothold in reality...wait. Is that supposed to be Vince Young? That looks terrible."

C'mon UConn! I just can't get excited about playing Pitt in a projected BCS bowl. All the Pederson bitterness aside, there are about eight teams I'd rather play in the Fiesta Bowl. And much respect to Turner Gill. He is clearly a good person with a big heart, whether he is actually a good head coach or not. (I'm not saying one way or the other, because I honestly don't know. He had a great season at moribund Buffalo, but I don't think he's established himself as a coaching heavyweight or anything. I know one thing for sure; If somebody told me when I was seventeen that I had a choice of two places to attend, and at one of the places I would have a 10pm curfew in place in terms of being out and about with the opposite sex, I would have sprinted like an East Berliner toward an unguarded wall in the opposite direction.) EDIT: Stupid S key!

Thank you for the kind sentiment my friend Yeah, they've got the Cal vibe going on in Boulder, too. That is definitely an additional (and foreign) obstacle for a coach who is used to having the football program be the undisputed king of the campus.

It's not like Colorado can sit back and select whomever they wish by pointing a diamond flecked finger at one of many incredibly high caliber candidates. Pederson was shocked at how hard it was to find a viable option after he dismissed Coach Solich, and you have a TON more in place here at NU then you do in Boulder. Colorado has the following hindrances for any head coach to consider: 1.) It's a pro town/state. The Broncos are infinitely more important than the Buffaloes to most sports fans in Colorado. 2.) The facilities are horrible...really, really bad. 3.) The University is in dire straits economically...which means there is zero money to spend on facility upgrades. 4.) Booster indifference. Raising money for the Cornhuskers isn't akin to playing tiddlywinks, but it is compared to getting Colorado business folk to open up their wallets for an afterthought up in Boulder. 5.) Four long years of terrible football means a pretty substantial rebuilding phase. From the time they were absolutely annihilated by Texas in the CCG five years ago, the talent and production decline has been nothing short of precipitous. That job feels like a Sisyphean endeavor at this point. So, I believe speculation on who Colorado is going to select is a little premature. I think a more accurate way to phrase Colorado's situation is to ask who they are going to settle for, rather than who they are going to choose. I think CU is about to get Callahanned.

I did a 7pm to 7am shift as a dispatcher at a tow truck company for a few years. (Super fun customer phone calls! Never any curse filled drunken threats! Ever!) I always had to go through this explanation routine as I bought a 6 pack at 7:02 AM, you know, "I know this looks bad ha ha, but uh, I work overnight so it's really like 7 at night for me!" "Sure buddy, whatever. That'll be $5.99."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4DmjePEXkM

http://currentlines.net/ncaa_football.htm OK, so I'm looking at this at the top of the page. So does that mean that, in the game above Clemson and NC State, that Maryland was favored by 8 over Miami, at Miami? That doesn't seem right... Or three down from the Clemson game, the Iowa vs Indiana game. Iowa has the 17 in front of it like Clemson had the 3 1/2 in front of it...so that means it was actually Iowa at +17? That doesn't seem right... What am I missing here? I think the line actually WAS Clemson -3 1/2. Sorry to keep harping on this, I'll shut up.

Wait, so if I take NC State when Clemson is favored by 3 1/2 and Clemson wins by 1 I lose? I never ever wager, so I'm a complete novice with this stuff...I apologize for my ignorance. Can you explain how that works to me though? My brain is refusing to allow me to see this clearly for some reason...I'm still convinced I actually picked correctly. Did I read the line wrong? Was NC State actually favored or something? EDIT: I'm just baffled because I always thought the line meant that if one team is favored by, say, seven points or something and you take them (the favorite) and they win by 6, then you lose the bet, right? They had to win by 8 points or more to cover, right? And consequently, if you take a team that is on the other end, say they are going against a team that is favored by four points and the underdog loses but only by a field goal, I thought that meant that by taking the underdog you could actually lose the game but still win the bet because the favored team didn't cover. Both killer cacti and sd'sker both chimed in yesterday, and they saw it the same way you did 808Husker, so I gotta believe I'm wrong here. I just don't understand why. Just looked again. You lost. The line read Clemson +3.5 This means that NC State must win by more than 3.5 for your bet to pay off. The reason I was so confused is that you bet NC State +3.5 If that WAS the line, you would have won. Unfortunately, You picked NC State and they lost. Even if they would have won by 3, you still would have lost. Gotcha. I didn't know how to read it...I thought that meant Clemson was favored, not NC State. Thanks for the help, much appreciated.

Wait, so if I take NC State when Clemson is favored by 3 1/2 and Clemson wins by 1 I lose? I never ever wager, so I'm a complete novice with this stuff...I apologize for my ignorance. Can you explain how that works to me though? My brain is refusing to allow me to see this clearly for some reason...I'm still convinced I actually picked correctly. Did I read the line wrong? Was NC State actually favored or something? EDIT: I'm just baffled because I always thought the line meant that if one team is favored by, say, seven points or something and you take them (the favorite) and they win by 6, then you lose the bet, right? They had to win by 8 points or more to cover, right? And consequently, if you take a team that is on the other end, say they are going against a team that is favored by four points and the underdog loses but only by a field goal, I thought that meant that by taking the underdog you could actually lose the game but still win the bet because the favored team didn't cover. Both killer cacti and sd'sker both chimed in yesterday, and they saw it the same way you did 808Husker, so I gotta believe I'm wrong here. I just don't understand why.

Ummm...I like that statement. A lot. Hope it's accurate

lol, I'm confused. (Somebody call the New York Times!) So...I thought that Clemson was favored by 3 1/2, so I figured that if I took NC State and they either won or lost by only a field goal I would win the pick. So then Clemson only won by a point (14-13), and I thought I was golden like Kent Brockman. Am I an idiot, or did I actually pick correctly? (The first question is rhetorical. The answer is yes, regardless of whether I picked correctly or not.)

I'm more worried about Bob Griese than I am Cy. The concept of wind is going to kill that man.

My 3 girls, the oldest is 8, heard the first few notes, and threw the bones!!!! I have two little girls, and they were both just dancing around like maniacs when I played the TD version of TINPLN. We're gonna need to work on throwin the bones to keep up with your household, though.

1.) Heavy dose of Burkhead, 15+ carries 2.) Create early turnovers on defense 3.) 4+ sacks, all from 4(3?) man rush, no blitz 4.) Our O-Line continue to improve. 5.) Lots and lots and lots of PT for our backups.

Never Forget Metamucil?

I know I read a warning about Clemson games earlier in this thread leveled by killer cacti...yet as much as I'm inclined to follow the advice of a fellow fan of the D, I'm gonna have to take NC State at +3 1/2 over said Tigers. Wait...does that count? Or am I in the clear because I'm betting against Clemson?

Maybe, but it took them 4+ years to come to a decision regarding Reggie Bush and USC. This thing could absolutely explode. You take the Luchs story, the revocation of Bush's Heisman, and add it to the mid-season Newton development, and you have a scenario where we might actually have to address the agent issue. It seems like these things usually surface in the off season, when the sports media needs to garner the attention of those not interested in the NBA or NHL. The Cam Newton Saga is a different animal, exploding into the light of scrutiny while this kid is the front runner for the Heisman. Can't push that into the corner, into the shadows of apathy. It's right in front of our faces.