BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Happy New Year!

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, January 01, 2009

Happy New Year!

We wish a joyous and Happy New Year.to you and yours!

Jim Furtado Posted: January 01, 2009 at 08:13 AM | 89 comment(s)
Related News: General

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 01, 2009 at 10:00 AM (#3041466)

Happy New Year, one and all!

BTW, I was also first on the Christmas thread. My timing is perfect. :-)

2. Jeff K. Posted: January 01, 2009 at 10:35 AM (#3041470)

My Primer New Year's Resolution (so not counting the one I just posted in the Lounge, "A Letter to My Coworker That Contains Twenty Instances of the Word #### and Its Derivations (Not Counting the One in the Title)") would be to actively participate in HoM, but that's done now. I regret that I missed out due to laziness.

So I guess it'll be to be nice or something.

3. Tim Lincecum doesn't Wang Chung tonite (GGC) Posted: January 01, 2009 at 11:47 AM (#3041478)

I said that I should work on my temper in Mainland threads. But someone said that I'm one of the most even keeled guys here. I guess I have a filter. When I think that I'm yelling at someone, it turns out that I'm only mildly rebuking them.

4. John DiFool2 Posted: January 01, 2009 at 12:13 PM (#3041480)

What kind of bird is that? It looks like a woodpecker but the bill is that of a duck.

5. Jeff K. Posted: January 01, 2009 at 12:42 PM (#3041485)

Daly, you saying "I need to work on my temper" is the equivalent of Paris Hilton saying "I need to lose some weight", Jeannie Zelasko saying "I need to make my hair bigger and more frightening", Eric Young saying "I need to be more like the token black Keebler elf", Neyer saying "I need to incorporate more flannel into my wardrobe", or any writer over 50 saying "The world needs to hear my opinion on the New York baseball teams of the 1950s."

6. Swedish Chef Posted: January 01, 2009 at 12:54 PM (#3041486)

When I think that I'm yelling at someone, it turns out that I'm only mildly rebuking them.

From the medical dictionary:
"GGC Syndrome: Afflicted person is more inhibited in on-line communication than in real life. Very rare, possibly non-existant."

7. Slapinions Posted: January 01, 2009 at 12:58 PM (#3041487)

Happy New Year to everyone at BTF

8. Tim Lincecum doesn't Wang Chung tonite (GGC) Posted: January 01, 2009 at 01:07 PM (#3041493)

I have examples of outbursts if you want them, Jeff. But some of them are yelling at people for yelling at each other.

"GGC Syndrome: Afflicted person is more inhibited in on-line communication than in real life. Very rare, possibly non-existant."

IRL, my conversations are private. I know who I'm talking to and I know how they'll take what I say. On the internet, anyone can be reading you. Back in '03, I said something unkind about BPro at some forum that Steve Lombardi hosted at the time. I think it was the NetShrine Discussion Forum. Will Carroll read that forum and took offense. Between that, the fact that I post at Primer and occasionally wrote articles here, and some other remarks complaining about BPro wiseassery, I thought that I made their enemies list. In any case, I suppose I tread more lightly after that. Plus, I do meet a few Primates IRL. I don't want to burn any bridges. This goes for the MSM who read here as well. You never know who you're gonna run into at a SABR meeting. He might have a long memory and recall the time you called him an oxygen thief.

9. RMc is the President of the United States Posted: January 01, 2009 at 01:13 PM (#3041497)

Walter Lantz would be horrified.

On the other hand, it's pretty damn cool to wear slippers with your own face on them...

10. Tim Lincecum doesn't Wang Chung tonite (GGC) Posted: January 01, 2009 at 01:22 PM (#3041501)

Yeah, someone didn't recognize Woody?

11. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 01:23 PM (#3041502)

Today is the day Beano's head explodes. Bowl games and MLB Network!

12. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 01, 2009 at 01:38 PM (#3041507)

Are we going to get a Game Chatter on today's Dodgers-Yankees?

I think Larsen's going to get lit up. He sucks.

13. Srul Itza At Home Posted: January 01, 2009 at 01:57 PM (#3041513)

Hau'oli Makahiki Hou.

I should work on my temper in Mainland threads

Eh Haole, you like beef?

14. Lassus Posted: January 01, 2009 at 02:08 PM (#3041517)

Maybe this could be the all-purpose bowl game thread. I don't really care about football, but in family news, my stepfather's alma mater (Georgia) is playing my sister's husband's alma mater (Michigan State). It's go time!

15. Tim Lincecum doesn't Wang Chung tonite (GGC) Posted: January 01, 2009 at 02:11 PM (#3041520)

Ha, Srul! Mainland is a Loungism for the non-forum parts of the site.

16. Jolly Old St. Nick (now, with Screen Name history) Posted: January 01, 2009 at 02:16 PM (#3041524)

Are we going to get a Game Chatter on today's Dodgers-Yankees?

I think Larsen's going to get lit up. He sucks.

I dunno, Tom, according to the Daily News, the Yanks are 6-7 favorites with the bookies and 6 1/2 to 5 man-to-man. But what the hell, I'll lay you the 6 1/2 Oiskins and take Larsen anyway. Like the Washington Generals, I think the big boy's due. That Game 2 was just a small sample size.

But let's make it cheap, say just a nickel. I don't want nobody to get hurt.

17. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: January 01, 2009 at 02:18 PM (#3041525)

Are we going to get a Game Chatter on today's Dodgers-Yankees?

You, sir, are ####### brilliant.

18. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 01, 2009 at 02:23 PM (#3041528)

Larsen couldn't even hack it in the Browns' rotation. What chance does he have against the World Champs?

After waiting so long before they finally broke through last year, the Brooks are not going down easily. I think it'll be a high-scoring, seesaw battle, but I look for Dale Mitchell - who is very familiar with the Yanks after all those years in the American League - off the bench late to win it for Alston's men.

19. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 02:27 PM (#3041531)

my stepfather's alma mater (Georgia) is playing my sister's husband's alma mater (Michigan State). It's go time!

Uga should spank Mich State. Just a mismatch, that is all. A methodical beatdown. One moment it is 10-0, then 20-0 and then 35-7. At least that is what I expect.

20. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 02:30 PM (#3041532)

*Jinx, MSU just picked off Matt Stafford ran back to 10 y line. The NFL is drooling over Stafford, but I will point out he was very ordinary in college. Good luck with that NFL.

21. Kirby Kyle Posted: January 01, 2009 at 02:32 PM (#3041534)

I'm tired of these Series matchups between two New York teams. Five times in the past six years! I'll skip the game, which will be boring anyway, and pray instead for someone to find a way to break the Big Apple's stranglehold on baseball.

22. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 02:35 PM (#3041536)

I'll skip the game, which will be boring anyway, and pray instead for someone to find a way to break the Big Apple's stranglehold on baseball.

Maybe those upstart Milwaukee Braves can break this reign of NY baseball up?

23. KingKaufman Posted: January 01, 2009 at 02:36 PM (#3041537)

Are the throwback unis in the Winter Classic gilding the lily?

24. Jeff K. Posted: January 01, 2009 at 03:10 PM (#3041547)

Ha, Srul! Mainland is a Loungism for the non-forum parts of the site.

This is true. Though if we're being hypertechnical, HoM, Dialed In, most of the team blogs (especially Gonfalon Cubs and the erstwhile Blogpark in Arlington), and TO, by dint of their being the work of mostly, if not solely, Loungers, are not "the mainland". They're their own separate entities and referred to as such. It's much more correct, again in the hypertechnical sense, to say that Newsblog is the mainland and nothing else than it is to include everything non-Forum.

If you read the BTF Wiki, it says some nonsense about the Forums being called "the island". Don't listen to that.

25. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 01, 2009 at 03:17 PM (#3041550)

Yup, Michigan State can't keep up. Only 3 points.

Oh wait, Georgia only has 3. What??

26. rLr Shouldn't Have Drunk The Hot Mountain Dew Posted: January 01, 2009 at 03:23 PM (#3041554)

If you read the BTF Wiki, it says some nonsense about the Forums being called "the island". Don't listen to that.

Devil's Island, maybe.

27. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 03:24 PM (#3041555)

Oh wait, Georgia only has 3. What??

This is a mild shocker, the Big Ten has been humiliated (0-3) in the bowls until today.

28. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 01, 2009 at 03:38 PM (#3041560)

This is a mild shocker, the Big Ten has been humiliated (0-3) in the bowls until today.

Beano, I'm surprised that you're surprised. Georgia has a rather profound tendency to come up small.

And I think you've got to exempt Northwestern from the humilation. The Cats turned in a nice performance against a team that I thought would blast them.

29. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 01, 2009 at 03:38 PM (#3041561)

Well, anyone who paid attention understood there was a clear class distinction in the league this season. The lower echelon teams were several notches below their peers.

Iowa just overpowered SC turnovers or no. Once they got a lead they simply muscled the ball and skipped passing.

30. rLr Shouldn't Have Drunk The Hot Mountain Dew Posted: January 01, 2009 at 03:39 PM (#3041562)

Also, the Big Ten is currently 1-3, now that Iowa has finished whipping Steve Spurrier's charges.

31. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 01, 2009 at 03:47 PM (#3041563)

Spurrier is Mike Matz of college football. He fell into some fine teams, got folks believing the success had more to do with him than the players and keeps s#ckering the media into thinking he's relevant even though the results haven't shown up in some time.

32. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 03:50 PM (#3041564)

Beano, I'm surprised that you're surprised. Georgia has a rather profound tendency to come up small.

True. UGA did show up to take care of business vs Hawaii I must say. I'm very thankful for that. We all owe them for it, otherwise this years BCS title game might have been Utah v Bosie St or we'd be watching congressional hearings.

33. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 03:52 PM (#3041565)

Well, anyone who paid attention understood there was a clear class distinction in the league this season. The lower echelon teams were several notches below their peers.

I'm not sure what this means? The big ten is large underdogs in most matchups precisely because they are a very weak conference. tOSU (#2 Big Ten) is facing the #3 team in the B-12 and they are pretty big dogs there. Penn St is champ v champ vs USC and again they are large dogs. These are fair matchups in terms of conf standing, it is just that the big ten is producing teams that are consistently weaker than their peers.

Basically if the Big Ten was better, they would be favorite in at least 2 of these games.

34. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 01, 2009 at 03:58 PM (#3041567)

tOSU (#2 Big Ten) is facing the #3 team in the B-12 and they are pretty big dogs there.

That's pretty disingenuous. The No. 3 team in the Big 12 is also T-1 Big 12. In fact, if tOSU was playing your No. 2 B-12, I don't think they'd be quite the same underdog.

The Big 10 is down, but it got some pretty unfavorable bowl matchups (the downside of traveling well, I suppose).

35. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:00 PM (#3041568)

And I think you've got to exempt Northwestern from the humilation. The Cats turned in a nice performance against a team that I thought would blast them.

Indeed. Pat Fitzgerald has been a very good hire. Almost perfect for them.

36. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:03 PM (#3041569)

That's pretty disingenuous. The No. 3 team in the Big 12 is also T-1 Big 12. In fact, if tOSU was playing your No. 2 B-12, I don't think they'd be quite the same underdog.

It is not disingenuous. Texas Tech beat Texas. OU is playing for the title. Even if I grant you Texas is T-1 in B-12, which I will do, then how does it change the fact the B 12 has 3 teams that would be large favorites over #2 B-10?

The matchups are mismatches because the B-10 has a list of weak teams. These teams could be a lot better than they are, they just are not very good. The reason they are dogs across the board, is not because they are facing an "unfair" slate #6 v #3's, instead it is because the big-10 teams are very lacking. There is nothing stopping the B-10 from having 3 great teams like the B-12.

37. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:10 PM (#3041573)

It is not disingenuous. Texas Tech beat Texas. OU is playing for the title. Even if I grant you Texas is T-1 in B-12, which I will do, then how does it change the fact the B 12 has 3 teams that would be large favoriates over #2 B-10?

The Big 12 has three teams that would be large favorites over every other conference's No. 2, save perhaps the SEC. The Big 12 (the South division, in particular) was the class of CFB this year. Even the vaunted SEC isn't terribly impressive beyond Fla. (and maybe Bama, though I'm not completely sold on the Tide). It seems foolish to single out the Big 10 as a very weak conference, when you can say similar things about the ACC, Big East and Pac 10.

38. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:14 PM (#3041575)

In fact, the more I look at it, the Big Ten has had very favorable matchups.

In Big Ten favor:
Iowa v So Carolina was B-10 #t4 v SEC #t5.
Minny v Kansas was B-10 #t6 v B-12 #7
tOSU v Texas is #t1 and however you want to slice it, #t1-3 B-12

Even:
Mich St v UGA are both clear #3 with exact same record
N'Western v Mizzou was both #t4 and same record
Penn St v USC are both #1

Against B-Ten.
only Wisconsin v Florida St was a mismatch B-10 #t6 v ACC #t3

Only if you think the Big Ten is inferior and deserves a handicap could you conclude the Big Ten has a unfavorable slate. I don't think this, they deserve to be treated straight up. 1vs1s and 2v2s and 3v3s....etc.

39. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:16 PM (#3041576)

I do expect Penn State to play well today. 13-10 USC, but I will not be stunned if Penn State controlled the game and won. USC has a pretty ordinary Offense.

40. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:22 PM (#3041578)

The matchups are mismatches because the B-10 has a list of weak teams.

But after their top three, the B-12 has nothing. People deluded themselves into thinking the B-12's No. 2 (or No. 4, depending on how you look at it) was a 14-point favorite against the B-10's T-4, when they ended up getting thoroughly outplayed.

41. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:23 PM (#3041579)

If the B-10 can eek out the Mich St game, beat So Cal, with the Iowa win over So Car, the bowl season would be a big success. Not out of reach at all.

42. Jolly Old St. Nick (now, with Screen Name history) Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:24 PM (#3041580)

It seems foolish to single out the Big 10 as a very weak conference, when you can say similar things about the ACC, Big East and Pac 10.

I think what you've got here is a variant of the Jeter syndrome. It's not that Penn State is really all that bad, it's just that so many Big Ten teams were so overrated in the polls for so many years, the fans of the runnerup teams in the real power conferences like the Big 12 and the SEC get understandably irritated. But I think that even the polls are starting to reflect reality a bit more accurately nowadays, until the Big Ten proves its competitiveness on the field.

All that said, I'd love to see Penn State pull an upset today. Gotta luv the JoePa.

43. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:25 PM (#3041581)

But after their top three, the B-12 has nothing.

I think you are forgetting Kansas's manhandling of Minnesota. That was a fair B-12 v B-10 matchup. Of course that game was on NFL Network, so I don't think it counts.

44. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:28 PM (#3041582)

People deluded themselves into thinking the B-12's No. 2 (or No. 4, depending on how you look at it) was a 14-point favorite against the B-10's T-4, when they ended up getting thoroughly outplayed.

Mizzou is really the #5 team in the B-12. OU, Texas, Texas Tech are all better we can agree. Then both Oklahoma State and Mizzou tied with 5-3 conf records, they did play and OSU won 28-23 in Columbia, MO. So it is fair to call OSU #4 and Mizzou #5.

Mizzou was overrated indeed, but they did still beat N'Western and then Illinois eariler this year. Not huge wins, but still 2-0 and taking care of business vs Big Ten.

45. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:29 PM (#3041583)

UGA starting to pour it on.

46. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:33 PM (#3041584)

#42, indeed poll inflation at play with B-10. Penn State/Joe Pa is a great bowl coach. USC is overrated, however their D is great, and even historically great. It is just that USC has a weak offense. I hope it is close.

47. Every Inge Counts Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:37 PM (#3041586)

Georgia's defense is actually playing today which is the biggest shock. Of course Michigan State's offense is nothing great either.

48. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:38 PM (#3041587)

I really like Mark Dantonio. I think he can win a B-10 title and soon. The NFL can have Stafford, never entertained me once in college.

49. Every Inge Counts Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:40 PM (#3041589)

I am just glad to be going to my first Sugar Bowl tomorrow. Should be fun.

50. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:42 PM (#3041591)

Beano,

Look at it this way:

What other conferences' No. 1 would Penn State be favored against? I've got two (ACC and Big East). Underdogs against the other three.

How about No. 2s? OSU would be favored agains three others (ACC, Big East, Pac 10).

How about No. 3s? Pretty even against the Big East and Pac 10, underdogs to the others.

No. 4s? Pretty evenly matched throughout.

No. 5s? Big 10 favored in a few, though not the one NW faced.

From there, the Big 10 craters (just as Harveys said).

It's not just simply lining up the numbers, but the actual teams they met.

I'm not giving the Big 10 a handicap. I'm saying the conference was weaker than the Big 12 and SEC, and comparable with the others (The ACC was weak at the top, but extremely deep. The Big East was a mess top to bottom. The Pac 10 was excellent at the very top, a large mass of OK in the middle and abysmal at the very bottom). Singling out the Big 10 as a weak conference is misguided in this particular CFB season.

51. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:43 PM (#3041592)

I have never been to a Sugar Bowl. I bet it will rock, Bama's first since 1993. I've been to Rose, Orange and Fiesta. The Orange Bowl Stadium (torn down last year) is right up there with Wrigley/Fenway/Yankee in terms of American sports stadium history. Obviously I think it is very underrated.

52. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:46 PM (#3041596)

#50, okay, I agree with all of that. It is not weaker than ACC/B East/Pac 10, you are right. It is however a step or two or three behind the B-12/SEC this year. B-10 needs to have a year where they regain respect and dominate some of these games.

It is the B-10 that seeks out matchups with SEC and B-12, so they need to start delivering.

53. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:46 PM (#3041598)

This Gator Bowl is very good. Watch for the Nebraska D to create a huge play here.

54. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:48 PM (#3041600)

INT N.

55. Every Inge Counts Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:48 PM (#3041601)

As an Alabama fan I hope we can get the win, Utah is not as good as its Fiesta Bowl team, but better than last year's Hawaii Sugar Bowl team. I would like to make some other bowl game visits-right now I have Cotton Bowl and Music City Bowl, and now the Sugar Bowl.

56. On A Bradley Level Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:51 PM (#3041603)

The Power I formation from MSU, gets them a td - nice.

57. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:51 PM (#3041604)

Mich State very impressive drive. Dantonio is a superstar HC.

58. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:52 PM (#3041606)

Mizzou was overrated indeed, but they did still beat N'Western and then Illinois eariler this year.

Missouri won the game, but Northwestern dominated in yardage and time of possession. It took a missed extra point and a miracle punt return for Missouri to escape. Playing against inferior B-12 competition, Chase Daniel got talked up as a Heisman candidate, but against NU, he was a distant second in terms of the QBs on the field.

Illinois was not very good.

Maybe the most interesting bowl game to me is the Cotton Bowl. Texas Tech is only a four-point favorite over a four-loss Ole Miss team, despite its being virtually a home game for them. TT certainly didn't belong on the same field with Oklahoma. If they lose the Cotton Bowl, I think people will start to look at the Big 12 as a conference with two very good teams and one great team, all of which fattened up against weak competition.

59. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:56 PM (#3041607)

My Orange Bowl was for the national title, Florida State v Nebraska 1994. Needless to say it was electric. I don't think the new venue, NFL stadium X, is quite the same as the Orange Bowl. My Rose Bowl was also for title, 2002 Miami v Nebraska. Great setting, stadium lacks good sightlines, but overall great place for a game. Fiesta was in Tempe, and if the game is there, near Az State, very enjoyable, I have no idea if that NFL stadium is in a good location or not.

Music City Bowl? Which game? Nashville is nice.

60. Every Inge Counts Posted: January 01, 2009 at 04:58 PM (#3041608)

Alabama-Minnesota, a game Alabama would have won if they had any semblance of an offense...Minnesota had both Maroney and Barber III for that game as well. Cotton Bowl was Alabama-Texas Tech, Alabama with the last second field goal to win.

61. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 05:02 PM (#3041610)

Maybe the most interesting bowl game to me is the Cotton Bowl. Texas Tech is only a four-point favorite over a four-loss Ole Miss team, despite its being virtually a home game for them.

Home game for whom? Lubbock is 350 miles from Dallas, Oxford, MS is about 450. I would not expect TT to have much of a "home field".

The B-12 had the best non-conf record this year. I don't think there is any evidence to show the B-12 is anything but a very good conference, in fact the best this year.

62. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 05:04 PM (#3041611)

The Big 12 North was supposed to be a weak link and look at it now. 2-0 in Bowls v Big 10 and Nebraska is possibly going to make the B-12 N 3-0 in bowls. And that is the "weak link" and the "nothing" below the top you are talking about. In addition, Colorado beat West Virginia.

This is evidence the B-12 is very strong and very deep.

63. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 05:08 PM (#3041613)

Alabama-Minnesota, a game Alabama would have won if they had any semblance of an offense...Minnesota had both Maroney and Barber III for that game as well.

Ahh yes, I remember that, of course. I went to Minny for school. Bama did have the #1 rushing D in the nation going into that game. Most impressive bowl win for Minny in my lifetime.

64. baseball chick, now with lousy baseball team Posted: January 01, 2009 at 05:13 PM (#3041617)

football SUX

i wouldn't hate it near so much if the players had to play wearing only boxer briefs

65. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 05:23 PM (#3041620)

Missouri won the game, but Northwestern dominated in yardage and time of possession. It took a missed extra point and a miracle punt return for Missouri to escape.

Miracle punt return? Jermey Maclin is one of the best WR/KO Ret talents in my lifetime. If I had a Heisman ballot this year, I would have voted my top 3, Crabtree, Maclin, Harrell. I am not kidding.

Maclin is phenomenal. 33 TDs after his Freshman and Soph seasons. 5 Kick return TDs. He would have been the B-10 conf player of the year last year and this year.

Maclin 2 Kick Ret TDs v Big 10 in 2008.

KO RET TD v Illinois

Punt RET TD v N'Western

Too much speed.

66. Le Comble du Bob Dernier Cri Posted: January 01, 2009 at 05:26 PM (#3041621)

I hope it is not an ill omen that the New Years' thread has turned into a football thread. If this means another strike in August with nothing but the Cowboys to watch from thenceforward I will be bereft.

67. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 05:29 PM (#3041625)

College football. The NFL can burn in hell.

68. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 06:02 PM (#3041637)

Big 12 North 3-0 in bowls. Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech yet to play.

69. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 06:05 PM (#3041639)

Time to root for Joe Pa.

T - minus 54 min til the return of Jesus (MLB Network). Wait, Jesus, is coaching in the press box in Pasadena.

70. Crashburn Alley Posted: January 01, 2009 at 06:24 PM (#3041647)

Happy New Year, guys. Thanks for the great work put in here at BBTF.

71. Meatwad now with interlock! Posted: January 01, 2009 at 09:29 PM (#3041769)

what work? most people are on here to avoid doing work

72. BeanoCook Posted: January 01, 2009 at 09:48 PM (#3041786)

Thom Brenneman sucks donkey dick as a college football announcer. Thank god Fox is losing the BCS next year. But, it sucks ESPN is getting it.

ugh!

73. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: January 01, 2009 at 09:59 PM (#3041791)

Happy New Year, All.

My resolution is to try to be less politi... oh, hell.

19 days left to impeach!!!

74. Crashburn Alley Posted: January 02, 2009 at 05:48 AM (#3041908)

I've come up with a decent resolution: I will live my life in 2009 exactly the way I lived it in 2008.

(Today, I ate about a half-pound of Cheez Wiz on fries and a cheesesteak. I might not make it to the end of the year if this trend continues.)

75. Dayn Posted: January 02, 2009 at 02:34 PM (#3042077)

I was at the Alabama-Miami Sugar Bowl in '93 ('92 season). One of the most amazing in-person sports experiences I've ever had. The crowd was deafening and was probably worth 5-10 points for Alabama. I'll always remember the George Teague play (if I recall correctly, a penalty wiped out the play, but it was something to see.)

EDIT: YouTube of the Teague play. That's closing speed ...

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

76. Jeff K. Posted: January 03, 2009 at 05:43 AM (#3042540)

From the Youtube comments: "Those Miami and Alabama teams were nothing compared to this year's Florida team. Bama will soon understand the meaning of the word pain."

Mmhmm. I cannot stand Miami. Hate them with a seething passion. *Especially* those teams. Comparing Florida favorably to the early 90s Miami squads is somewhere between colossal and "I'm worried about your capability to keep remembering to breathe" on the scale of stupidity.

77. bunyon Posted: January 03, 2009 at 08:53 AM (#3042550)

I'd just like to note that in my youth, if a team was the only undefeated team and beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, they'd be unanimous national champs.

Beano is worried about congressional hearings. That is more warranted for the debacle that is the BCS than it was for PEDs.

78. Jeff K. Posted: January 03, 2009 at 09:36 AM (#3042557)

No they wouldn't. They'd be 7th. Because in your youth and mine (I think you're just a few years older than me), the AP Poll was the only one around, and it determined the national champ. The AP has nothing to do with the BCS anymore, and they have Utah at 7 pending a few outcomes. Under no circumstances would Utah have won the national championship if this were 25 years ago. First, they would have been nowhere near the Sugar Bowl to begin with; I hate the lack of playoff as much as anyone, but mid-majors get a hell of a fairer shake now than they did then.

79. Tim Lincecum doesn't Wang Chung tonite (GGC) Posted: January 03, 2009 at 09:53 AM (#3042560)

Didn't BYU win the nat'l championship the year they went undefeated and beat some chump in the Holiday Bowl?

80. Jeff K. Posted: January 03, 2009 at 10:08 AM (#3042562)

"Some chump" was Michigan, who had been as high as #2, but yes. Differences:

1) BYU went into the #1 spot in November. Again, Utah did not. Nothing's holding the AP back.
2) A bunch of fluke losses on 11/17 meant there were no sexier candidates from the pool of big conferences, certainly not the case this year.
3) The WAC wasn't a mid-major, it was the worst of the major conferences. That's a very key distinction.
4) BYU had cachet that Utah does not.

81. Esoteric can feel Strasburg slowly slipping away Posted: January 04, 2009 at 08:57 PM (#3043193)

By the way, I really think it's time to un-sticky this thread from the top. It's very large (on the main page, what with the picture) and pretty out of date at this point.

82. Tim Lincecum doesn't Wang Chung tonite (GGC) Posted: January 04, 2009 at 09:11 PM (#3043196)

Damn, it's only four days into the New Year. I can see unsticking it by MLK Day, but I'm sure some folks are just getting back from vacation. We're still within the window of when I wish people Happy New Year. Must everything have the shelf life of a boy band?

83. Jeff K. Posted: January 04, 2009 at 09:27 PM (#3043203)

You're so out of touch with the modern world. Things are out of date before they're published. It's a hyperconnected world. Up is down! Cats are dogs! Hardees is edible!

84. Esoteric can feel Strasburg slowly slipping away Posted: January 04, 2009 at 10:29 PM (#3043212)

Damn, it's only four days into the New Year. I can see unsticking it by MLK Day, but I'm sure some folks are just getting back from vacation. We're still within the window of when I wish people Happy New Year. Must everything have the shelf life of a boy band?

Yes. When the picture is THAT damn ugly and THAT damn large, yes. It should have been gone by the 2nd. That it's not is a dereliction of duty on the part of the moderators. It needs to go - now. Or at least have the picture hidden below a jump.

85. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: January 04, 2009 at 10:52 PM (#3043222)

What main page? The picture doesn't appear on my main page.

86. Esoteric can feel Strasburg slowly slipping away Posted: January 04, 2009 at 11:03 PM (#3043228)

The main news page (which my bookmark heads straight to).

87. Dirty Tom Rackham Posted: January 08, 2009 at 05:06 PM (#3046887)

Um, how long is this staying up? It was annoying by Jan 2.

88. Joey B. Posted: January 08, 2009 at 05:12 PM (#3046900)

Now it's probably going to stay up an extra week because of your post!

89. Tim Lincecum doesn't Wang Chung tonite (GGC) Posted: January 08, 2009 at 05:16 PM (#3046906)

I left Jim a voicemail.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Thursday, January 01, 2009

Happy New Year!

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

My Bookmarks

Hot Topics