Sunday Morning Open Thread

The NFL opens today. Go Giants!

Yesterday, Notre Dame proved it was as lousy as Michigan (how's that for a petty admission that I was wrong on that game?) I was right about Ohio State QB Terrelle Pryor, and I was 3-3 against the spread in my picks yesterday. Early prediction for next week - Florida will be a 27 point favorite over Tennessee.

How about Serena's meltdown last night? The amazing thing about it - it was not the foot fault that ended the match, it was Serena's code violation tirade against the lineswoman. We have not seen the likes of this since McEnroe. Not surprisingly, McEnroe was all about the lineswoman, not Serena's meltdown. McEnroe, still a boor.

Just for fun, some picks for today - Tampa (+5) over Dallas, Atlanta (-4) over Miami, Chicago (+4) over GB, 49ers (+6) over Arizona and the Brett Favres (-4) over Cleveland

This is an Open Thread.

< State Sen. Monserrate Trial Begins Monday | Details Emerge in Christopher Kelly's Death >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I watched the Serena/Kim match (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by vml68 on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 09:38:04 AM EST
    last night. I don't undertsand why Serena did not protest the bad? call to the umpire instead of going off on the lineswoman. She had to know what the penalty would be.

    Nothing to be done really (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 09:48:24 AM EST
    the umpire could hardly overrule the call imo. BTW, who knows if the call was correct or not. I can't pretend to know. would I have called a foot fault there even if I saw it? Probably not. But I should.

    She should have played the next point and tried to dig out of the hole.


    There was definitely a foot fault. Her foot was (none / 0) (#11)
    by Angel on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:09:51 AM EST
    WAY over the line. And Serena even said in the post match interview that she probably foot faulted.  But her reaction was something to see, that's for sure.  

    Is there sone new video? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    I saw it first thing this morning on Yahoo. It's (none / 0) (#19)
    by Angel on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:30:21 AM EST
    been removed from their site, now they are showing the standard video that I've seen on other sites.  The first video I saw this morning showed a close-up of her foot touching over the line.  That video and story were the first news I had of what had happened.  But it was clear in the video I saw that she had a foot fault.  And, yes, I'm a tennis player.  Even been to the US Open, in 2001, saw Serena play, too!  

    I saw the replay on CBS Sports last night: (none / 0) (#39)
    by snstara on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:59:59 AM EST
    No foot fault at all per their video.  Clearly, the lineswoman was in error. 'Over-officiating' was the term the CBS team used about that call.

    That does not excuse, at all, the abusive prima donna behavior of a professional tennis player towards an official. That Serena felt inclined to go after the woman twice was despicable - even the fans were calling her out on it as she left the arena.    


    Well, the video I saw early this morning was the (none / 0) (#45)
    by Angel on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:27:04 PM EST
    top story on Yahoo and there was clearly a close-up shot of the foot showing a fault.  I even called my husband in to watch it because we are both tennis players and fans.  I went back later after BTD asked about a new video and the story had been taken off the front page and the video that they had originally shown was gone!  Regardless, if there was or wasn't a foot fault she showed extremely poor judgement in approaching the line judge, and even worse was her language and threatening manner.  You just don't do that in tennis.  The right call was made regarding the point, it's just unfortunate that it happened to be the one needed for a win by her opponent.  

    You do NOT make that call... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:51:19 PM EST
    ...at that point in a big match.  Obviously Serena was wrong to blow up the way she did, and more wrong in the presser aftewards to not just say she blew up, she shouldn't have, blah blah, but sometimes officials, as they say, need to swallow their whistles, and that was one time.  They have computer challenges on out calls for balls, senseless they don't have them for foot faults.  

    The judges make the calls when they happen. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Angel on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:57:29 PM EST
    Nothing in the rules say, Hey, don't make any calls towards the end of the match if it's close.  That's insane.  How is that fair to the opponent?  It isn't.  I've seen plenty of matches when they didn't make the calls towards the end of the match and the one who would have been penalized ended up getting the win.  This is a game of rules, just like golf or anything else.  You don't ignore foot faults or out balls simply  because it's near the end of the match.  Timing sometimes sucks.  But that's part of the game.

    The replay last night (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 01:20:50 PM EST
    was meaningless. It was not up the line.

    Heartily disagree (none / 0) (#59)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 01:19:36 PM EST
    The official TV moderators 2 or 3 times showed the serve in question with the foot & ball action, and Serena clearly did not step over the line until the ball left her racket.

    I, too, don't understand why she did not question the call to the chair, & I wonder why there doesn't seem to be (altho I could be wrong here), a process for questioning foot fault calls and correcting incorrect calls using instant replay -- or whatever.


    She did question the call (none / 0) (#84)
    by Spamlet on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:18:31 PM EST
    It's her method of questioning the call that got her into trouble ("If I could, I would shove this effing ball down your effing throat").

    From what I've (none / 0) (#88)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 12:04:15 PM EST
    read, for some reason, there is no official process for challenging a foot fault call comparable to the other line call challenges that are checked on replay cameras.  I don't understand why foot fault calls are left out of the system of objective checks that have taken the sails out of outbursts from players over bad line calls.  

    There was a foot fault. Her left toe touched the (none / 0) (#85)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 08:43:44 AM EST
    white line.  That constitutes a fault.  Miniscule as it may be, that is the rule.  Now, even John McEnroe is saying that there was a foot fault.  He must have reviewed the tape and saw what I saw early yesterday morning.  The original tape I saw was shot from a side-slightly rear angle, not the same angle that they were showing on tv.  Serena has a lot of foot faults so it isn't as if this was something that she never does.  Her behavior was disgusting and she should get the maximum penaly for that despicable tirade against the line judge.  She has brought disgrace to the sport of tennis.  

    I always liked the Williams sisters (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Steve M on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 09:39:41 AM EST
    but it is hard not to root for Kim Clijsters.  She would be the first mom to win a Grand Slam singles title since 1980!

    Serena is the most talented (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 09:52:22 AM EST
    women's player in history imo.

    It always seems to me that when Venus beats her it is because Serena lets her. I know that is not true but it is the feeling one gets.

    Serena plays her worst tennis against Venus.

    One thing that annoys me is that they are treated as one person when talking about how many majors THEY have one.

    they are two different people, and Venus really can't win majors outside of Wimbledon anymore.

    When it is all over, Serena SHOULD be known as the greatest women's player of all time but I fear all the craziness will get in the way.

    She also does not handle losing very well. But that is part of being a champion.


    I think racquet and string technology has advanced (none / 0) (#72)
    by steviez314 on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 03:25:44 PM EST
    so much that it makes comparing tennis athletes of various eras very difficult.

    Serena is probably the most athletic of any tennis player ever.  But put a wooden racquet in her hands, and I'd love to see a match with her against Martina or Billie Jean or others of that era.

    The same holds true of the men--Federer is fantastic, but with the wood, I'd take Laver.


    shouldn't the gators (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Turkana on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:06:31 AM EST
    be docked bcs points for having scheduled troy?

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:15:16 AM EST
    Troy is a decent team.

    Charleston Southern, on the other hand  . . .


    You lie, boy! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:00:28 AM EST
    even a stopped clock, etc etc

    Boy, Oh, Boy

    Here is a pool playing dog video, Capt (none / 0) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:09:58 AM EST
    Interesting fact: (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:12:25 PM EST
    President Obama has kept the country free from attack during his presidency longer than did President Bush.

    So (none / 0) (#42)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:19:28 PM EST
    do you also think that Bush should be credited for the fact that we weren't attacked from after Sept 11 until the end of his terms?

    Ah! (none / 0) (#46)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:29:16 PM EST
    That question has been posed to me often by Republican leaning associates and friends who know me to be a "Chicago Lakefornt Liberal".  While I always acknowledge America has been spared another attack since 9/11, I simply point out that the president that presided during the devastation and aftermath caused by hurricane Katrina simply cannot be credited with ANY safety America may have experienced during his tenure, especially since the most devastating act of terror happened on his watch.

    I always say this (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:58:52 PM EST
    What possible reason could they have for even bothering to plan and worry about carrying out an attack here when we so self-destructively took their bait last time.  We are slowly disintegrating from our decisions post 9/11, any other attack like that might actually put us back in the world's good graces.  I basically try to explain to them that even terrorists can think fairly well if they need to.

    So we have to wait (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 01:03:05 PM EST
    until the second term to see if we avoid another NOLA?  Not sure how that relates to your first argument.

    Maybe you'll consider (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 01:10:26 PM EST
    responsiility and accountability?  W. had Richard Clarke running up and down the halls of the White House warning of an impending attack.  W. and his team ignored Clarke.  Please explain your correlation of this to Obama.

    Huh? You began the correlation (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 01:23:53 PM EST
    with Obama . . . and an act of terrorism in a first term.  Then you switched to a different sort of act (or inaction) in a second term, which doesn't seem relative to your first point.  So I'm trying to figure out what is your new point -- as it correlates to Obama, your correlation.

    After all, there are arguments that 9/11 hit so early in Bush's first term that it actually correlates more to his predecessor's actions -- or his distractions, due to Repubs' ridiculously trumped-up attacks and impeachment.  All goes to show that implied causations from correlations can be tricky.


    My words are clear. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 01:28:07 PM EST
    If you prefer I use different words, perhaps words with fewer letters, just ask; although not a lot of big words in my comments.  

    I just prefer logic (2.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 03:32:06 PM EST
    no matter the word length used.  I also prefer that people not resort to reverse arrogance.  Bye now.

    Actually, no. (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:15:46 PM EST
    WASHINGTON --  Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, spoke to reporters at the White House on Wednesday to discuss charges made by Richard A. Clarke, a former counterterrorism official, that the Bush administration did not take the threat of terrorism seriously enough. Rice also talked about why she has not publicly testified before the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Following are excerpts of the interview.


    "At the special meeting on July 5 (2001)were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."


    And this was a full month before the infamous PDB that the Left likes to talk about.


    Did you just link something from Fox News (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 09:34:25 AM EST
    That is a low.

    That, despite Biden's prediction (none / 0) (#82)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 08:39:51 PM EST
    we would be attacked just to test the muster of the administration within the first six months. I actually feel that when and if we are attacked again is under the control of the attackers and that neither W nor O are protecting us.

    Well, W certainly isn't (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 09:16:36 PM EST
    and hasn't for quite a while now..


    Defense alone can never protect us. We shall see what the effects of Obama's "offense:" is. Somehow I don't think the CIA is going to be exactly pushing the bubble on anything.......


    I missed all of that (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 09:43:28 AM EST
    The Williams sister will be back before long.

    Sure (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 09:52:56 AM EST
    Prbably at the Australian.

    But you mean Serena right? Venus only wins Wimbledon.


    Is that the CW? (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:04:35 AM EST
    I only ever seem to be around and watching TV for Wimbledon anyway.

    That is the reality (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:07:09 AM EST
    She has not made a final of any other Slam in 8 years.

    I would not have known that (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:10:19 AM EST
    But my interest is quite casual.

    Becaue they are ONE person (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:15:47 AM EST
    Serena and Venus.

    I had just gotten the impression, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:18:49 AM EST
    given the number of times they played one-another in the finals, that they were both really good. I can't blame the media for not knowing that Venus only ever places at Wimbledon because I consume almost no sports reporting.

    True for singles (none / 0) (#61)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 01:22:39 PM EST
    in doubles, she has gone to the finals with her sister.  They are in the finals at the U.S. Open.

    No give away should be left unrewarded (none / 0) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:02:53 AM EST
    Behind closed doors, Sen. Baucus has been staking his claim on major aspects of the climate bill, including financing for a cap-and-trade system. His power play could put Baucus at the helm of the Obama administration's domestic agenda, giving an unpredictable Montana Democrat control over legislative proposals that could define the Democratic Party for years to come." link

    Montana and Maine rule (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:28:37 AM EST
    the nation now -- and last year it was Iowa, perhaps the most atypical state . . . as Iowa is 95% farmland.  We have a very odd process of democracy.  

    Strong words from House Progressive leader (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:43:20 AM EST
    EP. RAUL GRIJALVA: I think the product that has come out from his committee and himself, I really believe that it has no legitimacy in this debate. It's an insider product. It's there to protect the industry. It is not there to try to look for that middle ground. He is key in holding up deliberations, has been key in trying to work on a consensus, but everything you see in his legislation had to be approved by the industry before it became part of the plan. So I don't think it's legitimate. I think we're struggling with real issues in some of the other pieces of legislation from the House and even from the Health Committee. And that's where the focus of the attention should be. I consider Senator Baucus's proposal to be essentially an insider trader move to protect an industry and really doesn't have validity at all, both political validity or content validity. link

    It is worth listening to the entire video.


    Im likin this guy (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:54:33 AM EST
    more and more.  

    Collins Says, Just Say No to Triggers (none / 0) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:26:56 PM EST
    A key swing vote on healthcare reform said Sunday she would not support a public option "trigger" -- a series of benchmarks that, if not met by a certain time, would authorize the creation of a government insurance program.

    "No -- the problem with triggers is that is just delays the public option," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told CNN's "State of the Union," adding that her major qualm with the public option was its scope and cost. link

    Hmm, if Collins thinks that triggers just delays a public option, does that mean she believes that the insurance industry will not offer affordable health insurance or play by the rules?


    Not even Nebraska... (none / 0) (#36)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:42:27 AM EST
    ...is 95% farmland (92.5%). Iowa comes in at 86%.  Illinois is 75.4%, does that make them "atypical" as well?  

    When it comes to democracy and the effect of the individual States upon the process, is not population a more meaningful measure of being "atypical" than % of farmland?  


    Checked with my source (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:57:29 AM EST
    who is a rural policy planner; he says that Iowa sources (extension was one he mentioned) disagree -- perhaps that the census bureau definition differs in terms of land in use vs. fallow land.

    The methodology... (none / 0) (#48)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    ...for the Census of Agriculture (not the Census Bureau) looks pretty sound to me.

    The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) maintains a list of farmers and ranchers from which the Census Mail List (CML) is compiled. The goal is to build as complete a list as possible of agricultural places that meet the NASS farm definition, that is, an operation that produces, or would normally produce and sell, $1,000 or more of agricultural products per year.


    NASS builds and improves the list on an ongoing basis by obtaining outside source lists. Sources include State and federal government lists, producer association lists, seed grower lists, pesticide applicator lists, veterinarian lists, marketing association lists, and a variety of other agriculture related lists.

    The % of farmland also includes "Farmland in conservation or wetlands reserve programs", "Land in house lots, ponds, roads, wasteland, etc." and
    as well as acres in pasture and woodlands/wetlands.  A pretty generious definition of farmland, IMO.  I don't see how it could be much higher.

    As to your somehow trying to tie farms to cultural diversity, the make-up of farm owners is changing along the lines of America as a whole.

    In the past five years, U.S. farm operators have become more demographically diverse. The 2007 Census counted nearly 30 percent more women as principal farm operators. The count of Hispanic operators grew by 10 percent, and the counts of American Indian, Asian and Black farm operators increased as well.

    And, I'd say that Iowa is pretty representative of the country's cultural make-up given that...

    The majority of the 300 million people currently living in the United States consists of White Americans, who trace their ancestry to the original peoples of Europe. Fifty-three percent of white Americans are of colonial ancestry, and 47 percent are the descendants of ancestors who came to America after 1790. Approximately 63 percent of white Americans are of English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh descent. Eighty-six percent of U.S. whites are of Northwestern European ancestry, and 14 percent are of Southern and Eastern European extraction.

    Well, he worked in the Ag Dept (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:58:06 PM EST
    so I trust him on its "approximations," unquote your link.

    LOL... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 01:09:40 PM EST
    ...somebody's been studying the PPJ method of debate.

    That was a nice personal (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:03:06 PM EST

    I invite you to prove me wrong on any post.

    Somehow I doubt you will try.


    As for citing European descent stats (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:59:19 PM EST
    as typically American . . . there 'tis.

    That's the point... (none / 0) (#56)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 01:08:29 PM EST
    ...The majority of the 300 million people currently living in the United States consists of White Americans, who trace their ancestry to the original peoples of Europe.

    For now, the definition of the typical American.  


    Ah, I see the reason (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    for your reply; it's not really Eurocentrism but actually is shifting the terms.

    A typical American is not the same as a more typical state.


    And percentage... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 03:42:23 PM EST
    ...of farmland does not make a State atypical.

    Talk about shifting the terms--or in your case, moving the goal post from one end of the field to the other.  


    To the larger question (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:59:46 AM EST
    Illinois is marvelously atypical in other ways, of course -- not that I understand why you bring it into the discussion.

    But yes, I also would use population -- and in planning primaries, I also would find states that look more like America, multiculturally, than Iowa.


    Two great games yesterday, (none / 0) (#18)
    by brodie on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:30:05 AM EST
    and happily my favorites emerged with victories.  

    Most entertaining game du jour, UMich vs ND -- UM not quite as bad as advertised, except for their D.  Still, they managed to beat a slightly more talented team.  UM's rookie QB -- Tate Forcier -- is a gutsy, skilled and smart young player who can pass and run and make good decisions like a veteran.  Wow.

    USC vs OSU:  Trojan offense managed to play well when it counted, in the very final minutes, against a determined and not overrated Buckeye team.  Not a great SC team loaded with huge talent and depth at the skill positions, but good enough to be a contender for the title.  

    Tough schedule still to come though -- especially having to play against Cal in Berzerkeley.

    Pac-10 also acquitted itself well when the pretty good UCLA beat the home team TN Volontiers.

    Meanwhile, the top rated team has a schedule where no game is played outside of their home region.  

    you mean the Southeast right? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:37:35 AM EST
    Given that they play in the SOUTHEASTERN conference, this is not surprising.

    This stuff always amuses me.

    USC played all of its game in its REGION? last year.

    Ohio State, Michigan/ND/Texas et al will play all of their games in their "region." Last year, Florida played Miami and FSU in their region.

    Florida has an easy schedule this year. Mainly because they do not play Alabama or Ole Miss during the regular season and Tenn and Ga are down this year.

    Most years, Tenn and Georgia (not to mention Auburn and LSU) are Top 10 teams.

    this is silly Brent Musburger level of understanding of college football.


    It was a jab at the fact (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by brodie on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:05:06 AM EST
    that FL this year plays no non-conference game outside of the South.  

    When you play each and every game basically in the same familiar area just a short plane trip away, you can avoid the problems associated with long distance travel, and having to prepare to play in unfamiliar and possibly inclement weather conditions at the destination point.

    Teams like USC and UCLA for instance not only consistently play intersectional games a good distance across country, but intraconference they have to travel a fair distance to the Pac NW -- going from stable sunny and moderate playing conditions to the wet and cold of the Northwest.  

    Should count for more in the rankings that teams travel far, especially early in the season, but apparently since the Pac-10 hasn't had a great rep in recent yrs, these western teams that play well out of their region early on get little extra boost in the rankings.


    So if they traceled to Seatte (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:11:56 AM EST
    to play Washington last year, that would have impressed you more than beating Alabama in the SEC Championship game?

    Very Brent Musburger of you.


    Moreso than losing to Ole Miss (none / 0) (#27)
    by rdandrea on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:17:28 AM EST

    Touche (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:35:23 AM EST
    Your silly comparison, (none / 0) (#28)
    by brodie on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:21:17 AM EST
    not mine.  Obviously there's no equivalency there, even allowing for the usual fairly vast overrating of AL.

    But given a WA team that's pretty good then I'm saying that a visit up there in those hostile and unfamiliar field conditions should count for more than it probably does.


    So you think (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:39:57 AM EST
    playing on Saturday night in Baton Rouge is less impressive than playing a Saturday in Seattle?

    Hello Brent Musburger. Sheesh.


    Not to mention... (none / 0) (#75)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 03:40:18 PM EST
    ...that a Seattle day, in--oh say--November, is likely to be a tad less pleasant that your typical Southern Saturday.  

    Unless you enjoy things like a steady rain in 38 degree weather that chills you to bone.  

    Warm weather teams are generally spoiled in that they don't have to travel to the NW, the Midwest (the coldest I've ever been was a November game in the rain/snow in Chicago) or the NE where the conditions are less than ideal.  Regular season or Bowl games.  


    LAX to Knoxville (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 05:08:27 PM EST
    about 4 hours...

    LAX to SEATAC about 2 hours..

    You really think that makes a difference?


    I favor U of M getting extra (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 03:56:18 PM EST
    credit for being located in MI as opposed to say FL.  

    Axe threading the needle (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:23:11 AM EST
    At what point... (none / 0) (#30)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:28:48 AM EST
    ...do the Brett Farves become the Percy Harvins?  

    The NFL is going to be hard pressed to match yesterday's college slate of games for great match-ups and exciting finishes.  Lots of quality entertainment on a rainy Colorado Saturday.  

    BTW--most over-rated conference?  Two weeks in, my vote goes to the Big Twelve.  Two top 5 teams going down already--ouch.  

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#65)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 01:42:05 PM EST
    There's a lot of great football played out there--especially out West--that languishes in the National focus.  The time difference from the major media outlets, lack of large population centers and $ play a major role in that--in exposure and major bowl/championhip consideration.  

    There's more parity in college football today than ever before.  On any given day...  I'd be hard pressed to say that a team like Boise State or BYU couldn't be a top team in just about any conference.  

    The BCS needs to be done away with or failing that, somehow modified to better reflect the nature of the game as it stands today.  Too much injustice in the set-up as it right now.  

    I wouldn't want to ask Coach Hawk much of anything these days.  I can't imagine he's in a very good mood.  As if getting whipped by little brother CSU wasn't bad enough, that performance in that Toledo game was just awful.


    I'm just out the juice (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:36:20 AM EST
    so far this weekend.

    Another tragic (none / 0) (#34)
    by Fabian on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:39:22 AM EST
    yet incredibly fortunate story here in The Heart of It All.  Combine probable mental illness(addiction at a minimum), drugs, testosterone and an AK 47 and surprisingly enough, only the shooter died and only two others were wounded, both police officers.

    There were the usual clueless civilians (parked their car in the open to watch the action) and the smart civilians (grabbed his cat and hunkered down in the basement for four hours) and the alarmed civilian who made the fateful call that started it all(A woman...do more women than men report suspicious people?) and an interesting off duty response by various officers.

    It might make the national news briefly, but I doubt it.  Not deadly enough and the alleged perp wasn't whacky enough.  Wonder if it will make people more likely to call the police when they see reckless driving.

    More likely it's that she is military (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:02:26 PM EST
    and even a security officer in the reserves, so she is trained to spot unusual behavior and report it?

    Running people off the road (none / 0) (#78)
    by Fabian on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 04:54:34 PM EST
    is obvious to even the untrained eye.  Her description of him was of a not only erratic, but also disturbed individual.  She not only called in the report, she followed him until the police pulled him over.  She was obviously very concerned.

    Armando, your friend Dana Houle has been banned (none / 0) (#64)
    by digdugboy on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    from Dailykos. Do you have a reaction?

    I kmow nothing about it (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 02:45:44 PM EST
    other than the fact that Dana Houle is obviously no friend of mine. I assume you were snarking.

    20 yr old Argentine, Del Potro (none / 0) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 01:46:25 PM EST
    beat Nadal in straight sets at U.S. Open 6-2,6-2,6-2

    A result I definitely was not (none / 0) (#67)
    by vml68 on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 02:07:20 PM EST
    expecting. He really outplayed Rafa.

    If he can maintain the same level (none / 0) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 02:13:54 PM EST
    of play in the finals, it will be a very interesting match. He was totally in the zone and was not at all intimidated today.

    Wow (none / 0) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 03:22:45 PM EST
    Touch down Denver!

    My, oh my!

    Just saying.