Dr. Pomade

War Eagle

I think there's better than a small chance that Auburn can pull an upset tomorrow.

Yeah I agree - TCU winning big certainly didn't help Ohio State. I also agree that Ohio State has to look impressive from here out in order to have a chance. I think if everyone holds serve, then it goes like this: Baylor > TCU because of head-to-head Ohio State > Baylor because of SOS and CG game Thus, Ohio State > TCU

Not sure why all you guys wanted Arkansas to win (with the exception of jive, who's a Bama fan). You want Mizzou in the SEC CG for several reasons. First, it waters down the league having Mizzou represent the East. Second, everyone can quit talking about Arkansas being a "hot" team (and thus taking media attention away from, say, Ohio State remaining hot). Third, if Bama loses to anyone, then you'd want them losing to either Auburn tomorrow or Mizzou in the SEC CG, not to Georgia in the SEC CG. A loss to Mizzou in the CG will almost assuredly result in Bama falling out of the Top 4, considering how weak Mizzou is. However, a loss to a Georgia team (on a roll, perhaps, if they beat GT tomorrow) in the CG might not move Bama out of the Top 4. Also, glad to see UCLA lose. The were getting hot, an now they won't threaten overtaking Ohio State.

Marshall lost to W Kentucky. They combined for like 9000 yards of offense. I think W Kentucky won it going for 2 pt conversion in OT. #balls

Adding a Roku (or other streaming device) won't necessarily add any more overall remotes. You need two remotes regularly - one for cable, the other for the TV - and you only need two remotes when switching - one for the Roku (or whatever) and one for the TV. And really how much trouble is it really to switch HDMI inputs on a TV? It is worth $50 a month for the convenience? And, if it is a bit more cognitively complex, then he'll be doing his parents a favor: research demonstrates that engaging in cognitively complex tasks in later adulthood assists in preserving cognitive functioning and reducing the risk of Alzheimer's disease.

I'm thinking of starting a service in which you can pay a small fee and then have an attractive woman accompany you to parties or other functions and then have sex with you at some point in the night. Thoughts on the viability of this type of service? Would you guys have any interest in using this kind of service? Just wondering. FYI, you could still use the same website name of the service I'm envisioning...

The Roku is easier to operate than a standard channel guide for cable. Don't be discouraged because you think your technology-inept parents will have a difficult time navigating it. They won't. I have heard similar things about the simplicity of the Amazon Fire stick. It will do the same things as the Roku. Both devices - the Roku and the Fire stick - are just ways of connecting the TV to the internet to get to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc. The HD antennae is also super simple as well. In fact, it's even more simple - you just plug it in to where the cable normally goes and - voila! - you now have all your standard channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) in HD. Casey, I think you are thinking of this perfectly: all you need is a Roku (or an Amazon Firestick or Google Chromecast or Apple TV or any of the devices that get you streaming stuff) + an HD antennae + wireless in the home and you have a perfect receipe for saving a shit-ton of money while not sacrificing all that much. BTW, I am speaking to you from experience. We cut the cable a couple of months ago and it's worked out great. We have a Roku, a fairly standard wireless connection (nothing uber fast or anything), and pay for Netflix and Hulu. Our monthly costs are right about $45 - and before we were paying in the area of $170/month. What are the drawbacks? Well, so far, not many. In fact, the only one that comes to mind is that I no longer have ESPN and can't watch a lot of the live sports I used to be able to watch. However, whether this is just reality or cognitive dissonance I don't know, but I really don't mind not having ESPN or all the sports. ESPN pretty much sucks 95 percent of the time when they aren't showing actual sports (it's like MTV for sports anymore) and, if I want to watch a sporting event that isn't on, then I can just go to BW3's or somewhere like that and watch it if I care that much about seeing it. I'm a huge Ohio State fan and this year only had to go to a sports bar a couple of times (three, maybe) because Ohio State's game wasn't on ABC. I would recommend the move without hesitancy. I have a wife and two kids, and they have been fine with the shift too. The kids just stream shit to their ipads or will watch streaming content on Netflix or whatever (there are like 1 trillion cartoons and shit, so it's actually more convenient than cable when it comes to kids), and my wife is far too busy in the kitchen to worry about what's on or not on television.

We've all heard Dan Mullen's name being tossed around for Michigan job. If Mullen goes to Michigan, consider how the situation between Mullen and Meyer would be about the same as Bo and Woody.

I honestly think Wisconsin will be a tougher out for us than any teams we play in the playoff, including Alabama, Oregon, and Florida State. Wouldn't it be great if Ohio State beat Wisconsin, went on to roll through the playoffs, and then talked about how Wisconsin and Michigan State and Minnesota were their toughest opponents? I'd cream to have some Ohio State player quip something like, "Alabama would probably place in third spot in the B1G East" or "Florida State probably wouldn't make it out of the B1G West." I remember when Florida beat Ohio State in NCG and was talking shit similar to that. That was really the point of emergence of the #SEC arrogance; I'd love to start a dramatic power shift with resounding Ohio State victories.

This is me thinking anecdotally here - so I'll need to either do some research or have some of you guys jump in with some stats - but hasn't Ohio State traditionally done poorly facing Heisman candidates? Specifically, Ron Dayne comes to mind - we pretty much just awarded him the trophy the day we played him. And so does Desmond Howard and Charles Woodson - both had phenomenal games against Ohio State. Drew Brees didn't win the Heisman (right?), but I remember he had a good game against Ohio State. So, my point being: I'm finding even more reasons to be nervous playing Wisconsin in CG game. Counterpoint: Oh well, fuck it. Want to be the best? Then play and beat the best. Man up and fuck somebody up. The end. Zack: that's crazy about them facing all those top RBs. Sadly, Ohio State did not thing to stymie the stats of the two top RBs they faced...so, yeah, what are they going to do if they face the third...?

This season is starting to sound eerily similar to last season: (1) we're in a position to play for the national title, but (2) we have to win a couple more games, including (3) a game against a potentially formidable foe in the B1G CG, though (4) everyone is kind of talking like it's a foregone conclusion that Ohio State wins that game. Wisconsin could easily roll right over Ohio State in the CG.

Would absolutely love it.

Also, another question, this one potentially dumb: when they do seating for the B1G CG game, how do they proportion how fans are seated? When I just looked on StubHub for tickets, I saw that the Ohio State sideline is marked - so, will that side of the stadium be quartered off for those supporting Ohio State? And, if so, how do they know who people are supporting, like how does that work? When I went to the National Championship game (2006 season, Florida v. Ohio State), you could tell that certain sections were for Ohio State fans and others were for Florida. I really don't want to buy a ticket and show up in my Ohio State shirt and be plunked in the middle of Wisky/Minny fans.

Do they sell alcohol in Lucas Oil during the B1G CG?

This is the part when we all stand up and applaud. Some of us will shout things like "Amen, brother!" Others might get a little misty eyed. Inspirational music might be accompanying all of this.

Nope, did not know that. Oh boy.

It would be fine to put an absolute beating on Minnesota.

Yeah, I like Oregon too, so I'd be pulling for them. If not them, then anyone who isn't from the SEC.

Team A beats teams ranked 1,2, and 3 in consecutive weeks. Those three teams then go on to lose every game thereafter. Team A still seen as strong as it was in the third week after beating #3?

So the committee says Miss State is still ranked highly because they beat teams that were highly ranked at the time they played them. Does this make zero fucking sense to anyone else? I think I will call this "ghost rankings" - you're assessment is based on something long since gone. WTF committee. Someone help me understand this madness.

Clearly the committee doesn't mind the SEC scheduling FCS schools late in the year. They could have made something of a statement - even if it was mostly symbolic - by moving, say, Alabama out of the top spot in light of them playing the Tuscaloosa High Teen Girls' JV team this week. But, alas, they did not. Great message, CFB committee. If Alabama loses, it must be this week. It's clear to me that they have a stranglehold on the top spot. We cannot risk them losing a close battle in the SEC CG game, as they could - by precedent - only fall to #4. UCLA is also poised to make a run at the top 4, too. Ohio State really needed to stomp Indiana and put themselves at #5. That was a grand opportunity missed. However, I do like Minnesota getting vaulted up there relatively high. That means, if they happen to beat Wisky, they'll have a respectable ranking when we play them. And, if Wisky wins, then they become an even better foe on paper to beat.

Probably time for a new thread. Zach?

Doomsday scenarios involving multiple SEC teams in the playoff have been discussed.

PS - it's clear that I am obsessing over this way too much. Zero out of zero fucks given.