Week 5 Options

[GOB]

someone correct me if i'm wrong, but so far the following ranked teams lost this week:

3
4
5
7
10
11
13
21
22

11 lost to 6, though

(but cal is ridiculously overrated and oregon didn't deserve to be 11. it was a close game)

[Oasis]

(but cal is ridiculously overrated and oregon didn't deserve to be 11)

And why is that?

[GOB]

And why is that?

oregon's win over michigan meant nothing after the appalachian state loss . they haven't played anyone noteworthy yet (excluding michigan).

oregon sucked in 2006 (oregon state game?) and they'll suck again this year; i don't see why they're ranked.

[koreanp1e]

This year, we will win big12 title. mark my word.

[Oasis]

oregon's win over michigan meant nothing after the appalachian state loss . they haven't played anyone noteworthy yet (excluding michigan).

oregon sucked in 2006 (oregon state game?) and they'll suck again this year; i don't see why they're ranked.

Spectacular logic.

I'm really glad you aren't a voter

[GOB]

Spectacular logic.

I'm really glad you aren't a voter

thanks, college dropout


i'm really glad your ex-girlfriend humiliated you over the internet in front of a bunch of people that know you

[impala454]

I don't have a problem with Oregon being ranked, but I don't think they're quite #11. There's obviously something wrong with the rankings though when half of the top 10 go down to unranked teams. Not to mention #1 having a near miss. The other thing that baffles me is seeing teams like Rutgers ranked in the top 10. and for what? beating buffalo, navy, and norfolk state?!?

Personally I think the rankings need to just go away until the end of the season. Or at the earliest, the last 2-3 weeks.

[Oasis]

thanks, college dropout

Is that the only argument you can come up with? At least try to think up something better.

If you're going to use 2006 as an reason, fine. They beat OU, who went to a BCS game. It was Dixon's first year as a starter. At one point they were 7-2, only losing their last 4 games cause they kept subbing in Brady Fucking Leaf, who is a joke of a quarterback. They didn't really lose anyone of note from 2006 to 2007. And they started out the season 4-0, including a win in the Big House (I don't care what you say, Michigan will still be a top 10 team at year's end). That, I would assume, would be why they were ranked in the Top 25 at the beginning of the season and continued to move up as other teams ahead of them lost.

I guess Cal is still a bunch of overrated surfer boys because TTU beat them 3 years ago, right? They were 10-3 last year, including assraping aggy in the Holiday Bowl. The only star player they lost was Marshawn Lynch, which doesn't really matter because Justin Forsett is statistically better than Lynch was last year at the same time. Nate Longshore is now a junior, and DeSean Jackson is a Heisman candidate and probably the most explosive player in the nation. So excuse the voters for ranking them and continuing to move them up as they've beaten Tennessee, Arizona, and Oregon while other teams have lost. They're now #3, ranked ahead of Ohio State (who hasn't played anyone of note, using your logic) and Wisconsin (who can't cover a spread to save their lives).

Maybe the voters know what they're doing, and you're just an idiot who spouts off without actually doing any research. If a dumbass college dropout owns you in an argument, what does that make you?

i'm really glad your ex-girlfriend humiliated you over the internet in front of a bunch of people that know you

Huh?

[Rocky]

Most of these upsets aren't even a shocking surprise. I personally only feel the OU loss was actually shocking.


Now don't get me wrong, by no means did I foresee all of these happening - but do take in consideration, the only one I had for a pick was OU ! The realistic threats of watching Florida, WV, Rutgers, Clemson, and Texas all get beat were is obvious as can be. I considered all of those foolish bets to take (of expecting those teams to cover their spread at least).



USA Today rankings are out
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/polls;_ylt=A...O6vNBXmpcAcvrYF


As far as Tech goes, I'm still confident Tech marches into Austin and wins, and while I still can't even claim they have a chance on OU....watching OU play Tulsa showed some weaknesses in the OU secondary. Keep in mind that Tech did not do completely horrible last year against OU....and its in Lubbock.

I personally have the biggest fears of Missouri and Colorado ! Missouri just has the history of slappin Tech around horribly the past few years, and I don't have reason to believe otherwise fully yet.

Colorado beat OU by just pounding it on the ground. 46 fucking carries. Even if Tech got it together defensively as best as possible for their team...how do you stop that ? This is like A&M vs Tech - they just CAN'T stop all the passing. Tech CAN'T stop tough-running.

[Aaron]

I went 5/6 yesterday... only loss was tOSU -27 at Minnesota... won on GT, Tech (x2), Cinci and Louisville.

[GOB]

If you're going to use 2006 as an reason, fine. They beat OU, who went to a BCS game. It was Dixon's first year as a starter. At one point they were 7-2, only losing their last 4 games cause they kept subbing in Brady Fucking Leaf, who is a joke of a quarterback. They didn't really lose anyone of note from 2006 to 2007. And they started out the season 4-0, including a win in the Big House (I don't care what you say, Michigan will still be a top 10 team at year's end). That, I would assume, would be why they were ranked in the Top 25 at the beginning of the season and continued to move up as other teams ahead of them lost.

how many of the other top 25 teams went 7-5 last year? cal, oklahoma, and usc were the 3 games they should have lost; the oklahoma game was a good win, but they lost to washington state and got stomped by arizona. the oregon state game could have gone either way because it was in corvallis, it's a big rivalry, and state had the big win over usc, but the ducks still lost. i don't know much about brady leaf, but i guess he's the sole reason they lost those last 3 games and the bowl.

I guess Cal is still a bunch of overrated surfer boys because TTU beat them 3 years ago, right? They were 10-3 last year, including assraping aggy in the Holiday Bowl. The only star player they lost was Marshawn Lynch, which doesn't really matter because Justin Forsett is statistically better than Lynch was last year at the same time. Nate Longshore is now a junior, and DeSean Jackson is a Heisman candidate and probably the most explosive player in the nation. So excuse the voters for ranking them and continuing to move them up as they've beaten Tennessee, Arizona, and Oregon while other teams have lost. They're now #3, ranked ahead of Ohio State (who hasn't played anyone of note, using your logic) and Wisconsin (who can't cover a spread to save their lives).

ok? so, by your logic, if our win over cal 3 years ago was a fluke (because obviously we weren't good enough and should have lost, right?), i guess oregon's win over oklahoma last year is the same thing. was tech good 3 years ago? top-10 good?

Maybe the voters know what they're doing, and you're just an idiot who spouts off without actually doing any research. If a dumbass college dropout owns you in an argument, what does that make you?
Huh?

and maybe the voting system will continue to be controversial but not enough to get anything changed (and mack brown will still bitch about the votes when he doesn't like where his team sits). but let me know how those awesome college football trivia skills are working out for you in 20 years when mommy and daddy are gone and you're selling oranges on the side of the highway.

[Oasis]

but let me know how those awesome college football trivia skills are working out for you in 20 years when mommy and daddy are gone and you're selling oranges on the side of the highway.

My god you're a douchebag. Glad you think you know so much about my life.

College football is a hobby of mine. A hobby that's made me $3200 since the start of the season, which I'll guess is probably more than your monthly salary. Not bad for something I study in my free time at night. Have your video games, or whatever you enjoy, made you that much money? Didn't think so.

[Psykopath]

My god you're a douchebag. Glad you think you know so much about my life.

College football is a hobby of mine. A hobby that's made me $3200 since the start of the season, which I'll guess is probably more than your monthly salary. Not bad for something I study in my free time at night. Have your video games, or whatever you enjoy, made you that much money? Didn't think so.

Just a quick question:

Are you going to report that money and pay taxes?

[Oasis]

Just a quick question:

Are you going to report that money and pay taxes?

Not personally. My friend, who went to Vegas in August, placed several futures bets for me. The stubs are in his name, so if I win he pays and we settle up. I don't think it's possible to place wagers in Vegas when you aren't actually in Vegas. At least, it's too much of a hassle if it is possible. If I go to Vegas and place bets of course I'll report any gains. That's taxable income and I don't really feel like going to prison for tax evasion.

As for bets placed through other avenues, not a chance. Gambling through private parties is illegal.

....And before you get on my case, having cash poker tournaments at your house is illegal as well. I seriously doubt you're going to report the $80 you made on drunken Texas Hold Em night with your buds. Not saying you've ever done this, but I know plenty of people who have. It's a common practice. Just happens to be more socially acceptable.


Oh, and Charlie or whatever your name is. I'll save you the trouble of calling me a loser for making money wagering on sports. It's just another method of investment, with the same risks and rewards as stocks or mutual funds. I just happen to invest in college football teams instead of Fortune 500 companies. I actually do play the stock market regularly. I've just found I can make the same amount of money by doing the same amount of research in a field that is much more interesting to me - sports.

[Psykopath]

Not personally. My friend, who went to Vegas in August, placed several futures bets for me. The stubs are in his name, so if I win he pays and we settle up. I don't think it's possible to place wagers in Vegas when you aren't actually in Vegas. At least, it's too much of a hassle if it is possible. If I go to Vegas and place bets of course I'll report any gains. That's taxable income and I don't really feel like going to prison for tax evasion.

As for bets placed through other avenues, not a chance. Gambling through private parties is illegal.

....And before you get on my case, having cash poker tournaments at your house is illegal as well. I seriously doubt you're going to report the $80 you made on drunken Texas Hold Em night with your buds. Not saying you've ever done this, but I know plenty of people who have. It's a common practice. Just happens to be more socially acceptable.
Oh, and Charlie or whatever your name is. I'll save you the trouble of calling me a loser for making money wagering on sports. It's just another method of investment, with the same risks and rewards as stocks or mutual funds. I just happen to invest in college football teams instead of Fortune 500 companies. I actually do play the stock market regularly. I've just found I can make the same amount of money by doing the same amount of research in a field that is much more interesting to me - sports.

Not getting on your case at all. I just have known people to make thousands on sports bets that are legal, but not report the earnings near tax time.
A few bucks here or there are understandably not going to be reported (be it a poker game or a couple of sports bets) as it would be too much of a hassle for such a small percentage.

Now if I won several thousand playing cards or what have you, then yes: money would be reported as earned.