CFB51 College Football Fan Community

The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: Big Beef Tacosupreme on September 24, 2018, 10:00:14 AM

Title: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Big Beef Tacosupreme on September 24, 2018, 10:00:14 AM
1.  Ohio State's schedule so far has been terrible.  I'm not impressed with TCU, Oregon State, Tulane, or Rutgers.  These 4 teams have combined for only one victory against an FBS squad.  
2.  Ohio State's offense absolutely passes the eyeball test.  Defensively I'm not so sure.  
3.  Penn State's victory over Appalachian State will end up being be the only B1G non-conference victory over a ranked team.  (excluding bowl games)
4.  The Michigan/OSU game will again determine the B1G champion.  Penn State has serious flaws on defense and will likely lose at least 3 conference games.  Yep, I'm ignoring the B1G championship game, because it doesn't matter.
5.  And on that note, I've never really bought into the B1G East's superiority over the West.  This year has changed my mind.  Maybe the Leaders and Legends wasn't so bad after all.  (WTH did I just say?)
6.  Everyone thinks that the the race for the B1G west is over.  However, Iowa only has one game left against a ranked team.  Wisconsin has two.  
7.  Ditto for the idjit TV commentators who think the OSU/PSU winner will decide the B1G East.
8.  I thought Purdue and Nebraska were on the verge of breaking out and becoming good teams.  I was wrong about Nebraska.  
9.  Nebraska looked like they gave up last week.  That's a not a good sign for the new coach.
10.  I keep hearing that OSU is 4-2 against the Penn State whiteout.  This is INCORRECT.  Penn State does not have a white out every time OSU is in town.  In 2009, for example, Iowa was the victim of the Penn State Whiteout, NOT OSU.  OSU is 2-2 against the whiteout.
11.  The B1G is down this year, but still looks way better than the PAC and ACC.  The Big 12 isn't looking great, either.   However, no way should a single conference have two participants in playoff again.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 24, 2018, 10:19:29 AM
I'm thinking there will be a few more ranked teams from the OOC at the end of the season.



Texas will be ranked, methinks. So could TCU and BC. The season is young, so who knows?



But yeah, not a good showing OOC by any stretch. The good news is that some of the losses could turn out to be "good" losses.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 24, 2018, 10:21:43 AM
Mizzou looks to me like a decent team and barely beat Purdue (who beat ranked BC of course).

TCU to me looks like a very good team, a ~15th ranked kind of team.

UMD's win over Texas could look really solid.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 24, 2018, 10:25:30 AM
Mizzou looks to me like a decent team and barely beat Purdue (who beat ranked BC of course).

TCU to me looks like a very good team, a ~15th ranked kind of team.

UMD's win over Texas could look really solid.
I'm curious to see how BYU fares in Seattle this weekend.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Big Beef Tacosupreme on September 24, 2018, 10:30:58 AM
You're right.  BC could probably sleep their way through the ACC and still get 9 wins.  That's how bad the ACC looks.

I'm NOT a believer in Texas or TCU though.

My name is taco and I was wrong, and I'm singing the "I'm wrong" song.  I shouldn't have taken that chance, now here's my regretful dance. :character0029:
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on September 24, 2018, 10:34:12 AM
Iowa's chances hinge on a rock, paper, scissors scenario whereby they beat PSU, but PSU beats Wisconsin. Even then, Michigan would have to beat Wisconsin as well. 

And yes, I know there are numerous other oddball scenarios that are mathematically possible, but those are all far less likely.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 24, 2018, 12:01:17 PM
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on September 24, 2018, 12:24:51 PM
  The Michigan/OSU game will again determine the B1G champion.  Penn State has serious flaws on defense and will likely lose at least 3 conference games.  Yep, I'm ignoring the B1G championship game, because it doesn't matter.
I'm thinking you're pulling the "No Way" we win take only with a different slant.It's not nice to fool with the football gods.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Entropy on September 24, 2018, 12:27:16 PM
#9.... a Michigan player went on record and said UNL quit after the first series.    During the week leading up to the game, players were talking about buy in during press conferences.  After the game, guys stated players and fans need to decide if they are on board or not.

There have been rumblings that groups of players have not liked Frost's approach, especially around conditioning (tougher), practice times (early morning) and how many new guys were brought in (55).   What is sad is I don't doubt this is happening.   There are a lot of guys that seem more interested in the idea of being a football player at Nebraska than actually being one.   The cultural challenges are bigger than the skill set problems.   jmo
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 24, 2018, 12:36:35 PM
  • I agree on the offense but I want to see them against some more defenses first.  Defensively they are certainly exciting to watch.  I can't find the link right now but I read somewhere that tOSU's D was among the national leaders in BOTH really good plays (turnovers, TFL's, sacks) and really bad plays (30+ gains).  I see that as a recipe for a jeckyll and hyde team.  If they ever have a game where the really good plays don't happen they'll be awful.  If they ever have a game where the really bad plays don't happen they'll be phenomenal.  
I found the link (https://www.cleveland.com/osu/2018/09/ohio_states_defense_might_crea.html).  This was from before last week's games but note:
In more detail, through three games tOSU's opponents ran 200 plays:
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on September 24, 2018, 02:32:18 PM
There have been rumblings that groups of players have not liked Frost's approach, especially around conditioning (tougher), practice times (early morning) and how many new guys were brought in (55).   What is sad is I don't doubt this is happening.   There are a lot of guys that seem more interested in the idea of being a football player at Nebraska than actually being one.   The cultural challenges are bigger than the skill set problems.   jmo
Riley's culture was extremely soft
the kids he recruited probably fit that culture
bringing in 50 new guys and then telling players that he intends to keep bringing in kids to take their positions can be tough to take
life is tough
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 24, 2018, 02:32:54 PM
There have been rumblings that groups of players have not liked Frost's approach, especially around conditioning (tougher), practice times (early morning) and how many new guys were brought in (55).   What is sad is I don't doubt this is happening.   There are a lot of guys that seem more interested in the idea of being a football player at Nebraska than actually being one.   The cultural challenges are bigger than the skill set problems.   jmo
That will happen. I've heard Mike Riley ran a country club out there. Guys get used to that stuff.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MarqHusker on September 24, 2018, 02:37:19 PM
Images of Roger Dorn running through my head.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: slugsrbad on September 24, 2018, 03:05:49 PM
There is NO WAY Penn State beats Ohio State this weekend.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Big Beef Tacosupreme on September 24, 2018, 04:29:28 PM
Riley's culture was extremely soft
the kids he recruited probably fit that culture
bringing in 50 new guys and then telling players that he intends to keep bringing in kids to take their positions can be tough to take
life is tough
Interesting.  After last week I was wondering if Frost lost the team.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Big Beef Tacosupreme on September 24, 2018, 04:33:16 PM
I'm thinking you're pulling the "No Way" we win take only with a different slant.It's not nice to fool with the football gods.
Heh.  I'm really not.  PSU's linebackers are the worst I've seen in years, and the defensive line isn't much better. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 24, 2018, 04:35:22 PM
Some folks said Butch Jones at Tenn let the team get away from him and was "soft".  I think Pruitt is facing a similar problem as Frost.  I'm not sure about Richt, though the stupid penalties I see Miami make this season look familiar to me.

You can't be their friend as a HC.

Saban doesn't smile much.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Big Beef Tacosupreme on September 24, 2018, 04:39:13 PM
  • I mostly agree but I am not ready to completely give up on TCU just yet.  The others were awful as expected.  
  • I agree on the offense but I want to see them against some more defenses first.  Defensively they are certainly exciting to watch.  I can't find the link right now but I read somewhere that tOSU's D was among the national leaders in BOTH really good plays (turnovers, TFL's, sacks) and really bad plays (30+ gains).  I see that as a recipe for a jeckyll and hyde team.  If they ever have a game where the really good plays don't happen they'll be awful.  If they ever have a game where the really bad plays don't happen they'll be phenomenal.  
  • ApSt should end up ranked but they REALLY needed to win their PSU game.  PSU is the only team on their schedule that even approaches decent so with a loss there they will have a ceiling on their ranking especially if, as you project, PSU loses at least three games.  
  • Again?  An OSU loss in 2017 would have made it a three way tie between tOSU, PSU, and MSU but M would not have been involved even with a win over tOSU.  In 2016 a tOSU loss to M would have given PSU the outright B1G-E Championship but PSU won the tiebreaker anyway so who cares?  In 2015 a tOSU loss would have switched the B1G-E tie from MSU/tOSU to MSU/M but the Spartans beat both the Wolverines and the Buckeyes so they would have gone to Indy either way.  In 2014 a tOSU loss would have made the Buckeyes co-champs with the Spartans but the Buckeyes beat the Spartans so they would have gone to Indy anyway.  The Game has never determined the B1G-E representative to the B1GCG.  
  • The East/West divide looks REALLY big right now mostly due to Maryland's win over Minnesota.  Presently four of the top five and six of the top eight teams in the B1G Power Rankings are from the East.  
  • This is a good point.  UW's B1G-E opponents are PSU, M, and RU.  Iowa's are PSU, IU, and UMD.  It isn't over yet.  That said, Wisconsin effectively has a two game lead so they are in a strong position.  
  • It will have a big impact but the race will not end Saturday night in Happy Valley to be sure.  
  • Yikes, Nebraska looks MUCH worse than I expected at this point.  I don't know what to make of Purdue yet.  
  • I think that the Cornhuskers were just overwhelmed, I sure hope so.  
  • I've been to Beaver Stadium and I think it is MUCH louder than the Big House.  I honestly think it is up there with Camp Randall, Kinnick, and The Shoe as the toughest venues in the league.  Any game there is tough, particularly a night game.  
  • Purdue's win over BC really took a lot out of the ACC.  

3.  If they win out they will be close to the top 10.  Not playoff bound or anything.
4.  Meh, point made.  Ok, I admit it...the OSU/PSU game is of bigger importance than the UM/OSU game.  haha.
10.  I'll be there on Saturday.  Should be a fun one, win or lose!
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on September 24, 2018, 04:46:14 PM
Interesting.  After last week I was wondering if Frost lost the team.
he may have "lost" some soft kids that were never really on board to begin with.
50 of the kids on the roster, nearly half, are his guys.  Maybe some of them are wondering if they made the right decision?  A few transfers and recruits have already left because the competition was too tough.
The first year with a new staff is tough.  The tough guys stay, the others don't do well.
Year two should be better
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 24, 2018, 04:59:57 PM
3.  If they win out they will be close to the top 10.  Not playoff bound or anything.
4.  Meh, point made.  Ok, I admit it...the OSU/PSU game is of bigger importance than the UM/OSU game.  haha.
10.  I'll be there on Saturday.  Should be a fun one, win or lose!
The former is ALWAYS more fun then the latter. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 24, 2018, 05:14:09 PM
3.  If they win out they will be close to the top 10.  Not playoff bound or anything.
I think you are right so I am not really disagreeing with you, I'm taking @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) 's position and disagreeing with the hypothetical voters in this hypothetical.  If ApSt wins out they will have defeated:

My argument and I know that at least @Orange Afro Man (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1485) agrees is that if you are not P5 and you want to be considered for a high ranking and/or playoff spot then you simply can't schedule an FCS team and two CUSA opponents in your OOC.  The PSU game was great but they lost and even if they had won it was only one game.  I want to see a team with more than one game to base judgments of them on.  A non-P5 team needs at least two quality opponents OOC.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 24, 2018, 05:27:02 PM
Dawg fans last year were pretty nervous about Appy State considering we didn't know what kind of team we had.  

They could well win out, but against garbage, so I would guess they'd be ranked 20th or so.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 24, 2018, 05:34:02 PM
Dawg fans last year were pretty nervous about Appy State considering we didn't know what kind of team we had.  

They could well win out, but against garbage, so I would guess they'd be ranked 20th or so.
Assuming that they win out, I think that their final ranking will be heavily dependent on how PSU fares.  As you and I both pointed out, the rest of their schedule is garbage so if they end up 12-1 they'll have 12 wins over nobody impressive and an OT loss to PSU.  If PSU is 13-0 and heading to the CFP then they'll be top-10 and arguing for a CFP berth (they won't get it).  OTOH, if @Big Beef Tacosupreme (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1529) is right and PSU loses at least three conference games, misses the B1GCG and finishes 9-3 or 8-4 then PSU will be ranked in the 15-25 range (or barely unranked) and it will be hard to justify ranking ApSt any higher than around 20th.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: SFBadger96 on September 24, 2018, 05:49:02 PM
BBTS's opening post kinda reminds me what I've been thinking of. Every August we're fired up about how this is going to be THE YEAR. And every September we're reminded that, with a few notable exceptions, these are college kids and there's been a significant amount of turnover from graduation, injuries, and just stuff. Few teams look great at the start of the season. That's the nature of the game.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: TyphonInc on September 24, 2018, 07:45:32 PM
There is NO WAY Penn State beats Ohio State this weekend.
Funny, I was thinking;
There is NO WAY Ohio State beats Penn State this weekend.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: DevilFroggy on September 24, 2018, 11:51:23 PM
TCU's loss to Texas was unfortunate but not too shocking. I hate to use excuses like "letdown game" but honestly that sequence where TCU just let Ohio St come back and take over in the 3rd quarter last week completely let the wind out of their sails and they were still deflated this past weekend. TCU is still a top 15-25 team I think. 

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 25, 2018, 06:09:34 AM
Never let a team beat you twice.



- Football Coach
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on September 25, 2018, 08:46:04 AM
TCU's loss to Texas was unfortunate but not too shocking. I hate to use excuses like "letdown game" but honestly that sequence where TCU just let Ohio St come back and take over in the 3rd quarter last week completely let the wind out of their sails and they were still deflated this past weekend. TCU is still a top 15-25 team I think.


I didn't find it unfortunate at all.. ;)
TCU is good, and probably still the better team, but that's not always the way football turns out.  I was encouraged by some of the things I saw from the Horns in that game, for the first time in a long time.
Anyway, best of luck for the rest of the season.  Perhaps we'll get a rematch in the completely unnecessary B12 CCG. :)
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 25, 2018, 09:39:34 AM
Predictions:

1.  LSU upsets Alabama 17-16 on a controversial zebra call and goes 11-1 only to lose in the SEC CG to a 10-2 UGA, and 11-1 Alabama makes the playoffs.
2.  Wisconsin loses at Michigan but wins the West with the one loss and then defeats Michigan in the CG, and then 11-1 Ohio State makes the playoffs.
3.  Oklahoma loses to Texas and West Virginia, but every team in the Big 12 has 2 losses and none make it in.
4.  Stanford loses at Washington but runs the table otherwise and makes the playoffs at 12-1.
5.  Clemson finishes 13-0 to get the 1 seed, and loses in the first round to ... Alabama.
6.  Stanford beats Ohio State and then loses big to Alabama in a bad CG and fans all over bemoan what happened.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on September 25, 2018, 02:55:58 PM
Predictions:

1.  LSU upsets Alabama 17-16 on a controversial zebra call and goes 11-1 only to lose in the SEC CG to a 10-2 UGA, and 11-1 Alabama makes the playoffs.
2.  Wisconsin loses at Michigan but wins the West with the one loss and then defeats Michigan in the CG, and then 11-1 Ohio State makes the playoffs.
3.  Oklahoma loses to Texas and West Virginia, but every team in the Big 12 has 2 losses and none make it in.
4.  Stanford loses at Washington but runs the table otherwise and makes the playoffs at 12-1.
5.  Clemson finishes 13-0 to get the 1 seed, and loses in the first round to ... Alabama.
6.  Stanford beats Ohio State and then loses big to Alabama in a bad CG and fans all over bemoan what happened.
Only problem with this prediction is that if #1 turns out to be true, then LSU, Alabama, and Georgia ALL get into the CFP. 
The final slot goes to Ohio State, I guess.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on September 25, 2018, 03:38:54 PM
My name is taco and I was wrong, and I'm singing the "I'm wrong" song.  I shouldn't have taken that chance, now here's my regretful dance. :character0029:
Oh man would that be a good signature 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on September 25, 2018, 03:43:29 PM
Iowa's chances hinge on a rock, paper, scissors scenario whereby they beat PSU, but PSU beats Wisconsin. Even then, Michigan would have to beat Wisconsin as well.

And yes, I know there are numerous other oddball scenarios that are mathematically possible, but those are all far less likely.
I think he is just saying that Iowa beating PSU and UW losing to PSU and M remains so plausible that going all-in on UW is silly. I agree. But I'm still pretty all-in on UW.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on September 25, 2018, 03:48:58 PM
In 2016 a tOSU loss to M would have given PSU the outright B1G-E Championship but PSU won the tiebreaker anyway so who cares?  

Probably an honest mistake but that's not true. In 2016, had OSU lost to Michigan, the East was all Michigan's. PSU and Michigan tied at 8-1 and Michigan with the blowout tiebreaker.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 25, 2018, 03:57:06 PM
I think he is just saying that Iowa beating PSU and UW losing to PSU and M remains so plausible that going all-in on UW is silly. I agree. But I'm still pretty all-in on UW.
As oddball scenarios go, Wisconsin losing to Penn State and Michigan isn't all that implausible.  From what I have seen of the rest of the B1G-W I just can't see any team outside of Wisconsin or Iowa winning it and that puts Iowa in a tough spot because they are effectively two games behind only one game into the season.  
If you are an Iowa fan looking for potential Wisconsin losses the Badgers' road games in Ann Arbor and State College jump off the page as the most likely candidates.  The Badgers only have two other remaining road games and those are Northwestern and Purdue.  Maybe Northwestern will get the ship righted and be a spoiler by late October?  Maybe Purdue will improve and be a spoiler by mid November?  Those things are obviously possible but if I were an Iowa fan I certainly wouldn't count on them.  Iowa fans have no real choice but to pin their hopes on Michigan and Penn State.  
The potentially bigger problem for the Hawkeyes is that even if Wisconsin does lose both of their tough road games in the East, Iowa still has to run the table from here out to get to Indy.  That might be less likely than Wisconsin losing twice.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 25, 2018, 04:02:17 PM
Up until 2016, Northwestern was a house of horrors for UW - with the last win in 1999 - last Century.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 25, 2018, 04:04:05 PM
Probably an honest mistake but that's not true. In 2016, had OSU lost to Michigan, the East was all Michigan's. PSU and Michigan tied at 8-1 and Michigan with the blowout tiebreaker.
You are right.  Thank you for giving me credit for the honest mistake.  I remembered to subtract the win from Ohio State's 8-1 (thus moving tOSU out of the 8-1 tie) but I guess I forgot to add the win to Michigan's 7-2 finish (thus moving them into an 8-1 tie with PSU).  You are also correct about the tiebreaker.  Michigan's H2H win over PSU would have been decisive and sent the Wolverines to Indy.  
I edited my post to reflect this.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on September 25, 2018, 04:04:42 PM
#9.... a Michigan player went on record and said UNL quit after the first series.    During the week leading up to the game, players were talking about buy in during press conferences.  After the game, guys stated players and fans need to decide if they are on board or not.

There have been rumblings that groups of players have not liked Frost's approach, especially around conditioning (tougher), practice times (early morning) and how many new guys were brought in (55).   What is sad is I don't doubt this is happening.   There are a lot of guys that seem more interested in the idea of being a football player at Nebraska than actually being one.   The cultural challenges are bigger than the skill set problems.   jmo
I think Rich Rodriguez walked into something similar at Michigan. It's consistent with rumors that at the end of his tenure he became Lloyd "Country Club" Carr and stopped being sufficiently hard on the team. 
Sadly this is one of those rare times when the coach ultimately lost the battle to change the culture. Not because the kids stayed snotty but because the Michigan fan culture, especially with donors/alumni and administrators, took over the story. Like late era Lloyd, the people in charge of RR's fate were supremely country clubby, hated trading a coach who spent pressers citing philosophy and quoting Kipling for a guy with a drawl who said "irregardless." Even before the losing, RR was toast and he didn't know it. Made me pretty sick - the snobbery.
Frost isn't going to have that problem. Of course that won't make the culture change easy. But it does make it possible.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on September 25, 2018, 04:21:22 PM
Interesting.  After last week I was wondering if Frost lost the team.
I wouldn't say that Frost has lost the *team*, just the older/softer players. Last week, some players may have quit but that not the same as "it was many!" and definitely not all of them.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on September 25, 2018, 04:26:45 PM
Predictions:

1.  LSU upsets Alabama 17-16 on a controversial zebra call and goes 11-1 only to lose in the SEC CG to a 10-2 UGA, and 11-1 Alabama makes the playoffs.
2.  Wisconsin loses at Michigan but wins the West with the one loss and then defeats Michigan in the CG, and then 11-1 Ohio State makes the playoffs.
3.  Oklahoma loses to Texas and West Virginia, but every team in the Big 12 has 2 losses and none make it in.
4.  Stanford loses at Washington but runs the table otherwise and makes the playoffs at 12-1.
5.  Clemson finishes 13-0 to get the 1 seed, and loses in the first round to ... Alabama.
6.  Stanford beats Ohio State and then loses big to Alabama in a bad CG and fans all over bemoan what happened.
Cindy serving up fire. Now THAT'S how you stir a pot. Can you imagine if all that actually happened. Would maybe be the most dramatic season of my fandom to date.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: mcwterps1 on September 25, 2018, 08:08:54 PM
Clemson likely loses to USCe, because they'll go through the ACC untested. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 26, 2018, 08:59:55 AM
I think for most CFB fans, the prospect of another NC for Bama is the worst possible outcome.

Having them in the playoffs again is bad enough.  It's boring.  Don't be boring.  Strikeouts are boring.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on September 26, 2018, 09:02:12 AM
hoping Georgia can knock Bama out of the playoffs
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 26, 2018, 10:10:27 AM
Our run defense looked bad against Mizzou, and I suspect Bama is better than Mizzou.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: ELA on September 26, 2018, 10:34:18 AM
I think for most CFB fans, the prospect of another NC for Bama is the worst possible outcome.

Having them in the playoffs again is bad enough.  It's boring.  Don't be boring.  Strikeouts are boring.
I don't care if Bama wins it or not.  I don't want them in it.  Nothing personal.  I don't want Ohio State in it either.  Or Oklahoma.  Or Clemson.  Georgia might be close behind.  I want new matchups.  I didn't watch a snap of Alabama-Clemson last year IIRC.  But if we get to the end and it is those teams, I don't have winner fatigue, I have participant fatigue.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on September 26, 2018, 10:49:06 AM
I don't care if Bama wins it or not.  I don't want them in it.  Nothing personal.  I don't want Ohio State in it either.  Or Oklahoma.  Or Clemson.  Georgia might be close behind.  I want new matchups.  I didn't watch a snap of Alabama-Clemson last year IIRC.  But if we get to the end and it is those teams, I don't have winner fatigue, I have participant fatigue.
Agreed. It's not exciting. 
That's one reason I want 8 and for it to be the P5 conference champions + 1 G5 + 2 at large. Admittedly, that's going to be at least one team (the G5) team that really nobody thinks has a legitimate shot at winning, and probably at least one of the P5 champions will fit that bill too.
I like rooting for underdogs. There are no underdogs when the same damn 4 teams go to the CFP every year.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 26, 2018, 11:04:38 AM
I'm starting to believe that the playoffs were created to further increase the gap between the haves and have nots.



There are only 3-4 teams from each conference that have a real shot, and those 3-4 teams get the benefit of the doubt that others do not. The chosen few can even get in without a conference championship. The rest are up shit's creek without one.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 26, 2018, 11:19:03 AM
We've always had wealth at the top, but the top was defined differently.  How many teams in each conference had a realistic change of a top five finish?  Three or four, and at times an outlier would break through, just as Washington did.  Georgia was an outlier last year to some extent starting out ranked about 15th.

It starts with recruiting of course and finishes with coaching, and some luck at times.  The teams that make the playoffs have recruited really well, not top ten, but top five, most of the time.  That top five in recruiting doesn't vary much year to year, and the top five in the polls don't vary much either.

I can't pine for the halcyon days when only Notre Dame, Michigan, and Army had teams with a shot.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: ELA on September 26, 2018, 11:34:09 AM
I like rooting for underdogs. There are no underdogs when the same damn 4 teams go to the CFP every year.
Certainly not in the playoffs.  You had Michigan State and Washington, and both got blasted.  It's hard to get up 12 times a year (insert joke) so you get upsets, and it makes college football exciting.  Syracuse's win over Clemson last year was a very different narrative then in years past.  Changed from "landscape changing result" to "well Clemson better not lose again."  When you get to the CFP, I have a hard time believing you are going to catch Alabama or Ohio State or Clemson off guard.  So while you might have a day where the third best team could beat the best team, I have a hard time envisioning true upsets at that level.  When a team like Michigan State or Washington has a magical season, and gets a few breaks, I tend to think the CFP is going to be a cold dose of reality.
So I have participant fatigue, but I also worry that in the year a different team gets in, it will continue to not go well for them.  Granted there are certain years where maybe.  You have a CFP in 2013, those were not all time great Florida State or Auburn teams, things could have been a little more open.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 26, 2018, 11:54:47 AM
How many teams have made the playoffs only once?  MSU, UW, UGA, I'm sure others.  It's not a closed club, it's just that Bama has made it every year, and Clemson in most years and OSU in many years.

If you go back to 1970, you probably have the same thing (different teams).
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 26, 2018, 12:09:31 PM
Football was better when getting to the Orange, Cotton, Fiesta, Sugar and Rose Bowls mattered. 



It meant the team won a championship (or in the case of the Indy's, had a stellar season), and with a bowl win, another championship.



Much of that is lost now. To many, only the last team standing is what matters. It's a shame.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 26, 2018, 12:21:13 PM
Most/many fans want some kind of "certain conclusion", which is one reason we have this playoff now, and calls for an extended playoff.  They don't like controversy, which I think can be fun.

But, in the bowl era, we still had the same teams making the major bowl games most of the time.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 26, 2018, 12:27:16 PM
Most/many fans want some kind of "certain conclusion", which is one reason we have this playoff now, and calls for an extended playoff.  They don't like controversy, which I think can be fun.

But, in the bowl era, we still had the same teams making the major bowl games most of the time.
Well, in the 25 years or so leading up to the start of the playoffs, 9 out of 11 Big Ten teams made the Rose Bowl, and 8 out of 10 Pac 10 teams made it.
Apologies to Minnesota, Indiana, Oregon State and Arizona, of course.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on September 26, 2018, 12:33:29 PM
Most/many fans want some kind of "certain conclusion", which is one reason we have this playoff now, and calls for an extended playoff.  They don't like controversy, which I think can be fun.

But, in the bowl era, we still had the same teams making the major bowl games most of the time.
This feels true. My perspective has always been the opposite. Give me every controversy of a shared NC necessary to preserve the century+ traditions of the sport. Then again, I keep checking my phone and no one in charge is asking my opinion.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on September 26, 2018, 01:36:19 PM
Football was better when getting to the Orange, Cotton, Fiesta, Sugar and Rose Bowls mattered.



It meant the team won a championship (or in the case of the Indy's, had a stellar season), and with a bowl win, another championship.



Much of that is lost now. To many, only the last team standing is what matters. It's a shame.
As you know well, I agree with this 100%.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on September 26, 2018, 01:40:15 PM
We've always had wealth at the top, but the top was defined differently.  How many teams in each conference had a realistic change of a top five finish?  Three or four, and at times an outlier would break through, just as Washington did.  Georgia was an outlier last year to some extent starting out ranked about 15th.

It starts with recruiting of course and finishes with coaching, and some luck at times.  The teams that make the playoffs have recruited really well, not top ten, but top five, most of the time.  That top five in recruiting doesn't vary much year to year, and the top five in the polls don't vary much either.

I can't pine for the halcyon days when only Notre Dame, Michigan, and Army had teams with a shot.
And I see your point here, but the major thing that has changed vs. 3-4 decades ago, is the NATIONAL focus of the sport.
In 1985, we were excited to beat our rivals, win our conference, get to a good bowl game, and ideally win that, too.  It was a regional sport with more realistic, regional goals.  Getting to play for the MNC might have been limited to the select few then, as it is now, but that wasn't the sole focus of a team, nor was it the sole criterion by which a "successful" season was judged.
Heck, people used to enjoy actually watching the game as it was played on the field, between the white lines.  Now it seems all anybody wants to do is discuss relative conference strength, television revenue, and how that might affect which conference's teams have the best shot at a playoff berth.
No thanks.  Calgon, take me back to 1985 please.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 26, 2018, 01:49:57 PM
2.  Wisconsin loses at Michigan but wins the West with the one loss and then defeats Michigan in the CG, and then 11-1 Ohio State makes the playoffs.
There is approximately zero chance of this happening.  In this scenario Wisconsin would be 12-1 and B1G Champions.  There have been two occasions when 1-loss non-Champions got in ahead of P5 Champions but in both of those cases the P5 Champs left out had two losses:
2017:  11-1 non-Champion Bama got in
2016:  11-1 non-Champion tOSU got in

Additionally, depending mostly on how TCU and BYU do, Wisconsin would have a tougher schedule.  

Ohio State's best opponents would presumably be:
Wisconsin's best opponents would presumably be:
Even if BYU completely tanked and TCU won the rest of their games and the B12 Championship Wisconsin's SoS would be at least close to Ohio State's.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: SFBadger96 on September 26, 2018, 02:04:10 PM
Wisconsin would be 11-2 in that scenario, not 12-1.

Not to put too fine a point on it:

One of these teams would be Ohio State, the other would be Wisconsin.

Plenty of reason to think 11-1 non-conference champ helmet school would go over the 11-2 conference champ non-helmet school.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 26, 2018, 02:21:23 PM
Wisconsin would be 11-2 in that scenario, not 12-1.

Not to put too fine a point on it:

One of these teams would be Ohio State, the other would be Wisconsin.

Plenty of reason to think 11-1 non-conference champ helmet school would go over the 11-2 conference champ non-helmet school.
I didn't think through his post.  He said "Wisconsin wins the West with one loss" and I read that to mean one loss total.  I was wrong because he said that Wisconsin loses in Ann Arbor and they already have an OOC loss so you are right, Wisconsin would be an 11-2 B1G Champion.  
That would make it a MUCH tougher call.  I think a lot of it would depend on how tOSU's SoS looked.  In that case, TCU winning the B12 and finishing 11-2 would be HUGE for the Buckeyes.  
I don't see the committee's pro helmet team bias that apparently everyone else sees.  From what I have seen so far they just rank based on number of losses which really isn't any different that it has always been.  As I laid out above, in both cases when a non-Champion got in, it was a 1-loss non-Champion that got in over 2-loss Champions.  There was also at least one  additional reason for the 2-loss non-Champions to get left out:

On this helmet issue note that the teams that got left out were tOSU, USC, Oklahoma, and Penn State.  They are ALL helmet teams.  It isn't like Bama/tOSU got in over a couple of nobodies.  It was Bama over tOSU/USC and tOSU over OU/PSU.  I don't understand how people see that as helmet vs non-helmet.  That is inter-helmet combat and the non-helmets have nothing to do with it.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 26, 2018, 02:33:32 PM
Wisconsin was a 12-1 non-champion last year. Oh well.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 26, 2018, 02:51:34 PM
I try not to pine (much) for things never coming back, so the playoff is here to stay, and much more likely to expand than disappear.  I liked the old screwy bowl stuff myself, those bowl committee guys in weird sports coats wondering around seeing game, I'd like to be one of them.

I think it was 1969 when Nebraska had a really good team and was bound for a major bowl and got upset on the last weekend somehow, and fell all the way to the Sub Bowl because every other bowl was taken.  They beat the crap out of some southern team.

Anyway, I still like the sport and enjoy watching, so there's that.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 26, 2018, 02:59:36 PM
Wisconsin was a 12-1 non-champion last year. Oh well.
Forget the helemt, Bama was a better 1-loss non-champion because Wisconsin's SoS was complete crap.  Their toughest road game was . . . Indiana or perhaps Minnesota?  Their OOC was Utah State, FAU, and BYU and those teams were awful.  FAU did win the CUSA but they lost OOC to 7-6 Navy and 6-6 Buffalo in addition to Wisconsin.  
Allow me to point out one more thing about the two 1-loss non-Champions that have gotten into the CFP:  In both cases the team that got in was co-champion of their division and lost the tiebreaker due to losing a road game to the other co-champion.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 26, 2018, 03:03:53 PM
OK then.



https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other?date=2017-12-15
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 26, 2018, 03:24:37 PM
OK then.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other?date=2017-12-15
I don't know what argument you are trying to make here.  Bama's SoS was #10, Wisconsin's was #20.  Both were 1-loss non-Champions and the one with the better SoS got in.  What do you want?  
As far as the list:

Oklahoma, Clemson, and Georgia were obvious.  They were all 1-loss P5 Champions with top-6 SoS.  After that it gets tough.  The other two P5 Champions had two losses each including one blowout each.  Ohio State had a better argument than USC because the Buckeyes played a tougher schedule and the Buckeyes were ranked higher.  The only other two teams worth discussing were the two P5 1-loss non-Champions.  Of those, Bama's SoS was better than Wisconsin's.  

If it had been my decision, I would have eliminated USC and Wisconsin.   I would have eliminated USC because they were in the same boat as tOSU but with a worse SoS.  I would have eliminated Wisconsin because they were in the same boat as Bama but with a worse SoS.  

That would have left Bama and Ohio State.  I don't have any problem with the committee's decision.  The only thing the committee did that ticked me off was that the previous week they stated that #4 through #8 (UW, Bama, UGA, Miami, FL, and tOSU) were all very close.  As it turned out, that was obviously untrue.  If it had been true then the two of those that won (UGA and tOSU) would have joined Clemson and Oklahoma in the playoff while the three that lost or didn't play (UW, Bama, Miami, FL) would have missed.  

Prior to that statement I thought that tOSU's only chance was for TCU to knock off Oklahoma.  As it turned out, that was Ohio State's only chance because their statement that Ohio State was already very close to Wisconsin, Bama, Georgia, and Miami, FL was complete BS.  In fact there was a big and unbridgeable gap between the 1-loss teams (and Auburn) and the two-loss teams.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MarqHusker on September 26, 2018, 03:25:22 PM

I think it was 1969 when Nebraska had a really good team and was bound for a major bowl and got upset on the last weekend somehow, and fell all the way to the Sub Bowl because every other bowl was taken.  They beat the crap out of some southern team.

Anyway, I still like the sport and enjoy watching, so there's that.
You mean 45-6.
Are we allowed to call Georgia "some southern team"?
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: bayareabadger on September 26, 2018, 04:06:59 PM

There have been rumblings that groups of players have not liked Frost's approach, especially around conditioning (tougher), practice times (early morning) and how many new guys were brought in (55).   What is sad is I don't doubt this is happening.   There are a lot of guys that seem more interested in the idea of being a football player at Nebraska than actually being one.   The cultural challenges are bigger than the skill set problems.   jmo
When I read something line this, I always take it with a big ole grain of salt. Every new coach shows up promising to be tougher, with harder practices, better lifting, all that. And if it doesn't work early, it's on the players (not buying in) rather than the coach (not finding a way to get his team to function).
It speaks to a certain deference a lot of new coaches get. They're still somewhat unblemished, unjudged in the moment. If Frost flames out (always possible), we'll be talking about how the UCF run was a mirage and the Oregon success was on the shoulders of others. 
I'm also interested, how does a coach add 55? You bring in 25 signees, maybe add a few more you count ahead. Did he just turn over every walk-on they had?
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 26, 2018, 04:13:31 PM
I don't know what argument you are trying to make here.  Bama's SoS was #10, Wisconsin's was #20.  Both were 1-loss non-Champions and the one with the better SoS got in.  What do you want?  
You said Wisconsin's schedule was crap, and I showed you it wasn't crap at all. That's it. UW lost a very close game to a top team in a conference championship game. Bama lost, but not in a conference championship game. UW won 12 games. Bama won 11. 
Helmet > Non-helmet.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: bayareabadger on September 26, 2018, 04:27:43 PM
Forget the helemt, Bama was a better 1-loss non-champion because Wisconsin's SoS was complete crap.  Their toughest road game was . . . Indiana or perhaps Minnesota?  Their OOC was Utah State, FAU, and BYU and those teams were awful.  FAU did win the CUSA but they lost OOC to 7-6 Navy and 6-6 Buffalo in addition to Wisconsin.  
Allow me to point out one more thing about the two 1-loss non-Champions that have gotten into the CFP:  In both cases the team that got in was co-champion of their division and lost the tiebreaker due to losing a road game to the other co-champion.  
When you get down to that kind of granularity, it turns out, everyone is awful.
Bama's best win was an LSU team people didn't think particularly highly of, 8-4 Mississippi State or Fresno State. This is the playoff resume?
I think Bama had a few things going in its favor. 
1. It was playing better by some metrics (though one was really high on UW)
2. The tendency to give a helmet and the SEC some extra love in this sort of situation (I'm usually talking down SEC bias complaints, but the BCS/playoff certainly had deference for it)
3. It didn't have a conference title game loss, which all post-1998 rankings have weighed heavily. 
4. UW didn't have that hammer point to get them in. If they beat some bear of a team in the non-conference and FSU had fizzled out like it did, maybe there's a chance. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 26, 2018, 04:32:31 PM
Bama lost to Auburn, one week after playing... Mercer. They had to have been gassed by the time the Iron Bowl rolled around.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 26, 2018, 04:44:16 PM
@847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) and @bayareabadger (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1571) :

I think my objection here is that if you want to convince me that there is this major Helmet bias in CFP selections you are going to have to come up with a better example than Bama>Wisconsin in 2017.  Wisconsin's schedule might not have been crap but it was worse than Bama's even after playing in the B1GCG and that is according to your link.  

If you somehow did this blind where the committee did not know that the names were Bama and Wisconsin it remains obvious to me that I would pick Bama's resume over Wisconsin's resume.  There are a lot of people who argue that it should be Champions only but that doesn't even come into play here.  If it were Champions only then both Wisconsin and Bama would have been out and it would have been between Ohio State and USC.  

If there is some year in which a non-helmet has a clearly superior resume and gets beat out by some helmet then you'll have your evidence but for now, you don't.  What you have instead is Bama over tOSU and USC which is intra-helmet and tOSU over PSU and Oklahoma which is also intra-helmet.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 26, 2018, 04:51:54 PM
Major helmet bias? I don't know that anyone ever said that. What was said was that if the decision comes down to helmet vs. non-helmet, the helmet wins.




Bama lost its last game of the season, to Auburn. Wisconsin lost its last game of the season, to Ohio State. Resumes are very similar, except for the 1 more win Wisconsin had.




I guess that means Bama (helmet) > Wisconsin (non-helmet). We'll see what happens this year.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: SFBadger96 on September 26, 2018, 05:03:29 PM
In short: helmets matter. They aren't the end-all-be-all, but they do tip the scales.

On the other hand, Wisconsin should have just won the darned conference championship game. Sigh.

Back to the point at hand: an 11-1 Ohio State has a decent shot at beating a 11-2 Wisconsin conference champ into the playoff. It's not a done deal, but it's not hard to imagine. Easiest way to imagine it: Ohio State loses a close game to Penn State. Wisconsin loses to Michigan, but beats Penn State during the season. Penn State wins the head-to-head against Ohio State so it represents the east in the CCG. Wisconsin beats Penn State again in the conference championship game. 11-2 conference champ Wisconsin, 11-2 conference runner up Penn State, 11-1 Ohio State (which, after losing by a hair in Happy Valley, crushes everyone else in its wake, including leaving a nasty blue and maize stain on the turf at the Shoe).

Think about how the polls would treat these teams. Wisconsin will be about 12-13 if it beats Nebraska, then will drop to around 17-20 if it loses to Michigan. If Penn State beats Ohio State this weekend, PSU moves up to the 5-6 range (Stanford or ND will drop, as will OSU, but OSU will stay high if it loses a squeaker: probably 8 or so--probably above the loser of Stanford/ND).

Michigan, fresh off the win against Wisconsin will move up into the 10 range, giving Penn State a further boost when they beat the Maize--who, losing to a top 5 team will drop into the 15 range. Wisconsin, not having beaten anyone of note, will move up with wins into the 15-17 range, then topples top 5 Penn State in Happy Valley. Wow. Big boost--maybe up to 10 or so, depending on what others do.

Ohio State, meanwhile, keeps crushing teams, and keeps sneaking up--surpassing Penn State when it loses at home to Wisconsin. Ohio State is now around #5, and finishes the season with a coronation against Big Blue, stomping then 15 Michigan at home. The winner of Stanford/Notre Dame stumbles down the stretch, Alabama (already knocked LSU down) and Georgia knock one of each other out of contention for the playoff (no one wants them both two years in a row), and there Ohio State, at 11-1, #4 in the country sits while #9 Wisconsin plays #10 Penn State for the conference championship. Frankly, even if Penn State wins that game, it might be a tough sell to vault over Ohio State. But if Wisconsin wins, no chance it gets the nod over the 11-1 Buckeyes.

I've put way too much thought into this, but there you have it. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 26, 2018, 05:20:02 PM
I would like to thank Mr. TacO for stirring the pot.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on September 26, 2018, 05:27:17 PM
In short: helmets matter. They aren't the end-all-be-all, but they do tip the scales.
I think that's probably true, even if the committee tries hard to avoid it. But, the thing about "tipping the scales" is that it implies how things will go in the case of a perfect tie. But in this case, Wisconsin/Alabama wasn't quite that close.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on September 26, 2018, 05:33:09 PM
I try not to pine (much) for things never coming back, so the playoff is here to stay, and much more likely to expand than disappear.  I liked the old screwy bowl stuff myself, those bowl committee guys in weird sports coats wondering around seeing game, I'd like to be one of them.

I think it was 1969 when Nebraska had a really good team and was bound for a major bowl and got upset on the last weekend somehow, and fell all the way to the Sub Bowl because every other bowl was taken.  They beat the crap out of some southern team.

Anyway, I still like the sport and enjoy watching, so there's that.
That's a healthy habit. In that spirit, whereas I haven't yet like the idea of the CFP, I do think that expanding it the 6 (with 2 byes) or 8 will be a boon to the sport and regular season. Which I guess means I'm coming around to it, picking to "live in the moment," or whatever.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on September 26, 2018, 05:41:01 PM
I think that's probably true, even if the committee tries hard to avoid it. But, the thing about "tipping the scales" is that it implies how things will go in the case of a perfect tie. But in this case, Wisconsin/Alabama wasn't quite that close.
Take away the helmet and I think they are pretty close.
It always surprises me when people deny the power that helmetosity has over voters, or selection committee members.  It's usually fans of helmet teams doing the denying.  I guess they don't want to believe their teams get an extra break here and because of their helmets?
Personally, I embrace it.  If Texas ever gets back to winning football games, I'd be darn happy to enjoy the additional benefits of some helmetosity.  :)
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on September 26, 2018, 05:46:49 PM
8 teams. P5 conference champions + best G5 team + 2 at-large

Win your conference, you're in. Don't win your conference, you'd better hope you win the beauty contest.

Why is this so freaking hard?
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 26, 2018, 07:50:30 PM
Take away the helmet and I think they are pretty close.
It always surprises me when people deny the power that helmetosity has over voters, or selection committee members.  It's usually fans of helmet teams doing the denying.  I guess they don't want to believe their teams get an extra break here and because of their helmets?
Personally, I embrace it.  If Texas ever gets back to winning football games, I'd be darn happy to enjoy the additional benefits of some helmetosity.  :)
I don't see any evidence for it in the CFP era.  My objection here is that I don't think bias should be assumed.  I think that @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) and others are assuming bias and then blaming bias for Bama getting in over Wisconsin.  My view is that if there are no logical reasons other than bias then fine, talk about bias.  That isn't the case here.  There were perfectly valid non-bias reasons to take Bama in 2017.  
If and when we have a year where a clearly superior non-helmet team gets jumped by a clearly inferior helmet team then lets talk about bias.  Until then lets not make an accusation that can't be supported by the available evidence.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 26, 2018, 08:05:12 PM
8 teams. P5 conference champions + best G5 team + 2 at-large

Win your conference, you're in. Don't win your conference, you'd better hope you win the beauty contest.

Why is this so freaking hard?
I've been saying for years that I think this is where we are headed whether we like it or not.  
They'll include the P5 Champs because the P5 run the show.  They'll include the highest ranked G5 Champ to hold off the threat of anti-trust or Congressional action.  The two at-large slots will keep the SEC folks happy because they'll have a chance to get three teams in.  
I am adamantly opposed to @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's proposal to go to 12 and include all 10 Champions because all or most of the G5 Champs, in most years, have no business whatsoever being involved in a post-season national championship tournament.  Besides, I think this would increase the relevance of a LOT of G5 CG's anyway because in most years the two or three highest ranked G5CG participants are going to be from two or three different G5 conferences:
In 2017 it would only have increased interest in the AACCG because the two highest ranked G5CG participants were #14 UCF and #20 Memphis so the AACCG would have been a play-in game just like the big boy conferences.  
In 2016 the ranked G5CG participants were:
At least WMU and Navy would have had a plausible chance to be the highest ranked G5 Champion with their opponents and a few others as outside possibilities.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on September 26, 2018, 08:49:23 PM
8 teams. P5 conference champions + best G5 team + 2 at-large

Win your conference, you're in. Don't win your conference, you'd better hope you win the beauty contest.

Why is this so freaking hard?
Win your conference, you'd better hope you win the beauty contest.
Don't win your conference, you'd better hope like heck and pray you win the beauty contest.
Why is this so different?
The beauty pagent continues undaunted, just with more contestants.
Why add more contestants?
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on September 26, 2018, 09:08:12 PM
Take away the helmet and I think they are pretty close.
It always surprises me when people deny the power that helmetosity has over voters, or selection committee members.  It's usually fans of helmet teams doing the denying.  I guess they don't want to believe their teams get an extra break here and because of their helmets?
Personally, I embrace it.  If Texas ever gets back to winning football games, I'd be darn happy to enjoy the additional benefits of some helmetosity.  :)
I wouldn't deny helmetosity. I'm one of it's celebrators. I'm just acknowledging that Alabama played more ranked teams and had better wins than Wisconsin last year. I'm not sure we've ever developed trustworthy computers for comparing teams, but if we did (therefore eliminating helmet bias), I'd be shocked if more than a percent of them picked Wisconsin over Alabama.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on September 26, 2018, 09:09:38 PM
My objection here is that I don't think bias should be assumed.  
That's right. I wouldn't conclude that helmet bias is absent. I'm just looking for proof. This Alabama-Wisconsin "scandal" is insufficient proof. That's all I'm saying.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Mdot21 on September 27, 2018, 01:27:20 AM
8 teams. P5 conference champions + best G5 team + 2 at-large

Win your conference, you're in. Don't win your conference, you'd better hope you win the beauty contest.

Why is this so freaking hard?
it shouldn't be. I think you honestly nailed it.
I'm down. This should be how they do it. Period.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 27, 2018, 09:50:55 AM
I wouldn't deny helmetosity. I'm one of it's celebrators. I'm just acknowledging that Alabama played more ranked teams and had better wins than Wisconsin last year. I'm not sure we've ever developed trustworthy computers for comparing teams, but if we did (therefore eliminating helmet bias), I'd be shocked if more than a percent of them picked Wisconsin over Alabama.
Bama played more over-ranked teams, for sure... What wins were better? The best one looked to have been the LSU game.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: bayareabadger on September 27, 2018, 10:09:20 AM
I don't see any evidence for it in the CFP era.  My objection here is that I don't think bias should be assumed.  I think that @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) and others are assuming bias and then blaming bias for Bama getting in over Wisconsin.  My view is that if there are no logical reasons other than bias then fine, talk about bias.  That isn't the case here.  There were perfectly valid non-bias reasons to take Bama in 2017.  
If and when we have a year where a clearly superior non-helmet team gets jumped by a clearly inferior helmet team then lets talk about bias.  Until then lets not make an accusation that can't be supported by the available evidence.  
I for sure am not blaming Bama over UW purely on that. I don't even think it was wrong particularly. 
But I think there was a lot of ease in slotting Bama there and little discussion of UW. I think some helmet element played a factor there, along with like three other things I mentioned. 
Earlier you mentioned the phrase "major" bias. In truth, there's two major biases in this process: losses and being in a power conference. Then a big gap, then schedule perception (at some point we might be due for a big discussion about what that means at the top level), then some blend of losing conference title games, helmet, whatnot. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 27, 2018, 10:45:59 AM
I don't even think it was wrong particularly. 
This is a big part of my entire point here.  If Bama>Wisconsin in 2016 wasn't wrong then why are we even talking about bias?  
I could claim that Bama>tOSU in 2017 was based on bias, but I'm not saying that largely because I don't think it was wrong.  
I do think that the committee is overly biased against losses and should consider SoS more strongly.  When Ohio State got in in 2016 I optimistically hoped that it was mostly due to tOSU's very strong SoS that year.  That year the Buckeyes played two P5 Champions, both on the road.  They also played P5 Divisional Champion Wisconsin on the road.  Granted, I'm a fan of Ohio State so I am biased but I think that it is objectively obvious that getting through a slate that includes those three road games plus 10-3 Michigan with only one loss was VERY impressive.  
Bama's 2017 SoS wasn't at the level of Ohio State's in 2016 but it was quite good.  Unfortunately, I think the committee showed their hand.  IMHO, the final rankings will generally be:
In four years of the CFP we have never had to go beyond #3 but I assume that if we do, the pattern will repeat such that it will go like this:
I don't think it should be that simplistic.  I think that SoS should be a major consideration.  If a team loses one more game than another but played three more tough teams then I think the team with the extra loss should get in.  

Part of the problem, of course, is that SoS is subjective.  A lot of people on here (see @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) above) like to criticize SEC teams like Bama for playing an FCS opponent.  I get that, but in the context of CFP contenders I don't think it matters much.  In the context of CFP contenders the difference between playing a bad P5 team, a middling or worse G5 team, or an FCS team will almost always be nil.  If you are a legitimate CFP contender then you should beat any bad P5 team, any middling or worse G5 team, and any FCS team without breaking a sweat.  What does matter, IMHO, is two things:
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 27, 2018, 10:48:25 AM
Along those lines, BaB, I'm not saying that UW *should* have been in ahead of Bama. What I'm getting at is that there was not even a discussion about UW. It was between Bama, USC and OSU for that spot.



I'm happy that OSU, PSU and UW won their respective NYD6 games. I watched them all.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 27, 2018, 10:57:59 AM
Along those lines, BaB, I'm not saying that UW *should* have been in ahead of Bama. What I'm getting at is that there was not even a discussion about UW. It was between Bama, USC and OSU for that spot.

I'm happy that OSU, PSU and UW won their respective NYD6 games. I watched them all.
I really don't remember much discussion of USC in there either.  That falls in line with my take (had I been on the committee) that I would have eliminated USC (similar to tOSU but not as good of an SoS) and UW (similar to Bama but not as good of an SoS) then simply decided between tOSU and Bama.  Those who think it should be Champions only or at least that Championships should get a LOT of weight could then argue for Ohio State while those who think that bad losses (tOSU @ Iowa) and more losses (tOSU had two) should be bigger factors could then argue for Bama.  I see the logic behind both.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: bayareabadger on September 27, 2018, 11:02:57 AM
This is a big part of my entire point here.  If Bama>Wisconsin in 2016 wasn't wrong then why are we even talking about bias?  
I could claim that Bama>tOSU in 2017 was based on bias, but I'm not saying that largely because I don't think it was wrong.  
I do think that the committee is overly biased against losses and should consider SoS more strongly.  When Ohio State got in in 2016 I optimistically hoped that it was mostly due to tOSU's very strong SoS that year.  That year the Buckeyes played two P5 Champions, both on the road.  They also played P5 Divisional Champion Wisconsin on the road.  Granted, I'm a fan of Ohio State so I am biased but I think that it is objectively obvious that getting through a slate that includes those three road games plus 10-3 Michigan with only one loss was VERY impressive.  
Bama's 2017 SoS wasn't at the level of Ohio State's in 2016 but it was quite good.  Unfortunately, I think the committee showed their hand.  IMHO, the final rankings will generally be:
  • All of the undefeated P5 teams (Champions by definition)
  • All 1-loss P5 Champions
  • All 1-loss P5 non-Champions
In four years of the CFP we have never had to go beyond #3 but I assume that if we do, the pattern will repeat such that it will go like this:
  • #4. All 2-loss P5 Champions
  • #5. All 2-loss P5 non-Champions
  • etc
I don't think it should be that simplistic.  I think that SoS should be a major consideration.  If a team loses one more game than another but played three more tough teams then I think the team with the extra loss should get in.  

Part of the problem, of course, is that SoS is subjective.  A lot of people on here (see @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) above) like to criticize SEC teams like Bama for playing an FCS opponent.  I get that, but in the context of CFP contenders I don't think it matters much.  In the context of CFP contenders the difference between playing a bad P5 team, a middling or worse G5 team, or an FCS team will almost always be nil.  If you are a legitimate CFP contender then you should beat any bad P5 team, any middling or worse G5 team, and any FCS team without breaking a sweat.  What does matter, IMHO, is two things:
  • How many relative equals did you play.  In this context, looking at 2016 tOSU for example, I would consider four of tOSU's opponents to be "relative equals":  B12 Champion Oklahoma; B1G Champion Penn State; B1G-W Champion Wisconsin; B1G-E Contender (to the last snap as was recently pointed out to me by @Anonymous Coward (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1513) ) Michigan.  
  • How many teams that could beat you on the right day without it being the "upset of the century" did you play.  I would consider this to be roughly P5 .500+ teams and a few really high-end G5 teams.  In my example of 2016 tOSU that would include: 7-6 Northwestern and 9-4 Nebraska with 6-7 Indiana and Maryland and 10-3 Tulsa as possibles.  

I suppose we’re talking for two reasons. 1. This kind of system engenders all the talking 2. Some folks were interested in why there wasn’t more talking back then. Basically, what separates the teams that satisfy the loss requirement, especially when some are dismissed more quickly. 
Basically, we’re arfuig margins, not big picture. 
I read and interesting Bill Connelly take on SoS. What’s interesting to me, is what we’re reallt talking about is this. 
1. What what and what was the quality of the “hard” games. 
2. Was there an abundance of less-hard, but tricky games (a 12 win team should beat a 7-win team, but playing eight of them is tricky)
3. Was there an intentionality in the schedule you could somewhat choose (this actually has a hint of helmet bias with neutral site games, but that’s another topic)
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on September 27, 2018, 11:06:57 AM
Just wait until a mediocre Notre Dame squad runs the table. 

If they beat Stanford this week, it is almost a certainty. USC could still get them, of course. But only because we are "throwing out the records."
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on September 27, 2018, 11:53:58 AM
8 teams. P5 conference champions + best G5 team + 2 at-large

Win your conference, you're in. Don't win your conference, you'd better hope you win the beauty contest.

Why is this so freaking hard?
That makes sense for the advertisers greed and the fans blood lust to find out who the best collegiate team is.But it will also be adding more games exposing Sunday Bound kids to greater chance of injury that they won't be willing to take - and I don't blame them
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: SFBadger96 on September 27, 2018, 12:04:39 PM
Just wait until a mediocre Notre Dame squad runs the table.

If they beat Stanford this week, it is almost a certainty. USC could still get them, of course. But only because we are "throwing out the records."
Michigan , Stanford, USC, Virginia Tech, and Florida State make for a mediocre schedule these days? Michigan is currently #14 (we have them at somewhere between 3 and 4 in our power rankings), Stanford is currently the #7 team, and it's fair to say FSU, VaTech, and USC will continue to flirt with the rankings. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on September 27, 2018, 12:08:54 PM
He may or may may not believe in ND's schedule. But he doesn't seem to be believing in ND itself.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on September 27, 2018, 12:10:48 PM
That makes sense for the advertisers greed and the fans blood lust to find out who the best collegiate team is.But it will also be adding more games exposing Sunday Bound kids to greater chance of injury that they won't be willing to take - and I don't blame them
True. And it'll cut into another week of class. But from adding a 12th game to adding a CFP, we've never seemed to reach our limit with those issues.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on September 27, 2018, 12:15:26 PM
Even if the OOC games beginning the season are cut out,playing more heavy weights at the end will increase risk of injury IMO.Just look at Jake Butt 2 years ago
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on September 27, 2018, 12:19:05 PM
FWIW, I was referencing their schedule from this point forward.

VA Tech and FSU look good on paper, but they are not good this year.

VA Tech lost to an FCS team, and FSU lost to VA Tech. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: SFBadger96 on September 27, 2018, 01:58:03 PM
He may or may may not believe in ND's schedule. But he doesn't seem to be believing in ND itself.
Heh. I have no idea about ND right now. They weren't impressive against Ball State or Vandy, allowing both to claw back into a game that looked out of reach at the start. But if they beat Stanford this weekend, that will be a pretty big feather in their cap to add to the Michigan win. 
In any case, like Ohio State in 2002 and Notre Dame in 2012 (among others) if they go unbeaten, they will deserve their shot, which now is merely a spot in the playoff. Unless four other P5 conference champions are unbeaten (which would have to be the Big 12, the BigTen, the SEC, and the ACC), an argument to the contrary is silly.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on September 27, 2018, 02:13:01 PM
I'm not disagreeing. If anything I'm in the uncomfortable position of hoping ND is incredible ... or at the very least that ND is "solid" and Michigan has a very high albeit slow developing ceiling. In either event, the regular season be damned, I would love a bowl rematch. Won't happen though and that's good for the sport.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on September 27, 2018, 02:18:10 PM
I could happen,they hadn't played in a few years so it would be like filling the quota.Making up for lost time if you will
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 27, 2018, 02:32:56 PM
My guess is if ND makes the playoffs, they will get scorched in game one.

If they are 12-0, they almost certainly make it.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 27, 2018, 03:28:20 PM
My guess is if ND makes the playoffs, they will get scorched in game one.

If they are 12-0, they almost certainly make it.
I agree and I agree that they should, provided that there are not four undefeated P5 Champions.  I think that is the only thing that would keep them out.  Even then, it would probably be close because ND's schedule is pretty solid.  Where ND would get dinged is that they wouldn't have that extra high-level game that the four aforementioned hypothetical undefeated P5 Champions would have.  
The thing about the CG's is that they REALLY beef up the SoS.  Consider any P5 team, I'll use yours, UGA.  The Dawg's best OOC opponent is probably GaTech and the Yellow Jackets look awful this year.  Meanwhile, UGA's SEC-W opponents are Auburn and LSU which look great so far but who knows.  The SECCG (provided that UGA gets there) would salvage UGA's SoS even if both Tiger teams (LSU/Auburn) falter and don't look very impressive by December.  Somebody has to win the SEC-W and even in a horrible year for the SEC-W that would still almost always be a ranked team.  
Notre Dame doesn't have that safety-net to protect their SoS.  They have FSU on the schedule and if FSU completely tanks well then they played a crappy team period.  It is possible (unlikely but possible) that Michigan, Stanford, VaTech, FSU, Cuse, and USC could all finish with 5 or more losses.  That would still be a great list of names on the Irish schedule but it wouldn't be a great group of teams and that would hurt them a lot.  
Per @ohio1317 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=27) 's post (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?topic=5578.0), the potential undefeated P5 Champions are:
ACC:

B12:

B1G:
Pac:
SEC:

For now there is still a mathematical chance that Notre Dame could be in a discussion with five undefeated P5 Champions for the four CFP spots.  As long as there are three or less, Notre Dame is a lock if they go undefeated.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on September 27, 2018, 04:04:55 PM
Duke, West Virginia, Colorado and Kentucky are all undefeated along with Notre Dame. 


Who gets left out?
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on September 27, 2018, 04:08:30 PM
Duke & Kentucky just because of their hardcourt success
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 27, 2018, 04:16:51 PM
Duke, West Virginia, Colorado and Kentucky are all undefeated along with Notre Dame.


Who gets left out?
Definitely not Notre Dame.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on September 27, 2018, 04:21:10 PM
I'd say Dook. 

Notre Dame would bring the "Acc" flavor to the table, and Kentucky would have a win over probably Bama in the Sec Ccg. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 27, 2018, 04:54:00 PM
Duke, West Virginia, Colorado and Kentucky are all undefeated along with Notre Dame.

Who gets left out?
One thing that would be relevant is that it is generally difficult to leapfrog teams without them losing so the current rankings give us a clue:
That suggests that it would be Colorado.  

If it were up to me I would base my decision on SoS.  I believe that this would also weigh heavily with the committee.  It would REALLY hurt ND to sit on their hands on December 1 while the other four would likely all be playing (and beating) highly ranked opponents.  

SoS notes for the five:
Notre Dame:
The Irish already have a win over (then) #14 Michigan and they would also have to beat #7 Stanford, VaTech, FSU, Cuse, and USC.  SoS at this point is still up in the air for everybody but that is especially true of Notre Dame because unlike the others they wouldn't get a final chance to impress the voters on CG weekend.  If Michigan, Stanford, VaTech, FSU, Cuse, and USC all completely tank then I could forsee the Irish being left out but obviously that is pretty unlikely.  

West Virginia:
The Mountaineers already beat Tennessee but frankly that doesn't look very impressive right now.  They would, however, probably have the best last two games of the group because their regular season finishes with #6 Oklahoma and then they would have to turn around a week later and play either the Sooners or another high-end B12 team that they already defeated again in the B12CG.  They also have remaining games against #25 TxTech, #18 Texas, and TCU.  

Kentucky:
As SEC schedules go, the Wildcats' is relatively easy because they avoid all of the SEC-W heavyweights.  They already beat (then) #14 MSST and also play aTm.  They also already beat (then) #25 Florida.  The big problem for the Wildcats is that it is entirely possible that neither the Gators nor the Bulldogs will finish ranked.  The Wildcats have the toughest (by ranking) remaining game of the group against #2 Georgia but that is their only remaining scheduled game against a ranked opponent.  Their OOC of CMU, MTSU, Louisville, and and FCS team will not do them any favors.  OTOH, to finish undefeated they would also have to beat the SEC-W Champion in Atlanta in the SECCG.  The SEC-W currently has the #1, #5, #10, and #23 ranked teams so it is extremely likely that Kentucky's theoretical SECCG opponent would be the highest ranked victim of this group of five in the CG's.  Depending on how things go that could still leave Kentucky with a serious deficit of quantity of ranked opponents despite the high quality of their ranked opponents.  

DOOK:
The Blue Devils are in the ACC's Coastal Division (I had to look it up) opposite #3 Clemson.  The only other ranked team in the Coastal is #16 Miami which started the year off with a loss to LSU.  They haven't played a ranked team yet and their only scheduled ranked opponents are the aforementioned Miami and Clemson.  However, to go undefeated they would likely need to beat Clemson twice in three weeks (at Clemson on 11/17 then in the ACCCG on 12/1).  

Colorado:
The Buffaloes are unranked despite being undefeated because their victims so far are a winless Nebraska team, a Colorado State team that is 1-4, and an FCS team.  Next up is winless UCLA!  Colorado's only two scheduled ranked opponents are #11 Washington and #24 California.  

I think Colorado would be the odd team out in this scenario but that is based on a whole bunch of assumptions about how teams will fare down the stretch.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 27, 2018, 05:46:28 PM
A 1 or 0 loss SEC champion is in the playoff in all cases except a rather unlikely occurrence, UK or anyone else.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 27, 2018, 05:53:20 PM
A 1 or 0 loss SEC champion is in the playoff in all cases except a rather unlikely occurrence, UK or anyone else.
The only way I could see a 1-loss SEC Champion left out in the current circumstances would be if the other four P5 conferences and Notre Dame combined to produce at least four undefeated teams.  Even then, the outcry in SECland if the SEC! SEC! SEC! Champion got left out would be deafening.  
It would get worse too because much like last year's snub contributed to the B1G's good bowl record, a snubbed SEC would likely send their best team to play someone else's second best etc such that the SEC would probably have a very strong bowl record.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 27, 2018, 05:59:57 PM
Getting "snubbed" didn't help the PAC bowl record.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on September 27, 2018, 06:01:59 PM
Wasn't that long ago we had an undefeated Auburn left out of the BCS CG.

And it was widely regarded as the right decision, outside of Sec Country. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 27, 2018, 06:24:58 PM
Auburn had a weak OOC slate, partly not of their own making.  It happened, I was find with it.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on September 27, 2018, 07:05:34 PM
The only way I could see a 1-loss SEC Champion left out in the current circumstances would be if the other four P5 conferences and Notre Dame combined to produce at least four undefeated teams.  Even then, the outcry in SECland if the SEC! SEC! SEC! Champion got left out would be deafening.  
It would get worse too because much like last year's snub contributed to the B1G's good bowl record, a snubbed SEC would likely send their best team to play someone else's second best etc such that the SEC would probably have a very strong bowl record.  
I haven't been paying much attention, but when's the last time we had 4 undefeated teams from P5 conferences + Notre Dame, left at the end of the season?
When's the last time we had 3?
2?
Of course, I would absolutely LOVE to see it happen, that we had 5 undefeated teams at the end of the year.  I might even watch the CFP if that happened!
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 27, 2018, 07:40:52 PM
"except a rather unlikely occurrence, "

That is from my post above.

You can figure out what that occurrence might comprise.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on September 28, 2018, 09:42:27 AM
Even if the OOC games beginning the season are cut out,playing more heavy weights at the end will increase risk of injury IMO.Just look at Jake Butt 2 years ago
Butt just tore his left knee.  Don't know if it's the same one, but that sucks.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 28, 2018, 10:29:23 AM
Getting "snubbed" didn't help the PAC bowl record.
In most cases it should help but you have to be at least decent for it to matter and the Pac just wasn't.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 28, 2018, 10:35:43 AM
I haven't been paying much attention, but when's the last time we had 4 undefeated teams from P5 conferences + Notre Dame, left at the end of the season?
When's the last time we had 3?
2?
Of course, I would absolutely LOVE to see it happen, that we had 5 undefeated teams at the end of the year.  I might even watch the CFP if that happened!
It has been a LONG time since we had more than three.  The last time we had three was the year that Auburn got left out.  
In the CFP era:
In the CFP era we have had a grand combined total of three and those three went 2-3 in playoff games with no National Championships.  

In the BCS era we had two a few times but the only time we had more than two was when USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn all finished undefeated in 2004.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on September 28, 2018, 11:12:09 AM
Butt just tore his left knee.  Don't know if it's the same one, but that sucks.
Just saw that. Guh.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 28, 2018, 12:24:24 PM
If you run the odds of winning each game out to 13 games, it's statistically improbable to win all 13 even if you are very very good.

And, we see 1 or 2 P5 teams a year achieve that.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 28, 2018, 12:32:06 PM
If you run the odds of winning each game out to 13 games, it's statistically improbable to win all 13 even if you are very very good.

And, we see 1 or 2 P5 teams a year achieve that.
And that makes the odds of five teams doing it in the same year almost infinitesimally small.  I would posit that the chances of an undefeated P5 Champion being left out of the current system are less than 1% in a decade.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on September 28, 2018, 04:10:13 PM
I haven't been paying much attention, but when's the last time we had 4 undefeated teams from P5 conferences + Notre Dame, left at the end of the season?
When's the last time we had 3?
2?
Of course, I would absolutely LOVE to see it happen, that we had 5 undefeated teams at the end of the year.  I might even watch the CFP if that happened!
1979 might be it.  The top four were all undefeated but #4 FSU was not in a conference yet.  The entire top-10 was 10-1 or better.  1979 pre-bowl AP top-10 and what they did post-season and where they ended up:

* FWIW, USC's tie was just one of those "WTF" games.  They tied Stanford at home.  Stanford finished 5-5-1.  

The other final top-10 team was Purdue.  Purdue missed Ohio State that year.  They only lost one BigTen game (Minnesota which finished 4-6-1) and also lost OOC to UCLA which finished 5-6.  The Boilermakers did beat Michigan (8-4) and Indiana (8-4) in conference and they beat the Irish (7-4) OOC.  They were #12 heading into the bowls and beat Tennessee in the Bluebonnet Bowl.  

There were four "undefeated" teams but USC did have a tie.  

The top-3 were extraordinarily close in the pre-bowl poll.  Ohio State led Bama by just 1.5 points with USC just 7.5 points behind Bama.  Bama actually had the most votes for #1 followed by USC, followed by tOSU but Ohio State must have been a lot stronger at #2.  I always thought it was fun watching more than one bowl to figure out the National Championship:
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on September 28, 2018, 11:13:37 PM
Thanks medina, that was a heck of a lot more detailed than I expected, appreciate the fine points.

Clearly as CD pointed out, the odds are very much against it.  Multiply the odds of even one team doing, it across multiple teams, and the actual results demonstrate the validity of the mathematics.

Ultimately, it's super-duper-crazy unlikely that we'd have 5 or 4 undefeated teams.  But it sure would be fun if it happened.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 29, 2018, 07:16:02 AM
Scholarship limits have something to do with it too, I believe. In 1979 there weren't any and some schools stockpiled.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 29, 2018, 09:15:12 AM
https://www.aseaofblue.com/2013/6/11/4409982/ncaa-football-a-brief-history-of-ncaa-football-scholarships

"1973 brought about the first limitations on football scholarships in order to free up money for women's sports after Title IX was passed by Congress in 1972 as part of the Equal Opportunity in Education Act. This caused the NCAA schools' presidents and athletic directors to push through a limit of 105 football scholarships. Additional reductions were made in 1978 (95) and again in 1992 which brought the limit to its present number of 85 and 63 for Division I-AA."

Close enough.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 29, 2018, 09:19:35 AM
The typical "top ten" P5 team may have four "real games" that are contested, four "pastry games" that are certain wins, and four games they could lose if things go wrong for them.  Sometimes it's 3/5/4, but whatever.

A very very good team may have a 75% chance of winning the 4 contested games, but even so, the odds of winning them all are not good.  Then they might have a 90% chance of winning the 4 possible loss games on top of that.  Those games are like Clemson at Syracuse last year.

It's just not likely, even for an Alabama.  Now, if you have 10 teams in that category, it starts to be likely for 1-2 of them, which is what we routinely see in practice.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 29, 2018, 09:22:00 AM
I didn't know about the 1973 limit to 105. I thought that move actually came in 1979. Thanks for the correction, but the point stands. I'd have to believe rosters were at 95 in 1979 because they couldn't just cut kids from rosters to get to that number, unless it was decided prior to that year??



Always thought 1987 is when the move 85 came. Maybe that's when it was decided, and then fully implemented 5 years later. That would make sense.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 30, 2018, 11:04:59 AM
I am musing about the state of football in the states of Nebraska and Tennessee.  I have to think without looking up recruiting rankings that both are not bereft of talent.  One would think their recruiting would get them 7 wins in an average year.

In the Vols' case, it's about where the talent is dispersed, e.g., not in the offensive line.  Maybe they have talent elsewhere, but not there, or at least not scheme or something.  And that is sine qua non in football I think.

And the bad news is that you can sign a star QB or RB or WR right out of HS and get immediate impact.  You simply can't do that with the OL.  You can start one gifted TF, but not five, ever.  So coaches inheriting programs with that issue need 3 years to really start making the team good.  Maybe they get 7 wins in year 2 and 8 in year 3 and that would be a very good effort.  

And maybe not.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 30, 2018, 11:06:43 AM
The lines are where Nebraska is weakest too.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on September 30, 2018, 11:09:52 AM
The lines are where Nebraska is weakest too.
I'm trying to remember who said that Jones was not building his OL the right way at Tenn.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on September 30, 2018, 12:59:02 PM
Heh. If I remember I'll let you know.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: SFBadger96 on October 01, 2018, 01:37:07 PM
Notre Dame didn't look mediocre on Saturday. But...reflecting on this thread, their schedule down the stretch isn't going to impress, even though the season-ending game at USC is always on the radar because of the helmets involved and VaTech is now ranked again. The Irish will be favored in each of its remaining games, but plenty of teams that could bite the Irish on an off day, particularly VaTech, Syracuse (now getting votes), Navy, and USC.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 01, 2018, 02:10:42 PM
Obviously, a team can look really sharp one week and blundering the next.  ND's Stanford win will count for something unless Stanford belly flops.

They usually have a very solid slate (ND) but with the Pac and ACC being less impressive, they don't so much this year.  Next year should be stronger.

I think 12-0 will trump 12-1 though.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 01, 2018, 02:47:50 PM
I'm struck that a team can lose to ODU and end up ranked a week later.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: SFBadger96 on October 01, 2018, 02:49:36 PM
Helmet.

;)
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 01, 2018, 02:57:12 PM
But ODU is anti-helmet.  Few can even spell it.

I presume at this point there simply aren't enough decent looking one loss teams to rank instead of them.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: SFBadger96 on October 01, 2018, 03:01:28 PM
VaTech has the helmet. Last week is a long time ago and it beat another ranked team this week.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: SFBadger96 on October 01, 2018, 03:09:25 PM
Incidentally, in 2007, Michigan went from #5 to unranked after its loss to App. State in Game 1. It didn't return to the rankings until Week 8, but it also lost (badly) game 2 to Oregon.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on October 01, 2018, 04:49:00 PM
Obviously, a team can look really sharp one week and blundering the next.  ND's Stanford win will count for something unless Stanford belly flops.

They usually have a very solid slate (ND) but with the Pac and ACC being less impressive, they don't so much this year.  Next year should be stronger.

I think 12-0 will trump 12-1 though.
You are almost certainly right vis-a-vis 12-0 over 12-1 but the problem for the Irish is that they have zero margin for error because if they lose even just once they'll likely be behind not only the undefeated P5 CG winners but also all of the one-loss P5 CG winners AND potentially also behind some one-loss P5 non-Champions.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on October 01, 2018, 09:41:10 PM
Va Tech ... is ... a Helmet team? 
WAT? 
No no no.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 01, 2018, 09:49:21 PM
Va Tech - NO

Notre Dame - YES

a 12-1 Notre Dame helmet shines brighter than many many one loss teams
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 02, 2018, 08:20:43 AM
ND would be 11-1, and lack that signature CG win over somebody probably pretty good also.

They won't make the playoffs at 11-1 in most seasons.

One of these years we will have a 2008 style jam with no right answers and controversy past whoever is #4.

I think it was 2008.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 02, 2018, 10:02:28 AM
ND would be 11-1, and lack that signature CG win over somebody probably pretty good also.

They won't make the playoffs at 11-1 in most seasons.

I disagree, but I hope you are correct
maybe some of the luster is gone from those gold helmets, but they were VERY strong back in the day.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: SFBadger96 on October 02, 2018, 07:56:09 PM
Va Tech ... is ... a Helmet team?
WAT?
No no no.
Yes it is--as is Wisconsin, and even Iowa in the grand scheme of things. Their helmets don't shine like ND's or Alabama's or Ohio State's or USC's, but yes, VaTech gets a rankings boost from its helmet/name.

Look at our own BigTen power rankings re Wisconsin. What has Wisconsin done that merits putting it #3? It lost to a non-P5 team at home. It had mediocre wins against cupcakes, and it had a decent road win against another team with nothing especially good on its resume. Good enough for #3. Why? What is Wisconsin doing better than Maryland this season?

You all know the answer: it's Wisconsin, not Maryland. We expect it to be near the top of the conference.
Same with VaTech and the top 25.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on October 02, 2018, 08:20:09 PM
I don't disagree with how you defined teams like Wisconsin and VaTech or that they have "something greater" than others. And in that sense, sure, Helmet is a spectrum. But that's highjacking a specific conventionized term to just mean "reputation" in general. On this board "Helmet" has a more frequent, focused meaning. A qualitative thing. Inclusive of ~8 teams max, where the only remaining debate is whether the members of that group will ever change again.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on October 02, 2018, 08:47:45 PM
Speaking of Wisconsin and helmets, they ought to bring back the one with the W on the front, permanently.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 02, 2018, 08:57:17 PM
I agree. Love those things.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on October 02, 2018, 09:02:21 PM
I'm for that
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 02, 2018, 09:11:47 PM
Interesting VT helmet idea.  No, it's not a blue-blood.  But think about it......in an average year, they're likely to be "good".  Not great, not terrible.  Their stadium is a known thing - it's loud and they have Enter Sandman and what-not.  They have a reputation - special teams & defense.  Maroon isn't unique, but maroon & orange definitely is.  They have a recent, legendary HC - Beamer....Beamer ball.  

Highly-ranked teams lose their fair share @ Blacksburg.  They have the Newport News/VA Beach/Norfolk area to recruit from.  


Strong helmet, if not a top-10 one.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on October 02, 2018, 10:27:24 PM
Strong *reputation*, if not a top-10 one.
FIFY and for sure
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 02, 2018, 10:35:37 PM
There are certainly degrees of helmetosity, and VaTech gets at least a mild bump due to its helmet for sure.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 02, 2018, 10:38:33 PM
VaTech placed pretty well in our helmet ranking back in the day
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on October 02, 2018, 10:43:00 PM
I'm just stubborn about the word. VT has a solid reputation. They're also not in the conversation of that top group of ~8 programs that haven't lost or gained a Helmet member since 1970.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 02, 2018, 10:55:36 PM
agreed
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 03, 2018, 12:31:17 PM
I'm just stubborn about the word. VT has a solid reputation. They're also not in the conversation of that top group of ~8 programs that haven't lost or gained a Helmet member since 1970.
Without question they are not in that group.  I'd have them around 20 or so.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: fezzador on October 03, 2018, 02:18:46 PM
I'd probably call VT a "near-helmet", much like Wisconsin, Oregon, Texas A&M, etc.  They don't have the instant-recognition of Notre Dame (even most non-football fans associate the Irish with college football) but for those who pay at least some attention to CFB, they know they're at least somewhere in the Top 25 more often than not.

Schools like Florida, Clemson and Auburn straddle the "near helmet/helmet" line.  I think the relative lack of history and/or consistency keeps them from being on the highest pedestal, but they could be there with a sustained run of dominance (i.e. NY6 Bowls and Playoff appearances at least 7 years out of 10).  Of those, I think Clemson has the easiest path to get there, but I wouldn't count on Dabo sticking around forever.  Nick Saban isn't getting any younger, and if Mama doesn't call, the NFL might.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 03, 2018, 02:21:46 PM
All blue bloods are helmets, but not all helmets are blue bloods.  Seems pretty simple to me.  There are degrees of helmetosity.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 03, 2018, 02:35:10 PM
Where does Tennessee fit in this thing? Nebraska? Miami?
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 03, 2018, 02:39:49 PM
Nebraska is firmly in.

Vols and Canes are out

You asked
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 03, 2018, 02:59:06 PM
My "blue bloods" are the usual followed by a second group that also is pretty obvious.

For me, Nebraska is a BB, still, as is Michigan, though both could drop out in another, say, 5-10 years, in my view.

PSU for me is on the cusp along with FSU and Miami.  They are all in Group II though.

Bama OSU ND UM USC UNL OU Texas, though as I make the usual list I'm struck at how three of them are edging "south" a bit.

Then I'd go to PSU Miami FSU, with the SEC crowd coming just behind.



Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 03, 2018, 02:59:44 PM
If I make chili tonight, should I add beans or not?
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 03, 2018, 03:19:35 PM
If I make chili tonight, should I add beans or not?
Personal preference.  I will put a few beans in once in a while.  But I don't call it chili if utee is listening
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 03, 2018, 03:23:18 PM
If you add beans to chili, it's no longer chili. You heard it here first.  :67:
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 03, 2018, 03:26:35 PM
If I make chili tonight, should I add beans or not?
Absolutely,fiber and all evidently it wouldn't be Texas Red.The newer creative hybrid,last time I used ground Turkey,ground beef,Black,kidney and Pinto beans.6 cloves of garlic,2-3 onions,6 dried Ancho or adobo peppers can't remember,oregano,paprika,cumin,a couple of bell peppers,Grill mates Fiery Five Flake dried pepper seasoning.I usually half all of that.sauteeing one half and throwing the other half fresh into the crock pot.Usually use 3-4 large home grown tomatoes(frozen)usually,throw them into the food processor with a handful or so of tortilla chips that serve as a thickener.As you know,no two batches of Chili are the same.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 03, 2018, 03:29:50 PM
Better copy and paste that into the rescued from damnation thread
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 03, 2018, 04:19:06 PM
oh boy, not this again! :)

I'd agree with CD's breakdown of the bluebloods.

But not his take on chili.  He can't really help it though, that spaghetti sauce in Cincinnati has really screwed with his conception of the dish.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 03, 2018, 04:34:35 PM
Kinda like Texans telling us how to brew beer down in the nether regions.Before refrigeration god only knows what spoiled swill they were quaffing.Suppose it's more palatable now with the modern conveniences.It's exactly why they were always tossing lemons/limes into their mix to disguise God knows what 
                                                                                   :singing:
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on October 03, 2018, 05:00:31 PM

Not cool to mention Cincy Chili in front of Cincydawg, while he is still going through the withdrawal phase. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on October 03, 2018, 05:01:19 PM
Bama OSU ND UM USC UNL OU Texas, though as I make the usual list I'm struck at how three of them are edging "south" a bit.

Then I'd go to PSU Miami FSU, with the SEC crowd coming just behind.
No mention of Tennessee on either list?  Interesting.  That certainly goes against @Anonymous Coward (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1513) 's "the helmets were set as of ~1970 and can never change" thesis.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 03, 2018, 05:38:43 PM
Kinda like Texans telling us how to brew beer down in the nether regions.Before refrigeration god only knows what spoiled swill they were quaffing.Suppose it's more palatable now with the modern conveniences.It's exactly why they were always tossing lemons/limes into their mix to disguise God knows what
                                                                                   :singing:
Texico ain't Mexico, my old friend. ;)
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 03, 2018, 05:48:19 PM
No mention of Tennessee on either list?  Interesting.  That certainly goes against @Anonymous Coward (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1513) 's "the helmets were set as of ~1970 and can never change" thesis.  
"The SEC crowd"  --- generally Auburn, LSU, Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia.
Not in Group I, but generally in the next group.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 03, 2018, 05:52:20 PM
oh boy, not this again! :)

I'd agree with CD's breakdown of the bluebloods.

But not his take on chili.  He can't really help it though, that spaghetti sauce in Cincinnati has really screwed with his conception of the dish.
I "got used" to Cincy Chili, mainly by thinking it isn't chili, but a kind of weird spaghetti.  With a lot of cheese.  And onions.
I still made my own fairly routinely at home, "real chili", or the best I could make, usually with ground beef, onion, diced tomatoes, etc.  I had a friend who freeze dried chili powder each year with about 20% garlic I found it good stuff, variable year over year, but good.
For some reason, I really like onion.  Cincy chili has a lot of uncooked onion in it, as a rule.  Blue Ash Chili had 6-ways which included fried jalapenoes and I get that, no bean.  Which was a 5 way of course.
New Yorkers think a hero is some kind of weird sandwich.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 03, 2018, 05:54:24 PM
I've posted before that I think that "SEC crowd" is often why folks overrate the SEC in football.  Add Bama, you have 6 teams that pollsters feel comfortable putting in the top ten.  The teams may be just so-so, but the helmet gets them votes.

And teams like A&M and USCe and even UK get some aura from that.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 03, 2018, 06:10:13 PM
New Yorkers think a hero is some kind of weird sandwich.
Knock it off Crap game these are beautiful people
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 03, 2018, 06:13:50 PM
Negative waves, negative waves.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 03, 2018, 06:18:56 PM
Sandwiches have a lot of weird names, depending on the region.  Hoagies?  Grinders?  Submarines?  

Down here one of my Tex-Mexican buddies brings a taco to work and calls it a sandwich.  No lie.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 03, 2018, 06:20:23 PM
Is he an Earl?
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 03, 2018, 06:22:27 PM
Is he an Earl?
No, he's a Benny.
Short for Benito of course.
Also, I usually add diced raw onion to a bowl of chili.  And shredded cheese, could be cheddar or jack or whatever you have lying around.  True Mexican cheeses like Oaxaca or Queso fresco work nicely too.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 03, 2018, 06:23:23 PM
Texico ain't Mexico, my old friend. ;)

They grow Jalapeno's and Habanero's in the Land of the 40 acres.Up here in the cooler climes barley,wheat,rye & hops take to the soil.I dunno maybe even beans ....for a better bowl of Chili
                                                                                                             :party0036:
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 03, 2018, 06:24:35 PM
Plenty of beans down here.  They go inside the tacos, or next to the enchiladas.  Obviously not in chili though, because then it wouldn't be chili.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on October 03, 2018, 06:25:44 PM
No mention of Tennessee on either list?  Interesting.  That certainly goes against @Anonymous Coward (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1513) 's "the helmets were set as of ~1970 and can never change" thesis.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 03, 2018, 06:26:28 PM
Negative waves, negative waves.
Kelly they will hear my detroit motors long before I get into the center of town
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 03, 2018, 06:28:41 PM
There is a "not bad" Mexican kind of place near us called Tin Lizzy's I wanted to go to tonight, but the wife said she wanted to make something and save money.  We just got a rough estimate on a kitchen redo, and it was about 3X what I was hoping it might be.

It's a small kitchen.  And she wants to do it.  Means 3 weeks basically without a kitchen, at least.

The contractor asked me if I wanted the work to be permitted or not.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: SFBadger96 on October 03, 2018, 06:28:54 PM
AC, I think you have an awfully narrow definition of Helmet teams. It's college football's measure of reputation. You see it, you recognize it, and it gets a boost because of its history. And yes, there are gradations. But if the team won't be left out of the top 25 if it is 3-0, no matter what teams it has played and beaten, then it is getting a boost from its name. 3-0 VaTech is in the Top 25. Same for Wisconsin, Auburn, LSU, Georgia...If Miami or Florida State starts the season hot--they get noticed in a hurry. Much faster than Oregon State or Purdue. Again, Maryland and Wisconsin have the same record and each has a home loss to an unranked mid-major. Maryland has a win on the road over a ranked opponent. Wisconsin is #16 in the AP, Maryland is #35. That's Wisconsin getting a nod based on its history, not its current results. That's the helmet pushing it along.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 03, 2018, 06:34:18 PM
  We just got a rough estimate on a kitchen redo, and it was about 3X what I was hoping it might be.

It's a small kitchen.  And she wants to do it.  Means 3 weeks basically without a kitchen, at least.

The contractor asked me if I wanted the work to be permitted or not.
Sure tell him he's permitted to do the work you'll even give him some Texas Beer and Ohio Chili (https://www.cfb51.com/Smileys/fantasticsmileys/shocked.gif).Hope the Contractor has references you can trust
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 03, 2018, 06:37:32 PM
He had references, including some magazine articles on his work.

He showed us a kitchen redo that was $800,000, for a new kitchen.

Ours won't be that much.

Getting another estimate next week from a company that does a lot of work in our building.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Hawkinole on October 03, 2018, 06:56:55 PM
I took a few weeks off from the forum when two Sundays ago I traveled to run a 5k while my daughter ran the Quad Cities Marathon. I actually finished about 3-hours before her, and spent the rest of the time urging her on. She finished 16th of 176 women. I was very proud of her first marathon. I will not attempt to run that distance.

The article linked below is about worst coaching contracts for college football  programs. The Big Ten leads the way. Ferentz, Urban Meyer, and Lovie Smith make the worst-5 per this article. The Big Ten is good at something -- worst coaching contracts. I suspect someone forgot to read Harbaugh's contract before setting out to write. But, I didn't read Harbaugh's contract either before writing this.

Reading between the tea leaves, Lovie Smith gets at least one more year at Illinois. 5-Worst Coaching Contracts - USA Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2018/10/03/college-football-5-worst-deals-coaches-contracts/1334120002/)




Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 03, 2018, 07:15:14 PM
He had references, including some magazine articles on his work.

He showed us a kitchen redo that was $800,000, for a new kitchen.
For what,the Varsity?That's 4X what my house costs.My circa '68 cabinets just took on a whole new sheen
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 03, 2018, 07:35:49 PM
kitchens can be very expensive

mine isn't

but I cook anything I like there and can wash the pots, pans, and dishes
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 03, 2018, 07:40:27 PM
Anything how about some Kobe BeeF,Blue Fin Tuna sushi,Russian Beluga Caviar and some Japanese Blow fish.2 of the 4 you don't even have to cook.Let's see ya buy them.You might swing it but it would cut into your golf allowance
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 03, 2018, 07:40:59 PM
No mention of Tennessee on either list?  Interesting.  That certainly goes against @Anonymous Coward (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1513) 's "the helmets were set as of ~1970 and can never change" thesis.  
well, the Vols have dropped out of the top ten in all-time winning percentage
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 03, 2018, 07:47:35 PM
Anything how about some Kobe beeF,Blue fin tuna sushi,Russian Beluga caviar and some japanese Blow fish.2 of the 4 you don't even have to cook.Let's see ya buy them.You might swing it but it would cut into your golf allowance
I like Kobe beef and could cook it just fine as long as I got a killer deal or someone else was buying
I like Blue fin tuna sushi and could serve it outa the kitchen fine, again I'm not buying at market price
haven't have the luck to try the other two, but I could plate up some caviar or google a recipe for the blow fish
If my lotto ticket hits tonight, I probably still wouldn't waste my money on over priced food.  Plenty of high priced food out there that makes me plenty happy and feeling decadent.
And if I win a couple hundred mil, I won't spend $800K on a kitchen
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 03, 2018, 07:52:04 PM
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 03, 2018, 08:43:37 PM
Sandwiches have a lot of weird names, depending on the region.  Hoagies?  Grinders?  Submarines?  

Down here one of my Tex-Mexican buddies brings a taco to work and calls it a sandwich.  No lie.


The best sammich is a Beef, dipped, with giardinaira. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 03, 2018, 09:03:30 PM
my grandfather called anything between two slices of bread a sammich

that included a mcDonald's hamburger
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 03, 2018, 09:12:29 PM
google a recipe for the blow fish

And if I win a couple hundred mil, I won't spend $800K on a kitchen
Couldn't do that to you Fearless.Chefs have to be trained for years on the Blow fish - it's poisonous as hell.Has to be dissected very carefully.Every now and then diners keel over dead at the table,probably from the bill - and it prolly sux also.800 K prolly get you a nice RV to tour games & tailgates,like a combination of Gator and Madden.Maybe you can swing over and pick me up,then we can drive down and crash one of 94's backyard BBQ's.I'll tell Cindy I'm volunteering for the Red Cross disaster or sumsuch
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 03, 2018, 10:22:26 PM
Any time you're in town you are most welcome to my backyard BBQ.

Which is of course a food, not an event.

Don't know much about blowfish, but wagyu can be mighty tasty without cooking, as well.  Wagyu carpaccio.  Wagyu tartare.  Mmmm mmmm good.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 03, 2018, 10:35:05 PM
$800K would take care of quite a few restaurant tabs serving fine beef and seafood

I'd also make a generous donation to Utee's glorious tailgate if he was still hosting.

Be fun to purchase the groceries, and beverages then we could camp in Utee's backyard while he works his magic 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MarqHusker on October 03, 2018, 11:38:03 PM
kitchens can be very expensive

This is no joke.  Its really the cabinetry that's the killer, and the range hood and the appliances, and the counters, and the island....    My wife and I have been good checks on each other in this house build, until we got to these cabinets.   Talk about pot stirring.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 03, 2018, 11:44:46 PM
yup, decades ago I did CAD drafting work for the upscale architect/custom home builder in the area.

everything would go pretty smoothly until we hit the kitchen, then the budget blew up!
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 03, 2018, 11:58:20 PM
$800K would take care of quite a few restaurant tabs serving fine beef and seafood

I'd also make a generous donation to Utee's glorious tailgate if he was still hosting.

Be fun to purchase the groceries, and beverages then we could camp in Utee's backyard while he works his magic
Then someone would get drunk get injured or pee in 94's pool then you'd get sued for 800k and I'd have to hitch hike back to NE Ohio - just forget I ever mentioned it.Come to think about it you owe me some beef short ribs just for the traumatising thoughts
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on October 04, 2018, 06:35:50 AM
Not sure what region calls a sub sandwich a "torpedo." But that's my favorite term for a sub sandwich.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 04, 2018, 07:50:48 AM
Maybe that's a slider version of the Sub.Think it was the Travel Chanel that did a segment on the Submarine/Hero/Grinder Sandwich.One of the stories had it that in the Naval Yard in Groton Connecticut where the US Submarines were being constructed,the work crews were going 24/7 for much of the war.Guys didn't have a lot of time to fetch grub so the nearby eateries would make sandwiches out small loafs of bread that would tide them over during long shifts.Sounded legit
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Riffraft on October 04, 2018, 10:28:43 AM
I "got used" to Cincy Chili, mainly by thinking it isn't chili, but a kind of weird spaghetti.  With a lot of cheese.  And onions.
I still made my own fairly routinely at home, "real chili", or the best I could make, usually with ground beef, onion, diced tomatoes, etc.  I had a friend who freeze dried chili powder each year with about 20% garlic I found it good stuff, variable year over year, but good.
For some reason, I really like onion.  Cincy chili has a lot of uncooked onion in it, as a rule.  Blue Ash Chili had 6-ways which included fried jalapenoes and I get that, no bean.  Which was a 5 way of course.
New Yorkers think a hero is some kind of weird sandwich.

Haven't lived in cincinnati for 5 years. I miss Cincy Chili. My sister makes it out here from time to time and she will have me over, but it isn't quite the same. I always have a 5-way. I usually went to Gold Star, but if I had know about the fried jalapenos I would have added that.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 04, 2018, 10:33:24 AM
Then someone would get drunk get injured or pee in 94's pool then you'd get sued for 800k and I'd have to hitch hike back to NE Ohio - just forget I ever mentioned it.Come to think about it you owe me some beef short ribs just for the traumatising thoughts
If we ever get together we could go whole hog and try to find some long ribs of beef.
(https://www.texascooppower.com/content/detail_txusa_ribs.jpg)
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on October 04, 2018, 10:37:55 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=z4zWFsPGdX4
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 04, 2018, 11:40:32 AM
The $800 K kitchen redo was rather "impressive", but the kitchen was over 1,000 sq ft he said.  Some woman wanted it of course and money was not a consideration.  I gather the house was in the $3-5 million range, plus.  There are some places in the ATL with eye popping houses of course.

This place builds their own cabinets, and the cost of custom is higher than the cost of stuff from Lowe's of course.  I didn't get a good detailed look at the kitchen or the magazine it was in, but I saw large SubZero fridges.

And I agree you could hire a chef to cook for you for quite a few years.  I suspect a kitchen like that is more of a trophy than anything functional.  Obviously, a lot of us here cook, and would enjoy a nice kitchen, but I'm sure $30-50K would do it for us, and then some.

But we're functional.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 04, 2018, 11:42:26 AM
Blue Ash Chili used to be owned by this Greek couple who never smiled, but their servers were good.  They had menus that were 10 years old or more, which meant their prices never updated.  I remember a 5-way for $2.20 in like 1997 or so, and I'd take my kids there fairly often.

My son would order an 8-way and the girls would get two double deckers, and he would eat 2 4 ways and half of their sandwiches and then want desert.

He lost a bit of weight at the French beach resort in South Carolina.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on October 04, 2018, 11:57:20 AM
What's on an 8-way? 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 04, 2018, 12:19:21 PM
The $800 K kitchen redo was rather "impressive", but the kitchen was over 1,000 sq ft he said.  
the size of my entire house
of course my entire house cost $44K back in 1989, it's worth about $120K today
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 04, 2018, 03:09:49 PM
What's on an 8-way?
It's a four way twice.  
I'm just stirring the pot here.
I'm kinda hungry.  The wife bought some salad at Kroger with raw fish in it for lunch.  Yuck.
I feel the need for beef.  It's what's for dinner.
Might go to the faux Mexican place, or the faux Vietnamese soup place.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on October 04, 2018, 03:15:20 PM
I've never braved the Cincy Chili on the spaghetti. 

The coneys are okay; albeit with plenty of room for improvement. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 04, 2018, 03:17:17 PM
If we ever get together we could go whole hog and try to find some long ribs of beef.
(https://www.texascooppower.com/content/detail_txusa_ribs.jpg)

Sad,really I'm looking at that with all the desire of Barbi Benton back in the day
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 04, 2018, 03:21:21 PM
the size of my entire house
of course my entire house cost $44K back in 1989, it's worth about $120K today
Misery loves company we're both slumming it,my ranch sprawls a whole 1,200 sqft - that doesn't include the basement.Watched some great games down there
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 04, 2018, 03:51:34 PM
But we're functional.
One of my favorite features in my current kitchen--and one that gets all sorts of [positive] comments, is the 6' tall wire rack shelving unit. It's loaded with all sorts of small kitchen appliances, serving bowls/dishes, some of the everyday things like all the saran wrap / aluminum foil / ziplocks we go through, etc.
A common comment is "wow... looks like you guys really cook in here."
I don't want a kitchen I'm scared to mess up. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 04, 2018, 03:55:15 PM
the size of my entire house
of course my entire house cost $44K back in 1989, it's worth about $120K today

Misery loves company we're both slumming it,my ranch sprawls a whole 1,200 sqft - that doesn't include the basement.Watched some great games down there

My whole house, 3bdr 2ba, is 1200 square feet. 40+ years old. No basement. It's... Cozy. 

Looking at Zillow, similar houses in my neighborhood can be had for a mere $600K...
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 04, 2018, 04:02:15 PM
My whole house, 3bdr 2ba, is 1200 square feet. 40+ years old. No basement. It's... Cozy.

Looking at Zillow, similar houses in my neighborhood can be had for a mere $600K...
Give it a couple of years. Having been investing in SoCal real estate for about 20 years, I know how shit goes there. We are selling our portfolio at the present time. You may want to consider that too. Consider this a public service announcement.:72:
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 04, 2018, 04:05:49 PM
Golderned robber land barons....and ya think ya know someone
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 04, 2018, 04:09:55 PM
Give it a couple of years. Having been investing in SoCal real estate for about 20 years, I know how shit goes there. We are selling our portfolio at the present time. You may want to consider that too. Consider this a public service announcement.:72:
Sold my house in the divorce a few years ago... Renter.
We want to move somewhere bigger, but I think it might be smart to rent for 3-4 more years and then buy.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 04, 2018, 06:42:27 PM
We figure on living here until they cart us out in a wheelchair, or some other variation on that theme.

One lady just left at age 95, we were told.  She was an original owner, the last one, the building is 30 years old now.

SO, if the RE market collapses, I'll be OK, though that likely means the stock market went south and that won't be great for me, but I'm pretty well insulated now.

Most of the condos around are 2 bedroom and around 1500 sf.  We sort of lucked out, I think, as we really like it here, the building, the neighbors, the location.

My buddy who is a big OSU fan is coming down in November and we plan to see a GaTech game with Miami.  I've been to Grant Field one time in my life in 1971.

Reminds me of the time we met up in Austin and Gatorama and I decided to sit and watch the WLOCP at the tailgate.  Someone had asked us to dog sit, get this, a bulldog named Pearl.  I told Gator that was bad news for his team, and the Dawgs did win.  He called it "Pearlgate" from then on.  He was very nice to that old dog, who mostly slavered saliva and slept.

He had some really cool stories, did he not, and was a kind gentleman.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 04, 2018, 09:40:02 PM
If we ever get together we could go whole hog and try to find some long ribs of beef.
(https://www.texascooppower.com/content/detail_txusa_ribs.jpg)

That long rib is a short rib.
They're all called short ribs, the longest ones are off the plate, the shorter ones are chuck.  They're all mighty fine when BBQd though, that's for sure.  That one looks delicious.
I'm hitting Stiles Switch here in the ATX for BBQ tomorrow.  Looks like beef rib is going to be on the menu.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MarqHusker on October 05, 2018, 12:04:17 AM
Nice stadiette at UH.  I'll do a real weekend reflection after the weekend.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 05, 2018, 06:37:40 AM
Sold my house in the divorce a few years ago... Renter.
We want to move somewhere bigger, but I think it might be smart to rent for 3-4 more years and then buy.
That's really good news. Glad you don't own the joint your in. Prices are going to drop out there, again. Same as here, but at least Cali fully recovered from the crash, and then some. 
We haven't even gotten back to 2003 values in Illinois (sucks). I really despise Illinois (sucks). Looking forward to leaving Illinois (sucks) for good on my 55th birthday. F You, Illinois (sucks).
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 05, 2018, 06:47:31 AM
RE prices in Cincy appeared to have fully recovered, but they didn't go higher.

The market was ultra tight, as is the market down heah.

I've mentioned how most of the new construction around me is apartment buildings, around 30 stories high.

Folks can't manage the down payment and don't qualify apparently.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 05, 2018, 07:04:45 AM
Lots of people are opting to rent these days. We were lucky to find a person (older lady) who was used to owning and wanted to "downsize" in her later years and stay here in town. So she did "downsize" into our 3200 sf TH. Heh.



Here in Illinois (sucks), property taxes eat up your entire SALT deduction limits on the federal returns now, so owning makes little/no sense anymore. The state is stealing houses from people, with the highest tax rates in the country.



How come Mr. TacO came here, stirred the pot, and never came back to check the simmer?
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 05, 2018, 07:40:28 AM
I hear Illinois is a nice place to live, almost as nice as Austin, TX.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 05, 2018, 07:41:25 AM
Maybe Taco's getting transferred to Illinois.I heard the state itself is very nice a friend went thru some years ago and loved the  rural farm country
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 05, 2018, 07:58:18 AM
Austin ain't no Atlanta that's for sure.

Texas has no state income tax so property taxes are fairly high here, mostly municipal and not state, so you get relief by moving further from city cores.  Still makes more sense to buy here, if you can afford it.


Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 05, 2018, 09:15:39 AM
I hear Illinois is a nice place to live, almost as nice as Austin, TX.


It used to be. Illinois (sucks) is no longer a good place to live. It does have some of the best farmland in the World though. At least there's that.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 05, 2018, 09:31:31 AM
I checked into states with no income tax for obvious reasons and "discovered" that they merely tax something else instead.  Funny about that.

Georgia has a $130 K "deduction" on retirement income on their taxes at least.  The state income tax is actually higher than that in Ohio.  I just got hit with a property tax bill that was double what we paid in Ohio.  Well, the condo cost about double what the house did in Ohio.

I liked that house, nice location and back yard.  Liked the area in general, but not the winters, nor the upkeep.

We had a woodpecker that loved to peck holes in our siding.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 05, 2018, 10:04:06 AM
On another topic, the wife's car is currently leased and gets turned in later this month.

I've always been opposed to leasing, as I figure there must be something about it that's designed to screw people relative to buying. Especially since the goal is a car to own for 10 years or so if we leased now there's a good chance we'd be looking at buying out the lease in 3 years.

But I know you fellas might know more about it. What are the actual pros and cons?
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Riffraft on October 05, 2018, 10:20:48 AM
We figure on living here until they cart us out in a wheelchair, or some other variation on that theme.

One lady just left at age 95, we were told.  She was an original owner, the last one, the building is 30 years old now.

SO, if the RE market collapses, I'll be OK, though that likely means the stock market went south and that won't be great for me, but I'm pretty well insulated now.

Most of the condos around are 2 bedroom and around 1500 sf.  We sort of lucked out, I think, as we really like it here, the building, the neighbors, the location.

My buddy who is a big OSU fan is coming down in November and we plan to see a GaTech game with Miami.  I've been to Grant Field one time in my life in 1971.

Reminds me of the time we met up in Austin and Gatorama and I decided to sit and watch the WLOCP at the tailgate.  Someone had asked us to dog sit, get this, a bulldog named Pearl.  I told Gator that was bad news for his team, and the Dawgs did win.  He called it "Pearlgate" from then on.  He was very nice to that old dog, who mostly slavered saliva and slept.

He had some really cool stories, did he not, and was a kind gentleman.


The wife and I just bought what we plan to be carted out of. We went from a 2 story to a one story (no more stairs). From a postage stamp backyard to one with plenty of room and a pool. Also has a casita, which currently houses my home office, so my business is totally separated from the rest of the house.  We hire people to tend to the yard and pool, so no work on my part. 
In phoenix renting is getting to be much more expensive than buying. Housing prices are jumping and while there is usually about 3 months inventory at any given time, currently there is just barely over a month of inventory. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 05, 2018, 10:39:26 AM
On another topic, the wife's car is currently leased and gets turned in later this month.

I've always been opposed to leasing, as I figure there must be something about it that's designed to screw people relative to buying. Especially since the goal is a car to own for 10 years or so if we leased now there's a good chance we'd be looking at buying out the lease in 3 years.

But I know you fellas might know more about it. What are the actual pros and cons?
I've always noticed that residual values are often way over-valued for most vehicles. That being the case, you'd pay more for the car in the long run than you would if you "bought" it in the first place. 
The other thing to check is if you'd have to pay sales tax on the purchase after the lease ends. You pay the entire tax up front when you lease, and some states tax you on the purchase price at the lease end. Illinois finally did away with that one a couple of years ago. It's double-taxation.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 05, 2018, 11:05:44 AM
Leasing is an interesting concept.  Let's take a $40,000 car for an example.  You lease 3 years and they predict a residual value of $20,0000, so you pay that difference over the 36 months, plus whatever interest rate they cite, presuming you don't get wear and tear and additional mileage (which is a killer).

If you buy the car outright, you can usually negotiate a deal on it and perhaps pay $37,000.  Now after 3 years your vehicle might be worth $20,000 and you're out $17,000 in depreciation, in simple terms, not including taxes etc.  If you keep the car 5 years, or better, 10 years, you end up way ahead if course, but if you keep it only 3 years, leasing can be more attractive because you don't have to try and sell or trade the car and get a lousy deal on that.

We kept our last car only 4 years, so we'd have been better off leasing, but the salesman told me he couldn't give us that price on a lease so it had to be a sale, it was a "loaner car" with 4,000 miles on it, so there was a steep discount (fortunately).  I traded it in on the GTI and the dealer allowed me what the book had said, which was a surprise.  It was fairly low mileage (41,000) and in perfect shape.

The problem with leasing IMHO is that folks can buy a more expensive far for the same payment as they would if they bought it, so they do, and they of course end up after 3 years with zero equity, and get "hooked".  It's best to pay cash for the car and keep it a long long time, and better yet to buy used if you can, something off lease.  Don't get swayed by these "Factory Reconditioned" or "Certified preowned" whatever claims, those are mostly bogus.

Best option is to buy a preleased car and let someone else take the depreciation, and then keep it a long time.  Cars last a long time these days with little or no repairs.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 05, 2018, 11:23:38 AM
That last part is precisely what I've done for the last 25 years. Let someone else take the brutal beating, and nowadays you can get a 2-3 y/o car with a certified standing for really good prices.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 05, 2018, 11:29:01 AM
Reminds me of the time we met up in Austin and Gatorama and I decided to sit and watch the WLOCP at the tailgate.  Someone had asked us to dog sit, get this, a bulldog named Pearl.  I told Gator that was bad news for his team, and the Dawgs did win.  He called it "Pearlgate" from then on.  He was very nice to that old dog, who mostly slavered saliva and slept.

He had some really cool stories, did he not, and was a kind gentleman.


Very lucky to have known that fine kind gentleman
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 05, 2018, 11:29:52 AM
Golderned robber land barons....and ya think ya know someone
almost like the land thieving Sooners
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Kris60 on October 05, 2018, 11:31:50 AM
My whole house, 3bdr 2ba, is 1200 square feet. 40+ years old. No basement. It's... Cozy.

Looking at Zillow, similar houses in my neighborhood can be had for a mere $600K...
Lol. I read stuff like this and it makes me think we not only live in different states,but different planets.  I live in a 4 BR, 2.5 BA,  2700 SQ that I paid 275k for 8 years ago.  Occasionally, my wife and I will watch these House Hunters type shows and it blows our minds. 
It will be a couple where the dude is like in IT and the wife walks dogs part time and their budget is 600k which will apparently get them a 900 SQ loft in San Francisco.  We can’t even wrap our heads around any of it.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 05, 2018, 11:32:46 AM
Misery loves company we're both slumming it,my ranch sprawls a whole 1,200 sqft - that doesn't include the basement.Watched some great games down there
yup, I've got a few over 1100 sq feet. 
3 bedrooms & 2 baths on the main level
another 1100 below in the walkout basement.  Another large bedroom with walkin closet and big bath
suits me fine with just the 24 year old daughter living in the basement now
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 05, 2018, 11:33:46 AM
Lol. I read stuff like this and it makes me think we not only live in different states,but different planets.  I live in a 4 BR, 2.5 BA,  2700 SQ that I paid 275k for 8 years ago.  Occasionally, my wife and I will watch these House Hunters type shows and it blows our minds.
It will be a couple where the dude is like in IT and the wife walks dogs part time and their budget is 600k which will apparently get them a 900 SQ loft in San Francisco.  We can’t even wrap our heads around any of it.
this is why I stayed in NW Iowa
cost of living
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Kris60 on October 05, 2018, 11:40:23 AM
this is why I stayed in NW Iowa
cost of living
Yeah, I totally get there is a reason people aren’t flocking to southern WV and all the benefits of living in big cities and all of the amenities, but wow.  It really does feel like a different planet talking to people sometimes.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 05, 2018, 11:45:52 AM
When I was young and single and my career was up and coming around 1990.....

I was doing technical sales training in Sausalito and fell in love with the SF bay area.  I could have found a good job, but the cost of living would have made me a pauper. 

Around the same time I was offered a good job in Minneapolis.  Nothing like SF, but the same issue.  Cost of living nearly double from small town Iowa.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 05, 2018, 11:46:58 AM
If you buy the car outright, you can usually negotiate a deal on it and perhaps pay $37,000.  Now after 3 years your vehicle might be worth $20,000 and you're out $17,000 in depreciation, in simple terms, not including taxes etc.  If you keep the car 5 years, or better, 10 years, you end up way ahead if course, but if you keep it only 3 years, leasing can be more attractive because you don't have to try and sell or trade the car and get a lousy deal on that.
That was my thought. We're looking at a Lexus RX (or possibly NX), and I figured that if we leased and then bought out the lease, we'd probably end up paying more overall than just buying. 
And with a lease, as you mention, you have no equity. If you buy a car and over those first three years it's lost 40% of its value, but you've paid down 50% of its purchase price, you have equity. If you lease, you have nothing. But then if you've leased it for 3 years and still want to buy it out at 60% of its price, you'll end up eventually with equity but you'll end up overpaying for it. 

Quote
The problem with leasing IMHO is that folks can buy a more expensive far for the same payment as they would if they bought it, so they do, and they of course end up after 3 years with zero equity, and get "hooked".  It's best to pay cash for the car and keep it a long long time, and better yet to buy used if you can, something off lease.  Don't get swayed by these "Factory Reconditioned" or "Certified preowned" whatever claims, those are mostly bogus.

That's my take as well. Leasing is a great way for people to drive cars they can't legitimately afford. 
My thought has always been as well that lease buy-outs is largely a way to sucker the people who tried to get into a too-low lease payment with restricted mileage like 10K a year when they legitimately drive 15K, and then are effectively forced into buying the car out when the lease is up because the excess mileage charges aren't something they can afford. 



Quote
Best option is to buy a preleased car and let someone else take the depreciation, and then keep it a long time.  Cars last a long time these days with little or no repairs.

That last part is precisely what I've done for the last 25 years. Let someone else take the brutal beating, and nowadays you can get a 2-3 y/o car with a certified standing for really good prices.
That's what I've talked her into. A CPO RX 10-15K miles is something like a 20% discount over new. That's certainly not 20% of that car's life, since it's a Lexus and should go 200K+ miles easy. And they come with paid maintenance plans, warranty, etc. 
In fact, though, that makes me think of another benefit to leases from the dealer's perspective. It allows them to "sell" a car for 2-3 years undoubtedly soaking someone to pay more than the depreciation legitimately warrants, then take the car back from them and sell it for its real market value. Given the number of people in the market like me who want cars used with low mileage to let someone else eat the depreciation, it gives them a fleet of cars to sell to that consumer. I'll bet there are a LOT of us...
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 05, 2018, 12:01:09 PM
Lol. I read stuff like this and it makes me think we not only live in different states,but different planets.  I live in a 4 BR, 2.5 BA,  2700 SQ that I paid 275k for 8 years ago.  
Yeah... It's a huge difference. I'd chalk it up to salaries being different out here, etc, but then I know from the time I was in management that the people I managed in a similar role/title in the rest of the country were making what I was making... So it's not like I was being compensated extra for that cost of living. 
But you're right. It's different out here. I remember when I first moved to SoCal, I had a motorcycle and one of my Purdue buddies did as well, so we went out into the mountains. We were stopped at a turnoff, and a "parade" of the local Ferrari club was going by. We watched as ~100 Ferraris roared past us. I looked at him and said "I'll bet there aren't that many Ferraris in the entire state of Indiana."
My wife and I often look at CO, since I have a lot of customers there, and because the rat race of SoCal is not always easy. We both think retirement away from here makes a lot of sense, but for now aren't jumping ship because of the kids. But when we look around and see this (https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Castle-Rock-CO/pmf,pf_pt/13463470_zpid/23984_rid/4-_beds/glo/) for similar cost to what the shoebox we're living in would take to buy, it certainly looks appealing!

Quote
Occasionally, my wife and I will watch these House Hunters type shows and it blows our minds.

It will be a couple where the dude is like in IT and the wife walks dogs part time and their budget is 600k which will apparently get them a 900 SQ loft in San Francisco.  We can’t even wrap our heads around any of it.

Yep... A lot of people love to make fun of that one (http://www.smosh.com/articles/people-cant-stop-making-fun-house-hunters-insane-budgets-and-now-its-meme)... 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 05, 2018, 12:04:07 PM
That's my take as well. Leasing is a great way for people to drive cars they can't legitimately afford. 

I was told long ago and still live by this:  If you can't pay for a car in 36 months, you can't afford it.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 05, 2018, 12:04:52 PM
almost like the land thieving Sooners
Well there's at least one decent one he plays QB in Cleveland
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 05, 2018, 12:06:13 PM
the Horns fans do NOT agree
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 05, 2018, 12:11:57 PM
I often have liked unusual cars that are not easy to find off lease, which can be a sticking point.

For a while, I lusted after the Cadillac CTSV station wagon with a manual transmission, but the feeling passed.

The condo we bought is on three levels, which is not what an elderly gentleman like myself would normally want.  I think it was on the market for a while because of the three levels.  We have grown to appreciate the separation that can afford, and the stairs are not bad.  And each floor has hallway access to an elevator anyway.  That did make moving in interesting.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 05, 2018, 12:17:54 PM
stairs are good for the legs and thus good for the heart and lungs
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 05, 2018, 12:26:57 PM
Yeah, plus I've been running now for about two weeks, and it's starting to show.  I used to "get in shape" in 3-4 days.  No longer the case.

There is a track across the street in the park that has 200 m markers on it.  It used to be a horse track a long time back.

I have a slight twinge in the quad from yesterday and am backing off today.  A lot of stretching.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 05, 2018, 12:30:02 PM
For a while, I lusted after the Cadillac CTSV station wagon with a manual transmission, but the feeling passed.
I've given up on the manual. My Jeep might be the last manual I own unless I start getting into classic cars.
I still love it. I don't like automatic transmissions. They don't seem to do what I want and expect them to do, when I want and expect them to do it. I know what gear I want, and when, and I'm happy to take the responsibility of selecting it.
But they're just becoming so hard to find in anything other than sports cars--which at 6'5" and now >40 yo, I don't want to be climbing in and out of. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 05, 2018, 12:40:23 PM
We traded the CTS in on a GTI, mostly because I like cars with three letters.  The GTI has three pedals.

The wife likes it, which is important of course, I might opine critical.  She likes to accelerate, I'm more into cornering.

The GTI is the second car I've ever been in where I don't push the seat all the way back.  My first was the Chevy Sonic, which Daughter #1 now drives.  The GTI is somewhat akin to a larger Sonic with more power.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 05, 2018, 02:42:21 PM
stairs are good for the legs and thus good for the heart and lungs
Remember that when you're sitting down having a Bud Fat and a cigar.....not that there's anything wrong with that
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 05, 2018, 02:52:12 PM
the Horns fans do NOT agree
He's a native Texan from the Austin area.  I don't like that he went to OU and that he beat Texas while he was there, but he's a good kid.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 05, 2018, 02:52:38 PM
everything in moderation, even the stairs

and I even work hard at remembering in moderation
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 05, 2018, 02:53:17 PM
He's a native Texan from the Austin area.  I don't like that he went to OU and that he beat Texas while he was there, but he's a good kid.
good kid, but not a great or smart kid
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Kris60 on October 05, 2018, 02:57:02 PM
Yeah... It's a huge difference. I'd chalk it up to salaries being different out here, etc, but then I know from the time I was in management that the people I managed in a similar role/title in the rest of the country were making what I was making... So it's not like I was being compensated extra for that cost of living.
But you're right. It's different out here. I remember when I first moved to SoCal, I had a motorcycle and one of my Purdue buddies did as well, so we went out into the mountains. We were stopped at a turnoff, and a "parade" of the local Ferrari club was going by. We watched as ~100 Ferraris roared past us. I looked at him and said "I'll bet there aren't that many Ferraris in the entire state of Indiana."
My wife and I often look at CO, since I have a lot of customers there, and because the rat race of SoCal is not always easy. We both think retirement away from here makes a lot of sense, but for now aren't jumping ship because of the kids. But when we look around and see this (https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Castle-Rock-CO/pmf,pf_pt/13463470_zpid/23984_rid/4-_beds/glo/) for similar cost to what the shoebox we're living in would take to buy, it certainly looks appealing!

Yep... A lot of people love to make fun of that one (http://www.smosh.com/articles/people-cant-stop-making-fun-house-hunters-insane-budgets-and-now-its-meme)...
LMAO.  I didn’t even know that was a “thing” but definitely something we had noticed the few times we watched it.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 05, 2018, 05:38:09 PM
good kid, but not a great or smart kid
He has certainly exhibited the judgment of a 22-year-old on occasion.
How old is he again? ;)
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 05, 2018, 06:27:47 PM
Moderation in excess is not moderation.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 05, 2018, 08:09:57 PM
Moderation in excess is not moderation.
Well now you went and wrecked everything. Thanks.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on October 05, 2018, 10:01:39 PM
Moderation in excess is not moderation.
I don't know if it's healthier but I do find it's funner to do anything in moderation only if "moderation" is included in "anything."
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: GopherRock on October 05, 2018, 10:03:50 PM
Moderation in excess is not moderation.
Did you get that in a fortune cookie?
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 05, 2018, 10:27:02 PM
Nope.  Original.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 06, 2018, 01:01:33 AM
https://youtu.be/Mrrca_PmViw
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 06, 2018, 07:55:44 AM
Did you get that in a fortune cookie?
That got a coffee down the wrong pipe laugh from me.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 06, 2018, 09:06:17 AM
I am reminded of some "diversity training" I was to attend at work way way back.  The "facilitator" was droning on about how we should value everyone's opinion at work blah blah blah.

I asked if we should value the opinion of someone who was against diversity.

Now, of course, I was young and inexperienced and later learned that the "point" of such sessions was to remain quiet and get through it as efficiently as possible.

I later learned how to drink a lot of water and go to the bathroom a lot, and then stroll about the building for 10 minutes.

I later learned that while such things were "mandatory", they really weren't, at least once you had 25 years or so in the company, and I quit going to all of them.

Secretaries would nag me about taking this training that was a full five days residential (off site).  i had heard it was bogus, and kept just failing to respond.  In August one year, the VP's admin called me and said "John, I'm signing you up for this for either September of December, which is it to be?"

I said December.  I retired that October.  I imagine they spent money on my hotel room for a week and the training material.

I thought about going as they had open bar each night and the motel was walking distance from my house.  Nah.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 06, 2018, 09:46:35 AM


I asked if we should value the opinion of someone who was against diversity.

Now, of course, I was young and inexperienced and later learned that the "point" of such sessions was to remain quiet and get through it as efficiently as possible.
dude, Stay positive and remember to be a team player
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 06, 2018, 09:58:09 AM
I value your opinion....  it just means more.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 06, 2018, 11:50:41 AM
Of course you would Nebraska isn't going to pound the Dawgs this year
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: TyphonInc on October 06, 2018, 12:54:31 PM
I've given up on the manual. My Jeep might be the last manual I own unless I start getting into classic cars.
I still love it. I don't like automatic transmissions. They don't seem to do what I want and expect them to do, when I want and expect them to do it. I know what gear I want, and when, and I'm happy to take the responsibility of selecting it.
But they're just becoming so hard to find in anything other than sports cars--which at 6'5" and now >40 yo, I don't want to be climbing in and out of.

I've got my jeep with manual.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 06, 2018, 12:59:17 PM
I wouldn't call 24-19 in 2014 at Jacksonville a pounding

but, back in  69 in the Sun bowl, it was 45-6 Huskers over the Dawgs
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 06, 2018, 03:30:05 PM
Good for NW.  I thought they got hosed.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 06, 2018, 08:58:45 PM
Liberals are so tolerant that they're tolerating intolerance.  Yes, everyone should be respected...until they show they don't deserve your respect.  And no, not all ideas, even deeply-held, are correct.  Sorry, not sorry.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 06, 2018, 11:23:14 PM
Liberals are so tolerant that they're tolerating intolerance.  Yes, everyone should be respected...until they show they don't deserve your respect.  And no, not all ideas, even deeply-held, are correct.  Sorry, not sorry.
Umm, WUT?
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 07, 2018, 07:47:14 AM
Ya really is A.O.M. the one who doesn't drink?Must be the Chili Peppers in the southwest.....or 'shrooms
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 07, 2018, 08:19:28 AM
I wouldn't call 24-19 in 2014 at Jacksonville a pounding

but, back in  69 in the Sun bowl, it was 45-6 Huskers over the Dawgs
That '69 game was interesting.  Nebraska lost late and fell out of the Cotton Bowl and the Sun Bowl was all that was left against a rather mediocre Georgia team.  But Vince Dooley was so impressed with the Husker player's strength, he starts a "strength program" at Georgia.
Yes, back then the players "lifted" on their own however much they wanted with little or no guidance.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 07, 2018, 08:21:11 AM
2nd saturday afternoon/eve in a row NBC has had on some soccer,rugby or some other irksome exercises.Turn on ESPN2 this morning and some South American soccer.Hey network wonks those games are for giving the kids purpose and tiring them out for the folks sake.Stick with the time honored traditions of the Major League Pennant races and College grid iron action - idjits.Put the other crap on ESPN 8 or FS 5
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on October 07, 2018, 09:10:27 AM
Ya really is A.O.M. the one who doesn't drink?Must be the Chili Peppers in the southwest.....or 'shrooms
Looks like a mix of Peyote and estrogen supplements. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 07, 2018, 09:58:08 AM
That '69 game was interesting.  Nebraska lost late and fell out of the Cotton Bowl and the Sun Bowl was all that was left against a rather mediocre Georgia team.  But Vince Dooley was so impressed with the Husker player's strength, he starts a "strength program" at Georgia.
Yes, back then the players "lifted" on their own however much they wanted with little or no guidance.
http://www.boydepley.com/ (http://www.boydepley.com/)
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 07, 2018, 11:21:02 AM
Umm, WUT?
He thinks he's being clever.  As usual, he is not.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: CatsbyAZ on October 07, 2018, 01:58:48 PM
Stirring the pot: With MSU dropping disappointing losses we’re having to hear how they’re one of this season’s most injured programs. We’ll last year during their big turn-around season we endlessly heard how young they were. So what gives? Spartans will still beat Michigan.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 07, 2018, 02:03:30 PM
I was bullish on Sparty pre-season, but I was also bullish on Northwestern

they've both dropped games that I didn't expect

plenty of season left to show their true colors
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 07, 2018, 02:42:02 PM
Johhny Walker Red or Black,Jim Beam White Label usually what the fans colors are by the end of the season
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 07, 2018, 02:58:08 PM
Johnny walker black, gold, or platinum for me

I have a bottle of platinum waiting for Frost's first win to pair with a nice victory cigar

I also have a bottle of gold for recreational drinkin 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 08, 2018, 09:21:59 AM
How come on the right side of the page Amazon Prime is advertising ND hats on a Big Ten Board - that's especially grating.Tell them to get it right - or are they all tuckered out from figuring out technology
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 08, 2018, 03:51:45 PM
I've seen JW Blue in the stores, never had it.  I had Macallan 25 once.  It was $50 a shot.  Someone else insisted on buying me anything at the bar.

I went through a Scotch phase and passed on.  

Lagavulin started tasting like an old chimney.

I kill most of my brain cells with wine these days.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 08, 2018, 04:07:23 PM
dago red - don't laugh it's pretty good
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: TresselownsUM on October 08, 2018, 05:50:13 PM
Northwestern still has Wisconsin, ND and Iowa, I think they beat one of those teams thus ending one of those teams playoff hopes

Likewise sparty still has UM, OSU,  Penn st and I think they'll tag one of those ending some playoff hopes 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 08, 2018, 07:33:43 PM
First time I had JW Blue was at the Rosen Shingle Creek resort in Orlando.

A vendor had just paid for an expensive dinner and I was content to head up to my room.  He insisted we have a drink at the overcrowded bar in the lobby.  I asked him if I could try the JW Blue.  I then waded up to the bartender and ordered a double at $75/shot.  Bartender asked who was paying, I pointed at the buyer.  It was smooth but didn't really taste like scotch.  I've had it a couple times since, but prefer the Platinum & Gold 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on October 08, 2018, 07:58:40 PM
Johhny Walker Red or Black,Jim Beam White Label usually what the fans colors are by the end of the season
Johnnie Black? Anytime. Johnnie Red? Never.
Blends are often real bad to me (especially J Red) but Black is a standout positive outlier. I hear good things about Green and Blue, too, but have never had.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 08, 2018, 08:48:22 PM
I like red better than black. Black is too sweet for my taste.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 08, 2018, 11:45:21 PM
I gladly drink red when the bar has run out of black

by the time I'd drank all the black in the house, the red seems just fine

green, gold, and platinum are extremely good
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on October 08, 2018, 11:51:30 PM
Sigh.


Liberals are so tolerant that they're tolerating intolerance.  Think SJW going overboard.  You're good at that.


Yes, everyone should be respected...until they show they don't deserve your respect.  Self-explanatory.



And no, not all ideas, even deeply-held, are correct.  Sorry, not sorry.  Your deeply-held opinions aren't facts.  Even when involving an invisible man in the sky.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 09, 2018, 05:57:18 AM
I opine that I have no "deeply held opinions".  In fact, I'm absolutely sure of that.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 09, 2018, 06:53:41 AM
Now that's funny.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on October 09, 2018, 06:55:17 AM
I like red better than black. Black is too sweet for my taste.
Not me. Black seems average in taste but smooth where Red is turpentine. But I'm glad someone likes it.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 09, 2018, 12:18:07 PM
I bought a bottle of JW Blue duty-free back in 2003... Enjoyed it over the course of a year or so, but I knew so little about whiskey at the time that I certainly couldn't have properly appreciated the purchase.

I don't think I've had a drop of any JW bottle since. Nothing against it, just never saw it in the store and thought "I need a bottle of that." Same with Jim Beam--haven't bought it, but unlike JW I know I've drank it several times...

I drink Jack on the rocks when I'm just looking for a nightcap sitting out by the fire. 

Other bourbons [love Makers] and ryes [Bulleit] usually on the rocks when I want something a little higher end.

And scotches [prefer speyside] when I want to sip something neat. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 09, 2018, 12:42:44 PM
Jack and Makers are two of the Bourbons I sip on the rocks

not a Jim Beam fan, but it's OK.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 09, 2018, 05:40:56 PM
Not to be "that guy" but Jack Daniels isn't bourbon. Just sayin'... :)
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 09, 2018, 05:44:02 PM
Dude,

You are most assuredly "that guy"

but then of course, I'm the other guy
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 09, 2018, 05:48:00 PM
Not to be "that guy" but Jack Daniels isn't bourbon. Just sayin'... :)
It is not labeled as bourbon, but could be, according to the rules of what makes something bourbon.
I don't think the "filtering" step disqualifies it.
I don't care for it at all personally.  Gentleman is somewhat quaffable for me.  It's big in France.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 09, 2018, 05:51:08 PM
I just got an email on my old account telling me I should buy hurricane insurance, all this number.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 09, 2018, 06:42:44 PM
call Flo
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 09, 2018, 08:02:42 PM
It is not labeled as bourbon, but could be, according to the rules of what makes something bourbon.
I don't think the "filtering" step disqualifies it.
I don't care for it at all personally.  Gentleman is somewhat quaffable for me.  It's big in France.
It's always been labeled as Tennessee Sourmash Whiskey.  Not bourbon.  They take pride in that.  That's kind of the point. :)
It's certainly made like bourbon and tastes like some bourbons.
But it's not.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Temp430 on October 10, 2018, 05:56:08 AM
Johnny Walker only sold red and black label until relatively recently.  It makes me wonder if  all that product diversification and general rise in popularity of Scotch has cut into the quality of the red and black.  Red was considered a much better than average Scotch for over 50 years.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 10, 2018, 07:07:13 AM
I dunno. I picked up a bottle of JW Blue probably 25 years ago, and drank green (no longer made) for a good while too, and gold from time to time. They were not easy to find, but they were around. Green was replaced with platinum, I think. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Temp430 on October 10, 2018, 07:18:14 AM
Wikipedia indicates Johnny Walker blue first available in 1992.  Which is recent for old farts like me.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 10, 2018, 08:25:18 AM
Wikipedia indicates Johnny Walker blue first available in 1992.  Which is recent for old farts like me.
I'm probably not that far behind you, although the more I post here the more I realize there are a lot of oldies (but goodies) here.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 10, 2018, 08:25:51 AM
I was at a party where they were pouring JW Black, which I had not had before.  I guess it wasn't to my taste, though I didn't think it was bad.

I think Armangac is underappreciated.

https://vinepair.com/wine-blog/brandy-differences-between-cognac-armagnac/

As it is less well known, it is often less expensive for the same quality as Cognac.

https://www.guildsomm.com/public_content/features/articles/b/charles_neal/posts/armagnac-an-in-depth-look-at-the-regions-grapes-styles-and-producers

It's interesting that all this stuff is made from what can be called "pot stills", though they are not usually stirred.

I did a lot of distillation "back in the day", heh.  You can only distill ethanol to 190 proof (95%) without doing something special to get higher.

The "absolute ethanol" is hygroscopic, e.g., it sucks water out of the air to get to 95%.  It can have a small amount of residual benzene in it which you really want to avoid.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 10, 2018, 09:44:55 AM
I forget what the story was when some years back Pappy Van Winkle went under.Evidently they had barrels sitting around in a warehouse(s).I guess the same distiller who bought out Weller,bought out Pappy also and Weller somehow got some of Pappy's stash - so it was much prized or the story goes .It was some high falutin' Bourbon snobs told me the story whilst we were sipping and sampling a relatives stash at Holiday Party
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 10, 2018, 10:13:31 AM
Johnny Walker only sold red and black label until relatively recently.  It makes me wonder if  all that product diversification and general rise in popularity of Scotch has cut into the quality of the red and black.  Red was considered a much better than average Scotch for over 50 years.
same with high end tequila and others back in the 70s and 80s
it may have been around on the east coast or in large cities like Chicago, but I didn't see it around here
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 10, 2018, 10:32:20 AM
It's always been labeled as Tennessee Sourmash Whiskey.  Not bourbon.  They take pride in that.  That's kind of the point. :)
It's certainly made like bourbon and tastes like some bourbons.
But it's not.
not to be that guy but,
all sour mash is bourbon whiskey but not all bourbon is sour mash
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 10, 2018, 11:12:20 AM
not to be that guy but,
all sour mash is bourbon whiskey but not all bourbon is sour mash
Might wanna fact check yourself amigo.  If it's never been called bourbon, it's not bourbon.  
If you're pointing out that anything made this way could be called bourbon, I guess you're right, but then there are plenty of distilled spirits around the world, aged in charred barrels, that qualify.  Just because the USA passed a resolution in 1964 to prohibit other countries from importing "bourbon" into the USA, doesn't mean it's not the same product.
So that implies that the name itself means something.  Jack Daniels ain't bourbon. Never has been, and I would guess that, since over the decades they have a lot of advertising capital tied up in distinguishing themselves from bourbon, they never will be.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 10, 2018, 11:18:34 AM
same with high end tequila and others back in the 70s and 80s
it may have been around on the east coast or in large cities like Chicago, but I didn't see it around here
We started to see higher-end tequilas (and JW's) around here in the early 1990's.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 10, 2018, 11:19:36 AM
I am one who just cannot drink Jack Daniels. I can drink the Gentleman variety, if that's all that is around.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: iahawk15 on October 10, 2018, 11:26:19 AM
Might wanna fact check yourself amigo.  If it's never been called bourbon, it's not bourbon.  
If you're pointing out that anything made this way could be called bourbon, I guess you're right, but then there are plenty of distilled spirits around the world, aged in charred barrels, that qualify.  Just because the USA passed a resolution in 1964 to prohibit other countries from importing "bourbon" into the USA, doesn't mean it's not the same product.
So that implies that the name itself means something.  Jack Daniels ain't bourbon. Never has been, and I would guess that, since over the decades they have a lot of advertising capital tied up in distinguishing themselves from bourbon, they never will be.

Sounds like branding vs definition argument. Brand/position it however you want. By definition, it's bourbon, which I believe is Cincydawg's original point.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 10, 2018, 11:31:52 AM
Sounds like branding vs definition argument. Brand/position it however you want. By definition, it's bourbon, which I believe is Cincydawg's original point.
There are plenty of spirits out there made the same way, that are not the same thing.  CD just brought up one-- Armagnac and Cognac.  Technically they are the same, because they're made in the same way.
But Cognac has never been referred to as Armagnac.  The distinction is regional, which is another example of branding, but it's a distinction nonetheless.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: iahawk15 on October 10, 2018, 12:37:07 PM
There are plenty of spirits out there made the same way, that are not the same thing.  CD just brought up one-- Armagnac and Cognac.  Technically they are the same, because they're made in the same way.
But Cognac has never been referred to as Armagnac.  The distinction is regional, which is another example of branding, but it's a distinction nonetheless.

Because there is no overlap. Let's assume there is a well-known genus of French brandy, defined as brandy made in France. We'll get super creative and call it "French Brandy." Makers of Armagnac accept and promote this designation of "French Brandy," while makers of Cognac reject it and promote their more specific designation of "Cognac." Does that mean Cognac is not French Brandy? Of course not.
I grow NuMex 6-4 chile peppers in my back yard. Because I live in Iowa, I cannot sell them as Hatch Chiles, so I create a new category called "Unicorn Peppers." My business booms, and I move to the Hatch Valley to take advantage of a longer growing season. My newly invented category of Unicorn Peppers has gained a lot of traction, so I refuse to market my peppers as Hatch Chiles. But by definition, are my peppers Hatch Chiles? Of course they are.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 10, 2018, 12:44:08 PM
Because there is no overlap. Let's assume there is a well-known genus of French brandy, defined as brandy made in France. We'll get super creative and call it "French Brandy." Makers of Armagnac accept and promote this designation of "French Brandy," while makers of Cognac reject it and promote their more specific designation of "Cognac." Does that mean Cognac is not French Brandy? Of course not.
I grow NuMex 6-4 chile peppers in my back yard. Because I live in Iowa, I cannot sell them as Hatch Chiles, so I create a new category called "Unicorn Peppers." My business booms, and I move to the Hatch Valley to take advantage of a longer growing season. My newly invented category of Unicorn Peppers has gained a lot of traction, so I refuse to market my peppers as Hatch Chiles. But by definition, are my peppers Hatch Chiles? Of course they are.
You're really picking nits in an attempt to prove a stupid and meaningless point.

Jack Daniels hasn't ever been called bourbon.  Except by people attempting to prove stupid and meaningless points.

I'll offer another example.  Gin is vodka.  It happens to include a very specific combination of botanicals including juniper berries, which creates a specific flavor and aromatic profile.  But by definition, gin is vodka.

And yet nobody refers to gin as vodka.  It's never been called vodka.  So it is not vodka.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 10, 2018, 12:46:18 PM
Jack Daniels sucks.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 10, 2018, 12:47:49 PM
Jack Daniels sucks.
It's not my favorite bourbon, that's for sure! :)
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 10, 2018, 01:36:05 PM
But by definition, gin is vodka.

And yet nobody refers to gin as vodka.  It's never been called vodka.  So it is not vodka.
Send me a 5th of Tanqueray/Beefeaters and one of Tito's and I'll settle this tilt,consider it a public service.That'd be Tennessee Bourbon to you
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 10, 2018, 02:36:42 PM
There are some differences between Cognac and Armangnac aside from region of original.

Bourbon under US law can only be produced in the US.  Maybe somewhere someone else makes something called bourbon, I don't know.  The basic requirements for bourbon are made in the US, 2 years of aging (at least), and 50+ corn (up to 79% I think) in the mash.  It has an interesting history, including the fact that none is currently made in Bourbon County, KY (though I think someone was building a distillery).

Champagne is the same way in effect, it can only be made in Champagne, but if you look at a bottle of Korbel, you will see on the label "California Champagne".  They were grandfathered in basically.  There are a couple others than can label that way in CA also.

French wines of course are labeled with place names, while US wines are labeled as varietals.  I see more and more French wine labels including the varietal, but you're supposed to know.  I actually know some oenophiles in France who pay no attention to the varietal in a wine.  They know what Bordeaux is, but can't name the five varietals that can be used in it (if it's red) and don't care.

Most know that Burgundy is pinot noir or chardonnay, but they don't know the minors that can be used, and they have no idea what grapes can be used in Champagne.

We were in Costco today and they had some ridiculous prices in Chianti Classico Riserva.  They also had a Burgundy for $10.  I don't know how they get prices down that far other than scale of course.  I'll try the Burgundy tonight.

They have crazy insane wine prices around here.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 10, 2018, 02:37:33 PM
Gin is flavored vodka.  I have heard it called that in fact.  Probably by me.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 10, 2018, 02:42:33 PM
It's not my favorite bourbon, that's for sure! :)
hah, you just called it bourbon
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 10, 2018, 03:03:46 PM
It's always been labeled as Tennessee Sourmash Whiskey.  Not bourbon.  They take pride in that.  That's kind of the point. :)
It's certainly made like bourbon and tastes like some bourbons.
But it's not.
I think that is what I said.  It COULD be labeled bourbon legally, but isn't.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: iahawk15 on October 10, 2018, 03:05:48 PM
You're really picking nits in an attempt to prove a stupid and meaningless point.

ditto
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 10, 2018, 04:05:16 PM
this is the "stirring the Pot" thread

;)
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 10, 2018, 04:53:46 PM
A Vidalia onion has to be grown within 50 miles of the Vidalia courthouse.

Champagne can be, and fairly often is, made from red grapes.

If you like sparkling wines, the best values IMHO are Cavas from Spain.  You can get a decent one for $12 or so.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 10, 2018, 04:55:00 PM
and sure as shootin, don't call it chili if it's got beans in it
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 10, 2018, 05:11:18 PM
this is the "stirring the Pot" thread

;)
No shit.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 10, 2018, 05:17:01 PM
I have never been to Vermont.  Or Canada.  I've never been north of our border.  I've seen it from a plane.

Just never made it, meant to.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 10, 2018, 05:37:22 PM
been to Canada....  motorcycle trip along the north shore of Superior from Duluth to Thunder Bay - great drive

then from Thunder Bay to Kenora in Ontario

Haven't been to Vermont, closest would be my trip to Boston
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 10, 2018, 05:43:50 PM
Vermont is very beautiful. So are NH and ME.


I want to party in Montreal for a weekend or two. It would be cool to go by boat, but that would be really expensive and too time-consuming for right now.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 10, 2018, 05:45:03 PM
I just opened that $10 Burgundy I got at Costco.  It's quite good, esp. for that price.  It's a "Louis Latour" Les Bastides, which is a name that probably resonates around here for some reason.  Highly recommended.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 10, 2018, 05:49:03 PM
There are some differences between Cognac and Armangnac aside from region of original.

Bourbon under US law can only be produced in the US.  Maybe somewhere someone else makes something called bourbon, I don't know.  The basic requirements for bourbon are made in the US, 2 years of aging (at least), and 50+ corn (up to 79% I think) in the mash.  It has an interesting history, including the fact that none is currently made in Bourbon County, KY (though I think someone was building a distillery).

Champagne is the same way in effect, it can only be made in Champagne, but if you look at a bottle of Korbel, you will see on the label "California Champagne".  They were grandfathered in basically.  There are a couple others than can label that way in CA also.

French wines of course are labeled with place names, while US wines are labeled as varietals.  I see more and more French wine labels including the varietal, but you're supposed to know.  I actually know some oenophiles in France who pay no attention to the varietal in a wine.  They know what Bordeaux is, but can't name the five varietals that can be used in it (if it's red) and don't care.

Most know that Burgundy is pinot noir or chardonnay, but they don't know the minors that can be used, and they have no idea what grapes can be used in Champagne.

We were in Costco today and they had some ridiculous prices in Chianti Classico Riserva.  They also had a Burgundy for $10.  I don't know how they get prices down that far other than scale of course.  I'll try the Burgundy tonight.

They have crazy insane wine prices around here.
Yeah, agree that most of the French don't know, and don't care, which varietals are in their wine.  They grew up with the system so it's easier for them to navigate. The regions and classifications tell them what they need to know, because they've always known it.
As an American, I appreciate knowing, although I too don't really care.  In general I prefer Left Bank Bordeaux because the blend is led by Cabernet Sauvignon, but there are plenty of Right Bank Merlot/Cab Franc-based Bordeaux I enjoy as well.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 10, 2018, 05:51:23 PM
hah, you just called it bourbon
I did, didn't I? ;)
I'll admit I don't really feel very passionately about the stance I took.  It's just an academic exercise for me, really.  
But this IS the pot stirring thread, so...
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 10, 2018, 05:57:10 PM
I lean to the Left Bank also, but it's only a lean.  As you note, there are plenty of merlot heavy Bordeauxs that are excellent, some unaffordable in effect (for me).  I'm usually on the lookout for wines from a less well known region that are really good without the price.  Languedoc has been pretty good for that.  Spain has been good also.

Costco had Kirkland brand Gigondas for $15 each and I had to add two of those.  I'll post my thoughts when I open one.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 10, 2018, 06:12:22 PM
Finish it 1st
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 10, 2018, 06:24:10 PM
I'm curious to know how the Chianti Classico turned out, and which one you picked up.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 10, 2018, 11:35:25 PM
Champagne can be, and fairly often is, made from red grapes.
White wine is made from red grapes usually  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 10, 2018, 11:50:03 PM
Cava is the new Prosecco!

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on October 10, 2018, 11:54:53 PM
That's interesting about champagne and white wine coming from red grapes. I was unaware. I suppose they have to peel the grapes first to manually eliminate the pigment while they can? 

I mean, molecules like those could technically be removed later, too, but I am struggling to imagine a way that filters or immiscible solvent phases wouldn't ruin the taste. Especially since some of these pigments are hydrophilic and others, hydrophobic.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on October 10, 2018, 11:57:49 PM
Cava is the new Prosecco!


Maybe you were joking, but I'll continue as if you weren't because I noticed the same thing. When things like that happen, I wonder whether tariffs are playing a part or maybe weather/drought/supply or if, in this case, Spain has just become cooler to Americans than Italy or something and this is one of the symptoms.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 11, 2018, 12:39:16 AM
That's interesting about champagne and white wine coming from red grapes. I was unaware. I suppose they have to peel the grapes first to manually eliminate the pigment while they can?

I mean, molecules like those could technically be removed later, too, but I am struggling to imagine a way that filters or immiscible solvent phases wouldn't ruin the taste. Especially since some of these pigments are hydrophilic and others, hydrophobic.
No, they crush it normally but filter the skins quickly. Red wine sits on the skins longer. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on October 11, 2018, 12:53:32 AM
No, they crush it normally but filter the skins quickly. Red wine sits on the skins longer.
Ah, still manual then. Crushing must be more gentle than I was expecting. Cool.
(Apropos of nothing) I guess I have always expected they break the grapes by full morcellation, which would leave lots of visible peel chunks to manually remove. However, a step that violent would also quickly liberate measurable pigment into aqueous phase ... and then what. Rosé?
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 11, 2018, 05:58:59 AM
"Rosé"



I've taken a liking to some Rosatos.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 11, 2018, 08:39:37 AM
Red wine usually sits on the skins 2-3-4 days to develop the red color. 

Rose' wine is a few hours to maybe a day.

White wine from red grapes sits for less than an hour usually.  The skins are easily filtered by conventional means.

Blanc de Noir Champagne is made from Pinot Noir and Meunier grapes which are red using this process, "white from black".  Blanc de blanc is made using chardonnay grapes.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 11, 2018, 12:27:22 PM
To close the loop, since I know everyone is waiting with bated breath...

The wife dropped off her leased 328i on Tuesday. We accelerated it because at her pre-return lease inspection, they basically said one of her tires had about 100-200 miles before it would be below the level at which she'd have to buy a new one. So we said "okay, how does Tuesday sound to return it?" Got out without that cost.

A friend of mine owns a Lexus dealership here locally, so I had been asking him about specific CPO RX 350 and NX200t models that he had on his lot that had all the options we wanted. Went by last night, the wife fell in love with the RX, and now it's ours.

Wife is freaked that the payment is >2x the lease payment on her Bimmer, but that's what happens when you buy a vehicle instead of "rent" it lol...
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 11, 2018, 12:47:55 PM
Maybe you were joking, but I'll continue as if you weren't because I noticed the same thing. When things like that happen, I wonder whether tariffs are playing a part or maybe weather/drought/supply or if, in this case, Spain has just become cooler to Americans than Italy or something and this is one of the symptoms.
I was having a little fun but yes, it's definitely something I've noticed.
Honestly I think it's just a result of market forces.  True French Champagne was relatively expensive, and people discovered Italian prosecco was pretty tasty, and cost a lot less.  It became trendier, demand went up, the supply couldn't increase as quickly, so the price point increased.
When people stopped finding the good deals on prosecco, they looked elsewhere for similarly enjoyable flavors at a lower price point, and discovered Spanish cava.  So it became the next trendy thing. I've noticed prices increasing on cava as well, though not as much, or as quickly, as it did for prosecco.  Perhaps we're reaching a balancing point in supply and demand, and prices are stabilizing?  Not sure, but it would make sense from the tiny sample of evidence I've observed.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 11, 2018, 01:04:46 PM
crushing the grapes is the new stirring the pot?

(https://www.vegasnews.com/wp-content/uploads/11_18_09_holly_grapes_kabik-70-588.jpg)
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 11, 2018, 01:23:58 PM
I'd like to watch her crush them with her backside
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 11, 2018, 01:47:12 PM
Honestly I think it's just a result of market forces.  True French Champagne was relatively expensive, and people discovered Italian prosecco was pretty tasty, and cost a lot less.  It became trendier, demand went up, the supply couldn't increase as quickly, so the price point increased.

My wife often talks about our Italy trip as the Tour de Prosecco ;-)
Costco's Kirkland brand prosecco is really good, according to her, and I think it's $6.99/bottle. Might be worth checking out if you guys are looking for some. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 11, 2018, 03:21:45 PM
Prosecco is made from the Glera grape, which you can find on occasion as a still wine.  To me, it's not remotely like Champagne other than that it is sparkling.  Asti Spumante, the real kind, is more akin to Champagne.  Asti of course is a town in northern Italy and spumante is the Italian word for sparkling (carbonated).

Now, you know the REST ..... of the story.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 11, 2018, 03:27:08 PM
Oh, we the wife buys Kirkland Prosecco by the case.

I can tolerate it, but it's a bit thin and sweet for me.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 11, 2018, 04:11:31 PM
I can tolerate almost any wine someone is buying

unless it's too sweet

My daughters buy too much of that type
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 11, 2018, 04:11:57 PM
I'd like to watch her crush them with her backside
easy big fella
don't push her down
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 11, 2018, 04:26:03 PM
I can tolerate almost any wine someone is buying

unless it's too sweet

My daughters buy too much of that type
That's cuz they know you won't drink all their wine if they buy the sweet crap.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 11, 2018, 04:26:10 PM
Sweet wines are basically for folks who don't like wine but want to look cool.

I remember in the 1980s when women would order a "house Chablis" at bars.  It was some kind of rotgut something from somewhere other than Chablis, over oaked to mask the deficiencies to some extent.  Gallo foisted something called "Hearty Burgundy" which is a real oxymoron.  I have no clue what it really was.  And of course there was Boone's Farm, which actually still exists, somehow.



Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 11, 2018, 11:21:54 PM
Remember the old wine ads?

"Everything's nice, with Riunite on ice, Riunite Riunite..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItoYhKm7MQE

And 

"It's not Champagne.  It's Martini & Rossi Asti Spumante"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STt4Hap19fg

And "Chill a Cella!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLYio-eNqCI
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MarqHusker on October 12, 2018, 12:01:26 AM
I remember when we started vending wine coolers at County Stadium in the early 90s.  Nobody wanted to vend it except for this one beer vendor, Steve, he's still at Miller Park now, back to beer.  He was very successful with it.  His high pitch was perfect, I can hear it now. "WHHIII-ne Kooluhs!"
First it was Seagrams, then later the trendy girl drink at the ballpark was the Bacardi slush drink.  He dominated with that too.  

I see Rose cider is a big thing now.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Hawkinole on October 12, 2018, 01:25:22 AM
I remember when we started vending wine coolers at County Stadium in the early 90s.  Nobody wanted to vend it except for this one beer vendor, Steve, he's still at Miller Park now, back to beer.  He was very successful with it.  His high pitch was perfect, I can hear it now. "WHHIII-ne Kooluhs!"
First it was Seagrams, then later the trendy girl drink at the ballpark was the Bacardi slush drink.  He dominated with that too.  

I see Rose cider is a big thing now.
Bet your buddy Steve not only had a gimmick -wine coolers and a call -- but, actually got dates out of the deal, too.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 12, 2018, 09:01:32 AM
Here's to Vendor Steve-- Dilly Dilly!
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: ELA on October 12, 2018, 09:23:00 AM
I remember when we started vending wine coolers at County Stadium in the early 90s.  Nobody wanted to vend it except for this one beer vendor, Steve, he's still at Miller Park now, back to beer.  He was very successful with it.  His high pitch was perfect, I can hear it now. "WHHIII-ne Kooluhs!"
First it was Seagrams, then later the trendy girl drink at the ballpark was the Bacardi slush drink.  He dominated with that too.  

I see Rose cider is a big thing now.
The hard seltzers seem to be taking off quickly now.  I don't have any data to back that up, but just the number of people I see drinking them.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 12, 2018, 09:55:27 AM
Alcohol consumption has always been "trendy".  Many younger folks like to be on the "next big thing".  Trendy stuff.

Older folks tend to have figured out what they like and don't care to change every month.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 12, 2018, 09:57:51 AM
Seems like it went like this:

wine coolers --> Zima ---> hard lemonade ---> hard ciders --> random alcohol-infused water --> hard seltzer

Maybe.  It's just a theory.  But the first 2 are definitely true.

(the list above is for chicks, of course.  If I ever saw a dude drinking a Zima, I'd likely have words with that feller)

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 12, 2018, 10:01:07 AM
Here's to Vendor Steve-- Dilly Dilly!
Somebody has to tell the PR Wonks at BUD that Dilly-Dilly has ran it's course.Like after the 1st one
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: ELA on October 12, 2018, 10:01:48 AM
I see a LOT of guys drinking the hard seltzers.  I was too young for Zima, although it's back, like everything 90s.  Too bad Roseanne didn't take them with her when she went away again.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 12, 2018, 10:03:18 AM
Seems like it went like this:

wine coolers --> Zima ---> hard lemonade ---> hard ciders --> random alcohol-infused water --> hard seltzer

Maybe.  It's just a theory.  But the first 2 are definitely true.
Maybe they should just have some Jack Daniels Bourbon
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on October 12, 2018, 10:04:29 AM



(the list above is for chicks, of course.  If I ever saw a dude drinking a Zima, I'd likely have words with that feller)


So pretty much every dude in Austin? 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 12, 2018, 10:07:40 AM
I think "we" tend to be bored with life and disappointed with life.  The wife and I were at the Mall yesterday, she had to return something, and I was musing again how often humans seem to thing THAT pair of shoes will make them happy, or THAT necklace, or THAT car, or THAT house.  Or THAT Trophy Wife (Preferably French, and she does make me happy.)

If I had THAT, I'd finally be happy and content and fulfilled.

Um, probably not.

I think this bleeds over into drinking as well.  All my friends are now drinking "X" and they seem happy, I don't want to be the last person drinking "Y" and looking archaic and not "with it", so I'm sure drinking "X" will make me happy (and drunk).

The kinds of things that really make us happy, I maintain, are things where we help someone else.  And dogs.  Dogs make me happy.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 12, 2018, 10:17:35 AM
I think this bleeds over into drinking as well.  All my friends are now drinking "X" and they seem happy, I don't want to be the last person drinking "Y" and looking archaic and not "with it", so I'm sure drinking "X" will make me happy (and drunk).
Reallly?I'd walk into the fanciest wine cellars in the Napa Valley tossing back a Natty Lite if I knew it'd chap their ass.But then again I don't get invited to a lot of parties or the Napa Valley
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 12, 2018, 10:57:20 AM
My comments are about how many younger folks want to be "in the in crowd" and follow the herd, not about doing something you think would upset someone at some fancy winery.  They really wouldn't care if you did that.  They might chuckle, as you probably paid a princely sum to try their wines at such an event unless you were "industry".

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on October 12, 2018, 11:00:50 AM
Gonna start the night off with a couple of snifters of Dalwhinnie 15. Then I'll move into the JW Red.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 12, 2018, 11:07:03 AM
Lunch Hour i'm having an Great Lakes Brewing Oktoberfest
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 12, 2018, 11:11:03 AM
My comments are about how many younger folks want to be "in the in crowd" and follow the herd, not about doing something you think would upset someone at some fancy winery.  
I just wouldn't drink what everyone else is having just because everyone else is having it.If I like it - it gets quaffed consensus be damned was the point - which i never understood
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 12, 2018, 11:20:24 AM
And you probably are not "young" either.

Young folks, in general, have more of a need to "fit in", at times that being "counter fitting in" to fit in.

Some want to "fit in" with those who make an effort not to fit in, which is also fitting in.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: ELA on October 12, 2018, 11:28:21 AM
I simply like variation in everything, my wife and I are polar opposites on everything.  I never want to go to the same restaurant twice, whereas she doesn't get why you wouldn't want a second dip at a place you loved.  She'll watch a random movie on TNT she's seen a dozen times, and I can't do that.  Perhaps the #1 thing about kids that drives me nuts is how they'll play a CD in the car to death (literally, we have CDs that don't play anymore) and I can't listen to the same song one more time.

I'm that way with beer too.  I don't care about "what's next" or "what's hot" though, half the time I don't even know what I'm ordering, but I don't like to stick to a comfort zone.  Most of the time I have more regrets ordering something I've already had than ordering something new and not liking it.  Perhaps that's quirky.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 12, 2018, 11:50:10 AM
Cocktails go through progressions like this as well... Over the past few years the Moscow Mule experienced a resurgence, and I think 98% of its popularity was due to the copper mug. But it seems to have lost its allure.

Now as far as I can tell, the Old Fashioned is big. I don't get it. I'd rather have bourbon on the rocks. Keep all that other crap they put in an Old Fashioned out of my glass. I think people just think they look sophisticated to drink a bourbon drink rather than a vodka drink. 

Personally, I like the beers I like, I like the wines I like, and I like the occasional hard liquor, which is pretty much bloody mary, gin & tonic, or some brown liquor on the rocks or neat. Occasionally a margarita, but only really when I'm out for mexican food.

I don't have enough energy to pay attention to trends, much less to keep up with them. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MarqHusker on October 12, 2018, 12:08:23 PM
I was mocked in my 20s for loving G&Ts,  'you old man' I never cared.  It's a great drink.  I used to bring brandy, bitters and cherries to parties where barrels of Busch light was served.  You old man!  I'm not a contrarian just wanted what I liked . 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 12, 2018, 12:46:24 PM
We are a bunch of oldsters.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 12, 2018, 01:14:03 PM
Back when I started blogging, my tagline was "The world's youngest curmudgeon." 

Now I've fully aged into it. :)
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 12, 2018, 02:06:18 PM
I also like gin and tonic.  I prefer Tanqueray.  I just bought four bottles of super fancy tonic water to try but haven't yet.  

The problem for me with tonic water is the sugar, which I'm mightily trying to avoid where possible.  My reading suggests that intake of fructose is not a good thing for humans.  It is metabolized differently than glucose and the pathway is probably not good at all.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 12, 2018, 02:16:53 PM
Somebody has to tell the PR Wonks at BUD that Dilly-Dilly has ran it's course.Like after the 1st one
Ole the Day!!!
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 12, 2018, 02:23:35 PM
I also like gin and tonic.  I prefer Tanqueray.  I just bought four bottles of super fancy tonic water to try but haven't yet.  

The problem for me with tonic water is the sugar, which I'm mightily trying to avoid where possible.  My reading suggests that intake of fructose is not a good thing for humans.  It is metabolized differently than glucose and the pathway is probably not good at all.
drink your gin on the rocks with a twist of lemon or lime and pass on the tonic
Tanqueray is fine, but there are better gins that don't require the tonic.  My go to is Bombay Sapphire.  There are others that are better. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 12, 2018, 02:24:46 PM
If I had THAT, I'd finally be happy and content and fulfilled.

Um, probably not.

The kinds of things that really make us happy, I maintain, are things where we help someone else.  And dogs.  Dogs make me happy.
Amen!
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 12, 2018, 02:32:00 PM
Bombay Sapphire is my favorite vodka.

In the spring and summer my cocktails of choice tend to be  Sapphire and tonic, and the margarita.  

In the winter I tend to drink more whiskey, and that's generally neat.

I love an Old Fashioned, had no idea it had become trendy but that's not surprising.  What's old is new again. 

And so it goes.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 12, 2018, 02:45:05 PM
I prefer Tanqueray to Bombay, and really like Tangueray Ten as a flavored vodka.

Sapphire is not my preference at all.  Hendrick's is pretty good flavored vodka.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 12, 2018, 02:45:59 PM
I do like flavored vodka straight on ice with a twist also.  It gets me a bit too hammered a bit too fast though.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 12, 2018, 03:05:54 PM
Hendrick's has cucumber notes to it, and I loathe the flavor of cucumber in any form it takes-- fresh, pickled, or in vodka.

Tanqueray is fine, Ten is better than the base model, neither compare to Bombay Sapphire vodka though.  My opinion, obviously.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on October 12, 2018, 03:15:01 PM
Back when I started blogging, my tagline was "The world's youngest curmudgeon."

Now I've fully aged into it. :)
I found your blog once after you mentioned it on here once. Good stuff. 
Of course I also happened to stumble across your you tube channel, while I was searching for said blog. O0
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 12, 2018, 03:15:50 PM
Bombay Sapphire is my favorite vodka.
Really - in the land of Tito's?I hardly drink hard liquor anymore and never had the Sapphire but Tito's is tough to top.Luksusowa is a Polish potato vodka that I like,sort of smooth and creamy if a vodka can be that
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 12, 2018, 03:20:15 PM
I can recall as a kid in the late 70s/early 80s, my parents threw a lot of those 60s/70s style "Cocktail Parties."  Which is not something you see very often these days among my own age/peer group, even though we're the same age or older as my parents were at the time.  Like many other things, I think we're getting less formal as time goes on and the "Cocktail Party" has morphed into more of a gathering or get-together or hangout.  Occasionally though I intentionally throw a real Cocktail Party just for the vintage throw-back fun of it.

Anyway, the heart of these Cocktail Parties was the converted-garage "playroom" which actually was more like a game room or an adult parlor with a full wet bar, pool table, mood lighting, etc.  And I can vividly recall as a kid, one of the more distinct drinks that one of my dad's friends always ordered, was a "Beefeater's With Four Olives."  I had no idea what that was or what that meant, but that was his thing, that was his signature drink, and it's the only thing I ever saw him drink over the years.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 12, 2018, 03:22:44 PM
Really - in the land of Tito's?I hardly drink hard liquor anymore and never had the Sapphire but Tito's is tough to top.Luksusowa is a Polish potato vodka that I like,sort of smooth and creamy if a vodka can be that
Well Tito's is a non-flavored vodka so it's something else entirely.  I was referring primarily to the juniper-berry-flavored vodkas.
But honestly, I don't drink much unflavored vodka.  Pretty common for me at a morning tailgate when mixed into a Madras, but other than that, it's mostly just the flavored vodkas I'll drink.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: ELA on October 12, 2018, 03:29:16 PM
I hadn't drank a vodka in years, and was finally told by enough different disconnected people to try Tito's and while it's still never going to be my go to, we always now have a bottle in the house, and while I do have a couple cream sauces I use it in, it's not that much, and it somehow keeps disappearing.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on October 12, 2018, 03:32:09 PM
Clearly the five year old is getting into it.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 12, 2018, 03:34:18 PM
Sleep-drinking.  It happens
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 12, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
I do like flavored vodka straight on ice with a twist also.  It gets me a bit too hammered a bit too fast though.


I don't see a problem
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 12, 2018, 04:31:47 PM
I hadn't drank a vodka in years, and was finally told by enough different disconnected people to try Tito's and while it's still never going to be my go to, we always now have a bottle in the house, and while I do have a couple cream sauces I use it in, it's not that much, and it somehow keeps disappearing.
I'm sure you're leaving the cap off and it's evaporating because as a rule we in this forum don't usually drink while watching the games.Brutas is right it's the kid
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MarqHusker on October 12, 2018, 04:43:24 PM
My parents like Boodles gin.   I stick w Rehorst or Deaths Door, both from Wisconsin distilleries.   The Rehorst has ginseng and basil in it, love it.

I do buy Q tonic.   My favorite out there.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 12, 2018, 04:43:40 PM
Hhhmmm, maybe I'll have to try this flavored vodka

I always just use the Tito's and put whatever flavor I'd like in the vodka
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 12, 2018, 04:55:13 PM
Hell ya make your damn own I like bloodies made with V-8
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 12, 2018, 04:58:57 PM
I prefer V-8, then put my own ingredients after that.

I don't need the mix, although there are a few mixes that are pretty goooooood.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 12, 2018, 05:10:25 PM
A "Big Thing" around here is a "Vodka Bar", which is not just a bar, but a place in a restaurant that has it's own ingredients.  They bring you a shot of unflavored vodka and you make your own, going up to the bar which has all sorts of makings on it.  I guess this is all over now.

It's like bagging your own groceries and pumping your own gas, which you can't do in NJ.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 12, 2018, 05:12:49 PM
It might be all over, but it hasn't made it to this fly over state yet

Martinis don't need many ingredients
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 12, 2018, 05:14:18 PM
Hey Cincy,  one of the Jocks on the local radio station(the one I don't care for) says that is popular in China, Greece, and some other place to put coca-cola in wine.

Sounds nasty
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 12, 2018, 05:26:12 PM
It might be all over, but it hasn't made it to this fly over state yet

Martinis don't need many ingredients
Word.
My martinis have chilled Bombay Sapphire vodka, and an olive. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 12, 2018, 05:26:38 PM
The Chinese do that, and they also combine MILK and wine.  I've never seen that one.

Bordeaux is very very popular in China because apparently, I'm told, it's needed to grease the palms of local officials to get stuff done.

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 12, 2018, 05:27:06 PM
Hey Cincy,  one of the Jocks on the local radio station(the one I don't care for) says that is popular in China, Greece, and some other place to put coca-cola in wine.

Sounds nasty
Colabeer is something you can get in Germany.  I'll stick with the Marzens and Hefeweizens and Doppelbocks, thanks anyway.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 12, 2018, 05:27:22 PM
If I'm out of the large garlic stuffed olives, I drop in 3 of the small olives
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 12, 2018, 05:27:35 PM
It might be all over, but it hasn't made it to this fly over state yet

Martinis don't need many ingredients
It's primarily for Bloody Marys.  I should have called it a Bloody Mary bar.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 12, 2018, 05:28:20 PM
Incidentally, the Coke Museum in the ATL is fairly interesting.  It's basically in the same area as the CFB HoF, which also is pretty well done.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 12, 2018, 05:28:59 PM
ahh, I've seen and enjoyed a few Bloody Mary bars
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 12, 2018, 05:29:05 PM
A "Big Thing" around here is a "Vodka Bar", which is not just a bar, but a place in a restaurant that has it's own ingredients.  They bring you a shot of unflavored vodka and you make your own, going up to the bar which has all sorts of makings on it.  I guess this is all over now.

It's like bagging your own groceries and pumping your own gas, which you can't do in NJ.
I suppose I could get into pouring my own shots
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 12, 2018, 05:30:07 PM
I suppose I could get into pouring my own shots
I've been doing this for decades
I pour good shots
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 12, 2018, 05:30:45 PM
It's primarily for Bloody Marys.  I should have called it a Bloody Mary bar.
Yeah, places around here have been doing that for brunch for a few years now.  I don't like tomato juice, so anything bloody mary related doesn't appeal to me.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 12, 2018, 05:33:41 PM
I don't care much for tomato juice at all, but I've found...... if you put enough Tito's in it with some spices and veggies, it's not bad in the morning.  Seems to pair well with a hangover
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 12, 2018, 05:37:16 PM
Colabeer is something you can get in Germany.  I'll stick with the Marzens and Hefeweizens and Doppelbocks, thanks anyway.
Coming up with that in Germany of all places would warrant a Water Boarding.As you proficiently pointed out there are much better choices.Good to be getting away from bourbon,scotch,wine,vodka and champaign snobs and to the righteous stuff

https://youtu.be/AOiyksNlrY0
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 12, 2018, 05:39:42 PM
Coming up with that in Germany of all places would warrant a Water Boarding.As you proficiently pointed out there are much better choices.Good to be getting away from bourbon,scotch,wine,vodka and champaign snobs and to the righteous stuff
Amen, brutha!
Speaking of the righteous stuff, I believe it is time for a Live Oak Oaktoberfest beer.  Won't be around much longer...
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on October 12, 2018, 06:04:58 PM
We'll have to arrange a swap of Great Lakes for Live Oak Oktoberfests/Marzens or Helles/Amber/Austrian/Vienna Lagers or Czech Pilsner,Dortmunders,Belgian Ales.Witbiers,Wheat Ales or some Porter/Stoudts,DunkelWeizens,Hefeweizens,Weisenbocks,Kolsch,English Brown Ale,Irish Ale,Scottish Ale,Smoked Porter or Rauchbier!!! Ya I hate snobs
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 12, 2018, 06:39:47 PM
load up the trucks

ya'll can meet in Lincoln NE, 815 miles from Columbus, OH and Austin, TX
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Anonymous Coward on October 12, 2018, 07:52:30 PM
I prefer Tanqueray to Bombay, and really like Tangueray Ten as a flavored vodka.

Sapphire is not my preference at all. Hendrick's is pretty good flavored vodka.
Vodka? I've only known about Hendrick's gin. I never used to like gin, but now I do. Not a martini guy but Hendrick's alone or as a G&T is special.
My bar tends to have:
a single-malt or two (Usually one of the Glens- and/or Oban)
Hendrick's
Pernod Absinthe (for "Deaths in the Afternoon")
Plain vodka (for Bloody Marys)
Bourbon (Makers or Woodford Reserve)
And this "Bramble" vodka from a local bloomington distillery that the wife likes with tonic or mules.
Sometimes Bitters and Vermouth for mixing.
Then Two-Hearted and Cava (for the Deaths in Afternoon) in the fridge and, presto, everything I'll ever want.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MarqHusker on October 12, 2018, 07:58:36 PM
My bar has a bottle of JW that Badger left behind.     Wait, its gone.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 12, 2018, 08:14:23 PM
JW gold and a bottle of platinum (gifts)

large handle of Tito's

Bombay Sapphire

Romana Sambvca (snaps)

Bailey's Irish Cream (coffee creamer)

handle of Templeton Rye (locally distilled) about 105 proof

fresh out of Bourbon or sour mash at the moment - my daughter's fav
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 12, 2018, 09:54:06 PM
Off the top of my head, I know that my home bar has:

Scotch Whisky: Ardbeg, Lagavulin, Laprhroig, Macallan 12
Irish Whiskey: Jamesons
Bourbon: Maker's Mark
Not Bourbon: Jack Daniels
Rye: Old Overholt, Bulleit
Canadian blended whiskey: Crown Royal
Tequila: Don Julio anejo, Espolon blanco, Espolon anejo, Cazzadores reposado
Vodka: Tito's, Dripping Springs Ruby Redbird (grapefruit)
Not vodka: Bombay Sapphire gin, Hendricks gin
Rum: Appleton Estate Reserve, Bacardi Gold
Cachaca: Leblon, Pitu
Cognac: Hennessey XO (this one was a gift), Remy Martin VSOP
Pastis: Ricard



It sounds like a lot, and there are probably a handful more, but like I said earlier, I like to host the occasional nostalgic Cocktail Party, and I like to have a variety for that.  I really, honestly don't drink much hard liquor so my bottles tend to linger for a while.  The Scotch, gin, and tequila are what I go through quickest.






Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 13, 2018, 07:39:31 AM
I have some weird French stuff the wife has had for ages.  I have no clue what most of it is for.  

I drank some flavored vodka last night, Tangueray, with the fancy tonic water, which is barely different from Schwepps IMHO.  It's called Oaktree or something tree.  For the money, well, it's not a value for me.

I might get Tanqueray Ten next time and just drink the stuff cold and neat and try not to get plastered.

I had no idea how much wine I had until we moved and I had to package it all up.  I had saved a bunch of boxes from internet wine purchases and had stopped buy new wine for a couple of months.  I ended up moving about 400 bottles.  I had a 250 bottle wine rack at the old place attached to the wall, but there isn't room for that here.  For a couple of months I was drinking some really nice wine on Tuesdays to cut down the inventory.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 13, 2018, 08:24:32 AM
I have some weird French stuff the wife has had for ages.  I have no clue what most of it is for.  

I drank some flavored vodka last night, Tangueray, with the fancy tonic water, which is barely different from Schwepps IMHO.  It's called Oaktree or something tree.  For the money, well, it's not a value for me.

I might get Tanqueray Ten next time and just drink the stuff cold and neat and try not to get plastered.

I had no idea how much wine I had until we moved and I had to package it all up.  I had saved a bunch of boxes from internet wine purchases and had stopped buy new wine for a couple of months.  I ended up moving about 400 bottles.  I had a 250 bottle wine rack at the old place attached to the wall, but there isn't room for that here. For a couple of months I was drinking some really nice wine on Tuesdays to cut down the inventory.
You poor thing! ;)
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 13, 2018, 08:45:02 AM
Indeed, it was a bit surreal.  I had accumulated "special occasion wine" that rarely got drunk, as I was loathe to open them for a Tuesday night.  My rate of accumulation far exceeded my rate of consumption.  We had a neighbor who was far worse than I was.  She had thousands of bottles of really good wine, by which I mean retail prices over $50 and often over $100.  If we had a soiree', she'd bring 5 or 6 of them over, so I rarely dipped into my stash.

The wife said I had to drink half of them, so we did.  I'm really careful now about buying those higher end wines.  I still have plenty.  And my wine friends are back in Cincy anyway.

Then we went to CA a month or so ago and I brought back a case of Regusci.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 13, 2018, 09:32:55 AM
Heh, I have a couple of custom wine racks I built into our floating sideboard in the dining room, but they only hold about 50 bottles total.  They're occasionally full, but usually only about 1/2.  We drink most of the wine we buy, I rarely put up anything for more than a year or two.  

I did have a couple of 20 yo bottles of Margaux that I brought back from one of my French trips many years ago, finally went through those on a wine/steak night with friends a couple years back.  They were unbelievable.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 13, 2018, 10:18:44 AM
some of youse guys need to have me visit more often

I love to help with accumulations
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 13, 2018, 02:10:10 PM
I also like gin and tonic.  I prefer Tanqueray.  I just bought four bottles of super fancy tonic water to try but haven't yet.  

The problem for me with tonic water is the sugar, which I'm mightily trying to avoid where possible.  My reading suggests that intake of fructose is not a good thing for humans.  It is metabolized differently than glucose and the pathway is probably not good at all.
They do make diet tonic water, using artificial sweeteners instead of sugar.
I used to do that years ago when I was trying to do the low-carb dieting thing but still wanted some booze.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 13, 2018, 02:11:48 PM
I found your blog once after you mentioned it on here once. Good stuff.
Of course I also happened to stumble across your you tube channel, while I was searching for said blog. O0
I deleted everything on that youtube channel when I realized that my son is now old enough to look it up. 
[Full disclosure; there wasn't anything objectionable on there... Just didn't want it out there anymore.]
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on October 13, 2018, 02:24:12 PM
Indeed, it was a bit surreal.  I had accumulated "special occasion wine" that rarely got drunk, as I was loathe to open them for a Tuesday night.  <<snip>>

The wife said I had to drink half of them, so we did.  I'm really careful now about buying those higher end wines.  I still have plenty.  And my wine friends are back in Cincy anyway.

Then we went to CA a month or so ago and I brought back a case of Regusci.
We're the same way, although probably not on the same scale. My wife likes a wine called "Unruly" which is a BevMo house brand, I think. They do their 5 cent wine sale, where you buy a bottle and the second one is 5 cents. This stuff is $12.95 a bottle but with the 5 cent sale, it's $6.50 per bottle. We always have a fair amount of their cab and chard on hand, and that gets opened most often. If you live in an area with BevMo, I recommend it. She's a big fan of the stuff.
But we also have our "stash" of the good wines, and because I so often start with beer, we only open those if we're grilling steaks or something and I want to also drink wine. 
We need to get better about enjoying the stuff we buy instead of saving it for an "occasion."
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 13, 2018, 05:26:48 PM
The prices at Costco here are deadly for me.  I can hardly believe them.  I should have been driving down here and stocking up and driving back to Cincy.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on October 13, 2018, 06:53:24 PM
everyone should move to Atlanta
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on October 14, 2018, 01:12:16 PM
everyone should move to Atlanta
word
And that diet tonic water is disgusting.  Much better to just drink your juniper-berry-flavored vodka on the rocks with a twist of lime, and maybe some club soda or better yet Topo Chico, if you crave the bubbles.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 15, 2018, 05:32:50 PM
everyone should move to Atlanta
I thought they had already ...
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on October 15, 2018, 05:33:39 PM
I tried Diet tonic water.  Hideous loathsome and odious stuff that tastes bad.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on March 13, 2019, 04:27:12 PM
Bump ,well it is the off season.I couldn't find the climate change thread
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on March 13, 2019, 04:32:20 PM
Gwinett county is voting on a new 1 cent sales tax to join MARTA.  

https://atlanta.curbed.com/2019/3/12/18261733/gwinnett-county-marta-vote-could-be-historic

This new sales tax would not end until 2057, resulting in billions of dollars. According to theAtlanta Journal-Constitution (https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/gwinnett-upcoming-marta-referendum-comprehensive-voter-guide/CVj5YhwsvzesGoX29o0xvL/), all monies raised would be “for the benefit of Gwinnett.”
While the plan does call for heavy rail, extending the line from the current Doraville MARTA station to a new transit hub to be built near the intersection of Jimmy Carter Boulevard and Interstate 85, it also calls for much more robust bus service.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on March 13, 2019, 04:43:56 PM
I'm a supporter of sales tax

not so much any other form of tax
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on March 13, 2019, 05:16:17 PM
Heavily tax lottery tickets.  Let's get every last penny from the poor.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 13, 2019, 05:26:03 PM
Much rather see lottery go away, along with river boats and randomly placed casinos and off-track facilities.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on March 13, 2019, 07:29:01 PM
gambling causes much more harm than good
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MrNubbz on March 13, 2019, 08:42:31 PM
I'm a supporter of sales tax

not so much any other form of tax
Fookin bastages in Ohio passed an 11 cents a gallon gas tax.Jesus both houses - WTF. the ^%&#*&(+_)! these cocks never told their constituents "Vote for me,I'll raise the price of gas"crooked corporations also got their fingers there the god damned government is suppose to serve and support,not the other way around.SMDH
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on March 13, 2019, 08:58:00 PM
a couple months ago when gas prices here dropped below $2/gallon I looked at the difference in the price of gas in 1980 and the difference in the gas tax since 1980

with state of Iowa and Fed taxes combined, the tax on a gallon of gas went up about the same as the cost of the gallon of gas

could be tax has gone up more in Ohio
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MarqHusker on March 13, 2019, 09:02:40 PM
Q tonic and Fever Tree are your two best low cal, low sugar tonic waters.   Trust me on this.  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on March 13, 2019, 09:26:40 PM
I'll trust you.   110 calories in 10oz of canada dry
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 13, 2019, 09:47:14 PM
Or, ya go neat. Or dirty with some olive juice. Or tip it in with a blue cheese stuffed olive. Choices.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on March 13, 2019, 09:49:50 PM
I like both of those choices

I like to start with a couple martinis to take the edge off
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 13, 2019, 09:51:51 PM
I still say we need to wreck MH's new house with a board meeting in Indy next year. He'll surely supply at least 10 hide-a-beds for all of us, and couches for others. Dood has a Big Green Egg, for chripePeete.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on March 13, 2019, 09:59:31 PM
with a bottle of Bombay, I can sleep on a couch

I'm in

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on March 13, 2019, 10:00:36 PM
now I need a martini

I think I'll toast the Husker's basketball tourney victory!
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: 847badgerfan on March 13, 2019, 10:26:26 PM
All we need now is your fellow Husker to pony up. :)
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: MarqHusker on March 13, 2019, 11:43:56 PM
We can work something out but I'm not bringing Bombay or Tanguearay into my house.   Plenty of gin in all the world, that ain't walking into mine .  
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on March 14, 2019, 08:15:07 AM
If you can't spell it, you shouldn't drink it is my rule.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on March 14, 2019, 09:52:22 AM
If you can't spell it, you shouldn't drink it is my rule.
I expect Courvoirsier sales to plummet if that's the rule. 
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on March 14, 2019, 10:04:02 AM
Yup.  Wudferd on the other hand ...

Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: FearlessF on March 14, 2019, 10:07:26 AM
We can work something out but I'm not bringing Bombay or Tanguearay into my house.   Plenty of gin in all the world, that ain't walking into mine .  
tell me what to put under my arm and I'll be standing on the threshold
I'll also tote your favorite brand of tonic, olives, limes, and lemons
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: GopherRock on March 14, 2019, 10:25:05 AM
So no Stoli for you?
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: CatsbyAZ on May 20, 2019, 11:39:46 PM
Reading over the weekend how Ohio State is discovered having their own version of Dr Nassar. And as with the scandals at Penn State and Michigan St the University powers that be kept the perp’s crimes from view.

Shame on Penn State, Michigan St, USC, and now Ohio State.

After all the scandals of the Catholic Church, Penn State, Harvey Weinstein, #MeToo, etc - goes on and on - male sexuality.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on May 21, 2019, 10:00:45 AM
The executive lounge here serves genuine Champagne, and some decent red and white wines too, starting now.  The wife wants to leave tomorrow at 0545.  Bummer.

I am watching Monk on TV, in French.  It's better in the original Klingon of course.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: ELA on May 21, 2019, 10:27:03 AM
The executive lounge here serves genuine Champagne, and some decent red and white wines too, starting now.  The wife wants to leave tomorrow at 0545.  Bummer.

I am watching Monk on TV, in French.  It's better in the original Klingon of course.
I think the weirdest foreign TV watching experience I had like that, was on a connecting flight from London to Athens, where they showed the whole plane (all like 6 of us) Frasier, on a single large screen in the front of the plane, dubbed in German, but with Greek subtitles.  For refreshments we were given plastic cups, and the stewardesses walked around pouring cheap red wine.  I drank enough of it to forget that I was convinced that plane was going down, which also makes my memories of that flight fairly surreal.  At 23 I thought "this is fine," where I think now the entire situation, which started with my entire trip being re-routed after a delay in Detroit made me miss my connecting flight in Boston, would give me a panic attack.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: utee94 on May 21, 2019, 10:42:36 AM
I flew more than a few puddle jumpers between London and Nantes back in the day.  When the crew outnumbers the passengers, it's time to start worrying.  Like you, I definitely handled it better in my 20s, than I would now.

I watched a lot of weird TV whilst living/working in France.  Beverly Hills 90210 dubbed in French was probably the most amusing.  Brandon's dubbed voice was crazy deep, like a French Morgan Freeman or something.
Title: Re: Stirring the Pot
Post by: Cincydawg on May 21, 2019, 10:45:04 AM
Now watching a business channel.  The Bourse and all that.

Something about veggie pizza.