First of all congrats!! Maybe the 'Cuse will be good in football again one day and I can talk trash too!!! Now.....

"The naive suggestion that you simply "pressure" Vince Young to beat UT neglects the fact that the rest of the team is pretty much top notch as well--especially their running backs and offensive line. And the assumption that Vince Young can't throw the long ball seems pretty dubious as well. I think USC was trying like hell to pressure Young--they just couldn't do it consistently, because USC's defense is simply not as good as UT's offense in any major aspect."

It's not a naive suggestion, it's a fact. No quaterback is immune to effective pressure even an supposedly "inVINCEble" one. As was stated before, the only time USC's defense was effective was when they put pressure on Young or crowded the line of scrimmage to cut off the running lane. Of coure USC could have done it consistently. It's not a question of "good", it's a question of strategy.

After the game, USC confirmed that their strategy was to play their normal zone defense rather than change it up. Why they stuck with it when they saw it wasn't working is a mystery to me. Especially since they were having some success with the pressure and made great halftime adjustments on the offensive side of the ball. Also, it's not an assumption that VY can't throw the long ball. Maybe he can, but, he's certainly not known for it and he didn't throw a pass longer than 15 yards the entire night. On the few occasions he tried to go way down field he missed his receivers badly. It's a bit much to imbue him with an ability he hasn't demonstrated and say "oh well, if they pressured him he would've thrown 80 yard touchdown passes". I'd much rather try to cut down his running and have him try to beat me with long passes.

"-I think Carroll's fourth and two call was right on. White had been running right through the UT defense, which looked worn out by then. As a UT fan, I myself was pleasantly surprised by the UT line's ability to reach deep and stand him up. Like Carroll said--he had control of the ball, and the clock, and if he made it the game was over. Otherwise, 20 yards or so would have made no difference against Young, who was pretty much unstoppable by USC's defense."

Well, as you probably know by now, I think the decision was bad and the play call was worse (midfield, No Bush and the same play on 3rd and 4th downs) and I'm not surprised that Carroll is trying to justify his decision. Anyway, I know the world is looking good right now through those burnt orange glasses :-) BUT this persistent notion that an extra 25+ yards wouldn't have made a difference for USC's defense is absurd. Who knows if they would've stopped UT but it certainly would've made a difference and given them a better chance to do so. I'm amazed that some people think that there's no difference between starting a drive on your 20 versus your 45 in general and especially in the last two minutes of a game. That's simply not true.

One of the UT fans here (spike?) mentioned that UT already had long scoring drives of 80 yards but what he forgot to mention was the situation and play count. UT went 80 yards in 7 plays and no timeouts twice earlier in the game (1st and 3rd quarters) BUT it took them 10 plays, two timeouts, a facemask penalty, and a 4th and 5 conversion to go 55 yards when it mattered on their last drive. So, even against USC's suspect defense it was still much harder for UT to go a significantly shorter distance when the game was on the line and an extra 25+ yards "wouldn't have mattered", huh?

I tell you what...ask the Patriots and Panthers whether it matters. Just about two years ago, the Panthers scored a very late clutch touchdown to tie the Superbowl, but on the ensuing kickoff, their kicker made one of the biggest mistakes in Superbowl history. He kicked the ball out of bounds. So, instead of starting on their say, ahem...20, Brady and Co. got the ball on their ahem...45. That changed EVERYTHING (offensive play calls, defensive play calls and so on...). Unlike Texas, they didn't need a touchdown to win. Of course, given the gift, Brady and Co. got the job done and AV kicked the winning field goal in the waning seconds. The course of a Superbowl changed on a difference in field position but now I'm hearing an extra 25+ yards wouldn't have mattered in a Rose Bowl game. Yeah, right.

"Think maybe having more women on corporate boards -- however they get there -- could help with that?"

However they get there!? I can't believe that someone would think it's a good idea for a government to force private companies to make their corporate boards 40% women just because 40% of the people who are in business school are women. That's an absurd correlation. Maybe there needs to be more women on corporate boards in Norway, but this government idea is ridiculous.

I don't get it. So, the choices you made, and options you were faced with, are/were harder than you thought so......that means that feminism failed you? That doesn't make sense.

That's a great question. Why do you bother? especially since you just repeat the same tiresome thing over and over again.

"If Feminism is so great, why are most men AND women highly miserable and depressed?"

Speak for yourself. Even if that were true, which it's not, it would be silly to blam it on feminism.