CubinNY

I'd really like to see that. it's amazing how the difference between some players and others is nothing other than luck, timing, fortunate circumstances, etc. theriot is probably every bit the ball player Eckstein is. Eckstein gets a chance with the Angels and forges a long career. other players are blocked in an organization, play for an organization that won't play rookies, whatever, and they don't get the chance even though they are just as talented as guys who play a long long time in the league. I don't necessarily disagree with what you are writing. In fact, I think we've seen a lot of that around the league. However, counting on Theriot to be an upgrade over Cedeno or Izturis is not a gamble I'd want to take given the rest of the Cubs everyday lineup. If you plugged Theriot into the Angles lineup circa 2002, maybe. Or if you plug Theriot into a team with Pujols et al. maybe. The 2007 Cubs cannot afford to count on Theriot to be anything more than a backup. If he's pressed into service and does well I would veiw this as an unexpected bonus given his career numbers.

ND was exposed for the weak team that they are. Now USC must lose to UCLA and Florida must lose to Arkansas for Chaos to reign.

If it weren't for a blocked punt USC would be up 21-3. USC scored too easily and the let ND back in the game.

The very idea that if someone is interested in statistics or numbers or new thoughts, or whatever one wants to call something, it somehow limits his or her appreciation of the game is, for obvious reasons foolish. Astronomers have no less appreciation for the cosmos becuse they use complex math than do astrologers. The difference is that the former uses math to gain a better understanding of the subject matter. Baseball isn't some metaphyiscal excersize that should be shrouded in mystery and wonder, especailly if you're running one of the teams.

The resent posts in this thread make me further question the signing of Soriano. As it stands right now, the Cubs do not have a CF. They have Pie waiting in the wings however, the jury is still very much out on the talented 21 year old. I wouldn't count on Pie for anything in the near future. So, instead of targeting a guy like Drew (who can play CF) they're going to try to move JJ to CF? or are the going to trade JJ? They are targeting Lugo but as a CF? They can move Soriano to CF but he hasn't ever played CF. I am certianly not a defense first type of thinker, but CF seems to me to be one of the most important places for defense, especially with Murton and Soriano in corners. I hope things work themselves out by the end of the offseason, but as it stands I don't like the Cubs chances regardless of who they can get to picth. They just aren't put together very well. . . right now.

i'm willing to endure a down year from Soriano in 2007. Look at how bad Beltran was in his first year for the Mets Beltran was also injured for most of last year. he tried to play through it but couldn't. Beltran was healthy this year. ----------- My guess is Soriano. It seems to me that a lot of people have unrealistic expectations about what the Cubs will do offensively next year. If they don't score runs and Soriano regresses to career norms it could get hot.

Wow.

I wonder what happens when the Cubs have three guys with 30+ HRs and two more in the 20s and still are below average in runs scored? It is the same old problem. During the Sosa years people would complain about the one-run HR and not understand the reasons for it. Hendry hasn't learned anything new about baseball since his college coaching days. This is what I worry about with the signing of Soriano. The Cubs may look good on paper, but they may be only slightly better next year. They will have to get some good to great pitching in order to be an elite team next year.

They Pie isn't finished cooking yet.

I didn't think so. He was standing behind a podium the whole time. Was Boers literally there? Aramis has chubby cheeks. Always has, always will. Maybe Boers was ripping on that. Any noteworthy comments made after the radio coverage cut away? Interesting questions? Hustle references? Clutch concerns? No. Weird press conference. I guess they just wanted to show Aramis some love. Isn't that sweet. :newkiss:

or Notre Dame to the Big 10, some combo of Boise St./Hawaii/BYU/TCU/Utah to PAC-10 I'm operating under the assumption that ND won't join a conference. Even if they'd be receptive to it in the future, they've got four more seasons of NBC dollars to look forward to at least (and that's assuming that NBC wouldn't want ND back, which considering the future of the team wouldn't be a good bet). And therein lies the problem of the NCAA. Notre Dame is greedy. The Big 10/11 is greedy. The ACC is greedy. They are all greedy. I really believe that if these schools would give up a little of their short term greed the solution could be found. And I think down the road a playoff would generate much more money then these bowl games do for member institutions. When it started, "March Madness" was barely televised. I think the 79 Magic/Byrd game was on at two o'clock on a staturday. Just look at it today. It is a cash cow.

or Notre Dame to the Big 10, some combo of Boise St./Hawaii/BYU/TCU/Utah to PAC-10 I'm operating under the assumption that ND won't join a conference. Even if they'd be receptive to it in the future, they've got four more seasons of NBC dollars to look forward to at least (and that's assuming that NBC wouldn't want ND back, which considering the future of the team wouldn't be a good bet). Well then there's no point in making all these changes. It's either ND to the Big Ten or nothing. Why would you say that? I thought what I proposed was fairly reasonable. No teams from below the Mason-Dixon in the Big 10 please. I hate conferences that are all over the map (CUSA, I'm looking in your direction) Kentucky is above the Mason-Dixon Line I believe.

or Notre Dame to the Big 10, some combo of Boise St./Hawaii/BYU/TCU/Utah to PAC-10 I'm operating under the assumption that ND won't join a conference. Even if they'd be receptive to it in the future, they've got four more seasons of NBC dollars to look forward to at least (and that's assuming that NBC wouldn't want ND back, which considering the future of the team wouldn't be a good bet). Well then there's no point in making all these changes. It's either ND to the Big Ten or nothing. Why would you say that? I thought what I proposed was fairly reasonable. How would ND get to the playoffs if they aren't in a conference? I think they should join the Big East. They are already there in every other sport.

That could be another possible solution. Use the conference championships to decide who gets to move on. But I'd still limit the games to 10 + confernce championship. Split the confernces up with six teams in each division. Make schools join a conference. Each conference gets an automatic bid. How many conferences are there in D-I anyway?

It would be hard for me to see why you'd want to limit the number of teams competing for the NC. There are logistical problems and such but I would think from a financial standpoint the NCAA would want more than four. I think eight or 10 would be a good number. The top two teams from the major conferences would be a good start. How do you pick the 8 or 10 teams then? The major conferences won't go for a straight top 8 or 10 in the BCS because what happens if a major conference champion finishes outside of the top 8 or 10? How do you deal with the smaller conferences if one of their teams goes undefeated (potentially 2006 Boise St., 2004 Utah)? But on the other hand, if you take the six major conference champions, what happens when one of them has 3 or 4 losses on the year (2005 Florida State)? Do they really deserve it over a #6 Oregon team that finished 10-1? What happens if that team (in this case Florida State) gets hot and wins the title? Then you have a 4 loss team winning the national title. It certianly isn't perfect, but would be a giant leap from what is currently going on. One of the things I'd do if I were king of the NCAA is limit scholarships to create more parity. Then I'd limit the schedule to 10 games with no conference championships. Then I'd create some sort of playoff system like they do in divisions I-AA, II, and III. What type of system though? It's all well and good to say you would put in a system but how would you go about picking the teams? If the schedule is 10 games with no conference championships, how do you determine the winner of the Big 12, ACC, SEC if two teams go undefeated in conference or have the same # of losses but don't play each other? I haven't given it much though. One easy answer is to split the conferences up and let "lessor schools" join. Teams started joining those conferences so they could get in on the action. How else can one explain the behaivor of Miami and Boston College? Marshall left the MAC for C-USA to get more money after Louisville split. Teams are joining new conferences all the time. There are a lot of people much brighter than me in higher education. I think if they put their heads together they can come up with a more equitable system for all the D 1 schools and still make a boat load of money for the likes of Notre Dame.

It would be hard for me to see why you'd want to limit the number of teams competing for the NC. There are logistical problems and such but I would think from a financial standpoint the NCAA would want more than four. I think eight or 10 would be a good number. The top two teams from the major conferences would be a good start. How do you pick the 8 or 10 teams then? The major conferences won't go for a straight top 8 or 10 in the BCS because what happens if a major conference champion finishes outside of the top 8 or 10? How do you deal with the smaller conferences if one of their teams goes undefeated (potentially 2006 Boise St., 2004 Utah)? But on the other hand, if you take the six major conference champions, what happens when one of them has 3 or 4 losses on the year (2005 Florida State)? Do they really deserve it over a #6 Oregon team that finished 10-1? What happens if that team (in this case Florida State) gets hot and wins the title? Then you have a 4 loss team winning the national title. It certianly isn't perfect, but would be a giant leap from what is currently going on. One of the things I'd do if I were king of the NCAA is limit scholarships to create more parity. Then I'd limit the schedule to 10 games with no conference championships. Then I'd create some sort of playoff system like they do in divisions I-AA, II, and III.

I know, and that is what bothers me. They will have to slug their way to the top. However, if they get Shmidt I will like the overall team much more, obviously.

That is not even close to the same situation. In basketball teams have automatic bids by winning their conference. But most importantly, THEY PLAY EACH GAME TO DECIDE WHO GETS TO ADVANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT TO GET TO THE FINAL GAME. In college football there will never be a Chamenade or Vilanova or Richmond or on and on and on. [/i]

It would be hard for me to see why you'd want to limit the number of teams competing for the NC. There are logistical problems and such but I would think from a financial standpoint the NCAA would want more than four. I think eight or 10 would be a good number. The top two teams from the major conferences would be a good start.

BECAUSE THE BOWL GAMES ARE CHOSEN BY JUDGES, INCLUDING WHO GETS TO PLAY IN THE WHATEVER BOWL THAT DECIDES THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. Every other sport this side of figure skating and boxing is decided on the field/diamond/track/ice/oval. The national championship in college football is decided by sprotswriters. It is a joke. Wisconson, West Virginia, Louisville, and Rutgers, only has one loss. Boise state has zero losses. None of these teams are even in the discussion. If Michigan plays OSU again and wins both will have one loss. Some other team that didn't play OSU or Michigan could end the season with one loss. Boise State could end the season undefeated.

Especially with the price CFers are being payed this year. I don't think JJ likes it in Chicago after all the abuse he took. I think he would welcome a trade. But a lot can change with him in CF and with Soriano on the team. Last year the Cubs really needed him to produce, now that is not so much the case. The Cubs really need him to produce this year. Anything less than what he did last year would hurt the team. He's still the 5th hitter, as things stand today. They haven't added a single middle of the order hitter. I don't necessarly disagree, but I don't think they need another run producer. With Lee, Aramis, and Soriano they have three pretty good ones. I think they need at least one or two guys who can get on base with regularity at the top of the order. I know a lot of people have discussed this but I beleive putting Soriano at the top of the order is a waste of his SLG. Unless things change they still will be a an "on base" challenged team.

I should do one for Carl Crawford. If Pierre gets 5/45, Crawford should get 7/90. At his age and with his skill set I think it would be 8/120

It's very possible with the Rose Bowl getting the first at-large pick, especially if Arkansas loses the SEC title game, leaving them as an at-large team. I think that if Arkansas wins the SEC title game, the Rose Bowl will select Florida rather than have a USC/ND rematch, though. Who knows what happens if Florida wins it, though, because Ark/SC would be a rematch as well - a rematch of a terrible game. Yeah right good point. I think they would choose ND in a heart beat. Notre Dame's first experience in the Rose Bowl would be intriguing. 1925 - The Four Horsemen beat Stanford in the Rose Bowl in their final collegiate game. :wink: As much as it pains me to say this, If USC loses to ND and Flroida loses to whomever and Arkansas loses to LSU I think ND should be in the title game. Their only loss will be to Micigan whose only loss was to OSU. I think OSU would destroy them though. I just think if Michigan gets in and beats OSU (not likely) then the NC should be split between Michigan and OSU. The entire NCAA football national championship is a joke and is hard for me to take seriously. Lest anyone think I actually like OSU, I don't. I am more of a Michigan fan than an OSU fan.

Especially with the price CFers are being payed this year. I don't think JJ likes it in Chicago after all the abuse he took. I think he would welcome a trade. But a lot can change with him in CF and with Soriano on the team. Last year the Cubs really needed him to produce, now that is not so much the case. If I were Hendry, I'd hang on to him unless I could trade him for a CFer or in a package that brought a CFer. Or unless I acquire one some other way. The Cubs still have a lot of work to do.

That is hilarious. "I'm going to go yell at Prior until he fractures his self-esteme bone" classic