bukie

is it the same record? Yes, same record.

I'm sure you know this, but seeding rankings are half based on FIFA rankings and half based on WC performances from 2002 and 2006 (2006 performance counts for 2/3 of this, 2002 for 1/3). So, the Netherlands not qualifying for the 2002 WC really kills their performance score (14, where 32 would be a perfect score), and the US finishing last in their group in 2006 really kills their performance score (13.7). Teams like Argentina (21), France (23.3) and Portugal (22.3), on the other hand, are really helped by their performance rating. As for how the selection pods will work out, if neither Mexico nor the US make a seed, and Argentina does make a seed (OK, let's just assume all holds to form): Seeds (Pod A): Brazil, Spain, England, Italy, Argentina, Germany, France, South Africa Pod B (Europe): Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, Denmark, Greece, Serbia, Russia, Slovakia Pod C (Asia/CONCACAF): Australia, Bahrain, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, USA, Mexico, Honduras Pod D (Africa/CONMEBOL): Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cameroon, Algeria, Tunisia, Ecuador, Chile, Paraguay So, potentially, the US could end up in a pool like Brazil, Netherlands, Ivory Coast, USA. If, on the other hand, Costa Rica/Honduras win the CONMEBOL playoff, or one of Mexico/US gets a seed, the pods don't line up perfectly according to confederation, which could mean the US had a shot at an Asian team in their pod. Something akin to South Africa/Chile/Bahrain/USA would be best-case scenario.

So, about seeding chances... As of the latest FIFA rankings, the US is currently tied for 11th in line among teams for 7 seeds. Here's the order: 1. Brazil 59.7 2. Germany 58.7 3. Italy 56.7 4. Spain 56.0 5. England 52.0 6. France 48.3 6. Argentina 48.3 ------------------------ 8. Portugal 46.0 9. Netherlands 43.0 10. Mexico 38.0 11. Croatia/USA 35.0 There are currently 4 teams which have already clinched spots that the US will not pass: Brazil, Spain, England and the Netherlands. Italy just needs either a point v Ireland or a win v Cyprus, so it's safe to assume they're in as well and that the US will not pass them. As for the others: - Germany currently leads their qualifying group by 1 over Russia, and has a remaining away game v Russia. Very possible they finish second in their group and have to win a 2-leg playoff for a spot. - France is currently second in their group and are likely to finish second also. - Argentina is currently 5th in their group, but have a favorable setup to finish fifth, since Ecuador and Uruguay play each other and are unlikely to both finish ahead of Argentina. Really, the only way Argentina finish worse than fifth is with an Ecuador/Uruguay draw, and a Uruguay win v Argentina coupled with an Ecuador win at Chile. Not out of the realm of possibility, but very likely Argentina finishes at worst fifth. - Portugal is currently 3rd in their group, 2 points out of second, with 2 games remaining at home. Likely they don't finish first, but could very well sneak into second. - Mexico, we know about. The win at Saprissa likely locks up at worst second, and likely first in the qualifying group, unless they drop the game at T&T (and even then they'd likely have a spot locked up by then). - Croatia is likely to finish second in their group. It's a really slim possibility, but the only chance the USMNT has is to hope 5 of the following 6 things happen: - Germany loses at Russia and loses their 2-leg playoff - France loses their 2-leg playoff - Argentina finishes 5th and loses a 2-leg playoff to Honduras/CR - Portugal finishes 3rd or second and loses their 2-leg playoff - Mexico loses at T&T and the US passes them on points - The US wins both their remaining draws and beats out Croatia on points or Croatia loses their 2-leg playoff. Their best bet, IMO, would be to try to win out and see if they can pass Croatia/Mexico in qualifying, and then just hope Germany/France/Portugal don't get matched up with each other in the Euro qualifying playoff, and then rooting for Greece, Slovenia, Bosnia and Ireland.

Pierre might be the only player I know that managed to set franchise records for 3 franchises in 3 consecutive years.

So with that logic we just bench the entire team I guess? Nice. Yes, because the entire team has the same situation regarding the increase to workload this year.

I find very little about the Bears' offensive performance over the first two weeks good. Really, Knox and Hester have been the best things about it, and Cutler could go to Hester more frequently. The running game has been terrible (how much of it is the line and how much of it is Forte?), Olsen has only caught 33% of the balls thrown to him, Bennett hasn't been very effective despite being thrown to the most, and Cutler has had one awful game and one decent game. Maybe it's just been because they've faced two of the better defenses in the NFL (Cincy would beg to differ), but things definitely need to improve here for the Bears to be considered one of the better NFC teams. Defensively, they've been better, but not great. About average all around. On a per-play basis, they've actually been better against the pass than the run, and I'm hoping that isn't just going to be the way things are without Urlacher around. As special teams goes, they're good, but not as good as they've been the past few years. Maynard has been really good, and Gould has been a guarantee on FG/XP, but kickoffs are slightly below average, and returns haven't been great to this point. Could be largely due to the field conditions Sunday, of course. EDIT: I forgot Davis on the offensive end. He's really been a positive also, certainly much better than Olsen so far.

Yeah, I ended up flipping the #1 pick for the #11 pick, Jason Bay, and Jordan Zimmerman, and subsequently flipped Zimmerman to Don for Pablo Sandoval, Ross Detwiler and Austin Jackson. Considering the #1 pick was Beltran, who was out half the year, and Zimmerman ended the year getting TJ surgery, I lucked out pretty well.

Jones is healthy enough to play again, apparently, so I put him in for Bourn.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d812c6362/Bears-17-Steelers-14 NFL.com highlights with radio calls. I love Joniak.

10-2 game, and somehow Cameron gets 12 points and Theriot gets 3. And why the hell did Davis get skipped?

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:E5AI0_fmk-h-TM:http://www.hitsof90.com/avatars/thriller2.jpg

I was wondering what you'd come up with, and you didn't disappoint. You never know, my team with Theriot, Figgins, Roberts, Bourn, and the rest of the speedy grit squad could end up looking a lot like the 2010 Cubs.

I could just see the Cubs going after Chris Young. Fast, toolsy, good fielder, hits well against the Cubs.

Fine by me, but you do have to actually put him into the starting lineup to make him count. :) meh, didn't matter. Congrats on the win! Thanks, barring some kind of 5 granny performance from Pujols. :) Finals matchup everyone was predicting at the start of the season, SABR vs. the Sanitizers

Fine by me, but you do have to actually put him into the starting lineup to make him count. :)

It absolutely does not make a mockery of a the 162, it emphasizes the importance of the 162 by rewarding you for winning your division. Right now, September is meaningless. It doesn't matter if you win the wild card or your division. The 1 game playoff is part of the playoffs. Baseball playoffs consists of series because teams have rotations and not just one starting pitcher. If you have to have the play-in, then I suggest a three-game series (MON-WED) in the park of the team with the best record. Start the DS on Thursday (#2 DW vs. #3 DW) and Friday (#1 DW and WC). Let the team with the best record play the wild-card winner, even if they are from the same division. The point of the one-game wildcard playoff is to throw off those teams' rotations and make it more difficult for a wildcard team to make the World Series.

What's really depressing is that's essentially saying the chances of both the Cubs and a team ahead of them playing well enough to stay ahead of them are about as good as the chances of the Cubs making the playoffs in any scenario.

Z - Zany antics on the mound A - A-hole to teammates when they make mistakes behind him M - Massacred a Gatorade machine B - Breaks his bats over his knee when he strikes out R - Rude to reporters when they ask him about being traded A - A-hole to teammates when they make mistakes behind him even more N - No control over his arm slot or velocity when the situation gets tense O - Oh yeah, and he also plays soccer, softball, and goes to water parks

The Cubs playoff odds are up to a whopping 2.5%, which is the highest they've been in 2 weeks. They are also the 8th highest in the NL, behind St. Louis, Philly, LA, Colorado, San Francisco, Atlanta and Florida. If they can somehow get to a 1 in 5 shot or better, then they have a realistic shot. Keep in mind, the Giants are 2.5 back and they don't even have a 1 in 5 shot.

Pipe dream scenario: Move Houston to the AL west (natural rivalry with Texas, similar intradivisional travel overall, yes the trip to Seattle will suck, sorry). This creates 6 divisions of 15 teams each, forcing at least one interleague series each week. On average, there are 54 series in a year (54 * 3 = 162), so there will have to be at a bare minimum of 11 interleague games per team. To make the most balanced schedule that still focuses on games within the division, this is what I would suggest: 16 games with each divisional opponent: 16*4 = 64 8 games with each league opponent outside the division: 10*8 = 80 3 interleague games with each team in a division that rotates every year + 3 games vs. interleague "rival": 6 * 3 = 18 64 + 80 + 18 = 162 This way you still get twice as many games within the division as outside the division, you get enough interleague games to spread out over the season while still having the ability to set up a "rivalry weekend" where every team plays their rival in an interleague matchup. Every team plays their rival at least 3 times a year, and in a year they play their rival's division, they even get a home and home with them. The schedule is completely balanced within the division aside from the 3 rivalry games and home/away differences. It may appear to cause an increase in 4 or 2-game series (as each divisional series has 4 odd games and each interdivisional series has 2 odd games, making 36 games per team that don't fit into traditional 3-game series), but actually there would be less need for those series, as the Cubs are scheduled to play 42 games this year in such series. As the playoffs go, I am also in favor of the extra wildcard team with a single wildcard game, although it would create an interesting scenario if 3 teams tied for a wildcard spot.

Yeah, nobody would try ranking baseball teams based on computers after 2 game, why would you do that with college football? Well, since the college football season is only 12 games long, more than 15% of the season is already over. It's more akin to ranking baseball teams after April. Still of limited use, but at least it offers as objective an analysis as is possible at this point.

The Elo rating is based solely on whether a team wins or loses. Therefore, it's more a measure on who has the best wins. Miami has only one win as a sample size over what is ostensibly a top-40 team, which at this point in the season is better than the vast majority of other teams' best wins.

Because until all teams are connected, he makes use of results prior to this year to connect the teams (i.e. the Bayesian process). Thus, ratings are generated from past results to connect teams that are not yet connected from current results.

I mean, the guy played soccer, softball, and went to a water park. I don't think you can get any more unprofessional than that.

Why is BYU a better team than Virginia Tech? Because they performed better in two wins versus comparable opponents (SOS 34 vs. 39) than VT did in a win and a loss. Why is Oklahoma rated better than Alabama? Because they performed better in a win and a loss versus somewhat comparable opponents (SOS 60 vs. 47) than Alabama did in two wins. And yes, winning by 50 makes more of a difference than winning by 23, even with diminishing returns awarded for higher margins, as Sagarin uses. There is currently a very small sample size, and not every team is connected yet (meaning there is a way to link every team to every other team through games played), so there are obviously going to be more flaws in the ratings early than as the season progresses. I'm sure the system also doesn't take into account that, for example, Oklahoma's QB is out the first half of the year, so those results will be affected as such. At this point, even one week's worth of results adds an additional 50%+ of results to the current set of data (since there are at most 2 weeks of results for teams at this point), so the ratings will continue to fluctuate wildly from week to week, even to the end of the season. To me, though, even with its limitations, it's still a better gauge of current results than the human polls, which rarely take actual results into the voting.