bukie

Yeah, if the Lions win, all of a sudden the NFC North swings from "Vikings in the drivers' seat" to complete chaos.

I agree on MSU. When they were ranked 5 or whatever it was to start the year I was shocked. Any team a year removed from losing to a team as bad as Iowa (especially Iowa, they were terrible) and Penn State were last year shouldn't be in the top ten the next year. On top of that they've struggled against some teams they shouldn't be struggling against, IPFW and Witchita State, and got smoked by Maryland on a neutral floor, a team in which the much inferior Wolverines only lost to by five on their court. So, yeah, Michigan State is overrated and they have been since 2005. I think they are still ranking high in the rankings to start the year because of Izzo and being really good in the late 90's early 2000's. According to today's Pomeroy ratings, 7 of the 11 Big Ten teams (Illinois, MSU, PSU, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin) are between the 40th and 68th best teams in the country. Granted, it also indicates that Northwestern is the 29th best team in the country and the third best in the Big Ten, so take it all in perspective. As Sagarin goes: 20. Ohio State 21. Purdue 36. Illinois 39. Michigan State 41. Wisconsin 42. Northwestern 64. Michigan 67. Penn State 70. Iowa 86. Minnesota 184. Indiana

That's fine when the outcome is unknown but in this comparison when the outcome is known, and with the figures we are talking about, I think it is a different story. An out is also a known outcome. Yes, a HR is obviously better than a walk with all other things equal, because a HR contributes equally as a walk to the OBP. Making an out essentially means you've ended 1/27 of the game. Not making an out means you've extended the game without limitation.

It's difficult to get past tradition, which really undervalues the out. The HR is also a lot more exciting and produces more instant gratification than merely not making an out. It's true though, the out is the most valuable commodity in baseball, since the very mechanics of the game are based on a limited number of them.

The biggest thing that will hurt middle Big Ten teams like Illinois, Penn State, Northwestern, Minnesota, and even Michigan is the perception of weakness in the conference. The BT/ACC challenge is technically meaningless in terms of overall conference strength, but winning that challenge this year would've meant a lot for the public perception of the conference. Stupid Illini.

I have a feeling that there are going to be a lot of teams between 8-10 and 10-8 in the Big Ten this year. Could be the kind of year where nobody has fewer than 5-6 losses in conference.

EqA: Brian Giles: .314 Ryan Braun: .294 RARP Giles: 47.6 Braun: 35.6 Yes, Giles was a better overall player than Braun last year. So was Aramis Ramirez, actually, although that comparison is a lot closer.

If anything, the BT/ACC challenge this year shows how deep the Big Ten really is, except for IU. Also, the Big Ten has no really great teams, just a lot of decent to good teams. Purdue and MSU are likely better than they played (although MSU has looked bad twice already this year), but it should be an interesting year in conference with 10 competitive teams.

Duke's greatest strengths over the years has been limiting the turnovers they commit and limiting their opponents from shooting 3's. Purdue's team thrives on creating turnovers and shooting 3's. It was an awful matchup for Purdue. Purdue isn't as bad as they looked last night, and Duke isn't as good as they looked.

They're a bubble team at least, which is more than they were last year.

In order of who I think deserves it most: 1. Rickey Henderson 2. Bert Blyleven 3. Mark McGwire (Frankly, at this point, I don't care anymore. Everyone knows he did Andro when it wasn't against the rules, and he was a memorable slugger in the 90's. His status deserves it even if you choose to completely ignore his stats.) 4. Alan Trammell 5. Tim Raines 6. Dale Murphy 7. Andre Dawson 8. Mark Grace 9. Jim Rice 10. Lee Smith I'd probably limit it to the first 5 that truly deserve entry, though.

Well sure, Billingsley's method is incredibly stupid and inaccurate. The point is that none of the computer ratings can take any sort of point margin analysis into account, and as a result Utah, Boise State and Texas Tech look better in computer ratings and USC, Florida and Penn State look worse.

Keep in mind though, in my analysis that you did not read, i gave half the first place votes to Florida, a fourth to OU and a fourth to Texas and it still does not appear to be enough for Florida to jump Texas. I have a hard time seeing Texas getting 1/4 of the first place votes even if OU loses. If Florida has a close win or something that could appear to be a "fluke", I wouldn't be surprised to see Texas pick up some first place votes.

You mean the computer polls that currently have Utah ahead of Florida and USC and Boise State also ahead of USC? The same computers that might not put Florida in the national title game if they beat Alabama? Those computers are useless as far as I'm concerned. If Florida wins on Saturday, the human polls will likely put them in the top 2 and the human polls also have USC ranked ahead of Utah and Boise State. While I don't always agree with the human polls, they're much more accurate right now than the computers are. I think you are misreading what I wrote. The BCS currently limits computer pulls from being able to effectively determine how good teams are, because computer ratings can only make use of W-L record and quality of opponents. For example, Jeff Sagarin runs 3 ratings. One is done completely by W-L only (his BCS one). It is also his least predictive one. That has the following top 10: 1. Oklahoma 2. Texas 3. Texas Tech 4. Alabama 5. Utah 6. Florida 7. Boise State 8. USC 9. TCU 10. Penn State A second rating looks only at the score margin, and not at all at W-L. This is the best predictor of future games. That one's top 10: 1. USC 2. Florida 3. Oklahoma 4. Texas 5. Penn State 6. Alabama 7. Texas Tech 8. Ohio State 9. Missouri 10. TCU His third rating is 50% W-L, 50% score margin. That one looks like: 1. Oklahoma 2. Texas 3. Florida 4. USC 5. Texas Tech 6. Alabama 7. Penn State 8. Utah 9. TCU 10. Ohio State Which is most accurate to determine how deserving a team is to go to the BCS championship? Hard to say for sure, since any computer rating is going to deal with somewhat of a sample size issue, and schedule strength (a large determining factor in any rating) is largely uncontrollable in at least 8 of 12 games a team plays. However, the most accurate predictor of future performance is based purely on point differential. Of course, there could also just be a situation where the best two teams in the country are from the same conference.

It might be mentioned in the reference to the weak system but not offering arbitration and passing on the picks is very much part of the consternation here. Yeah, it wasn't stated very well, but the "without doing anything to rectify that problem" of the farm system was in reference to not even trying to get compensation picks.

For the Big Ten to even have a shot at winning the challenge this year, they have to win both "push" matchups and Minnesota needs to win. So, 3 home wins. Even then, they need some other Big Ten team to steal a win on the road. Your pick of Michigan beating Maryland, IU beating Wake Forest, Iowa beating BC, Penn State beating Georgia Tech or Ohio State beating Miami. Most likely upset win would be OSU over Miami.

It's just too bad that a 16-team playoff can't work in college football.

I also find it odd that an IU team that will win single-digit games has to play on the road against a top-25 team. But that's just me. An unwritten component of the sanctions against IU. Also see Maui Tournament. IU shall suffer as many intense beatings as is feasibly possible during their probationary period.

Another reason the computer ratings are limited in effectiveness is that the only real factors a computer rating can use are W-L record and strength of opponent. So, if you are in a weaker conference, there's absolutely nothing you can do to improve your standing. They initially did this to prevent running up the score and with the guise of "giving everyone a chance to get into a BCS spot, regardless of conference", except that teams have no real control over whether or not they can make the BCS, because it depends largely on 7 or 8 other teams you have nothing to do with.

Much as I hate Florida, they should make it if they win Saturday. Another reason why the BCS is an utterly laughable system. The BCS is really a problem now because it depends far, far too much on human polls and limits computer polls from being able to effectively determine how good teams are. and some of the computer polls are terrible Billingsley's method is terrible, and Sagarin can't use his accurate model because it involves point differential.

Much as I hate Florida, they should make it if they win Saturday. Another reason why the BCS is an utterly laughable system. The BCS is really a problem now because it depends far, far too much on human polls and limits computer polls from being able to effectively determine how good teams are.

List for me the overpaid junk that's currently under contract with the Cubs, preventing the retention of Kerry Wood. I'll get you started: Jason Marquis. Most indications are that Hendry's trying to wiggle out of that one as we speak. Who else you got? You don't think the 40 million designated to Fukudome, Marquis and Soriano is a deterrent?

Today's BT/ACC games based on updated Sagarin ratings: Duke-Purdue: EVEN Clemson-Illinois: EVEN Ohio State-Miami: Miami by 5 Iowa-Boston College: Boston College by 7 Virginia-Minnesota: Minnesota by 9 Even though it isn't going to matter, it's a little weird that the ACC gets 6 home games while the Big Ten gets 4 and one "home-neutral" game. Usually it's 5-5 with one neutral site.

The frustration isn't over the Cubs not re-signing Kerry Wood, or even attempting to re-sign Kerry Wood. The frustration is that the Cubs are dumping their second most effective reliever for nothing, because of a payroll crunch caused by overpaying for other junk over the last 3 years, and then making a trade that absolutely didn't have to be made that early in the offseason, leaving no wiggle room to even try to get pick compensation. All this to save 3 million and weaken an already weak farm system without doing anything to rectify that problem.

Since Louisville/Cincinnati/Marquette/others left CUSA, there's been a huge dropoff between the "Big 6" and CUSA. Even last year, with a #2 overall Memphis team, the league was 10th overall, and the league was further behind the Missouri Valley than the gap between the top 6 conferences.