NewUserName

I really cannot believe that we are even considering this guy. I would much rather go with any of the assortment of young arms that we used last year than Jason Marquis.

What do you get when you have a disgruntled fanbase, poor talent in the system, a lot of money to spend and a poor free agent class? I have a feeling that the George Bell, Dave Smith and Danny Jackson offseason will be remembered warmly in about 3 years.

USC had a better OOC schedule than all of the Elite SEC schools combined. The best 3 games the ranked SEC schools come up with are USC, Cal and Florida St. Not bad except we are talking from 5 schools.

If you look at the #s, "those geniuses" on this board were actually correct. In Hill's 1st stint with the Cubs last year, he had 15 walks in 19 innings. He was sent back down, and they tried a different approach with him. When he came back up in late July, after one shaky outing, he had 21 walks in 76 innings. Its not necessarily about scouting, sometimes its about coaching. Now only if we had a pitching coach at the Major League level. Problem being is those geniuses dont take into account that most players have to struggle at the major league level before they are going to be successful. Sadly we here in Cub nation by and large dont want to go thru the struggles with young players. I think Marmol is going to be a solid pitcher once he gets his control down.

Yeah, they were overrated at one point in the season but I wouldn't consider them overrated right now. They started the season overrated. Several experts had them winning NT. I really think if people would have objectively looked at them at the beginning of the season they would have to come to the conclusion that OSU and several SEC schools were better. Notre Dame did look like they could possibly go undefeated with the schedule they had. I dont think noone outside of me and some Michigan fans thought Michigan was a better team then Notre Dame before the season began. So most people thought if they could beat USC at USC they would go undefeated. So Notre Dame was ranked to high to begin the season. Which puts them about were they are now. Except for Lou Holtz I dont think anyone else outside of Notre Dame thinks they are a Top Ten team now. Really I do get tired of people just throwing out that Notre Dame sucks or are overrated. There is no other eligble team that is more deserving who was left out of the BCS. They are a double digit underdog in the Sugar Bowl. What exactly are we trying to prove. They should be 21 point underdog or West Virginia should have made the BCS. I almost feel dirty. Defending Michigan and Notre Dame in the same week.

I made that same point in another thread on college football. Just another reason for a playoff. Except of course they would probably be picking playoff teams based on the same flawed coaches poll. The difference would be that the 9th best team or the 17th in a 16 team playoff doesnt really have a arguement they should be fighting for the NC. They would just be upset that they are out the money.

I too picked Texas. USC probably did have a better all around team, but I just love Vince Young. He doesn't necessarily put up great passing stats (though last year he was #3 in passer rating in the NCAA), but he wins. His Rose Bowl game was one of the best performances I've ever seen from an athlete in that big of a situation. That's why I really liked him this year in the NFL draft. Look at this year even - that team was awful last year, and even though his passer rating is pretty lousy, they've won 5 of the 9 games he started. I think he'll make several Pro Bowls before his career is through. I really dont care of follow pro football enough to make any judgements on his pro career. He does seem to have that I am going to win this game at all costs level that he can achieve. Similar to guys like Micheal Jordan or John Elway. John Elway? He was in the playoffs like 8 times and lost 3 super bowls before winning two of them. Jordan, can't disagree there. Elway carried 3 not very good Broncos teams to the Super Bowl though.

I too picked Texas. USC probably did have a better all around team, but I just love Vince Young. He doesn't necessarily put up great passing stats (though last year he was #3 in passer rating in the NCAA), but he wins. His Rose Bowl game was one of the best performances I've ever seen from an athlete in that big of a situation. That's why I really liked him this year in the NFL draft. Look at this year even - that team was awful last year, and even though his passer rating is pretty lousy, they've won 5 of the 9 games he started. I think he'll make several Pro Bowls before his career is through. I really dont care of follow pro football enough to make any judgements on his pro career. He does seem to have that I am going to win this game at all costs level that he can achieve. Similar to guys like Micheal Jordan or John Elway.

It looks like the gambling public seems to think that Florida is not the 2nd best team. USC (-7.5) vs Texas I actually predicted Texas to beat USC last year.(I am not going to find it from last years post) Strangly enough I think that USC was a substantially better team. Vince Young just had a remarkable ability to win games almost single handily. He actually did it the year before against Michigan in the Rose Bowl also. In the case of this years game there is no part of Florida's team that I think is better than Ohio St. If they put up one of those graphs that list who has the better QB, RB etc etc the only position that I would put in Floridas column is defensive back. I just do not see Florida winning this game. I dont even see them covering the spread. Not to mention how good Tressel has been in big games as the Ohio St coach

It looks like the gambling public seems to think that Florida is not the 2nd best team.

The Problem is that not one of the so called elite SEC schools played a decent non-conference road game. Only Tennessee played a decent non-con home game. There really is no proof that the SEC is this superior conference that the persistant whining coach of Florida says they are. Truth is Florida would have lost 1 or 2 games in the Big Ten also. I am guessing that Penn St would give them all they could handle in Happy Valley also. The SEC schools keep saying how tough they are because they are ranked so high but seem to not consider that Michigan was ranked higher until some humans used poor judgement and put Florida in front of them because they dont want a rematch. I actually came in to post about how funny it was that Michigan didnt even take part in the hokey fox bowl selection pokey. Carr left a quote for them though that was pretty typical of him. The Fox guy than kind of called Carr out without mentioning all the incesant whining done by a certain Florida coach the last couple of weeks while Carr had been pretty classy even when past by USC. Lasty again I just think this whole thing shows the dire need for some sort of playoff. I mean LSU is completely locked out after 2 tough road losses. Louisville doesnt even get a shot. What happened to Oklahoma. Boise St being undefeated. All of these teams at least deserve a shot at playing for a title, not to mention the pissing match between Michigan and Florida supporters. I will give Urban Meyer credit for at least saying there still needs to be a playoff even after the BCS worked out for his team. I think it is getting a lot closer know that several SEC schools and I would think now Michigan are in favor.

Sweet :D This is complete poop. I saw the conspiracy in the ranks last night as soon as UCLA won. Clearly noone says "Who is the 2nd best team" when they fill out thier poll. OSU WILL BEAT FLORIDA BY 3 TOUCHDOWNS. If you have to make up reasons like "Michigan had their chance' than you know you voted wrong.

While I would agree that the SEC does not have as tough of a non-conference schedule, you forgot some good opponents in there. Tennessee played California for example, Mississippi State played West Virginia, LSU played Arizona (an ok team), Georgia played Colorado (who is awful this year, but is still better than Duke who you listed) and so on. The Pac 10 is really the only major conference this year that has really done a very good job of playing OOC opponents this year-everybody else has been close to the same strength. Look at one computer's strength of schedule non-conference for the 6 major conferences: Pac 10: .530 ACC: .456 Big East: .427 Big 10: .415 SEC: .410 Big 12: .410 2nd is closer to 6th then it is to first, and the last 4 conferences are very, very close, I only ranked the road games that they played. These were ALL the non-conference road games that the SEC played. With only Florida being an elite team that played a quality non-conference road game. Yes they did have some better home games. Still Tennessee was the only Elite SEC team to play a Top 25 non-conference game. I do know that some Elite Big Ten schools have offered home and home series with some Elite SEC schools and have been denied. I am just saying that the SEC is considered the best because of perception. They will have success in Bowl games because they are mostly quasi home games for them. I would just like to see some of these schools play some good teams on the road some. I am not saying everyteam everyyear but in a year like this you really dont have much to go on on how good the SEC is. As opposed to the Big Ten which had at least 5 non-conference road games against Top 25 teams. I didnt look it up yet I just thought of 5 off the top of my head. If an elite SEC school had played at Notre Dame or Texas or someone similar than we could at least get a feel for how good the conference really is.

I decided to look up the SEC non conference road schedule. FSU (fla) Memshis (Ten) Loiuisville (ken) Clemson (sc) Michigan (van) Duke (van) Missouri (miss) UAB (miss st) So except for in state rivalry games the SEC doesnt create any non-conference challenges from their elite programs. The get by on some sort of belief that they are better with nothing to prove it except a record in mostly home feild advantage bowl games. I have to go know but I will look at the Big Ten and maybe the other conferences later. I am willing to bet that the SEC isnt any where near as tough as the other conferences though. Which goes to what some have been saying. The are an exclusive club that doesnt allow themselves to really be challenged.

Never played it regularly, but has appeared in 48 career games there. We would not like Kielty in CF. I'm fairly certain the Cubs wouldn't consider him as an option there. A Murton type fielder or worse? You do realize that Murton was ranked as above average by several different defensive metrics, right? It surprises a lot of people (including me) because he looks awkward out there sometimes, but he has a lot more range than he usually gets credit for. Anyway, all the metrics I've seen rank Kielty lower than Murton as a left fielder. I know he's decent but I don't know how he'd be in center. I had a kid last year that played a great RF. My starting CF got hurt so I slid the RF over and he could not read the ball at all. I honestly thought he could handle it but things broke mechanically for some reason. Maybe some of the reasons that Murton looks awkward at times is because he is more of a CFer than a LFer. I couldnt track the ball in the corners. I was much better at center. I have met people who kind of struggle with one or the other. I dont think Murton is a bad LFer. He just made a couple of really bad looking plays. Its kind of like saying ARam is a bad 3rd baseman because of the one ball off his head. Overall I really think he was solid defensively.

Besides Weavers Orioles how many other successful teams did a lot of platooning? I can think of the 86 Mets and early 90s Phillies. 89 Cubs did some. I am not against it. I just kind of wonder why it isnt done more. I also would like to know why it isnt done more. Does it take the right kind of player(makeup not splits). Are managers just reluctant to do it.

Either Felding Yost or Fitz Crisler made them. There QBs were having a hard time telling between Michigan players and opponents downfield so one of these coaches had the stripes painted on the helmets. I think the stripes are supposed to be like a Wolverines. I am pretty sure they are the first team in football history to have any decorations on helmets. I think they are pretty cool. On another note I know a Lady at work who messed up a dye job in her hair and it looked like the Michigan helmet. She couldnt change it for a couple of weeks for some reason. It didnt look cool.

It's funny. I could change the word "East" to "Ten" and the statement would still be true. great. now you too. mmmk. no it would not. name me the Big East equivalents of Minnesota, Indiana, and Iowa. you cannot. why do you guys keep this up? it's really the silliest sustained argument in favor of an untennable position I can remember in all my time on this board. Yeah, I don't get that either. Ohio St. and Michigan are both really good, Wisconsin is good (that's three BCS teams right there). Are South Florida, Cincy, and Pittsburgh better than Penn St., Purdue, and Minnesota? I don't think so. It wasn't a comparison to the Big East. I was simply pointing out that the Big 10, after OSU, UM, and maybe Wisconsin (we'll find out after their bowl game), is just a bunch of crap. Obviously those three teams bring up the overall rating of the conference and they are what makes the Big 10 better than the ACC and Big 12, but the rest of the Big 10 isn't good this year. With that statement, I'm not saying the Big East is better or worse than the Big 10. Penn St is good. probably should be in Top 25. That leaves Minnesota, Iowa and Purdue in the middle with MSU, N'western, IU and UI at the rear. Minnesota, Iowa or Purdue would probably finish 4th in the Big East and could easily upset either Rutgers or WV. MSU would probably be bowl eligible if they were in the Big East. Again I think the Big East doesnt get enough respect but I also dont think they are as good as the Big Ten or SEC.

Than what gives the SEC respect. There bowl record in quasi home games. It certainly isnt any tough non-conference road games or anything like that. Again I dont think that the Big East is as good as Cuse is claiming. I do think they are pretty good though. I think Louisville claim to the NC title game is legitimate. I wouldnt put them in but still they should at least be in some sort of discussion.

I dont think Pete Rose should get in. I also think trying to compare his sins to others is wrong unless you are trying to compare them to the Black Sox. Baseball after the Black Sox scandal created a standard on gambling that I dont think should be lowered for anyone. As bad as Steriods have been for baseball could you imagine if it came out that the Detroit Tigers pitchers were throwing the balls away on purpose in the World Series for gambling purposes. The thing about Steriods is that there is probably players from everyteam taking them. They are taking them to try to win. The reason Bonds, McGwire and Palmero took off was because they were good players to begin with. To me this isnt close to throwing games. I know Pete Rose didnt throw games but the rules of baseball are set up to keep gambling out so games wouldnt have to be thrown. What if Pete got in so deep with gamblers that he had to throw games to catch up? I wouldnt be opposed to Steriod users being banned also. I would want to know if pain killers and speed users should be banned too. It is a slippery slope. As for Pete Rose the player. He was probably never the best player on his own team. If he won Gold Gloves it just proves how stupid that award is. He has Hall of Fame numbers but I could name at least 50 players who I would rather have. He was a good player for a long time. He was not an all time great though.

Louisville would give them a better game? Louisville has a pathetic defense. It'd probably be a similar game, at least in point differential, the over/under would be about 30 points higher. As a Buckeye fan, I really really really really don't want to see a rematch, because its always hard to beat the same team twice in a year. That, and, its kinda lame that we have to beat them twice in order to win the National Championship. While Michigan would only have to beat OSU once. Why should one game count more than the other one? As a football fan, I recognize that Michigan is almost certainly the second best team in the nation, and probably deserves a shot in the NC game. The simple and most obvious solution would be a playoff structure. The real loss in terms of adding a playoff structure is a loss of that "special" feeling from the regular season. And its not made up, the regular season in College football is incredibly more important than in any other sport. Unfortunately, year in and year out, the postseason continues to cause controversy. If you are going to award a national championship, you must institute a playoff structure. If you just want to have conference champions and bowl games, thats fine. But you can't legitimately declare a team better than another when they don't get a chance to play it out. BCS be damned. The BCS is not helping determine who the best 2 teams are. Louisvilles defense is decent and not as bad as you say it is. Also, when Ohio State opened up their offense they put up a lot of points on Michigan. Many, even the experts, think Louisville has a better offense than Ohio State. Michigan is good but I'm not so sure they are the second best team. I hope Louisville wins there BCS game if they get in. I really hope they play Florida or LSU. Somehow I think Florida is going to the Championship game to get whooped and LSU is going to get ND in the Sugar so Louisville would probably get Wake Forest. Which is sad because Louisville wont get any respect for that game at all. I dont think they have a better offense than OSU though.

but they aren't good enough right now. sorry, I'm not going to give Louisville props because South Florida might be good in a couple of years. and for pete's sake, how many times does it have to be explained to you that it is not just about the records, it is about who you play. no matter how rosey a picture you try to paint of the conference, the bottom five of the Big East all suck big time, right here, right now, and their non-conference schedule sucks. that's not to say the bottom five of other conferences don't suck, but I'd still take the bottom five of the Big Ten over the bottom five of the 8 team Big East any day of the week. congrats that the Big East beat a few dregs of the ACC and other power conferences. they are still dregs. if the ACC had teams with the BigEast records, it would be teams like Miami, VTech, BC, FSU. teams that have been, you know, good, in the recent past. teams that have quality bowl wins the over the past few years. teams that have great talent, coaching, and facilities. I really think that Cuse does overrate the Big East. I think you underrate them though. Louisville is a Top 5 team. If you were to put their schedule up against Michigans and Floridas it would hold up. Maybe not as tough but certainly was credible. Yeah, and I want to make it clear that I don't think Louisville, WVU, and Rutgers are bad teams. I just don't think they're on that top level yet, and I'll need to see them beat the best before I put them there. I'm not going to consider them great before they beat the established powers. Call me a good old boy all you want, but unless there's a playoff system I don't see any other way. Can't just hand someone automatic top billing.....they have to earn it somehow. I definitely agree with jig that the mid and bottom of the Big East is just really, really marginal. I strongly suspect those teams would struggle to be at the top of much lesser conferences. And I also strongly suspect a Louisville vs. OSU matchup would be a highway slaughter not worth watching on New Year's day. The mid to marginal Big East teams beat the mid to marginal Big Ten teams but yet that proves the Big 10 is better, why? MSU whooped Pitt at Pitt. Iowa beat Syracuse with their 3rd string QB. I dont remember any other Marginal Big East team playing a Marginal Big Ten team. I remember Indiana and Illinois losing but they arent marginal they suck.

but they aren't good enough right now. sorry, I'm not going to give Louisville props because South Florida might be good in a couple of years. and for pete's sake, how many times does it have to be explained to you that it is not just about the records, it is about who you play. no matter how rosey a picture you try to paint of the conference, the bottom five of the Big East all suck big time, right here, right now, and their non-conference schedule sucks. that's not to say the bottom five of other conferences don't suck, but I'd still take the bottom five of the Big Ten over the bottom five of the 8 team Big East any day of the week. congrats that the Big East beat a few dregs of the ACC and other power conferences. they are still dregs. if the ACC had teams with the BigEast records, it would be teams like Miami, VTech, BC, FSU. teams that have been, you know, good, in the recent past. teams that have quality bowl wins the over the past few years. teams that have great talent, coaching, and facilities. I really think that Cuse does overrate the Big East. I think you underrate them though. Louisville is a Top 5 team. If you were to put their schedule up against Michigans and Floridas it would hold up. Maybe not as tough but certainly was credible.

For as great as the SEC is what is there best non-conference victory this season? Cal I really think part of the SEC's mystique is just that "mystique" They rarely play good non-conference road games. Most of the bowls they play are quasi-home games. I would love to see Florida play Michigan in Chicago on New Years day or LSU vs Penn St in Cleveland. Truth is Florida is going to pass Michigan. I am not saying its right but it is obvious that a majority of College Football pollsters do not want Michigan in the Title game. Sadly OSU is going to thump them by 3 TDs. Louisville would give OSU a better game.

If we do end up trading Jones for some pitching, adding Trot Nixon would be a good idea. If we are keeping Jones, I still wouldnt mind adding Nixon except that would reduce Murtons pt. Could we have an outfield of Murton, Jones and Nixon against rhers with Soriano at 2b? That would be awesome offensively but not much defensively plus you would be moving Soriano around quite abit. At the end of the day I dont think adding Nixon is a bad idea in anyway. I also would much prefer to Floyd.