Tracer Bullet

little less drama please

If you're not going to be funny, just drop it, please.

Why?

Ok, let's do the same comparison with Michigan, Michigan State, and Notre Dame. Let's assume all 3 win their final game and then Michigan State loses to Wisconsin in the title game. Is it fair to rank a 3 loss Notre Dame team ahead of a 2 loss Michigan team that beat them? No. Is it fair to rank a 3 loss Michigan State team ahead of a 3 loss Notre Dame team that beat them? No. And you say it is also unfair to rank Michigan ahead of Michigan State in that scenario. All 3 of those cannot exist together. So how do you rank those teams? That's the problem with using head to head. It never is just about ranking two teams against each other. Sure, if you limit it to just Michigan and Michigan State then it seems unfair. But when you expand it to making an actual ranking of all the teams, there is no fair way to rank Michigan State, Michigan, Notre Dame, and Nebraska in a top 25 poll using head to head. There is always going to be some head to head matchup you have to ignore to make it work. So you have to go by total resume. BTW, if Michigan State does lose in the title game, it won't matter if the voters keep them right in front of Michigan or not. Michigan would be so far ahead of them in the computer rankings at that point that they would move ahead of them in the BCS standings. Don't fight the hypo. The reason you can narrow this discussion to 2 teams is bc that's the question: Team A won the teams' division, beat Team B h2h, and only has 3 losses bc they played in the title game. As between those 2, which should be ranked higher/be eligible for a bcs bowl? It doesn't work with ND bc they aren't in the same division and don't have a conference title game. UM only has fewer losses than MSU (in our hypo) bc MSU won h2h and thus played in a "bonus" game while UM sat at home. Doesn't seem fair to punish the team that lost what is basically a 1-game playoff for the benefit of the team that didn't even play in the playoff.

A - h2h doesn't trump all. But you have 2 teams with identical records and they're in the same division of their conference. You can't punish a team that gets to the conferene title game by knocking them behind a team they beat and finished ahead of in the division. B - why is Nebraska relevant? We're talking about MSU and UM. What they did against Nebraska or any other team isn't part of a h2h discussion. C - the title game matters. It should be relevant in picking between MSU and some other at large candidate from outside the big ten. I could even see it being relevant in MSU v a big ten team in the other division. But MSU shouldn't fall behind a team in their own division who is sitting idle bc they got beat by MSU.

Absolutely. Right now, Michigan and Michigan State's resume is virtually identical. Michigan has had the slightly harder schedule and Michigan State has the head to head win (although I don't put much stock in that, since there are so many times in college football where A beats B beats C who beats A). Michigan is already ahead in the computer rankings. If Michigan State plays another similar team and loses, should they not get penalized even a little bit for that? Because even a little bit of a penalty would put them clearly behind Michigan. Was there some mitigating factor in the head to head game? I agree with discounting the A-B-C games (happened this year with these 2 and ND) but why discount h2h? Both were full strength and I don't recall some fluke event that made UM lose. As between two teams in the same division, the one that won the h2h game and plays in the title game should get the nod over a team they beat (that therefore didn't play on the title game).

wait, so MSU and UM could finish 10-2. But MSU could lose in the big ten title game and fall below UM - a team with the same regular season record, that they beat in the regular season, and didn't play in the title game. In doing so, MSU doesn't get a BCS game and UM does? That can't be right, can it?

Yeah, that was really bad. ND wasn't going to beat Stanford anyway, but any thought of it probably went up in smoke now that we've only got one RB for that game. That means Kelly's going to unleash Rees, which could mean 4 or 5 INTs instead of just 1 or 2. Why do you think ND had no shot against Stanford? I'm not sure Stanford is all that great. They don't have to be. Rees hasn't improved in the slightest, despite playing well into the 4th in almost every game. Kelly must have banked on him improving throughout the year and it just hasn't happened. Teams drop 8-9 guys and make him throw into coverage b/c he can't run, can't zip the ball, and can't throw deep. Gray (guy who blew out his knee) had outperformed Wood for about 8 weeks and gave ND 2 quality RBs. Now we have a junior and 2 true freshman at RB. It's not going to be pretty. Doesn't matter. At either 8 or 9 wins, ND is going to the Champs Sports bowl.

Did a guy charged with armed robbery this week really catch a TD for ISU last night?

You really should read the thread rather than assuming what it knows and making an argument against your (incorrect) assumption. Doesn't reflect that well on you.

That's a little harsh.

Timing is amazing on that discovery doc.

Seems like you're actively hoping for it.

Not sure about second thoughts. But it's definitely odd.

There's a sandberg thread in rants. Take this there please.

There's a thread for him elsewhere.

Why? I'm not sure where I stand yet.

Isn't OPS+ still flawed as OPS is? If we're going to tweak a stat and tie it to salary, why start with one that doesn't properly value obp?

If Maddux isn't interested then I'm totally fine with this.

Why would better options be waiting in the wings? If we had better options, wouldn't they be in the rotation? Well, Cashner for one is doubtful to be ready to be a major league starter on Opening Day. I'm thinking something like him still stretching out in the bullpen or Iowa, or something along those lines. Basically I'm not counting on 6 months of 30 plus starts with solid results out of Wells. But he could holder his own until somebody else proves ready or they make a deal. I see. Agreed.

Hahaha

Why would better options be waiting in the wings? If we had better options, wouldn't they be in the rotation?

I thought we had a rule against posting bleacher report rumors. or maybe it's a law.

i might go to his book signing thingy on thursday. I don't think linking to the 2 sites he posts at all the time will get you bumped to the front of the line.

I love that we get a great FO and people immediately suggest that they should push ethical boundaries.