Tracer Bullet

Notre Dame's sweet gig is about to go from pretty decent short-term to being very hard to sustain long-term. why? Superconferences can lead to longer conference schedules and fewer guaranteed wins, which means fewer teams want to use non-conference games on competitive matchups, or on games on the road. If Notre Dame can't schedule anyone besides Kansas State and Air Force then they'll fall off the map. There's also the possibility that superconferences lead to conference championships becoming a play-in for a 4 team playoff, although that's less of a consideration. Right now the Pac-10 plays 9 conference games and 3 out of conference. USC as recently as 2 years ago played OSU and ND as 2 of its OOC games. Miami, OU, Texas, UM, MSU, and USC (and obviously Navy) are already on ND's schedule in the near future or very close to it. BC just signed up too. I don't understand why super conferences have to lead to no OOC games. Most conference teams play 3-4 and ND has had no trouble scheduling games, even when ND was down (the only reason for their [expletive] schedule now is the last AD was stupid, with 7-4-1 scrapped, suddenly OU, Miami and Texas were interested). ND remains a cash cow and we all know from the way this has played out that cash still rules in the NCAA. There's also no way the NCAA could exclude non-super conference teams from the national title. That's just not a concern.

Notre Dame's sweet gig is about to go from pretty decent short-term to being very hard to sustain long-term. why? Because decent TV revenue and a spot in BCS discussions are only a guarantee right now by joining a conference. why?

do whatever you want. i'm just saying if it were my team, i'd recognize that we got away with highway robbery and the national title and heisman trophy are worth more to the program than 20 schollies over the next 4 years.

This is where we are going to disagree. I don't think one party is going to convince the other party otherwise so... agree to disagree? no. you'll have to explain this if you want me to agree to disagree. I can agree to disagree when there are two or more reasonable ways to analyze a situation. Your refusal to recognize that Sandberg's statements (written and oral) and actions as a manager for 2 years are relevant in determining how he will manage is just not something I can wrap my head around.

Notre Dame's sweet gig is about to go from pretty decent short-term to being very hard to sustain long-term. why?

given all this [expletive] they've done, if they don't lose some games, bowl, and a national title, i'd keep my mouth shut and be happy the penalties are all forward-looking. So everyone else is allowed to be surprised and happy about how harsh the penalties are but I should be grateful that they aren't worse? That makes no sense. sure it does. people are happily surprised b/c it's been 6 YEARS and no one thought the NCAA would ever actually do anything of consequence. The penalty, though harsher than most expected, is not as harsh as many/most would have wanted. Since loss of a national title and heisman trophy would logically be on the table, if I were a fan, I'd be pretty happy they stopped short of that.

This is where I'm at really. Nail biting about Sandberg as manager is overblown in my opinion. really? because it seems like you're actually in "i'm going to defend Sandberg against all comers" territory. I think you're trying to set me up as a blind Sandberg supporter. That, I am not. I find it foolish to dig for reasons to not like him much in the same way that it is foolish to want him as manager simply because he's Ryne Sandberg. I think there's a handful of people that actually know what kind of manager he is (and I don't think anyone on this forum is included in that handful except for maybe a select few people that spent a season(s) going/listening to a majority of his teams games). Everyone else is speculating, but some seem to talk as if they do in fact know. So, I'll ask that you excuse me if you disagree with the idea that I find it fair to see what kind of manager he actually is before condemning him. That's all. It has nothing to do with defending Sandberg because he's Sandberg, but with defending a manager candidate. of course it's speculation to some extent. trying to determine what any manager will do in the future requires some speculation (even if they've been an MLB manager for 20 years). but you take what you know of a person, and there's a fair amount out there about Ryno, mostly directly from him in terms of his HOF speech and his Y! sports article(s), and you make your best guess as to how they will manage. When you add the things he's said and written to his decision to have a cleanup hitter bunt in the first inning, you're going to scare some people on this board. Does that mean Ryno will necessarily manage the Cubs that way? No, but it's not unreasonable to draw logical conclusions about future events based on the evidence you have in front of you.

given all this [expletive] they've done, if they don't lose some games, bowl, and a national title, i'd keep my mouth shut and be happy the penalties are all forward-looking.

This is where I'm at really. Nail biting about Sandberg as manager is overblown in my opinion. really? because it seems like you're actually in "i'm going to defend Sandberg against all comers" territory.

I don't remember Prior's fastball moving like that. One of them came out of his hand heading towards the outside corner and ended up right on the inside corner. At 98 mph. Insane. Prior didn't have that kind of movement on the FB. Though there were a couple that seemed to miss spots, but moved so far that the hitter still missed (or didn't swing and they were inside corner strikes rather than outside corner). Could have been adrenaline too. But his motion and whatnot reminded me of Prior and I, like imb, got a little sad.

The example of bunting with the 3 hitter with no outs in the first inning, is definitely a bad sign. There is something to be said about playing the game the right way. To me that means hustling, picking up your 3rd base coach instead of looking over your shoulder at the ball, hitting the cutoff man, knowing when to try to get the runner going to third or throwing to 2nd to keep the double play in order, etc. Basic fundamentals of playing. Expecting your players to do those things is not a bad thing. Playing the game the right way doesn't mean calling for a sacrifice bunt in the first inning from your #3 hitter. Since I have no input to who the next manager of the Cubs will be but have a feeling it will be Ryno, I just hope he succeeds. It's not expecting guys to hit the cutoff man or pick up the 3rd base coach that people are worried about.

I'm willing to bet a lot of the walks Soto accrued over the year have been a result of him hitting in the bottom of the lineup in front of some pitchers and dubiously weak hitters Then why don't most #8 hitters have high OBP%s? Soto has shown patience there. it's not like every #8 hitter in the NL is automatically going to have a high OBP. But a patient hitter is going to have the opportunity to take more walks hitting 8th than elsewhere b/c the pitcher will pitch around them in more instances. it's only logical. there's also the argument that an 8th hitter, even if otherwise patient, should swing at more crap pitches in some circumstances b/c it's better for the 8th hitter to try to get a hit on a crap pitch than walk and leave it up to a pitcher (which 90% of the time sucks at hitting). not saying I agree, but it's not an unusual strategy.

Uh, what are you basing this on? Anyone rooting for Sandberg to manage the Cubs is still in a very small minority here. Basing on nothing more than my observations of the conversation I've seen here. Then in all honesty you might want to pay more attention. Hell, I don't know how you could come to that conclusion based on just this thread alone. Every time this topic comes up you have people coming out of the woodwork to rant about what a terrible idea it is, and rightly so. Look up about 6 posts. I don't recall seeing much of that at all before. I've seen several posts like it recently. there are certainly some people that want Sandberg to manage the Cubs. But it appears that most people have just accepted that it will happen, even though they're very much against it. So you may see less angst this year than last b/c you can only bang your head against a wall so many times.

If there was ever a game to loosen the reigns on his pitch count it was this one. Could've given him a chance at an MLB record that likely would've stuck for a long time, while at the same time giving the people who showed up an even better pitching performance the the one they actually got. It's already going to be remembered as one of the most dominating pitching debuts in history, but it could've been THE most dominating in history if they just loosened up and let him go to 110 just this one time. It was a special game, they should've made a special circumstance that's just absolutely ridiculous.

what good with that do? he'd never hit the guy.

we don't need 4 posts from you and dexter about whether this thread exists. so i asked you both to drop the stupid back and forth. and no, if someone makes what you believe to be an unproductive post, you making an unproductive response isn't helping. i'm not exactly sure why we need a separate thread to discuss keeping lou, when the thread discussing firing him would include such discussion. but i'm quite sure we don't need several posts about the existence of this thread. now do you understand? good. let's move on.

alright, we get it. move along

Um...doesn't that seem like a bad idea to TELL people? http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0608-cubs-brite--20100607,0,1309480.story hitters seem to have no problem hitting him when they don't know what's coming. might as well give it a shot.

Is Strasburg's debut going to be on ESPN? I don't mean just the first pitch, but the whole game?

I don't think you are. What he's suggesting is that the Cubs trying to trade for Jake Peavy would not be a good idea. wait, what?

i'm picking up on your sarcasm

Sure it is. Which do think is the best predictor of Soto's production in the SHORT TERM ?? The first month of the season, the last month of the season, or the overall average of both ?? Soto AB R H 2b 3b HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS BABIP P/PA RC IsoD RBI% 04/05 - 05/12 83 16 26 4 0 4 10 24 16 0.313 0.467 0.506 0.973 0.349 4.27 19.6 0.154 0.162 05/14 - 06/06 43 2 6 0 0 1 2 7 14 0.140 0.260 0.209 0.469 0.179 4.04 2.3 0.120 0.059 04/05 - 06/06 126 18 32 4 0 5 12 31 30 0.254 0.401 0.405 0.806 0.297 4.20 20.5 0.147 0.130 the full season and it's not particularly close. his performance is comparable with his career numbers and it's the most relevant number of PAs. 50 PAs isn't telling us much about what he'll do in the future.

the one with the dark black background?

And I can't believe you have nothing better to do than to respond to every single post I make without even really saying anything at all. Your argument makes no sense at all. That's why literally everyone else is in disbelief. Makes about as much sense as everyone who is arguing that Galarraga's game should be changed to a perfect game, yet that's a good argument and this one isn't? For the record, I'm in favor of the game being changed, BTW. But arguing this point further makes no sense as nobody's mind is going to be changed. discussing differing reasonable opinions over which no one here has any control is completely different than the argument you were having with everyone else.

And I can't believe you have nothing better to do than to respond to every single post I make without even really saying anything at all. Your argument makes no sense at all. That's why literally everyone else is in disbelief.