Exile on Waveland

Hendry is striking out on everyone so far this offseason. I think I'll consider that a positive.

It's looked like that, well, pretty much the entire season.

The Steelers beat the Vikings.

I explained myself when I made that pick. Iowa has an offense that's more conducive to a out of nowhere upset. Penn St. is a lot closer to the bottom then I thought when I made those picks, but Northwestern and Wisconsin are a lot farther away. Looking at the schedules, IU only gets PSU once (away), and MSU once (home). Iowa gets PSU once (home), and Wisconsin once (away) Iowa isn't going winless with that system, and IU isn't going to beat the top teams so it could come down to the head to head. An IU sweep isn't out of the question. I'd be stunned to see Iowa sweep IU. I really, really wish IU had two games with Penn State. I've heard people say it equals out since IU only plays Michigan State once, but that's irrelevant in my book. Be it Michigan State, Purdue, Ohio State (probably with or without Turner), etc., it doesn't matter. IU won't beat any of them. I seemed to be by far the most skeptical on Penn State among posters here, and, really, among anyone I know of. I just never thought they'd be very good. Never figured Wisconsin was in this discussion -- they have a solid group of experienced players and Bo Ryan. I did, however, think Northwestern could be (especially sans Coble). They're looking good even without him, though. I'm complaining about your picks, so I'll post mine (only fair). Of course, they may be easily dismissed as I didn't do it preseason (at least I don't think I did . . . definitely intended to). Purdue Michigan State Ohio State Illinois Minnesota Michigan Wisconsin Northwestern Penn State Indiana Iowa A few things have obviously changed. Purdue's depth was a concern, now they're without Jackson. Ohio State won't finish third with the conference's best player in street clothes. I would have had Minnesota higher, but White was kicked off the team before the season. I really, really wanted to pick IU ahead of Penn State, but couldn't do it.

I think they'll steal a few more games than people think. They've really looked pretty good tonight and have been much more competitive this year than last. It helps when you don't have an unathletic midget playing a bunch of minutes at PG. Jeremiah Rivers isn't much better. Whoa? Rivers isn't a world beater by any means, but Daniel Moore can't even carry his jock. Of course, that's much more of a slight against Moore than a compliment to Rivers. Thank God Moore didn't see the court last night. Hopefully that trend continues. It was a really nice win for this team. I was impressed with their rebounding and physical play underneath. I will say, Pitt looked really bad. Well Rivers is a way better defender, but the 2 of them just seem to have the same offensive gameplan of drive into the lane head down and then realize they can't shoot. Last year Indiana wouldn't have been close to Pitt, and it's not so much that the talent level is so much higher than last year, it's that sucking vortexes like Moore don't have to see the court due to lack of depth. I still don't think they'll do much in Big Ten season(though I may need to bump them ahead of Iowa), but they have the bodies where a loss won't be a foregone conclusion before they take the court. May? That was always a rather absurd anti-homer pick. I feel pretty comfortable Indiana will be closer to Penn State than Iowa. Iowa is god awful and doesn't really have the talent-base to improve as much as Indiana.

There were 3 undefeateds before the bowl season in 2004 as well. Regardless, why is "undefeated" the salient standard? The same issues apply if there are one undefeated and multiple one-loss teams, or no undefeated and multiple one-loss teams, or no undefeated and multiple two-loss teams, and on and on and interminably on.

I don't envision Indiana beating Pitt, but this isn't a vintage Pitt team of recent years. They're replacing nearly everyone from last year, plus they have battled injuries to the few returning players (though Jermaine Dixon may return tonight). They led New Hampshire this weekend at halftime 15-7 -- seriously. They'll likely end up being too physical, too tough defensively and too well-coached for Indiana though. I'd be very disappointed if the game is truly a blowout.

7th? Tennessee, Florida, LSU, Auburn and Alabama are the only ones ahead, I think. And Auburn is very, very debatable. Yeah, Georgia's better than seventh. I'd rank them fifth, probably.

According to Sagarin, Texas has wins over Nos. 23, 24, 31, 32, 47, 58, 61, 65, 80, 92, 99, 108, and 113. TCU beat Nos. 21, 29, 35, 55, 70, 88, 94, 99, 109, 110, 146, and 156. Cincinnati -- which plays in a tougher conference than Texas, per Sagarin -- beat Nos. 15, 18, 27, 41, 51, 52, 53, 85, 91, 93, 151and (unranked) Southeast Missouri State. Both teams have better wins -- Clemson for TCU, both Oregon State and Pitt for Cincy -- than Texas. The best win Texas has, per Sagarin is Oklahoma, followed closely by Nebraska. Think about that: the team playing for the National Championship has as its best two wins a win over a 7-5 team (that lost to BYU, a team TCU beat by 31 points on the road) and a one-point crapfest win over 9-4 team that lost at home to Iowa State. Texas certainly has more wins against mid-range teams, and they didn't play near the cupcakes TCU or Cincinnati played. I'm on the record -- at least as it pertains to the NCAA basketball tournament -- that I highly value "best wins" compared to overall strength of schedule. As I said above, I'm not much of a believer in Cincinnati, and think Florida will score just about every time they get the ball in the Sugar Bowl. Still, they should be ranked ahead of Texas. Now, Alabama, that's a resume. Wins over Nos. 2, 7, 10, 16, 22, 25, 26, 34, 40, 45, 143, 162, and (unranked) Florida International. They have five -- FIVE -- wins better than anyone Texas has beat. Now, obviously, this is irrelevant as Alabama isn't pertinent to this discussion.

I know we've discussed this before, but it annoys me. I can't think of one cogent, persuasive reason why Texas should be No. 2. I think both TCU and Cincinnati (who, after watching them play the last four games, I don't really think they're very good) have better resumes. I'm unsure if I'd rank Texas or Boise State fourth -- Boise has the better individual win, but not much else at all. I'd probably put Texas fourth (unless I decided on Florida fourth?). Also want to, redundantly for this thread, express disappointment at the TCU-Boise State game. Sure it will be a great game -- as it was last year, when I watched -- but they "deserved" a chance to play a team for the BCS conferences (and I'm not sure how the status quo is the best for ratings either).

Never happened. The host has always advanced. i have to think that south africa is the worst team to ever host a world cup, though. I think USSoccer said earlier in the thread that they're right up there with us in 1994. And we only got through as a third place team. I don't know how highly we were rated back then but it couldn't have been a whole lot better than SA is now. USA! USA! USA!

Can I get, admittedly, way, way ahead of myself? The US should not settle for second place in the group (now, I don't think they'll be "settling" for second as I'd be thrilled to advance and England is a clear-cut favorite in the group). However, second place in the group will likely result in a first game with Germany. First place in the group likely will result in a matchup against Australia/Serbia/Ghana, all of whom would be beatable. Further, the next game would be against the Group A winner -- South Africa/Mexico/Uruguay/France. So the difference between first and second in the group could be the difference between playing Germany then Argentina or Australia then (a depleted) France. Obviously, the gigantic premature caveats apply that (i) I'll be thrilled to advance again; and (ii) England will most assuredly win the group anyway, mooting post.

Really amazing. If the US advances -- they should -- a matchup with Germany looks probable in the first knockout game.

Yes yes yes yes yes. US have no excuse not to advance.

Balls.

I hate Mexico. Lucky SOB's.

I don't fear them either, but I'd rather avoid them than Slovakia/Slovenia/Switzerland/Greece. I suppose as long as they avoid Portugal, it's not bad. EDIT: And the draw is starting...now! EDIT 2: Never mind, ESPN lied and it doesn't start for 45 minutes. I wonder when the actual draw starts. Mostly curious to what will be going on in 80 minutes when I leave for lunch and if I can catch any of it on tv. According to the live draw chat, the actual draw starts at 12:45 ET and will last 3 hours. Three hours!?!?!?! How's that even possible? Is there going to be a dissertation regarding the relative strengths of each country's GDP compared to the football club?

I don't think any fans are as territorial about anything as Big Ten fans are. I don't mean that as an insult either.

College soccer news: Indiana fires head coach Mike Freitag. This was a bold -- and correct -- move from new AD Fred Glass. This portrays a sense of urgency I haven't seen from IU athletics (save the ill-fated Sampson soul-selling) in a long time. It would have been easy, and par for the course, to rationalize keeping Freitag as he's won a National Championship and is coming off a Sweet 16 appearance. Good show, Glass, good show. Now: will it be Todd Yeagley (obviously the son of Jerry Yeagley) or Caleb Porter (who, name-dropping, I've played soccer with a number of times)?

Maryland hasn't been impressive and that has gotten hopes up among IU's fanbase. The line, last I checked, was only Maryland -5. I'd take Maryland and laugh all the way to the bank (as much as I hope that prediction is incorrect). I'm sure at Assembly Hall IU will be better than they showed in Puerto Rico -- though they were unimpressive Saturday at home -- but I would be stunned if IU wins. However, I no longer necessarily expect a demolition as I did before the season. Yeah I would take Maryland just bcause of Vazquez I'm looking forward to seeing Vazquez in person tonight. I've always been a fan of his, despite his obvious mercurial nature. This will be the first time I've seen Maryland play since the 2002 National Championship game ( :( ) as I missed the rematch in Indianapolis the following season. I'll be sitting down in the bleachers. \:D/

Yeah I think they're definitely the two most complete teams. I don't think much support exists for this thesis. The Vikings have played one of the easiest schedules in the NFL -- the easiest in the entire NFL per Sagarin (the Colts have the twelfth most difficult). Their best win was a 2-point win against a 6-5 team, their loss a 10-point loss to another 6-5 team. Despite that, they've allowed 19 more points on the season than the Colts, and have only outscored their opponents by 19 more points total. Looking at advanced statistics, the Saints just jumped the Colts for No. 1 in team efficiency, with the Vikings ranked eighth (the Vikings are two spots ahead of the Colts in offense, but 12 spots behind in defense) (see http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/12/team-efficiency-rankings-week-13.html). I'm not entirely sure what the Vikings have done to distinguish themselves from the Colts. Edit: I totally forgot that the Packers are somehow 7-4, so those would be the Vikings best wins. That was not meant to be an intentional misrepresentation. I apologize for that. That's fair. Indy has certainly played a much tougher schedule. I'm probably just putting too much weight on their slow starts and the holes they've dug in the last month or so. The end results have been impressive. If the slow starts continue, it'll probably be the death of the Colts. You'll get no disagreement here. I just don't believe we fully have an understanding of how good the Vikings are.

Maryland hasn't been impressive and that has gotten hopes up among IU's fanbase. The line, last I checked, was only Maryland -5. I'd take Maryland and laugh all the way to the bank (as much as I hope that prediction is incorrect). I'm sure at Assembly Hall IU will be better than they showed in Puerto Rico -- though they were unimpressive Saturday at home -- but I would be stunned if IU wins. However, I no longer necessarily expect a demolition as I did before the season.

Yeah I think they're definitely the two most complete teams. I'm not entirely sure what the Vikings have done to distinguish themselves from the Colts. Showed up before the 3rd quarter in any game played in the last month. Well, that's certainly a contrived calculus.* Nevertheless, it had to be real hard on the Vikings playing teams that were a combined 17-27, while the Colts were playing teams with a combined 28-27 mark. *Though I do agree that a continuation of falling in large deficits -- which has only actually happened twice, by the way -- is an extremely dangerous proposition.

I think the Titans have a real good chance to win. The Colts have been playing with fire and this game will mean more to the Titans. I'd also feel more comfortable if Bob Sanders was healthy to "spy" on Vince Young. The Colts have been running the ball more effectively recently; though their defense has struggled a bit recently (especially the pass defense, in my opinion, though hopefully the return of a healthy Kelvin Hayden would remedy that somewhat). Chris Johnson is ridiculous.

Yeah I think they're definitely the two most complete teams. I don't think much support exists for this thesis. The Vikings have played one of the easiest schedules in the NFL -- the easiest in the entire NFL per Sagarin (the Colts have the twelfth most difficult). Their best win was a 2-point win against a 6-5 team, their loss a 10-point loss to another 6-5 team. Despite that, they've allowed 19 more points on the season than the Colts, and have only outscored their opponents by 19 more points total. Looking at advanced statistics, the Saints just jumped the Colts for No. 1 in team efficiency, with the Vikings ranked eighth (the Vikings are two spots ahead of the Colts in offense, but 12 spots behind in defense) (see http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/12/team-efficiency-rankings-week-13.html). I'm not entirely sure what the Vikings have done to distinguish themselves from the Colts. Edit: I totally forgot that the Packers are somehow 7-4, so those would be the Vikings best wins. That was not meant to be an intentional misrepresentation. I apologize for that.