Andy

Get out of it? They'd given up two runs already and it was a solo homer. I'm barely following it on gameday. Looked to me like Utley tripled to tie it at 5 and the next 2 guys grounded out before the homer but gameday either messed it up or I misread. The next 2 guys did ground out, but Utley's triple drove in a run and the groundout scored Utley

After 0 runs in 18 innings while I was at Wrigley this weekend. Good times.

Well, if you were going for it, I doubt you'd trade your best reliever for young players. And we probably wouldn't have traded our best young pitcher for a 1B who needed at least half a year at AAA. You would if you thought Cashner was an injury liability (which we already had a reason to believe), thought Rizzo was going to be a cornerstone player (somewhat TBD but certainly way more good than bad) and thought a decent SP in Wood could give you more value than a reliever (he didn't last year, but it would still have been a worthy gamble, and he's been far better than Marshall this year).

The abandonment of 2012 also put them in a hole they tried but failed to dig out of in 2013, and we may yet see more of those consequences in 2014 and 2015. I'm far from convinced that what we gained in an expedited farm system will make up for the seasons we lost. We've locked in the downside and are praying for enough upside to cover it. I think part of it will depend on how Kris Bryant turns out. Considering he's essentially the only thing we gained out of punting 2012, I'll say it's a pretty substantial part. Anthony Rizzo, Travis Wood, Luis Valbuena, Jeff Samardzija, Arodys Vizcaino, Kyle Hendricks, Christian Villanueva Trading for Rizzo and Wood would've been smart moves (I'd even call them slam-dunk moves) even if the Cubs were good, so I'd disagree vehemently that those were part of the 2012 tanking.

The abandonment of 2012 also put them in a hole they tried but failed to dig out of in 2013, and we may yet see more of those consequences in 2014 and 2015. I'm far from convinced that what we gained in an expedited farm system will make up for the seasons we lost. We've locked in the downside and are praying for enough upside to cover it. I think part of it will depend on how Kris Bryant turns out. Considering he's essentially the only thing we gained out of punting 2012, I'll say it's a pretty substantial part. To be fair, the prospects we got out of the midseason dump-off of Dempster and company would probably also be included in that.

I'm sure he wasn't. But that's what happened. At the end of the day, we don't have a good role model for a major-market franchise just flat-out tanking in order to expedite a rebuilding. That's why so many of us were flat-out adamant that they would not be doing that when Epstein was hired. But pointing to successful teams that developed prospects isn't particularly accurate or helpful to illuminating the Cubs' position or the viability of their plan. Early 90's Yankees? Say what you will about the lap-the-field spending of the Yankees in the 2000's, but the late 90's success was predicated on the internal core of Jeter, Williams, Posada, Soriano, Pettitte, Orlando Hernandez, Rivera, etc. He already noted that the early-'90s Yankees weren't tanking for a rebuild, they were just bad. is there a difference? if you're the worst team on accident, you don't get a better pick than a team that had the worst record on purpose. Well, Kyle was specifically talking about major-market franchises tanking to expedite rebuilds.

I'm sure he wasn't. But that's what happened. At the end of the day, we don't have a good role model for a major-market franchise just flat-out tanking in order to expedite a rebuilding. That's why so many of us were flat-out adamant that they would not be doing that when Epstein was hired. But pointing to successful teams that developed prospects isn't particularly accurate or helpful to illuminating the Cubs' position or the viability of their plan. Early 90's Yankees? Say what you will about the lap-the-field spending of the Yankees in the 2000's, but the late 90's success was predicated on the internal core of Jeter, Williams, Posada, Soriano, Pettitte, Orlando Hernandez, Rivera, etc. He already noted that the early-'90s Yankees weren't tanking for a rebuild, they were just bad.

Jay Bilas is posting a stream of Tweets pointing out that the NCAA's official online shop directs you to certain jerseys for sale if you type in names like "Clowney", "Manziel", "Tajh Boyd", "Teddy Bridgewater", etc. So that's not a good thing.

Carolina really needs to get good so the team can draw higher-ranked broadcast teams. I'm so tired of having to listen to Chris Myers and Dick Stockton.

I was at Saturday's game where he was all over the field and made that ridiculous catch-that-wasn't-a-catch. He's an incredible athlete.

What'd be your solution for a booster promising a recruit a $100k (or insert $$ here) autograph bonus if he committed to X school and was all-conference, or a similar arrangement? Forbid booster involvement. Moreover, forbid any company connected with a booster from offering endorsements or anything of the like to a player. It'd be impossible to police, of course. But so is this stuff.

I thought it was 28. I mean, you couldn't try to get 29 hits without scoring more than 2 in a three-game stretch.

Manziel should be able to make money off his own name, but until that's allowed (which is probably coming within a few years), it's pretty [expletive] stupid to do it anyway.

Taking off from 2nd down 4 when the ball didn't even get away. Holy [expletive]

I blame myself. I traded for him in fantasy this week. I knew he wasn't as good as he was pitching, but made the stupid assumption that he would simply revert to his FIP, not get dinked and dunked to death his very first start on my team.

LOL Porter has no clue what he's doing apparently.

So Wood doesn't get the inside corner OR the outside corner. Good to know.

The unstoppable Gillespie/Barney combo delivers again!

You're missing the point. The SEC stuff I'm talking about only applies to teams within that conference. Everyone knows Ohio State and their weak-ass B1G schedule gives them advantages over contenders from better leagues. OK, but how is what the SEC does giving an unfair advantage that other teams do not enjoy? Look at the schedules of the SEC teams that went to the title games during the run. Those were not cakewalk schedules by any stretch of the imagination. And again Oregon, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc could have beaten the SEC teams on the field but did not. Most times it wasn't close. Again, I'm not referring to ANY teams outside the conference. I'm just referring to the situations where an SEC team might miss the league title game (and therefore a shot at the whole thing) due in large part to who their cross-division opponents are. That scheduling model also is part of the reason all those top SEC teams ended up ranked so high (because they don't play all the other good teams in the league), but I was focusing on the part where it affects who plays in the national championship. I would expect this issue to crop up in the 14-team ACC and 14-team B1G going forward as well, just not to the extent that it plays into the national title picture, since no more than a couple of those teams have any realistic chance of being title contenders (for the moment, of course).

Well sure, the scheduling shenanigans suck for the SEC teams(thanks for giving us 5 games against the Top 13 last year Uncle Mike!), but I'm not seeing the huge impact on the National Championship race here. If Georgia won against Bama they'd probably have a slightly lesser SOS than Florida, but have the best win and a win over Florida in Jacksonville. They would've been worthy of a title game spot. But they didn't win, and Florida was in the BCS and Georgia was not. Is it really of utmost importance which SEC schools are cycling through certain spots in the pecking order as long as they all are in the appropriate spots in the end? Not to me personally, of course. I'm just looking from the point of view of fans of the individual teams. Hell, I feel terrible for poor Tennessee, who if they ever actually do get good again still has to deal with Alabama annually on top of Florida, Georgia et al.

You're missing the point. The SEC stuff I'm talking about only applies to teams within that conference. Everyone knows Ohio State and their weak-ass B1G schedule gives them advantages over contenders from better leagues.

I never implied the SEC was on a similar plane in terms of quality. My argument was exactly the opposite - that the scheduling shenanigans in that league are a bigger deal than in other leagues because the SEC is better at the top than all the others, and therefore they directly affect the national title picture. Last year, Florida had a better resume than Georgia but missed the SEC title game because A) they picked the Georgia game as the game they were going to turn the ball over 200 times and B) they drew Bama as a cross-division game (on top of LSU being their fixed opponent, which they won) while Georgia played Ole Miss (and have Auburn as the fixed opponent). And going forward there's an excellent chance a similar scenario plays out annually, with South Carolina the most likely beneficiary this year. In sum, my point is 14-team leagues are stupid, and they're even stupider if the league sticks to an 8-game conference schedule.

The SEC is the only league in which those schedule inequalities dramatically affect the national title picture at the moment, however, due to the chasm separating the good and bad teams in that league, which doesn't exist in any other major conference right now. Divisional scheduling hijinks are not new to disrupting the BCS, I got to experience that fun first hand in 2007. As for the gap between the good and bad teams, looking at F/+ last year: SEC: 6 in the Top 15, 7 in the Top 45, 11 in the Top 60, 3 ranked 60+ You are arguing against my point (the SEC's top teams are far above the lower ones) by showing stats that completely support it (7 SEC teams outside the top 45 last year, more than any other league you listed, while 6 were in the top 15, also more than any other league you listed).

Without people like me, worshiping at the altar of the conference wouldn't be as much fun, would it?

In a nutshell, an extra conference game on the schedule means half the teams in the league get one more loss. That extra loss, depending on which teams take it, could make the difference between the SEC winning another title and not ever having the chance. If Bama had played in Athens last year instead of playing Western Kentucky, maybe they lose that game. All else being equal, that would've sent a 2-loss team from the West to the SEC title game, and that game would no longer have been a de facto semifinal, but an elimination game for Georgia. Those things aren't really unique to the SEC. 3 of the 5 power conferences play 8 game slates, and one of the conferences that does play 9 games doesn't have a conference title game. There are potentially inequalities there as well as a million other places, because it's a sport with a 12 game schedule and ~75 true competitors, but the 8 game schedule is hardly as conspiratorial as you're making it out to be. The SEC is the only league in which those schedule inequalities dramatically affect the national title picture at the moment, however, due to the chasm separating the good and bad teams in that league, which doesn't exist in any other major conference right now.