CubColtPacer

I have absolutely no idea what the Colts are going to do this year, but I guess neither does anyone else, so I might as well throw my hat into the ring with them.

BTW, the Billingsley computer rankings for top programs all-time has the same top 20 or so (in slightly different order) but very different in the last 5. His 5 best teams not on this list? Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Stanford, Michigan State, and Wisconsin. the 4 teams that are on the list he has ranked lower: Colorado at 31, Ole Miss at 32, Clemson at 38, and BYU at 66.

That just teaches me to not look at ESPN just because they were the quickest to jump between recruiting pages. Here is the rating of every player on their site who would be on each 2010/2011 team (just to show you that I really wasn't trying to change the numbers): Minnesota: 96, 93, 93, 89, 88, 85, 78, 76 Indiana: 96, 95, 93, 92, 92, 90, 89, 89, 89, 87, 78 Purdue: 97, 96, 93, 90, 90, 89, 89, 87, 87, 87, 40, 40, 40 Wisconsin: 97, 96, 93, 93, 91, 89, 89, 89, 89, 81, 40, 40 (97 and 96 both freshman in 2010) You can see where I am going with this. Of course, digging through some of the more recognized recruiting sites has very different rankings for several players which put IU in a much more negative light compared to some of the other programs. It's my mistake for talking in an area that I'm not proficient in (recruiting) and not presenting info from a variety of places. My apologies.

There's the issue. Who is Indiana a decent bet to finish ahead of next year or '10-'11? For next year, I've got their best case scenario as 8th in conference. For '10-'11, I'd think MSU, Purdue, Illinois, OSU, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are all pretty safe bets to finish ahead of IU. That leaves them as 7th at best fighting with 4 other teams with way more experienced talent. Looking at the recruits from 2007-2010: MSU? Definitely Purdue for 2010-2011 depends on if they have any more defections. Their next couple classes are not exciting in the slightest, so they really are depending on those 3 sophomores. If even 1 of them leaves Indiana would have a clear advantage over them in 2 years. Illinois-Essentially a year ahead of IU in the development scale. Probably ahead of IU but it depends on which star recruits are developed better. OSU-consider Matta a better recruiter than coach, but it's hard to argue with the continuing talent coming in Wisconsin-Bo Ryan will have them in the hunt like normal even with only mediocre recruiting. Minnesota-Their recruiting is definitely inferior to that of Indiana's. There are 4 schools that are bringing in the top recruits in the Big 10. Michigan State, Ohio State, Illinois, and Indiana. Wisconsin gets thrown in because of coaching. I honestly don't see the experience angle in 2010-2011. Some of the other schools will have some big seniors and some key freshman, while IU's key players will be juniors and sophomores. Not a huge difference. And IU will have just as many top players on their roster as most of the conference (with the probable exception of Michigan State and Ohio State). For 2009, IU will have a similar talent level as 2010 (as Exile said, they only have a possible 2 scholarships for the 10 recruiting class so that will be a mostly empty class) but the experience issue will be much more prominent. It's hard to tell if next year's team will be like 2008 Purdue though or if they'll develop more slowly.

I might have believed that before the season. But I really didn't expect Pritchard or Williams to be anything more than role players for their entire IU career. That would have left the freshman next year as the ones who would have to carry the team, which is way too much to expect of them. Pritchard has been a much better offensive player than I expected from the beginning of the year though, and Williams has really been flashing his skill the last few weeks. What they need now is to not be the only 2 players on the court who will shoot (frequently in the Penn State game it was those 2 and 3 others who won't even look at the basket). Add Watford, who I believe who will be a legitimate scorer from the beginning, and you have a pretty nice top 3 scoring threats. My projected starting lineup is also 6-4 (who was a post guy in high school and is a pretty good rebounder), 6-5, 6-8, 6-8, and 6-9. No giant players among them, but they aren't going to get outclassed size wise like they are on a regular basis this year. Also those 5 should be well above average defensively, especially on perimeter defense. The bench is solid in that scenario. Jones as your backup point guard is fine. Roth as a situational guy is absolutely fine. Dumes and Story getting a few minutes a game won't hurt you much at all. And then we'll see what they get from the other 4 recruits for next year, any of whom could join the rotation. They aren't going to be anything special. Poor 3 point shooting and no huge size advantages will make certain of that. But I have a hard time seeing why that lineup should not be projected as a low-tier tournament team next year.

Either next year or the year after. They get potentially 7 new bodies next year, so it really depends on how the team gels and how quickly. Their starting lineup for next year won't look anything like this year though: PG: Rivers SG: Williams SF: Watford PF: Elston C: Pritchard Backups: Dumes, Jones, Creek, Hulls, Miniru/Capobiano (one of these will be too raw and out of the rotation), Roth, Story Watford gives the team that 3rd scoring threat. Also that team will have a lot more height on the court than this year even if there still isn't a lot of heavy guys. Add to that a point guard with experience and most of the things that are killing IU this year will be different next year. They'll have plenty of depth so that the walkons who have been on the court a lot this year won't have to play. But that team will still be mostly filled with freshman and sophmores. My projected starting lineup has 3 freshman in it, and that's always a cause for worry. So depending on how mature they are when they get to the university, it will be either 09 or 10 (the only players IU loses after 09 are Dumes and Jobe, where their replacements will almost certainly be a collective upgrade).

How can you assume it was more watched because of the HFA thing? You did catch me there. I only have anecdotal evidence to back that up. I know many people including myself who have admitted they wouldn't have stayed up until 1:30 in the morning to watch an All-Star game without the allure of seeing which league won HFA. The interest on this site's game thread was incredible to the point where that is still the longest game thread on file even beating all the Cubs playoff games and Opening days (the site's archives go back 4 years). There was even a hatred of Dan Uggla that came out of the game that shows how many people were emotionally invested in the game, and that is something that was not happening for the most part in the 90's.

Really? I hate the idea. Alternating would be fine with me, whichever team had th best record in the regular season would also be nice. But the problem with the allstar game is that a team could potentially be screwed out of home field advantage by a pitcher - who is not on their team - giving up a run allowing the other team to win. Or in the case of last year, Dan Uggla forgetting how to play second base. It seems completely stupid to me to allow Uggla's craptastic inning/game to put a team for whom he does not play in any sort of advantage/disadvantage. And in alternating, your fate is tied to if it's an odd or even year. I'd rather it be decided by players on other teams than to have it be locked in to a particular league for absolutely no reason. Neither one has anything to do with what team actually deserves home field advantage, so might as well go with the one that provides a little bit of entertainment if they are the only two choices.

It's been 6 seasons now and shows no signs of stopping. Personally, I don't know why people would want to go back to alternating. At least the All-Star game method has the bonus of making the game slightly more exciting (it was much more watched last year than if it didn't mean anything) while alternating gives you no benefit at all that I can see. I'd of course much rather see them pick it by record of teams or who wins interleague play. But if those are out, I'd much rather see them keep the All-Star game thing going than go back to just alternating years.

Since the Pie thread is locked and I really don't think this deserves it's own thread, I'll throw this bit by Callis on Henry Williamson in here:

The story that was posted last page is one example, here's a quote from that article:

One reason that Dunn is getting so few offers is that he wants to play the OF. Some teams had interest in him as either a first baseman or DH, but Dunn wasn't particularly interested in that.

Probably Warner and Brady. Brady has 3 rings, which all but guarantees his enshrinement. His totals are still a bit off, but he should have multiple good years ahead of him. Warner has fewer postseason numbers, and only 1 ring (and 1 loss to Brady in the SB). Yup. QB A is Warner, QB B is Brady. Their postseason numbers actually aren't that different: Warner: 63.9%, 2991 yards, 23 TD/12 INT, 8.3 Y/A, 97.8 rating Brady: 62.5%, 3954 yards, 26 TD/12 INT, 6.6 Y/A, 88.0 rating I think winning the Super Bowl has to get Warner in if Brady is assumed in as of today (which I think is correct to do). Warner would have one less Superbowl win than Brady, but he also would have been the driving force behind both of his Superbowl teams, which it is questionable if Brady was or not. I think Warner's reputation has suffered though by the unique way his career has developed.

I'm not quite up on NFL rules, how much of his big rookie contract would we be responsible for with Leinart? If that's not a problem, I'd take a flier on him Both teams would be responsible for whatever is left on the deals, both teams would take cap hits related to the pro rated portion the signing bonus, I think. I'm pretty sure the team trading the player away takes the full hit on the bonus and them the team getting the player is responsible for the rest of the contract. That's what I was saying, I guess yours was more clear though. Leinert has been a pretty big disappointment for Arizona. I think Warner is still a solid year or two away from being Hall-worthy on his own, but multiple super bowls have a way of swaying voters. I see him staying in the league. If he was willing to come back at the relatively cheap price he signed for last year, I don't see why he wouldn't reap the benefits of one last contract. I think the Boldin injury thing is behind him. Someone posted an interesting comparison on another board: QB A: 65.4% comp, 28591 yards, 182 TD/114 INT, 8.0 Y/A, 93.8 QB rating QB B: 63.0% comp, 26446 yards, 197 TD/86 INT, 7.2 Y/A, 92.9 QB rating Both players have made it to multiple Super Bowls. Are both, just one, or neither Hall-worthy and why?

Dallas, Atlanta, San Diego. also Baltimore, Jets, Cleveland, San Fransisco at times, Miami at times, Denver possibly next year. BTW, the Texans are a 4-3 defense. Atlanta is also a 4-3. The Texans were a 3-4 when they first started though, right? I believe so. They converted about 3 years ago.

Dallas, Atlanta, San Diego. also Baltimore, Jets, Cleveland, San Fransisco at times, Miami at times, Denver possibly next year. BTW, the Texans are a 4-3 defense. Atlanta is also a 4-3.

Yeah. I think the dream scenario is that Wood comes out to get some work in the 3rd game of the series with the Cubs winning already. I'd hate to have him come out in a save situation.

Olson indeed has 1 option to use if they need it. I doubt he becomes the 5th starter after his dismal year last year. They'll likely either send him to AAA to start and wait for a pitching injury or let him acclimate to the majors in the bullpen. His upside is probably around Marquis (or maybe slightly better) but to get close to him this year would be a very nice step forward for Olson.

The early news out of Baltimore is that Pie will be the starting LF with Luke Scott moving to DH.

good deal for the Phils. Anyone know approximately what Hamels would get in arbitration? Seems like a steal for Philly. To compare, Z got 3.76, 6.5, and 12.4 in his arbitration years (none of the years actually went to arbitration but was settled in between the two figures each time). It saves probably somewhere between 5-7 million for Philly if Hamels stays really good. It's pretty much a meh deal though for both sides.

I'm kind of surprised he didn't get thrown out of the game there. That couldn't even be considered a heat of battle type of play. He just decided he would take the 15 yard penalty to get an easy shot at a QB on a running play.

Nothing to do with the west coast this time. These games are set in stone every year. they don't start until 3 because of the west coast. The ratings on the east coast are better at 3 and 6:30 than 1 and 4:30. It's also the reason why it's the 6:30 game that is the coveted one. The west coast certainly helps drive those times later, but they'd be around that time even if they were only trying to maximize the ratings on the east coast.

I doubt this is a signal that a Peavy move is in any way imminent because of no ownership change, but I'm sure that leaving the door open for a possible Peavy move was in Hendry's mind when he was deciding where to send Pie. If nothing else, Olson might step into that swingman role that Marshall might be vacating and become that second left-hander out of the pen. He also has 1 option left in case the Cubs need to use it.

Nothing to do with the west coast this time. These games are set in stone every year. It is kind of funny that with the way it shook out Arizona plays a game inside a dome at noon while the second game is in the freezing cold at night. But it's all TV ratings and these later starts are what's required to get them.

The host school would be pissing away tons of money for no reason. Neither has anything to benefit from playing a home game offsite. there are a crapload of Notre Dame alum in Chicago, that's all I'm saying There simply aren't enough seats. Even if they played it in Soldier, there aren't enough seats. But in Wrigley? It would be a horrific loss for either school. There are plenty of fans in Chicago to buy the tickets, but there just isn't the room. Now, ND is starting to schedule neutral site games across the country. But they aren't going to be the marquee matchups. Right now, they have neutral site matchups scheduled against Washington State, Arizona State, Army, Navy, and Baylor. They do have one game in Chicago against Army, but most of them are in very different areas of the country (San Antonio, Arlington, New Orleans, Orlando, Dublin)