CubColtPacer

Well, the options for the Big 10 on adding another team are limited. They are looking for a good academic school that also would have competitive athletics. I've heard names like Pitt, Rutgers, and Missouri thrown around, but the question becomes why would any of those schools want to jump conferences? There's simply no school that fits the Big 10 well enough that would probably be willing to join right now.

Why would it be criminal? It's hardly the first time that a team has made it over a similar team despite getting beat head to head. The Florida State/Miami/Washington controversy in 2001 was a lot worse than the Va Tech/LSU one would be.

The only thing I question is the thought that you should win your conference to go to the title game. 1) Wildcard teams have won the title all the time in other sports. Winning the division/conference is not a necessary first step to winning the national title. 2) People are talking about this scenario specifically with teams such as Kansas and Georgia. The thing is, if their conferences had no championship games, then this wouldn't even be talked about. Both of those teams actually shared their conference title, but didn't get to go to the conference championship game due to tiebreakers. Conference tiebreakers shouldn't determine if a team gets to go play for the national title. Personally, I think Georgia or maybe Kansas should get their shot if both WVU and Missouri lose. Georgia shouldn't get passed over just because a 3 loss TN team won their last game. If the voters have determined that they have the best resume to be ranked #4 before this weekend, they shouldn't get passed over just because people don't want to put them in the title game.

what part of hill's numbers don't look dominant? and he may be older than crawford, but he's got a lot less service time, so he's considerably cheaper. How long will Hill be considerably cheaper? How much money is he going to get in arbitration for the 2009 and 2010 season? The 2008 season Hill will make about 5 million less, but I question how much less he will make once he hits arbitration before the 09 season. Suppose Hill gets $3 his first season of arbitration (if he gets more than that, you're going to be very, very sorry you traded him for Carl Crawford). By that time, Crawford will have either forced you to trade him or forced you to sign an extension of more than $10 per season, possibly closer to $15 per. I don't really understand how Crawford is going to force a trade with 2 years left on his deal. He may want an extension, but he'll have to wait until during the 2010 season to get it.

what part of hill's numbers don't look dominant? and he may be older than crawford, but he's got a lot less service time, so he's considerably cheaper. How long will Hill be considerably cheaper? How much money is he going to get in arbitration for the 2009 and 2010 season? The 2008 season Hill will make about 5 million less, but I question how much less he will make once he hits arbitration before the 09 season.

I heard before the bucket game that he was likely to get a new deal. After the bucket game, it was a done deal. Even the fans (who were mostly skeptical of him) won't let IU change him now. He's the guy who lead them to their first bowl bid in 15 years, and he's also an "Indiana guy" through and through which is important to many fans. I worry about his coaching abilities, but at the same time the turmoil might have been too much if somebody else had been hired because so many of the fans would not have agreed with the move. There was really no other move to make besides giving him an extension.

I understand what meph is trying to say. At the same time, most fans want the BCS to be like other sports. Other sports don't crown the best team, they crown the most deserving team. When you're talking about who is deserving to play for the national title, it has to be about wins and losses first, then schedule second, then margin of victory third. Sure, Florida might be one of the best 5 teams in the nation. They aren't one of the 5 most deserving teams though, and I believe most people would rather have the most deserving teams than necessarily who is the best in BCS games. Otherwise, the point of the games in the first place is lost. If rankings aren't based on wins and losses first, then the drama of a close game becomes almost nil, and that's what people love about college football. For example, the LSU-Arkansas game on Friday. If you're going to rank LSU about the same either way (because they've played a hard schedule and it was an OT game), then there is no reason for fans around the nation to really care about the game.

good thing some guy in USA Today's rankings have no actual effect on the real world As Meph said, Sagarin does have an influence on the BCS as he is one of the computer rankings. Of course, in the formula that counts for the BCS Florida's only 9th. Again though meph, you're willing to accept that Florida is 2nd using pure points, but at the same time that formula has Kansas 6th and Missouri 9th after last night's games, while you have Missouri 2nd and Kansas 17th. So it's pretty obvious you don't put much weight in that formula except for the high ranking of Florida.

How can you do an onsides kick off a safety? Isn't it a punt? Typically it is, but for some reason they let Kansas tee it up like normal. You can still onsides a punt though, it just takes a little creativity to get a good one.

True, but Cordero also had the best defensive team that the Brewers could put out there because of Yost's endless defensive subs whenever the team had the lead. For example, he rarely had to pitch with Braun at 3rd.

My only question is, why didn't Kansas try another onside kick after the safety? You are allowed to onside kick after that, and it was still a 1 possession game but they just gave up.

True, but the Big 10 coaches do have personal escorts. When Terry Hoeppner died in Indiana, there was an interview done with one of the state troopers who was assigned to escort him to things like press conferences and games.

Yeah. Officially, the OT ends as soon as the play ends. So the facemask belonged to the OT previous, while the personal foul is officially listed in this OT. It is quite a splitting of the rules though.

That almost was one of the strangest 2 point conversions ever if that Kentucky player could have recovered in the end zone.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that LSU should not be given another shot even if the KU/Mizzou winner loses next week and WV loses today. Since the middle of the season, they lost to Kentucky, beat Auburn at the buzzer, had to come back late against Alabama, easy win against La Tech, struggled against Ole Miss, and lost to Arkansas. Even in the 2 games before that, they were in a tight battle with Tulane at halftime and they were a 4th down conversion away from losing to Florida. If it comes down to all flawed 2 loss teams, I think it should be the one who's best right now, and that's not LSU with how they've played their last 7-8 games.

Only a 13 point win? That seems like a pretty close game for them considering they were playing ISU. It's hard to say. Projections have Illinois State anywhere between third and seventh in the tough Missouri Valley. This is one that probably can't be accurately judged until much later in the season when we see how good Illinois State really is, but all the buzz is that they are supposed to be much better than normal.

That shows you how crazy this market is. It's considered good when a suspended Mike Cameron can be had for only 2-3 years for less than 10 million a year.

You sure? If UT and OU both win, they will be 6-2, and OU won the head to head. If they both lose, they'll both be 5-3, again with OU claiming the head to head. I'm pretty sure Texas has to win and OU has to lose. In the second scenario, Oklahoma State would also be 5-3, and Texas has that 3 way tiebreaker. EDIT: Turns out that I'm wrong. In that 3-way tie, all the tiebreakers tie down to the BCS standings. So I guess Texas does need to win, since they aren't going to pass OU in the BCS by losing to aTm. That's not what the Big 12 site says: http://www.big12sports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/tie-breaker.html Texas should win because of tiebreaker number 2 because they only lost 1 game against the division while Oklahoma and OK State both lost 2.

If the Cubs had signed him for that deal, this board would have melted down with the people who hated the deal. Many people on this board don't like committing a decent percentage of the payroll to the bullpen to the first place. They also don't like multi-year deals for relievers. They also don't like signing guys in their 30's to long-term contracts. Finally, many think the position of closer is overrated to begin with. Cordero fits under all of the above, and while he'll likely be pretty productive he's not productive enough to be that big of a percentage of the Reds overall payroll. What? You are talking about a team that was 29th in baseball in blown saves last year. A blown save can occur pretty much anytime a starter leaves the ballgame. Most are not necessarilly even the fault of the "closer." Ya think? The Reds issue really wasn't closer last year. Weathers was 33/38 in saves. However, this allows the Reds to move Burton to the 7th, Weathers to the 8th, and Cordero to the 9th. It lines up the middle innings nicely. That's the point. but you're paying 12 mil a year for it! that's what makes it a bad idea. Yeah, if we could have signed the cheap stud closer I'm sure we would have. You could have traded one of your OF's though and gotten a cheap elite reliever plus probably another piece or two. Then you could have taken the money that you saved from trading that OF plus the money you had to spend this offseason and spent it on either a starting pitcher or more offense.

If the Cubs had signed him for that deal, this board would have melted down with the people who hated the deal. Many people on this board don't like committing a decent percentage of the payroll to the bullpen to the first place. They also don't like multi-year deals for relievers. They also don't like signing guys in their 30's to long-term contracts. Finally, many think the position of closer is overrated to begin with. Cordero fits under all of the above, and while he'll likely be pretty productive he's not productive enough to be that big of a percentage of the Reds overall payroll.

With Hendry, you know the latter is what is going to happen. Has there been an offseason with him in charge where he didn't throw a 3 year deal at a reliever? Kerry is just as good an investment as anyone else is out there, and bringing him back for 2 years opens up a lot of flexibility for Hendry. Last offseason he didn't throw a 3 year deal at a reliever. When was Ryan Dempster extended? Dempster got a 3 year deal before the 2006 season, the same year Howry and Eyre were signed (all 3 come off the books after this year). The only reliever Hendry signed last year was Wood for 1 year 1.5 million.

With Hendry, you know the latter is what is going to happen. Has there been an offseason with him in charge where he didn't throw a 3 year deal at a reliever? Kerry is just as good an investment as anyone else is out there, and bringing him back for 2 years opens up a lot of flexibility for Hendry. Last offseason he didn't throw a 3 year deal at a reliever. I don't see Hendry signing a huge deal for another reliever without Wood. One, by the time Wood would walk many of the higher priced relievers on the market will be gone. Two, the bullpen hasn't been mentioned as a concern once by Hendry in the last couple months (at least that I've heard), and that wasn't the case in some prior offseasons in which he handed out multi-year deals like candy. I do see him maybe paying a little too much for a left-handed reliever if Wood falls through, but that deal will almost certainly be less than 5 million a year. His budget sounds to be such that after possibly signing Matsui and Fukudome that he wouldn't have enough money to sign too much of a high priced reliever.

All well and good, unless, or until, Jim goes out and spends more on another reliever. It would be a mistake to give any reliever in this market a 5 million dollar per year deal for multiple years. It would be a big mistake (as far as percentages, not saying it couldn't work out) to do it for Wood. So if Hendry went out and signed another reliever instead of Wood for 2/10, he would have done his job wrong but not made the big mistake. I agree with Cuse. You offer him a deal, but it has to be heavily incentive laden.

I would choose the 80-150 range for a couple of reasons. 1) It's a better situation for the later innings IMO. With a bunch of slightly above average hitters, you can't play situationally as much. When you have some great hitters and some poor hitters, you can replace a poor hitter in a key situation with a pinch hitter or structure the situation for a poor hitter to get a runner over for the great hitters to drive in. Great hitters and poor hitters are much more consistent than average hitters. If you know what you're getting on a consistent basis, it's much easier to put a plan together to maximize the production of the team. 2) If I'm looking to how to improve long-term, I now know what my weaknesses are and can much more easily fix them. If you have a bunch of average players, then the only upgrade you can make is to try to get great players and other organizations don't often give up great players at any cost. While if you have an imbalance between great and bad, it's much easier to find average players to fill in those weaknesses through trades or free agency. 3) For my pitching staff, I'd like to have an imbalance in my starting rotation but be balanced in my bullpen. I'd rather have 3 great starters and 2 below average starters than 5 decent starters because the first scenario lines up much better for the playoffs. The bullpen is so variable that I'd rather have several good arms that I switch in and out during the season to keep them fresh rather then 2-3 great arms that could be prone to overuse.

name one Randy Moss There have been plenty of others who were willing to take lower salaries even after trades in order to get into better situations for them (including A-Rod willing to give up 30 million in Boston), and even more than that who were willing to do it in free agency (Randy Wolf is a great example of that). I don't think we're going to agree if Kendall is one of those players or not. I believe starting in Milwaukee is a much better situation than riding the bench in Chicago. You think he'll take the money wherever it is.