CubColtPacer

Williams will know who he is real soon. that's fine by me, without [segment missing], sampson won't have an insurance policy. the sooner that happens, the better. Well, true, there isn't another Gordon (whoops, I mean "segment missing") but Devin Ebanks won't be so bad either. ebanks is a far, far cry from.... I'm not sure anybody knows how good Ebanks is. All we know is that Gordon was ranked around #3 and Ebanks is ranked around #12, so while Gordon is better Ebanks is also supposed to be a prolific scorer. I echo Bruno's sentiment that I hope Illinois destroys Duke. In fact, I hope Illinois does great in the non-conference part of their schedule. It only helps the conference to have its teams do well.

1) I believe the Big 10 awards just focus on what is done in conference games. Hart missed 3 conference games but had better statistics than Mendenhall outside of conference (mostly due to the Illinois-Missouri game, but still). 2) There is the perception that Mendenhall was successful partly because the Illinois running offense and spread attack spaced the field so well (along with a great offensive line and Juice's threat to run), while Hart for a large part of the season had very little around him on offense. 3) The fact that Hart is a senior plays into the NCAA awards whether it should or not.

Why? Because Weis acted like a classless child preseason with his recruiting sour grapes and allegations and now Illinois fan is reveling in ND's utter crapness? That's just karma, son. I'm pretty sure you're kidding, but stealing Arrelious Benn from us has very little to do with it, they just talk waaaay too much. For instance, this ludicrous Illinois/Florida debate. I understand their point that Florida strictly on paper isn't that much better than Illinois but they would destroy the Illini in a game, and everyone seems to think Juice, who has now had one good passing game this season, would shred the UF defense. No offense, but Notre Dame fans have always been the most intolerable (usually without any cause to be) in the entire realm of college sports. None should be allowed to critique the fans of other teams. Ever. You haven't been around enough Michigan fans. FWIW, my roommate, a Purdue fan who grew up in West Lafayette, always tells me that his family sold their lawn for tailgating road fans when the Boilers hosted games and he says that UM fans were pretty nice while OSU fans were truly prickish. Agreed completely with that. OSU fans are the worst (not nearly all of them, but many more than other fanbases). They're loud and obnoxious. I've heard stories that when they come to Bloomington, they'll find out which places IU fans hang out in. They'll then come in and plant their flags over places of business and then fight anyone who tries to take them down. This apparently is not the only place they do things like that in either. They trash Columbus for any big game win or lose. I honestly have never seen a fanbase as close to as bad as OSU, and I have been around 3 of the 4 largest conferences for rabid fanbases (SEC, Big 10, Big 12).

This is awesome news. It opens up the door for the Brewers to sign Kendall to be their starting catcher while at the same time adding a horrible reliever to their bullpen for Yost to bring out at every key situation. This is a win-win for the Cubs IMO.

Is the report true Bruce that Hendry wants Matsui to be the full-time starter at second and move DeRosa to a utility player? Does he want either one of them to be the SS?

You think the Yankees deal with A-Rod will fall apart? Seems awfully far along in the process combined with such a huge contract makes it incredibly unlikely IMO that one side would walk away now.

I'd definitely say Pittsburgh 2004 was more unqualified. Maybe slightly better wins for that Pittsburgh team (although they didn't have any great wins) but Pittsburgh was also 8-3 and had to go to OT to beat Furman that year. Including the Utah bowl game, Pitt played the 66th hardest schedule in the nation and still had 4 losses! Plus a couple statistics that I know you value, they won 4 of their games by only a field goal and a 5th game by only 5. Plus, their Sagarin far right rating was 75th after the bowl game. 75th in the predictor and still in the BCS!

This was coming eventually. The conferences voted to say that if there weren't enough eligible at-large teams in the top 14 at the end of the year to fill all the BCS at-large spots, it would automatically expand to the top 18 to get them all filled. This rule goes into play this year. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3119690

I'd say yes to the Tejada deal and no to the Crawford one. I'd really like the Tejada deal, even though I think he's declining. All 3 of those players the Cubs are trading have talent, but for differing reasons will likely never nail down a job with the Cubs, so trading the 3 of them for a real upgrade at SS would be just fine with me.

Any deal that Hendry makes from now on has to include 1-2 crappy middle IF going to the other team to clear up our surplus. I would disagree that the Cubs have a huge surplus right now if nobody else is signed as is rumored. Let's say DeRosa and Theriot are the starters. Infante is the right-handed platoon partner in CF and the backup to 2B and SS. Cedeno and Fontenot battle it out for the other bench spot, with Cedeno probably winning it. It wouldn't be bad if 1 of the middle IF's left via trade, but I disagree that there is a massive surplus of them. It's just that there's only 1 pretty good one among the group, and a bunch that are struggling to make it to average.

It will take a lot more than that. With their budget, they still have to depend on cheap talent. They have to hire competent scouting and player development people which is only marginally influenced by having such a good understanding of statistics. They might be able to get some free agent bargains with players that are undervalued by the rest of the league, but just about every free agent is becoming expensive these days and there's an increasing number of GM's who are trying to do the same thing. That quote should be encouraging for Pirates fans, but not nearly as encouraging as if they were a big market team that just had to make the correct trades and free agency signings. It still remains to be seen what they'll do with the farm system. I wouldn't even come close to saying that the Pirates will have the sustained success that is being implied in the quote. It will be better than the Littlefield era, that's about all that can be said for now.

It isn't. The winner (Mizzou) is losing to OU. It's really just a game to decide who plays in the Holiday Bowl (we both know the Cotton bowl is taking Texas and OU is getting the only BCS berth if they beat a 1 loss Mizzou) How does the Big 12 not get a second BCS team? Do you really think bowls will pick 2 of 3 of: The ACC runnerup, Illinois, or Hawaii/Boise State over a 1 loss Kansas or a 2 loss Mizzou? That even assumes that Illinois and the ACC runnerup will be eligible, which is not even close to being assured yet.

That sounds like speculation by the writer about teams who may possibly need a 5th starter rather than actual interest, at least to me.

So if Oklahoma loses tonight, there will be several things open up. One, the Big 12 South will still be up for grabs depending on the results this week. If I read the tiebreakers correctly, it will all be dependent on an Oklahoma win next week. if Oklahoma wins, they win the South. If Oklahoma loses, Texas goes no matter if they win against A&M or not (they'd win by themselves if they beat A&M and they would have the tiebreaker in the 3 team tie with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State). Plus, that would leave only 6 viable teams for the national title, with several of those teams having serious tests next week. I honestly don't think you'll see any more than 3 of those 6 remaining by the time the dust settles, maybe 4. Ohio State is already 1 of those that will be remaining, although they are at the back of that 1 loss pack and so will need losses from the others to sneak into the title game.

Sorry, I can't follow you there. There's something to be said for the relativity between bad wins and good losses, but you can't weight them equally like that, it's the fundamental purpose of the sport. sure you can. we're talking about predicting who is better. in terms of future performance, theyre identical. This may sound crazy, but why are we talking about predicting future performance? Ranking the teams should be a reflection of what has happened, not what the percentages are moving forward. we're asking which teams is better. Which is more important? what theyve done or how good they are? answer: how good they are Now you're just playing with words. What's more important in determining team strength, what might happen, or what actually has happened? what might happen because it pretty much uses what has actually happened as a basis...we're talking about looking at what has happened, and then saying what things in the past point towards success in the future. in reality beating a team by 1 point is roughly equivalent to losing to the same team by 1. that's the ultimate idea. But it isn't equivalent. You're penalizing teams who use a form of the prevent defense that makes scores closer than they should be but is an effective winning strategy. Some games that were decided by 7 points or less were decided on 1 play (a field goal going in or out, etc.) Others though were never in doubt. There is no easy way to account for the difference between those types of games, and so the win by itself has to count for a lot.

A quality loss does count for something, but it's not worth nearly as much as a win over a similar team (and in the computers there isn't that big of a difference between Tennesee and Penn State, and watching them gives the same result). Football isn't the same in baseball in this. Close losses aren't necessarily due to luck. Luck can play a factor in it, but it's much easier in football for a team to control its own destiny and make the plays to win. Vanderbilt has shown repeatedly this year that they struggle in close games in the 4th quarter. They've led or been tied in a few games that they've blown. That pattern shouldn't be attributed to luck, and the fact that Michigan State did make the plays needed to win the ballgame makes a big difference.

TAMU beat Okie State and has five losses ... then Kansas had to survive against them MSU beat PSU and has five losses ... then Ohio State had to survive against them Vandy beat SC and has six losses ... then they keep it close UGA, Tenn and Kentucky It's pretty darn close. MSU has also beat Purdue, Indiana, and Bowling Green, all winning teams, 2 from BCS conferences. The only other winning team (in I-A) that Vandy has beaten is Miami of Ohio. Texas A&M is about the same as Vandy having beaten only Fresno State besides that Oklahoma State win. Vandy and Texas A&M are comparable. Michigan State had a little better resume than Vandy before today. Now, they have a much better resume.

Tennessee survives Vanderbilt 25-24 as Vandy misses a field goal with 30 seconds left.

It's not that delusional. A Hawaii loss is the big obstacle now. There's other obstacles besides that. First, Illinois has to climb 5 spots to even be considered. Even if they do climb the 5 spots, how are they going to get picked over the other teams in the top 14? There are a lot of traditional national powerhouses up there. I don't see any way that Illinois gets picked over teams such as USC, Florida, Texas, WV (if they lose to UConn), LSU (if they lose to Georgia in the SEC title game), or the 2 losers of the Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma triad. There's simply no way that Illinois even gets close to making a BCS game unless tons of teams start losing in their last game. Each conference can only get two teams. So that means it can be LSU + UF/Georgia, 2 of OU, Kansas, Missouri, USC + Oregon/ASU. ACC and BE champs get in. Of course OSU Texas has no chance of getting in. Oh, I forgot that silly rule. What I was thinking is that they had adopted my proposal which they really should to raise that limit to 3. When you have to have 4 at large teams from just 6 conferences, it makes no sense to limit it to 1 per conference. I agree with the rule when there was only 2 at-larges, but now when there's 4 it leads to a lot of deserving teams being left out.

It's not that delusional. A Hawaii loss is the big obstacle now. There's other obstacles besides that. First, Illinois has to climb 5 spots to even be considered. Even if they do climb the 5 spots, how are they going to get picked over the other teams in the top 14? There are a lot of traditional national powerhouses up there. I don't see any way that Illinois gets picked over teams such as USC, Florida, Texas, WV (if they lose to UConn), LSU (if they lose to Georgia in the SEC title game), or the 2 losers of the Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma triad. There's simply no way that Illinois even gets close to making a BCS game unless tons of teams start losing in their last game.

Some interesting scores around the nation right now. Alabama 14, Louisiana Monroe 14 early 3rd. Alabama in an unexpected battle to try to get a 7th win before the Iron Bowl next week. Minnesota 10, Wisconsin 3 early 2nd. It's pretty inexcusable to be down to Minnesota if you're any kind of decent team in the 2nd quarter. Western Michigan 12, Iowa 0 early 2nd. Huh? Suddenly the fact that Iowa is guaranteed 7 wins and a bowl is called into question, which could be huge news for teams like Indiana, Purdue, and Michigan State. Still very early to say that's probable, but with Iowa's bad offense it is at least a big concern for them at this point.

Actually it is the 5th tiebreaker. http://bigten.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/102204aad.html Looks like 4th tiebreaker in that link-#1 saying ineligble teams don't count isn't really a tiebreaker. I didn't realize they had put in the games against Division I-AA teams as an actual tiebreaker.

Florida's sleepwalking a little bit against Florida Atlantic. I have no doubts they'll win the game, probably by over 20 points, but only a 28-20 lead a minute before halftime isn't so good.

It's on ESPN at noon, at least in my area. I don't think they do regional coverage at noon (so it should be on everywhere), but I'm not completely sure of that.

Agreed. I remember his interview in the 4th quarter. Someone asked him to compare his latest injury to the one that he had the previous week. He said he felt about the same, and that he would be fine. He obviously wanted to talk the coaching staff into letting him play even after the 2nd time, but I'm glad they shut him down at that point. Still though, he never even came close to letting on in the interview that it could be a serious injury, and the fact that he went out there with that is impressive.