CubColtPacer

We'll see, as an IU fan I hope they win. However, they are 0-3 on the road so far this season. Granted, those three road games were Duke, Kentucky, and Ohio State. Despite, PSU not being as good a team, I think the game will be a lot closer than the Purdue and MSU games. Gotta shoot well on the road for a change. BTW, if they played today, IU would beat Duke and UK on the road. And I also count Butler as a road game. It was like 5 minutes from their campus. I have a hunch that Butler fans probably didn't outnumber IU fans at that game. There are probably more IU fans in the greater Indianapolis area than Butler fans in the entire country. I wouldn't say that for sure-there was a tournament in 2002 where both IU and Butler participated in that I went to -there were at least as many Butler fans as IU fans there. There are a great number of IU fans in the area, but Butler has a pretty big following around Indy as well, and probably got plenty of fans there.

I think Jones is slightly better for the short-term, but I actually think Church is a better fit for the Cubs, then Jones, because of his ability to reach base consistantly. If you think Jones is slightly better for the short-term but Church is better because of his ability to reach base constantly, then are you saying that Jones' slugging advantage over Church slightly outweighs Church's OBP advantage? Because in a much worse hitting environment Church has outslugged Jones the past two years. Church has put up OPS+ of 120 and 128. Jones hasnt come close to that since his break out year in 2002. The only valid concern about Church is that he hasn't been a full time player, but I think that is more a reflection of an organization that just gave Nook Logan the starting CF job. I believe Bruce Miles stated before Christmas that the Cubs have no interest in Ryan Church. No, he said that the Cubs had interest, but that Washington was asking for way too much for him to make a deal at that time.

He's not that type of receiver though. If you want a receiver to go across the middle and muscle others around, go for Samardzija, Jarrett, or Calvin. Ginn is the speedy type of receiver that relies on running excellent routes and being quicker than DBs. I'm not saying he'll be this good, but think of Marvin Harrisson. They're very simialr in body type (Ginn is taller) and you almost never see Marvin go across the middle (that I can think of). I will agree though, that Ginn will need to work on his route running to truly succeed in the NFL. I'd love the Titans to take him at 19 unless Calvin (or maybe Samardzija) is there. I'm ok with Ginn, and I believe he's gone over the middle more than most people believe this year. That's something he's going to have to do in the NFL though, at least initially. I know Marvin had to do it-for 3 to 5 years at the start of his career, Marvin was known as the man who would go across the middle one yard past the sticks, catch the ball and get drilled but hold on for the first down. It's only the last 4-5 years where he has really been able to avoid the punishment on his body that will lead him to a very long career. From watching 6-7 OSU games this year, my belief is that Ginn can go across the middle. I think it will be up to a team's needs on if they are going to draft a Ginn or a Jarrett, as they both would fit better with a certain type of NFL QB. I would agree that if Ginn or a player of his caliber falls to 19 that he should be taken very quickly.

The Iverson trade makes less sense for Denver now-they just agreed to a trade with Milwaukee where they give up Earl Boykins and Julius Hodge for Steve Blake. Basically, this deal came about because of the Iverson trade, and so it can almost be added to that deal that Denver has to do an almost salary dump now. This makes Milwaukee a little scarier now-already, all 5 teams in the Central are making the playoffs, and I hate to see the Bucks getting better.

With the talent in the 1st round at receiver, I could easily see 5 or more receivers taken in the 1st round. 3 of them will be taken in the top 12-15 (CJ, Ginn, Jarrett), and then the Patriots will likely draft a receiver with one of their 2 picks (and the one unfortunately who I think will take Samardzija especially with their connections to Weis), and then I think one other team at the bottom of the first round will take a WR.

Vance didn't suggest letting Clark playing fulltime while Jones and Murton platoon, but rather a Clark/Pie platoon-that lets Pie get used to the major leagues while not having to face the lefthanders he has had some trouble against. I'd like that idea a great deal-my one concern is where somebody like Clark would bat. For his production, it would suggest that he bat in the 1st or 8th slot, but neither of those is an option on this team. I'd worry if the Cubs got Clark that he would bat 8th and Izturis would bat second, and that would negate almost all of the gains that Clark might possibly bring.

Samardzija at 13 is a bit of a surprise. I thought so too. I just don't see him as the second best receiver in the draft. Remember, Ginn is not on this board yet. He might still go above Samardzija. I'd put Ginn and Jarrett as well above Samardzija, but I think Jeff is the 4th best receiver on the board, which normally would still put him safely in the 1st round.

Samardzija at 13 is a bit of a surprise. I'm not very shocked about that-he has all the tools of the top receivers. The only big concern about him is his commitment to baseball. If people want to drop his status, start a big PR campaign about how he is going to pick baseball over football, and his draft status will drop like crazy :D.

Indiana with back to back blowout wins-I almost cannot remember the last time this has happened. This time it is 85-58 over Purdue. This team seems to be getting better and better as the season goes along, and a favorable Big 10 schedule will make it even better for them.

Well, uh, good luck to him I guess. I have absolutely no idea why he would do this either (I can't think his pro prospects are that high) but you're right, ND might be better off without him at this point. Walker's running style would not fit the offense very well next year, as ND will need a guy who can run inside just a bit more than Walker does and can get a more consistent yardage, instead of going for 0, 0, and then 10 or 20 with a young QB.

All of that is of course true-at the same time, Auburn got drilled in both of their losses, while USC barely lost both of their games. Auburn didn't have another significant win that I can think of besides LSU, UF, and Nebraska in the bowl game. USC had Arkansas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Michigan, and Cal. I think USC's good wins outweigh Auburn's great wins, and I think the losses are pretty similar (USC lost to worse teams, but that is counterbalanced by Auburn not being competitive in either of their 2 losses). Also-one more thing-Auburn had 4 to 5 absolutely terrible teams on their schedule. USC had only 1 or 2. That has to count for something.

Fans of teams that aren't in the big 10 get tired of hearing about how OSU/Michigan should rematch for the championship. Everyone said Florida had no chance. Pretty much the big 10 has 2 good teams (sometimes 3). They play about 2 hard games a year and the media acts like they are on a different level than other teams. In the SEC you play a tough game nearly every week. So the fans of an SEC team enjoy it when one of the SEC teams hands a big 10 team their butt. That's the best explanation I can give. I might agree with that point this year but not usually. Usually, the Big 10 is as deep as the SEC-this year, that wasn't the case at all. Still though, the Big 10 did go 2-1 against the SEC, which doesn't prove the Big 10 was better (their 0-4 record in other bowls kind of shows that they weren't) but that the difference wasn't as big as most people would think it is. A friend (who is a big SEC fan and a proud supporter of the SEC's superiority) and I did a comparison of the SEC and Big 10 before this season started. Take the Big 10 schools and the SEC schools and rank them from top to bottom based on their performances over the last 10 years, and throw out the SEC school that's either 6th or 7th (throw out one of the middle ones to equalize the difference of 1 school between the 2 conferences). Then, compare the accomplishments over those 10 years between each of the matchups. I think you'll find that the two conferences have been virtually identical over that time period. You can throw them out when doing a comparison, but when the real games happen you still have to play them. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. SEC teams miss 3 of their conference teams every year while Big 10 teams only miss 2 of them. The fairest thing to do is to take the team out that is the most average. Or are you saying that the SEC has a fundamental advantage by having the extra team?

Basketball has a top 25 ranking and a championship game. That's not a fundamental flaw. The rankings are used to determine who gets to play the game, and the game determines who the champ is. A 4-team playoff doesn't eliminate controversy, but it certainly reduces it. If you take the top 4, that eliminates the controversy coming from the top 4. There will be bitching by the 5th/6th ranked teams, but I say too bad. If you didn't play well enough in the regular season to be ranked 4th, that's your own fault. And if you ended undefeated but were not ranked, schedule better opponents. The biggest problem with a large playoff is there is no motivation to schedule meaningful out of conference regular season games. The regular season is still the bread and butter of CFB, and I think it should remain so. I think it will change with a +1 game, then a playoff. The BCS setup was the first step in the gradual transformation away from voting for champs and playing for champs. A 4 or possibly 8 team playoff is the inevitable end. Anything larger than that would be absurd. The one question I have is how does Boise State get these better opponents to schedule in order to break into the top 4? Top programs are going to want to have nothing to do with Boise for good reason. If Boise beats them, that's obviously bad news for a team like USC. If USC beats Boise, then Boise gets discredited because they have a loss and no good wins, and that of course doesn't make USC look good either. So there's absolutely no reason for a good team to put Boise on their schedule, and Boise then will never get a good game and will never get into the top 4. Their only chance is something like this year but a little better, for a team who was thought to be bad (Oregon State) turns out to be decent or even better.

Fans of teams that aren't in the big 10 get tired of hearing about how OSU/Michigan should rematch for the championship. Everyone said Florida had no chance. Pretty much the big 10 has 2 good teams (sometimes 3). They play about 2 hard games a year and the media acts like they are on a different level than other teams. In the SEC you play a tough game nearly every week. So the fans of an SEC team enjoy it when one of the SEC teams hands a big 10 team their butt. That's the best explanation I can give. I might agree with that point this year but not usually. Usually, the Big 10 is as deep as the SEC-this year, that wasn't the case at all. Still though, the Big 10 did go 2-1 against the SEC, which doesn't prove the Big 10 was better (their 0-4 record in other bowls kind of shows that they weren't) but that the difference wasn't as big as most people would think it is. A friend (who is a big SEC fan and a proud supporter of the SEC's superiority) and I did a comparison of the SEC and Big 10 before this season started. Take the Big 10 schools and the SEC schools and rank them from top to bottom based on their performances over the last 10 years, and throw out the SEC school that's either 6th or 7th (throw out one of the middle ones to equalize the difference of 1 school between the 2 conferences). Then, compare the accomplishments over those 10 years between each of the matchups. I think you'll find that the two conferences have been virtually identical over that time period.

Yes, getting throttled by good teams does not prove much. Needing to come back from down 3 scores against a bad team doesn't prove much either.* * - You can't have it both ways. Either GT sucks (ND beat them on the road while everyone else not named USC was playing I-AA caliber teams) or they're good (they almost beat WV). Pick one. Both teams narrowly beat GT. Notre Dame got whacked by the ranked teams it played. West Virginia split Louisville and Rutgers. Their ability to actually beat a ranked team makes them more qualified IMO. As Ndi as already pointed out, ND did demolish Penn State this year, who is back to being a ranked team. Also, you can't really count WV's win over GT as proof that they were more deserving a month ago to go to a BCS bowl. Let's say it was reversed. WV goes to play LSU, and ND goes to play GT (or a team about like them?). What likely happens? WV loses to LSU, and ND wins their bowl game, and then one could make the argument that ND was more deserving of going to the game. That's why you have to throw out the bowl games entirely when looking at who was more deserving. Neither WV or ND was on LSU's level (especially not if Russell is on his game for the entire game, which is rare but happened last week), but one of them had to be chosen to go play them. At the time, ND was higher in both the polls and the computers, so they were seen as the better choice-my guess is, the exact same thing happens to WV anyway that happened to ND. Again, these are your guesses. Let the teams play and determine it on the field and leave the mythical stuff out of it. It takes the what if out of it. People said the same thing last year before WV beat Georgia in the Sugar bowl, again they actually played and we didn't have to assume who would have won. LSU is a talented team but so is OSU. Look what happens in a one game situation as things change as the game progresses. It just amazes me that people still claim flat out one team is better than an other and yet were saying OSU was going to be a double digit winner over Florida. How did that game work out for them? Believe me, I wouldn't have much of a problem if WV got their shot either. I think they are a good ballclub, and if ND had played WV in a bowl, that would be a very entertaining matchup (and one I have no idea who would win). With the two teams being so close, it's hard to say though that when one team got selected that they weren't deserving-they both were about equally deserving, and one of them had to get selected.

Yes, getting throttled by good teams does not prove much. Needing to come back from down 3 scores against a bad team doesn't prove much either.* * - You can't have it both ways. Either GT sucks (ND beat them on the road while everyone else not named USC was playing I-AA caliber teams) or they're good (they almost beat WV). Pick one. Both teams narrowly beat GT. Notre Dame got whacked by the ranked teams it played. West Virginia split Louisville and Rutgers. Their ability to actually beat a ranked team makes them more qualified IMO. As Ndi as already pointed out, ND did demolish Penn State this year, who is back to being a ranked team. Also, you can't really count WV's win over GT as proof that they were more deserving a month ago to go to a BCS bowl. Let's say it was reversed. WV goes to play LSU, and ND goes to play GT (or a team about like them?). What likely happens? WV loses to LSU, and ND wins their bowl game, and then one could make the argument that ND was more deserving of going to the game. That's why you have to throw out the bowl games entirely when looking at who was more deserving. Neither WV or ND was on LSU's level (especially not if Russell is on his game for the entire game, which is rare but happened last week), but one of them had to be chosen to go play them. At the time, ND was higher in both the polls and the computers, so they were seen as the better choice-my guess is, the exact same thing happens to WV anyway that happened to ND.

How did the Chiefs not deserve it? They were 9-7 while Tennessee, Denver, Cincy, Pittsburgh, etc. were 8-8. It's not like they got voted into the playoffs... Technically, Denver was 9-7. While Denver had the better conference record (Denver went 8-4 in the AFC, while KC went 5-7!), because they are in the same division even though it's for a wildcard spot division tiebreakers go first, and KC won with a 4-2 record against the division while Denver was 3-3.

Seconded. How can so many bad teams be in one division? The Nets are the biggest disappointment in the league, up to this point. The funny thing is that everybody knew that the two divisions in the East besides the Central were going to be bad right when re-alignment happened. The Southeast has gotten better, but the Atlantic has gotten worse. I was very upset at re-alignment-I knew they actually did it right geographically, but at the time they put the two best teams in the conference together (Detroit and Indiana) plus a team with a young Lebron, plus a good up and coming team (Chicago). I'm not surprised at all that now, two (or maybe 3) years later, the Central division is the only respecatable one in the East whatsoever.

Do the Jets know how to play defense at all? 1st half-14 seconds left, 3rd and goal for the Patriots from the 1 1/2, no timeouts. It's an automatic pass, and yet the Jets fall for the play-action fake and give up a TD. Now, right there. 6 minutes left, 3rd and goal-the Patriots are not going to throw any passes that could get intercepted in that case! Where might the pass go? Hmm, might be a swing pass-a nice, safe pass. The Jets put nobody out there though, and it costs them another TD and almost certainly the game. The Jets defensive coordinator has definitely been outcoached today.

I'm surprised you're rooting for the Jets-even though I don't want to, I'm rooting for the Patriots to make it to the AFC title game-then if the Colts can join them, it will be Colts-Patriots in the Dome :D I don't care for either, but I'd root for the Jets over the Patriots. Doesn't really matter after this review. I would normally as well, but I'm rooting for the Patriots because I think they have a chance of beating SD-I see no way that the Jets win that game.

I'm surprised you're rooting for the Jets-even though I don't want to, I'm rooting for the Patriots to make it to the AFC title game-then if the Colts can join them, it will be Colts-Patriots in the Dome :D

You mean the same UM that got hammered by USC, that UM? I would put Florida and LSU ahead of Michigan. If Florida gets hammered by OSU, do you change it back? It's pretty close between those schools though.

But the reason he and Boras are balking at Boston's (possible) out-clause is probably becuase they don't like his chances to play well enough this season that he would be an attractive 2008 FA. I don't think that is the case. If he was hurt this year he didn't show it. To Giles Bros., I don't want to trade Murton. I love Ginger Kids. However, the Cubs don't, or at least they don't seem too. They've talked repeatedly about a platoon for Murton this year. This will be his third season in the bigs and if they are talking platoon they obviously don't value him very highly. The Cubs have never talked about a platoon for Murton. With the Cubs statements about wanting to get a left-handed bat, many people have assumed they want a platoon for Murton, but the Cubs have never come out and said it-they could want another left-handed bat for center field, for example. All the Cubs have said about Murton is that he will get plenty of playing time. Not according to Bruce Miles. Can you point me to where he said it? I didn't think he said that, but I certainly could be wrong (and probably am, if you remember him saying it)-do you know if it was in the paper, or what thread it was in? http://www.northsidebaseball.com/PremiumForum/viewtopic.php?t=37701&start=20 "Share time" is a platoon by any ohter name. I guess I just don't believe that if Murton gets 70-75 percent of the at-bats over a guy like Cliff Floyd it proves that the organization doesn't value Murton. It is more of a case that they want a left-handed guy with pop for the bench. To get somebody really good, they have to promise him some starts. Right now, Murton is really the only candidate to give away some of those starts, unless that person can play CF (which is unlikely). Will a guy like Floyd's presence help the team next year? Almost definitely. Will it hurt Murton's development? Maybe-but it really depends on how much of the playing time Murton gets, and if he gets 70-75 percent I don't think it will impair his development much at all. If the roster stays as it is right now, I can't see Murton not getting just about all of the at-bats, unless they determine Pie is ready and give Jones some of Murton's AB's.

But the reason he and Boras are balking at Boston's (possible) out-clause is probably becuase they don't like his chances to play well enough this season that he would be an attractive 2008 FA. I don't think that is the case. If he was hurt this year he didn't show it. To Giles Bros., I don't want to trade Murton. I love Ginger Kids. However, the Cubs don't, or at least they don't seem too. They've talked repeatedly about a platoon for Murton this year. This will be his third season in the bigs and if they are talking platoon they obviously don't value him very highly. The Cubs have never talked about a platoon for Murton. With the Cubs statements about wanting to get a left-handed bat, many people have assumed they want a platoon for Murton, but the Cubs have never come out and said it-they could want another left-handed bat for center field, for example. All the Cubs have said about Murton is that he will get plenty of playing time. Not according to Bruce Miles. Can you point me to where he said it? I didn't think he said that, but I certainly could be wrong (and probably am, if you remember him saying it)-do you know if it was in the paper, or what thread it was in?

But the reason he and Boras are balking at Boston's (possible) out-clause is probably becuase they don't like his chances to play well enough this season that he would be an attractive 2008 FA. I don't think that is the case. If he was hurt this year he didn't show it. To Giles Bros., I don't want to trade Murton. I love Ginger Kids. However, the Cubs don't, or at least they don't seem too. They've talked repeatedly about a platoon for Murton this year. This will be his third season in the bigs and if they are talking platoon they obviously don't value him very highly. The Cubs have never talked about a platoon for Murton. With the Cubs statements about wanting to get a left-handed bat, many people have assumed they want a platoon for Murton, but the Cubs have never come out and said it-they could want another left-handed bat for center field, for example. All the Cubs have said about Murton is that he will get plenty of playing time.