CubColtPacer

The Bowl games are not a playoff. They aren't even close to a playoff. They don't even reside in the same universe as a playoff. The Bowl games are closer to a socer friendly then a playoff. They are closer to a beauty contest then a playoff. They are closer to a HHHH hog prize at the county fair than a playoff. A playoff, hahahahahahahahaha! The Bowls are-the BCS championship game isn't. The main purpose of the BCS is to put the best 2 teams on the field to decide the national championship, just as in other sports it is the best teams. Now, you may disagree with the method they use for picking these teams, and you may feel that they should include more teams in deciding the championship (which almost all of us do). It is still though about picking the two teams in the nation who have the best resume and have looked the best over the season. It is then not logical to say that if Michigan had lost to a team like Auburn they would be playing for the national title, but since they lost to a better team than Auburn they supposedly should not play for the national title anymore. If it was a choice between them and Ohio State, that would be one thing-but it's not that. It's a choice between Michigan and the other 1 loss teams, and unless USC wins out Michigan has the best resume of the 1 loss teams. Yes, teams who beat teams in the regular season lose to those same teams in the playoffs in every sport-they aren't declared split national champions then, and it shouldn't happen this year in college football either. The winner of that game is the champion, regardless of what happened between those teams during the season. That's what happens it every sport-it may not be fair, but it's accepted for all the other sports-so why not in this situation?

That happens all the time in all the other sports-in college basketball, teams have met twice in the regular season and a team has won both times, and then the other team wins in the tournament. The same thing happens in professional football all the time as well (great example-Steelers go 15-1 and smash the Patriots in the regular season, but the Patriots get to have a rematch and destroy them in the AFC championship game). The BCS title game is a playoff just like all these other sports-it's just a 2 team playoff. The best 2 teams get in, and they should get in regardless if they played each other or not. If one team still has a good enough resume to be ranked number 2 after losing to the number 1 team, then they should be ranked number 2.

I think you are overpaying for Giles and not paying nearly enough for Tejada. Also, of course our payroll would probably not be able to handle such moves.

I don't think anyone has been so head and shoulders ahead of the rest of their conference in a while like the Bears are this year. Maybe the Rams in 2001 but that's about it. As far as record? The Colts last year, the Eagles the year before that come to mind as teams who were so far ahead that they clinched the conference a month ahead of time. The Bears are enjoying a similar run this year, and it should be an easy run to HFA-my question to Bears fans is, do you want to rest starters or not? It's a very tough issue.

That's the problem. Piniella is fine with young players as long as they have the right attitude (which it looks to me like all our youngsters have right now). Dukes would be benched and then traded within a month into the season, similar but even worse than how Bret Boone was handled in Seattle.

It would be harder to replace the players that we would have to give up for Wells than to simply sign a CF I think.

I would prefer Jacque with a platoon also, but if we can get a pitcher for him, I wouldn't mind trading him for that and then signing another center fielder either.

Sure they did. Michigan had close games against Penn State and BALL STATE. True, but only Ball State was the only close game. Even when Penn State got the ball with their 3rd QB, everyone knew they had no chance to really win the game. Even if you count this game, that's 2. The others? Florida-Tennessee, Georgia, Vanderbilt, South Carolina-and they struggled against inferior opponents in a couple other games (2 games left) USC-Wash State, Washington, Arizona State (2 games left) Arkansas-Vanderbilt, Alabama, South Carolina (2 games left) Any of those 3 teams could have at least 1 more close game, and they already have more than Michigan. I am not a fan of Michigan whatsover, but their case is the strongest right now. USC could have it if they impress in the next 2 games, and I don't see any way the other two teams make it in, similar to how I see no way to ND making it in with a similar resume.

USC should get kudos for scheduling such a tough out of conference schedule. Arkansas, Notre Dame, and Nebraska. I definitely agree with that-to have your 4-5 worst games on your schedule be Pac 10 opponents, that's incredible.

I don't what that has to do with anything. Michigan doesn't have to play well enough to deserve another shot. They need to be the 2nd best team in the country. And I think there is a strong case that they are. There certainly isn't a stronger case that anybody else is better. You don't know what this has to do with anything? The human polls are based on people's perceptions of college football teams. I don't think Michigan should be the #2 team in the nation after last Sat. They hold a slim lead in the BCS over USC and some of that has to do with the fact that the human polls still have them #2. I would have Florida #2. That's what I'm saying. I think you could make a strong case for Florida, Arkansas, and USC as the second best team in the nation. They all have cases, but most of them are a little weaker then Michigan's. They all had several close games in addition to their loss, and Michigan did not. Michigan's victory came to the top team in the nation, and the other teams' losses did not. Michigan is the only team to beaten 2 top 10 teams. The only team that will have a great case if if USC wins out, because they will have so many quality wins and a great SOS.

Apparently someone's been Dusty-ized!!!!!! in 2004, CI hit .288 with a .330 OBP and 25 steals before getting hurt. i think he's the most logical candidate to start the season in the leadoff spot (if it's not going to be fonzie), but if he falters then you have to consider other options. i'm not at all advocating putting him there and leaving him no matter how he performs (which is what dusty would have done). i only like the idea of him there because of the speed he would provide leading off. A .330 OBP doesn't make him a logical candidate to leadoff. If he's batting any higher than eighth, I'd be upset. His speed does no good at the top of the order if he isn't on base enough to use it. If Soriano isn't leading off, I'd put Murton up there. If Soriano is leading off, I'd bat Murton second. Agreed. Even for those who are ok with Izturis on the team, it is OK because of his defense, not his offense. We don't know how much under average to the average shortstop he will be, but history shows us that his biggest upside is probably an average offensive shortstop. To maximize his value for the team, you'd then need to try to put him in as many situations as possible to do well what he does well (defense at shortstop) and to try to minimize his offensive drain. For him to bat leadoff just makes that weakness grow because a team's worst hitter is getting the most chances at the plate.

We don't have 37 million left, we have 15-20 million. I wouldn't expect anything more for the offense through free agency except for one 4th outfielder. It looks like they are going after pitching now. I'm assuming the offense is done. On to the pitching. Are you kidding me? This offense is still only half baked. DeRosa, Izturis, and who in CF? All signs point to Jacque being traded. As of right now, we've got five guys with above average production for their positions in Lee, Aramis, Soriano, Barrett, and Murton... DeRosa is going to be slightly below average... Izturis is an offensive black hole... there's nobody in CF... and we have the pitcher's slot. I wouldn't exactly call us an offensive juggernaunt. We might not even end up being above average... I doubt DeRosa is going to be below average. I think his OPS is going to drop, but he can drop 70 points and be average from last year for second basemen, and I doubt it drops much further than that (which could be debated). I think he was still saying that one of Soriano or Jacque would play CF, which would cover those two positions. Our offense is almost definitely going to be above average. How many teams out there have just two holes or potential holes on offense? How many have less? On those teams, how many of their players are impact players on offense? There are not many teams out there without many holes-we would still need upgrades to become an elite offense, but we are definitely above average at this point.

We don't have 37 million left, we have 15-20 million. I wouldn't expect anything more for the offense through free agency except for one 4th outfielder. It looks like they are going after pitching now.

I think they do-which makes me glad it was 12 days before, or else I couldn't have seen the Colts play next week!

New land speed record? Yeah, I suspect the only thing that comes close are the '03 playoff game threads. There were game threads this year that were longer than this. Only 3 or 4, but they were there.

I don't see a scenario where Pierre comes back, but I do see a scenario where Jones is traded. One thing they forgot to mention to you is that the Cubs stated next priority is starting pitching-that's what they will focus on next, and I think Pierre will probably sign during that time.

With a win over ND, USC will jump Michigan. They've already done so in the two polls (Harris and Coaches) and a win over ND would not only increase USC's computer ranking but make Michigan's worse. True, but a ND win may push Michigan into it. In that case Arkansas would still have a chance to jump them all by beating LSU and Florida. Arkansas doesn't have much of a chance in the computer rankings. There's one computer ranking, for example, that allows you to add up to 5 games and see how the results would turn out. These are approximates, because obviously other results would influence it a little bit-but here's what I put in. Notre Dame beats USC USC beats UCLA Arkansas beats LSU Florida beats Florida State Arkansas beats Florida Here are the results Ohio State-.96511 Michigan-.94305 Notre Dame-.91777 USC-.91593 Arkansas-.90405 Notre Dame, USC, and Arkansas are very close-but Michigan is still a long way away. USC and Florida have a chance to catch Michigan in the computer rankings if things fall their way. I don't think Notre Dame or Arkansas do. But the computer rankings are only a third of the BCS. I don't think it's completely inconceivable(if that word means what I think it means) for Arkansas to overcome that in the human polls considering their next two opponents. My assumption is that Arkansas cannot pass Michigan in both polls over two wins at the end of the year. It's just too far too fast, and I doubt it would happen. It would take both polls for Arkansas to pass Michigan in the BCS.

With a win over ND, USC will jump Michigan. They've already done so in the two polls (Harris and Coaches) and a win over ND would not only increase USC's computer ranking but make Michigan's worse. True, but a ND win may push Michigan into it. In that case Arkansas would still have a chance to jump them all by beating LSU and Florida. Arkansas doesn't have much of a chance in the computer rankings. There's one computer ranking, for example, that allows you to add up to 5 games and see how the results would turn out. These are approximates, because obviously other results would influence it a little bit-but here's what I put in. Notre Dame beats USC USC beats UCLA Arkansas beats LSU Florida beats Florida State Arkansas beats Florida Here are the results Ohio State-.96511 Michigan-.94305 Notre Dame-.91777 USC-.91593 Arkansas-.90405 Notre Dame, USC, and Arkansas are very close-but Michigan is still a long way away. USC and Florida have a chance to catch Michigan in the computer rankings if things fall their way. I don't think Notre Dame or Arkansas do.

Except Soriano would be replacing Juan Pierre and Lugo would be replacing Cesar Izturis and Ronny Cedeno. Exactly. KC's excellent analysis is regarding the marginality of the replacement players. Hence his point that upgrading on a position basis from bad to OK does just as much for your team as upgrading from OK to good or good to great. However, upgrading from bad to OK cost significantly less than the other alternatives. Hence, Lugo does just as much for your offense (over 2006 cubs SS production) as Sori does (over 2006 cubs CF production). The problem with this argument is that if we signed Lugo to play SS we'd still need an outfielder. That outfielder's salary would have to be added also in order to see what the difference between Lugo+Outfielder is better than Soriano+Izturis, with the possibility of subtracting Izturis's salary from part 1 if he was able to be traded (which is reasonable).

And apparently never will either... Who is going to play CF and what happened to Murton and Jones? Bruce said that Murton is safe. Jones may play CF, and he may get traded.

Why is he even in the conversation? Is Hendry enamored with him as a pinch hitter? Apparently a person has found the flaws in his delivery, and they think he can be worked back to not repeat a year like last year.

I'm still holding out hope that we sign Drew and trade Jones, and/or sign Lugo for SS. If we can add one or two of the decent SPs that are available (Padilla, Westbrook), we have a real contender next year. I agree, the lineup still needs a big bat in the 6th spot, Im not holding out any hope for Jones. Im not sold on Westbrook just yet, but depending on what we can get for him I would be ok with that with him in the #4 or #5 spot. The porblem is we need a #2 or #3 type starter and IMO Padilla and Westbrook are not it. The Cubs don't need another bat. They need pitching. Jones and Barrett batting sixth and seventh is perfectly fine. We have Z and then ? for starting pitching. Imagine if Prior and Miller are healthy to join one of the second tier starters we get this offseason along with Z and Hill. The only starter we can count on next year is Z. Prior and Miller are still ?'s and Hill doesn't have a ton of ML experience and we don't know how he'll do once ML hitters start seeing him multiple times. To go into next season without acquiring a starter would be disappointing. Yeah, we need at least one dependable starter, and then at least one more "option" if not another dependable starter.

Well, ND drops again-this time it is again unbelievable. Arkansas was not impressive against Miss State, and because of that game they move past ND? That's typical of how it's been this season (I did look it up-Arkansas was behind ND in the coaches poll last week). Rutgers lost, so perhaps the points that made ND ahead of Arkansas last week was because Akransas was behind Rutgers on a lot of peoples ballots. So they moved up one spot, but ND didnt gain anything on those ballots Now that's a probable explanation-thanks. It's just been frustrating with the polls the last few weeks.

Well, ND drops again-this time it is again unbelievable. Arkansas was not impressive against Miss State, and because of that game they move past ND? That's typical of how it's been this season (I did look it up-Arkansas was behind ND in the coaches poll last week). It's only 17 points. Previous week aside, who do you think deserves to be ranked higher between the two? If it's Arkansas, then why does it matter? I'm really not sure who deserves to be higher right now. Both of them have one blowout loss at home to one of the top 3 teams. Both of them have had a couple games that the other team helped them to win the game (Notre Dame-MSU, UCLA), Arkansas (Vandy, Alabama). Arkansas has beaten Auburn and Tennessee, while ND just has GT-but ND has played the better schedule overall so far. The teams are very even, but I'm just frustrated because this has happened to ND 3 or 4 times this season. They win, and they drop. I thought going into this week that if ND struggled against Army and Arkansas destroyed Miss State, then Arkansas would probably go ahead. Instead, the opposite happened, and they still moved ahead. What in the games made them deserving to move ahead at all?

Well, ND drops again-this time it is again unbelievable. Arkansas was not impressive against Miss State, and because of that game they move past ND? That's typical of how it's been this season (I did look it up-Arkansas was behind ND in the coaches poll last week).