CubColtPacer

I know for sure it hit the Tennessee guy, but I know why they called it that way. When they went to slow motion, it was clear that it touched him-but anytime it went full speed, it was impossible to tell.

Yup..Georgia against the bottom of the SEC this year 5 point win against Miss 3 point win against Miss State Lost to Vandy Lost to Kentucky Ouch.

I've watched Carolina's QB (Dailey) in several games this year, and this is the absolute best I have ever seen him play. He was scrambling, finding receivers, and led them right down the field. That was a great TD drive for UNC.

Uh, I'm not sure about the Indiana playing better than Michigan-I mean, they are losing 63-26 today to a team who didn't have a single win in the Big 10 this year.

Well, Indiana wants to try to at least have a second half. They come out after halftime, and the Lewis-Hardy connection works again for 48 yards and a TD. It's 35-13 now with the extra point to come. Hardy is a beast, I sure hope he doesn't go to the NFL-a 6 foot 7 receiver who runs pretty good routes and has prettty good hands is scary. Edit: Of course the extra point is blocked-35-13 still.

Well, he did play earlier, didn't he? Gamecast had him at 12 carries last time I checked.

Hmm..Indiana finally gets on the board. A 37 yard pass, next play is a 43 yard TD pass. 35-7 now. I'm not sure if they can even get up to 35, but I bet there will be at least 4-5 more TD's combined from these teams before the end of the day.

Why do you go for 2 in the firt score of a game!?!? I'm not sure if Florida's was some sort of botched kick or if they actually lined up for 2, but I guess Vanderbilt after Florida got it decided they wanted to try to tie the game-of course, it didn't work for them.

I guess Florida and Vanderbilt have decided to abandon the kicking game-it's 8-6 Florida after 1 teams 2 point conversion try was good, and the other one's failed. Florida's TD was set up after they blocked the first punt of the game.

To say that Indiana is getting destroyed is probably the understatement of the year. It's 35-0 Minnesota now.

Tough to win in the dome, but they can do it. Gophers favored by 6. But Minnesota is 0-5 in conference and haven't done much offensively most of the year and got beat by North Dakota St. at home. If IU can beat Minnesota and Purdue on the road, they have a good shot to tie Penn St. at 4th in the Big Ten, which would put them in the running for the Alamo Bowl, which would be a great accomplishment. Actually, it can be better than that. I heard that since it is likely that the Big 10 will send 2 teams to BCS Bowls, then that leaves Wisconsin for the Capital One Bowl, and if IU can win 2 games, they could be fighting with Penn State for the Outback Bowl. Wow. It probably will be more likely that they go to one of the next 3 bowls though (the Alamo, Champs Sports, Insight).

Oh wow, thanks for reminding me of one of Cuban's funniest gags..I could just see Dusty managing a Dairy Queen like Cuban did :D

Wow, talk about 4 games that I could give a crap about The Rose Bowl will be good either way. I would love to see either Florida or WVU against ND because they both have good offenses which is ND's weakness. The Orange Bowl would be so/so and that Fiesta Bowl matchup would be bad. The National Title game, which under your situation would be OSU/UM - UL would be entertaining as well. I disagree that ND's weakness is a good offense-I think it is just the opposite. The scary teams to me are the ones with a good defense, because anybody can score a bunch of points on ND. The question is-can the other team slow down ND's offense? The ones that have-GT, Michigan, Michigan State (for 2 1/2 quarters), and UCLA have given ND trouble. With that said, Florida would definitely be a harder game for ND. WVU-ND would be very entertaining, and would probably be much like the game last night (maybe without all the WVU fumbles). MSU most definitely does not have a good defense. They've given up like 80 points to Northwestern and Indiana the past two weeks. True, they don't, but they were slowing down the ND offense, which caused the deficit. The ND defense has only slowed down 1 or 2 teams all year, and Michigan State with their inconsistent offense was not one of them.

That's ridiculous. How is that ridiculous? What are the odds that a) a ball is hit to Ortiz b) Ortiz is unable to make a play that Doug would have made c) the play will lead to a run d) the run will matter? Maybe it will happen once a year? Now what are the odds of a) a ball is put in play that neither would make b) a run is scored that has nothing to with Ortiz c) the run will matter? Now if you have Doug in and the team scored a run that mattered. The bad significanlty outwieghs the good. Putting in late inning defensive replacements is one that a manger makes to justify his job. And carrying a guy on your team just to be a late inning defensive replacement is never a good idea. You're looking at it wrong. Who's the better defensive player? Doug M by a wide margin. Who's the better offensive player? Ortiz by a wide margin. You know you have to play defense again to win the game, you may not have to play offense again. If you do, what are the odds Ortiz hits again? Unless he's due up next inning it's better to play Doug M, and even if he is it's a bit of a tossup. I understand what you are saying. And perhaps I'm not explaining my position very well. The one or two times it will matter per season have to weighted against the multiple times you will need a guy to come of the bench to drive in a run or get a hit. Carrying a guy on the bench to be a late inning replacement or multiple guys like the Cubs have done is not a good idea in my opinon. Again, we're not debating that the roster spot should be used on the Doug M player. However, with the assumption that he's already on the team, that's the situation where he should be used. But let's take this to its logical conclusion. If we agree that a roster spot shouldn't be used for an all-glove no bat guy. Then having one on your team to put in is a bad idea. So, puting in a guy for late inning defensive purposes should never occur unless the guy can also hit. Sort of, but you're talking about the GM's responsibility. If the GM doesn't do it right, then it's sunk cost already, and the manager shouldn't make it worse by refusing to play the player in the areas where he could make a positive benefit, however small it is, for the team.

they're also out their first round pick, since they forfeited their legitimate one so they could get this guy without spending any extra money. What does that mean?

Wow, talk about 4 games that I could give a crap about The Rose Bowl will be good either way. I would love to see either Florida or WVU against ND because they both have good offenses which is ND's weakness. The Orange Bowl would be so/so and that Fiesta Bowl matchup would be bad. The National Title game, which under your situation would be OSU/UM - UL would be entertaining as well. I disagree that ND's weakness is a good offense-I think it is just the opposite. The scary teams to me are the ones with a good defense, because anybody can score a bunch of points on ND. The question is-can the other team slow down ND's offense? The ones that have-GT, Michigan, Michigan State (for 2 1/2 quarters), and UCLA have given ND trouble. With that said, Florida would definitely be a harder game for ND. WVU-ND would be very entertaining, and would probably be much like the game last night (maybe without all the WVU fumbles).

Texas 41, USC 38. Does that score mean those two teams couldn't handle the "big boys"? Absolutely not because everybody said they both had great offenses. I realize it's a little different and I'm not saying the WVU and UL offenses are as good as 2005 USC and 2005 Texas but they both are good. WVU's is more of a gimmick offense but Louisville's offense is the real deal IMO. I was going to make the same point earlier, but was worried I was going to get ignored because of the differences. I do agree with you that WVU and UL scoring that much is no more indicative of how bad they are than Auburn and LSU playing a 7-3 game earlier this year is indicative about how bad they are. Instead, it's just two teams coming together who have similar strengths, and that leads to an extreme game weighted towards one side of the ball.

Yup. Bochy is the new manager of the Giants.

I think that sums it up pretty nicely. Thank you.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff. i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all. using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway. baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job. good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning. i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game. Leon Durham and Bill Buckner say hi. yeah, and if they'd have made those plays in the same situations in their respective 1st innings, they'd have been just as important but people like you wouldn't know about them. Sulley, let me make sure I've got your position right first. Are you saying that a defensive replacement should not be used late because defense in the first is worth the same as defense in the 9th, and that a team shouldn't start their defensive replacment, so why should they put him in late? Or are you saying something else? have you been follwoing the conversation? i'm saying that players shouldn't be acquired for the sole purpose of using them as late inning replacements, it's worthless. Yes, I've been following the conversation, including the beginning of the conversation where there was a split over this. At the beginning, people thought that the original poster meant that defensive switches were useless in itself-that's why they defended the defensive switch as they did. The person you quoted was just saying that putting in your best defense at the end of the game when a team is up is logical, not that the team should use that logic to go out and acquire only defense-minded players. I think there is agreement that players should not be acquired for simply the purpose of being a defensive replacement because of his lack of offense. Sorry about the miscommunication.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, since the answer is so obvious. In the late innings, when you've already scored enough runs to win, it makes sense to put in the guy that will do the best job of preventing runs from scoring. In the early innings, obviously the light-hitting, all defense guy is a bigger liability than the guy that can hit but plays inferior defense. Of course it is a serious question. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. What does it matter that the poor defensive player lets in runs at the beginning or end of the game? But more to the point, how often does his replacement prevent a run from scoring in the 8th or 9th inning? Are you honestly saying you don't understand the logic behind why a manager might substitute a Doug Mientkiewitz for a Craig Wilson in the 9th inning with a 1-run lead? The premise is elementary: when you need your defense to hold the lead and secure the win, then you put your best defensive players in the game. It's a basic principle that applies to many sports. You can agree or disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy as it applies to baseball, but to fail to grasp the logic is pretty puzzling. It's pretty basic stuff. i think that failing to grasp the idea that baseball is a completely different sport than basketball and football is puzzling. the "logic" as you call it, is conventional and anyone can "grasp" it, but it's faulty logic that doesn't apply to this particular sport and shouldn't be "grasped" by anyone at all. using terms like "basic principle" or "fundamental" doesn't mean anything, it's useless cliche that backwards coaches still use in little league when they can't produce a coherent thought of their own to illuminate a real principle that completely escapes them anyway. baseball is about run production, period. defense is nice to have, but pitching is more important and a completely independent factor. good pitching saves real runs, good defense saves peripheral runs and looks good on baseball tonight, providing an idiot like john kruk a chance to have a job. good defense has the same value at any time during a game, not just with a one-run lead in the ninth. many factors have contributed to a team having a one-run lead throughout the course of the game, the game was not simply born as being close in the ninth inning. i didn't particularly mind when our manager used neifi or macias late in a close game for defense because it gave them the least chance of actually hurting our chances to win, which is what they did each and every time they stood in the batter's box at any time during the game. Leon Durham and Bill Buckner say hi. yeah, and if they'd have made those plays in the same situations in their respective 1st innings, they'd have been just as important but people like you wouldn't know about them. Sulley, let me make sure I've got your position right first. Are you saying that a defensive replacement should not be used late because defense in the first is worth the same as defense in the 9th, and that a team shouldn't start their defensive replacment, so why should they put him in late? Or are you saying something else?

Agreed. What we were saying is if Arkansas and Auburn both win out, and then Arkansas loses to Florida in the SEC title game, who should go to a BCS bowl?

Arkansas has to play S. Carolina, Tenn, Miss St and LSU. If they win all those games and go 11-1 and then lose in the championship to Florida they deserve to go over Auburn, LSU, or Tenn IMO. They won't like you said but they would deserve to. I don't think they would deserve to go over Auburn in that case. Florida beat Arkansas Arkansas beat Auburn Auburn beat Arkansas It would be one of those triangles in that case. The difference between Auburn and Arkansas at that point would be that Auburn would only have 1 loss, while Arkansas would have 2. It would be close, but I think a 1 loss team with a similar schedule would have to take precedence, even with the head to head. When did Auburn beat Arkansas unless you have them playing in the SEC Championship Game which I would agree with you. Can Auburn play Arkansas in the SEC title game? Are they in the same division? They are. Arkansas or Auburn will represent the West, and Florida will likely represent the East, with Tennessee having a chance if Florida stumbles.

Arkansas has to play S. Carolina, Tenn, Miss St and LSU. If they win all those games and go 11-1 and then lose in the championship to Florida they deserve to go over Auburn, LSU, or Tenn IMO. They won't like you said but they would deserve to. I don't think they would deserve to go over Auburn in that case. Florida beat Arkansas Arkansas beat Auburn Auburn beat Arkansas It would be one of those triangles in that case. The difference between Auburn and Arkansas at that point would be that Auburn would only have 1 loss, while Arkansas would have 2. It would be close, but I think a 1 loss team with a similar schedule would have to take precedence, even with the head to head. When did Auburn beat Arkansas unless you have them playing in the SEC Championship Game which I would agree with you. I meant Auburn beat Florida. I have changed it. I don't see any way on how a 1 loss Auburn team could be passed over by a 2 loss Arkansas team. Would you think that a 2 loss Auburn team should be in over a 1 loss Florida team because they beat them?

Arkansas has to play S. Carolina, Tenn, Miss St and LSU. If they win all those games and go 11-1 and then lose in the championship to Florida they deserve to go over Auburn, LSU, or Tenn IMO. They won't like you said but they would deserve to. I don't think they would deserve to go over Auburn in that case. Florida beat Arkansas Arkansas beat Auburn Auburn beat Florida It would be one of those triangles in that case. The difference between Auburn and Arkansas at that point would be that Auburn would only have 1 loss, while Arkansas would have 2. It would be close, but I think a 1 loss team with a similar schedule would have to take precedence, even with the head to head.