CubColtPacer

Alabama's loss is much better than Oklahoma State's. And their best win (Arkansas) might be better than Oklahoma State's best win (Kansas State). Their second best win might be comparable by some (at Penn State vs home against Baylor). Alabama was also never challenged in any of their games (their closest game except LSU was a 16 point win over Penn State) while Oklahoma State had a 1 point win over Texas A&M and a 7 point win over Kansas State. Oklahoma State's strength is that the depth of their schedule is much stronger than Alabama's. Alabama has a legitimate argument for #2. I tend to like the team with the stronger strength of schedule overall which is why I lean to Oklahoma State, but Alabama has been pretty dominant all season long.

Sagarin is updated. LSU 1, Alabama 2, Oklahoma State 3. Houston dropped from 8th to 26th. TCU is 19th (same as last week) and Michigan dropped one spot from last week to 23rd (but Sagarin is by far Michigan's worst computer rating so it will be dropped anyway). Georgia moved up 3 spots to #11 and Kansas State, Oklahoma, and Baylor are 5, 6, and 7.

Here are Palm's latest BCS projections: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rankings/bcs Some thoughts on the title game matchup: And for the at-large spots: Here are the rest of his thoughts: http://rpibcsguy.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/26191645/33662236

You in particular should probably not root for Georgia, because a Georgia win likely takes Michigan out of the BCS. You would have to root for TCU not to make it up to 16 at that point because that would be the only spot available.

Doesn't really matter though right? Southern Miss is the Conference USA champions now not Houston. The question could be if blowing out the #6 team could somehow get Southern Miss into the top 16 and ahead of TCU. Highly doubt that's even a remote possibility though. It would really help both Michigan and TCU if Houston dropped below them.

TCU is definitely a long way down. I think Houston will probably get close to that but settle in at 15/16. Lots of scenarios still possible this year with some upsets. If Va Tech and Oklahoma State both go down, who gets the #4 spot in the BCS? Oklahoma? Oklahoma State? Boise State? Arkansas? Oregon If it's Oklahoma State or Boise State, that would be significant because either one would end up stealing a bid If it's Oklahoma, Arkansas, or Oregon, it won't end up mattering. I'd guess from looking at the polls/computer rankings that Oklahoma State and Arkansas would not make it to #4 in that scenario but each of the other 3 could. Then of course you still have the 3 bids from one conference possibility if Georgia pulls off the shocker and questions about both Michigan/TCU's eligibility. And then of course still 4 automatic bids up for grabs. Lots of questions remain for halfway through Championship Saturday.

TCU Or the other at-larges if TCU can't get up to 16th this week. That's what they would need to automatically qualify with a Houston loss. TCU is 18th and 13-17 are all in action this week(and at least 2 of them are underdogs), I think there's probably better odds that TCU loses than they don't rise to 16 with a win. Michigan at 16 isn't playing, but the other 4 are. They would definitely need some poor things to happen to them for them not to move up. Clemson over Va Tech for example would hurt. Baylor winning would hurt, and Wisconsin over Michigan State in a close game might leave Michigan State ahead of TCU. Oklahoma either beating Oklahoma State or losing close to them would also be a problem. And of course Georgia somehow winning. If 3-4 of those 5 things happen today I could see TCU only slide up one spot (maybe Clemson moving ahead of them and Michigan/State Wisconsin and Georgia moving behind them. That's plausible IMO). A TCU loss still wouldn't help Boise State right? There's no co-champion provision from what I've seen.

TCU Or the other at-larges if TCU can't get up to 16th this week. That's what they would need to automatically qualify with a Houston loss.

Juan Pierre-12 seasons, 6823 AB's, 16 HR Starlin Castro-2 seasons, 1137 AB's, 13 HR Castro has substantially more power and also plays SS which is more valuable then CF. Those two aren't a great comparison.

Yeah, I don't see how Roy becomes a Bull. He'd have to be amnestied, and then all of the teams under the salary cap would have to pass on him at the minimum for Chicago to get him (of course, the bidding could go up from there if multiple teams end up wanting him). And if he does pass through all those teams, wouldn't that be a sign that he really has nothing left?

I think there's still a couple teams(much like there's probably at least a few fans) who haven't figured out that Blake DeWitt is awful. Colorado might be one of the few teams DeWitt would have decent value for. His power might play up a little bit there. He would at least be a decent bench option for them. But he has very little upside with his defense/walk/tendency to hit lots of pop up issues.

This is what I'm hoping for. Unless you can get a fantastic deal for Byrd, it makes sense to keep him. It's the best business move to at least keep Jackson in the minors until the middle of April, and it might be prudent to keep him there until June. He's probably not going to wildly outproduce Byrd and with a player like Jackson the more team control/cost controlled years you can get the better. If they find a taker for Soriano, it become a whole different equation and they might need to bring Jackson up at that point.

IU showed tonight they're still missing that defensive shotblocker/rebounder inside (hopefully Perea will be that guy right away even if he has no offensive game). The key for them against these better teams though is that IU is no longer throwing out those lineups where they're playing 3 on 5 on the offensive end. Pritchard is the only guy on the floor teams can really sag off of and he's only out there a few minutes. And IU got their hands on a lot of passes on the defensive end, although they didn't come up with most of the loose balls. A very good win though for a young team especially having to come back like that.

No, what I said before is still true unless the Bears lose to the Seahawks. If the Bears beat Seattle, the common opponents tiebreaker is a virtual loss to Detroit. However, division record is still the higher tiebreaker, and the Lions and Bears are tied at 2-2. Unfortunately, the way it most likely plays out is that the Bears and Lions both beat Minnesota and lose to Green Bay, which would send the tiebreaker to common opponents. If the Bears do in fact lose to Seattle, there is still much to be decided. The Bears hold an edge in conference record (Bears: 6-3 with conference games between SEA, GB and MIN, Lions: 5-4 with conference games between NO, GB, MIN), and even with the Bears losing already to Seattle to get to this point, and the strong possibility of the Bears losing to GB to tie the division records w/Detroit, they would finish 7-5, which means the Lions have to beat NO this weekend to still be alive in that tiebreaker. (because they will lose to GB to tie the division record to make it to this point). So look at it this way: Tiebreaker #1 (Head to Head): The is guaranteed to be tied Tiebreaker #2 (Division record): This is likely to be tied 3-3 unless either Chicago or Detroit beats GB or loses to MIN) Tiebreaker #3 (Common Opponents): The Lions will win this unless the Bears lose to Seattle and otherwise remain tied in overall record. Tiebreaker #4 (Conference record): Still up in the air, but likely edge to Chicago if Detroit loses to New Orleans this weekend (because they likely will need to suffer another conference loss to GB in order to tie the division record tiebreaker). Tiebreaker #5 (Strength of victory): Way too many variables at play to tell who has the edge here. But what we know is that Chicago's victories have come against teams with a 31-46 overall record, while Detroit's have come against teams with a 32-46 record, so they currently have the slight edge with Chicago having the easier remaining schedule of the 2 teams (only GB and DEN have winning records, DET has NO, GB, OAK left). Tiebreaker 1, I got. Tiebreaker 2, I got also Tiebreaker 3, I don't got. Common games. - Tampa - Detroit won, Chicago won - Chiefs- Detroit won - Vikings - Detroit won, Chicago won - Atlanta- Detroit lost, Chicago won - Denver- Detroit won, - Green Bay- Detroit lost, Chicago lost - Carolina- Detroit won, Chicago won - Saints- Chicago lost - Oakland- Chicago lost - San Diego- Chicago won So far, Detroit is 5-2 in games both teams will play. Chicago is 5-3 in games both teams will play. If the Bears win vs. KC, Minn, and Denver...and lose to GB, that would be 8-4. If the Lions lose to the Saints and Packers, even if they beat SD, Minny, and Oakland that would make them 8-4 in common games. The only differences would be opposite results in each direction vs. Atlanta and Oakland. Even if the Bears lose to Seattle, they'd be 10-6 with Detroit at 10-6. Then the tiebreaker would go to conference record and the Bears would be 7-5 with Detroit 6-6. I think that's what UMFan is saying. If the Bears beat Seattle, then they cannot be tied with the Lions in the standings and also not have lost the common opponents tiebreker . They'll have either won all 3 games that you have them winning, which would put them at 11-5 and ahead of the Lions at 10-6. Or they'll lose one of those 3 games instead, which will put them tied with the Lions and 1 game back in the common opponents category. If they lose to Seattle, then they can tie in both record and common opponents as you've shown above. Then the bold part makes no sense. It does to me. If the Bears beat Seattle and the Lions and the Bears have the same record at the end of the season, then the Lions will have won that tiebreaker. The only way for the Bears to tie that tiebreaker in a scenario where the tiebreakers matter is if they lose to Seattle.

No, what I said before is still true unless the Bears lose to the Seahawks. If the Bears beat Seattle, the common opponents tiebreaker is a virtual loss to Detroit. However, division record is still the higher tiebreaker, and the Lions and Bears are tied at 2-2. Unfortunately, the way it most likely plays out is that the Bears and Lions both beat Minnesota and lose to Green Bay, which would send the tiebreaker to common opponents. If the Bears do in fact lose to Seattle, there is still much to be decided. The Bears hold an edge in conference record (Bears: 6-3 with conference games between SEA, GB and MIN, Lions: 5-4 with conference games between NO, GB, MIN), and even with the Bears losing already to Seattle to get to this point, and the strong possibility of the Bears losing to GB to tie the division records w/Detroit, they would finish 7-5, which means the Lions have to beat NO this weekend to still be alive in that tiebreaker. (because they will lose to GB to tie the division record to make it to this point). So look at it this way: Tiebreaker #1 (Head to Head): The is guaranteed to be tied Tiebreaker #2 (Division record): This is likely to be tied 3-3 unless either Chicago or Detroit beats GB or loses to MIN) Tiebreaker #3 (Common Opponents): The Lions will win this unless the Bears lose to Seattle and otherwise remain tied in overall record. Tiebreaker #4 (Conference record): Still up in the air, but likely edge to Chicago if Detroit loses to New Orleans this weekend (because they likely will need to suffer another conference loss to GB in order to tie the division record tiebreaker). Tiebreaker #5 (Strength of victory): Way too many variables at play to tell who has the edge here. But what we know is that Chicago's victories have come against teams with a 31-46 overall record, while Detroit's have come against teams with a 32-46 record, so they currently have the slight edge with Chicago having the easier remaining schedule of the 2 teams (only GB and DEN have winning records, DET has NO, GB, OAK left). Tiebreaker 1, I got. Tiebreaker 2, I got also Tiebreaker 3, I don't got. Common games. - Tampa - Detroit won, Chicago won - Chiefs- Detroit won - Vikings - Detroit won, Chicago won - Atlanta- Detroit lost, Chicago won - Denver- Detroit won, - Green Bay- Detroit lost, Chicago lost - Carolina- Detroit won, Chicago won - Saints- Chicago lost - Oakland- Chicago lost - San Diego- Chicago won So far, Detroit is 5-2 in games both teams will play. Chicago is 5-3 in games both teams will play. If the Bears win vs. KC, Minn, and Denver...and lose to GB, that would be 8-4. If the Lions lose to the Saints and Packers, even if they beat SD, Minny, and Oakland that would make them 8-4 in common games. The only differences would be opposite results in each direction vs. Atlanta and Oakland. Even if the Bears lose to Seattle, they'd be 10-6 with Detroit at 10-6. Then the tiebreaker would go to conference record and the Bears would be 7-5 with Detroit 6-6. I think that's what UMFan is saying. If the Bears beat Seattle, then they cannot be tied with the Lions in the standings and also not have lost the common opponents tiebreker . They'll have either won all 3 games that you have them winning, which would put them at 11-5 and ahead of the Lions at 10-6. Or they'll lose one of those 3 games instead, which will put them tied with the Lions and 1 game back in the common opponents category. If they lose to Seattle, then they can tie in both record and common opponents as you've shown above.

Not according to the Playoff Machine on ESPN. There are several scenarios where the Lions, Bears, and Falcons are all 10-6 and the Bears are left out due to strength of victory tiebreakers. If it's just us and Atlanta at 10-6 and the Lions even at 11-5, it's better for the Bears. We have the tiebreak on ATL head to head, but when 3 teams are in it, there's some weird scenarios. If the Lions and Bears both finish 10-6 (and Atlanta better than 10-6), it is very likely that Detroit wins the tiebreaker with the Bears. The only way the Bears win it is if they can somehow beat GB or Detroit somehow loses to Minnesota. The most likely scenario is that the teams both split their remaining division games, both losing @ GB, and both winning @/vs. MIN. In that scenario, the Lions make it due to record vs. Common teams, which Detroit has already clinched. Explain to me how the Lions have clinched record vs. Common teams, considering two of the Bears' losses have been to teams Detroit hasn't played yet, and the Bears beat Atlanta. Or do you just mean that the Bears and Lions can't tie without the Lions winning the tiebreaker for common opponents? Because the Bears and Detroit can tie both if the Bears lose to Seattle and the Bears and Lions have the same record. They havent officially clinched it but they virtually have. The way I determine common opponent records between division teams is by looking at non-common opponents, because there are only 2 for each. The Lions have lost both of their non-common games (Atlanta and SF), while the Bears have won their first (Philly). This means that if the Bears and Lions finish tied at 10-6 for instance, the Lions will have a 10-4 record vs. common opponents, and the Bears either 9-5 or 8-6 depending on whether they beat Seattle. Unless I am missing something, there is no way that the Lions can lose or even tie a common opponents tiebreaker to the Bears. Dallas is the second non-common game for Detroit, not Atlanta.

Not according to the Playoff Machine on ESPN. There are several scenarios where the Lions, Bears, and Falcons are all 10-6 and the Bears are left out due to strength of victory tiebreakers. If it's just us and Atlanta at 10-6 and the Lions even at 11-5, it's better for the Bears. We have the tiebreak on ATL head to head, but when 3 teams are in it, there's some weird scenarios. In a 3-way tie with Atlanta and Detroit, it'd never get to strength of victory, because the Bears win the first tiebreaker of head-to-head among the three teams. This is not true. In the event of a 3 way tie, first Detroit and Chicago would go through the tiebreakers before Atlanta is even in the picture. Right now the Bears lead the common games tiebreaker (4-1 vs 3-2). Whoever comes out of that division tiebreaker would then have their head to head against Atlanta. If it's Chicago, then Chicago gets the 5 seed and Atlanta would get the 6. If it's Detroit, then Atlanta gets the 5 seed and then Detroit would get the 6.

Probably just comes down to the fact that (for obvious reasons, of course) the Cubs haven't made any big splashes (up until Theo, at all) player wise under Ricketts. Because the payroll was already $140+ million. Anybody who is paying attention knows the Cubs have a hell of a lot more freed up money today than they have in the first two years of Ricketts ownership. They've already allowed their GM to eat money on Bradley, and then Silva, and appeared very open to the possibility of eating money on Soriano and Zambrano. They've spent big on international/draft, and went big with management. How in the hell does somebody have doubts about whether this ownership group will be willing to spend money? I agree with you on the overall point, but this part is not right. The Cubs never ate any money on Bradley. They saved money by trading him for Silva, and then they did eat part of Silva's contract.

Yes, historically ND has played one of the toughest schedules in the country. And they don't play very many minor conference teams at all other than the academies. But typically their schedule has had a really tough September and then some weakness in October/November before the USC game (or if the USC game is in October some weakness other than one other strong October/November game). When does ND play the academies? Typically mid-October or later. They've also played some weak Big East/ACC teams during that time and those have usually been late in the season. Most schools schedules are much weaker in the first half than the second half. ND usually has the opposite. That's all I meant by the comment. I take issue with your comment about historical schedules. ND has always played the big ten early bc the big ten requires it. Maybe you think of big ten as better opponents, so that's why you think it's weighted heavy in September. ND has often scheduled other teams, like PSU, BC, Miami, FSU, and obviously USC and Stanford later in the season. Getting schools from the south to play in the cold in November is not easy, made more difficult by growing conferences requiring 9 game schedules, and bc SEC teams reserve 1 OOC cupcake for November. But if you look back at the pre-White years, I don't think you'll see cupcakes on ND's schedule every November. You seen to suggest that ND schedules a bunch of cupcakes before USC, which just doesn't have any support. I'm more talking about the BCS era. Trying to look how teams scheduled before that is pretty pointless IMO because the BCS changed how schedules are done dramatically. PSU hasn't played Notre Dame since 1992. They haven't scheduled Miami in over 20 years (until next year). They play Florida State pretty rarely. And BC and Stanford are not at the level of Michigan or maybe even Michigan State. In the BCS era, the first half of Notre Dame's schedules most years has been stronger. It's mostly not their fault. As you mentioned, it's hard for them to schedule games in November when it's cold and when other teams are deep in their conference season. They've also gotten unlucky at times (that series with Tennessee was mostly a bust but it looked promising at the time it was scheduled). But it still has been true of them. Looking at their future schedules, in 2012 the back half appears to be harder. 2013 looks front heavy (after the USC game it goes way downhill). The 2014 schedule just looks weak overall, 2015 looks front heavy, 2016 looks front heavy, and after that there are too many games not scheduled.

Yes, historically ND has played one of the toughest schedules in the country. And they don't play very many minor conference teams at all other than the academies. But typically their schedule has had a really tough September and then some weakness in October/November before the USC game (or if the USC game is in October some weakness other than one other strong October/November game). When does ND play the academies? Typically mid-October or later. They've also played some weak Big East/ACC teams during that time and those have usually been late in the season. Most schools schedules are much weaker in the first half than the second half. ND usually has the opposite. That's all I meant by the comment.

Huh? They lost by 14 at home to USC, and 14 again to Stanford (and were down 21-0 with the game over at halftime). They were better late in the season because that is when they schedule all their garbage games. They were a fumbled snap from tying the USC game and it turned into a 14-point swing. They put a lid on Stanford at the half and Hendrix was moving the ball well. I didn't say they were going to win but ND was competitive in both. And your last sentence is nonsensical. It's only partially nonsensical. ND has historically had their cupcake games between the middle of October through the middle of November. That's been especially true in years where USC is the last game. But that's also why I don't understand when people say ND gets overranked based on one or two games at the start of the season. ND consistently plays one of the hardest September schedules in the country and so will yo-yo in the rankings much more than the average team who is playing cupcakes at that time. Next year that definitely won't be true of ND though because their tough games come at all different points of the season (MSU/UM in September, Oklahoma in late October, USC in late November).

San Diego State is ranked that high? That seems crazy. 3 of their 4 losses were to Boise, TCU, and Michigan (with their other loss being to the equally decent Wyoming). They beat a couple of the teams close behind them in the rankings like Air Force and Washington State. They are one of those teams that hasn't had enough true tests to have a great idea of their talent level. They've beaten everybody they should, lost to the 3 top 20 teams they played, and won 2 of the 3 games around their talent level.

It is the OOC games that make Michigan's schedule harder according to the computers. For example, look at the differences in their 2 OOC games that were not in common according to Sagarin: Michigan: San Diego State-55th (this is better than 5 of the Big 10 teams) Western Michigan-80th Michigan State: Youngstown State-126th Florida Atlantic-174th And then of course MSU played Wisconsin (26th) and Indiana (149th) while Michigan played Illinois (65th) and Purdue (69th). So it just depends on what kind of schedule you like. MSU played 1 more good team than Michigan while Michigan played 2-3 more mediocre teams with a chance to beat them than MSU did. I'd put their schedules as much closer than the computers would and I think their resumes are just about equal right now.

OTOH, cap space next offseason will be affected somewhat by your decisions on Hibbert and Rush. Rush would be easy enough to let go but it would hurt to let Hibbert go and then strike out. As a competent 7 footer his price wont be cheap. Plus extendin other young guys comes into play in the folliwing seasons. Perhaps the best solution is to take on salary now to get a big piece, giving up a couple young players to get that impact player now. There's a lot of buzz about trading for Millsap of the Jazz right now since their frountcourt is overloaded. I don't know how legitimate that rumor is. They won't have any problem getting rid of Rush (they've almost traded him multiple times) but Hibbert will definitely cost some money to extend. They will have some more money with Posey's contract coming off the books after the year. The Pacers might pick up an amnestied player as well since those players are apparently not going to be free agents, but instead there will be bidding from among the teams who are under the cap.

Why are you ignoring the fact that Michigan isn't any good? Michigan is going to get housed if they get to a BCS game. How does Michigan's resume being better than MSU's have much to do with how they would play in a BCS game? And Michigan would likely play Houston or Stanford in the BCS and they have a pretty good shot at either of those two teams (especially Houston). Personally, I would enjoy just taking the top 10 in the BCS and be done with it (which would end up excluding both of them unless MSU wins this week), but I know the bowls would never go for it.