CubColtPacer

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.

If MSU loses the title game, absolutely. They will have played a weaker schedule and have a worse record against that schedule. Michigan State will have a fluke win over Wisconsin and a win over Michigan. Michigan has a fluke win over ND and a win over Nebraska. Both teams struggled in some of their other games (Michigan against Ohio State, MSU against Minnesota). Michigan has lost their 2 games by a combined 22 points while MSU lost their two games by 39 points combined. If MSU loses to Wisconsin, that will tip the scales in Michigan's favor. If MSU wins that game, that would tip the scales in MSU's favor (but obviously that would be irrelevant because they would have the automatic bid anyway). Whose SOS rankings are you using and when were they updated? MSU played and beat the 2 other best teams in the Big Ten (and will play the 2nd best team in the conference twice). UM played the best team in the Big Ten and lost. UM got to play Purdue and Illinois - a classic Big Ten team that wins 6 games against cupcakes - ASU turned out to be as good as Illinois turned out to be - and then shows their true colors when they play teams that don't totally suck (UM should recognize this scenario from last year - right down to firing their coach at the end). MSU got Indiana and Wisconsin. They both played ND and 3 body bags OOC. They both played at Iowa, UM got beat, MSU soundly beat the Hawkeyes. UM had to go to MSU, but the next 3 hardest games (OSU, Nebraska, and ND) were all at home. MSU had to play at OSU and at Nebraska (and at ND). The schedules are so close as to be negligible, but I'd say MSU had the harder schedule. So UM has a fluke win against ND and barely beat OSU, plus a loss to a bad Iowa team. MSU got beaten by ND when Rees stopped turning the ball over and got beat by a ranked Nebraska team. The point differential in their losses is meaningless. UM isn't going to get blown out b/c they can score. They just can't play defense against good teams. MSU is willing to play a close defensive game b/c they run the ball well and play better defense. There is no way that MSU playing a 13th game against the 2nd best team in the conference and losing would put UM (sitting at home) ahead of them. Sagarin Michigan Schedule-38th ranked Michigan State-55th Colley Michigan Schedule-30th Michigan State-73rd Massey games played Michigan-37 Michigan State-58 Massey games full (takes into account MSU's game against Wisconsin coming up) Michigan-38 Michigan State-47 Anderson/Hester Michigan-25 Michigan State-59 It will get closer when MSU plays Wisconsin, but right now the computers are in agreement that Michigan's schedule was harder than MSU's. I couldn't find a SOS on Wolfe's ratings.

I think the top 14 rule doesn't make a lot of sense and the BCS is already set up to allow exceptions to get a name program in. So you would cut out the top 14 rule? Well then, that's where it really helps ND and the name schools in the Big 12. Jesus, CCP. This isn't about ND. Look about 10 posts up. ND doesn't need help getting into the BCS under the current system. If they finish with 9+ wins, they're going to go to a BCS game. If they finish with 8 or fewer, they won't. And outside of UT and OU, there are no name schools in the Big 12. Not really a concern. Remember I'm an ND fan-no agenda against ND here. If you cut out the top 14 rule, what's to prevent a 7 or 8 win ND from making the BCS? or a 7 or 8 win Texas or Oklahoma? The bowls would certainly love that.

I think the top 14 rule doesn't make a lot of sense and the BCS is already set up to allow exceptions to get a name program in. So you would cut out the top 14 rule? Well then, that's where it really helps ND and the name schools in the Big 12.

Just b/c the BCS was created to make money doesn't mean we have to feed into that by rewarding "name" programs that didn't perform better than their counterparts. Why does Bama deserve another shot at LSU? Why does UM deserve a bowl win - they barely escaped ND and OSU with Ws. It benefits the loser of the conference title games more than anyone, actually. They don't get penalized for getting to a game that another didn't even have the opportunity to play in. My idea doesn't benefit ND. If ND wins 10 games (and often 9), it's going to a BCS game. That's the current system. ND doesn't need a change in the system to get into a BCS game. If it's eligible, it's going about 95% of the time. Bama may deserve another shot at LSU because their total resume stacks up better than the rest of the country despite the loss to LSU. Michigan is a little more questionable. I would prefer that they don't get in, but I'd rather give their bid to someone like Boise State than someone like Michigan State or Oklahoma who are even more questionable selections (unless they win this week in which case their resumes would be better). And what would be your criteria for an at-large spot? Most of the losers of the conference title games are not going to be in the top 14 of the BCS. So is the rule that you can be selected in the top 14 or you can be eligible outside the top 14 if you lose in the conference title game? That seems to favor the conferences with title games (a Michigan for example could make their conference title game with 3 losses, lose for the 4th time in the title game, and still get an-large because of their big fanbase). But if you make it just a straight top 14, there won't even be enough teams eligible left! (Boise and Kansas State would be the only ones eligible with 3 at-large spots left to fill). Which one were you thinking of doing? MSU is more questionable to you than UM? That makes no sense at all. MSU beat the 2 other best teams in the conference this year (Wisconsin & UM). Come on. If MSU loses the title game, absolutely. They will have played a weaker schedule and have a worse record against that schedule. Michigan State will have a fluke win over Wisconsin and a win over Michigan. Michigan has a fluke win over ND and a win over Nebraska. Both teams struggled in some of their other games (Michigan against Ohio State, MSU against Minnesota). Michigan has lost their 2 games by a combined 22 points while MSU lost their two games by 39 points combined. If MSU loses to Wisconsin, that will tip the scales in Michigan's favor. If MSU wins that game, that would tip the scales in MSU's favor (but obviously that would be irrelevant because they would have the automatic bid anyway).

Just b/c the BCS was created to make money doesn't mean we have to feed into that by rewarding "name" programs that didn't perform better than their counterparts. Why does Bama deserve another shot at LSU? Why does UM deserve a bowl win - they barely escaped ND and OSU with Ws. It benefits the loser of the conference title games more than anyone, actually. They don't get penalized for getting to a game that another didn't even have the opportunity to play in. My idea doesn't benefit ND. If ND wins 10 games (and often 9), it's going to a BCS game. That's the current system. ND doesn't need a change in the system to get into a BCS game. If it's eligible, it's going about 95% of the time. Bama may deserve another shot at LSU because their total resume stacks up better than the rest of the country despite the loss to LSU. Michigan is a little more questionable. I would prefer that they don't get in, but I'd rather give their bid to someone like Boise State than someone like Michigan State or Oklahoma who are even more questionable selections (unless they win this week in which case their resumes would be better). And what would be your criteria for an at-large spot? Most of the losers of the conference title games are not going to be in the top 14 of the BCS. So is the rule that you can be selected in the top 14 or you can be eligible outside the top 14 if you lose in the conference title game? That seems to favor the conferences with title games (a Michigan for example could make their conference title game with 3 losses, lose for the 4th time in the title game, and still get an-large because of their big fanbase). But if you make it just a straight top 14, there won't even be enough teams eligible left! (Boise and Kansas State would be the only ones eligible with 3 at-large spots left to fill). Which one were you thinking of doing?

You already have not top-10 worthy teams in the BCS (unless you think UM is top 10). That happens every year. The BCS wasn't created to pit the top 10 teams against each other. There has actually only been 3 teams that have gotten at large bids despite finishing below the top 10. 2001 Notre Dame (9-2, #11) 2007 Notre Dame (9-2, #11) 2008 Illinois (9-3, #13) I know you are talking about BCS teams like the Big East champion as well, but its not that common for at larges to be selected outside the top 10, which makes it all the weirder that everyone is assuming that a potentially #14 Michigan is likely to be selected for an at large. The reason that Michigan is considered a pretty good bet is this. Alabama and Stanford will get automatic bids now because they are both in the top 4 (if Stanford doesn't get passed by Va Tech after this week which I doubt). So there's actually only 1 at-large bid left. But look at the rest of the teams: Boise State isn't going to get picked, Arkansas is ineligible due to 2 SEC teams, Oklahoma might not be in the top 14 anymore if they lose to Oklahoma State, Kansas State likely won't be picked, South Carolina is also ineligible, and Michigan State and Georgia will either win their conference or be out of the top 14. The biggest danger for Michigan at this point (besides possibly not making the top 14) is that Oklahoma beats Oklahoma State in a close game and the Sugar Bowl picks Oklahoma State, or that somehow Oklahoma remains in the top 14 and gets picked over Michigan. Michigan is just getting lucky that the only teams that are eligible in front of them do not have the best fanbases.

The risk to having divisions and a conference championship game is exactly what we were talking about with the Michigan State/Michigan discussion. Teams that were eligible for the conference championship game lose that game and no longer are eligible. That's the risk for a conference when they schedule a conference championship game. We already exclude some of the best teams by the 2 per conference rule and also by letting the bowls choose their own at-larges (of course with some restrictions). To expand that even further by excluding teams who land in the wrong division hurts the BCS even more. Oregon lost to LSU just like Alabama did, but because they happen to play in a different inferior conference they get the big money bowl and Alabama is shut out? Under your scenario, Alabama/Michigan in the Capital One Bowl and Stanford vs. Kansas State in the Alamo Bowl would both end up being better games than most of the BCS. Why would you want to put the best teams in the lower bowls? You really think Alabama/Michigan is a better game than Houston/Georgia? Bama would rock Michigan. A better game? Maybe. A more interesting game? Sure. I'd rather see what happens in that game than watch a Houston team try to prove itself against the 4th or 5th best SEC team. I don't want to solve the problem of putting in teams in the BCS that aren't top 10 worthy by putting more teams in that aren't top 10 worthy just to get a more competitive game. There are better ways (such as not letting a conference winner in if they aren't in the top 18 or so of the BCS). You already have not top-10 worthy teams in the BCS (unless you think UM is top 10). That happens every year. The BCS wasn't created to pit the top 10 teams against each other. Nope. It was designed to make money. And taking big money schools like Alabama and Michigan out of the equation (plus the likely Heisman trophy winner in Luck) will not make the bowls as much money. I don't consider Michigan top 10 worthy, but I do consider Alabama and Stanford top 10 worthy. And out of the list above, the bowls would probably select Oklahoma and Georgia to replace those two, and neither one of those teams are top 10 worthy (both have a chance to prove otherwise this weekend but are both expected to lose). I just don't see what your system improves. It puts worse teams in and makes less money. It doesn't really help minor conference schools because they won't get picked by the bowl committees anyway unless they are forced to. The only real winners are the Big XII and Notre Dame as they would have an easier time getting bids with so many teams being declared ineligible from the other strong conferences.

The risk to having divisions and a conference championship game is exactly what we were talking about with the Michigan State/Michigan discussion. Teams that were eligible for the conference championship game lose that game and no longer are eligible. That's the risk for a conference when they schedule a conference championship game. We already exclude some of the best teams by the 2 per conference rule and also by letting the bowls choose their own at-larges (of course with some restrictions). To expand that even further by excluding teams who land in the wrong division hurts the BCS even more. Oregon lost to LSU just like Alabama did, but because they happen to play in a different inferior conference they get the big money bowl and Alabama is shut out? Under your scenario, Alabama/Michigan in the Capital One Bowl and Stanford vs. Kansas State in the Alamo Bowl would both end up being better games than most of the BCS. Why would you want to put the best teams in the lower bowls? You really think Alabama/Michigan is a better game than Houston/Georgia? Bama would rock Michigan. A better game? Maybe. A more interesting game? Sure. I'd rather see what happens in that game than watch a Houston team try to prove itself against the 4th or 5th best SEC team. I don't want to solve the problem of putting in teams in the BCS that aren't top 10 worthy by putting more teams in that aren't top 10 worthy just to get a more competitive game. There are better ways (such as not letting a conference winner in if they aren't in the top 18 or so of the BCS).

The risk to having divisions and a conference championship game is exactly what we were talking about with the Michigan State/Michigan discussion. Teams that were eligible for the conference championship game lose that game and no longer are eligible. That's the risk for a conference when they schedule a conference championship game. We already exclude some of the best teams by the 2 per conference rule and also by letting the bowls choose their own at-larges (of course with some restrictions). To expand that even further by excluding teams who land in the wrong division hurts the BCS even more. Oregon lost to LSU just like Alabama did, but because they happen to play in a different inferior conference they get the big money bowl and Alabama is shut out? Under your scenario, Alabama/Michigan in the Capital One Bowl and Stanford vs. Kansas State in the Alamo Bowl would both end up being better games than most of the BCS. Why would you want to put the best teams in the lower bowls?

That seems like a massive tilt towards the conferences that don't have conference championship games (and Notre Dame). Under this scenario, Alabama, Arkansas, Stanford, South Carolina, and Michigan would all be ineligible for a BCS game. After Houston automatically qualifies, that leaves 3 at-large spots. The teams fighting for those at-large spots would be Boise, Oklahoma, Kansas State, Georgia, the loser of Michigan State/Wisconsin, and Baylor. Would you rather have 3 teams from the first list or 3 teams from the second list? And if Oklahoma State and Va Tech lose this week (and they both very well could), choosing between Houston and Oklahoma to go the title game to face LSU just because they would be the best 2 eligible at that point doesn't seem that appealing either.