CubColtPacer

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.

The Pacers are in a strange spot now. They have to spend money to reach the cap floor (probably 10-12 million). But the free agents this year are not going to be as good as the ones next year so they might try to entice some people with large 1 year deals and really use the cap space to go after a difference maker next year. It's also hard to figure out what position to upgrade because their team is so young that it really depends on which players develop more and which don't. They are still rumored for the big power forwards in this class though (West and Nene especially). The amnesty clause came at the worst time for them after they spent 4-5 years systematically getting rid of all their bad contracts.

Yeah, that couldn't be any more of a perfect scenario for the Bulls. They can cut Boozer whenever he either tanks or they badly need the cap space (which neither one is this year).

Michigan-Houston or possibly Michigan-Stanford should be an entertaining bowl game.

I think there will be a great number who do that. The issue becomes is that right now every single pollster in the coaches poll has Alabama at 2, and almost every single one has them at 2 in the Harris poll. So if 60% of pollsters switch to make Oklahoma State at 2 and the others leave them at 5, that will still leave Alabama at #2 in the polls (I'd have to do the math to see if the computer rankings would push Oklahoma State past or not at that point). If I get a chance I'll try to do the math, but I'd estimate Oklahoma State would need between 65 and 75 percent of the pollsters to switch to tie Alabama in the polls. If Va Tech or Stanford loses, that number goes down though because the pollsters who don't switch them will put Oklahoma State at 4 instead of 5 which will help their average considerably.

So am I reading this right...UCLA wins the Pac 12 south title. But if they lose against USC and then to Oregon/Stanford, they won't be bowl eligible because they'll be under .500 at that point? So winning their division gives them a chance at a BCS bowl and also caused them to probably miss a bowl entirely.

Maybe. Virginia and Notre Dame wins tomorrow would complicate things. Oklahoma State will likely be a little better than Alabama in the computers to end the season, so if they find a way to get up to #3 or #4 in the polls after this weekend and have an impressive performance against Oklahoma, that might be enough to convince enough pollsters. If Va Tech and Stanford both win out, I'd say it's almost impossible for Oklahoma State to do enough. I was thinking that but the point was made during halftime that Oklahoma State was dropped only to 4 after their loss. I think the voters are setting up to move Oklahoma State to two if they beat Oklahoma. The voters have Oklahoma State at 6. It's only the fact that they're 2nd in computer rankings that they are 4th in the BCS rankings. They'll either have to be 2nd or a close 3rd in the polls to get to 2nd in the BCS rankings, and that means that they will have to jump Alabama, Va Tech, and Stanford in the polls. That would be an awfully big jump to have them jump 3 teams just to manipulate the BCS.

Maybe. Virginia and Notre Dame wins tomorrow would complicate things. Oklahoma State will likely be a little better than Alabama in the computers to end the season, so if they find a way to get up to #3 or #4 in the polls after this weekend and have an impressive performance against Oklahoma, that might be enough to convince enough pollsters. If Va Tech and Stanford both win out, I'd say it's almost impossible for Oklahoma State to do enough.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15574 The whole thing is a very good read. The best news to me was that the consensus that Vitters has made strides defensively to be an average 3B with an above average arm. It'd be nice to only have to worry about him on one front. That is very good. That is the only reason I can see putting Vitters in the top 10. If he's a 1B/LF, he's pretty far down the list of prospects. But at 3B, he still has a lot of upside remaining. And the report on Ha is very different than the one that BA gave. They said he was the best CF defensively in the system while BP says that he's not quite suited for CF. The BP one makes more sense for his relative lack of hype and placement outside the top 10. Because with his age, his numbers, and playing a good defensive CF it made no sense why BA would not put him in the top 10. Ha just turned 21 after the season and is already in AA.

Why are the Bears losing to the Seahawks in the ideal scenario? I'd imagine because it was the only way to get the Seahawks to a good enough record to knock the Saints, Packers, and Giants out. If you have the Bears win that game Green Bay becomes the 6 seed and would face the Bears in the divisional round if they won.

He's been worse than Tarvaris Jackson, Donovan McNabb and Kerry Collins this year. And I don't see anybody scrambling to sign Collins. He's barely been better than Tim Tebow, for Theo's sake. Collins isn't available. The Colts have him on IR and technically have him under contract for next year (but there's no way they're paying him 10 million next year). Looking at Orton's numbers this year is probably a little underrating him, but between his mediocre play and his poor fit for Martz's offense I would be wary of him too.

He was recruiting Harris, but he chose Michigan State. As far as I know he isn't recruiting anyone else, but I am not the most plugged in on that front. They still should be recruiting for 2013 because they have another scholarship left to fill in that class (and possibly 2 depending on how the oversign situation works itself out for 2012).

Not that IU is going to beat Kentucky, but I wouldn't write it off as a blowout just yet. IU played UK close into the second half the last two years before faltering, and this IU team is much better (Kentucky may be better, who knows, they're always loaded with talent so it's hard to say). Pomeroy has UK with a 75% chance of winning, but the margin of victory at only eight. But, you're without the legend of Mo Creek! True. IU is going to miss Creek's 31.0 points-per-game average against Kentucky. Did you hear that he scored 31 points against Kentucky as a freshman? Technically, the hobbled version of Creek did make it to the Kentucky game last year and was pretty terrible. After watching IU for a few games, I still don't know who will transfer to make room for the oversign. The four names that I guess something could happen with are Etherington, Sheehey, Jurkin, or Creek, but I don't see any of those as very likely.

Ok, let's do the same comparison with Michigan, Michigan State, and Notre Dame. Let's assume all 3 win their final game and then Michigan State loses to Wisconsin in the title game. Is it fair to rank a 3 loss Notre Dame team ahead of a 2 loss Michigan team that beat them? No. Is it fair to rank a 3 loss Michigan State team ahead of a 3 loss Notre Dame team that beat them? No. And you say it is also unfair to rank Michigan ahead of Michigan State in that scenario. All 3 of those cannot exist together. So how do you rank those teams? That's the problem with using head to head. It never is just about ranking two teams against each other. Sure, if you limit it to just Michigan and Michigan State then it seems unfair. But when you expand it to making an actual ranking of all the teams, there is no fair way to rank Michigan State, Michigan, Notre Dame, and Nebraska in a top 25 poll using head to head. There is always going to be some head to head matchup you have to ignore to make it work. So you have to go by total resume. BTW, if Michigan State does lose in the title game, it won't matter if the voters keep them right in front of Michigan or not. Michigan would be so far ahead of them in the computer rankings at that point that they would move ahead of them in the BCS standings. Don't fight the hypo. The reason you can narrow this discussion to 2 teams is bc that's the question: Team A won the teams' division, beat Team B h2h, and only has 3 losses bc they played in the title game. As between those 2, which should be ranked higher/be eligible for a bcs bowl? It doesn't work with ND bc they aren't in the same division and don't have a conference title game. UM only has fewer losses than MSU (in our hypo) bc MSU won h2h and thus played in a "bonus" game while UM sat at home. Doesn't seem fair to punish the team that lost what is basically a 1-game playoff for the benefit of the team that didn't even play in the playoff. I would agree it doesn't seem fair, but it's the most fair way to do it. Ranking a 3 loss Michigan State team over a 2 loss Michigan team creates much bigger problems than the ones it solves.

If Michigan doesn't beat Ohio State, things get really interesting for that last at-large spot. A 3 loss Oklahoma? Kansas State? Baylor? Boise State? Va Tech if Clemson beats them? Maybe even ND if everything breaks right? I can't see how any other Big 10 team would be eligible in that scenario. Nobody in the Big East will be eligible, and the Pac 12 and SEC would already have teams in. I have no idea who would get in.

Ok, let's do the same comparison with Michigan, Michigan State, and Notre Dame. Let's assume all 3 win their final game and then Michigan State loses to Wisconsin in the title game. Is it fair to rank a 3 loss Notre Dame team ahead of a 2 loss Michigan team that beat them? No. Is it fair to rank a 3 loss Michigan State team ahead of a 3 loss Notre Dame team that beat them? No. And you say it is also unfair to rank Michigan ahead of Michigan State in that scenario. All 3 of those cannot exist together. So how do you rank those teams? That's the problem with using head to head. It never is just about ranking two teams against each other. Sure, if you limit it to just Michigan and Michigan State then it seems unfair. But when you expand it to making an actual ranking of all the teams, there is no fair way to rank Michigan State, Michigan, Notre Dame, and Nebraska in a top 25 poll using head to head. There is always going to be some head to head matchup you have to ignore to make it work. So you have to go by total resume. BTW, if Michigan State does lose in the title game, it won't matter if the voters keep them right in front of Michigan or not. Michigan would be so far ahead of them in the computer rankings at that point that they would move ahead of them in the BCS standings.