CubColtPacer

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.

doesn't that mean msu should refuse to play in the championship game them? why risk falling behind umich? Because if they win they get an automatic bid. And Michigan State would be unlikely to get picked as an at-large anyway even if they were ahead of Michigan. Conference championship games have to carry risk or else the conferences with conference championships would have an inherent advantage over those who don't.

Absolutely. Right now, Michigan and Michigan State's resume is virtually identical. Michigan has had the slightly harder schedule and Michigan State has the head to head win (although I don't put much stock in that, since there are so many times in college football where A beats B beats C who beats A). Michigan is already ahead in the computer rankings. If Michigan State plays another similar team and loses, should they not get penalized even a little bit for that? Because even a little bit of a penalty would put them clearly behind Michigan. No, they shouldn't, but they will. W hy do you justify discounting head to head by talking about something completely unrelated? Because it applies in this situation. If the season plays out like this: Michigan 10-2 Michigan State 10-3 Nebraska 9-3 Who should be ranked in front of the others? Head to head doesn't matter in this case because they all beat each other. A championship game gives a team another chance to prove itself. It beefs up their strength of schedule. But it also gives them another chance to lose. With the benefits come risks as well.

Absolutely. Right now, Michigan and Michigan State's resume is virtually identical. Michigan has had the slightly harder schedule and Michigan State has the head to head win (although I don't put much stock in that, since there are so many times in college football where A beats B beats C who beats A). Michigan is already ahead in the computer rankings. If Michigan State plays another similar team and loses, should they not get penalized even a little bit for that? Because even a little bit of a penalty would put them clearly behind Michigan.

Michigan should be eligible with a win. They'll jump Georgia if they lose the SEC championship game. If Wisconsin jumps them, that also means Michigan will jump Michigan State since Wisconsin will have to beat them. Clemson and South Carolina play, so only one of them at most will be ahead of Michigan at the end of the season (and if Clemson beats South Carolina and loses to Va Tech, Michigan could be ahead of both of them). Baylor is the only real concern who could jump them. And there are still upsets (such as Tulsa beating Houston) that will allow Michigan to jump some unexpected teams. I'd put the odds at only 5-10% that Michigan wouldn't be eligible with a win over Ohio State.

Yeah, that was really bad. ND wasn't going to beat Stanford anyway, but any thought of it probably went up in smoke now that we've only got one RB for that game. That means Kelly's going to unleash Rees, which could mean 4 or 5 INTs instead of just 1 or 2. Why do you think ND had no shot against Stanford? I'm not sure Stanford is all that great. They don't have to be. Rees hasn't improved in the slightest, despite playing well into the 4th in almost every game. Kelly must have banked on him improving throughout the year and it just hasn't happened. Teams drop 8-9 guys and make him throw into coverage b/c he can't run, can't zip the ball, and can't throw deep. Gray (guy who blew out his knee) had outperformed Wood for about 8 weeks and gave ND 2 quality RBs. Now we have a junior and 2 true freshman at RB. It's not going to be pretty. Doesn't matter. At either 8 or 9 wins, ND is going to the Champs Sports bowl. There you go, UMFan. Mariner described it more eloquently than I would have but that's it in a nutshell. And as for Rees, God, does ND ever need Hendrix or (more likely) Golson to take the starting job from Rees in the off-season. With him at QB, ND's ceiling is 8 or 9 wins. Yup. I really hope Kelly is open to that because Rees will really limit their potential. It looks like ND could get back to the teens of the BCS with a win over Stanford, but they would need a lot of craziness to get anywhere near 14. The funny thing is that the polls and computers disagree with each other so much on other teams right now that ND is 24 and 23 in the polls, 25.25 computer ranking, and yet that averages out for them to a 22nd BCS ranking.

The only thing about Green Bay is that they also have the whole perfect season thing going. If that's still intact in week 16 regardless of whether they clinced the division and byes, I could see them playing their starters throughout. Yeah, I don't see GB resting starters in week 16. Either they still have their undefeated season going or they won't have clinched homefield advantage yet. Either scenario could have them playing. If San Francisco happens to beat one of Baltimore/Pittsburgh, then it could be both.

All players like LaHair have a chance to be real. But are the chances high enough to risk being given the amount of playing time needed to find out? That's the issue. In general, players like LaHair don't work out. Is LaHair an exception? Maybe. Can the Cubs afford to take the risk to find out? Probably not unless the other options are not that great because the downside of him busting would be too damaging to the team.

Nope. Throwing it near an eligible receiver trumps all. You have to get it past the line of scrimmage when you're out of the pocket.

Akers has made 2 of his 5 field goal attempts through the first quarter and a half.

The Dolphins actually have a positive point differential on the season as of this moment. That's pretty exceptional for a team trying to get to 3-7 on the season.

I have a hard time seeing Lake becoming a high enough OBP guy to warrant being anywhere near the top of a major league lineup...but then again, I suppose anybody could be anything. Yup. Lake's more of an interesting 7/8 guy type hitter. The Cubs would need one of 3B or LF badly upgraded (Vitters is a rather average to poor bat if he's playing LF) and Cespedes to be above average or better in that scenario or if Cespedes was just average they would need upgrades at both 3rd and LF. I don't think the lineup is that scary, but it definitely would need an upgrade or two to be a contending lineup.

Great, great point. Two .5 WAR players don't equal 1 WAR. It doesn't work that way. All you have are two .5 WAR guys sharing one position. In other words, two [expletive] players does not equal one mediocre player. If WAR is supposed to be additive it's any even worse metric than I assumed. In some ways, WAR is supposed to be added together. If you have two players who combined for all the at-bats at a position and nowhere else and they each put up 1 WAR, then together the position put up 2 WAR. That's perfectly valid. WAR is a counting stat and therefore is greatly affected by how much playing time a player receives. The problem becomes that it's never quite that easy. Players also get pinch-hit appearances and they play other positions from time to time. The value of those would have to be separated out from the value derived just from playing the position in question. Even if you had two players who only played one position, you would still have to account for the value of having lost an extra roster spot and how much that player could have contributed (but in that scenario, your other bench players would get extra playing time to make up for the loss of that bench spot, so a bench spot value would be very hard to calculate). So things get really tricky when trying to figure out how much a platoon will contribute.

Stanford is only up one at half too. That one is a really big game for at-large hopefuls. If Stanford finds a way to be driven out of the top 14 (which might take two more losses depending on how it shakes out) that would leave the Pac 12 without an at-large candidate. Right now, the Sugar Bowl may have to pick from 2 teams out of Michigan/Kansas State/Stanford/Boise State/maybe Baylor. After Michigan, there's no easy 2nd choice for a bowl in that scenario.

IMO, Oregon losing is bad for Alabama. I don't think there was any realistic scenario that Oregon passed Alabama. The only realistic way anybody passes Alabama at this point is avoiding the rematch and Oregon doesn't offer that (I don't think the not winning their conference thing will be a big deal). But what Oregon losing does do is eliminate the buffer between Alabama and Oklahoma/Oklahoma State. Those are the teams Alabama should be scared by and they'll get closer if Oregon loses (of course, that's assuming Oklahoma wins which isn't a safe assumption). Arkansas is also a big winner if Oregon loses. The higher they get in the BCS standings entering the game with LSU, the bigger chance they somehow jump Alabama with a win over LSU. It's still not very likely, but it gets more likely with Oregon or Oklahoma losses.

BTW, if Tulsa upsets Houston next week (which is very plausible), then it's likely that it will be a 2 loss TCU squad that goes to the BCS with the non-AQ automatic berth.

I would say a very strong case. LSU has easily the strongest resume if you just look at the big wins/loss category even with a loss. It isn't quite as strong if you look at their whole strength of schedule but it still stacks up as well as the Big 12 teams and Alabama and Arkansas and better than Oregon. It wouldn't be a travesty if they would be left out, but only if it was one of Alabama/Arkansas and Oklahoma/Oklahoma State that replaced them (I don't see how it would be fair to let Oregon go as they would have a worse resume than LSU+the small factor of head to head). And LSU would still have a very good argument.

Anybody have any idea who controls their own destiny in the Big East at this point? Does anybody? I tried to work through some of the tiebreakers and got really lost. After the early games, you have Louisville and Rutgers at 4-2, Cincinnati, West Virginia, and Pittsburgh at 3-2, and Connecticut at 2-3.

If they get into the top 14 of the BCS, they are eligible for an at large. There will be 3 at larges available. A 2nd SEC team will take one and probably the Oklahoma/Oklahoma State loser will take another. That leaves one left between whoever doesn't go to the Rose Bowl in the Pac 12 (probably Stanford), the Virginia/Tech Clemson loser, any Big 10 team eligible, or Boise State.

Southern League not doing so badly early against the SEC. South Carolina up 20-13 at halftime on the Citadel, Auburn up 7-0 on Samford middle of the first quarter, Furman up 8-0 on Florida mid first quarter, with the Alabama-Georgia Southern game not kicked off yet. Obviously the expectation is still that the SEC will still win big in all these games but they haven't been able to separate themselves yet.

The Red Sox have a bit of a 40-man roster crunch. A player who has to be protected is significantly less valuable to them. So Epstein says "Okay, you can have A or B." Cherington says "We prefer A, but he's Rule 5 eligible and we don't have a spot for him. Can you wait until after the draft? If he clears, we'll take him, otherwise B will do." But if A gets taken when otherwise the Cubs would have rostered him, suddenly they've lost A and B. Would they take that gamble just to pacify Boston? If they are offering him to Boston, then presumably they don't like him enough to roster him. Then not rostering that player suggests nothing about if they are being talked about with Boston which was the original point of discussion. It just says that the Cubs aren't interested in rostering them at this time-nothing more. Whether they are also being offered to Boston (and I agree that a non-rostered player is more valuable) is a separate matter.

The Red Sox have a bit of a 40-man roster crunch. A player who has to be protected is significantly less valuable to them. So Epstein says "Okay, you can have A or B." Cherington says "We prefer A, but he's Rule 5 eligible and we don't have a spot for him. Can you wait until after the draft? If he clears, we'll take him, otherwise B will do." But if A gets taken when otherwise the Cubs would have rostered him, suddenly they've lost A and B. Would they take that gamble just to pacify Boston?

Even before any moves were made, there were 33 guys on the roster. as of now, there should be 6 open spots. And PLEASE don't tell me they plan on tendering Koyie Hill a contract. He really has no business on the roster. They have to leave room for free agents as well. They can't fill the 40 man roster up to 40 or really anywhere close. But I am very surprised that they wouldn't protect Flaherty.