CubbieBum

An average 2B in return for giving away an above average OF AND 5-6 million?

I really don't like divisions. They are pointless in my mind. A stay over in our sports due to the old days when traveling wasn't as easy. No matter how the Big Ten is set it will be controversial. Michigan and OSU shouldn't be in the same division in football but how can you separate them? IU and Purdue in the same division causes the same problem in basketball since both are historically the best in the Big Ten. If the team is out east I would say this would be the best breakdown. West: Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa East: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Northwestern, (newcomer) The West would be the better basketball conference, the East would be the better football conference. I'm obviously talking about historically. Deciding divisions based on who is good at this exact moment would be a mistake.

Obviously you aren't aware that beer is a potent diuretic, especially when you have six to ten. And that's before the game starts. Some people are little girly men who never trained themselves to be able to hold it. It's one of the most annoying things about my roommate. When we go out to the bars he has to go piss literally every 10 minutes while I go 1-2 times. Hell every once in awhile I go a full day without pissing. :hello:

I still think that school that OMC mentions as being the best option. They're in the Big East in all other sports. I really don't see that happening. Like that is what is stopping them. If the Big Ten met their money demands ND would drop the Big East instantly.

Pitt/Penn State every year (or at least most years) would be fun to watch. Exactly. They also play similar styles in the big sports. They play physical hard nosed basketball and football and are very good at both. It would be a big coo for the Big Ten to take over the Pittsburgh market.

Ha! I had forgotten they had no football. I mentioned them because they are in a good location and I believe are good academically.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4735336 Barry Alvarez is saying they will. Not sure who they could get but my guess if we do add one it will come out of the Big East. I don't see ND coming aboard. Neither side is willing to budge on the money issue. Pitt, Marquette, and Cincinnati I would say are the most likely candidates in the long run and I personally wouldn't mind any one of them with Pitt being top choice.

How much did you watch Washington/Cal last week? How about South Carolina/Clemson two weeks ago? Or LSU/Arkansas? Or Georgia/Georgia Tech? Those are all big matchups between major conference schools that were all but meaningless to anyone outside of the fanbase of each school. However, in a playoff system, every one of those games would have been huge in terms of remaining in or being eliminated from playoff contention. As someone said earlier, for every game that might lose a little meaning, there is at least one if not two games that would gain in meaning because of a playoff system. I watched a lot of the Georgia-Georgia Tech game but that's mainly because I wanted to see GT's offense since I hadn't gotten the chance to yet this year because I've worked most Saturdays. South Carolina/Clemson and LSU/Arkansas were completely uninteresting games to me that I wouldn't have watched whether they mattered for a playoff spot or not. And I don't think even Cal and Washington fans watched that game last week. Anyone who gives a crap about college football was watching Florida-Alabama and then Texas-Nebraska. But even if Cal-Washington was on by itself, it falls into the same category as the SC-Clem and LSU-Ark games. I happen to like the current system and would only support a plus 1 system. I could probably deal with an eight-team playoff if they just took the top-8 rather than giving auto bids to the six conference winners but there's an equal chance of that happening as there is of the Cubs being retroactively named the 2009 World Series champions so I don't even include that as an option. I understand the arguments for the other side of things, I just disagree with them. I completely agree with the point that if there is a 8-team playoff six of those spots should not be autos. It should be the top 8 period. If you go to 16 teams I'm fine with 6 autos but that's because they would probably qualify anyways.

fixed

A playoff would likely get rid of a lot of the crap games in the beginning of the season. Top teams play cupcakes right now because they know going undefeated will almost guarantee them the NC game or in the case of non-BCS teams it will guarantee them a BCS bowl which is huge for them in many ways. If teams have to worry about seeding and all that they will schedule more tough games out of conference just like we now see in basketball. Also the regular season wouldn't be any less important. It would change how it is important but it will still be huge. You only have 12 games and one loss is going to drop you in the seeds and make it unlikely for the top seed. Two losses puts you at risk of not making the playoff at all.

Don't see how you can say Wall has better ball-handling skills when he is averaging nearly 5 turnovers a game. Rondo didn't get as many assists, probably has a lot to do with the talent he had with him and playing 10 minutes less a game, but he had a better assist ratio. That said Wall is in a different class of play level than what Rondo was. Rondo was a very good pass first PG while Wall is a POY candidate.

I'm pretty sure a lot of the controversy would be eliminated with an 8 team playoff, at least the kind that currently exists. It would be like the NCAA Tournament. There is controversy over who gets in but no one argues with who the champ is. There would obviously be more controversy with only 8 teams getting in compared to 64 in basketball but the people who would complain about not getting in claiming they would have won the championship wouldn't have much support. This is mainly due to the fact that a team not in the top 8 would likely have 2 losses already. Most years the winner in all likelihood would be amongst the top 5 and only have 1 loss or less and thus any team with two losses that didn't get in wouldn't really have much to stand on.

I didn't want him to donate 15 million for nothing.

Not to burst your bubble but I'm pretty sure Calipari can't get a John Wall to Iowa. Wall would choose slightly less money to go to a team more in the spotlight.

You realize he's been pitching for the Astros for a little while, right? Yes I do. I still feel owed though. http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200904074037749&c_id=chc I've done my best to forget anything and everything Soriano from last season.

You realize he's been pitching for the Astros for a little while, right? Yes I do. I still feel owed though.

I think everyone is seeing what the Yankees did and are, whether they realize it or not, using at the reason to spend more. That doesn't mean spend Yankee type money but spend more relative to what you are normally willing to do.

Revenge. I would be happy to see him pitch all he wants in Wrigley next year.

More like 2010 - Oh crap we have no $#$%# money, I can't believe no one wants to give me something of value for Milton Bradley AND I still have to eat his whole contract. If he can cool his ego I wouldn't call it eating his contract. Still a productive player. Overpaid, yes, but eating someone's contract, to me at least, is normally reserved for guys who you pay and don't really play.

Ball State beat Valpo earlier this season so Purdue should smoke them as bad or worse than Buffalo but then again Valpo played tough with UNC. I don't know whether to expect a 10 point win or a 40 point win.

First, Lindstrom and Uggla would have to be traded to Seattle, then we'd need too put together the right package to get them. The Mariners must be sure they're going to get them if they're shopping them already. :D It's part of a Chicago based rumor that we would send Soto and/or Theriot to the Mariners for Uggla and Lindstrom.

How exactly is he the kind of guy who flourishes under Duncan? And their rotation has a decent likelihood of going kaboom this year. Because in his best year he was a fastball/change up pitcher with the curveball mixed in. If I'm not mistaken (admittedly not the biggest on Duncan knowledge) that is exactly what Duncan teaches his pitchers to do. Develop a good change up and mix it up a lot with your fastball and then have the curveball in pocket for guys who struggle with curves.

How is that even possible? I can't find video of him shooting FTs, but it's not even one bad game or anything. Each game it's been 0 for 2, or 0 for 4. At some point, you wonder if teams are just going to put him on the line every time he gets near the basket. At that rate you would be better off having one scrub in at all times fouling him as soon as you can when they have the ball and just allowing him to shoot 2 free throws every possession (yes I realize that this isn't actually a good idea).

Every Cub wears the C.