UMFan83

It's not "making it easier to win a championship", it's "giving them a non-zero chance of winning a championship". Those conferences chose to play FBS football, but I'm sure the NCAA is getting something out of it to otherwise it wouldn't support those schools playing in their subdivision. I don't see how Power 5 conferences and schools would complain about adding 3 new playoff spots (and a 4th in years that a G5 school isnt in the Top 25 or whatever), guaranteeing all P5 conferences are represented, and giving 2 non champions a shot. The whole "making sure the best team is champion" debate is something only college football cares about. In every other major American pro and college sport, teams that are clearly not the best in the regular season have a shot to compete for a championship and in all of those sports, one of those teams has won before. It's not the end of the world to have the not best team win the title. Winning the conference means nothing what are you talking about? Only conference champions got in, the conference with a murky conference championship structure get shut out. If anything, winning the confernece means you have an 80% chance of making the playoff. Now to be replaced by Mississippi State, Michigan State, etc rooting for non-upsets that would take away a wild card berth. There's always going to be late season drama, and its not like its CBB where the drama is between the 38th and 39th best teams in the country. Also, with the abolition of conference championship games with an 8 team playoff, there will still be a 10-2 Big 12 school rooting for the 10-2 Big 12 school that won H2H to lose to win the conference title and secure a playoff spot. Not sure what you are saying here, if anything adding teams brings it more of a national sport. Right now there are like 10 programs that will consistently compete for a title. Teams like Mississippi State don't have a solid shot...even in their dream season they sputtered out and finished short of the playoffs. So guess where the top recruits typically tend to go more often than not? Those 10 schools. You put a school like Mississippi State in the playoffs and maybe you see more recruits go there. Or maybe Iowa has a great season and makes the playoffs. For the first time since the 60s, Iowa has a legit shot at a title. (not to say they haven't had great seasons before but never to the point where they were competing for a shot at the title on the last week of the season - correct me if I'm wrong).

You don't think Adam LaRoche or Adam Eaton are good hitters? The divison is pretty good, but then again the Tigers seem to half ass it in the regular season every year. There is a chance for the Sox IMO. Plus they might still have some money to spend this year. Not for a premier guy, but someone that can help them.

So did Nightengale I am starting to hate SF as much as hate the Cards. I just hate their fans. I lived in NorCal a long time and that fan base is just as obnoxious as Cardinals fans. Actually, I visited SF for the first time in my life this summer and went to a Giants game, I was stunned at how obnoxious their fans were. I pictured them all being either super hipsters or rich but geeky tech guys.

So did Nightengale I am starting to hate SF as much as hate the Cards. Let's not go that far [expletive] Will Clark, reason enough to hate the Giants.

You just put a team that played one Power 5 school (and got bludgeoned by them) into a playoff, then called the regular season 'more important' under such a scenario. Auto-bids for conferences is a fantastic way to remove any real incentive to schedule up during the regular season you just claimed would be more important. Why risk removing yourself from wild-card contention with a loss when the only games that really matter are in conference? It's about balancing 3 things, rewarding conference champions, making sure everyone has a legitimate chance at a winning the title, and keeping the importance of the regular season, which makes college football great. I think making sure everyone has a legit shot at winning is most important. I know not everyone will agree, but what is the point of having 128 teams in your league when only half of them (64 Power 5 teams + ND) have a chance at being a champion. Isn't that the main point, to win the championship? I don't mind an alternative scenario where The Power 5 form their own league, and the rest create a new subdivision, but if there are going to be 128 teams, I want every one of them to have a shot. You can argue that the little schools should beef up their schedule, but as we've seen with Boise State and other schools, teams don't want to play you when you start consistently winning. Bottom line is that its impossible for a Sun Belt school to win a championship, so they should either be given a (small) chance to win one or form their own subdivision with other teams. 1 school out of 63 (1.5%) gets a bid from the smaller conferences while 7 out of 65 (10.8%) Power 5 schools get bids. And I think there should be importance to winning your conference, but I would argue that by giving 5 of the 7 bids to conference champions, it makes the regular season more important. It's not like there is no importance to scheduling tough games, as the competition for the 2 Wild Cards will depend on you having a strong OOC schedule. Furthermore, the way the playoff selection committee sets things up now, you pretty much have to win your conference to get a shot at the playoffs (hence why the Big 12 hastily declared Baylor and TCU co-champions), so this doesn't change it...if anything it ensures all Power 5 conferences are represented and it gives 2 additional teams a chance to enter the playoff. If you want to increase your chances of making it, win your conference. If not, prove your worthy by losing 2 or less games with a difficult schedule.

So umm...Madison Bumgarner once dated a girl named....Madison Bumgarner. http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2014/12/9/7360277/madison-bumgarner-madison-bumgarner

http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls14/story/_/id/12003942/picturing-year-college-football-playoff-eight-teams Man an 8 teamer would have been awesome this year. If we moved to 8 teams there is actually a legit chance for an underdog to play a favorite instead of 4 juggernauts playing each other. MSU would be a clear underdog against Alabama, but I don't think anyone would be shocked if MSU pulled off the upset in that one. I still say go to 8 teams and do: 5 power conference champs, the top ranked "Group of 5" champion, and 2 wild cards. This season's matchups you'd get this: 1 Alabama (SEC) vs. 8 Boise State (G5) 2 Oregon (P12) vs. 7 Mississippi State (WC2) 3 Florida State (ACC) vs. 6 TCU (WC1) 4 Ohio State (B1G) vs. 5 Baylor (B12) Would Boise State get killed by Alabama? Probably, but at least it gives every team in CFB a shot to win a title, as well as an advantage for the team that finishes #1, making the regular season more important. And if there was ever an upset, it would be awesome. If you are worried about a significantly worse G5 team making it one year, you can stipulate that the G5 team has to be in the Top 25 of the ranking, otherwise you add a 3rd WC. As for Notre Dame? They can join a conference if they want to have a better shot of making the playoff.

Who is Tom Loxas anyway? Is he a blog writer or something? Not that he has much credibility, but what makes him different than anyone else throwing up random rumors?

pretty sure when he was drafted his myspace (haha) page was posted and it had Sox stuff all over it. Yeah I mentioned on the last page. White Sox stuff but mainly anti-Cubs pictures and jokes. I was trying to see if there was a way to pull up his old page today but came up empty.

Apparently he's fine, the trip to the hospital was precautionary and he didn't want to go. Dude is Superman

Hahahaha are we sure @TomLoxas isn't a troll account?

I think a good percentage of people would say Bochy is the best manager in baseball and its hard to argue at this point

"Oh yeah; I was also there all of those other years, included the two where we won the World Series!" Theo: BTW, I was the GM for the first of those two, and the players I developed/acquired played a big part in the second! Come to the Cubs!

If he wanted to play for the Red Sox the money wouldn't be an issue (based on the reports that everyone is around 6/150). If he wanted to play for the Giants the money wouldn't be an issue (based on the reports that everyone is around 6/150). If he wanted to play for the Dodgers the money wouldn't be an issue (based on the reports that everyone is around 6/150). All three of those teams have more to sell than the Cubs Red Sox: hey we're competitive all the time and you're familiar here Giants: hey we win the World Series every other year Dodgers: hey here's a [expletive] of money Cubs: hey we can give you the same contract any of these other teams are giving you (as long as they don't go any higher or any more years because that's scary) and we might make the playoffs again someday (but probably not this year or next) Red Sox: We've finished in last place 2 of the last 3 years and tried to prop our team up by signing a 31 year old oft injured SS and a 3B that will probably eat himself off the field in 2-3 years. Plus we insulted you by low balling you last season. Giants: We are only losing our 3B, 2 starting pitchers and closer this offseason Dodgers: (this is me) Your point was based on the report that all the teams were offering something in the range of 6/150 contracts so 'hey here's a [expletive] of money' doesn't work Cubs: We have the top farm system in baseball, with all of the top guys ready to play this year or next, we have a highly regarded president and GM who you are very familiar with and have a good relationship with, we have what most people consider a top 2-3 manager in baseball, that everyone whose played for loves, we have only like $90 mil committed next year if you sign, we are the 3rd largest market in the country and are expecting a significant revenue boost almost immediatly from the Wrigley rennovations, and another bump towards the middle of your contract when we start our own TV network to air the games. We already have the best ST facilities in baseball and in your second season with the team you will have highly regarded facilities at Wrigley Field. Finally, you see how revered your teammates that played on the 04 Red Sox are. Damon went to the Yankees and still gets standing ovations when he comes back to Fenway, Dave Roberts was a pinch runner/defensive replacement and gets free drinks for life in Boston. Imagine the response from winning a WS with the Cubs.

If he wanted to play for the Red Sox the money wouldn't be an issue (based on the reports that everyone is around 6/150). If he wanted to play for the Giants the money wouldn't be an issue (based on the reports that everyone is around 6/150). If he wanted to play for the Dodgers the money wouldn't be an issue (based on the reports that everyone is around 6/150).

Ugh :x #AppStatePart2

Might be mostly due to the rumors of Boston being out. Or they are the team that is rumored to go to 7/175 and they heard Theo's quotes about not going on a persuit at all costs, reasoning that the Cubs aren't willing to match.

"I am number 1." haha, I didn't even catch that at first.

You and raw have both said this and I have no idea what it means. That's what I was thinking. Makes no sense to me...

i live a sad and pathetic life

Great work Andy: http://www.desipio.com/?p=5049

I guess I just want that one time between the Bulls and Cubs where an oft rumored move that is discussed obsessively ends up in our favor. I could list the names between the 2 teams...there's probably 8-9 names on the list, that all ended up with disappointment. I want that one time where we get the guy. The closest thing I have to that with the Cubs are the Fukudome and Milton Bradley signings, but definitely not as high profile, and yes both ended up backfiring.

I kinda wish they would just this once 7 years is a joke for a 31 yo with a ton of miles on his arm. I won't be disappointed if Theo walks under these terms. Probably. It's a battle between Theo sticking to his plan and the fan's impatience. But honestly, if all works out well the Cubs will have been to the playoffs multiple times and potentially made a world series, several of the young players would be still being paid under market value, there will be a new TV deal and revenues from rennovated Wrigley, etc. Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to pay a 38 year old pitcher $23 mil or whatever. And if it all doesn't work out, Theo and Co won't be around to deal with that age 38 season. Plus if you really want to get a ace level starter in the next 2 years via FA, whats to say the Scherzer bidding doesn't go to 7 years (he's 30), Price will be 30 by the end of next season too...do you really think the top FA next year won't go to 7 years? Zack Greinke will be 32 so he probably won't get 7 years, might even be able to get him for 5, but that would make him 37 at the end of his deal. If you want a top FA starter in FA, they are going to be between 30-32 years old and you are probably going to have to pay them a crapload of money until they are 36-38.

I mentioned when he met with the Cubs scout (Zielinski) who eventually ended up signing him, he was wearing a backwards Sox hat at that 1st meeting. Haha sounds about right. I just remember when he was drafted his public Myspace page (man has it been that long since we drafted him?) had a bunch of anti-Cubs pictures on it. To his credit he said all the right things about being a Cub while he was here.