CuseCubFan69

It would bother me more to see them finish first and Sheets can't pitch because he's hurt and they get swept in the first round of the playoffs. I'd rather see them win it all.

The 15 losing seasons in a row by the Pirates are only one away from the MLB record. When I was a kid they were a hitting force and to see this streak continue is just sad. Would they be like this if there was a salary cap or are they that mismanaged?

I'd definitely be in favor of bringing back margin of victory as long as it has a cap and the quality win bonus should absolutely be brought back. It was stupid that they got rid of the quality wins. It depends on what qualifies as a quality win. And for margin of victory if it's say 30 and you win a game 29-0 and don't score 30 because of a missed extra point, I don't see how that's any worse than a team that wins 34-3. I just don't see how you can look at a final score like those and judge them as one being better than the other. I still think you should break the whole game down mathematically and divide into a series of points and not just go by the final score. The quality win thing they used to have in the BCS was if you beat a team that was (I think) in the top 15 of the BCS standings you would have points taken off your total. You would have 0.1 taken off for beating the 15th ranked team, 0.2 taken off for the 14th, and so on until 1.5 for beating the top team. In addition to that, the points would change each week based the ranking of the team that you beat. Let's just say that Team A is ranked No. 1 and Team B is ranked No. 2. Team A beats Team B and Team B drops to No. 5 in the rankings. For that weeks BCS rankings Team A would have 1.1 taken off of its BCS ranking. But the next week, Team B loses again and drops to No. 12 in the BCS. That would mean Team A would only have 0.4 taken off that week. Conversely, if Team A beats Team B early in the season when Team B is unranked, they wouldn't get any points. But if Team B wins a bunch of games and rises into the BCS rankings then Team A would have points taken off according to Team B's ranking. That's fine soccer but the ratings play too big a part in that system. The human bias will keep the traditional up and the surprise ones down.

I'd definitely be in favor of bringing back margin of victory as long as it has a cap and the quality win bonus should absolutely be brought back. It was stupid that they got rid of the quality wins. It depends on what qualifies as a quality win. And for margin of victory if it's say 30 and you win a game 29-0 and don't score 30 because of a missed extra point, I don't see how that's any worse than a team that wins 34-3. I just don't see how you can look at a final score like those and judge them as one being better than the other. I still think you should break the whole game down mathematically and divide into a series of points and not just go by the final score.

The hitter always has the option of just trying to get on base. I agree. Take the 4 from the slam and work from there.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Trammel got a job this off season, especially if the Cubs do well in the of season.

Why are you talking about baseball? Because LoK used a baseball example. One team at 20-15 and another at 18-17. But baseball plays 162 games and has 3 rounds of playoffs. You can use quite a few things to determine whether an 18-17 team is better than a 20-15 team. One team (20-15) has beaten up on the Devil Rays while the other has been playing the Yankees and Red Sox (18-17). You can consider how the pitching has done, the hitting, etc. You add all that up and can determine that 25% of the way, one team might be 2 games behind but should make up that ground. The same can be said for a 10-2 team in CFB vs. a 12-0 team. Some teams play Florida Atlantic, others play Nebraska. Blowing out Nebraska in Lincoln tells me a lot about a team. It's up to the coach to keep players out in blowouts, but dominating another team should be worth something. Don't ask me because I didn't bring baseball into this! :D I agree that dominating a team, especially a good one at their place, should count for more. But, the problem is comparing teams like a 12-0 Penn State and a 11-1 Florida once the season is over. To me the problem is scheduling. If you punish a team for playing a very good one in their place and losing while another plays a bad one at home and stays undefeated, that's a problem. Another is the assumption a team is better than they really are early in the season and the team gets way too much credit early and it seems to stick with them all year like a badge. What if Nebraska ends up 7-5 or Washington 5-7 (for OSU)? How about LSU's win over a possible 7-5 VTech or South Floridas victory over a possible 7-5 Auburn? Those were impact victories at the time and has propelled the winning teams upward but may not mean as much as we thought but they now have positioned themselves in the polls ahead of other teams that may have actually beaten a tougher team that no one (voters/experts) thought was going to be good. Another thing that bothers me are teams that never have away games. Florida has 4 and the only SEC team to even play an away game is Tennessee so far this season.

so say LSU beating Arkansas say 42-21 should be worth as much as Florida beating Arkansas 21-20? Thats dumb. If you want to cap margin of victory at something, say 21-24 points, thats fine. Margin of victory certainly matters just as it does in baseball. But looking at final scores can be deceiving. I'll use your scores for an example. LSU wins after the score is 21-21 on a last minute TD and they return an offside kick for a TD. Florida is ahead 21-0 and puts in reserves and they give up 2 quick TD's and now they are on their heels and Arkansas scores again on a fumble recovery and then goes for 2 and fails. There are many scenarios like this that effect the final score and make the final score look different than the actuality of what really happened. lawl that's rich.... judging by Saturday's performance, Urban Meyer wouldn't put the reserves in until the score was 210-0. Did he really keep them (starters) in that long against Tennessee?

Why are you talking about baseball? Because LoK used a baseball example. One team at 20-15 and another at 18-17.

Where in the world is Geo vany Soto.

cool. next year, we just won't have wins or losses and we'll nominate you to decide who "deserves" to be there If Hawaii goes undefeated they won't be in the title game. Nor will they deserve to be. Why? Strength of schedule; they won't have played or beaten anyone. The same logic can be applied to Penn State -- though, of course, they will have played a far more stringent schedule than Hawaii. If they go undefeated they won't necessarily deserve to be in the title game because a one-loss UF or LSU team likely will have the more impressive credentials. I suppose you have to break down what the credentials are. Hawaii's schedule is well, let's see how it plays out but they only play 1 BCS team and that's Washington. Again, the SEC, Big 12 and ACC's strength of schedule gets an extra push due to their playoff game. Yes, I am all for breaking down credentials. That was my point, undefeated isn't necessarily the end-all, be-all. But that's one of the beauty parts of college football that almost all or all other highly watched sports has, the undefeated season. If a group of kids win every game they deserve to play until someone beats them imo. Say Florida loses to LSU. They had their shot just as Michigan had their shot last year with OSU. I see no reason why you shouldn't let somebody else get a shot at beating LSU instead of giving another chance to win 2 out of 3.

cool. next year, we just won't have wins or losses and we'll nominate you to decide who "deserves" to be there If Hawaii goes undefeated they won't be in the title game. Nor will they deserve to be. Why? Strength of schedule; they won't have played or beaten anyone. The same logic can be applied to Penn State -- though, of course, they will have played a far more stringent schedule than Hawaii. If they go undefeated they won't necessarily deserve to be in the title game because a one-loss UF or LSU team likely will have the more impressive credentials. I suppose you have to break down what the credentials are. Hawaii's schedule is well, let's see how it plays out but they only play 1 BCS team and that's Washington. Again, the SEC, Big 12 and ACC's strength of schedule gets an extra push due to their playoff game.

LoC...you're good with numbers as are many on this board. What I'd like to see is a total breakdown of the game and put that into specific points. Florida vs LSU Florida dominates the 1st quarter and leads 14-0. Outgains LSU 120-21 2nd quarter: LSU scores 10 points and Florida 3. LSU scores a TD on a turnover and drives 30 due to good field position for a FG. Florida was driving and LSU picked off the pass and ran it for a TD. They drive 74 yards and kick a FG. Now it's 17-10 3rd Quarter: Florida again outgains LSU by a large margin and misses 2 FG's and scored a TD that was called back by a horrible call. LSU does nothing offensively. 4th quarter: Complete stalemate. But, Florida fumbles a punt on their own 20 and it's kicked around and it ends up on the 7. LSU punches in it on 4th down to go down 17-16. Now, they go for 2 and a breakdown in coverage gets them 2. They kick off and Florida brings in back to their 45 and gets to the LSU 10 with 2 seconds left. The kick is blocked and LSU wins 18-17. Now what I'd like to see is a mathematic breakdown of that game and that X amount of points are given to Florida. Now game B: Penn State vs Temple second to last game of the year for the Lions Penn St is up 21-0 in the first and is dominating on both sides of the ball. 2nd quarter: Penn State is up 35-7, still dominating and Temple scores on a miracle play 3rd quarter: Paterno wants to rest his starters Halfway through for Michigan St who is 8-2 Temple scores twice is now down 35-21 while Penn State is running the ball not to show up Temple Paterno puts starters back in and wins 42-21 Same week Florida beats Florida Atlantic 59-0 Florida dominates from beginning to end. They put their subs in the later than Penn St did but they are deeper and continue to control the game. Florida also continue to pass the whole game. Because Florida is deeper, are they a better team? Because Peterno made a possible voting/margin of victory costly decision, will he be punished? I suggest that points scored on bench players not be graded or scored as highly as if the starters were in the whole time like the LSU/Florida game. IMO, these games HAVE to be broken down play by play and not by a final score.

so say LSU beating Arkansas say 42-21 should be worth as much as Florida beating Arkansas 21-20? Thats dumb. If you want to cap margin of victory at something, say 21-24 points, thats fine. Margin of victory certainly matters just as it does in baseball. But looking at final scores can be deceiving. I'll use your scores for an example. LSU wins after the score is 21-21 on a last minute TD and they return an offside kick for a TD. Florida is ahead 21-0 and puts in reserves and they give up 2 quick TD's and now they are on their heels and Arkansas scores again on a fumble recovery and then goes for 2 and fails. There are many scenarios like this that effect the final score and make the final score look different than the actuality of what really happened.

But in your train of thought, a 12-0 Penn State, a 12-0 USC, a 11-1 LSU and a 11-1 Florida after the circumstances of what I wrote, what 2 teams go to the BCS Championship game?

If Lou can make this 3 day rest thing work and the pen gets rest I'll be thrilled. I just see this making Z and Lilly less effective after the 3 day rest. This is why I'm hoping the pen is rested and ready to keep any kind of extra exertion on the arms of Z and Lilly. This is Rothschilds time to shine imo.

The problem I have with that is will they win the rest of their games too? I think in that type of scenario you lessen the effect of a loss to, let's say Oregon St, than to a Cal. Why? Now, if USC/Cal and LSU/Florida are undefeated your scenario may fly but you also have the Championship game in the SEC that may throw a monkey wrench into it, unless by your reasoning, if say LSU losses that game it's a moot point. Unless, LSU beats Florida in the regular season and then Florida beats LSU in the Championship game and they both are 11-1, what do you do?

I think it's going to depend on who needs a SS or an upgrade like the Cubs to help cover weaknesses in other areas. If there is little or no interest in Tejada then the Cubs have a pretty good chance if they choose to go this route and imo it might help or hurt them having a lot of ex Cub people in the O's organization. If they love a certain amount of Cub players may really help. I really think the O's will want a potential 1 or 2 pitcher that is ready to pitch now and a prospect ready now and a very good prospect and depending again, on the competition they may get better or worse for that. It also may depend on what direction the O's are going to go in 2008. Do they have a SS ready to fill in or will they need a replacement? Do they want a young guy full of potential in a trade for Tejada and if the do the Cubs are going to be out of luck unless they can get a third team involved or the O's are interested in Theriot to be included in a package.

LoK...is this your line of thinking.... USC plays schedule X and goes 10-2 Penn St plays schedule Y and goes 12-0 If Penn St plays schedule X they go 8-4 Thus, USC is better.

Then what is better?

I have no idea? Might as well have a force at every base. Perhaps the manager didn't trust that Weathers can throw strikes? That's the thing. If you catch the grounder at second, you still have to check third and that would make it very difficult to turn 2. So you go 1. Now you have 2nd and 3rd, now they have to walk the next guy, who was on deck when they pitched to DeRosa? Jones was on deck behind DeRosa. The Reds manager said he didn't want to walk the bases loaded and put that much pressure on Weathers to throw strikes. I guess what he did didn't work either. If Weathers can't throw a strike get somebody that can is my train of thought. DeRosa was hot and it just didn't make any sense to me. Thanks for answering the question, I can see why he did it but it wouldn't be the route I'd go.

I posted this in the Soto thread in baseball discussions, but since you mentioned it here... It almost sounds like Hendry didn't know Soto existed until after the Kendall trade. No way would I believe that Hendry would be that ignorant. If he is he has to go and since he called up Hill and from what you wrote I wonder if the lead scouts praised Hill and didn't say much about Soto. Who's the people in charge of keeping Hendry up to date on the guys in the minors and when Hendry asks, OK....who do we have at catcher to call up, who answers that question?

How rested is the pen for todays game? If Z can give 6 good innings and they can take it from there I'll be happy. I think this 3 day rest thing may tax the pen though and in the end may come back to haunt the Cubs.

I always thought Alou looked mad all the time.

I have no idea? Might as well have a force at every base. Perhaps the manager didn't trust that Weathers can throw strikes? That's the thing. If you catch the grounder at second, you still have to check third and that would make it very difficult to turn 2. So you go 1. Now you have 2nd and 3rd, now they have to walk the next guy, who was on deck when they pitched to DeRosa?