moonslav59

I would not have put AL or TX in over FSU, but I'm pretty sure AL beat more ranked teams than TX, and the non ranked teams they beat were probably better than the ones TX beat. AL's loss was to a better team than TX's loss. Those are legit arguments. (I could come up with some for any of the top 6-7 teams.)

I'm not arguing they should, but one could say, "Texas had their chance to make their case over Oklahoma and failed. Is it all about head-to-head? If yes, why was FSU selected champs over Notre Dame, when we beat them head-to-head and had the same record? There is no set criteria, and even if there was, it would have to be flawed, too.

I'd prefer giving $225/7 to the 25 year old Yamo than $165M/6 to Monty or $185M/7 to Snell.

Texas lost to #12 OKL. Yes, they beat AL who was #8 before they beat #GA. Alabama lost to #3 Texas, but they beat #1 GA as well as more ranked teams than TX, FSU, WSH and MI. There is no set criteria.

With over 100 teams, it's hard to design a football playoff system that doesn't leave some deserving team out. This system is highly flawed, but the NCAA cannot have a 32 or even 16 team playoff structure. If they think they can do 6, then they might as well do 8. Of course, once you go to 8th, the 9th and 10th teams will be screaming about how unfair the new system is, and many times they will be right. So much of the way these teams are chosen are based on opinion- some straight from the pre-season rankings that are based on nothing but opinion. Teams are also chosen on the basis of the perception of how strong their conference is and specific teams' schedule strengths. It's easy to imagine that the SEC is not always equally strong, but they are always assumed to be the far away strongest conference. (I'm not saying it isn't always the best, but how can we really ever know, for sure?) These ideas they use to select the 4 teams is based on who they think are the best teams, now. They factor in injured players, the recency effect and almost always head-to-head tie breakers. In a warped way, this is how AL and Tex got in over the 13-0 FSU. AL beat #1 GA and won the strongest conference, so they have to get in. Texas has the same record as AL. so they have to get in. Did Texas really beat that many top teams? What about losses? They seem to count less. A one loss team like Ohio St. lost its one game, on the road, to the current #1 team Michigan by a field goal. Once could argue they are the best 1 loss team. FSU clearly played a lighter schedule, but no losses should outweigh what AL & TX did. Afterall, FSU did beat 3 ranked teams. Georgia played a tough schedule, and ended up losing a close game to a top 4 team. Sorry, you lost your last game- you suck! What makes Wash better than FSU? The apparent strength of the PAC-10, which I find doubtful. Are ORE, USC and AZ really all that better than Penn St, Missouri and other teams that looked tough, this year? Anyway, had they chosen FSU, we'd be hearing AL or TEX bitching away, and rightfully so.

These will likely be the rankings, IMO: 1. Michigan 2. Washington 3. Florida St. 4. Alabama 5. Georgia 6. Texas 7. Ohio St. 8. Oregon 9. Penn St 10. Missouri 11. Ole Miss 12. Oklahoma 13. LSU 14. Notre Dame 15. SMU 16. Arizona

How's this plan with a heavy lean to Asia? Sign Yamamoto, Imanaga, Jung Hoo Lee, & Duvall. Trade Duran & Mata for Rogers & Berti Trade Dugo for Torres SP: Yamamoto, Imanaga, Bello, Rogers, Sale/Pivetta RP: Jansen, Martin, Wink, Campbell, Schreiber, Houck, Crawford, Whitlock C: Wong, McGuire 1B: Casas 2B: Torres, Berti SS: Story, Reyes 3B: Devers LF: Abreu/Refsnyder CF: Lee, Rafaela RF: Duvall DH: Yoshida

The one loss teams: GA Lost to #8 AL (won't be #8 anymore) Win #9 Missouri Win #11 Mississippi Ohio St. Lost at #2 Michigan (will be #1)t Win v #7 Penn St Win @ #15 ND Alabama Lost v #7 Texas Win #1 GA Win v #11 Mississippi Win v #13 LSU Texas Lost v #12 OKL Win @ #8 AL Win #19 OKL St

It looks like Yoshida was an overpay. It looks like Story was an overpay. Some think the Devers extension was an overpay. At some point, why not overpay on our position of highest need? I'm not saying Monty is "that guy," but we need to go large and long on a pitcher at some point. I was wrong about Price looking like the type you gamble on, but when you can't develop an ace, and you have 3-4 big need areas, you can't use your farm to trade for 4 guys, without it coming back to bite us in the ass. I think I'd prefer Monty over Snell. Yamo looks like this year's big prize, but I'm not sure he's "that guy," either. I could see us trading for one SP'er and just signing a guy like Seth Lugo, ERod or Wacha. If it's Burnes, at least we'll be better off than we have been since 2018 or 2019, but what will CB cost?

At some point a deal like this needs to be done. I don't see any aces in our system. It's been a long time since we traded a top 5 prospect. We haven't signed a big FA pitchers since Price. We may have to do both to get back in the race. We may have to do both, twice.

BTV accepted: Duran & Mata (I'd throw in Walter.) for Rogers and Berti

The winningest teams in NCAA Football: 1. Michigan .733 T2. Ohio St .731 T2. Alabama .731 4. Notre Dame .730 (Texas at .701)

Yes, the conference championships give some teams one more shot to make it or lose their slot (like maybe GA.) Iowa plays but not Ohio St. The whole ranking system is flawed, but with so many teams and so many varying schedules and dubious strength of schedule formulas, it's hard to know who is the best. It was a good idea to go to 4 teams, and I think that expands, next year, but there will always be one team thinking they should have gone to the dance over another team. Is GA the 1 loss team that make it? Ohio St lost by 3 at MI, who will not be #1. GA lost to a lower ranked team. I can't see Texas making it. Maybe several 1 loss teams are better than Wash & FSU.

I meant to type "I don't think..."

They all pretty much play 12, but the conference schedules are not balanced, in terms of who they play from one year to the next

I do t think Monty makes more than $27M AAV… $28 tops.

Yes, he’s out of options. That’s why I threw him in.

He looks like about an equal gamble as Duran, but he's a SP'er with one good year under his belt (2021.) Not only would I trade Duran for Rogers (BTV=25.2), I'd throw in Walter at 4.4 or Mata at 2.3. BTV accepts Duran, Walter & Mata for Rogers & Cabrera.

Alabama up 17-7 on Georgia. Please NO! Washington won, last night. If FSU wins, they are in, and if AL wins, these teams have 1 loss: Georgia Ohio St. Texas Alabama One makes it.

I meant Trevor Rogers. Our views on Duran are close to the same.

He will likely get more than $120M/5. I'm thinking maybe $140M/6.

You think he's a solid investment? There is a reason BTV has him valued close to Duran (who I do think they overvalue.) 18 IP in 2023 (4.00 ERA) 107 IP in 2024 (5.47 ERA) 2022-2023: 5.26 ERA (4.32 FIP) 1.464 WHIP 3.7 BB/9 Career 4.12 ERA (3.50 FIP is not bad) 1.33 WHIP 3.5 BB/9 They both have question marks.

I didn't say they were successes. I'm just pointing out the last times we went large on a FA SP'er. Perhaps those results is why we don't do it anymore. Our success rate with trades for aces is much better: Pedro Schilling Beckett Sale Nate

Wakefield was our ace for some small stretches.

And we snagged Whitlock off Rule 5.