Pardon the Interruption: an Arena game (Game Four: Opening Topic posted!)

I'd give them about a 59% chance to get there. They're 9-1 their last 10 games. I think the key for them will to be sweep the Chicago series even though it's postponed. They do lead the series 9-6 this season. And swept them early in September at Chicago.

They got a lineup of Berkman, Pence and Tejada I think that's good enough for them to make up the 3 games their back of the Brewers.

I think the Brewers are starting to wear down in my opinion. They keep Sabathia out there and I think they need to keep him fresh for the postseason. Sheets has been good ERA wise but is only 13-8. Their schedule like Onoto said is what is going to get them. They play 9 games straight on the road, and that's where they'll falter. By the time they get to the season ending series w/ the Cubs they'll be behind the Astros a minimum of 2 games.

 

To be fair to Milwaukee, they do get 6 games against the Reds and Pirates, too.

After running one million simulations, Baseball Prospectus has reported that their team records average out to identical the rest of the way. In fact, the Astros are only given a 9.66% chance at October baseball. Essentially, the Prospectus folks are betting that the 'Stros can't stay hot throughout the entirety of the next few weeks, and that the Brewers have enough of a lead and are good enough to maintain it. Now, I think I like Milwaukee, but only marginally, as the Rockies proved that ridiculously long hot streaks are possible.

But I have to disagree about the Brewers being down two going into the final series. That would mean Houston would have made up five games on them, which is an obscene total for a two week span. If Houston wins, it'll be by the skin of their teeth, with Milwaukee dropping the last series as Houston sweeps the Braves.

I wouldn't be shocked if that happened, but I like Sabathia, I like Braun, and I like Prince. The Brewers hold. I'm so confident, I gave them a two point victory.

 

Good comments, both of you

And for our third topic...

<img src="http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008/0913/ncf_g_usc_celebrate1_412.jpg">

Southern Cal trounced Ohio State last night to the tune of 35-3, though admittedly OSU star and preseason Heisman candidate Beanie Wells was still out with a toe injury. Tell me, what are the odds Southern Cal runs the table for the rest of the season, going undefeated and winning the title game?

 

I'll go 67%. They have a very good shot at getting through the rest of the regular season unblemished, and the fact that there is no conference championship game is certainly helpful. Their toughest games - Oregon, Arizona State, California, and potentially Notre Dame - are all going to take place in the Coliseum, with their hardest road game being in two weeks in Corvallis. If they're going to have a Stanford-level upset this year, I think Oregon State has the best shot at it. Oregon might pull something off, but that great USC defense is just so fast that even if you come up with a better scheme, they can probably still run you down.

Now, I figure there's a 90% chance of them going undefeated (barring some major injuries, but we can just throw all of this away if that happens). They'll almost undoubtedly play either an undefeated Big XII champion or a one-loss SEC team. Ohio State is definitely out, and Wisconsin or Penn State would have to obliterate everybody on a weekly basis to get a shot, as the poor reputation of the Big 10 would keep them out of the picture otherwise. Georgia, Florida, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas, and Missouri are the most likely candidates to play opposite USC. I like Oklahoma out of that bunch, as the SEC is simply too difficult, especially since that Florida/Georgia/LSU group all play each other, and one of those matchups will be repeated in the championship game. OU, when they play up to snuff, has the best offense and the best defense in the Big XII, so if they avoid the down weeks they've had almost every year since 2000, they'll beat out both Texas and Missouri.

 

Ill go a little higher with 77%. The only things that hinder the Trojans are either injuries and the inexperience of Sanchez and possibly their own mentality that they are unbeatable. So far none of those have surfaced.

The away games on paper look like USC should smoke them before halftime but that's what we said about the Stanford game last year and they go there this year and also with Neuheisel at UCLA you know never know what's going to happen. But on paper they shouldnt have a problem with anyone. Because in the PAC-10 they are unmatched top to bottom in talent and speed.

As for the title game I would say they have a 63% chance of winning it all. Whoever they face, and as of now it looks like Oklahoma, they are one of the teams that can match them speed and depth wise with talent. The only thing with OU is that they have lost their last four BCS games. And in 03 where just trounced by the Trojans also but if OU comes in and plays the way they can I still think USC would edge them out slightly because Carroll in a big game situation would you want anybody better?

 

OU actually lost to USC in 2004, but that's no biggie. OU lost to LSU in 2003, though a bogus incompletion call certainly didn't help the Sooners' cause. Anyway...

I'm not exactly sure if your percentages are really compatible (as one can't win the nat'l title 77% of the time when they only win the championship game 63% of the time), but I get your point. And I pretty much agree with you. USC should roll through the Pac-10, and I give them about a 90% chance of that happening. I then give them about a 75% chance at winning the tile game, as they have one of the best balances between run and pass and offense and defense in the country. USC has also performed on the big stage consistently over the last few years, with the only real blemish being the Texas game (I still can't get over Bush's lateral), and Carrol is an excellent college coach.

Of all the teams, OU is the best equipped to beat USC in that it has comparable speed at every position, arguably the best quarterback, one of the best running back duos, and almost certainly the best offensive line in the country. (It also has the best chance of actually getting a shot, as the SEC Champion is going to be hard-pressed to avoid two losses.) OU can both run the ball and throw the ball extremely well, and the defense is, as always, one of the five most talented in the country. Really, USC and OU are practically a wash in terms of outright ability. But, like you, I'd take USC over OU in most circumstances, as OU has only rarely shown the prerequisite heart since 2000 (one of the greatest teams of all time, just in terms of outright toughness; they'd have found a way to win if they had to drop the other team into negative points). If OU can show the same grit they showed through all of 2000, most of 2004, and through spurts in 2006 (most notably in the Big XII Championship game), they've got a shot, but I'll wait until I see it.

 

My bad but my percentages were USC has a 77% chance they go undefeated in the regular season and give them 63% chance to win the whole dealio. I think one of the things than hinders OU and may well be their strength now is that in 2000 no one thought they could handle Chris Weinke and the Seminoles and they just wanted to prove to the world they belonged.

You've heard many analysts say that since then they havent had that toughness and that could be that they started to believe their own hype. In 2003 when White won the Heisman you heard oh this could be the greatest team of ever. Give credit to USC, I think Carroll up to this point has kept his teams from doing that.

He's kept them having fun and just wanting to destroy opponents. But the first time you see their star players begin to believe their unbeatable is when they'll fall. Just look at the Pats last year. No one does that on purpose but when have a million analysts and people around say they cant handle you guys, more often than not you start believe it. And you cant do that.

 

They did read their own press clippings in 2005, but you're right about Carrol keeping them fairly well concentrated. That'll be extremely important, because while nobody should even really challenge them the rest of the way (and I'm sorry, but Rick Neuweasel isn't going to beat USC unless Pete Carrol gives up football to pursue a career as a tap dancer; that's something I'm absolutely certain of), they'll have to be on letdown alert every week.

 

Anything to say, whiteeagle?

 

Sorry to interrupt (no pun intended), but is there anyway I can join this game? If so, how long is the wait?

 

Apologies on the delay - I'm in the midst of a really heavy stretch at the moment, but I haven't forgotten about it. I'll PM both of you when the next topic goes up, and give extra time if necessary.

LordNyax, you can join as soon as the next game starts, which won't be long after this one finishes, which also shouldn't be too long.

 

No problem, R...J. Things have been very busy on my end too.

 

Yeah, no prob. This week has been hectic for me as well.

 

Just calling attention to this very important point. WTH Trojans?

 

Thanks. If you could PM me when the next game starts, that'd be great.

 

Good arguments, and again, apologies for the delay. I'll PM both of you that this is up again

And for our fourth and final topic:

The mess that is known as the Oakland Raiders.

<img src="http://nbcsportsmedia.msnbc.com/j/ap/3871534e-6245-4b76-a839-621bd79dca35.h2.jpg">

Lane Kiffin out (no surprise), and Tom Cable is in. Tell me, what are the odds that Cable is still coaching the Raiders when the 2009 season begins?

 

Allow me to start off by saying that as a Raiders fan, I'm very disappointed in our crazy-as-a-loon owner. I think Lane Kiffin is a really good coach already, and that he'll blossom into an excellent one. The Raiders have been competitive and Kiffin had been getting good production out of guys who shouldn't have been giving him anything.

But leaving that to one side...I'll say 8%. I'll go that high because Al is quite simply insane - if he tried to hire Joe Torre, I'd only be mildly surprised - but I don't see him going from one inexperienced head coach to an-only-slightly-more-experienced head coach who compiled an 11-35 record at Idaho, going 1-5 against I-AA teams. Cable's probably a fine guy, but I have to imagine Al is going to try and court the Big Tuna, or perhaps Tony Kornheiser (again: the man's nuts). He might take a look at Stanford's Jim Harbaugh if the Cardinal has a good season. But I'm thinking there's a good chance (maybe 35%) it's going to be one of the Ryan twins: Baltimore's Rex or Oakland's own Rob. Cable's promotion over Rob is strange and may show us that Al sees something in the Idaho Vandal flop - though it probably has more to do with the fact that Al Davis is bonkers.

 

Im going to say about 30%. If Cable is a guy who Davis can control and manipulate then he's the perfect fit for what Davis wants. But who knows, I think he'll be there for next season but Davis could say he wasnt he cableman i hired. It's ridiculous.

Though i dont believe Kiffin was the best choice when they hired him they've improved under him. And are closer to where they want to be since Kiffin has been there. I have no idea what on earth Davis is thinking but we all know Davis doesnt like to be told what to do and flex his ownership muscles to show his boss.

I give kudos for Kiffin for standing his ground, and making Davis fire him. Until this senile old man retires and hands the reigns over to someone else, the Raiders will still be in the top 5 of the NFL draft for many years to come.

 

Good points about Kiffin and Davis, but you think Cable has that a good a shot? I mean, Al's nuts, but he's more likely to be nuts making a move than holding steady. Retired names, such as Cowher, Schottenheimer, or even old man Vermeil, seem more his speed. If he goes in the promising assistant direction, it could be Spagnuolo, Rex Ryan, or Rob Ryan. It wouldn't surprise me if Al tried for USC o-coordinator Steve Sarkisian again, his first choice back in January 2007 before settling on Sarkisian's predecessor.

 

All those previous head coaches mentioned, if they're smart and they are, wouldnt go near the Raiders organizations. Just cause Al will go after them doesnt mean they'll sign. The only way he gets someone like Cowher is to give him a ridiculous amount of money and even then I dont think you'll get him.

But I agree with you that he'll have to go with the assistant route. But I firmly believe no one wants this job and he'll just be stuck with Cable, now I say no one wants this job but I'm not including bottom of barrell NFL assistant coaches or some college head coaches. I'm talking about coaches that actually have some kind or resume or track record of winning.

Al's the problem and I just think he likes being in charge and having all the power instead of winning.

 

The tricky thing about coaches is that the good head coaches already have jobs, so it makes it hard to find ones. He'll go the assistant route, as I just can't see him sitting idly by and letting Cable coach the team, because that'll be his best chance at getting somebody who might be good rather than somebody we know is mediocre.

 

Again, apologies for the delay.

Great arguments by both of you, though I'm wary of Onoto's Patriots guarantee. That almost lost it for him, but he went lower on both the Astros making the playoffs and SoCal going undefeated, and since neither of those happened, that's enough to give the narrow win to Onoto!

So, Onoto, you again have 24 hours to post your happy-happies and a TV pick, then we'll start game four!

Wins:
Jedi Council Member: 1
Onoto: 2 (streak 2)

Losses:
DarthIntegral: 1
Jedi Council Member: 1.5
whiteeagle: 1
Kyptastic: .5
rechedelphar: .5
PTMurphy84: .5

 

Happy Birthday, Saturday Night Live, which turns 33 today! The show has had moments of mediocrity, but as Tina Fey has shown recently, it can still be hysterical.

Happy Trails to Oklahoma's reputation! Their pathetic defensive showing and sickening lack of heart (they allowed Texas to score immediately following each and every OU touchdown drive) probably cost them a number of Texan recruits, and tight end Jermaine Gresham probably lost first-round draft pick status with his pokey touchdown run and poor blocking.

Happy Anniversary, Impossible Dream! On this day in 1967, Yaz went long two outs before Smith and Petrocelli went back-to-back off St. Louis' Dick Hughes. Although the Sox lost the Series to Gibson the following day, Yaz had a great series that capped off a spectacular season.

TV Pick: It's October and there's baseball on television. Watch it!

 

And now for Game Four...

After last week's shakeup at the top of the rankings, and this week's games being in progress, who do you see coming out on top in college football? Who's going to play in the championship game and who will win? And, along with it, who will fall just short? Oh, and will the teams that do play for the title be clear or will there be extensive debate over who is more worthy of playing in the game?

And while you're at it, tell me when some form of playoff will be instituted.

 

While it would be nice for the BCS people if they ended up with two undefeated teams, say Penn St. and Texas, I just don't think that is likely. Given the chaos caused over the past few years, I think we are in for more of the same and we could possible have no undefeated teams and they'd have to pick 2 teams from about 5 or 6 one loss teams.

If I had to pick today, I'd say Penn St. gets in by running the table and the USC squeaks in by winning out as well. I think Alabama loses at LSU and that late loss will kill them, and I think think Texas' schedule is too tough for them to win out. Infact, I think the top teams in the Big 12 are going to beat each other up within all the conference games essentially taking turns knocking each other out. Which would leave USC in position to capitialize. So I'll say Penn St. over USC.

As I said I think the Big 12 and SEC will fall short b/c they'll just beat each other up while Penn St. just needs to get by Ohio St. and USC needs to beat a bunch of unranked opponents.

I do think there will be an extended debate especially since the Big 10 and Pac 10 have no conference title game and the SEC and Big 12 seem to have better teams from top to bottom, or at least at the very top of the conferences. So there will definitely be debate about good vs. bad losses or how each team lost and who they played.

I think an 8 team playoff should be instituted immediately. You can play the first 2 rds in Dec and still have 3 weeks or so off for the title game in Jan. In reality they'll probably just add some stupid +1 game as early as next year (if this year turns into a mess like the last few years) instead of an 8 team seeded tournament.

I think the continued bashing of the BCS and how it is a complete failure and joke when there aren't two undefeated teams and the increasing parity at the top of the college football ranks (meaning several 1 loss teams with only 1 or no undefeated teams) will eventully lead to tournament, just not for a few more years. I also think they'll finally realize that a tournament will rake in tons more cash then the current bowl system and that will be the final straw. The schools will gravitate to the cash and what would make more money, and NCAA type tournament for football = $$$$$$