- 04:53 PM
- 04/19/24
My favorite: Moonlight Graham to Eddie Gaedel here.
posted by JawaKing at 09:37 PM on December 09, 2002
Mandel is wrong, because otherwise, the Big 10 should have to match up its two undefeated (in-conference) teams to determine its champ. If that were the case, Iowa wouldn't (necessarily) get screwed. And if any of you care, my brand-new NFL BCS rankings are out.
posted by JawaKing at 03:26 PM on December 02, 2002
What's worse is that USC could play in the title game (with a Miami and GA loss), even though there'd be two one-loss teams left and Wazzu would (perhaps) take the Pac 10! Insane.
posted by JawaKing at 11:31 AM on December 02, 2002
Haha, being that I am Dan Lewis, I'll tell you that I came up with in independently. I didn't know about this one until... right now :)
posted by JawaKing at 10:41 PM on November 25, 2002
A-Rod. If the A's had him and not Tejada, they'd still have won. If the Rangers had Tejada and not him, they'd still have lost. That pretty much eliminates the team factor. But, A-Rod, statistically, is directly superior. Go with A-Rod, or go home. :)
posted by JawaKing at 12:35 AM on November 11, 2002
"Traditionalists," like myself are easy to beat on the debating table when we are called names and our arguments are misrepresented. The #1 argument against the wild-card is that a team (Arizona, Oakland) that beats another team (San Fran, Anaheim) over a 162-game haul shouldn't have to beat them again in a rather insignificant, statistically speaking, seven game series. The other arguments -- a weakened/unimportant playoff race, that 80-win teams that didn't win a pennnant can win the World Series, and that interleague play plagues the system -- these are all supporting factors. Stark's argument is as simple as this one: "Egoists who think they can better the game while turning a deaf-ear to a proven system insist that without a Wild Card, 100-win teams won't make the playoffs. In that case, why not just give the top eight teams, regardless of league, a berth?" You can tear that apart as an ad hominem attack and a rather poor strawman. Stark's is more of the same.
posted by JawaKing at 12:37 PM on October 19, 2002
The only thing wrong with fantasy sports is that players like Garret Anderson and guys on the Rockies become overrated. But fantasy players have an appreciation for guys like Brian Giles and Magglio Ordonez, which is clearly to the benefit of the game.
posted by JawaKing at 08:31 PM on October 09, 2002
re: 'roids. If Barry isn't using steroids but some pitchers are, wouldn't that help his HR chase?
posted by JawaKing at 10:48 PM on August 11, 2002
Screw his heart. Will he play with his kidney?
posted by JawaKing at 08:53 PM on August 08, 2002
Maybe Bowden needs a speechwriter.
posted by JawaKing at 12:02 AM on August 08, 2002
I wanted to watch this, but Sat at 8? Riiight. Anyone know if/when it'll reair?
posted by JawaKing at 12:34 PM on August 06, 2002
I know he's on the O's board (or was a few years ago). What other board? And how do I get on one! :)
posted by JawaKing at 11:44 PM on August 02, 2002
Actually, the Orange couldn't get ND without setting up a rematch, and I'm pretty sure they didn't want one. Remember, there was only one real at-large this year (USC was guaranteed a spot), so if ND went, Iowa couldn't. The result? If the Orange took ND, that leaves USC, FSU, and OU. The Rose gets the second pick. Note that the Rose's choice is exactly the same in this scenario as in the actual (Orange takes Iowa) scenario. So the Rose takes OU. The Sugar goes next, but the Orange can (as they did this year) use their one "preferred pick" over the course of the four years to leapfrog the Sugar. But at this point, it's pretty much irrelevent. USC/ND and FSU/ND are rematches. Neither is as good of a game as USC/Iowa. The Orange wanted ND, yes, but they didn't take them for pragmatic, not revenge reasons. If they could have gotten ND/OU, I bet they would have done it. But they couldn't.