Tagged with "Florida"
How a New SEC Scheduling Format Might Look Part I
Category: NCAA
Tags: ALABAMA ARKANSAS AUBURN NCAA FOOTBALL FLORIDA GEORGIA KENTUCKY LSU MISSISSIPPI ST. MISSOURI OLE MISS SEC S CAROLINA TEnnessee

IA) Why Nine Games and Why Talk about It Now

The main reason for writing this is discussion of who should play whom in the event the SEC does adopt a nine-game schedule, but I feel like I would be remiss if I did not have a full discussion of the issues involved in this. But in a fit of preseason enthusiasm, I wrote about some more global issues. †So if you're not interested in the SEC specifically, you still might be interested in this discussion.

As a preview, I expect to release the second part sometime this weekend (as early as Friday), and sometime early next week (as early as Sunday), I will release my preseason rankings. I believe there is some kind of MAC game a week from today, and then there are some games of real interest next Thursday, so I definitely plan to post by then. I think I know what my top 25 will be, but I want to try to have a somewhat presentable introduction to the season.

Iíve read in some places that itís inevitable that the SEC schedule will eventually move to 9 games. Iím not sure if thatís true though. That would mean an SEC champion who makes the national championship would play 10 games against SEC teams as well as two (additional) games against the top four teams in the country. With three additional games, thatís almost an NFL season. Others expect yet another game to be added since many anticipate itís inevitable for the four-team playoff to expand to eight.

So thatís one argument against. Another is the SEC teams place a high premium (literally) on home games. Thatís a lot of revenue lost if you take just one away. Teams like Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Florida have longstanding home and home series with in-state rivals. I suppose those could be made so that theyíre home games in the years where there are 5 road SEC games, but some programs want to try to get eight home games.

Another part of the argument against five road games is those teams are at a distinct disadvantage. Vanderbilt and Mississippi St. have been less than intimidating at times in recent years, but I wouldnít expect an easy win in either place anymore. Kentucky may be the closest thing to an easy win in the SEC now, but they seem to get good crowds that show up and influence the games in the seasons when the Wildcats are competitive.

There were good arguments against the SEC expanding to 14 teams though, and of course that happened anyway. So I wanted to consider some options the conference would have in that case.

The SEC has stated that a change if made will not take place until 2016, but the conversation should begin now about what to do in either scenario. Since adding Texas A&M and Missouri, this will be the first season where the intended rivalries will start taking place. For instance, it will be the first year Arkansas will play nearby Missouri rather than South Carolina, which never made any sense except to make Lou Holtz face his former team when Holtz coached the Gamecocks. The last two seasons maintained the existing rivalries and scheduled other game on an ad hoc basis.

I donít feel this is appropriate for a number of reasons. One is teams should be able to schedule out-of-conference opponents in advance. Part of the problem with the number of games played against FCS and bottom-rung FBS opponents is the result of such contracts being cancelled at the last moment. So one school pays the other a cancellation fee, which is then payed to a third school to come in for usually just one game that season.

Competitive FBS teams are rarely willing to do this, and other teams expect to be paid for the expected humiliation (which doesnít always pan out, of course, but they still get to keep the money). Sometimes the team that cancelled simply wanted to play another home game, so that might not result in a good match-up for them either. I think this is one of the reasons LSU started accepting these neutral-site games. Some recent last-minute attempts to land an opponent did not go well.

Another reason is recruiting. Letís say an SEC East team is recruiting a player from Texas. He might want to know how many games his family can travel to, so he would want to know how many times in the next four or five years that team might play at Texas A&M, at LSU, and at Arkansas. In some cases, the parents might care even more than the player. They might want to go to a certain number of games regardless; but in deciding between schools, how much travel to expect is a valid question.

To simplify matters, Iím going to explain three numbers for a scheduling format. The SEC currently operates a 6-1-1 format. This means there are six divisional games, one permanent interdivisional opponent, and one rotating interdivisional opponent. Under the current system, this means that for those opponents who are not permanent, they will only play a given team in the other division once every six years.

The Pac-12 has a nine-game schedule with fewer teams, so there are only two teams in the conference each year that a given team will not play. The format in the Pac-12, at least for the California teams, is 5-2-2. The format for the rest is 5-4, although due to the California teams all playing each other every year, this means that the four inland teams (Arizona, Arizona St., Colorado, and Utah) will play one Northern California team and three Pacific Northwest teams each year. The four Pacific Northwest teams will play three inland teams and one Southern California team each year.

To give you a hint as to Part II of this blog, Iím going to suggest a 6-2-1 format for the SEC (in the event it goes to nine games), so if you want, you can let me know what your favorite inter-divisional match-ups are.

IB) ďThe Same RulesĒ and Alternative Approaches

The head coach of Stanford, David Shaw, criticized the SEC for playing†cupcakes in November, presumably referring to the non-rivalry games played in SEC off-weeks. I donít understand why thatís a problem and having a late bye week isnít, but we donít have to go into that now.

To be fair, his team has every right to play a tough schedule, but thatís the only reason Stanford would have belonged in the conversation for the top four last year. Their loss to Utah would have taken a lot more to overcome than Alabamaís loss to Auburn after time expired. So if the SEC played the same number of conference games as the Pac-12, particularly if they are compared to a team with a competitive non-conference schedule (Alabama didnít really have one, apart from the opening game against Virginia Tech, but the Hokies were not very good last season), there goes Stanfordís argument. I doubt Shaw would see it as ďthe same rulesĒ if he actually got what he wanted and as a result two SEC teams made it ahead of a Stanford team who won the conference despite a loss.

It also annoys me that not playing nine conference games is considered backing down now. It used to be that you played 10 games in the whole regular season. So if we still stuck to that, it would mean that a team that went to a conference championship would play 0 games outside of conference before a bowl. Historically (until about 1970), a normal amount of games against your conference was six.

Before the SEC became the first team to expand to two divisions in 1992, it still only had seven conference games per team. The Pac-12 (then the Pac-10 of course) had some teams with only seven conference games as recently as 1985. Some teams in the ACC played only six conference games as recently as 1987.

So a more traditional balance between in-conference (8 with a possible 9th is still a lot more than 6 or 7) and out-of-conference is ďbacking downĒ now.

I think itís actually problematic to have fewer and fewer games that we can use to judge one conference against another, which can only fairly be done by looking at such games. Doing that, the SEC has typically done better than the Pac-12, including out-of-conference winning percentage overall, winning percentage against FCS teams, and winning percentage against BCS teams. This is including in years that were supposedly bad for the SEC but when the SEC had a lot of depth. I remember one year when Ed Oregon was the head coach of Ole Miss, the Rebels went undefeated out of conference and lost every game in conference.

Frankly, I would be happy if only the divisional games counted toward the race for the divisional title and six other games were at the discretion of the school. Maybe they should be encouraged to play at least two games against the other division, but if Florida were to play Florida St. and Miami in the same year, maybe even two additional SEC games wouldnít be necessary. On the other hand, if the Gators wanted to play LSU and Auburn every single year, their two most traditional SEC West rivals, they could. They would not necessarily have to rotate in Arkansas and Texas A&M, and the Aggies and Hogs might be just fine with that.

Then a team like LSU would have less of a problem with playing Florida every year. As strong as both teams have been in the last decade or so, they have never made the SEC title in the same year. The same is true with Auburn and Georgia. More often than not, only the winner of the game has a decent chance to win their respective division.

Itís probably best LSU didnít have to play Florida again in 2006, just because they probably would not have made the title game even if they had won the SEC, but itís still a good example of what can happen. Arkansas lost one game in the division. LSU lost one game in the division. LSU beat Arkansas. Who made the title game? Arkansas. What? Well, that year, LSU had to play a Florida team that would go on to win the national championship, on the road I might add. Arkansas didnít play any particularly good team from the SEC East, but it didnít matter. One fewer conference loss meant the Hogs went.

For an example from the SEC East, Iíll go back to 1997, when LSU got its only victory against Spurrier when he was at Florida (the game was in Baton Rouge). LSU did not win the SEC West, but they lost to Auburn due to the head-to-head tiebreaker. Even though Florida beat Tennessee (which of course didnít have to play LSU or Auburn) and Auburn for good measure, the Volunteers went to the SEC title game instead and narrowly defeated Auburn before losing to Nebraska in the Orange Bowl. Despite what should have been an SEC East (if not SEC) title and despite handing Florida St. its only loss of the season for the second year in a row, Florida was relegated to the dreaded Citrus Bowl.

...For earlier access to my blogs, archives, etc., you can follow my†wordpress site†or my page on†facebook. †

If Playoff System Existed Last Season
Category: NCAA
Tags: ALABAMA AUBURN BAYLOR BCS UCF CLEMSON FLORIDA ST. MICHIGAN ST. MISSOURI OHIO ST. OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA ST. PLAYOffs Stanford

First off, there needs to be a better way to describe this. The ďplayoffĒ is four teams, but there was a championship game under the BCS and you could describe the other major bowls as ďBCS bowlsĒ without confusion. CFP (college football playoff) bowls maybe? I guess Iíll call them that.

If youíre not aware, there is a three-year rotation for the semifinals. Year 1: Rose and Sugar. Year 2: Orange and Cotton. Year 3: Fiesta and Peach. So Iím going to go through all three possibilities using last yearís pre-bowl rankings.

The Top Four

Going by the BCS standings, this is how the semifinal would have looked last year:

Rose: Florida St. vs. Michigan St.
Sugar: Auburn vs. Alabama

However, I donít think it would have happened that way. I think given that Alabama did not have a particularly strong non-divisional schedule (Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia Tech, Colorado St., Georgia St., Chattanooga), did not win the conference, and lost its final game, they would have been seeded no higher than 4th. When the loss takes place isnít stated as a criteria, but I canít imagine that wouldnít influence the results.

I donít think Stanford, which had the toughest schedule according to many and which won its conference, would have gone ahead of Alabama, but thatís another possibility. I would have picked Stanford myself.

Iíll just go with Alabama though for this exercise. I think making them #4 instead of #3 would have been a significant enough departure from all the major polls.

Year 1: Semifinal

So this is what I think the semifinal actually would have been:
Rose: Auburn vs. Michigan St.
Sugar: Florida St. vs. Alabama

Year 1: Other CFP Bowls†(those bowls in the rotation but not semifinals in Years 1, 4, 7, etc.)

The Orange Bowl is the only one where we have any guidance really since the ACC #1 goes to the Orange Bowl if itís a year where the Orange Bowl is not a semifinal. In this case, itís actually the ACC #2 since the ACC #1 obviously would have made the semifinal. I think with a fairly highly-ranked alternate of the same conference, the Orange Bowl still would have picked Clemson. The other Orange Bowl spot is for and SEC or Big Ten #2 or Notre Dame. I donít think they would have fought the Cotton Bowl over Missouri, and Ohio St. was a very attractive pick, so actually, thatís the one relevant bowl that I donít think would have changed.

Orange: Clemson vs. Ohio St. (actual match-up)
Cotton: South Carolina vs. Oklahoma
Fiesta: Stanford vs. Baylor
Peach: Central Florida vs. Missouri

Year 2: Semifinal

Cotton: Auburn vs. Michigan St.
Orange: Florida St. vs. Alabama

Year 2: Other CFP Bowls†(those bowls in the rotation but not semifinals in Years 2, 5, 8, etc.)

Itís a little more straightforward not to have the Rose and Sugar as part of the semifinals. My understanding is that in Years 2 and 3, the SEC takes the highest non-semifinal Big XII and SEC teams no matter what, and the Rose Bowl takes the highest Big Ten and Pac-12 teams no matter what.

To editorialize for a moment, I donít know why the Rose and Sugar would be paired as semifinals. It should be like Sugar Fiesta one year, Rose Peach the next, and Orange Cotton the next. That way youíre only disrupting one major bowl arrangement at a time. In the years that the Pac-12/Big Ten game doesnít take place, there should still be the SEC/Big XII game and vice versa.

Sugar: South Carolina vs. Baylor
Rose: Stanford vs. Ohio St.
Orange: Clemson vs. Missouri
Fiesta: Oklahoma vs. Central Florida

Year 3: Semifinal

Fiesta: Auburn vs. Michigan St.
Peach: Florida St. vs. Alabama

Year 3: Other ďPlayoffĒ Bowls†(those bowls in the rotation but not semifinals in Years 3, 6, 9, etc.)

These years will be the most restrictive since there are three bowls with pretty specific formulas.

Sugar: South Carolina vs. Baylor
Rose: Stanford vs. Ohio St.
Orange: Clemson vs. Missouri
Cotton: Oklahoma vs. Central Florida

All years: Other Bowls (rough guess)

I looked at the anticipated bowl lineup and used my best guess as to how it would have worked had next yearís bowls all been in place last year. Keep in mind that there were two more bowl slots among the major bowls since last season, there was a national championship game made up of two separate teams, but this season it will be made up of winners of bowl games. Oklahoma St. would have been bumped in my estimation so it would not have played in the Cotton Bowl. The Peach Bowl will be very different, so neither Duke nor Texas A&M would have been under consideration for the new CFP bowls. In the case of Texas A&M, however, I think their spot in what will be a major bowl would have been taken by another SEC team: in this case South Carolina. So that would leave the Big XII and the ACC with another team for the remaining bowls, pushing the other teams of that conference down the ladder.

I do think some of the bowls would have been the same due to regional interests. It made sense to have two Louisiana teams in the New Orleans Bowl, for instance. It made sense to have Maryland playing in Maryland and North Carolina playing in North Carolina. The†bolded†teams are those who were bowl-eligible but did not actually play in bowls last season. There were a record number of bowl-eligible teams last year, so Iím not entirely sure there will even be enough bowl-eligible teams next year. I guess the NCAA will cross that bridge when it comes to it.

This is just an informal sort of exercise, so donít make a big deal out of it. Iím going by what Iím told the rules will be next year as far as the preferred conferences, etc. Most conferences do not fill all their contractual slots though. I wasnít always sure which bowls would have gotten the #8 team from a given conference and which would have had to find another team.

New Orleans: Tulane vs. ULL
New Mexico: Washington St. vs. Colorado St.
Las Vegas: USC vs. Fresno St.
Idaho Potato: San Diego St. vs. Buffalo
Camelia (new; Montgomery, AL): Ohio vs.†Troy
St. Petersburg: Middle Tennessee vs.†South Alabama
Boca Raton:†Toledo†vs.†Florida Atlantic
Miami Beach (new): BYU vs.†Texas St.
Poinsettia (San Diego): Utah St. vs. Navy
Bahamas (new): Northern Illinois vs. Boston College
Hawaii: Oregon St. vs. Boise St.
Russell Athletic (Orlando): U. Miami vs. Ball St.
Armed Forces (Ft. Worth, TX): East Carolina vs. Louisville
Heart of Dallas: North Texas vs. UNLV
Military (Annapolis, MD): Marshall vs. Maryland
Pinstripe: Notre Dame vs. Rutgers
Sun (El Paso): UCLA vs. Texas
Holiday (San Diego): Nebraska vs. Arizona St.
Liberty (Memphis): Rice vs.†Western Kentucky
Texas: Texas Tech vs. Mississippi St.
Detroit: Pittsburgh vs. Minnesota
Independence (Shreveport, LA): Arizona vs.†ULM
Music City: Ole Miss vs. Georgia Tech
Belk (Charlotte): North Carolina vs. Cincinnati
San Francisco: Washington vs.†San Jose St.
Outback (Tampa, FL): Iowa vs. Georgia
CapitalOne (Orlando): LSU vs. Wisconsin*
Tax Slayer (formerly Gator; Jacksonville): Duke vs. Texas A&M
Alamo: Oklahoma St. vs. Oregon
Valley of the Sun (Tucson, AZ): Michigan vs. Kansas St.
Birmingham (formerly BBVA Compass): Vanderbilt vs. Houston
GoDaddy (Mobile, AL): Bowling Green vs. Arkansas St.

*It may have been the case that due to the fact that LSU plays Wisconsin to start this season, this match-up would not have been made. Itís possible that Georgia would have leapfrogged LSU, leaving the Tigers playing Iowa anyway. But as I said at the top of the section, itís just sort of a rough guess. I left LSU there because they were apparently seen as the more desirable team. Also, some may recall Miami played Florida St. in a bowl game in 2003 only to play them again at the start of the 2004 season.

To see all my blogs as I post them, archives, etc., please follow my wordpress site†and/or Facebook fan page. †

NCAA Tourney Talk 3/30/14
Category: NCAA
Tags: NCAATournament CentralMissouriMules CollegeBasketball IllinoisChicagoFlames FloridaGators WisconsinBadgers

As the various tournaments have wound their way down towards the crowning of a champion, it has been easier for me to actually witness game action on TV and follow the "lesser" tournaments on TV.

I wrote about Bentley's D2 women's championship and more in Sunday Musings #140 but there has been a number of other tourney developments that I wanted to babble on about as well.

NCAA WOMEN

I saw bits and pieces of the first three games of the Sweet 16 of the women's tournament. The first two games saw Baylor and Notre Dame advance relatively easy.

Surprisingly, it was the UConn vs. BYU that held people in suspense...at least for a little while.

The BYU team trailed by only 1 point at halftime, they were solid defensively and unlike a lot of teams didn't play in fear of the Lady Huskies. Sadly, a 5 minute streak of no offense in the second half doomed them and UConn came away with a 19 point win.

I didn't see the Texas A&M game against DePaul but they won by 19 points.

Today's games to close out the Sweet 16 and set up the Elite Eight should prove very interesting. Those games are:

South Carolina vs. North Carolina, Penn State vs. Stanford, Louisville vs. West Virginia and Tennessee vs. Maryland.

NCAA MEN

Florida knocked off this year's Cinderella, Dayton, by 10 points. It looked like they were going to have a cake walk with a 14 point lead and all the momentum going into halftime but the Flyers made more of a game of things in the 2nd half.

But it would be hard to top the Wisconsin-Arizona overtime thriller in the late game yesterday. I didn't see the whole game but both teams were matching each other shot for shot throughout the game.

A controversial call ended up helping the Badgers pick up the 64-63 win, but regardless of how it ended, it was one hell of a game.

So Florida and Wisconsin are onto the Final Four. I had both of them getting their so my bracket is still very much alive.

Today's games are Michigan State vs. UConn (by seeding, the new Cinderella) and Michigan vs. Kentucky. I have a feeling these are going to be barn burner type of games. The Midwest Region is dead for me since I had Louisville advancing to the Final Four, but if Michigan State wins I'd have 3 of the last four correct.

And thus far, I'm still in 1st place in the YouGabSports group bracket challenge on ESPN.

WOMEN'S BASKETBALL INVITATIONAL

The WBI tournament final saw the Illinois-Chicago Flames defeat the Stephen F. Austin Ladyjacks 73-64 to capture the championship.

Last season, the Flames finished 9-21. With a final record of 26-9, the completed the best turnaround in Division 1 this season.

Rachel Story (pictured below 1st)†scored 27 points in her final game to help lead UIC to the win, but it was Ruvanna Campbell (pictured below 2nd) earning MVP honors with 18 points, 12 rebounds and a tourney record 8 blocks.

Your 2014 WBI Champions:

MEN'S DIVISION 2 NCAA

Daylen Robinson scored 21 points and Dillon Deck had 16 points and 10 rebounds as the Central Missouri Mules beat West Liberty 84-77 to capture their second ever Division 2 national championship.

Defense played a huge role in the now 30-5 CMU win, as they held West Liberty 24 points below their average.

Your D2 Men's National Champions:

more than pumping tires
Category: NHL
Tags: florida vancouver goalies trades

should be interesting. In case you missed the breaking news today, Roberto Luongo is going home. The Vancouver Canucks finally moved the Canadian Olympian after all of the drama last season as Luongo and minor-league forward Steve Anthony will head south to Sunrise, Florida in exchange for goaltender Jacob Markstrom and center Shawn Matthias. If you're thinking one step ahead, we're thinking the same way because Luongo will join Tim Thomas as the netminders for the Panthers - the same man who he had a war of words with during the 2011 Stanley Cup Final.

I can tell you this: Luongo's contract probably ensures that Thomas will not be a Panther next season. And considering their bodies of work this season, Luongo will probably get a pile of time in the blue paint that Thomas probably thought he was getting. Both men are competitors and have a lot of pride, so you know that one of these two Cats will be a little unhappy with the amount of games he plays down the stretch.

Luongo was asked today by TSN 1050 in Vancouver about being teammates with man who beat him in the 2011 Stanley Cup Final. Luongo took it in stride, laughing, and replied, "I don't know, we'll see how it goes when I get there."

Luongo, for what it's worth, gets to go home where he spends the off-season. He returns to the team that traded him to Vancouver in 2006, and will most likely be expected to carry this team as far as he can. While he is older and a little wiser than his last time in a Panthers jersey, Luongo sounds like he's ready to move on after the last couple of years of drama in Vancouver.

"I was not expecting it," Luongo told reporters shortly after the trade. "Go figure, right? I'm happy for myself and my family and a little bit sad to be leaving Vancouver. All in all it was a great run. There was a lot of stuff that happened in between but I have nothing but good things to say about the fans that were really supportive especially towards the end. This organization brought my game to another level. It's all positive stuff."

I expected Roberto Luongo to deliver a classy exit speech at last year's NHL Entry Draft, but it was Cory Schneider who was traded. Luongo appeared to be the starter once again, but the Canucks seemed to be working Eddie Lack into the blue paint more often, including the Winter Classic this past weekend. Luongo was saying all the right things about not getting the start in the highly-anticipated game, but you know he had to have been disappointed.

With Markstrom and Lack, the Canucks have a pair of young Swedish goalies who they should be able to start building around nicely. Markstrom is 24 and Lack is 26, so both are entering their primes as hockey players. Matthias will be a nice addition to the third-line in Vancouver, and is versatile enough that he can be moved around to fit into the Canucks' lineup.

It will be interesting to watch the two veteran goalies in Florida, though. These two highly-competitive men won't give an inch in their battle to earn and keep their ice-time. While both men will put on a happy face and say nice things about each other, the fires that burn within Luongo and Thomas will burn hot as they compete down the stretch.
should be interesting. In case you missed the breaking news today, Roberto Luongo is going home. The Vancouver Canucks finally moved the Canadian Olympian after all of the drama last season as Luongo and minor-league forward Steve Anthony will head south to Sunrise, Florida in exchange for goaltender Jacob Markstrom and center Shawn Matthias. If you're thinking one step ahead, we're thinking the same way because Luongo will join Tim Thomas as the netminders for the Panthers - the same man who he had a war of words with during the 2011 Stanley Cup Final.

I can tell you this: Luongo's contract probably ensures that Thomas will not be a Panther next season. And considering their bodies of work this season, Luongo will probably get a pile of time in the blue paint that Thomas probably thought he was getting. Both men are competitors and have a lot of pride, so you know that one of these two Cats will be a little unhappy with the amount of games he plays down the stretch.

Luongo was asked today by TSN 1050 in Vancouver about being teammates with man who beat him in the 2011 Stanley Cup Final. Luongo took it in stride, laughing, and replied, "I don't know, we'll see how it goes when I get there."

Luongo, for what it's worth, gets to go home where he spends the off-season. He returns to the team that traded him to Vancouver in 2006, and will most likely be expected to carry this team as far as he can. While he is older and a little wiser than his last time in a Panthers jersey, Luongo sounds like he's ready to move on after the last couple of years of drama in Vancouver.

"I was not expecting it," Luongo told reporters shortly after the trade. "Go figure, right? I'm happy for myself and my family and a little bit sad to be leaving Vancouver. All in all it was a great run. There was a lot of stuff that happened in between but I have nothing but good things to say about the fans that were really supportive especially towards the end. This organization brought my game to another level. It's all positive stuff."

I expected Roberto Luongo to deliver a classy exit speech at last year's NHL Entry Draft, but it was Cory Schneider who was traded. Luongo appeared to be the starter once again, but the Canucks seemed to be working Eddie Lack into the blue paint more often, including the Winter Classic this past weekend. Luongo was saying all the right things about not getting the start in the highly-anticipated game, but you know he had to have been disappointed.

With Markstrom and Lack, the Canucks have a pair of young Swedish goalies who they should be able to start building around nicely. Markstrom is 24 and Lack is 26, so both are entering their primes as hockey players. Matthias will be a nice addition to the third-line in Vancouver, and is versatile enough that he can be moved around to fit into the Canucks' lineup.

It will be interesting to watch the two veteran goalies in Florida, though. These two highly-competitive men won't give an inch in their battle to earn and keep their ice-time. While both men will put on a happy face and say nice things about each other, the fires that burn within Luongo and Thomas will burn hot as they compete down the stretch.

I'm Just Saying...Scott having a brain drain with this blog
Category: User Showcase
Tags: Mark Skiba Florida State ACC SEC Yankees A-Roid Jay Cutler Clark Chicago Cubs Christian Laettner Frank Thomas Greg Maddux Tom Glavine

Scott canít shut up todayÖI got a lot to say so lets get started with

Iím Just sayingÖ..

 

Mark Skiba came within 13 seconds of winning $50,000, as Florida State beat Auburn, in an exciting game, 34-31. Last January Markís dad was on vacation in Las Vegas when he placed a $100 bet for his son on Auburn to win the National Title at 500-to-1 odds.


Congratulations to Florida State. Thanks goodness the SEC streak is over!!


Not again. DeSean Jackson is seeking another pay raise. He has three years remaining on his contract which pays him $50 million over the duration of the contract. This is the same guy who came out, a couple of years ago, and said he wasnít giving it all he had because he wanted a new contract. I hope the Eagles donít renegotiate.


As a Yankee fan, I hope New York eats the contract of A-Roid and release him. Let another team sign him and have all the headaches that follow him around.


Seven-year, $126 million dollar contract. Wow, what great quarterback got that contract? Jay Cutler!! What the %&(@#%*. If he is worth that much, how much is Russell Wilson or Andrew Luck worth???? Stand buy for huge pay for elite, or above average quarterbacks.


Does Dion Sanders have to play in the pro bowl??? Please say it ainít so.


 

This is Clark and he is the new mascot of the Chicago Cubs. Oh boy, like this is going to help them win.


 

Christian Laettnerís famous shirt was sold at auction for $119,500. Believe-it-or-not, this is the second-highest price for a game-worn basketball jersey. In 2011, a DR. J Virginia Squires game-used jersey sold for $190,414.


 

The Hall of Fame has three new outstanding players entering the shrine in Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine.

Thomas had a .301 average, 2,468 hits, 521 homeruns, 1,494 runs and 1,704 Rbiís, 1,667 walks and 1,397 strikeouts. 1993, 1994 AL MVP, 1993 MLB Player of the Year.

Glavine won 60% of his games he started with a record of 305-203. He had a era of 3.54 with 25 shutouts, 2,607 strikeouts and 1,500 walks. Glavine won 2 Cy Young awards and was 1995 World Series MVP.

In his 23 years, Maddux won 61% of his games started with a record of 355-227 and a ERA of 3.16. He pitched 35 shoutouts, walked 999 batters and 3,371 strikeouts. Maddux won 4 consecutive CY Young awards, 4 time Sporting News Pitcher of the Year.

It is ashamed that Craig Biggio missed it by 2 votes.


Speaking of Hall of Fame, I agree with TheBeezer (did I just say that). Read his rant on the HOF selection here

http://www.yougabsports.com/pt/Monday-Moaning--1-13-14/blog.htm.

He is right. There is no reason why a player who has a outstanding career canít receive 100% of the votes. Aaron, Mays, Ruth, MadduxÖetc, etc. all deserved to be admitted with 100% of the votes. There has got to be a better way to select players.

Wow, did I say a mouth full. Have a great week.

RSS
Blog Categories

This website is powered by Spruz