PeaveyFury

Great, unexpectedly dominant win today. I have no doubt Marquette will have a nice season and this win will look very good on a resume come March.

Agreed. The other problem is that now that Auburn has 3 losses already, there's a legit chance Alabama won't end up with a win vs. a top 20 team on their resume. It's funny how in a situation like that with Iowa or Wisconsin a few years ago, it's held sigificantly against us, but when it's Alabama, no one talks about it.

Also a dominant win on the road over #24 T A&M. And their only loss would be a close loss to a dominant LSU team. We've been down this road with the committee before. Maybe I am just jaded by their past decisions, but I don't believe for one second that the committee is going to take any 1 loss SEC team, much less Alabama, over a 2 loss B10 champ Wisconsin team with a loss to Illinois and a blowout loss to OSU. Oh, I agree.... but the 33% Wisconsin probability is independent of Alabama's 19% at this point as there are too many variables. Also, you're 100% correct that just because the resume' is statistically more likely to be better or whatever, it doesn't mean that the human element of the committee can be accurately factored into modeling. Yep. You'd be sitting here with a very high chance that if 12-0 OSU met 11-1 Wisconsin in the Big Ten Championship, that game might have been a play-in game for the Playoff.

So Alabama, currently #5, IF they win out has a 19% chance of making the playoff? Even though they're already #5, would be a 1 loss team and would beat Auburn in the meantime, they have a 19% chance of making the playoff if they win out and we have a 33% chance of making the playoff if we win out? Yeah, I call bullcrap on that. They'd win out and have the problem of LSU, Clemson, and OSU already locked into spots ahead of them, and the strong chance that a 1-loss Pac-12 or Big-12 team ends with a better SOS/quality of wins. Alabama's only win vs. a ranked opponent would be that hypothetical Auburn win.

Again, the link I posted above does that math for you and puts their chance right now at 4%.

Conditional probablility is the theory being utilized here.... There seems to be some confusion regarding the idea that that probability changes literally as every other relevant game ends between this moment and the last Championship game in 3 weeks. As noted previously, the 33% chance is only a result of the Badgers winning the rest of their games, which is statistically an unlikely outcome in and of itself. Even if you assume that they win all three of those games, the 33% will be higher or lower from this point because of the results that happen around them.

Because they're focused on winning 60 games instead of 55? I don't think that deal entices KC either, but they also have literally zero reason to hang onto a guy like Whit, as they're terrible and he's unlikely to be a contributing member of their next competitive team a few years down the line. They should be focused on moving him this offseason.

Fivethirtyeight runs playoff odds based on the likely outcome of each game, and they have the Badgers at 4%, so you're in the ballpark. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-college-football-predictions/ If the Badger DO manage to win out, they're at 33%. That number will move a lot depending on the next two weeks worth of outcomes, but if they somehow beat Minnesota and OSU (neither of which can be assumed, of course), there's a plausible chance. But practically? Not really.

My point is/was that it's possible that they could do both, but if they get beat in Indy as most would expect them to, the Rose is very possibly the outcome either way.

Crazy thing about the Minnesota-Wisconsin game is that it is very possible that if OSU runs the table prior to the BIG Championship, the Wisconsin-Minnesota game might be for the right to go to the Rose Bowl, as a win or loss in the Championship likely puts the Wisc-Min winner there as Big Ten Champ or with OSU in the Playoff.

I think the premise of these moves is flawed. The Brewers finished the year at $136 million. Current estimates have them around $96-97 million now, so you're closer to $40 million in shed payroll. So your estimate is over by about $7 million. Then yes, they do have decisions on Shaw, Nelson, etc that could add additional $. Your proposed position player moves basically spent all but ~$12 million of the Brewers' offseason money and made catcher worse, SS better, and everything else the same, while doing nothing to improve the bullpen. Bringing back Lyles gets them back to even in the rotation, and leaves a whopping $7-10 million to replace Chase Anderson and find a RH hitting 1B.

Then kindly explain how you expect to fill all of those holes with limited resources? Limited resources? The payroll is sitting at where $90 million give or take? That's peanuts for a team that drew nearly 3 million. I think they have at least $40 million in payroll room for 2020, perhaps as much as $50 million. It's 2020, baseball revenues are up considerably from what they were when the Brewers couldn't afford to keep Fielder. If there was no luxury tax, the big revenue teams would all have payrolls over 300 million and still be making money. The Brewers revenue is in the middle of the division, considerably less than Cubs and Cards but tens of millions more than the Reds and Bucs. When a signing like Grandall has the potential to eat literally half of that $40 million, plus $10 mil for Moose, that leaves a whopping $10 million to fill what, 2 rotation spots, two BP arms and first base/shortstop? It's not 1995..... it takes a lot to sign pitching. A lot. And 'limited resources' also refers to the general lack of trade capital that the Brewers have to fill holes via that route. Edit: The point is, I think you may be able to upgrade 1b/3b OR SS, but I struggle to see how they could do both.

This is where I'm at too... I think if you have any hope of adding significant, needle-moving help on the pitching staff, you're going to have to make a gamble on a guy like Shaw at 3rd. Obviously, you'd still ideally find a RH bat to play 3rd or 1st vs. LHP, but that would be the case with a guy like Thames as well.

Then kindly explain how you expect to fill all of those holes with limited resources?

Yep. I think the idea that they made a perfectly acceptable outcome here is fair, and it's also fair to think that, in general, they're dopes.

Again, why? There were two really great players with very little separation between them and one had to come in 1st and one had to come in 2nd. I think both statements can be independently true

I think it's perfectly fair to have concerns about what happened this year, but if the Brewers bet on him to fill one of the two corner IF spots because they have reason to believe he'll rebound, I think that's a fair bet for the team to make. They have a lot of holes to fill and only so many resources with which to use, so it seems likely that Shaw and/or Arcia may be relied on as a result.

He's Chris Davis part 2. Other than, you know, the 23 million/year salary and 4 years in age difference. Also, Davis' numbers were declining, even before he fell off the cliff. It's much more plausible for the organization to believe that Shaw's 2019 was an anomaly rather than a permanent cliffing.

This year or next year? Next year is currently ranked #1 in the nation. That obviously won't last once the blue chips start committing but still they should end up top 15 assuming all the commits stick. They're also largely expected to land 2021 4-star Julian Roper, so that would make for an incredibly exciting class.

Worth noting that with National Signing Week underway, the Badgers did lock down their entire class yesterday (plus a PWO), and the class was ranked 10th by 247 sports and 15th by Rivals, 1st and 2nd in the Big Ten respectively. A very nice class for Gard, especially in view of the 2021 class thus far as well.

Just because it’s small doesn’t mean it’s insignificant. IMO the bridge noticeably changes the logo for the worse, and to me that isn’t nitpicky. The ball seam is a very small change too. So if that bothers you, you can understand how the bridge bothers others. Exactly why I said IMO. But I think 99.9% of the fan base will embrace the 'new' logo without much fuss.

I guess I see zero problem with the change. I think when you're looking at a small bit of the logo between the m and the b and that is the deciding factor between liking it or not, that's the definition of nitpicking, IMO. Honestly, now that the ball seam issue has been pointed out on the old one, it actually bothers me more than any of the other changes to the revised version...

Well, if Troy Aikman is against replay, that pretty much cements my desire to have it.

Former MSU/and Lions WR Charles Rogers dead at 38. He was given a month to live due to liver failure, and was also diagnosed with cancer recently: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28058800/charles-rogers-former-lions-michigan-state-wr-dies-38

Just got back from Green Bay (stayed last night unexpectedly to avoid a terrible drive because of the snow, drove into a terrible drive this morning because of the snow, at least it was in daylight and not with a bunch of drivers at .079999999999 BAC....), so a few thoughts from Lambeau: 1) I'll agree with both sides of the 'replay ruined the moment' argument. Was there a huge letdown that the celebration was cut short by replay at the stadium? Yep. Am I glad they have something in place to try and get a call like that right? Yep. Am I certain that no matter which way that was called, it would have stood up on replay? Yep. 2)Surprised to see criticism of the Jones/Williams workload, especially considering that both ran very well yesterday. Workload management seems to be the staff's forte, as I don't think it's a COMPLETE coincidence that a new staff with new philosophies have resulted in a much healthier team. Jones is an ultra-talented, often dynamic, undersized running back. Kudos to the staff for finding a way to split the load in a way that has kept him healthy, productive, and contributing, which was a problem in the past. 3)I really, really hope that much of the Packer fanbase was able to watch the Saints' (home!) loss to a bad Falcons team prior to the Packer kickoff yesterday, and can recognize that despite what we heard last week, sometimes good teams play poorly and lose to terrible teams. Maybe Saints fans are contemplating whether they're a legitimate contender this morning. Maybe they're looking at their schedule and wondering whether they're a 13-3 team or a 10-6 team. Or maybe they realize that sometimes a loss is just a loss. It's not the NCAA where one loss means a ton. Sometimes NFL teams, even the really good ones, have a crappy day and a team with a good QB leads the opponent to a win by three scores. Then you move on and go back to playing out the rest of your schedule, and hopefully that loss proves an exception, not a rule. 4)It was pretty cold at the game. Not Ice Bowl or 2007 NFC Championship cold, but New Year's Eve vs. the Vikings-type cold. And it's way too early for that crap, even if football in the snow was surreal.