The Ultimate BCS Moment

So just when you think the college football season couldn’t get any dumber, it goes and pulls something like this…..and totally redeems itself!  I mean, how can any sports fan be upset with the kind of system altering chaos that has developed in the last two weeks of the season?  First it was Stanford getting knocked around by Oregon on its home field while Boise State lost its first regular season home game in 13 years.  That, in itself, was quite disruptive to the BCS system and set up some interesting debates.  But it was just a precursor of what was to come.

The real drama began Friday night with a second and way more chaotic weekend in college football.  While many experts thought Oklahoma State might lose one of its final two games, not one that I saw predicted that it would come on Friday at Iowa State.  Many thought Oregon would be tested by USC, but certainly they wouldn’t get beat on their own field.  Oklahoma had already had their hiccup and were on their way back into the BCS conversation.  And Clemson had an outside chance of slipping into the title game if all the right things happened. 

Well, all the right things happened, but Clemson forgot that they had to beat a scrappy NC State team to keep their shot alive.  It’s a funny thing, this college football.  One week a team looks unstoppable.  The next, all their flaws and warts are on display on national television.  Granted, there are no unbeatable teams in this day and age of college athletics.  Talent, coaching, and media hype are at an all time high.  If a team has a weakness, which they all do, someone or something will find a way to exploit it. 

And that leaves us with a possibly landscape altering scenario.  No, I’m not talking about conference realignment, although that could speed up the process.  I’m referring to the fact that it’s an almost certainty that the top three teams in the upcoming BCS standings will be from the same division, not just the same conference.  Last time I checked, only one team could win its division, and only one team could win its conference.  And we are faced with the distinct possibility that a non-division winning team could be playing in the national championship.

This brings me to my next point.  What if LSU handles Arkansas while Alabama beats Auburn in the Iron Bowl?  You would have the top team in the BCS playing a hot Georgia team in the SEC Championship while the second ranked Alabama squad could just sit at home and enjoy the game on tv.  With the losses by Oregon, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Clemson, I see Alabama as a virtual lock for the title game if the Tide is 11-1. 

But here is the biggest nightmare for the BCS.  What do you do if Georgia plays its best game of the season and beats LSU in the SEC Championship?  We have already established that Alabama would be a lock for the title without being a conference winner.  Would LSU fit that role as well?  You would have to think that wins over Oregon, Alabama, Arkansas, and West Virginia would be enough to put the Tigers in the title game, right?

Ultimately, it would come down to the voters.  Would the voters penalize Alabama or LSU if they don’t win, or play in, the SEC Championship?  Will they promote a one loss Stanford or one loss Oklahoma State to play in the game instead?  By the way, Stanford won’t be playing in the Pac-12 title game unless Oregon loses to Oregon State.  So, good luck making a case for them.  Oklahoma State could have an outside shot if they beat Oklahoma handily and the voters don’t want to see a rematch.  What about a one loss Virginia Tech?  With only one win against top 25 teams (@ Georgia Tech), coupled with a win in the ACC Championship against Clemson, I don’t think the Hokies have the resume.

So, it boils down to the ultimate of scenarios, but one that isn’t really that hard to imagine.  Two teams that didn’t win their conference.  Two teams that have already played each other.  One giant push for some sort of college football playoff.  But that’s just plain silly.

7 players added to Mets 40-Man roster

According to Adam Rubin at ESPNNewYork.com, the Mets have decided to add seven prospects to the 40-man roster to protect them from being selected in the upcoming Rule 5 draft.  The following players have been added:

1) Robert Carson - LHP
2) Reese Havens - 2B
3) Kirk Nieuwenhuis - CF
4) Jeurys Familia - RHP
5) Wilmer Flores - SS
6) Cesar Puello - OF
7) Juan Lagares - OF

The Mets have several players who are eligible for the Rule 5 draft who were not protected and who could be selected by other franchises.  The most notable omissions include Collin McHugh, Jefry Marte, and Brad Holt.  I had also mentioned Juan Centeno as a player the Mets would possibly look to protect.

These additions bring the total number of players on the 40-man roster from 31 to 38.  That leaves two empty spots for the Mets to use on free agents or selections in the Rule 5 draft from other teams.  It is highly likely that the Mets will remove other players as the off-season progresses, either through non-tendering arbitration eligible players, or through designating for assignment a player to remove them from the roster.  Any player who is non-tendered will become a free agent and will be able to sign with any team they wish.  Any player that is DFA'd will need to pass through waivers without being claimed by another team in order for the Mets to be able to assign them to the minors.

Players that are still up for arbitration are Mike Pelfrey, Angel Pagan, Ronny Paulino, and Manny Acosta.  Pelfrey and Pagan are highly likely to be tendered contracts, and Acosta is also likely to return.  Paulino is a toss up.  If the Mets decide to non-tender Paulino, then they may choose to go with light hitting Mike Nickeas as the backup to Josh Thole.  The deadline for their decisions on these players is December 12th.

Looking ahead, the Mets still have many decisions to make before Spring Training starts in February.  However, the roster is starting to take shape, and before you know it the Mets future will start to come into a clearer picture.  

Potential Inter-league scheduling ideas

Based on reports, it looks like major league baseball will go into the 2013 season with inter-league play happening during every series of the season.  Many people are confused and don’t know how the schedule will work.  Here is my opinion of how the inter-league schedule should work.

First, each team should play 18 games against the opposite league.  This is consistent with the current schedule for all AL teams and several NL teams.  Each division would play all teams in a designated division in the opposite league on a rotating, three-year basis.  Here is how the divisional match-ups would look:

Year Divisions Play	NL East	NL Central	NL West
AL East	2013	2015	2014
AL Central	2014	2013	2015
AL West	2015	2014	2013

Based on this table, each AL East team would play each NL East team in 2013.  Teams would play three of the teams at home and two of the teams on the road, or vice versa.  There would also be one “rivalry” series that takes place every year based on geographic or historic match-ups.  Those match-ups would be as follows:

AL Rival	NL Rival	AL Rival	NL Rival	AL Rival	NL Rival
NY Yankees	NY Mets	Kan City	St. Louis	Toronto	Pittsburgh
Chic WSox	Chic Cubs	Minnesota	Milwaukee	Detroit	Philadelphia
LA Angels	LA Dodgers	Seattle	San Diego	Texas	Colorado
Tampa Bay	Miami	Boston	Atlanta	Houston	Arizona
Oakland	San Fran	Baltimore	Washington	Cleveland	Cincinnati

Each match-up would take place on a rotating basis, with one team being at home one season and the other at home on the following year.  On seasons when the team is playing their opponent’s division, both teams would have a home series. 

Could this system work for inter-league play?  If not, what suggestions would you have to improve the schedule starting in 2013?

First look at MLB CBA changes

So, it looks like Major League Baseball is taking cues from the recent labor disputes between the NFL, NBA, and their respective unions.  Baseball is close to announcing a new CBA between their owners and players that would ensure at least two decades of continuous operation since their last work stoppage.  And in doing so, several interesting rule changes will go into effect.

I.     Both the AL and NL will consist of fifteen teams, each consisting of three 5-team divisions.

It has been reported that the Houston Astros will move from the NL Central to the AL West.  One of the stipulations of their pending sale was that the prospective owner Jim Crane would allow the team to move to the AL in return for a discount of $70M on the purchase price.  With this assurance in place, the commissioner and other parties involved in the negotiations moved forward with the equal 15/15 split to ensure a more even playing field for teams in each respective division and league.

One result of the move is that there will be a need for inter-league games to be played on virtually every day of the season.  Since each league will have an odd number of teams, at least one NL team will face one AL team during each series.  This has led to much confusion about the amount of inter-league games and the impact on the designated hitter for teams in the AL, since more inter-league games for AL teams would diminish the importance of the DH. 

Looking at the current way inter-league games are scheduled, each team in the AL plays 18 games against NL competition.  However, since the NL has two additional teams at the moment, there are either twelve teams that play 15 games and four that play 18 games, or one that plays 12, ten that play 15, and five that play 18.  So, all AL teams are playing six 3-game series while NL teams are playing between four and six series.

Based on 54 3-game series being played by each team (27 home/27 away), that means teams that play six inter-league series play 1/9^th of their games against the opposite league.  With each league at fifteen teams, only two of the thirty teams would have to play against the opposite league at any given time, meaning a minimum of 1/15^th of the teams would be playing inter-league games at any given moment.  So, each team would have to play one inter-league series for every fifteen series that they played.  Overall this leads to between three and four series per team at a minimum to allow for teams to be playing without more than a day break.

Due to this, the number of inter-league games per team should not increase dramatically, if at all, due to the shift of the Astros to the AL.  More than likely it will allow each team to play the same number of inter-league games, while potentially making teams within a division capable of playing almost identical schedules to other teams within the same division. 

This example will explain how the scheduling might work:

Games played vs Division	Games played vs League	Inter-league Games played
21 gms x 4 teams = 84 gms	6 gms x 10 teams = 60 gms	3 gms x 6 teams = 18 gms

Let’s take the NY Mets and use them as an example.  Here is how their schedule might look:

Opponent	Total Home Games Played	Total Away Games Played
Philadelphia Phillies	12 or 9	9 or 12
Atlanta Braves	12 or 9	9 or 12
Miami Marlins	9 or 12	12 or 9
Washington Nationals	9 or 12	12 or 9
Chicago Cubs	3	3
Milwaukee Brewers	3	3
Cincinnati Reds	3	3
St. Louis Cardinals	3	3
Pittsburgh Pirates	3	3
San Francisco Giants	3	3
Los Angeles Dodgers	3	3
San Diego Padres	3	3
Colorado Rockies	3	3
Arizona Diamondbacks	3	3
New York Yankees	0 or 3	3 or 0
AL opponent (NYY if E)	3 or 0	0 or 3
AL opponent	3	0
AL opponent	3	0
AL opponent	0	3
AL opponent	0	3

The only differences in schedule would result in whether each team played 12 or 9 home games against a divisional opponent and the three games against the one inter-league rival, in this case the New York Yankees.  This is just one example of how the schedule COULD work and in no way means that it will actually break up this way.

II.   There will be an additional two teams that make the play-offs as wild cards, one each in the AL and NL. 

The addition of a second wild card team in each league would result in the three divisional winners receiving a “bye” while the two wild cards would play a one game play-off to determine who would advance to play the division winner with the best record.  Unlike the current set up, division winners could play the wild card team in the divisional series even if they were from the same division, instead of the wild card playing the team with the best record from another division. 

This would put a major emphasis on winning your division, and since each team would be playing almost identical schedules with the other members of its division, it would be much more fair to each team.  The wild card winners would also be put at a slight disadvantage going into the play-offs since they would most likely need to use their best pitcher in the one game play-off to advance to play the team with the best record. 

Overall, I like both moves, as it makes the schedule much more fair amongst divisional opponents, along with putting a higher value on winning your division and being a strong team the entire season. 

There are other interesting topics being discussed, including free agent compensation and draft pick signing bonuses.  Once the CBA has been ratified and each issue has been resolved we will go back and look at the effect of each on the game.

Dissecting the Mets 40-Man

Here is what the Mets 40-Man Roster looked like on September 28^th, the final day of the regular season:

PLAYER	POS	2011 STATUS	PLAYER	POS	2011 STATUS
Jose Reyes	SS	Free Agent	Chris Capuano	SP	Free Agent
Ruben Tejada	2B/SS	Pre-arb (1 opt)	Jon Niese	SP	Pre-arb (2 opt)
Willie Harris	OF	Free Agent	Chris Schwinden	SP	Pre-arb (3 opt)
David Wright	3B	1+yrs ($16M+)	Miguel Batista	SP	Free Agent
Nick Evans	1B/OF	Pre-arb (0 opt)	Bobby Parnell	RP	Pre-arb (2 opt)
Josh Thole	C	Pre-arb (2 opt)	Manny Acosta	RP	1st x Arb
Josh Satin	INF	Pre-arb (3 opt)	Jason Isringhausen	RP	Free Agent
Jason Pridie	OF	Pre-arb (0 opt)	Tim Byrdak	RP	1 yr ($?M)
Mike Nickeas	C	Pre-arb (2 opt)	Danny Herrera	RP	Pre-arb (0 opt)
Ronny Paulino	C	3rd x Arb	Josh Stinson	RP	Pre-arb (3 opt)
Mike Baxter	1B/OF	Pre-arb (2 opt)	Pedro Beato	RP	Pre-arb (3 opt)
Lucas Duda	1B/OF	Pre-arb (2 opt)	Ryota Igarashi	RP	Free Agent
Val Pascucci	1B	Pre-arb (0 opt)	Dale Thayer	RP	Pre-arb (0 opt)
Justin Turner	INF	Pre-arb (2 opt)	D.J. Carrasco	RP	1 yr ($1.2M)
Jason Bay	LF	2+yrs ($35M+)	Jordany Valdespin	SS	Pre-arb (2 opt)
Scott Hairston	OF	Free Agent	Zach Lutz	3B	Pre-arb (2 opt)
Angel Pagan	CF	4th x Arb	Fernando Martinez	OF	Pre-arb (1 opt)
Mike Pelfrey	SP	2nd x Arb	Jenrry Mejia	SP	Pre-arb (1 opt)
Dillon Gee	SP	Pre-arb (3 opt)	Manny Alvarez	RP	Pre-arb (2 opt)
R.A. Dickey	SP	1+yrs ($4.6M)	Arman. Rodriguez	SP	Pre-arb (2 opt)

PLAYERS ON 60-DAY DL:  Johan Santana (SP) 2yrs+ ($55M+), Ike Davis (1B) pre-arb (3 opt), Daniel Murphy (INF) pre-arb (2 opt), Taylor Buchholz (RP) 4^th x Arb, Chris Young (SP) Free Agent

Since the end of the season the Mets have had to make several moves to get ready for the off-season.  The following players were removed from the 40-Man roster:

Free Agents:  Jose Reyes, Willie Harris, Scott Hairston, Chris Capuano, Miguel Batista, Jason Isringhausen, Chris Young

Designated for Assignment:  Nick Evans (FA), Jason Pridie (FA), Val Pascucci (FA), Ryota Igarashi (FA), Dale Thayer (FA), Manny Alvarez (FA), Taylor Buchholz (non-tendered)

The removal of these players from the 40-Man roster along with the activation of the players from the 60-day DL puts the Mets current roster size at 31.  Of the players removed from the roster, Pascucci has signed a minor league deal with the Mets for the 2012 season, while Pridie has signed a minor league deal with Oakland.

The removal of Buchholz from the roster leaves the number of arbitration eligible players on the Mets at four.  The remaining players include Mike Pelfrey, Angel Pagan, Ronny Paulino, and Manny Acosta.  If the Mets decide to non-tender any of the four, they will become free agents and the Mets will have an additional spot on the 40-Man roster to protect Rule 5 eligible minor leaguers or sign free agents.  The deadline for tendering contracts to arbitration eligible players is December 12^th, four days after the Rule 5 draft.

In addition to the major league free agents, the Mets had 26 other minor league free agents that must be resigned or replaced by other players.  So far two of those players have signed on with other organizations as Salomon Manriquez went to the Dodgers and Michael O’Connor went to the Yankees.  In addition to Pascucci, the Mets have brought in one other minor league free agent in 32 yr old Vinny Rottino.  Both are expected to start the season at AAA Buffalo.

The Mets have until December 5^th to decide on the players to protect in the Rule 5 draft, which takes place the final day of the Winter Meetings on December 8^th.  Last year the Mets selected 2B Brad Emaus from Toronto and RHP Pedro Beato from Baltimore.  The Mets returned Emaus to Toronto at the end of May, but kept Beato on the active roster the entire season, making him safe to be optioned in 2012 if they deem it necessary.  The Mets also had RHP Elvin Ramirez selected by the Nationals in the draft, but Ramirez was returned to them after the season since he did not spend the required amount of time on the active roster due to a shoulder injury. 

Players who will almost certainly be added to the 40-Man roster before the Rule 5 draft include Kirk Nieuwenhuis (OF), Jeurys Familia (RHP), and Reese Havens (2B).  Others who could be added include top prospects Cesar Puello (OF) and Wilmer Flores (SS), along with Juan Lagares (OF), Robert Carson (LHP), Collin McHugh (RHP), Brad Holt (RHP), Juan Centeno (C), and Jefry Marte (3B).  All players will be available to be taken in the draft if they are not protected by the Mets beforehand. 

Currently the Mets have nine open spots on the 40-Man roster.  However, that does not mean they have nine spots for players they want to protect.  The Mets must leave open roster spots for any free agents they wish to sign to major league contracts along with any players that they would like to take from other teams in the Rule 5 draft.  It is possible that more spots open up during the course of the off-season, as the Mets make decisions about their arbitration eligible players and decide on other players who may not be in the club’s future plans.

Throughout the off-season we will discuss who the Mets are likely to keep and who may not be returning.  Also, we will look at potential free agents and trade targets that the Mets may try to pursue, along with players who could be traded by the Mets.  It’s definitely shaping up to be an interesting hot stove season for the Amazin’s!

Questions for Mets off-season....

The New York Mets head into the 2011-12 off-season with many questions surrounding the franchise.  Coming off a season where they finished 77-85 (4^th NL East) and 25 games behind Philadelphia, the Mets are facing a crossroads.  With an uncertain financial future due to the pending lawsuits resulting from the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme, the Mets are faced with some tough financial decisions. 

1)    Do they continue to tweak the major league roster and make a play to resign Jose Reyes, or go into total rebuilding mode and trade away any commodity that can bring back young talent for the future? 

2)    Should they keep arbitration eligible players like Ronny Paulino, Manny Acosta, Angel Pagan, and Mike Pelfrey?  Or non-tender these players and either bring in free agents or go with some unproven young players? 

3)    Who do the Mets add to their 40-man roster to protect from the upcoming Rule 5 draft?  Do the Mets try to select anyone off of other teams’ rosters?

4)    Who are the Mets top 30 prospects and when might they be ready to make an impact at the major league level? 

5)    Who are some free agent targets for the Mets and who are some players they may try to target in a trade?  What players could the Mets make available in return?

6)    What are the 40-man and Opening Day 25-man rosters likely to look like?

We will take a look at these questions and others that develop over the course of the hot stove season to see where the Mets are heading in the future.  What other questions do you have?

BCS stands for "Bowls Can't Survive"

So, here we are.  Another college football season is winding down and the BCS formula has set us up for another round of playoff debate.  Entering Saturday, there were still five undefeated teams, including top ranked LSU,  (2)Oklahoma State, (4)Stanford, (5)Boise State, and Conference USA's (11)Houston.  A win over Oregon would have put Stanford in a position to compete for a spot in the title game.  Another win by Boise State would have added to their argument to be included in the championship.  But a funny thing happened on the way to this BCS drama.  Oregon smoked Stanford on its own field, 53-30, and Boise State lost a regular season conference home game for the first time in 13 years by missing a 39-yard field goal as time expired. 

So, the BCS has it all worked out right?  Both LSU and Oklahoma State have the clear path to the BCS Title Game as long as they remain clean the rest of the way.  Houston can make a BCS bowl by completing its own undefeated season and qualifying as the top ranked non-AQ school in the BCS.  No drama.  No debate.  But, what happens if Oklahoma State loses to Oklahoma?  What if LSU gets tripped up by Arkansas, or loses in the SEC Championship game to Georgia?  What if they BOTH lose?  Well, then we will have one heck of a debate on our hands.

Currently the BCS has two teams who have only one loss at spots three and four.  Those teams:  Alabama and Oregon.  And both were given their lone loss by top ranked LSU, Alabama at home, 9-6 in OT, and Oregon 40-27 on a neutral field in the opening game of the season.  Next on the list is Oklahoma, who was the preseason number one team.  However, a home loss to unranked Texas Tech dropped them down the polls.  And with each passing week that loss looks worse as Texas Tech gets manhandled each week.  A win against Oklahoma State on the road coupled with a win at Baylor could be enough to give the Sooners a chance to play LSU for the title.

Arkansas still has an outside chance to play in the big game, and the match-up with LSU could throw an even bigger wrench into the BCS machine.  If Arkansas knocks off LSU in Baton Rouge while Alabama wins out, then there would be a three-way tie for the SEC West crown.  Since all head to head and common opponent tiebreakers would still result in a tie, it would then come down to the BCS standings to determine who plays the SEC East winner in the SEC Championship.  Of course, there is one additional caveat.  If the second highest ranked team is within five spots of the highest ranked team in the BCS Standings, then the tiebreaker is head to head between the top two teams.  Being that they are all within the top 6 currently, that seems to be a foregone conclusion.  How big would the human polls be that week?

So, if Arkansas does pull off the upset, and Oklahoma defeats Oklahoma State, we are left with the following scenario:  9 one-loss teams from BCS AQ conferences.  Here's how they would stack up going into conference championship games:

LSU*                     11-1            L Ark, W Ore^, W @MsSt, W @WVU, W Fla, W Aub, W @Ala

Alabama*             11-1            L LSU, W @Penn St, W Ark, W @Fla, W @Aub

Arkansas*            11-1            L @Ala, W TexAM, W Aub, W SCar, W @LSU

(* One of these teams would play in SEC Championship based on BCS standings)

Oregon                  11-1            L LSU^, W Ariz St, W @ Stan    

Stanford                11-1            L Ore, W Wash, W @ USC

(Oregon has tie-breaker to play in Pac-12 Championship)

Oklahoma St        11-1             L Okl, W @TexAM, W @ Tex, W Kan St

Oklahoma             11-1            L TTech, W @ FSU, W Tex^, W @Kan St, W @ Bay, W @ Ok St

(Big 12 no longer has a Championship game)

Clemson               11-1              L @GT. W Aub, W FSU, W @VT, W @SCar

Va Tech                 11-1             L Clem, W @ GT

(Clemson plays VT in ACC Championship if VT beats Virginia)

(^ played at a neutral field)

Based on current standings and strength of teams still remaining on the schedule, the winner of the SEC West tiebreaker would still be virtually guaranteed of playing for the BCS title if they were to win the SEC Championship.  The other spot isn't as easy to figure out.  Clemson would have wins at South Carolina and against Virginia Tech in the ACC Championship if it were to win out.  Oklahoma would have the big win over Oklahoma State and at Baylor, but a horrible home loss to Texas Tech.  The remaining two SEC West teams would have great strengths of schedule, with Alabama's last game being @ Auburn.  Oregon would have USC and the Pac 12 Championship left on its resume.  Oklahoma State would have a single loss to Oklahoma.  How do you think that turns out for everyone?

It’s turning out to be a special season in college football, scandals excluded.  What better way to finish it off than with the biggest BCS debate of all time?  9 one-loss teams, two spots in the championship.  Does winner of Clemson and VT get a chance to play for the title?  Will Oklahoma’s bad loss to Texas Tech keep them out of the game?  Can LSU and Oklahoma State make this all moot by finishing off undefeated regular seasons?  My bet is no.  The next three weeks will help decide if I’m right.