It's that time of year again. The master needs to come out of hiding and make his picks.
With the risk of being labeled a homer, I must say that I really do like my Tigers chances against the Yankees. New York this year hasn't really impressed as much as they usually do. Are we really gonna fear a .240 hitter that used to play for us? Verlander is the best pitcher in baseball right now and Fister's ground-ball style of pitching should minimize the garbage home runs that Granderson and Co. get (not to mention he's already on a tear). Tigers in 3
Rangers vs. Rays again? With Cliff Lee gone and the way the Rays have been looking, it's only natural to go with Tampa on this one. Don't see it. Rangers in 5
Wow, can't believe Atlanta blew a 9-game lead for the wild card. The good news for St. Louis is that they found a way to get into the postseason despite the fact that the Brewers couldn't stop losing. The bad news is that they have to face the Phillies and their stacked rotation of Lee, Halladay, and Hamels. Phillies in 4
The D-backs and Brewers seemed to both spring into first place out of nowhere. Other than that, there isn't much to be said about this one. I'll go on a hunch. D-backs in 5
Oh yeah, almost forget
My preseason Super Bowl pick was never posted. I went with the Ravens on this one. Joe Flacco went into the season appearing to have a chip on his shoulder. They just had that feel of a charmed team.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Roddick looking dangerous
3 rounds into the U.S. Open, our fellow American managed to capture my attention, and I'm sure that's true for many others.
Today it wasn't the fact the Roddick won in straight sets, it was how he won. Since recovering slightly from his fall from grace, Roddick has been using a more er, defensive style of play.
Not today.
The big American showed power that we haven't seen him showcase in, well quite a long time. And make no mistake, that regained aggression could lead to a very good tournament.
Overall outlook: Even with David Ferrer being his next opponent, look for Roddick to potentially slip in under the radar here. However, my pick is still Rafael Nadal to defend his title. Losing Wimbledon and his #1 ranking- both to Djokovic- should have him hungry. I expect him to take down Novak in the title game, but they should both watch out for Roddick, as well as Andy Murray who has been playing beautiful tennis lately. Nadal over Djokovic in five sets.
I'll make no official prediction on the women's side. It's a bummer to see Sharapova out after such a phenomenal comeback year. With that said, if I had to pick someone at this point, it would be Wozniacki. After all, how long can a player be #1 without winning a Grand Slam?
Today it wasn't the fact the Roddick won in straight sets, it was how he won. Since recovering slightly from his fall from grace, Roddick has been using a more er, defensive style of play.
Not today.
The big American showed power that we haven't seen him showcase in, well quite a long time. And make no mistake, that regained aggression could lead to a very good tournament.
Overall outlook: Even with David Ferrer being his next opponent, look for Roddick to potentially slip in under the radar here. However, my pick is still Rafael Nadal to defend his title. Losing Wimbledon and his #1 ranking- both to Djokovic- should have him hungry. I expect him to take down Novak in the title game, but they should both watch out for Roddick, as well as Andy Murray who has been playing beautiful tennis lately. Nadal over Djokovic in five sets.
I'll make no official prediction on the women's side. It's a bummer to see Sharapova out after such a phenomenal comeback year. With that said, if I had to pick someone at this point, it would be Wozniacki. After all, how long can a player be #1 without winning a Grand Slam?
BCS about more than just conference
As we turn the page and begin yet another season of college football, I suppose it's inevitable that the usual number of Boise State lobbyists will start their shouting once more.
These critics of the system have continually complained about an unfair bias toward certain conferences. But does it?
If that was the case, don't you think that last year, an undefeated Big 10 team (our Spartans!) would have been rewarded with a higher rank than those of the lesser, weaker conferences (Boise and TCU)? Yet for the many weeks that Michigan State remained undefeated, they remained constantly behind them.
...Hey, that's funny.
The reasoning behind such an absurdity is fairly simple: the screaming supporters of lower conferences have been looking at this system in the wrong way entirely. Sure, playing in a bigger conference will always boost your credibility, but there's another factor, perhaps equally big, that they are overlooking. And it's a much sillier one.
Reputation.
Before you roll your eyes, and try to tell me that "they're not THAT stupid", stop and think for a minute. If Ohio State had been without a loss last year for as long as MSU, do you really think that they would have been trailing behind small-conference Boise State and TCU? Of course not. An undefeated Buckeyes team would be a shoo-in for the top 3, at least. But the Spartans? Those bums in Michigan who have spent years being the "little brother" in the inter-state rivalry?
Why is it that so many times we see teams like Ohio St., Florida, Alabama, LSU, and etc. easily work their way back into the top 10 not too long after their first, second, and sometimes even third losses?
And make no mistake, the reputation factor doesn't exactly hurt Boise St. or TCU either. Everyone's always complaining that these guys never get a fair shake. But why is it that nobody ever points out that these two teams receive top 10, often top 5, rankings despite playing a garbage schedule?
On Friday we saw TCU fall to Baylor, an underling of the Big 12. Some are labeling it an "off-game" for the Horned Frogs, while others claim that Baylor can now be considered a dangerous team. But off-games are unacceptable when you have a 12-game season, and is anyone really afraid of Baylor?
Of course, I'll be accused of "hating on small conferences", but shouldn't that game say something about the difference between conferences in college football? Unless Baylor goes on to win the Big 12, I don't see how people can continue to claim that the likes of TCU would be equally successful in record should they transfer to a bigger conference.
At least letting conference affect rankings is legitimate. Reputation is pure junk.
These critics of the system have continually complained about an unfair bias toward certain conferences. But does it?
If that was the case, don't you think that last year, an undefeated Big 10 team (our Spartans!) would have been rewarded with a higher rank than those of the lesser, weaker conferences (Boise and TCU)? Yet for the many weeks that Michigan State remained undefeated, they remained constantly behind them.
...Hey, that's funny.
The reasoning behind such an absurdity is fairly simple: the screaming supporters of lower conferences have been looking at this system in the wrong way entirely. Sure, playing in a bigger conference will always boost your credibility, but there's another factor, perhaps equally big, that they are overlooking. And it's a much sillier one.
Reputation.
Before you roll your eyes, and try to tell me that "they're not THAT stupid", stop and think for a minute. If Ohio State had been without a loss last year for as long as MSU, do you really think that they would have been trailing behind small-conference Boise State and TCU? Of course not. An undefeated Buckeyes team would be a shoo-in for the top 3, at least. But the Spartans? Those bums in Michigan who have spent years being the "little brother" in the inter-state rivalry?
Why is it that so many times we see teams like Ohio St., Florida, Alabama, LSU, and etc. easily work their way back into the top 10 not too long after their first, second, and sometimes even third losses?
And make no mistake, the reputation factor doesn't exactly hurt Boise St. or TCU either. Everyone's always complaining that these guys never get a fair shake. But why is it that nobody ever points out that these two teams receive top 10, often top 5, rankings despite playing a garbage schedule?
On Friday we saw TCU fall to Baylor, an underling of the Big 12. Some are labeling it an "off-game" for the Horned Frogs, while others claim that Baylor can now be considered a dangerous team. But off-games are unacceptable when you have a 12-game season, and is anyone really afraid of Baylor?
Of course, I'll be accused of "hating on small conferences", but shouldn't that game say something about the difference between conferences in college football? Unless Baylor goes on to win the Big 12, I don't see how people can continue to claim that the likes of TCU would be equally successful in record should they transfer to a bigger conference.
At least letting conference affect rankings is legitimate. Reputation is pure junk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)