So, you're a Giants fan. Not really sure why you'd devote so much time and energy to watch such a pathetic batting lineup, but you know you like Timmy and his Choco tacos. Cain doesn't know how to win, ever, but hey, he's got some good stuff. Hell, you might even like some of Zito's pitching performances when it's not the first half of the season. And maybe you like the Panda's newfound devotion to eating less than 3 room service meals a day.

The San Francisco Giants began as the New York Giants in 1883, when Randy Johnson was a wide-eyed batboy for the Boston Beaneaters. Since then, we have come a long way and won the most number of games in sports history, and since then the Giants fanbase has disintegrated to short, terse uses of "TWSS!", "BORK", and "STFD". We have really come a long way.

Speaking of a long way, where are you from? No, you can't vote for two locations, who do you think you are?

Poll

So, which area of the world are you from? (Poll answers strongly biased towards the Bay Area)

• Within a mile of AT&T Park, I watch Timmy throw 101mph fastballs from my house
• The City
• The Peninsula
• East Bay
• South Bay
• North Bay
• Santa Cruz County
• Sacramento Metro
• Somewhere else in NorCal, isn't the Bay Area really halfway down California?
• L.A. Metro, constantly abusing Russell Martin in front of Bums fans
• Somewhere else in SoCal
• Oregon, where we have no team until the A's move
• Nevada, where we have no team
• Somewhere else west of the Mississippi, I don't like the local team
• New York, home of the A-Rod lovefest
• Boston, all you hear about is the century-long curse
• Somewhere else east of the Mississippi
• Canada, we want the Expos back!
• Pablo Sandoval's house, where I spy innocuously on his eating habits
• Latin America, the home of sluggers
• East Asia, where WBC titles are won
• Bruce Bochy's big head
• Other, you're an idiot for neglecting to mention a location. I charge you with criminal negligence

  257 votes | Results

The 2009 NBA season is upon us and let's have some fun predicting the first month of the season.

This is my prediction; make your own!

Oct 28 vs. Houston:W

Oct 30 @ Phoenix: L

Nov 4 vs. Memphis: W

Nov 6 vs. LA Clippers: W

Nov 8 @ Sacramento: W

Nov 9 vs. Minnesota: W

Nov 11 @ Indiana: L

Nov 13 @ New York: W

Nov 14 @ Milwaukee:L

Nov 17 @ Cleveland: L

Nov 18 @ Boston: L

Nov 20 vs. Portland: L

Nov 24 @ Dallas: L

Nov 25 @ San Antonio: L

Nov 28 vs. LA Lakers: L

Nov 30 vs. Indiana: W

I am predicting that the Warriors are 7-9 through the end of November. Your turn!

Poll

How many games will the Warriors win in the first month of the season?

12%

14-16! I'm a Warriors homer!

13 votes

7%

12-13

8 votes

22%

10-11

24 votes

24%

9

26 votes

17%

8

18 votes

4%

7

5 votes

9%

5-6

10 votes

0%

3-4

0 votes

0%

0-2! I hate the Warriors!

1 votes

105 votes | Poll has closed

We've debated over this for a long time, but I'd like to get a collective McCoven opinion on this. Should we retain Bochy and Sabean after this year? Not WILL we - SHOULD we?

Some thoughts to consider:

• We were projected to go .500 this year, and we are currently 69-58 (.543). We are coming off of four losing seasons. Since Sabean became GM in 1997, the Giants have had 8 winning seasons in 12 years. We play in a medium market in which we can afford to have a bigger payroll than any other NL West team besides the Bums.
  
• Sabean does not appear to follow any form of sabermetrics. Sabean has done well through the draft in recent years (Timmy, Cain, Panda) and horribly in free agent contracts (Zito, Rowand, Rent). His trades appear to be average, with some good ones (like for Jeff Kent) and some bad ones (like for A.J. Pierzynski)
• Bochy appears to be much better at managing the bullpen (last week aside) than the lineup. With the help (or harm) of Sabean's roster changes, the Giants have MLB's 2nd-worst OBP and the best pitching staff in both WHIP and ERA.
  

Consider that if we were to replace either Bochy or Sabean, we would replace them with an average manager or general manager, respectively. Should we extend them, replace one of them, or fire both of them? If we put an average manager in Bochy's place, would he do better than Bochy? If we put an average GM in Sabean's place, would he do better?

Poll

What should we do with Bochy and Sabean after this season?

• Keep Bochy and Sabean
• Fire Bochy, Keep Sabean
• Keep Bochy, Fire Sabean
• Fire Bochy and Sabean

  210 votes | Results

With a majority of college football fans clamoring for a college football playoff over the last several years, many proposals have been brought forth. They have ranged from a simple "plus-one" game, to a 16-team playoff involving automatic bids from all eleven Division 1 conferences. BCS proponents claim the need for the integrity of the regular season. Playoff proponents cite the need for fairness in determining a champion. Why not have both? The eight-team playoff produces a format that will take both into account, and make it a practical change for the NCAA and its BCS bowls to make. Firstly, we'll keep the bowl season intact as it is.

Bowl Season

Bowl games will take place, with continued corporate sponsorship if they desire, in late December, with a few in early January. College football has had a long tradition of bowl games and there is no such recommendation to do away with this change.

The Eight-Team Playoff Selection

We will take the six BCS conferences' champions, to be determined by those respective conferences however way they wish, to take six of the eight automatic bowl bids. It is unlikely that we can take away the automatic bid to a BCS bowl game for a Big 6 conference, and would likely result in controversy (in this year's case: the ACC and Big East). Then, an automatic bid will be awarded to the highest ranked team in the BCS rankings that is part of a mid-major conference, or is Notre Dame. Finally, the last bid is an at-large bid, given to the highest-ranked team in the BCS rankings that did not win their conference or get the automatic mid-major bid. While politicking remains, it is now much less likely to result in a school getting snubbed. The best mid-major in the country will now have a chance to play for a championship. In this year's case, the teams would be: #1 Oklahoma, #2 Florida, #3 Texas, #5 USC, #6 Utah, #8 Penn State, #12 Cincinnati, and #19 Virginia Tech. While simply taking the top 8 teams seems more fair than simply taking automatic bids from weaker conferences, that proposal faces difficulty in being accepted because it does not allow BCS bowls to keep their matchups, and BCS proponents believe it is necessary to keep the regular season intact.

Playoffs, 1st Round:

The 1st round will be held on the same dates as the current BCS bowl matchups - at the beginning of January. The BCS bowls can continue to choose their matchups in their usual order, provided they choose within those eight teams previously mentioned. Examples of these playoffs in action:

2008:

Fiesta Bowl: #1 Oklahoma (Big-12 champion) vs. #6 Utah (Mid-major at-large)

Rose Bowl: #5 USC (Pac-10 champion) vs. #8 Penn State (Big-10 champion)

Sugar Bowl: #2 Florida (SEC champion) vs. #3 Texas (At-large)

Orange Bowl: #12 Cincinnati vs. #19 Virginia Tech

No playoffs: #4 Alabama, #10 Ohio State

2007:

Rose Bowl: #1 Ohio State (Big-10 champion) vs. #7 USC (Pac-10 champion)

Sugar Bowl: #2 LSU (SEC champion) vs. #10 Hawaii (Mid-major at-large)

Orange Bowl: #3 Virginia Tech (ACC champion) vs. #9 West Virginia (Big East champion)

Fiesta Bowl: #4 Oklahoma (Big-12 champion) vs. #5 Georgia (At-large)

Playoffs, Later Rounds:

The 2nd round will take place in the 2nd week of January, and there will be a reseeding of teams, based on rankings prior to the playoffs. Hence, teams that are higher ranked after having a better regular season still benefit. The best team will play the worst, in terms of rankings. The other two winners will play each other as well. They will each play at a BCS bowl venue again, with the choices being of those BCS bowls that do not host the title game. In this year's case, two of the following three BCS bowls will host a 2nd BCS game: Fiesta Bowl, the Rose Bowl, and the Sugar Bowl. They will get to pick the de facto 1 vs. 4 matchup, or the 2 vs. 3 matchup. The Orange Bowl hosts the championship game this year. While one BCS bowl only hosts one game, this will alternate every year so every three of four years, the BCS bowls get more than their share of revenue that they get now. The championship game will be held one week later, completing an eight-team playoff that is more fair and will generate more revenue for college football than ever before, yet is a plan the BCS bowls can accept.

FAQ:

The BCS preserves the excitement and intensity of the college football season.

This new BCS playoff system keeps it without teams getting snubbed. Conference regular season games matter more than ever, and out-of-conference games become important tests in preparation for conference play. Since only eight teams make the playoffs, every regular season game still counts. The BCS rankings still matter in determining two playoff spots as well as seeding in the playoffs, so style points still matter.

The out-of-conference games during the regular season become less important as conference championships are emphasized.

There will be more early season out-of-conference games between top mid-major and major teams, as the race for the playoffs heats up in mid-major conferences from the get go. Since there are two at-large spots, every regular season game for teams that barely fall short of a conference championship in a major conference still matter, as BCS pollsters will determine who gets in. Pollsters get to keep their jobs, even if they have somewhat less power than they do now. In the case of the Big 12 South, pollsters can still affect the outcome of the automatic bid as the champion is selected through BCS ranking. Additionally, the good teams who just want to win their major conference's automatic bid can schedule good out-of-conference teams to be adequately prepared for conference play, as all they have to do is win their conference. Additionally, the TV networks will have more high-profile games to show, due to early nonconference showdowns and the end-of-the year playoffs.

The college football season now extends two more weeks, and now more teams end the season with losses.

Yes, but this only applies to four other teams. Only three more teams will lose in the postseason - those who lose in the 2nd round and the championship game.

I represent Ohio State or Alabama and we deserve to be part of these BCS playoffs.

To preserve the regular season, we can't have either team in the BCS playoffs. Win your conference, or be the best at-large team in the country. Alabama has a good gripe, but winning your major conference will always get you into the BCS playoffs under this system.

The BCS bowls and conference presidents won't agree to this system.

I find it hard to believe they won't be persuaded to agree to this. Sure, the 1st round games lose a bit of importance. However, the BCS bowls will generate more revenue off of two games most years, than their usual one game a year. Plus, they can still choose their favored matchups - the Rose Bowl can retain their Pac-10 versus Big-10 matchup if they want to, provided they are the champions of both conferences. The Big Six conferences will therefore get more revenue going to their conferences. These six conferences are still free to select their conference winners no matter how they want, so this should not be a huge factor.

Why not a 4, 12, or 16-team playoff?

Four-team playoffs snub some major conferences, which means it won't pass. An "and-one" system does not solve the problem of fairness. Meanwhile a 12 or 16-team playoff opens up questions about the loss of excitement in the college football regular season, and the extended week of play makes it difficult for college administrators and presidents to accept. It would also be difficult to get the BCS bowls to agree to giving up so much power for such a playoff, as other bowls would be involved. We also need to keep the bowls intact.

Conclusion

This plan is ultimately about pragmatism, and this idea actually has a good chance of being accepted by most parts of the college football community. This is not a radical change of the system - it's one that is a reform of the current system. BCS bowls and the NCAA receive more revenue, and TV networks will have more exciting matchups. The college football season remains as exciting as it ever was because only eight teams get in. Eight teams, rather than two teams, get to play for the national championship. Mid-majors now have a legit shot at a national title. And most importantly, fans like you and me can finally enjoy a playoff that we have always wanted in college football.

Constructive criticism (and praise) towards this system is welcome. I may have neglected to consider various arguments that would make this system less than satisfactory, but I do believe that this is an effective playoff.

Poll

Is this playoff proposal a good idea?

• Yes
• No

  23 votes | Results

Cal Football from 2001-2006

2001: 1-10 (one of the worst years for Cal football)

Tedford hired after 2001 season

2002. 7-5
      
2003. 8-6
      
2004. 10-2
      
2005. 8-4
      
2006. 9-3

Cal had one of their worst seasons in 2001, a dismal 1-10 team. Struggling head coach Holmoe was quickly replaced by Tedford. While his paycheck is big, he has been a solid coach, turning the Cal program from a Pac-10 bottom dweller to a top Pac-10 team. Every year in the Tedford era has been a winning season, and the last three have been well over .500. What he started with, a 1-10 team, has turned into a Rose Bowl contender year in and year out.

In sharp contrast is Dorrell's impact on Bruin football, which we know very well.

UCLA Football from 2001-2006

2001. 7-4
      
2002. 7-5

Dorrell hired after 2002 season

2003. 6-7
      
2004. 6-6
      
2005. 10-2
      
2006. 7-6

While Dorrell has not yet coached for five years, we can see that there is a discrepancy. There has been no improvement on Toledo's program. Contrast this with Cal's program.

Keep all of this in mind when KD apologists mention that we have unrealistic expectations. I am sure there are many more examples of this; if you can think of any good ones, please share it with the rest of us.