snoodmonger

neither team looks very good. coming down to an exciting end, though.

this game is actually pretty entertaining. Nice tackle on Meachem, too.

Won't matter when we clown you in Austin and then a second time in the Big XII tourney. :wink:

when you say he's lost his "stuff," are we talking velocity, break on his breaking balls, control? All of the above? A loss of velocity can obviously be attributed to mechanics, but it can also mean something worse, so I'm hoping that at least stayed consistent.

That's really sad. One more reason to hope Donnie has a long, productive big league career.

Miami (OH) is the kind of Mid-major you don't want to play because you should beat them, but they're dangerous enough to embarrass you. KU plays them Saturday, and I hope the kids are more focused than they were vs. Georgia Tech.

Offensively, I could see him being a Jacque Jones type guy, but with more steals. Better defender, though. I don't think that's his ceiling, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's where he ends up.

Isn't that exactly what Sosa said and Rick Reilly called him on it? Rick Reily's an ass and for Sosa to pee in a cup would have killed the player's union. Of all the misplaced anger at Sosa over stupid issues, the "he didn't pee in a cup when prompted to by a douchebag guy pretending to be a journalist" might be my most hated. SSR speaks the truth.

I know it was just a typo, but I'm really digging the word "groupled."

I'm probably the only one who will find this amusing, but a year ago KU payed some consulting firm a zillion dollars to come up with a graphic look (font) that will be used throughout all of our school's merchandise. The hope was, that font would grow to be associated with KU. (Think the "carolina blue" of fonts.) The consultant picked the font "Trajan." As this video will show, that font appears everywhere, all the time. http://www.goodiebag.tv/episodes/06_trajan_is_the_movie_font.htm Oops.

It's the same league. Watson played tight end for the other team in that game you swear happened but can't prove,

I could not disagree more. I'm not sure who gets to be the arbiter of what exactly constitutes a "substantial" argument versus and unsubstantiated argument. Until IMB did the (exceptional) research, no one had provided a modicum of evidence that refuted his position, yet those same people relied on that tangential evidence to perpetually ridicule Cuse as if they had some empirical proof of the fallacy of his argument. If anything, I hope IMB's rebuttal will serve as a reminder that in order to refute a hypothesis it is important to provide relevant statistical evidence, and once that is done, reasonable people will admit they are wrong. Providing tangential (borderline irrelevant) statistical evidence, claiming it disproves the original argument (when, in fact, it does nothing), and coupling it with ridicule and sarcasm will only entrench the both the original theorist and his opposition in orthodoxy (based upon the emotional reaction to the ridicule), and it will be virtually impossible to reach a reasonable level of truth in the matter being discussed. To put it simply: his theory was wrong. The theory had as much statistical basis as did the attempts to refute his theory. Once IMB did the appropriate research, the matter was solved. End of story. Personally, if I'm going to accept an observational theory like Cuse's, a couple of prerequisites need to be met. The theorist needs to have studied the subject intensively. In this case, I mean a close, repeated study of ALL of Mark Prior's outings. Observational theories based on one viewing hold no credibility anywhere. Diane Fossey didn't casually watch gorillas for a few hours and then formulate an opinion. She lived with them. The theorist should also know the subject personally in a case like this. There's no reason to think Cuse has a deeper understanding of Mark Prior than anyone else here who watches the Cubs religiously. Finally, the theorist should also be credentialed in some way to analyze someone's psyche. Personality assessments and behavioral analysis are learned skills. Not everyone is qualified to make them. To my knowledge, Cuse didn't meet any of these prerequisites. (Perhaps he is a behavioral psychologist; I don't know.) Instead, his theory was based on observations, most of them probably faded with time. They were probably also emotionally colored, given his feelings on the subjects (Prior, the Cubs). Like it or not, not every hypothesis is created equally. Nor should every theory be given equal time in its study. Cuse's argument is just one example of a flimsy hypothesis that lacked the substance to warrant serious consideration. If anyone should have been forced to support it/refute it, it should have been Cuse. That's how it works in science, too. Legitimate researchers aren't chasing the sasquatch because they know the likelihood of its existence is microscopic. So that leaves the "believers" in the position to back it up or sound like fools.

It's one thing to say, "This isn't conclusive proof he's innocent." It's another to say, That's an accusation based on flimsy, circumstantial evidence. Of course, he weakly absolves himself of the need to find evidence earlier in the article, essentially saying "It would be too hard to do." That's weak as hell, IMO. I think you need to bring more to the table if you're going to accuse somebody of cheating and breaking the law.

I think Sammy probably did steroids, but as a member of the press, you need to be held to a higher standard than, "I don't care if there's no hard evidence, I think he did it, so he did it."

Mora? I haven't seen it in quite a few months, so I'm guessing that it's still there. I wish I could crack your account and change it. I could put all manner of embarrassing things in your sig, and you'd never be the wiser. you still have those naked pictures of me? You send them faster than I can delete them.

So who's WVU looking at?

Mora? I haven't seen it in quite a few months, so I'm guessing that it's still there. I wish I could crack your account and change it. I could put all manner of embarrassing things in your sig, and you'd never be the wiser.

I think the Big XII might have been a bit underrated this year. (Count me as guilty, too.)

Sure. While traveling through the unpopulated countryside of Estonia, Cuse stumbled upon a pair of x-ray glasses that allow him to peer into Mark Prior's soul. This has helped him determine that Prior is soft and loses confidence under adverse conditions at an abnormal rate. The rest of us, of course, have no way of knowing this, because the Trilok (the alien race that made the aforementioned glasses) made only one pair, which only Cuse has access to.

Keep in mind, we can't just provide Prior's "Lost Confidence in Himself" Stats. We also need to provide the league average in losing self-confidence, because what's important here is the question "Is Prior mentally weak?" To answer that, we need a baseline number for mental strength.

HD must be way more high-tech than I thought.

He'd have to be an idiot not to. Sammy is a decent conversational English speaker. He is not proficient enough to give testimony to the US Congress in English. I don't understand how people don't get this. It's baffling.

I doubt the casual poster knows what MPC stands for If the casual poster doesn't look at his signature you may be right. I have sigs blocked. The board is a lot less cluttered that way. as do I, and I often forget that people have sigs Did you know you have a sig?

I doubt Sosa is a first ballot. A lot of writers hate him, and most people think he did PEDs anyway, his absence from all the lists notwithstanding.

or what'smyLD%aftergivingup4runs? Haha ....cute one funny guy! couldn't have done it without you.