bukie

Bulls now playing .800 basketball over their last 50 games.

Don't make the mistake of commingling unpopular and contrarian with uninformed. Those are two very different things. Frankly that's at the root of the problem. Too many folks see an opinion they disagree with, and instantly leap to the conclusion that the person speaking it is uninformed, or stupid, or an idiot or whatever. Next they attack the poster and not the post, and just like that a perfectly good thread is in the gutter. Meanwhile the moderators look the other way, or join in the belittling. With all due respect, the solution is not for the contrarians to grow thicker skin and take the abuse. That's pure crap. The solution is for the board to be more effectively moderated, and the NSBB community to be more civil and tolerant. Getting rid of that Meph person was a good start. That guy was clearly very bright, but *so* disruptive. Even with him gone this place is still so perpetually hostile it's sad. There are so very many faulty assumptions posed as fact in this post, there isn't a good place to start dealing with it. Good show. And would you care to explain exactly where he's wrong? - Assuming many folks leap to the conclusion that the other poster is an idiot. - Assuming they attack the poster and not the post. - Assuming that instantly sends the thread to the gutter. - Assuming the other side is simply "contrarians". - Assuming the popular side "abuses" the "contrarians". - Assuming moderators just look the other way when stuff goes on. - Assuming when moderators join in, it's belittling. - Assuming he knows the "solution" to the "problem" of "group think" "abusing" the "contrarians" - Assuming Meph was very bright. - Assuming this place is perpetually hostile for no reason. Do you see how the faulty assumptions just continue to build on each other until he reaches a supposed factual conclusion based on complete nonsense?

And the bracket opens up for Illinois....I mean, Kansas.

Jeff Brooks dislocated his shoulder and is out for PSU. Not looking good.

Butler fouls up 2, gets last shot, wins. That is an actual strategy, but not exactly sure if they meant to do it.

Don't make the mistake of commingling unpopular and contrarian with uninformed. Those are two very different things. Frankly that's at the root of the problem. Too many folks see an opinion they disagree with, and instantly leap to the conclusion that the person speaking it is uninformed, or stupid, or an idiot or whatever. Next they attack the poster and not the post, and just like that a perfectly good thread is in the gutter. Meanwhile the moderators look the other way, or join in the belittling. With all due respect, the solution is not for the contrarians to grow thicker skin and take the abuse. That's pure crap. The solution is for the board to be more effectively moderated, and the NSBB community to be more civil and tolerant. Getting rid of that Meph person was a good start. That guy was clearly very bright, but *so* disruptive. Even with him gone this place is still so perpetually hostile it's sad. There are so very many faulty assumptions posed as fact in this post, there isn't a good place to start dealing with it. Good show.

I'm just realizing this now, but...what the hell, committee? You put Clemson in the first overall game on Thursday?

Vitters?

On a side note, damn it, Saint Mary's. That's not the way to show you deserved to be in the real tournament.

If Northwestern had beat MSU in the BTT, they'd have garnered the league's auto bid, so then yes, they'd have been in the tournament. ;) Seriously, though, I doubt it would have been enough to get them into the tournament, but if they had held on vs. OSU, they'd have at least been in the same discussion as USC, VCU and UAB.

I can assure you that I will not draft David DeJesus.

Or maybe it would be fun to somehow have the same 8 teams, but have the last 4 at larges each play the last 4 automatic qualifiers. At least you could have some drama there with tiny schools playing major programs. It probably sucks for these schools to win their conference tournament and then have to play another crappy school no ones heard of before to really "get in" Texas-San Antonio vs. UNC Asheville really doesn't do it for me at all. Texas-SA vs. Clemson might get me to watch to see if the little guy can stay competitive against a major conference team. Just a thought...not my preferred way but another idea. The problem there is...where do you stick the winner? It's essentially a 12 seed vs. a 16 seed. A 1 seed has earned better than to play the 12 seed in their first game, and the 16 seeds chosen for the First Four haven't earned the right to play a lower seed. It would essentially make it so you'd want to be one of the worst four auto-bids so you could avoid the 1 seeds. I know...its not a well thought out plan. I'm just throwing ideas out there that would specifically make those play-in games slightly more interesting. I'm all for letting all automatic qualifiers into the tournament and letting the last 8 at large teams play for the four 12 seeds. I still think the only thing that will gather interest for an extra opening round is by expanding the tournament to 96 teams so the top 8 seeds get a bye and everyone else gets a vaguely winnable game. It'd be easy to incorporate it into the bracket pool, it would give every team a reasonably winnable game, and it would make the first round meaningful.

Damn sold on the Big Ten I guess? Nah, I always do a homer bracket every year for fun, just in case the Big Ten goes berserk. I think it actually worked a couple times. 05 with MSU and Illinois? Yeah, and I think 2000 where Wisconsin made it as an 8 seed. My rational bracket has a final four of Ohio State, San Diego State (geographical advantage!), Kansas and Florida (more geographical advantage!). OSU over Kansas in the final.

Or maybe it would be fun to somehow have the same 8 teams, but have the last 4 at larges each play the last 4 automatic qualifiers. At least you could have some drama there with tiny schools playing major programs. It probably sucks for these schools to win their conference tournament and then have to play another crappy school no ones heard of before to really "get in" Texas-San Antonio vs. UNC Asheville really doesn't do it for me at all. Texas-SA vs. Clemson might get me to watch to see if the little guy can stay competitive against a major conference team. Just a thought...not my preferred way but another idea. The problem there is...where do you stick the winner? It's essentially a 12 seed vs. a 16 seed. A 1 seed has earned better than to play the 12 seed in their first game, and the 16 seeds chosen for the First Four haven't earned the right to play a lower seed. It would essentially make it so you'd want to be one of the worst four auto-bids so you could avoid the 1 seeds.

Damn sold on the Big Ten I guess? Nah, I always do a homer bracket every year for fun, just in case the Big Ten goes berserk. I think it actually worked a couple times.

It's not much different from the bracket I have with a final four of Ohio State, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin. ...what?

I'd say that at the very least, the last three weeks of action has thinned out the number of teams that can realistically make the playoffs from 14 to 10, as Colorado, St. Louis, Columbus and Minnesota are a ways back now.

It'll never catch casual fan interest until there is enough push to get the games included in bracket pools. That won't happen as long as there are games involving two teams nobody ever heard of. The NCAA is never going to cut at-large bids, though, so the only logical thing would be to either go to 96 teams, or make all four of the "First Four" games between at-large qualifiers. Well, that and don't make terrible selections for the last four at-large teams.

Certainly possible. Tone is the hardest thing to convey in text.

This might just be the most high and mighty post in the thread, which is a true accomplishment. You don't get to decide what other people think, and when the discussion ends. The apparent thing the moderator did that "cannot stand" is call you out on your hypocrisy in the thread, when you made an unprovoked attack on individuals in the thread without addressing the topic at all, and you continue to take shots at people while ignoring the point.

Yeah, they can now go at best 60-22, which means if the Bulls/Celtics finish the season 12-4, Miami can't do a thing to pass them.

Then the "Fan Up" idiots started chanting, "Refs you suck." On the very next possession, LeBron misses a layup and a phantom foul is called on Perkins. Nothing like chanting that when you probably get more calls to go your way than any other team in the league. Well, the problem with getting all the calls is that you become adjusted to getting all the calls, and expect everything to be a call.

Yeah, they're worse than Iowa.

Fielder's a lot lower than I would have assumed. VORP is position-adjusted, so the number is relative to others at the position. So, a player that plays SS that had Fielder's stats would have a significantly higher VORP than Fielder does at 1B. So, whlie his numbers overall are pretty good in comparison to the rest of the league, he's just the 9th most effective 1B.

Or even a different list, sorted top 100 by VORP: NAME TEAM VORP 1 Albert Pujols SLN 81.8 2 Josh Hamilton TEX 80.5 3 Miguel Cabrera DET 79 4 Joey Votto CIN 78.2 5 Roy Halladay PHI 75.6 6 Felix Hernandez SEA 70.2 7 Carlos Gonzalez COL 69.8 8 Robinson Cano NYA 69.6 9 Jose Bautista TOR 69.3 10 Adam Wainwright SLN 67.7 11 Paul Konerko CHA 64.2 12 Troy Tulowitzki COL 61.4 13 Ubaldo Jimenez COL 61 14 Tim Hudson ATL 60.8 15 Adrian Gonzalez SDN 59.3 16 Matt Holliday SLN 59.2 17 Adrian Beltre BOS 59 18 Josh Johnson FLO 58.5 19 Hanley Ramirez FLO 55.8 20 David Price TBA 54.9 21 Dan Uggla FLO 54.6 22 Jered Weaver ANA 54 23 Evan Longoria TBA 54 24 Ryan Zimmerman WAS 53.5 25 Jayson Werth PHI 53.2 26 Clay Buchholz BOS 51.3 27 CC Sabathia NYA 51.3 28 Joe Mauer MIN 50.5 29 Cole Hamels PHI 50.4 30 Carl Crawford TBA 50 31 Johan Santana NYN 49.9 32 Rickie Weeks MIL 49.6 33 Matt Cain SFN 49 34 Aubrey Huff SFN 48.9 35 Ryan Braun MIL 48.8 36 Kelly Johnson ARI 48.2 37 Shin-Soo Choo CLE 48.2 38 Justin Verlander DET 47.8 39 Justin Morneau MIN 47.4 40 Clayton Kershaw LAN 46.9 41 Jon Lester BOS 46.8 42 David Wright NYN 46.7 43 Gio Gonzalez OAK 46 44 Trevor Cahill OAK 45.5 45 Andrew McCutchen PIT 45 46 Billy Butler KCA 44.9 47 Mat Latos SDN 44.4 48 Brett Myers HOU 44 49 Prince Fielder MIL 43.9 50 David Ortiz BOS 43.7 51 Vernon Wells TOR 43.6 52 Tim Lincecum SFN 42.9 53 Nelson Cruz TEX 42.7 54 Kevin Youkilis BOS 42.2 55 C.J. Wilson TEX 42.2 56 Jim Thome MIN 42 57 Luke Scott BAL 41.8 58 Martin Prado ATL 41.2 59 R.A. Dickey NYN 41.2 60 Jonathan Sanchez SFN 40.8 61 Adam Dunn WAS 40.5 62 Chris Carpenter SLN 39.6 63 Stephen Drew ARI 39.5 64 Francisco Liriano MIN 39.4 65 Carl Pavano MIN 39.1 66 Rafael Furcal LAN 39 67 John Danks CHA 38 68 Vladimir Guerrero TEX 37.9 69 Brian McCann ATL 37.8 70 Colby Rasmus SLN 37.7 71 Nick Swisher NYA 37.6 72 Victor Martinez BOS 37.1 73 Brian Duensing MIN 36.7 74 Andre Ethier LAN 36.1 75 Alex Rodriguez NYA 36.1 76 Chase Utley PHI 36.1 77 Max Scherzer DET 35.7 78 Jeremy Guthrie BAL 35.3 79 Scott Rolen CIN 35.3 80 Mark Teixeira NYA 35 81 Casey McGehee MIL 34.7 82 Corey Hart MIL 34.2 83 Ryan Howard PHI 34.1 84 Shaun Marcum TOR 33.9 85 Livan Hernandez WAS 33.7 86 Jason Heyward ATL 33.3 87 Tommy Hanson ATL 33.2 88 Bronson Arroyo CIN 33.2 89 Jose Reyes NYN 33.1 90 Dallas Braden OAK 33 91 Daniel Hudson ARI 32.9 92 Colby Lewis TEX 32.8 93 Andres Torres SFN 32.7 94 Carlos Ruiz PHI 32.5 95 Buster Posey SFN 32.5 96 Ervin Santana ANA 32.4 97 Jaime Garcia SLN 32 98 Chris Young ARI 31.9 99 Mike Pelfrey NYN 31.8 100 Geovany Soto CHN 31.5 EDIT: Only Soto makes this list from the Cubs, at #100 exactly.