bukie

Pac-10 basketball finally got credit for a top 50 win yesterday, as Murray State crept into the top 50 at 49 (1-19 now!), and Cal beat Murray State by 5 at home in their opener. An article from a Pac-10 point of view on just how bad it's been EDIT: Wait, now it went away again, as Sagarin updated today with Murray State down to 52.

Disappointing that there wasn't a single Chicago/Illinois-related game in the list. What games would even be ballpark in a list like that from a Chicago POV? Illinois-Arizona '05, for sure (hey, it even took place in Chicago), probably some of the 2005 World Series, some of the 2003 NLDS/NLCS, some of the 2005-06 NFL playoffs, and some of the crazy games in the 2001 Bears season.

Gasaway talks expansion, and makes a lot of sense.

She didn't just point it out. She said that he shouldn't have married a white woman. She emphasized the lack of magazine covers and social standing more. I think she was more pointing out that he shouldn't have married a nanny.

He should have been boning black female billionaires. Are there even any? Oprah.

I've got New Orleans and Denver all saved up for weeks 16 and 17, just have to pick a winner this week.

So, yay for that, then.

Still 4 teams left...but this week will be interesting.

In an attempt to get the thread back on topic (if there ever really was a topic)... As far as I'm concerned, any team up for consideration must have the following: 1) A football program that compares favorably to an average Big Ten program 2) A basketball program that compares favorably to an average Big Ten program 3) An academic rating that is at least average among current Big Ten conference schools I don't think the conference is necessarily looking for another Northwestern (high-end academics, low-end major sports), so I expect the school will have to have a better athletics program. However, they're also not looking for a Cincy or Louisville. Notre Dame is and likely always will be the best fit athletically and academically, but there is a constant political power struggle between ND and the Big Ten. Missouri is another name that comes up frequently in discussion due to rivalries with existing Big Ten schools and comparable academic and athletic programs. Syracuse has been another previously mentioned possibility. Also, if the academics are acceptable, a school like Pitt would be another possibility. Whatever way the Big Ten goes, the plan is to split into divisions (at least in football). If the added team is on the western half of the conference a la Missouri, the divide is pretty easily done East/West with Minnesota-Wisconsin-Iowa-Illinois-Northwestern-New Team in the West division, and Penn State-Ohio State-Michigan State-Michigan-Indiana-Purdue in the East division. If, on the other hand, the new team added is east of, say, Indianapolis, then the divisions become a bit tougher to divide and preserve natural geographical rivalries. I don't see the Big Ten splitting Indiana and Purdue, or Michigan and Michigan State. So, perhaps they go a "North/South" route, and put Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan-MSU-PSU-New Team/OSU in one division with Iowa-Illinois-Northwestern-Indiana-Purdue-New Team/OSU in the other. It may not look balanced by current football program quality, but that's not really a good basis for divisional creation, anyway.

I guess 90 page paper is a typo for "quick check on wikipedia".

Solid defensive effort today from Illinois in a laugher.

Really, when setting up divisions, the last thing to be looking at is how good the programs are, especially historically. IMO, the only things you don't break up are Indiana-Purdue and Michigan-MSU-OSU-PSU. Problem is, between Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Illinois, there aren't really many "huge" rivalries, but there are also no good geographical dividing lines.

Very similar to the Illinois-Clemson game a couple weeks back.

Those 8 wins are against Murray State, Iowa State, Pacific, Wright State, Belmont, Montana, George Washington and Louisiana Tech. The best team in that list is likely Iowa State. According to Sagarin ratings, the Pac-10 is 0-16 against the top 50. (SEC 6-13, Big 12 7-5, Big Ten 10-12, Big East 14-10, ACC 10-13...A-10 2-16, Big West 1-11, Colonial 1-14, CUSA 1-8, Horizon 1-13, MVC 2-6, MWC 3-3, WCC 4-9, WAC 1-13)

I still think that school that OMC mentions as being the best option. They're in the Big East in all other sports. I really don't see that happening. No matter which school they try to pick up, they'll be in the Big East or Big 12 in all other sports. That's not really a convincing argument against ND. Really, ND makes the most sense on a geographical, academic and rivalry level, so it comes down to pride. EDIT: And before anyone else makes some insane predictions, whichever school the Big Ten adds is going to have to be at or near current Big Ten academic standards. So, Cincy is not going to have a chance.

I can buy that, but it's the people who all of a sudden pretend college football is only about the BCS and therefore not a sport, let alone a sport worth watching all year. Sure they weren't Illini football fans? Because that was not a sport worth watching all year.

Fernando Torres on Spain at the World Cup: "we want to play against the USA again because they beat us in the Confederations Cup" I'd want that likewise, since that would mean the US was in the semis.

Who does Illinois get once this year? Minnesota and Wisconsin? EDIT: N/M, I looked it up. Minnesota home, Michigan on the road.

And, just for kicks, early top 25 based on Sagarin's predictor (yes, they're Bayesian, so it's a little based on expected performance, and a lot based on actual performance): 1. Texas 2. Kansas 3. Duke 4. Syracuse 5. Tennessee 6. Ohio State 7. Memphis 8. West Virginia 9. Purdue 10. Missouri 11. Clemson 12. Minnesota 13. Kansas State 14. BYU 15. St. Mary's 16. Villanova 17. Michigan State 18. Wisconsin 19. Xavier 20. Mississippi 21. Georgetown 22. Florida 23. North Carolina 24. New Mexico 25. Marquette I find it mostly interesting to see how long it takes Sagarin's ratings to straighten out. There are still some head scratchers, but many of the teams are settled in where they should be. It's also a little amusing to see who's missing from the top 25, as that indicates that at this time, they haven't been overly impressive in their wins or their schedule *cough* Kentucky *cough*. That isn't to say they're not good, just that they haven't done much yet.

Very impressive. I think it's the first complete game they've played all year. They had some lapses, but they were able to settle down and hit some shots. I'm starting to get worried about handling Mizzou's pressure, but then I remember it's Mizzou and I feel better. If they can handle Mizzou's pressure the same way they handled Clemson's pressure in the second half, they should be fine. If they handle Mizzou's pressure the same way they handled Clemson's pressure in the first half, they'll lose by 30.

If there were a 4-team playoff this year, which undefeated team do you leave out? Or do you leave 2 out and include Florida? The reason, to me, a 4-team playoff doesn't and won't ever work, is that there are 6 BCS conferences, and if they can't all be represented in a playoff, it'll never fly. So, the minimum playoff would probably have to be 8 teams.

How is that even possible? I can't find video of him shooting FTs, but it's not even one bad game or anything. Each game it's been 0 for 2, or 0 for 4. At some point, you wonder if teams are just going to put him on the line every time he gets near the basket.

Stat that probably only interests me: Michigan State freshman Derrick Nix is currently shooting 5% on his free throws for the year (1 for 20).

With Pittsburgh and Baltimore struggling as they have, pretty much the only team that could be tricky to catch is Jacksonville. Denver, they probably won't catch.

Yeah, the rest of the interview was actually quite good and put him in a good light, but that question/answer was just absurd. There is no context in which that is sensible.