bukie

This has to be a joke post. That or a very loose (read: false) definition of the word fact. Hell, I'd be careful of a slander lawsuit for that.

I think it was the right call... http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/1896/nogood2.jpg

Actually, the .3 seconds for the rebound/timeout is explicitly written out in the NBA rulebook. The problem with the shot is that Miller wasn't facing the basket when he caught the ball. Took too much time to turn and shoot. Interesting. Did not know that. But that seems pretty stupid. Establish possession of the ball in 3 tenths of a second (both for the rebound and for the catch and shoot)? I just don't see it, but I guess. Technically, the wording is "no less than .3 seconds", so if Noah had bobbled it at all, or if there was any sort of battle for possession, the game may well have been over. But, he rebounded cleanly and VDN indicated a TO immediately upon possession, so in that case, the .3 seconds was pretty cut and dry.

Actually, the .3 seconds for the rebound/timeout is explicitly written out in the NBA rulebook. The problem with the shot is that Miller wasn't facing the basket when he caught the ball. Took too much time to turn and shoot.

Its very well thought out, and considering its impossible to get this perfect he does a great job in counting for multiple factors and varibles. Anything is better than FIFA's methodology especially for seeding. I found it most interesting that Ivory Coast was so much higher in these rankings, mostly because they play so few home games, and HFA counts for so much in soccer. Of course, that just makes me dread the Brazil/Netherlands/Ivory Coast/USA group even more.

This I found interesting: Apparently, ESPN asked Nate Silver to develop a rating system for world soccer teams, the SPI. His reasoning and methodology are explained in other articles. I would normally take it with a grain of salt, but I have a huge deal of respect for Silver.

.3 is enough time for a quick catch and shoot. It's going to be a judgment call at the replay here, though.

The Bulls have played one singular blowout game, a 118-90 loss in Boston on day 2 of the season.

I think the home date with the Packers looks winnable also. Which means if they can somehow pull out a win this Thursday, there's a decent possibility of 8-8.

Illinois trying to remain bowl eligible for the third consecutive week. This one even looks winnable. Which means they'll probably get blown out.

College Basketball Prospectus by Ken Pomeroy and John Gasaway is available for a download purchase today. Good stuff. Also, if you are an Oklahoma fan, your team preview happens to be free.

I think the thing that pisses me off most about this is there are people who will somehow blame Cutler for what's happened the last 3 weeks.

My only respite at this point is they've looked this bad in the first half all year. As long as they don't dig themselves too much of a hole, they may yet wake up in the second half.

Plus they'll host the conference final after RSL upset Columbus Thursday.

In other news few people care about, Illinois somehow manages to keep slim bowl hopes alive by winning in Minnesota, 35-32. Now all they gotta do is beat Northwestern, Fresno State and Cincinnati...

Heh, the Bulls are in first place.

That also makes 3 of 4 terrible games for Salmons. Maybe he should just not shoot jumpers when they're not falling.

If there's one guy I want shooting a 3 at the end of the game, it's Ersan Ilyasova.

It's just simply quite unbelievable. Tampa Bay now? What the hell. For the third time this has happened...same teams. Well, technically, Tampa Bay is not the same. The difference between the Bears and Packers schedules (other than playing 2 games against each other) is Atlanta/Philly vs. Tampa Bay/Dallas.

6 matchups between winning teams this week. Seems like a lot for this time in the season.

A lot of people seem to be hugely concerned about having to root for Kansas this weekend. I don't feel the same way, mostly because it boils down to this: Obviously we have to win out to win the North, which would put as at 5-3. That includes a win over K-State. I don't see the Wildcats winning at Lincoln either, but I do think they'll beat Kansas this weekend, putting them at 4-4 on the year. FWIW, this is how I think the North plays out: 1. Missouri (5-3) - Wins vs. Baylor, @ K-State, vs. Iowa State, @ Kansas 2. Nebraska (4-4) - Losses vs. Oklahoma, @ Kansas; Wins vs. K-State, @ Colorado 3. Kansas State (4-4) - Win vs. Kansas; Losses vs. Missouri, @ Nebraska 4. Iowa State (3-5) - Losses vs. Oklahoma State, @ Missouri; Win vs. Colorado 5. Kansas (2-6) - Losses @ K-State, @ Texas, vs. Missouri; Win vs. Nebraska 6. Colorado (1-7) - Losses vs. Texas A&M, @ Iowa State, @ Oklahoma State, vs. Nebraska Obviously since this is college football it could and probably all will change this weekend. I think Mizzou loses at Kansas and Iowa State wins vs. OSU. Then the Big 12 decides to pool the best players from Mizzou, Nebraska, KSU and Iowa State to lose to Texas by 30 in the Big 12 championship.

Illinois definitely has a good mix of cupcakes (SIU-E, Presbyterian, Wofford), low-end mid-major teams (Northern Illinois, Western Michigan, Boise State), high end mid-majors (Utah and possibly Bradley in Vegas, Gonzaga in Chicago), and big six conference teams (Vandy, at Georgia, at Clemson, Missouri in St. Louis, and possibly Oklahoma State in Vegas). I just hope the freshmen are ready by game 5 (open against SIU-E, Northern Illinois, Presbyterian, and Wofford before heading off to Vegas and Clemson).

Another must read Whelliston article: Sportz make you stupid

Boise State's schedule, besides Oregon, is complete and total garbage, pretty much. TCU, meanwhile is playing in a league most consider better than the ACC at this point. People consider the MWC better than the ACC? TCU is probably the best team out of both conferences, but it's all downhill from there for the MWC. The bottom 2/3rds of the league have to count for something. Despite the ACC's awful early season losses I don't think they're significantly worse than the Big 10, 12, or East. TCU still has a pretty tough schedule though, and they've handled it very well. It's the only statistical analysis of conferences I can find, but Sagarin actually rates the ACC a clear 3rd in conferences (both by central mean and average). There aren't any huge gaps between the big 6, but there is clear separation: 1. Pac-10 2. SEC 3. ACC 4. Big East 5. Big XII 6. Big Ten The MWC is actually rated 8th, behind the independents (ND-Army-Navy), although there is a slightly larger gap between the Pac-10 and the Big Ten than there is between the Big Ten and the MWC. Big Ten apologists, before you chime in, we all know the Big Ten is down. That doesn't mean Iowa is bad, or their schedule blows (actually, they have the toughest rated schedule of all unbeaten teams), just that the league is full of some pretty bad teams this year (really, think about it...Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern and Michigan are probably worse than every Pac-10 and SEC team outside of Vandy and Washington State).

This isn't quite college basketball related, but I'm sure there are a number of people who are familiar with Kyle Whelliston and the Mid-Majority blog, and the work Kyle does every year to cover non-big-6 schools like nobody else ever has or ever probably will. Well, it would appear that Kyle has had a bit of a rough year.