bukie

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.

They aren't even close to Cleveland and Orlando. I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but that may be why he thinks they can be 4th. Then why say they looked every bit as good as anyone outside of Boston if he meant outside of Boston, Cleveland and Orlando? So far this year. As in, after one game.

They aren't even close to Cleveland and Orlando. I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but that may be why he thinks they can be 4th.

I think it was the whole "no ACL" issue that scared most teams off, concerned about his longevity. Of course, I'd probably take 2-3 years of Blair over 10 years of most of the latter 60% of that draft, any day.

Just as I was hoping during the draft, I'll be able to see DeJuan Blair on opening night at the UC. Unfortunately, he'll be wearing the wrong uniform.

I heart John Gasaway.

Ben Gordon with 21-2-1 in his Pistons debut.

BP's NBA 2009-10 Projections Some interesting notes from the projections: - Neither team likes the Wizards this year, despite them somehow being a trendy pick among "experts". - Both agree overall that the five contenders are the Cavs, Celtics, Magic, Lakers and Spurs. One system also likes the Hornets and Mavs, the other also likes the Jazz. - Both agree overall that the Wizards, Pacers, Kings, Thunder, T-Wolves and Warriors will be lottery-bound for sure. - The biggest discrepancies between the systems seems to be the Hawks (one system has them 5th and the other has them 14th), the Bucks (one system has them 7th and the other has them with the worst record in the NBA) and the Rockets (one has them 5th the other 11th). - The SCHOENE system really thinks the East blows after the top 3, predicting the 7th seed at 37-45.

who is the fastest guy in the draft? Noel Devine could be a top 5 pick after all. CJ Spiller? Guys fast as eff and runs like Chris Johnson. Clausen has made some nice strinds but if he came out i dont see him cracking the top 10. He still needs work. on what? Not going to Notre Dame, I guess.

Psh, but how does that make the 1982 Colts, the 1960 Cowboys, the 1942 Lions, the 1943 Cardinals, or the 1944 Carpets feel? :) The 1982 Colts and the 1960 Cowboys weren't truly winless, since they both had one tie, which counts as 1/2 win in the standings, and therefore they didn't have .000 winning percentages. The Cardinals/Carpets (officially Card-Pitts) deserve special dishonor for going winless two seasons in a row, even with two franchises combined in 1944. Nobody said anything about winning percentage. A tie isn't a win, thus those teams went winless. :)

Psh, but how does that make the 1982 Colts, the 1960 Cowboys, the 1942 Lions, the 1943 Cardinals, or the 1944 Carpets feel? :)

Here's an interesting article regarding how FIFA would likely set up the pods for group assignment. So...go Costa Rica and Bahrain, I guess.

Lovie calls the defensive plays. He's not an awful coach, for sure, but the results leave much to be desired from the playcalling front.

European WC playoff draw: France-Ireland Portugal-Bosnia Russia-Slovenia Greece-Ukraine

sulley, I love you, and I'm gonna let you finish, but Norman Bates was the greatest psycho of all time.

I get the feeling this is going to end one of three ways: the Jets get a TD, there's a tie, or Buffalo lucks into a safety.

Yea man he has not had a good stretch lately. Also, what exactly has to happen for Vince Young to play? EDIT: In the time it took me to realize that he was now playing, he threw an INT. Hilarious. 0-1 with no yards and an INT makes him the leading passer for the day for Tennessee.

Call me a pessimist, but I think it's just about time to stick a fork in the Titans' season.

I don't know why, but "Tab Bamford" sounds like a name somebody made up for a sports movie.

Brett Favre and John Carney?

OK, maybe it wasn't a meaningless tie, because now Costa Rica is going to have to play Uruguay, and Honduras is through with an impressive win in El Salvador.

I don't think I've ever been so pumped about a meaningless tie. EDIT: Except for Onyewu. That looked bad, and I'm hoping it was just a sprain.

Bornstein!