illiniguy

Wait, a lot coaches do it cause there are no good centers, yet it creates a mismatch? How? If everyone is doing it how are you gaining a mismatch?

Man that UCONN team didn't have near the depth of talent though that the Duke team did. Corey Maggette was buried on the bench. Give K credit though he bought....Myron Piggie sold him...he put that team together. :P

You expect him to make a post force out of that oaf Zoubek? My guess is he'd find some room for a big-time post player in his system if he managed to recruit one. Right like he used Boozer? Or Josh McRoberts? Or Shavlik Randolph? Hell even all of Shelden Williams' offense came off second chances and the such cause they were busy drawing up every play for Redick. This year he did a nice job, but he has had talent in the post there recently and hasn't done squat with them. Thus why no good post player wants to go there now. I agree for the most part but for fairness didn't Battier play in the post predominantly? Kind of, but again that's what he does now. Sticks a 3 as a post player and has him float to the perimeter.

You expect him to make a post force out of that oaf Zoubek? My guess is he'd find some room for a big-time post player in his system if he managed to recruit one. Right like he used Boozer? Or Josh McRoberts? Or Shavlik Randolph? Hell even all of Shelden Williams' offense came off second chances and the such cause they were busy drawing up every play for Redick. This year he did a nice job, but he has had talent in the post there recently and hasn't done squat with them. Thus why no good post player wants to go there now.

First, I missed this point: Duke may have been in the easiest region, but they still had arguably a tougher path to the Final Four than Michigan State. Michigan State played Nos. 12, 4, 9, and 6. Duke played Nos. 16, 8, 4, and 3. So you can knock Duke's region, but Michigan State didn't have to go through Kansas-Ohio State. Other teams did the heavy lifting for them in the region. Second, I simply do not agree that Michigan State wins the title if Lucas plays. This is a ridiculous leap in logic that (i) they automatically win; (ii) a title this year makes Izzo better than Coach K; and (iii) this year is the only reason I think Coach K is better. As to the last point, I think Coach K is better because he's had more sustained success than Izzo. Well we have to agree to disagree. I think that what Izzo has done has been much more impressive considering I think the deck is always stacked for K and Duke. The ACC has basically had to apologize two different times for referees blatantly giving games to Duke on the road in conference play. It's subjective, but maybe you're right and Duke does get all the breaks now. However, do you believe that's always been the case? I mean, the second Coach K stepped onto Duke's campus they got all the calls (despite records of 17-13, 10-17, 11-17)? Surely not; so, at some point, he had to be winning without the help. No, you are right early to mid 90's K was a great coach. I don't think he has been very good since. In fact I think that he had a team with Brand and the boys that only a bafoon could have messed up, and he did. He is also horrible now at using his post players. Christian I can't spell his name,Laetner? wouldn't be effective for him anymore becuase he has fased the post player as an offensive force out of his system.

First, I missed this point: Duke may have been in the easiest region, but they still had arguably a tougher path to the Final Four than Michigan State. Michigan State played Nos. 12, 4, 9, and 6. Duke played Nos. 16, 8, 4, and 3. So you can knock Duke's region, but Michigan State didn't have to go through Kansas-Ohio State. Other teams did the heavy lifting for them in the region. Second, I simply do not agree that Michigan State wins the title if Lucas plays. This is a ridiculous leap in logic that (i) they automatically win; (ii) a title this year makes Izzo better than Coach K; and (iii) this year is the only reason I think Coach K is better. As to the last point, I think Coach K is better because he's had more sustained success than Izzo. Well we have to agree to disagree. I think that what Izzo has done has been much more impressive considering I think the deck is always stacked for K and Duke. The ACC has basically had to apologize two different times for referees blatantly giving games to Duke on the road in conference play.

I'll stand by my argument that that there's no comparison between the 2 when it comes to actual coaching. I'd say you're right. Coach K is clearly better. Because he had the easiest region compared to the others and coached a team full of McDonalds All Americans to a title, while getting the benefit of the doubt on calls the entire way? Again, a lot of them are McDonalds All Americans because they're going to Duke, not because they're actually that good (with some obvious exceptions). This is one of the least talented teams to win the title in recent memory. I'm not going to get into an officiating argument, though I definitely have Duke officiating wounds from 1992. I would still take Izzo to run my program. He's cutting the nets down if Lucas doesn't get hurt this year. So I guess Kalin Lucas being hurt is the reason you think that K is the better coach.

If we're talking in tournament results, it's still Izzo by a decent margin. Coach K: 30 years, 11 Final Fours, 4 National Titles. Izzo: 15 years, 5 Final Fours, 1 National Title. However, Michigan State has been a No. 1 seed only three times under Izzo and they made the Final Four all three times and they've been a top-four seed only two other times (No. 4 in 1998, Sweet 16 and No. 2 last year when they made the title game). Each time Izzo's been a favorite to make the Final Four, Michigan State has and they've also made the Final Four twice as a No. 5 seed. Duke's been a No. 1 seed 11 times, a No. 2 seed another seven times and a No. 3 seed five times. They missed the Final Four five times as a No. 1 seed and only made the Final Four once when seeded lower than No. 2 (and that was as a No. 3). In terms of seed and how the team was expected to do. Izzo: Overperformed five times, played to seed six times, underperformed twice in 13 tournament appearances. Coach K: Overperformed 6 times (though not since 1994), played to seed seven times and underperformed 13 times in 26 tournament appearances. So Coach K's teams have done worse than their seed said they would every other time they appeared in the tournament. If we're looking at regular season stuff, then it's tough to tell because then you get into which school can get and does get the better recruits and whether those recruits did better or worse than expected during the season. Obviously Coach K's teams have done a hell of a lot better during the regular season which is why they get a top three seed nearly every year. But my original statement was just about tournament performances and there's no doubt in my mind that Izzo does a better job come tournament time. The regular season is also skewed by Duke never playing true road games.

I'll stand by my argument that that there's no comparison between the 2 when it comes to actual coaching. Coach K does have the market cornered on having his players coached up to hack the crap out of a ballhandler yet not get a foul called. If Izzo masters that, look out.

I'll stand by my argument that that there's no comparison between the 2 when it comes to actual coaching. I'd say you're right. Coach K is clearly better. Because he had the easiest region compared to the others and coached a team full of McDonalds All Americans to a title, while getting the benefit of the doubt on calls the entire way?

You could look at it that way, or you could look at it as mid major teams becoming more competitive in the past few years, which might lead to more opportunities. If Michigan State can make it to the final 4 as often as they have, I've got to believe mid majors will have more opportunities. Butler's only losing one player (Veasley) so who knows, they could have another shot next year. Really though this was the weakest field ever. College bball should be a lot better next year. I doubt Butler gets this far again. They had a great shot against a less than super opponent. Gave it a hell of a run. Why will college basketball be better next year? I don't think I can agree with that. Second, while I doubt Butler makes it back to the title game, they figure to be even better next year (assuming, as I do, that Hayward returns). Well I've read that this was supposed to be the recruiting class that will replenish the college game. Maybe I am expecting too much, but I really think a lot of the good teams will get a lot better next year.

No reason to laugh, most of us want our GM gone as well.

RPI is trash, but you can definitely game it without playing Big 6 teams. it's total trash, and the selection committee claims they don't use it (which is BS, because they have to compare a bunch of schedules that have no similarities). It won't have to anymore everyone will be in. I just wonder if they will put a bubble team in like an Illinois or Uconn this year and give them a bye before they do the auto bids from smaller conferences. I think they will and that's a crime.

You could look at it that way, or you could look at it as mid major teams becoming more competitive in the past few years, which might lead to more opportunities. If Michigan State can make it to the final 4 as often as they have, I've got to believe mid majors will have more opportunities. Butler's only losing one player (Veasley) so who knows, they could have another shot next year. Really though this was the weakest field ever. College bball should be a lot better next year. I doubt Butler gets this far again. They had a great shot against a less than super opponent. Gave it a hell of a run.

I hear ya, but on the illini scout board they are saying he was talking about it. I don't get the kid, he's buddies with all our our guys, but doesn't want to come here. Is he a Fire guy, or is he with the Wolves? Irvin is helping him in his recruitment.

I hear ya, but on the illini scout board they are saying he was talking about it. I don't get the kid, he's buddies with all our our guys, but doesn't want to come here.

Ya, if DePaul is in the tourney in the next 3-4 years, that would be a step up. Not a great hire, but could be worse. Problem is, there will be no way to tell if he's doing anything positive except recruiting for 18 months because they're so bad now. Mike Shaw is a pretty good litmus test right away.

Man that was almost the best game ever. No way will a mid major ever win it. That was the chance.

You are officially to blame for everything that happens between now and the end of the season. Are you Jim Hendry?

You know better than that.

Yes. Also, we won the 2003 NLCS and our team isn't named after the baby version of an animal. We win the series then after that? Of course not. The Cubs will never win the World Series. But, we weren't the cubs in this scenario?

Yes. Also, we won the 2003 NLCS and our team isn't named after the baby version of an animal. We win the series then after that?

I love the no trade clause, like that's gonna be an issue.

And while we were doing it, when he came back out for another inning with 115 pitches already thrown, in a 10-run game, many fans would still be defending the decision. Perfect mechanics

Mark Prior was pretty big. and he got hit on the elbow with a line drive, his pitching elbow, just when he looked like he was putting it together. his [expletive] pitching elbow Dusty killed him and he was probably going to be done within months regardless. He began having arm problems that spring, before the line drive off the elbow. Not to mention sending him back out there after the line drive... The real kicker is say we had drafted Strasberg, anyone think we wouldn't have broke this one as well?