Exile on Waveland

I thought no one. It's just nice validation for up and coming programs. It probably doesn't matter to you because UCLA is always ranked and is always a lock for the Tourney lately. But for a team like Northwestern, who hasn't been ranked since 1969, I would think it would be a neat level of accomplishment for them and a sign that people are noticing. Smaller things are cool about it as well. When they are showing score on ESPN during the week, your team shows up because they are ranked. A lot of the online sites for following games only have "Game Tracker" for games with a ranked team involved. Stupid stuff like that. I realize I took it on another tangent, but there is some value to the CBB rankings. I don't care one iota if UCLA is ranked. I'm sure UMF just confused you and me. Consider it a compliment. :) I've been confused for worse. I figured that was the case, but wanted it on record.

I thought no one. It's just nice validation for up and coming programs. It probably doesn't matter to you because UCLA is always ranked and is always a lock for the Tourney lately. But for a team like Northwestern, who hasn't been ranked since 1969, I would think it would be a neat level of accomplishment for them and a sign that people are noticing. Smaller things are cool about it as well. When they are showing score on ESPN during the week, your team shows up because they are ranked. A lot of the online sites for following games only have "Game Tracker" for games with a ranked team involved. Stupid stuff like that. I realize I took it on another tangent, but there is some value to the CBB rankings. I don't care one iota if UCLA is ranked.

I thought no one.

Wasn't Hoke a darkhorse for Michigan? And Michigan's a much better job than Auburn. Gill was a darkhorse for UCLA last year. Not that UCLA is a better job than Auburn or Michigan but they aren't the worst BCS football program around. Indiana says hi. Excuse me while I cry in the corner . . . Don't cry too long, though. Washington/WAZZU trump Indiana by quite a bit (at least in recent history). The last two years, sure, IU has been better than the Apple Cup pair. But both have been to three bowls this decade -- including a Rose Bowl appearance each. IU has one embarrassing Insight Bowl appearance since 1993. Vanderbilt and Duke are perhaps IU's saving grace on this front.

Wasn't Hoke a darkhorse for Michigan? And Michigan's a much better job than Auburn. Gill was a darkhorse for UCLA last year. Not that UCLA is a better job than Auburn or Michigan but they aren't the worst BCS football program around. Indiana says hi. Excuse me while I cry in the corner . . .

Sure, Notre Dame lost to an "unranked" team, but Ohio State is now ranked and beat two top-25 teams in the same week, neither at home. It's unfair to paint that loss as a bad one. It wasn't. Also, Notre Dame has a win over Texas; Purdue has a win over . . . Boston College? Purdue has done little to nothing to deserve a ranking ahead of Notre Dame.

When it completely disappears a la Hill, you have to wonder about the mental issue. It may or may not be, who knows? From an exterior perspective, it seems to have been an instigator here.

Who could have predicted what happened to Rich Hill? It's simply hindsight to say we should have traded him before his control disappeared. Well, honestly, a lot of people said Rich Hill didn't have it upstairs and was weak mentally. I wasn't one of them; I try to stay out of amateur psychology. Those people, of course, were scoffed at. It does seem, however, that his problems have turned out to be mental not physical. So perhaps it was more predictable than you allow.

Well, first you only have them worse than 11 teams. Second, what computer polls have them so high?* Anyway, Cincinnati would have to be included. Regardless of rank, there won't be a 16-team playoff without an automatic bid from the Big East. *As I'm searching, Sagarin does have them at No. 13. I'm just surprised by that; but I trust fellow Bloomingtonians.

Why is Missouri No. 12?

They've done better than I thought. I woulda had them losing to Cornell. Northeastern too, though I still think that'll be a game. The bad news for IU is that the Big Ten's bottom looks better than expected. I had them beating Iowa in Bloomington, but after Iowa's play thus far, I'm thinking that game's more of a toss up. The other teams I thought they'd have a chance against(UM and NU) are probably the 2 most overachieving teams in the conference. People on here make fun of this IU team, but they've done much better than expected. I thought a split between Cornell and TCU would be a good result, they won both with relative ease. Yesterday's game was ugly to begin with, of course, but that was probably only one of two halves I've been terribly disappointed with (the second half against St. Joe's being the other). According to Sagarin, IU has played easily the most difficult schedule in the Big Ten (No. 37 to Michigan's No. 80 then Michigan State's No. 116). That's made them look worse, too. Problem is, as you said, the Big Ten is much better than anyone expected. I figured on 2-4 conference wins. That has become a more difficult goal than I would have thought, but one I still think reasonable. I'm not sure there will be a single game they're favored in, nor a game I will expect them to win. Still, it's college basketball and upsets happen -- especially with a strong homecourt advantage.

Matt Roth was a 3-star recruit (from Illinois) who chose Indiana over Notre Dame, Purdue, St. Louis, et al. He's not a scrub. Of course, you are right that Indiana isn't good at all.

The same right field bleacher Wrigley fans who used to give Sammy a standing ovation every time he took the field and would collectively kowtow to Andre Dawson? Exactly. Some of my best friends are black too.

if that's the case, aren't you a little concerned about him sucking ass in every playoff game he's started? all 9 2/3 innings? no. Plus play-in game. oh right, all 17 innings. yeah, now im concerned Never said you should be. It's just intellectually dishonest not including the play-in game, which is ostensibly a playoff game.

if that's the case, aren't you a little concerned about him sucking ass in every playoff game he's started? all 9 2/3 innings? no. Plus play-in game.

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level. But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen Yes it does. You don't see a correlation between starters and the bullpen? So maybe it helps the bulpen in one out of 5 games That's also myopic. The extra rest -- or at least extra rest from high leverage innings -- has a trickle-down effect for every reliever. Getting better starters is the single best remedy for the bullpen. You're acting like Peavy is some kind of huge innings eater or something I'm not acting like anything. Peavy has gone over 200 innings three of the last four season; Marquis only twice in his career. Peavy has averaged 215.3 innings in his career; Marquis 189.3. Excepting seasons when either wasn't a full-time starter Peavy has averaged 194 innings per year; Marquis 172. That's not even factoring in the performance issue: Peavy has a career ERA+ of 121; Marquis 96. Replacing Marquis with Peavy would allow the bullpen to not only be better rested as per innings pitched, but also per leverage of such innings. I'm not sure if attaining Peavy is worth what the Cubs would have to trade, but I am sure acquiring him would be a net benefit to the bullpen (barring injury, which is not terribly predictable).

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level. But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen Yes it does. You don't see a correlation between starters and the bullpen? So maybe it helps the bulpen in one out of 5 games That's also myopic. The extra rest -- or at least extra rest from high leverage innings -- has a trickle-down effect for every reliever. Getting better starters is the single best remedy for the bullpen.

Right now the Cubs are a worse pitching team than they were in 2008 and a worse hitting team than they were in 2008. The point remains they must improve just to get back to last year's level. But getting Peavy doesn't address the bullpen Yes it does. You don't see a correlation between starters and the bullpen?

Besides CCP and soapy's responses, I think it's important to note that Moore did receive a scholarship offer from Boston U. He also made the Indiana All Star team last year. He's not someone that should be starting at PG for Indiana, but he's not a total scrub either. Unlike some walk-ons, he's a legitimate D-1 player, if not a legitimate Big Ten caliber player.

Sure he could've. He also would have remained 4 schollies under the limit. As I said, he'd be a moron to do so as the classes are already unbalanced enough(and at least one guy from this year's team is gonna be forced out to make room for next year's class. i.e. later Tijan, thanks for not bringing Negedu with you) I framed it as Mackey because the scholarship was docked by IU while Sampson was still the coach and shortly after Mackey was caught dealing. How am I supposed to frame it? In saying mediocre white guys it was a half joke/half shot at some racist IU fans who are glad to see basketball "played the way it was meant to be"(with white guys) I just don't see why IU should be given credit for canning Sampson when he the NCAA was gonna force him out once the investigation was through. Especially when IU waited 4 months to do it. I mean is the argument, "look at all the losses we suffered for following the rules? Isn't this enough?" If someone doesn't end up transferring, I would assume you'll see Jeremiah Rivers pay his own way. Again, IU didn't have to dock Mackey's scholarship. I sure don't remember otherwise, and IU could've given that scholarship out. All fanbases have racist fans, IU is no different. I don't know how that is relevant. Besides, most of the players in IU's rotation are African-American. Honestly, next year's team may rely more on white guys. And this year's team, regardless of color, is certainly more enjoyable and plays the game better than last year's. Of course IU should be given credit for self-reporting and then self-sanctioning the situation. We've agreed that IU waited too long to rid themselves of Sampson, but, the fact remains, they did eventually do so. The NCAA likely would've never found out about the phone calls -- they are notoriously poor monitors -- if it weren't for IU. IU was lazy, naive and arrogant in the situation. What they weren't is malicious. I don't see how that shouldn't factor in. What would the motivation be to ever self-report if IU was hammered over phone calls?

Those players almost certainly wouldn't be gone if Sampson was still IU's coach. The coaching change instigated everyone of their exits. Regardless of the nomenclature, their departures weren't exactly unilateral player decisions. As to the scholarship, Crean brought in 14 -- FOURTEEN -- new players (including eight scholarship players), but yet couldn't have filled one more scholarship? You keep framing the issue as the lost scholarship from the Bud Mackey situation, but, the fact is, he was dismissed while Sampson was still the coach. I guarantee you Crean could have filled one more spot, if he so desired. Finally, as to your "mediocre white guys" comment, only two of the scholarship players Crean brought in were Caucasian. One is Tom Pritchard (14.1 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 59% fg) who is certainly above mediocre and the other is Matt Roth, who, if nothing else, should be a weapon as a 3-point specialist. Also, both were Sampson recruits. Both were also 3-star recruits. Now, if you're talking walk-ons, then IU certainly has its fair share of "mediocre white guys." ETA: The APR situation isn't really cogent or fair, as CCP said. Those are the rules though.

That article is specious and a crock. I'll refer you to CCP's post for more.

mahmoud abdul rauf imo i'm thinking more chris jackson kerry kittles maybe? I think you missed it.

True, but hopefully it would then be filled by a (un?)deserving player.

Eh, I think Ohio State is good. They were coming off a top-25 road win. They also present a tough matchup for Notre Dame, with their good defense and length/quickness on the perimeter. (Not that my ND fans wanted to hear any of those things prior to Saturday.)