Exile on Waveland

While I don't really believe there's anything to this, Peavy has been terrible in both his playoff starts and last year's play-in game. It certainly wouldn't suppress my desire to acquire him; nor do I think it's much more than an aberration. It's at least slightly disconcerting though.

Kansas has been impressive from what I've seen all things considered. But they certainly should have won this game.

This is exactly why I think they should have gotten more. They went out and hired him even though he was still on probation from his screw ups at OU. He didn't have a show cause. If the NCAA didn't want someone to hire him, they should have imposed sanctions against him moving jobs. They didn't; therefore, they implicitly gave other schools permission to hire him. I understand your point, but just because you aren't explicitly forbidden from doing something doesn't mean that doing it is a good idea. I'm an Illinois fan and I really don't hold any grudge toward IU now that they've gotten rid of the scumbag and appear to be doing things right now. I really hope all B10 teams do well other than when they play Illinois because it makes the conference look better and things easier in the postseason. Doing something that falls short of a good idea should not be a punishable offense. Schools should only get punished for breaking the rules. IU has certainly payed for the poor decision to hire Sampson -- with a team that will probably win about eight games this year and hopefully 16-20 next year.

Oklahoma vs. Arizona....err, UAB. OU-UAB. Ha oh I fogot about that. Think we should have no problem with BC, but Blake Griffin is disgusting. I think we'll struggle to guard him. Who'll guard him? Just pray that he gets in foul trouble early. Calasan is physically stronger than Johnson, so Calasan would probably be the best option to put on him. That's what I'm thinking, but Calasan is a hacker, I don't have a good feeling about him stopping him. Will see though I'm not sure Purdue will stop Griffin at all. I'm also not sure that will keep them from winning.

This is exactly why I think they should have gotten more. They went out and hired him even though he was still on probation from his screw ups at OU. He didn't have a show cause. If the NCAA didn't want someone to hire him, they should have imposed sanctions against him moving jobs. They didn't; therefore, they implicitly gave other schools permission to hire him.

I know you said later that they waited too long to fire Sampson, but this is really misleading to phrase this like that. IU found the illegal phone calls back in Septemberish. They offered Senderoff as the sacrificial lamb and considered it a done deal. It was only after the heat stayed on that Sampson's seat started getting warm. Then after it was a foregone conclusion that there'd be punishment, Sampson was given up. Yes, that was certainly a cynical mistake by the IU administration (who I am not fond of at all -- well, I now think very highly of President McRobbie and have no opinion yet on AD Glass). It took too long -- which is why I said IU did almost everything they could be expected to do. Eventually, Sampson, the AD that hired him, the President that pushed for Sampson (Herbert was demoted much earlier) and all the players were forced out. IU cleaned house. They were not innocent bystanders by any means; they did, however, report and eventually clean up the mess.

You don't think Indiana got hit hard? Well they got hit hard in the sense that every player on the team left, but no, I don't think 3 years of probation is getting hit hard. I don't know that they deserved to get any worse, but getting probation for hiring a coach on probation and not monitoring him seems like a slap on the wrist to me. Their APR scores the next couple years are going to knock a scholarship or 2, and if the NCAA grants them a waiver about that, then I'll actually get riled up. Considering it was IU that found the illegal phone calls, reported them to the NCAA and subsequently fired the coach, I'd say they were clearly monitoring. It may not have been found soon enough, nor was Sampson fired soon enough, but they did almost everything you could ask of them after the initial grievous mistake of hiring Sampson.

A two-year postseason ban would have been an absolutely ludicrous punishment for the crime.

The 15-point line was ridiculous. I'm not sure who thought that was realistic at all. I was hoping to keep it within 30; which I thought they were going to end up doing until Crean took his main rotation guys out when Brey did (not that he shouldn't have). As overwhelmed as the IU team is typically, the end of the bench includes a baseball player, an honorable mention all-state player, etc. Honestly though, I remain pretty pleased. IU plays hard and has a pretty good concept of what they want to do -- especially relative to a brand new team.

I like Dumes. He's got some moves. Dumes is easily my least favorite player on the team. I didn't like his game in high school; don't like it now. It's not difficult to develop "moves" when you never concern yourself with passing.

:roll: . Not really the best arguement I think he could have chosen. There isn't anything wrong with that argument. Head-to-head is near irrelevant in a three-way tie in which all parties are 1-1 against each other.

Lynch was 1-21 over a two year period while he was Ball State's head coach. That should have been all they needed to know. It definitely should have been. But this is the school that has hired Mike Davis, Kelvin Sampson, Lynch, etc. They're not smart.

Bill Lynch is terrible. I started a rant when he was hired last year, because the result was so obvious (especially to the school that hired another incompetent interim under similar circumstances). A 52-point loss to a now 4-8 (2-6) Purdue team and a final record of 3-9 (1-7). You stink Lynch.

Counting mythical titles, huh?

This is my problem with most Big 10 fans- especially the ones here. Everything is "conference this" and "conference that," as though "conferences" win anything. I realize that there are tons of SEC fans who flap their gums about being the best conference in the world in football, but the raging inferiority complex that Big 10 fans display is stinking hilarious. Seriously, you've made the point- you have tiny e-dongs. That said, I don't get it. Who cares which conference is better or worse? Last time I checked the Pac 10 doesn't play the SEC. Nor does the Big 10 play the Big 12. And, despite the name of the "challenge", the Big East does not play the ACC. Individual teams play one another, and how Tennessee fares (or UCLA, or Illinois, or Kansas, or... well, you get it) is not a product of the conference. The Big 10 hasn't been humiliated in the National Championship the past two years- Ohio St. has. The SEC didn't win any championships. Florida and LSU did. As a Tennessee fan, what should it matter to me that Ohio State got spanked by those teams? So did UT. The Big 12 is not the reigning National Champion. Kansas is. Why should Texas or Oklahoma or Missouri or any other Big 12 schools fans brag about that? Their team didn't win anything. They just lost to the team that did. I just don't get it. And I know that SEC fans are guilty of it, especially in football. That doesn't make sense to me either. If Florida destroys Oklahoma or Texas in the National Championship game, am I going to walk around pounding my chest about it? Heck no, I hate Florida. It just doesn't make sense to me. NCAA Basketball is completely different. I don't "pound my chest" because Michigan and Illinois won last night. But I am pleased to see it. Why? Because the more good non-conference wins Big Ten teams get, the higher the league RPI will be, plus it means they probably won't get bashed as much on national tv. Conference RPI and conference strength plays a major part in whether or not your team gets a bid to the NCAA's. Likewise beating SEC and Pac-10 teams will hurt their cause a little bit which indirectly can help your team even more. When it comes to football, the more bowl teams the Big Ten has, the better it is for each school in the conference. Bowl money gets paid to the conference, and is divided up 11 ways, with each school getting a share. So there is some benefit to having other teams in the conference succeed. Besides money -- which is just a little important -- the extra exposure and good press impacts recruiting. Conference strength is incredibly important in college sports.

I'm just pissed that Jrue is clearly the best player on the team and he had 2 shots in the second half. He needs to be more like Love last year and not worry what toes he's stepping on. Josh Shipp is absolutely not a #2 option on a top 15 team. Plus this team has NO inside presence. I don't know that you can say this is Howland's fault. I think Howland is an outstanding coach. However, the issues you mention are all directly within Howland's control.

Yeah, it's not like Coach Knight is knowledgeable, eloquent and entertaining.

During the game, I assured a friend of mine that Davis/UAB would find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I looked rather prescient when Arizona rallied to tie and then had the "last" possession. Then I saw a true first -- an opposing team looking more poorly coached than a Mike Davis team. The foul after they tied the game up, a timeout that garnered a possession where Budinger didn't touch the ball and an awful shot, and then the intentional foul (perhaps the dumbest play I've ever seen in the history of sport).

Ha ha, write down a victory Monday. It will get ugly quick. Texas will be a battle though.

Yeah, they probably should've been in the play-in game, but I guess the committee feels that if the SWAC were in the play-in game every year, they'd never make the actual field of 64. The committee doesn't want to have the MEAC and SWAC teams play each other in the play-in game. It's politics.

OU plays something called Mississippi Valley State tonight. It should be a nice, pretty blowout. If OU wins, they'll probably get Davidson tomorrow (11/18). A man by the name of Jerry Rice was a Delta Devil.

Having seen both teams win at IU, Ball State is definitely better. Of course, LeFevour didn't play that game -- testament to the futility of a Bill Lynch led team -- but the overall talent still seems to favor Ball State from my view.

Yeah this definitely concerns you Purdue fan. Wait around til someone says Purdue isn't a lock to be a 1 seed this year and piss your pants over it then. And what Indiana fan has said this team is going to be good at all? i believe there was talk about iu challenging for the conference title. most iu fans disagreed, but i think that it was mentioned by someone. others believe that iu will be a tourney team based on one good recruiting class playing their first year of college basketball. i can tell you that it's hard to do that, especially since i don't think crean's all that great of a coach, nor do i believe that weber is, either, for the record. crean parlayed a final four appearance 5 years ago into a top 5 job. he's a tireless recruiter, though. That's next year; the Purdue fan clearly was talking about this year. The one poster mentioned "contending" next year, but clarified that he didn't mean winning the Big Ten but merely being an upper-echelon team (I'd still say that's overly optimistic, but nearly as much). As for next year, I think IU will have a good chance at being a tournament team. They add a top-10 class, plus Jeremiah Rivers, to a core of decent players who will have amassed a ton of playing time this year. Age and experience is no longer as imperative as it used to be. The Big Ten will be much improved, but that also means more tournament slots from the conference to go around. I also agree regarding Crean. He was a great selection, but not so much because he's a wonderful tactical coach. I'd say he's above average, but nothing great. I'd place him below Weber, too. However, his nascent program has moved and passed the ball better through three games than Davis or Sampson teams ever did. So, I'm happy there.

Yeah this definitely concerns you Purdue fan. Wait around til someone says Purdue isn't a lock to be a 1 seed this year and piss your pants over it then. And what Indiana fan has said this team is going to be good at all?

I've already said this multiple times. The Big Ten is playing the role of small market team that the Cubs give scrubs to in a trade here. I don't even think the Big Ten would take Missouri if they applied. That spot is being reserved for Notre Dame, and I'm not really sure what would change their mind. If someday down the line Notre Dame went looking for a conference. Other than a football conference championship, there's not really a reason for them to take Mizzou. I think they'd take Pitt as well. I don't know enough about Missouri's academic reputation to evaluate them. Their academics are good enough, not top of the line, but solid. I'd agree that Missouri and Pitt would be the only two they'd even consider. And I still think they'd hold out and say no. Syracuse has been oft-rumored as well. Edit: And no way Iowa State is considered.