Exile on Waveland
-
Posts
6,468 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Exile on Waveland
-
Then you're a soulless cynic (and, if I'm calling you that, it's saying something). Kentucky had the best players and the best team last year, and won the title. So, ends-justify-the-means, zero-sum perspective, no one should trade their team's roster for UK's. I'm sure it was fun watching Anthony Davis, et al, come in awesome players and leave awesome players. But, for me, I would not have traded that for watching players like Verdell Jones, Matt Roth, and Tom Pritchard come in to a decimated program and win six, ten, and twelve games, then win twenty-seven games and play in the Sweet Sixteen (albeit not Jones, who was hurt). This, which is my favorite sporting event I've ever attended, would not have had the same import. Last year was not the best IU team I've rooted for, but it was probably my co-favorite. Also, I believe the Purdue fans that enjoyed Robbie Hummel's injury come-back and the Illinois fans that enjoyed Deron Williams' development when they say the same thing.
-
I think you mean "beat."
-
I cannot even begin to describe how much I wish IU played UK this year (especially early in the season). First, IU's non-conference schedule is too weak and playing UK would obviously help. Second, the potential for going to Rupp and winning would be . . . fun. Over the past twenty years, IU has very, very rarely had a better team than UK -- and, for the most part, the teams weren't even close (even the 2002 finalist team lost by double digits to UK). Of all the years not to play -- I might have picked, say, 1996-97 (99-65) or 2003-04 (80-41) -- why did it have to be this year . . .?
-
College Football - Championship Week (Dec. 1)
Exile on Waveland replied to Andy's topic in Other Sports
Thanks for this analysis, but I don't think twenty-one years ago has much relevance to the current landscape. The relative quality and/or perception of the SEC is so much higher now that will be far, far more prevalent than it was in the early 1990s -- as shown by it occurring three of the last five years and the unprecedented six straight national titles. Further expansion may make it even more likely than it is today. -
The Colts lost at home to Jacksonville. There is no such thing as a "definite" win for them.
-
The Bengals are going to make the playoffs.
-
Sigh.
-
I'm not entirely up on the admission standards of various schools, but it's hard for me to believe there aren't at least two Big Ten schools that are hard to get into.
-
This UCLA team always seemed to have a boom or bust feel; certainly heading in one such direction . . .
-
Nevertheless, Iowa is in the AAU and Nebraska is not (though they were when the Big Ten took them). I see your point, but the AAU is something.
-
I'm just glad I don't live in Indiana anymore. http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k113/scottyboiler/Jacket.gif Ugh. That's exactly the type of thing a front-running douche bag with no sense of style* would wear. . . . or perhaps the sort of thing a Purdue fan would fabricate? Somebody really should sell those... People would, unfortunately, buy them. Might not be a bad idea to sell . . .
-
While I agree with your overall point, that seems a rather natural match-up.
-
I'm just glad I don't live in Indiana anymore. http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k113/scottyboiler/Jacket.gif Ugh. That's exactly the type of thing a front-running douche bag with no sense of style* would wear. . . . or perhaps the sort of thing a Purdue fan would fabricate?
-
I'm not sure what relevance that has to my post . . . If it was unclear, I didn't think it was, I was re-trolling SSR about officiating (hence, the direct quote at the end). Oh, lol crap I missed that. Well played. Also is Roy gonna miss two tourneys in five years? This UNC team isn't looking very good at all. No, they're certainly not very good now; but I expect them to improve quite a bit. I think this is a better team than the one that missed the tournament a few years ago. I know SSR was just trolling picking UNC, but I didn't really understand why people thought it would be a close game. UNC is not yet that good, they have a nearly new team (either new players or new roles for players), playing in their first hostile environment, and lacked much size to take advantage of IU's current lack of interior depth. It was a good performance by IU, but I'm sure some fans are getting carried away. This wasn't like dominating a vintage "North Carolina" team, at all. Edit: It's unfortunate IU isn't playing Kentucky this year (or replaced them with Kansas, as was discussed). IU only has one more non-conference game, Butler, that will be competitive, and no true road non-conference games. Even more than normal, we won't know how good IU is until the Big Ten.
-
I'm not sure what relevance that has to my post . . . If it was unclear, I didn't think it was, I was re-trolling SSR about officiating (hence, the direct quote at the end).
-
Sure, IU was up 83-51 at one point, but we all know it was because of the officials at Assembly Hall. Sixteen fouls called on IU, twelve on UNC; twelve free throws shot by IU, fourteen shot by UNC. Everyone should get used to this [expletive]
-
They would be ranked higher if they were eligible. They had 3 common opponents as ND and played them about the same as ND. They lack a signature win like Stanford. But I think OSU would most certainly be in the Title Game mix if they were eligible. In the only poll they're eligible for, they're 4th, and their computer average (if it counted) is 10th. They wouldn't be in the NC game. How many writers aren't voting for OSU b/c of ineligibility for the postseason? Unless you know that, you don't know where they'd be ranked. I was just about to post that. If Ohio State was eligible, I'm certain they'd be ranked second in the human polls (perhaps they'd still be dragged out of the title game by the computers).
-
Being undefeated and #1 is a tough gig, I might need a moment here. Okay, I'm good. :good: Get back to us if you can get to 29 wins in a row to start the year. IU has done that twice; finishing the deal once.
-
Thanks. From those, it appears I'm underrating OU. I had UT pegged around the bottom of the top 10, but OU further down the list than #1. I would not have thought Oklahoma would be number one either, at all.
-
Nothing will happen. Adams is (presumably) not a "booster" of any other school. The problem isn't A-HOPE. Adams is allowed to do for other kids what he did for Perea/Jurkin. He is just not allowed to do it for players that end up at IU. Which is silly, but coherent.
-
The real problem is that an IU compliance officer believed Adams could/would(?) be classified as a booster -- which is a silly application of the term, sure -- when Tijan Jobe was recruited. The compliance officer -- who was let go -- did not disclose this, so IU did not disclose this to the NCAA when discussing A-HOPE two years ago for Perea/Jurkin, and IU paid the price.
-
My goodness. That's almost unbelievable, even for Chelsea. Will be sad to see Rafa with them.
-
In fairness to Jeremy, he is playing out of position quite a bit due to the lack of frontcourt depth. When Perea, Jurkin and Elston return it should help put him in a more comfortable role. Cody has asthmatic bronchitis right now. Besides playing more in-position, the game just needs to slow down for Hollowell (and he needs to realize he's a role player on this team). He's rebounded surprisingly well, but it seems every time he gets the ball he tries to do something and turns it over. Big struggle for him so far. In a way, I think freshman jitters have been apparent in Ferrell too, at least his shooting -- he's thinking about his shots too much and hasn't hit jumpshots with near the efficiency he will.
-
Such statistics can be incredibly misleading when one doesn't watch the game. IU shot all of six free throws in the first half. But Georgetown trailed at the end of both regulation and overtime, was forced to play over-aggressively/foul intentionally, and IU shot thirteen free throws in the final two minutes of regulation and overtime. Moreover, IU played zone most of the game, and Georgetown struggled breaking it down and relied on jumpshots (twenty-six of their fifty-nine shots were 3-pointers). Jump shots don't tend to draw fouls. Indiana is ranked number-one and is named "Indiana," so, yeah, they are the beneficiary of some calls. But, as a general rule, the better team shoots more free throws, the more aggressive team attacking the basket shoots more free throws, and the team leading at the end of the game shoots more free throws. IU was all three last night.
-
Yeah, UCLA looked a mess last night. Which, considering the new players and the opponent, probably wasn't that surprising. He didn't have his best game or even score, but I still was impressed with Kyle Anderson. Georgetown will present a lot of the same problems for IU that UCLA would have -- they're big all over the court (though their execution is clearly at a higher level, of course). IU is not nearly as big or athletic as they will be when healthy/eligible -- I think they struggled with Georgia, in part, because of that and Georgia isn't good.