Exile on Waveland

I like it when they show up on campus and there is no scholarship on day one. Example? You know what he's going to say. Some will never accept that the university has a contingency admission program and students (including quite a few I knew) have to make grades in the summer to gain full admission. Nor that there actually was a player going off-scholarship to pay his own way. Nor that IU actually wanted the player who is going to be a very good four-year player, is from Indianapolis, and played for Indiana Elite (remember last summer when there was a conspiracy between IU and Indiana Elite, but now IU is screwing one such player over?). There are always dark shadows behind things you dislike.

I know and we did the same thing to Semrau. Just seems like a crappy way to do business. The NCAA really favors the coaches over the kids. The over-signing makes sense from the coach's perspective -- if not, you could easily be left short if multiple players leave early/transfer/whatever. That said, I'm rather uncomfortable with the situations it can create (like Capobianco; Roth was unfortunate, though I wouldn't say unseemly). If you keep doing it, it's likely to go wrong and look very bad one year. Forcing players out is undeniably bad for college athletics.

Without getting into previous instances -- though I would vehemently disagree with the "all the kids off" statement -- my post was merely conjecture regarding Creek. And it wasn't even conjecture about him being "ran off." It's my guess that his next (impending?) injury will end his career. At that point, next year he could chose to go on medical hardship scholarship or leave school having graduated. That's entirely different than IU telling him he can't return on basketball scholarship for a fifth year (edit: which could happen too, considering Roth wasn't given a sixth year).

Foot injury. He's been in a walking boot on and off this summer. He didn't participate in the recent scrimmage. At this point, even if cleared, I'm concerned this is something that will linger for awhile.

They didn't "have" to trade him; they traded him to save money. Even if the cost was prohibitive, and perhaps it was, they had other options: (a) amnesty Perkins, or, better yet, (b) not give Ibaka a deal that he is, in my opinion, unlikely to live up to (and, yes, I understand he is skill/positionally different than Durant-Westbrook in a way Harden is not). So you can talk about Harden maybe not living up to his Olympian status in Houston, but OKC chose a player that has never remotely approached such status over Harden (Ibaka barely played Spain -- though, at his best, he might be a better NBA than international player). As to the actual trade, OKC traded an Olympian for only one proven NBA player (and one who is deeply flawed) and no sure-fire prospects (or sure-fire top-of-the-draft picks).

Depends on if you're comparing one season of Harden or if you think they'd actually be able to re-sign him. For a single season of Harden, I think OKC got good value here. Well, sure. If they had to trade him, then I'd say they did pretty well. But, all things being equal -- which is what I think people mean when they say OKC "won" or "trade rape" -- OKC came out behind. Perhaps they came out as well as they could have; that's hard to say.

How can that be? Exhibition games start this week? The NCAA Clearinghouse has to clear every player, and this (naturally) takes longer for international players. It's not unusual for such decisions to be made right before the season or even after a few games (Guy-Marc Michel was declared ineligible a couple games into the season two years ago; though neither Perea nor Jurkin would have the same issue as him). Like I said, I suspect both will be cleared, eventually; and, practically, it does not yet matter this year as Perea is hurt right now and I doubt Jurkin is a factor. Obviously, though if either is not cleared, then there's a pretty big interior hole for coming seasons and more recruits would be needed to fill that hole.

I also think Michigan State is the second best team in the league.

Zeller Technically, that may not be enough. IU is currently at thirteen scholarship players on the roster and now has a five-man recruiting class, meaning five spots must open. Three spots will open automatically upon graduation/eligibility fullfillment (Watford, Hulls, Elston). Zeller is pretty obviously leaving after this year (I mean, IU fans are laughed at when they predict he may return, so naturally Crean is preparing for Zeller's all-but-inevitable departure). That's four pretty certain departures. That doesn't include Creek, who could return for another year -- though when/if he is injured again, I'm guessing that will, sadly, officially end his basketball career. That would be the five requisite departures. Personally, however, I think this is Oladipo's last season in an IU uniform -- he's scheduled to graduate this May (preemptively, because I know the troll will read this as "IU fans think Oladipo is a lottery pick ahaha"; that's not what I mean. I'm guessing, degree in hand, he decides to make money somewhere, be it NBA or Europe, playing basketball -- I thought Watford would do this last year, so my prediction skills are imperfect, but I think Oladipo a better prospect than Watford). That's also not counting the average attrition rate for division one programs of one transfer per year. Edit: Forgot to add that, as of now, neither international freshman (Perea and Jurkin) has been cleared academically (though I suspect they will).

This the NBA/basketball and the Rockets received the best player, by far, in the deal. Trading a dollar for a hundred pennies -- or whatever metaphor you want to use -- isn't equivalent. Martin is a fragile, soft, defensive sieve that looks way better on the stat sheet than he actually is. I like Lamb and think he's underrated, but he's no Harden. As for the picks, one may not be received until 2018 and the other likely will be late lottery level. It's nearly impossible to trade a 23-year-old Olympian and win the trade. The Thunder are worse now than they were a few days ago.

That was hilarious. Especially after Moyes' self-righteousness regarding diving was later turned into a farce when his captain was yellow-carded for diving as egregiously as Suarez ever has (and Suarez certainly has, don't get me wrong).

Yeah, that was a fumble.

GET OUT OF MY HEAD

They're playing thirteen non-conference games, by my count. They won twenty-seven games last year. It's pretty silly to claim there's "no way" they'll win all of three more games this year. Now, if we're just talking about regular season, sure, they're not going 30-1.

Hey, at least you made money off of it. That's acceptable meatballism. Ha, thanks. I'm not one to enjoy meatballism. But at this point it's becoming hard not to meatball.

I know people mock the "pixie dust" histrionics . . . but I'm going full meatball at this point. And you know what? It worked. I won three straight bets at the bar tonight. First, Cards would get at least two runners on. Double or nothing they'd tie the score. Double or nothing again that they'd win. And I never doubted any of the bets. It's amazing, their luck. Oh, and I was depressed/angered enough I ceased talking to the girl I was talking to. The Cardinals are totally going to win the World Series again. With a crap team. Why the heck not?

That can't be correct. The Giants went to the World Series under Baker (i.e., won two playoff series clinching games in the NLDS and NLCS) and the Cubs won one playoff series in 2003.

Schadenfreude. Go home, Dusty.

No its not that crazy. I'm not sure they actually do that, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least considering the somewhat strong play, and the weak schedule. Plus you factor in Luck probably improving as the season progresses. Looking at the AFC, the teams that I think have no chance at the playoffs are Cleveland, Kansas City, Tennessee and Jacksonville. That leaves 9 teams to fight for 3 spots (assuming NE, BAL, HOU are locks). Those 9 teams are SD (3-2), CIN (3-2), PIT (2-2), IND (2-2), NYJ (2-3), BUF (2-3), MIA (2-3), DEN (2-3) and OAK (1-3). What a pack of mediocre to bad teams. I guess with a gun to my head I'd go SD (west), DEN and PIT. And the thing is, I don't like any of those 3 teams that much...they just aren't that good. It might not be crazy, but I'm still not expecting any more than five or six wins from the Colts. They lost at home to one of the worst teams in the NFL (Jacksonville). They've only played one road game and were dominated (though against a good team). Sure, they beat Green Bay but that was an emotional aberration, in my opinion, from Pagano's absence (don't think that can really be carried over week to week). The schedue isn't exactly murderer's row though, that's for sure. I wasn't surprised by the Jacksonville loss. The Colts still have in many parts the same defensive personnel that Jacksonville has run over for years, which is what has led to the endless number of close games with them. I'm not projecting 9. I'd guess 7 right now (2-3 against the rest of the division, 2-2 against the AFC East, 1-1 against Cleveland/Kansas City, 0-1 against Detroit). I could see 6 (with only 1 win against the East being the most likely scenario) but I don't think 5 is particularly likely at this point. There are too many teams left on the schedule who are on or maybe even below the Colts level to have a good chance of going 3-9 the rest of the way. They only have 3 likely playoff teams left on the schedule at this point. Looking at the schedule, you're right, 3-9 does some rather overly pessimistic. So I'll say no more than six or seven. The Jacksonville game perhaps wouldn't bother me as much as if it was solely due to Jones-Drew running roughshod. Sure, Jones-Drew ran for 177 yards, but the Colts ran for 124 themselves and actually won the time of possession battle (32:24-27:36). The game was lost by allowing an 80-yard game-winning pass from Blaine Gabbert with forty-five seconds left . . . yeesh. Even worse, those late-game defensive breakdowns have become de rigueur , occuring in all three competitive games the Colts have played. The defense allowed two touchdowns in the final five minutes against Minnesota (allowing them to tie the score at 20-20), and allowed Green Bay to move into field goal range in just thirty-two seconds. Those breakdowns have already cost the Colts one winnable game; it's likely to cost them more. As an aside, remember when Robert Mathis was an old dog trying to learn new tricks or whatever? Turns out, the tricks are the same: five sacks and a forced fumble in four games. (Hope his knee is fine.)

No its not that crazy. I'm not sure they actually do that, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least considering the somewhat strong play, and the weak schedule. Plus you factor in Luck probably improving as the season progresses. Looking at the AFC, the teams that I think have no chance at the playoffs are Cleveland, Kansas City, Tennessee and Jacksonville. That leaves 9 teams to fight for 3 spots (assuming NE, BAL, HOU are locks). Those 9 teams are SD (3-2), CIN (3-2), PIT (2-2), IND (2-2), NYJ (2-3), BUF (2-3), MIA (2-3), DEN (2-3) and OAK (1-3). What a pack of mediocre to bad teams. I guess with a gun to my head I'd go SD (west), DEN and PIT. And the thing is, I don't like any of those 3 teams that much...they just aren't that good. It might not be crazy, but I'm still not expecting any more than five or six wins from the Colts. They lost at home to one of the worst teams in the NFL (Jacksonville). They've only played one road game and were dominated (though against a good team). Sure, they beat Green Bay but that was an emotional aberration, in my opinion, from Pagano's absence (don't think that can really be carried over week to week). The schedue isn't exactly murderer's row though, that's for sure.

What ever happened with that?? He had one of the quietest retirements/falls to irrelevancy of any athlete who had such great career accomplishments. The quiet part is not surprising at all. He's one of the most shy athletes, especially star-level athletes, ever. He was always going to disappear (now, disappearing with the shooting incident, well that was less expected . . .).

Which is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. I hope it happens to other players also. You want to dive? Don't expect to get calls then. I'm a Liverpool fan and it's perfectly fine with me. How is anyone, without the benefit of replay, supposed to know if you were actually fouled when you flop around like that without being fouled? It's hurting the team too, because legitimate penalties aren't called because no one can trust a boy who cries wolf.

Sure. Hey, I wondered why so many on here got in a huff when it was suggested this team could lose 100 games. This was, and is, a bad team. However, add Cespedes and Darvish/Jackson and it's not terribly difficult to envision a pretty decent team next year: C - Castillo 1B - Rizzo 2B - Barney 3B - ? SS - Castro LF - Soriano CF - (Upton) RF - Cespedes 1 - Garza (?) 2 - Jackson/Darvish 3 - Samardzija 4 - (FA) 5 - Wood With the second wild card, I think that team could quite realistically contend (and I don't think much precious payroll flexibility would be lost). Especially if they win the bullpen lottery (copyrighted -- TT, I think?). The decision to spend no money last offseason is likely to cost the Cubs a chance to compete in 2013, even if it didn't cost them a chance to compete in 2012.

Same here. It's indefensible.

You think the Pittsburgh Pirates are comparable in attractiveness to the Chicago Cubs with Theo Epstein in charge? I don't, records this year be damned. He turned down three years and $27 million from the Pirates, would he have turned down, say, four years and $40 million from the Cubs? (Additionally, it's easy to call the Nationals a contender at this point, but few expected them to be anywhere near the best team in the NL; a potential wild card, yes. They won eighty games last year and their star pitcher was coming off Tommy John surgery. It's not like he signed with the Yankees to contend.)