CubColtPacer

Yes. He was only playing spot minutes before that. But with the Jones injury, Indiana is down to 10 healthy scholarship players and everybody but Etherington has been playing.

I didn't mind the first 2 point attempt but even on that one, the defense was collapsing and there was an open player on the wing to the guy's left. Would have been an easy pass to make. I don't even like the first 2 point attempt. Reasonable best case scenario is that he makes it with 5 seconds on the clock, team fouls, other team makes 1 of 2, and then you rush it up court for an ok look at a game tying 2 or game winning 3. Look at how many ifs there are in that scenario vs just passing it out for an ok look at a game tying 3. Under 10 seconds left, IMO the only 2 you can take in that situation is a dunk or open layup.

That would fall under being a fan which IMO is perfectly fine. Being a homer (when used negatively) is IMO completely different from that.

I chuckled that Syracuse was almost allowed to shoot 3 free throws the last time they went to the line. He made the first two, and then everybody stood there and he was about to release the third one when somebody finally woke up (I don't know if it was a ref or the scorers table) and told them he couldn't shoot any more! That was a fitting finish for those last few minutes.

they can't suspend him without a conviction. look at big ben, never been suspended. That might be a bad example since Ben was suspended for the first four games of the year in 2010 (of course you may have been joking and I completely missed it).

Ridiculous. Nobody was dumber than Ron Santo. And saying "homers have no place broadcasting" or whatever is even more ridiculous. The Comcast games are local broadcasts; why the [expletive] shouldn't there be a homer color commentator saying ridiculous things? There is a difference between rooting for a team from the booth and being a homer. I don't think anybody thinks local announcers to be neutral. But I personally don't want to listen to an announcer for 2 hours straight that is saying ridiculous things, just like I'm not a fan of listening to a fan next to me that complains about every call and continues saying they're right even when the replay clearly shows they're wrong. And the local broadcasts are becoming increasingly less local with people watching on NBA League Pass, the games that are on NBA TV, etc.

Wouldn't that depend on if the shot clock expired before the foul / while the shot was in the air? The shot clock definitely didn't go off before the foul. But it definitely was before the shot was released, and it was close on whether it was before the referee actually called the foul (you can see his arm start to go up as the clock hits zero). Just a very strange play.

The issue becomes that while the Cubs have players they can send to the minors, it clouds the future for them to do so. Travis Wood for example has one minor league option left. If the Cubs are convinced that he's a valuable starting pitcher right now, then he should be pitching for the Cubs. If they're not, then using the last option and getting maybe 100-140 innings out of him in the major league level if things shake out well is not that much of an audition. Then they're left at the beginning of next season having to decide what to do with a player who is out of options and hasn't even had one full major league season in his career. Do you guarantee a starting spot to a player in that situation? Volstad and Wells are both already in their arbitration and would also have to clear optional waivers. It's not clear that either of them would clear, and are the Cubs really going to pay them 2.5 million to stay in the minors? Samardzija of course if out of options, so he'll be either in the rotation or in the pen. Having depth is great, but there is a definite downside to sending any of them to the minors. Having a 6th starter primarily pitching out of the pen is fine. But where does the 7th one go? And is it worth the downside just to have a 7th starter available?

I said his production and efficiency are down. Two posts up you said he's the same player he was in Utah. Either he is or he isn't. He is the same player. When did I say he is not?? Just because his production and efficiency are down does not mean he is a worse player or he has lost his skill or whatever people are trying to argue. He's the same player, just not as good. Got it. Banedon, he's saying that Boozer hasn't actually declined, but that his numbers are down because of the team change and an offense that doesn't suit him as well. He's the same player, but placed in a bad situation that has caused his efficiency and productivity to go down. If he changed teams, he would return to the player he was in Utah. I have no idea if it's actually true or not (some people have posted some very good counterarguments that suggest his team isn't the problem), but it's a logically consistent argument.

yes, they should replace their injury-prone SG with .... eric gordon Well, I was just asking if they would. But at least one of his injuries was incidental and unless his latest is chronic, it shouldn't stop any team from going after him. The amount of even good 2-guards in the league is razor thin. Unless the Bulls get creative with their cap space, even after losing Howard, I don't think they would have enough room to go after Gordon. They'd have to basically gut the rest of the team to make any kind of a serious effort, and that certainly isn't worth it for a restricted free agent who might get matched anyway. And they certainly don't have any room with the team they have now.

I'm thinking there's some misreporting going on there. That deal is a dream for the Bulls. That would be a major, ballsy move by Gar. If Howard won't commit to an extension then you face the real possibility of giving Howard's (formerly occupied by Deng-Boozer-Asik) cap number to two guys like Gerald Wallace and Eric Gordon, unless you think you can sign-and-trade (still viable under the new CBA?) Howard to LA for Gasol and someone else. You can sign and trade, but Howard would still have to leave the 30 million behind in that scenario. He doesn't get to use his Bird rights and also do a sign and trade. And while that deal would work this offseason, after next year teams like the Lakers won't be able to acquire sign and trade players because of being so far above the luxury tax.

As people have said all season, this Indiana team is very reminiscent of both the 2001 and 2002 versions. Both got 4/5 seeds, and one flamed out in the first round while the other made the championship game. Depending on how the dice fall, both are possible for Indiana. But I don't think getting blown out by Kentucky will really hamper Indiana. Maybe in another year it would linger a little longer, but I think the focus would quickly shift to next year and the huge recruiting class if that were to happen. Although it would be tougher if they decide to cancel the series, and Indiana didn't get the chance to get revenge in December. If I had to guess, I would guess that Indiana would get knocked out in the 2nd round, but it's so hard to project with them. They're one of those chameleon teams that can play well against any style, but don't really have a style of their own or players they like to go to when things get rough.

If I am reading this rule right, I don't think Kansas can drop to a #2 in favor of Michigan State/Ohio State: The Big XII only has three teams on the 1-4 lines, so Kansas and Missouri can't end up on the same line. The same goes for North Carolina/Duke in the ACC. So that basically ensures that one of Kansas/Missouri will get a 1, and the same for North Carolina/Duke (as long as nobody falls to the 3 seed line, which is unlikely and in the case of the Big XII Baylor is sitting there already anyway). Am I interpreting that correctly? Actually, what it's saying is that you can't put two 1-4 teams from the same conference in the same region unless there are more than four 1-4 teams from a conference (so, the Big Ten). There can be two of the same seed in the same conference, though. Thanks for the correction. I had a feeling I was reading it incorrectly. Although it is actually 4 or more (instead of more than four), so apparently they give themselves a little bit of wiggle room on that.

If I am reading this rule right, I don't think Kansas can drop to a #2 in favor of Michigan State/Ohio State: The Big XII only has three teams on the 1-4 lines, so Kansas and Missouri can't end up on the same line. The same goes for North Carolina/Duke in the ACC. So that basically ensures that one of Kansas/Missouri will get a 1, and the same for North Carolina/Duke (as long as nobody falls to the 3 seed line, which is unlikely and in the case of the Big XII Baylor is sitting there already anyway). Am I interpreting that correctly?

He certainly couldn't have been mistaken for an IU homer today, that's for sure. But I don't mind anything he said either. The main things I want out of an announcer are to come prepared, not spout off conventional strategies with no awareness of time/score (like the thousands of times you hear an announcer say that a team has to go for 2 down 5 with 10-15 seconds left), and not repeat the same opinion over and over again. Dakich has his opinions on things, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. But I know his opinions are not coming out of left field, and I think he's a good announcer. I am a little surprised it wasn't mentioned here though when he said that Big 10 refs don't like to call fouls on Zeller :-)

I actually kinda like Xavier's resume more than St. Louis'. I don't get how St. Louis is being considered a lock or for a 9 seed. St. Louis is an interesting case. Look at their schedule: their non-con SOS is made up entirely of either terrible teams from major conferences (which boosts the opponents-opponents winning % component of RPI) or good teams from terrible conferences (which boosts the opponent winning % of RPI). Add in that the Atlantic 10 was made up of about 10 decent teams, with one good and one terrible team, and their overall numbers look fantastic. And then of course they do say the committee looks at metrics like the Pomeroy ratings, and it loves St. Louis (has them 12th in the country actually).

Oh well. I'll take that level of play from Indiana every game. That was one of their best 5 played games of the year (probably better than both Kentucky and Ohio State). Just got beat by a guy who was on fire.

Wisconsin's doing the same gameplan as last time. Guard the 3 point line tightly, force IU to drive past them, and then either play good defense at the rim or hope for no calls. IU only attempted 8 3's in the first game.

If Sheehey misses time, that will severely test IU's depth. 2 injuries on the wing in two days. And of course going into the season they thought Creek would be taking some of those minutes, so it gets really thin on the roster really quickly. Hopefully they tape him back up and he's out there in the second half.

Agreed. Can we get Ben Gordon for a TPE? Do TPEs exist in the new CBA? TPE's do exist, but the Bulls can't use one. They aren't under the salary cap so they can't create one, and they have none currently to use. They're going to have to send salary somewhere in order (whether directly or through a third team) to make a deal work.

A little note about Tennessee: they got their 3rd leading scorer and their 2nd leading rebounder as a transfer midseason. They were 8-5 in conference with him (2 losses to Kentucky, at Vanderbilt, at Alabama, and the only bad loss to Georgia) and had notable wins such as at Florida, home against Vandy, and home against UConn with him playing. It's something the committee might consider as a small factor to prop up their resume.

Marshall and Tulsa heading to triple OT. Marshall has had 5 players foul out and Tulsa has had 3 so far.

The Dolphins would be interesting because when Peyton started with the Colts, Indy fans didn't like the Dolphins. I remember a huge cheer going up in the RCA dome when they announced the Dolphins didn't make the playoffs back in 2002 (ironically enough because the Patriots beat them). That was of course the first year out of the AFC East for the Colts, and after 10 years there isn't much bad blood left.

Yes, it's unlikely but the Cubs have enough players who have shown spurts that they could compete. On offense, Soto having a 2008/2010 year. LaHair playing up to and maybe beyond his computer projections. Stewart breaking out. Soriano having one last good season. DeJesus bouncing back now that he's in a better offensive environment. Castro taking the next big step forward. The pitching staff has tons of upside and tons of downside as well from just about everybody. The problem for the Cubs is that without elite players, they need most of these to happen rather than a few. But this team isn't devoid of talent, and there's always a chance that it all just falls into place.

I assume you're laughing at the last sentence? Indiana took a team that was picked to be 9th in the Big 10 and a fringe NCAA tournament and instead is likely a top 4 NCAA seed. And that's with one 5 star and only two 4 stars playing, so they weren't drowning in talent. Beilein's close, but they have similar overall resumes and Indiana overacheived much more than Michigan did this year. (UM's starting five was/is entirely composed of 3-star players) also, you seem to be arguing more that preseason predictions were woefully askew, rather than that Crean did any great job of coaching I'm using preseason predictions because that seems like the least flawed way. You can use record from last year to this year, but that doesn't take into account the turnover in the roster. You can take into account level of talent based off recruiting rankings, but many of those rankings are out of date for players who are juniors or seniors. I also use preseason predictions because the main two criteria for coaches of the year seem to be winning in general, and overachieving preseason expectations. Let's say this. I think Beilein should be in the race for National COY as well because I respect the recruiting rankings argument for lack of talent. But I don't think the voters put nearly as much stock in that as winning and exceeding expectations, so I think he'd clearly have to be behind Crean based off of those two categories. But I don't think Crean will win it either, nor will I be upset when he doesn't.