CubColtPacer

the fact that they were the ones that inititated the brawl with the fans? you can blame whoever you want for what led up to it, but the bottom line is that artest was the one who went into the stands and started it and if artest and jackson don't go into the stands to begin with, it never happens at all. the pacers had some scumbags on their team that lost it and went berserk. thats the pacers fault. I agree with both of those points, and Artest and Jackson should have both had lengthy suspensions for that. But they weren't the only ones at fault, nor did they do anything that hadn't been done before. But it was treated that way. I have/had no problem with the Pacers suspensions; their actions were indefensible. And, at least for Artest and Jackson (if not O'Neal), their personalities/character indicated that such an incident was not necessarily a one-time deal. It was Maxwell's suspension that should be viewed as an anamoly and too light; not vice versa. If you enter the stands and fight fans, the punishment should be severe. However, what was not fair, is how light the Pistons were treated. Not necessarily the players, but the franchise. They should have been forced to play some games without fans a la soccer matches, or something. The reason security exists is to prevent idiots like Artest and Jackson from going into the stands and idiots like Turtle-as-Piston-fan coming onto the court. They completely failed and that failure led to one of the darkest moments in NBA history. Yeah, now that I think about it more, that's what gets to the heart of it for me. I am perfectly fine with severe suspensions for fighting fans especially in the stands. That's close to the worst thing you can do in the sports world. I think O'Neal's suspension was a little heavy because the fan came onto the players' turf in an already crazy situation. Other than that, whatever message the NBA wants to send about going into the stands is fine with me. Just be consistent about it. But the fact that the Pistons got off so lightly comparatively makes no sense. They have a responsibility to protect the fans and the visiting team, and they spectacularly failed. The brawl couldn't have happened at many arenas because most teams are more responsible than that.

the fact that they were the ones that inititated the brawl with the fans? you can blame whoever you want for what led up to it, but the bottom line is that artest was the one who went into the stands and started it and if artest and jackson don't go into the stands to begin with, it never happens at all. the pacers had some scumbags on their team that lost it and went berserk. thats the pacers fault. I agree with both of those points, and Artest and Jackson should have both had lengthy suspensions for that. But they weren't the only ones at fault, nor did they do anything that hadn't been done before. But it was treated that way.

Look at the two situations: Maxwell goes into the stands to go after a heckler (who as far as I know, wasn't in trouble with the arena) and punches him. The NBA suspends him 10 games. The Pistons let a guy in who they know is trouble. They talk to him at halftime but let him stay. He throws a beer on Artest who charges into the stands. Jackson follows him and throws a punch. O'Neal stays on the court and throws a punch at a fan who comes on to the court. The NBA suspends Artest for the whole season, Jackson for 30, O'Neal for 25. What was so much worse about what the Pacers did that justified the much longer suspensions? The brawl got so much worse because it was allowed to keep going on. Fans were allowed on the court, a fan ripped a chair out and threw it at the players, the players and coaches had trouble getting through the tunnel. If Artest and Jackson go into the stands and its broken up by security, they get 10-20 game suspensions and nobody remembers the brawl today.

Great article. What a horrible weekend for Pacers fans. They were one of the favorites to win the title to give Reggie his first ring. Then the brawl happens and after the game all the news coverage focused on how badly it was handled by Detroit. By morning, it was all on Artest but people still thought the suspension would be between 10-30 games (there was precedent for NBA players going into the stands in Vernon Maxwell). When the suspensions came out everyone was stunned, even the analysts who thought that the Pacers should be severely punished. The thing that annoys Pacers fans to this day is that everybody failed that night. Detroit security was terrible. The referees didn't do their job. The fans were awful. If any of those do their job, this either doesn't happen or at least doesn't become nearly as bad. But when the penalties came down, Detroit got off basically scot free while the Pacers were destroyed. I mean, O'Neal got 25 games initially for fighting a fan who chose to come on the court for the purpose of trying to fight the Pacers! The Pacers actions were deplorable that night, but the penalties became a complete PR decision by the league to try to preserve their image as best they could instead of having anything to do with fairness. With all that said though, I'm glad that Pacers team is gone. The players on that team with the actions of the brawl and the years after might have permanently damaged NBA basketball in Indiana. And for those who were here and experienced how Pacers crazy this town used to be, that's a shame.

See, I told you guys we would win. =D> Lunardi says IU is now locked in as at least a 4 seed for the NCAA tourney and could push their way into a 3 seed. \:D/ I'm a little surprised. I figured that if they lost to Purdue and either Nebraska/Penn State that they'd probably slip to a 5. I think to have a good shot at a 3 they'd have to beat Purdue and make it to Saturday of the BTT. That would give them a good opportunity to steal a 3 seed from whichever team slips right above them. It looks like the only way for them to get a bye in the BTT now is taking it away from Ohio State if they lose their last two games, which isn't all that likely. Otherwise it would be 5th seed if they beat Purdue and 6th seed if they don't.

This would be the 7th straight game that Indiana has outshot their opponents from the FT line, and 3 of those were road games. Basically ever since Jones went out with his injury and Oladipo was given the ball in his hands much more the free throws have been consistently high.

Big difference in the first half was Oladipo getting to the basket early and drawing those fouls. Both teams committed some non-shooting fouls late in the half, but since Oladipo did that Indiana was already in the bonus when those fouls were committed while Michigan State was not. So there is only a 4 foul difference (Michigan State 10, Indiana 6) but a 13 free throw difference because other than the loose ball foul on Green's 3, Indiana has shot free throws on every single Michigan State foul so far.

It's funny how irrational fans can get about past success/failure at a place. I was dreading the Minnesota game because IU has played so horribly there even when they had better teams than Minnesota almost every year. And I am irrationally a little more confident than I should be about this game because IU played so well against Michigan State at home in both the Mike Davis/Kelvin Sampson years despite regularly being the underdog.

That's fine. I think for once we're going to get the Colts pick right!

:roll: who won a national title and was national player of the year again? IU homer much? You misunderstand me. I was talking about their pro potential. Zeller has almost no chance to be close to as good as Hansborough was in college. But Hansborough is an unorthodox player who is having to unlearn parts of his game in order to get better in the NBA. It's kind of like Tebow, but Hansborough doesn't have the problem of playing the most important position in the sport like Tebow does. Zeller is a much more traditional type of player who has higher upside than Hansborough, but could struggle to make any kind of dent in the NBA if he does not develop properly. BTW, I think Leonard has more potential than either one.

Zeller is a four year Hansborough type. There's not much more to max out. He's going nowhere. Haha, you're joking.... Right? I can see him staying, but he doesn't have to. Indiana fans would be shocked if Zeller left. His family places such a strong emphasis on education. It's seen as he has almost no chance to leave after this year, a small but plausible chance after year two, a pretty good chance after year 3, and it wouldn't be shocking if he stays all 4. But having watched both of them this year, he's nothing like Hansborough. Hansborough uses his toughness and his unorthodox style to draw fouls along with a decent 15 foot jumper. But Hansborough has no idea how to pass the ball or play defense. Zeller's a much more skilled big man who needs to get stronger and develop a jump shot, but already has a much better basketball sense than Hansborough will ever have.

The pitching won't be worse because the guys we were throwing out there last year were #6, #7, & #8 quality starters. Maholm, Wood, Volstad, Wells, and Samardzija are at least #5 starters on most teams and maybe #4, but we are putting them at #3-#5. What sort of numbers would you expect out of a #3 starter? Edit: I somewhat agree with you, but only in the current depressed offensive environment, and one of them will likely be good enough to be a #3 (but it's impossible to tell which one right now). Of course that same bad offensive environment will help the Cubs lineup to not be as horrific as it would have been in the middle of the decade.

Pointless, most college kickers can't get touchbacks from the 35 anyway. The biggest change for safety is that now the kicking team can only have a 5 yard running start. The move to the 35 just helps the kicking team compensate for that change. They're also requiring players who lose their helmet to come out of the game for 1 play.

It's a great story, but I really doubt KU s gonna start playing games against other name programs unless it's part of a tournament, odds are that will turn into another cupcake game at home. Great entertainment. And that's the issue. Kansas already has a certain number of slots for their name schools on their schedule. They play in many tournaments, so there is already limited room. Scheduling Missouri would take one slot away from that limited room. They aren't going to give up a cupcake to schedule Missouri every year because the home revenue is just too much to pass up. Is the rivalry so good that it takes them away from playing teams like Ohio State this year? Apparently for Kansas it isn't. I support Kansas in this even though I've been on the other side of the fence this year. The Kentucky-Indiana series is in jeopardy because Kentucky has too many non-conference rivalries to get the correct number of home games per year, and if they have to get rid of one the Indiana one might be the one that is axed. It's been speculated that Indiana's win this year might have saved the series for now.

Singler can shoot, but doesn't have the build, speed, or agility that Butler does. You are cherry-picking on the basis of a flawed argument. Teams regularly draft and trade for players based on potential. That's the whole point of picks like Jan Vesely (6th pick in 2011 draft), for example. The point is that if the Lakers put a high value on Butler, they easily could have traded into the back of the first round and gotten him. They chose not to. What's changed since then? Late first round picks are almost worthless in trades. It's not rare for them to simply be sold so teams don't have to pay that rookie a guaranteed deal. Butler would add a tiny amount of value into that deal, but he's basically a throw in. And Chicago's picks over the next few years are pretty worthless as well in trade talks since they're likely going to continue picking near the bottom. The Charlotte pick is the only one of real value. It's not like the trade would be built around Butler and I am not saying he is going to even be a regular starter. I am talking about a guy who gives you 15-20 quality minutes. That has value, albeit not a lot...which is why Noah or Deng would be the centerpiece along with a no. 1 pick. You are correct about the Charlotte pick, and it is the one I was referring to. It has a very good shot at being the first pick in the draft. It might, but it won't get that much value because it is at least top 8 protected until 2016. And who knows what Charlotte's roster will look like by then? It could just as easily be a pick somewhere between 10 and 20. It's valuable because the pick has a chance to be really good, but that's only a chance and even if it is that's really far off. The problem for the Bulls is they don't fit the Lakers biggest needs. If they're willing to give up Noah and Deng, the Lakers might listen. If not, the Lakers can find a package that probably fits their needs better.

Singler can shoot, but doesn't have the build, speed, or agility that Butler does. You are cherry-picking on the basis of a flawed argument. Teams regularly draft and trade for players based on potential. That's the whole point of picks like Jan Vesely (6th pick in 2011 draft), for example. The point is that if the Lakers put a high value on Butler, they easily could have traded into the back of the first round and gotten him. They chose not to. What's changed since then? Late first round picks are almost worthless in trades. It's not rare for them to simply be sold so teams don't have to pay that rookie a guaranteed deal. Butler would add a tiny amount of value into that deal, but he's basically a throw in. And Chicago's picks over the next few years are pretty worthless as well in trade talks since they're likely going to continue picking near the bottom. The Charlotte pick is the only one of real value.

Back on topic.

I'd guess Carpenter. I would too. My best 5 guesses would be. 1. Carpenter 2. Beliveau 3. Dolis 4. Maine 5. Gaub All 5 are replaceable. The Cubs probably would have fought hard to keep their starting pitching options on the 40 man so I doubt it's somebody like Wells or Volstad.

Giving Lake would be awful. I'd be fine with somebody like Logan Watkins, but that's about as high up the prospect list as I'd go. I think you'll be disappointed then. It might not be on a Lake/McNutt level, but the prospect will end up being a lot better than Watkins IMO. There's too much here that will up the precedent just a little bit. Theo's success, the "significant" compensation line, and the fact that the Red Sox have fought this as hard as they have. I'm hoping it's somebody like Carpenter or Dolis, but I'm fearing it's somebody the Cubs would miss more.

OT. Not impressed. only two other times has it ever happened before, both 3OT games that were like 180-170 That must just be regular season. Reggie Miller and Jalen Rose both had 40 points in a playoff game that ended in regulation.

I don't see too many scenarios where Iowa finishes 5th. Purdue's easy schedule and IU-Purdue still playing each other hurts that considerably. Plus Iowa loses the tiebreaker to Purdue and depending on how the top of the conference shakes out maybe to IU as well. As for the strength of the conference, part of that is Iowa playing better now, and part of that is they've probably had the easiest conference schedule in the Big 10. Playing Michigan State, Ohio State, and Michigan only one time each (and avoiding road trips with 2 of those) has helped keep the losses down. Of course it hasn't helped them build much of a tournament resume either.

The explanation I heard was that since Indiana's Big 10 schedule was so frontloaded, they wanted to put another game in just so they wouldn't get rusty. Without the NC Central game IU would have only had 2 games in a 17 day period.

Indiana didn't play well enough and they could have made it closer if they played better, but I don't think too many teams would have won against Iowa tonight. They were really impressive.

Can't believe the kid is a freshman. You can have your pasty white Cody Zeller for FOTY, but I'll take Burke thank you very much. The interesting thing is that this might happen again next year just in reverse. McGary is a lot like Zeller, and Ferrell and Burke are similar as well. Zeller has most of the edges statistically. Burke plays more minutes and gets more assists. Zeller shoots a much better percentage, scores more points, shoots better from the free throw line, blocks more shots, gets more steals, and turns it over less. Burke is asked to do more for his team, but Zeller is the much more efficient player.

Is that the only game they've lost with the starting lineup all playing at the same time? I know it's a really small sample size, just curious. Yes. The Bulls are 4-1 with their original starting lineup. All 5 games were on the road against the Lakers, Warriors, Kings, Clippers, and Pistons.