CubColtPacer

I was under the impression that there isn't a football-level strictness regarding those kinds of situations, especially when there's a split-second difference. Not usually, but when looking at a clock situation like they were, it is strict like that where the whistle is the absolute end of the play.

LOL-now they are trying to correct what they said (at halftime of the UT-OSU game) and say the refs were right to take that time off in the Memphis game, completely ignoring the fact that the whistle blew. Even when they correct themselves, they can't get it right :D

It's going to be an emotionally draining game-lots of 8-2 runs each way. Hang in there during the roller coaster.

one second isn't going to make a bit of difference. It makes a huge difference right there-if he had one more second he could have sidestepped that defender and then dribbled up to the 3 point line-with the time he had, all he time to do was sidestep the defender, so he just decided to launch the shot while straight on rather than moving to his right. Whatever Great argument. One second makes a huge difference in that situation. Yes. Maybe one more dribble and 3 more feet. Increases the shot percentage by a lot I'm sure. Are you drunk right now? The difference between 3.1 and 2.0 in that situation is huge. I realize you made a claim and now you want to stick to it, but give us a break. Sober as a judge. How about you?The difference wasn't 3.1 and 2.0. It was whatever it was when the ball touched the floor and the Memphis player touched it and it went out of bounds. So 2.7 or whatever and 2.0. Maybe one diribble and three more feet. One dribble for a D1 player covers about 5 feet at least. Think about how big they are. Yup-and if you watch the replay carefully, the guy catches the ball 3-4 feet from halfcourt, and is a foot or 2 past half-court when he pulls up with 1.3 left and launches with 1.0 left-if he had another .7 seconds, he drives past that guy and gets 8-9 more feet and launches the shot right before the buzzer instead of with a second left.

Four minutes until gametime. I'm pretty freaking nervous right now. :shock: It's a lot longer than that until gametime for you guys-the start time for the game now appears to be 10:17-30 minutes after the first game at that site ended.

one second isn't going to make a bit of difference. It can make a ton of difference, but the call was right. It wasn't out of bounds until it was touched by the guy at the scorer's table. It might not have been out of bounds until then (when watching the replay, I agree with that) but the referee's whistle blew well before that. I timed the time between the hand touching the ball and the whistle a few times with my stopwatch-it should have been about 2.7 on the clock.

one second isn't going to make a bit of difference. It makes a huge difference right there-if he had one more second he could have sidestepped that defender and then dribbled up to the 3 point line-with the time he had, all he time to do was sidestep the defender, so he just decided to launch the shot while straight on rather than moving to his right.

You saying UCLA will get the calls over KU? I haven't watched enough UCLA to know if they're one of those teams (a la Duke), but I've never thought they were the overwhelming beneficiary of calls. I thought that they were definitely the beneficiary of a lot of calls in the last 6 minutes last game, and when I talked to 4 fans who went to the game who are more Pac-10 fans than anything they agreed with me, but I have no idea is that's something that happens on a routine basis or not. Of course, watch out for Ben Howland being the 6th defender on an inbounds play :D

KU definitely caught some breaks. It happens in every game. Does it suck for SIU? Yeah. But that's how sports work. That's how sports works, but that doesn't mean the refs shouldn't be called on it. Exactly-by a day or two from now, it won't matter-but it was pertinent to a game thread like this is because it affected the game. Edit: BTW, I'm not saying that Kansas didn't deserve to win-they definitely could have won even if those calls were reversed-it's just not known for sure which way it would go.

All Raisin is saying is that KU had more opportunities to make mistakes and still win because of the referees. Both teams could have minimized their mistakes and played better, sure. However, they played pretty equally and made about the same number of mistakes-the difference in the score could certainly be attributed to a few calls by the referees. SIU still had their opportunities to try to make up that disadvantage, but they shouldn't have been put at that disadvantage to begin with.

I liked the shot attempt-SIU isn't the type to be able to get a quick layup, and a 3 like that is better than any other 2 point attempt. He got a clean look at the basket, it just didn't go down.

They switched me to the Kansas-SIU game for about 30 seconds, and have now switched back to A&M and Memphis-they better switch back out of timeout. Here it is.

Yeah me too! Stupid ass econ exam. I HATE YOU ECON. I'd be careful with that kind of language around here... If it makes you feel better, it hates me too. It's too late. You already got Raisin going. My prediction for tonight: Tennessee wins by 9. To be fair, the Mizzou Economics department is a freaking mess. Agreed. When a 50% is passing and possibly a high D, you know the class is whack. I've heard of classes where 50% was an A :D

Pacer fans are rooting like crazy to lose right now-their first round pick that is supposed to head to Atlanta this year is top 10 protected, and with this deep draft Pacer fans would love a top 10 pick.

This is unbelievable-I'm going to be locked into all 4 games the next two nights that CBS is showing in my region because they all have regional interest-which means if there is a blowout, I won't be able to see the close game until the very end.

Especially since you're trading the 5th round pick to both Houston and Oakland :D

I doubt it-they still have Kyle Singler coming in, and him combined with the people they have right now will put them into the tournament.

It's both. The loss of a good coach would cause the recruiting to suffer, but program prestige still plays a big part. Roy Williams didn't have to resurrect recruiting at UNC-they already had a ton of talent there when he got to the school. IU still got some key recruits when Davis was there. Schools with great program history can survive a lot longer without a good coach than schools who don't have it.

Check the game thread-they are talking about Prior's start all through the thread: viewtopic.php?t=39233

he is bad, I don't mind his post game though What's going on here? Is Brenly on the way out? Why is Plesac doing all the ST games? They added some spring training games (to the cable channel) late in the process, and Brenly already had family commitments that he didn't want to get out of. Brenly will broadcast all the games when the regular season starts, but only some of them during ST.

I wouldn't call it a horrible deal though. Moore could still be used as a trading chip to get somebody especially if he has a good year this year.

Does it matter? It does when trying to figure out how accurate it is on Prior's pitches so that people can know if his velocity has improved or not.

Didn't he walk all 3? Ugh - if he has any value, let's trade him. He's not going to have any value until he builds up his arm strength again-they said he was throwing in the 80's yesterday.

Ok, that's possibly true. However, there was only 1 90 win team in the NL last year, and if you look around the NL the chance for pretty much any individual team in the NL this year besides the Mets has to be classified as "small". It's not like anybody got much better. I think people are upset about the Cubs being ranked 5th is when you look at the Cubs vs the teams that were ranked 3rd and 4th. What are the Reds for example going to be better at than the Cubs this year? Looking at the lineup and pitching staffs, I'm not sure which one they are supposed to be better at.

You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. Last team wasn't a fluke. Last year was a more exaggerated version of 2005. It simply exposed the flaws of a poorly run team. The Cubs have had the lowest walks in the league for several years. It's been part of their plan. Acquiring Soriano will not change that. You can cite all the bad breaks that hurt last year, but bad breaks are part of the game. I think you are exhibiting blind pessimism if you can't admit that the Cubs had more than what would be considered an "average" amount of bad breaks last year and had to rely (more than nearly every other team) on not ready minor league players to fill in for quite a few holes--namely in the rotation. The Friken' Marlins entier team was filled with AAAA and AAA and AA guys last year and still finshed better than the Cubs. The Cubs were terrible. This year they've put together a team that doesn't quite fit. And a pitching staff that includes Hill, Lilly, and Marquis. All suspetible to an inordinate number of HRs. Last year the Cubs were among the worst statistical teams in baseball and had one of the worst records in baseball. I think it is unrealistic to expect them to be drastically better. But even if they are drastically bettter that still only puts them around .500. Are you saying that this teams ceiling is around .500?