CubColtPacer

what's irrational? as i've said, illinois made 12 layups and missed 10. raw made the claim that indiana had 7-8 missed layups, they made 14 of them, which would mean that they attempted 21-22, at best the same amount that illinois attempted. this myth that indiana got to the basket an appreciable amount more than illinois is irrational, if anything. This is a discussion point. Almost everything else posted here, excepting bukie, has been irrationality. Regardless, those stats prove little. First, "layups" in play-by-plays and box scores aren't inherently drives to the basket (or even "lay-ups" by the common understanding). Often, the official scorer -- and I've received these every time out covering college basketball in my previous job -- counts any short jumpers as such because it's easier. Second, it may not be relevant for this game, but raw is correct that breakaway dunks are not equivalent to half-court drives when discussing fouls. Third, and, most importantly, the made/missed numbers may look the same, but that does not account for IU's drives that resulted in fouls. You can't harp on the fact that IU received a foul call every time they got close to the basket, then ignore those times they got close to the basket to prove that Illinois got close to the basket as often as IU. Further, Illinois took fifty shots and twenty-one were 3-pointers (forty-two percent of their shots). IU took forty-two shots and only twelve were 3-pointers (twenty-nine percent of their shots). This certainly implies that IU was more aggressive going to the basket and not settling for jumpers (unless there was a rash of long 2-pointers from IU, which I don't recall). Finally, you're addressing a poster that admitted last night that Illinois got homered a bit. Still, my last post was an attempt to steer away from the officiating because officiating discussions are almost inherently irrational. If I counted right, the play by play has Illinois with 14 non-3 jumpers and IU with 6. But several shots from Leonard and 1 from Zeller are included in those numbers and I know those two didn't shoot that many jumpers (Zeller has only shot a couple true jumpers all year long), so you have to take those numbers with a grain of salt. IU definitely didn't shoot very many long 2's though.

Were all 13 of those calls bad calls? If not, then it should affect the game's conclusion. You're not allowed to commit fouls and stay on the basketball court. You guys keep harping on 2-3 calls on Leonard, when most of the 26 fouls called on Illinois were undisputable....yet you guys keep dismissing my point that Illinois could not stop IU from getting into the paint at will. Paul, Henry and Bertrand all had legit fouls. Hell, Paul didn't really feel like playing anyway. I'm saying your position is largely a chicken-egg scenario. Every little tap was getting a foul call, so the defenders were unable to stay close on their assignments to avoid picking up even more fouls. From the time Leonard went out with his 4th with 12:29 left until IU went up 67-55 at 5:00, every single IU possession ended with a made 3, a made layup, or FTs. From the start of the 2nd half to the 12:29 mark left in the game, every IU possession ended with a made 3, a made layup, or a FT (other than a Hulls 2-pt jumper from about 10ft). IU got an offensive rebound after every shot they missed the first 7 1/2 minutes of the 2nd half. Leonard going out just gave a convenient excuse and Illinois had little chance of keeping up with IU offensively in the 2nd half, even with him on the floor. That isn't quite true either. Indiana turned it over twice in that stretch.

Were all 13 of those calls bad calls? If not, then it should affect the game's conclusion. You're not allowed to commit fouls and stay on the basketball court. You guys keep harping on 2-3 calls on Leonard, when most of the 26 fouls called on Illinois were undisputable....yet you guys keep dismissing my point that Illinois could not stop IU from getting into the paint at will. Paul, Henry and Bertrand all had legit fouls. Hell, Paul didn't really feel like playing anyway. I'm saying your position is largely a chicken-egg scenario. Every little tap was getting a foul call, so the defenders were unable to stay close on their assignments to avoid picking up even more fouls. From the time Leonard went out with his 4th with 12:29 left until IU went up 67-55 at 5:00, every single IU possession ended with a made 3, a made layup, or FTs. This is not true. Pritchard's offensive foul was on the very next IU possession. Abell missed a jumper on the possession after that. They had 2 scores than Oladipo got called for travelling. Then IU had a stretch where that was true but it was shorter and later in the game than what you said(8:56 to 4:17 which was a total of 8 possessions).

I'm looking at the play by play and I'm confused by what you said. Indiana got into the bonus with 13:44 left. Leonard's 4th foul was an offensive one (the moving screen) with 12:29, and it looks like Indiana got into the double bonus with 8:20 left after a foul by Henry. Am I missing something? I meant the moving screen, just ballparking the time left. I could've sworn that Leonard foul put them at 9 for the second half. Play by play shows Leonard's was the 8th. 9th was committed with 8:56 to play.

I'm looking at the play by play and I'm confused by what you said. Indiana got into the bonus with 13:44 left. Leonard's 4th foul was an offensive one (the moving screen) with 12:29, and it looks like Indiana got into the double bonus with 8:20 left after a foul by Henry. Am I missing something?

The 27 is a bit overstated to begin with. Illinois had some silly fouls in the last 2 minutes that led to 8 Indiana free throws when the game was already decided. So a 19 FT difference in the first 38 minutes. Add that Indiana deserved some sort of disparity, and you're looking at maybe 10-15 extra FT's on the high end. But it was probably a good deal less than that. As for the Leonard thing, if the refs wanted to favor IU they could have easily called 2 early fouls on Leonard. 1st with the shove at halfcourt and 2nd with the charge that they changed to a block. Not saying they made the wrong calls, but refs with an agenda could have easily had Leonard on the bench there.

IU deserved some sort of free throw disparity. They drove into the lane much more consistently than Illinois did. And when Illinois threw it into the post, Indiana didn't challenge it very much which is part of the reason Leonard shot such a good percentage. Did they deserve a 27 free throw disparity? I don't know. It's certainly not been something that's been consistent with IU all Big 10 play. They've had some games where they've had a big free throw edge and others where they had a big deficit. Good win for IU. Hopefully they can beat Northwestern and split their road games and their other two road games to go 10-8 in conference. That would be a victory for this team.

Castillo only has 1 option left. I think it's past the point where the Cubs can easily bypass him just to get him at-bats. Do they really want to be stuck in a situation next year where they are forced to keep him in the major leagues with no idea how he'll handle major league pitching? If they plan to trade Soto in June or July, it would make sense to send him down and then give him the 2 month audition later in the season. Otherwise I think if he doesn't make the team he's in trouble as any sort of prospect.

I actually don't think the Floyd/Fitz comparison is very good, but I have seen it made by several scouts. I think Floyd is more Vincent Jackson than Fitz, as I don't see him with the hip fluidity that Fitz has. By that I mean, Fitzgerald runs routes like a little guy. He has decent straight line speed, but he can really turn and get in and out of his breaks quickly to create separation. I don't think Floyd has that ability. Yeah, I don't see the Fitzgerald comparisons at all for the same reasons that you mention. Floyd is more of a Brandon Marshall type (I think Floyd is tougher and not as much of a deep threat than Jackson). Actually, the guy that Floyd reminds me of most in the way he runs his routes and his skill set is Calvin Johnson. But he's more Calvin Johnson lite-a little smaller, a little less leap, a little less speed, which translates to less production. But I think they play the game the same way.

Big game for Big 10 seeds tonight between Indiana-Illinois. The winner probably is the favorite to grab the 5 spot in the tournament while the loser could easily be in the 8-9 game.

Is it bad that I'd take 11 through 18 over 5 through 10? I guess I'm just much more intrigued by the position prospects than the pitchers in the system right now. Several guys between 10-20 I think could be in the top 10 in a future year.

To me the middle ground does include moving Marshall. For all the much vaunted talk of rebuilding the Cubs really haven't made any moves that had to have been done without the intention of competing in 2012, and yes, I include the Marshall deal in that. Trading for Rizzo really hurt that goal because he is good enough to not want to acquire somebody great for 1B, but not ready enough to really help the 2012 team. I'm guessing the Cubs would argue that they are trying to compete. They would point to moves like Maholm and Dejesus. And depending on how you account some of the Cubs recent activity (Dempster and Pena's money that was deferred, front office salaries, Dominican complex, Concepcion) the Cubs might not actually have that much money left over in the budget. Of course the Cubs being interested in the Cubans and them not being available as FA's until after many other options signed didn't help either.

Why is that a bad thing? The larger the playoff is, the more games those lesser teams have to beat against strong competition. Would anyone really claim South Carolina/Wisconsin/Kansas State wouldn't be worthy if they had to beat Boise, then Stanford, then LSU to win a playoff? I watch much, much more of the college football regular season than the regular season of any other sport. And a big part of that is that the drama factor is so high because a upset could end a teams season. If that was changed and a playoff was instituted, I would watch the playoff and enjoy it but still watch much less college football than I do currently. A large part of the regular season would become boring at least to me.

I would agree the differences between teams end up being too small to be very accurate, but Wisconsin would not have been considered even without that Hail Mary. Their schedule wasn't good enough, and they probably wouldn't have even finished ahead of Stanford. I'm a fan of a 4 team playoff. There won't be much chance of an undefeated being left out (unless the schedule is absolutely awful like Houston last year) but still makes a loss for any team potentially devastating. Any more than that and some teams will know they can lose a game and still make it.

Enough. Back on topic.

Brady's going to score a TD there with 56 seconds left and 1 timeout maybe 10-20% of the time? I can't imagine teams missing what is an extra point more often that that even with the extra pressure.

I'm not sure about that. How many QB's do you let in from this era? Brady and Peyton are locks. Roethlisberger has a better argument than Eli to be in the HOF at this moment. Brees has just as good of case and maybe better than Eli. Then you have the QB's just before this era (Favre, possibly Warner) and the guy who's on his way (Rodgers). That's a lot of QB's. He has a lot of years ahead of him. He's on track is my point. So is Roethlisberger. I don't think he is though. The best finish he's had in QB rating is 7th-this year (I'm not tied to QB rating and prefer other statistics, but it's a decent aggregate statistics). He's never been one of the elite QB's in any single year. If you want to talk about leading his team to wins, the Giants have finished 8-8, 10-6, and 9-7 the last 3 years and he has a career 69-50 record. He has played well in the playoffs in two different years and has been a good QB otherwise. And he only has maybe 3-4 years left in his prime? He's been in the league for quite a while now. Meanwhile, Roethlisberger is over a year younger, has better statistics across the board, has won more, also has 2 SB titles, and has 2 finishes among the top 5 in QB ratings. He's better in every category than Eli.

I'm not sure about that. How many QB's do you let in from this era? Brady and Peyton are locks. Roethlisberger has a better argument than Eli to be in the HOF at this moment. Brees has just as good of case and maybe better than Eli. Then you have the QB's just before this era (Favre, possibly Warner) and the guy who's on his way (Rodgers). That's a lot of QB's. Brees is MAYBE better than Eli?? Holy isht Brees is definitely better than Eli. I was trying to be as fair as Eli as I could by saying that Eli's case could be as good as Brees when they're done (Brees is a couple years older than Eli). I personally don't think they're on the same level, but I could see a reasonable argument being made for Eli that he could get close.

I'm not sure about that. How many QB's do you let in from this era? Brady and Peyton are locks. Roethlisberger has a better argument than Eli to be in the HOF at this moment. Brees has just as good of case and maybe better than Eli. Then you have the QB's just before this era (Favre, possibly Warner) and the guy who's on his way (Rodgers). That's a lot of QB's.

The NFL is expanding the number of Thursday night games starting in week 2. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7537208/nfl-adding-more-thursday-games-schedule-commissioner-roger-goodell-says Goodell also says that every team will have a night game at least once next year.

Yeah, when people talked about his star potential I was unsure about how he would ever be that good on the offensive end. But he has completely transformed his 3 point shot and is of course crazy athletic. The talk right now is which one would he be better for-the 3 point shootout or the Slam Dunk contest? It's possible the uncertainty might make him left out of both events, but he really should be in one of them. He's a little bit of a unique player. There are not many almost 6-10 shooting guards that their team puts on the elite point guards of the league in the 4th quarter to slow them down. He still needs to work on his dribbling for him to have any chance of being a superstar, but he is developing fast and of course at 21 years old still has a lot of time to develop. The Pacers being 16-6 with only 7 home games so far? That's an incredible start for them. Find a way to get past the next 6 of teams with winning records and the schedule really turns easy.

Yeah, they've gotten ridiculously lucky with the weather so far. It looks like today's the last day of that, although if the rain holds off the next two days won't be bad. Other than the weather, I'm not surprised at all that Indy is putting on a good show. Hosting big events is a big part of what the city is known for at this point. They don't have everything, but they use everything the city has to offer very well.

so, well below the midpoint, right? The midpoint was 10.225 million.

Apparently Garza's side didn't feel too strongly about their case either. That's a pretty fair deal. I'm glad the Cubs didn't push it all the way to the hearing even though they would have won.

If he's polished as the reports say he is, I don't think it is a huge concern. 3 full years in the minors, then the next year in the majors with the possibility of going to the minors if he needs it, and then the 5th year he has to stick. It's certainly not ideal, but it's not a bad scenario also unless he really isn't advanced for his age.