CubbieBum

Message board.

My roommate from last year is a WVU fan and the smack talking started in May before I left Indiana. If Purdue doesn't win I won't here the end of it for weeks. Oh and I already know I won't be able to see any of it. It's the same day as the Sugar Bowl and work is required and there are no exceptions.

The N.O. one could be worthless considering they could start benching.

Exactly. They aren't going to be like "Well we should identify the historical best teams in the Big Ten so we can assure they aren't in the same division. So Indiana has the best history in the Big Ten thats for sure, now we need a second team. Geez its hard to turn down Ohio State's past and current success, but Purdue won a couple Big Ten titles in the 1930's, and of course their woman's team is amazing. Let's make sure Indiana and Purdue are in separate divisions so we can ensure balance between the 2 divisions. Of course because of this we'll have to separate Michigan and Ohio State, but their rivalry has run its course anyways." Just to clarify I did put each pair together I just said its not really all that fair but it must be done. Keeping rivalries alive would be my No. 1 criteria to making divisions. Rivalries are college sports to me. Without them I don't think college sports would be nearly as popular. The trophy games in the Big Ten are: Illinois-Northwestern (Sweet Sioux Tomahawk/Land of Lincoln Trophy) Indiana-Purdue (Old Oaken Bucket) Indiana-Michigan State (Old Brass Spittoon) Iowa-Minnesota (Floyd of Rosedale) Iowa-Wisconsin (Heartland Trophy) Minnesota-Wisconsin (Slab of Bacon/Paul Bunyan's Axe) Michigan-Michigan State (Paul Bunyan Trophy) Michigan-Minnesota (Little Brown Jug) Illinois-Ohio State (Illibuck) Illinois-Purdue (Purdue Cannon) Minnesota-Penn State (Governor's Victory Bell) Michigan State-Penn State (Land Grant Trophy) I don't think it is possible to keep all trophy games in the same division plus the biggest rivalry doesn't even have a trophy. Based on these though I would want the divisions done as follows. Illinois-Northwestern-Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin-New Team Michigan-Michigan State-Ohio State-Penn State-Purdue-Indiana That would keep 8 of them alive plus Michigan-OSU. Now if I made them using some Purdue bias I would switch Northwestern and New Team for Indiana and Purdue. That would keep both rivalry games alive for Purdue and keep them out of the OSU-Michigan-PSU division. Oh and if the new team comes from the west it would also be split geographically. Missouri is now the team I want most because of the rivalries they have and all that.

So Daryl Morey just enlightened me that Scola is the leagues leader in defensive rebounding. Now before you go look up the raw stats take into account this is Morey. He would never look at the raw number. Scola leads in defensive rebounding based on his rate of getting the rebound compared to number of chances while he is in the game. Essentially per missed shot by your opponent Scola has the highest percentage of getting the rebound. Surprising to say the least.

It might make good sense to trade down with one of those picks. There will still be lots of really good players in the middle of the 1st round, so a team might make a really good offer for one of those picks. Then you get the 10-20 talent level player with one pick and still have 2-3 more decent picks extra. Depends on what is offered obviously but I'm not opposed to picking up a 2nd and 3rd for one of the 1st rders. I'm happy enough with these positions that I wouldn't want to use a 1st rd pick on: RB, QB, WR, C, TE, OLB, ILB and DT. That leaves G, OT, DE, CB and S. Of those positions DE would be the lowest on my list because Justin Smith is perhaps the best 3-4 DE in the league and Ray McDonald has shown promise. After that I would say go by what falls to you.

5 INTs by the Tennessee defense, including at least one pick six. Ah.

I would say you are but I haven't given up hope for my 49ers yet so I would be hypocritical if I did. Either way at this point I'd just as soon the Titans win out. Unless we make the playoffs we likely won't fall out of the 15-19 range in the draft, so the difference between 6-10 and 9-7 at this point isn't big enough to ignore the slim, outside possibility we might make the playoffs on a fluke three or four way tie. Interestingly enough, Mike Keith (voice of the Titans) was on the radio the other day and didn't rule out the possibility of the Titans trading up into the top 10 to make a run at a McCoy, Suh, Berry, etc. type impact defensive player (whoever ends up falling outside the top 5 or so). That would be extremely interesting. I'm curious what the 49ers will do with their two 1st rd picks. Both are likely going to be between picks 10-20. I would prefer to keep both and get OL and perhaps a CB. I don't want to trade up to get one top pick as they cost so much more and we have more than one need. I also don't care to trade down since we can get two good players with those picks.

I would say you are but I haven't given up hope for my 49ers yet so I would be hypocritical if I did.

They didn't say he quit every play just some. Also anyone who has ever watched Moss in any game he has ever played you know he quits on plays that have little to do with him. Mainly on plays where it is run to the opposite side or at least supposed to. He has been caught before doing nothing when the RB reverses field and comes his way. He has also given up on routes after it is thrown leading to INT's. This happened today supposedly and is why Gamble and Harris were asked about it.

All of this ridiculousness started because you implied there would be something inherently unfair about putting Indiana and Purdue in the same hypothetical division. This isn't like dividing the ACC and putting Duke and Carolina in the same division, since Purdue is so far removed from most of that success that it simply doesn't hold much weight. The fact of the matter is that in modern history, Purdue has done nothing to distinguish itself from half of the B10 teams. I promise you that if you stop most B10 fans on the street and ask them to name the most prestigious B10 basketball schools, the overwhelming majority will omit Purdue. Your pre-historic B10 titles and NC make keep you warm at night, but it has little bearing on anything anymore. I'm pretty sure most fans would mention Purdue considering they are currently in the top five and have gotten a good amount of press for three seasons in a row. That said I could care less what a Big Ten fan on the street thinks because a large majority don't know much and are more casual fans than anything else. Purdue has finished second two years in a row and are the favorite at this point this season. The eight years or so before that weren't very good (although they did have some good seasons) but that is really the only stretch where they weren't consistently a good team in their history. So to sum up in the last couple years they have done well, in the last decade not so much and in the years before that they have done as well as anyone.

And Moss has done it again. Accused of quitting on plays and Carolina DB's back it up. You can read the article and see that Chris Gamble and Chris Harris both say he gives up on plays a lot. Gamble even says every corner knows he does it. However, this is perhaps the most damning part. I've always said it and I will say it again I would take T.O. in a heartbeat over him. Both cause problems but I'll take the one who always gives everything hes got. http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl/news/story?id=4739953

Wow I'm literally shocked and outraged. Roy Williams was in the wrong and honestly should be talked to by the NCAA (not publicly but behind closed doors). Coaches can't do that and expect fans to keep coming to games. Also, I would say the security was at fault to. They can't throw someone out based on really nothing. They should have asked the fans around what happened. If I was the fan I would file a lawsuit and get some money out of it. Not sure he could win if it went to court but the school would probably settle to avoid the press.

My vote counts for more because I'm so awesome. A rather odd way to save face from everyone in this thread attacking your opinion. I'm not trying to save face. Just because everyone disagrees (at least those who voiced an opinion) with doesn't make me wrong. You have an opinion and I have opinion and we will likely never truly know who was right so there's no point in arguing anymore. But our opinions are backed with conclusive facts. Your only defense has been that Purdue has won the most Big Ten titles, and tied for 2nd since 1980 (a friendly year to pick for your argument). But ignoring the wave of evidence against you is ignorant. Remember you didn't say they were arguably the 2nd most prestigious team in the Big Ten historically, a statement that, while I'd strongly disagree with as would most of the board, I could accept as your inane opinion. But to say it without room for argument (which is the way you made the statement), you're slighting teams that have been to many more Final Fours and have won more National Titles than your squad. It just destroys any credibility you might have had as a college basketball fan. Anything posted on a message board about something that is a ranking and thus inherently opinion doesn't need a "I think" or "IMO" before it. It is an opinion. I also never said anything about prestige. I said Indiana and Purdue are, "historically the best in the Big Ten." That is a fact and not debatable even though you guys have decided to. In the Big Ten they have historically played the best. I've now realized you guys didn't take that as the way I meant it. I wasn't talking about play outside of the Big Ten. When I said, "in the Big Ten," I was referring to in Big Ten play only (I was also including women's basketball). Also, I picked 1980 because it is the start of a decade and thus a good starting point and it's not too friendly considering Purdue shared the title in 1979. If you want to start in 1990 then you have Purdue's three-pete which along with Ohio State's (1960-62) are the only three-petes in conference history where none were shared. Purdue is also 195-145 in Big Ten play since the 1989-90 season.

My team is officially the rally to make playoffs and then lay an egg once you get there team.

But it feels so good in there.

Yes. It's all on a website that doesn't exist anymore and in a paper that no one is allowed seeing Did I just post a link to the website. Hmm I think I did but keep saying whatever you want.

My vote counts for more because I'm so awesome. A rather odd way to save face from everyone in this thread attacking your opinion. I'm not trying to save face. Just because everyone disagrees (at least those who voiced an opinion) with doesn't make me wrong. You have an opinion and I have opinion and we will likely never truly know who was right so there's no point in arguing anymore.

My vote counts for more because I'm so awesome. you are alone in that assessment. Good thing the only person's opinion that I care about sided with me. I heard he is a really really really ridiculously good looking guy.

Arizona could very well need to win to have a better seed. That's true but I don't see the Vikings losing to the Panthers or Bears though. There's still the matter of 3rd and 4th seeds. If Arizona's preference in who they would rather play is Minnesota they may need to win in the last week to ensure they get the No. 3 seed over the East division winner and thus in the second round get Minnesota instead of N.O.

My vote counts for more because I'm so awesome.

Found the site with all the info again. It's a wonderful tool. http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

Yeah I'm going to vote for a mod to lock this thread. It has become a let's bash on the bum thread because we all love to talk about him. I understand. It's cool. I would be jealous too and want to put me down so I could feel better about myself.

When it's required everyone does. The prof said right from the start no A will be given unless its 90+ pages and at max the actual paper will only be counted as 12.

Now that is a good joke. And it was one of those incredibly idiotic and pointless 90 pagers where 12 was the paper and 72 was the bibliography and explanation of your sources.