CubbieBum

I picked a bad time to take a nap. I got no idea what happened.

Landry is averaging 20.8 pts and 7.6 rebounds in the last 5 games on a ridiculous 64% shooting. Also getting 1.6 blocks in that time and still not playing over 30 minutes. Also, I just recently noticed how ridiculously good he has gotten at FT's. He shot in the 80's last year but this year he has raised it to almost 90%. He's at 88.5% after today's game which should put him in the top 10 and make him the only player in the NBA in the top 10 for both FG and FT percentage.

Arizona could very well need to win to have a better seed.

I think it was because Alabama was blinded by the prestige of Purdue basketball. I don't know about that, but the young men are still learning CAG's up-tempo style offense. So I agree with Smack, as I think Purdue waiting till Bama wore themselves out and took advantage. Bama has improved from last season but they are still a long way from competiting. Purdue has also been a second half team so far this year.

Always humbling and disturbing to see someone like that. Seeing him have his facemask taken off but not helmet gave me a chilling flashback to when Dante Love got hurt last year for Ball State.

Because typo only means a misspelling?

Would if I could but almost every source allowed the interview under a promise that only myself and the prof would get to read the paper. As for the money. I did a Title IX story on Ball State and found on the US Department of Education a page with all of Ball Stat's athletic spending and revenue broken down by sport (can't find it now their site changed). Men sports did make 93% of all the revenue. However, only men's basketball and two minor sports (men's tennis and one I can't remember) turned a profit that year. Of the women 200k revenue basketball accounted for 170k or so of it (going off memory). The team spent about 200k that year which isn't good but that ratio was actually better than the athletic department's overall ratio. That was the W-bball's first great year. Judging by more attendance and a NCAA Tournament birth they likely made a profit last year. Football was by far the worst losing close to three million (year before the first bowl game).

You couldn't find out now by google searching it because she is Speaker of the House but prior to being named Speaker she was mainly known as a Congresswoman who was extremely outspoken and the leader in Congress to make no changes to Title IX. She is uniquely able to speak out because she comes from one of the most democratic districts in the country and thus can be very liberal on controversial topics without worry of losing re-election. http://www.house.gov/pelosi/TitleIX.html That was mainly what she spent her time on before getting national exposure in her bid for the Speaker. In using Lexis Nexis to search for politicians involved in Title IX her name was in almost every single entry found. As a Senator. Who you interviewed. For an undergrad paper while at a smallish University in Indiana. Just admit you used some Lexis/Nexis quotes from Pelosi, and that you didn't actually interview her, and that you don't know what her job is, and we can go back to your bad argument. Or I did interview her before she was a big name in the national media. I'm not Skyballer and my prof checks every source used. She was the House Minority Leader from 03-07. Everyone knew who she was because she was on TV shrieking about Iraq every 24 hours (which is what got her attention for Speaker, not Title IX, which no one cares about), so unless you were in in your Telecom class in 2002, I doubt she found time for some college student not in her district to shoot the ish about women's sports. You didn't even know she wasn't a Senator. Your arguments might have some more heft if they weren't riddled with factual error after factual error. I did interview her and as she said Title IX is an issue she cares a lot about and welcomes anyone who is writing on the issue to contact her. It took 4 phone calls to her office and three e-mails to get her to do it. I'm a journalist who would never break any ethical code and to be honest am very pissed off you would accuse me of lying and taking quotes for a story I didn't write and pass them off as my own. That is the worst thing a journalist could due save making up the quotes entirely. I did know she was a Congresswoman hence why she is Speaker of the House. It's called a typo when you are making a quick post right after getting home from work and trying to figure out all the football scores and fantasy scores at the same time.

Enough of the side topic that I have stated my case on ... back to the actual thread topic I forget who pointed it out but the divisions probably won't be used in basketball so it mainly comes down to football. In that case OSU-Michigan-PSU can't be in the same division. It would be very stupid to seperate OSU-Michigan so PSU has to go into a different one.

You couldn't find out now by google searching it because she is Speaker of the House but prior to being named Speaker she was mainly known as a Congresswoman who was extremely outspoken and the leader in Congress to make no changes to Title IX. She is uniquely able to speak out because she comes from one of the most democratic districts in the country and thus can be very liberal on controversial topics without worry of losing re-election. http://www.house.gov/pelosi/TitleIX.html That was mainly what she spent her time on before getting national exposure in her bid for the Speaker. In using Lexis Nexis to search for politicians involved in Title IX her name was in almost every single entry found. As a Senator. Who you interviewed. For an undergrad paper while at a smallish University in Indiana. Just admit you used some Lexis/Nexis quotes from Pelosi, and that you didn't actually interview her, and that you don't know what her job is, and we can go back to your bad argument. Or I did interview her before she was a big name in the national media. I'm not Skyballer and my prof checks every source used.

Might want to do research on what sports actually turn a profit. Football would be at the bottom of the list. They cost millions for 90% of the schools and only the top 35-50 actually make money each year. Women's basketball, after men's basketball, averages the most profit for a large majority of schools. I wrote a big story on this topic for our student paper and FOI'ed a lot of documents detailing what was spent and what was earned.

I didn't. You had to have at least 10 (or maybe 15 it's been four years now) interviews and I interviewed people on both sides.

You couldn't find out now by google searching it because she is Speaker of the House but prior to being named Speaker she was mainly known as a Congresswoman who was extremely outspoken and the leader in Congress to make no changes to Title IX. She is uniquely able to speak out because she comes from one of the most democratic districts in the country and thus can be very liberal on controversial topics without worry of losing re-election. http://www.house.gov/pelosi/TitleIX.html That was mainly what she spent her time on before getting national exposure in her bid for the Speaker. In using Lexis Nexis to search for politicians involved in Title IX her name was in almost every single entry found.

TCOM actually and she wasn't Speaker of the House or really even talked about when I interviewed her.

This is embarrassing. They will not have any say. You are the only person who remotely thinks so. Please stop. It's called equality in athletics and it weighs very heavily on athletic directors. Anyone who thinks the women coaches won't be demanding a say in the divisions, and causing problems if they don't get it, doesn't know how an athletic department works. Please find me any evidence that women's athletics has played any role in any actual or proposed conference realignment, when the women's sports interests ran counter to what would be best for revenue sports. Hint: You will be looking until the end of time. Maybe just maybe I did a 90 page assignment for the dreaded J102 class at Ball State on Title IX. And maybe for the 90 page assignment I talked to Senators active in the Title IX issue, including Nanci Pelosi, as well as AD's from the MAC. Maybe one of the topics I discussed with every AD was how much they listen to the women coaches and whether or not they get equal say on department wide decisions. Maybe every single one of them said women get 100% equal say. Finally maybe two of the AD's said they must listen because all it takes is one coach to go to the media and they would get a lot of negative press that they really don't want.

This is embarrassing. They will not have any say. You are the only person who remotely thinks so. Please stop. It's called equality in athletics and it weighs very heavily on athletic directors. Anyone who thinks the women coaches won't be demanding a say in the divisions, and causing problems if they don't get it, doesn't know how an athletic department works.

Hope he doesn't break it. One of my favorite games is that T.O. 20 reception game.

That is about as ignorant as it gets. Vanderbilt has a whopping three SEC titles. They do however have the same school colors which is probably why you said that. I've got to say that is just an awesome reason and it really adds a lot of great wisdom to this thread. Your reasoning is sound but you picked the wrong Big Ten team with black and gold as their colors.

You guys are looking at it as fans rather than as the people who have to actually make the decision. Women sports will demand an equal say in the divisions and the school presidents will listen because they know they will get major headaches and really bad press otherwise. And seriously guys I have already pointed out Purdue is tied for the second most Big Ten titles in men's basketball since 1980, not 1940. Again that is 1980 with an eight not a four.

Going off that I would say Illinois should definitely be in with Indiana and Purdue. I would then put the three most west teams in that division (Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin). The only problem is the two Illinois teams are separated but from what I've observed it's not a big rivalry at all. It seems like a rivalry where the two schools say well we are in the same state so we should dislike each other so let's call it a rivalry even though the fans don't care too much.

I love all the people here acting as if women's basketball isn't important and thus shouldn't factor in on divisions. I don't care much about women's basketball but when determining divisions they should have equal weight (if basketball goes to divisions). I also don't understand why anyone would say how good teams are shouldn't factor into who goes in what division. Having lopsided divisions ruins the whole point of a championship game. The Big 12 hasn't had many good title games because for the most part the South has been a lot better than the North this decade.

Because they play football. Not exactly known as the brightest athletes in the sports world.

No one cares about the old stuff. Realistically, Purdue is no more "prestigious" than Illinois, UM, MSU or OSU. Trying to portray the Boilers as being on some elite tier with Indiana is humorous. When deciding divisions that will be extremely hard to change if not impossible you need to take some of the old stuff into account. As I said deciding divisions based solely on who is good at this exact moment would be a mistake. Oh and when including women Purdue is on Indiana's level. Women are half the basketball equation. Acting like the men are the only one's that matters is sexist and dumb. In women Indiana has one Big Ten title, which was the first year and shared with two other schools, plus one Big Ten Tournament title. Purdue has 7 (second most), plus has 7 of the 15 Big Ten Tournament titles (no one has more than 2), 3 of the conferences 8 Final Four berths (no one else has more than 1) and the conferences only National Championship (plus a runner-up).

At this point I think he's been watching basketball for about three years. There is no way you can argue Purdue over any of that other four. I don't know as much about the other schools, but I know that Illinois hasn't been playing as long as Purdue. Yet we have, more wins, a better winning percentage, more final fours, more big ten tourny titles. Plus since World War two we have more Big Ten regular season titles. All of that and I would have us about 3rd or 4th in Big Ten history. I would think his argument would rest solely on winning the most Big Ten titles of any team, but as I pointed out above, 13 of their 21 titles happened before 1940, meaning they were back in the days where teams would try to hold the ball for the entire half with a 16-15 lead because there was no shot clock. MSU, UM, Illinois, and OSU all have more Big 10 titles since 1940 than Purdue does. I said historically and historically Purdue has won the Big Ten more than anyone. However, basketball also includes women where Purdue, along with Ohio State, have been by a wide margin the best in the Big Ten. Also since 1980 men's Purdue has won 6 Big Ten titles. Only Indiana (8) has more with Michigan State, Illinois and Ohio State each having six as well.

I don't really care for a championship game to be honest but I realize that is the point to getting a twelve team. The name obviously won't change but if it did I would be in favor of The Conference to Rule Them All.