dalgreen

So, if Illinois had lost Sunday and been considered a 3 seed before tonight and won, would you think they deserve a 2 seed? What if the loss happened in the January game? I agree with not ignoring regular season results, but the game still happened. If Illinois was regarded as a #3 seed then fine. I just hate for teams to lose a seed because of a loss in the conference tourney. Should Illinois be punished for losing tonight? No. If they had split the regular season with MSU than I could better understand, but if you drop them because of tonight then, to me, you're saying tonight's game meant more than the two regular season wins, one of which happened in E. Lansing. And you probably will never agree with me, but this is one of the reasons why I don't like conference tourneys. If Ohio State loses tomorrow did they lose a possible #1 seed or have they already been inked as a #2 before the tourney? Does Syracuse deserve to be rewarded for playing mediocre basketball for three months, while playing championship ball for three days? At least I can respect how the ACC handles it because their regular season champion is whoever wins the conference tournament. So you want the conference tourneys to be ignored? They're still games that happen. I understand not overemphasizing them, but in Illinois' case they were in competition with several teams for a 2 seed(Nova, UConn, Duke, Memphis, Texas, OSU are all in front of U of I), so I don't see a huge deal with U of I getting a 3 seed if UNC and UCLA win their conference tourneys, the difference wasn't that great between them(plus Tennessee also lost in their conference quarters, and has a better RPI and SOS than U of I). I don't know if you're being argumentative or I'm not making myself clear, so I'll assume I'm not making myself clear. My issue is not whether Illinois deserves a #2 or not. If the committee felt before today's game that they were a #3 seed that's fine with me. I just don't understand how one game pretty much wipes out a regular season performance. And, I'm not just talking about Illinois. Is it right that UConn may have lost the overall #1 seed with their first round loss, even though they along with Duke and Villanova were pretty much the top three teams for most of the season? Was Ohio State already a #1 or #2 seed no matter what they did in the conference tourney or did they have to prove themselves again by getting deep into the conference tourney? I don't know it may be a generational thing. I still fondly remember when the Big Ten and Pac-10 didn't play conference tourneys and the conference champion got the automatic bid. I just wish teams like Missouri State and Creighton didn't have to suffer because of barely bubble teams playing like champions for three days. Yeah, their games, but it's more of giving teams who don't deserve a second chance a second chance. Thank goodness Bucknell won today or some other deserving team would get the shaft.

So, if Illinois had lost Sunday and been considered a 3 seed before tonight and won, would you think they deserve a 2 seed? What if the loss happened in the January game? I agree with not ignoring regular season results, but the game still happened. If Illinois was regarded as a #3 seed then fine. I just hate for teams to lose a seed because of a loss in the conference tourney. Should Illinois be punished for losing tonight? No. If they had split the regular season with MSU than I could better understand, but if you drop them because of tonight then, to me, you're saying tonight's game meant more than the two regular season wins, one of which happened in E. Lansing. And you probably will never agree with me, but this is one of the reasons why I don't like conference tourneys. If Ohio State loses tomorrow did they lose a possible #1 seed or have they already been inked as a #2 before the tourney? Does Syracuse deserve to be rewarded for playing mediocre basketball for three months, while playing championship ball for three days? At least I can respect how the ACC handles it because their regular season champion is whoever wins the conference tournament.

As an Illinois fan I think it would absolutely suck if the committee had them as a #2 seed and dropped them to a #3 seed because of the loss. That basically says this one Illnois loss to MSU meant more than the two Illinois wins over MSU. Plus, the old saying, "It's hard to beat a team three times in one season. Having said that, I said about a month ago that Illinois at best would get to the sweet 16 but that's about it. In a close game, they will kill themselves with poor free throw shooting, as tonight showed. Also, if any team commits to playing zone against Illinois for at least thirty of the forty minutes then Illinois would have serious problems. In addition, it burns me how there is not one single guy on this team that says, "Don't worry, Dee, I'll carry us tonight." Hey, Shaun Pruitt, you're one of the biggest guys in the Big Ten and you scored one point. That's one more point than what I scored against MSU tonight.

Not to mention that you're asking teams to beat teams (in some cases) three times in one season. That's one of the things that ticks me off about conference tourneys. Suppose Illinois loses tonight, do they still get a #2 seed? Or does the committee give them a #2 seed but in the toughest bracket, or do they drop to a #3 seed? I think that stinks if Illinois' one loss to MSU this year during the tourney wipes out the regular season sweep. But that goes for all the other teams who beat teams twice during the regular season and get punished for early exits on the third time playing a team.

Yeah, but it's no less exciting than what it was fifty or sixty years ago. I think baseball has done a poor job marketing itself, not only to black youth but all youth.

Isn't this an extension of the decline of baseball's popularity, in general?

That's absurd. Syracuse isn't touching a 6 seed with anything less than a Big East tournament title. And UConn is not losing their 1 seed either. Only teams that could jump them would be Villanova, Duke, and Ohio St. If Duke or Villanova win their conference tourneys, I believe they will get the #1 overall seed in the tourney. Yep and they will both watch when UCONN cuts down the nets. This game meant crap for UCONN and everything for the Cuse. I agree that the game meant nothing to UConn. I still hate the fact that Syracuse will get in now after playing mediocre basketball for three months.

That's absurd. Syracuse isn't touching a 6 seed with anything less than a Big East tournament title. And UConn is not losing their 1 seed either. Only teams that could jump them would be Villanova, Duke, and Ohio St. If Duke or Villanova win their conference tourneys, I believe they will get the #1 overall seed in the tourney.

I see them getting a 6 seed if they win the conference tourney, but an 8-9 seed if they don't.

They were a bubble team entering the tournament (albeit one of the top bubbles) and because of reputation this win I think sealed it for them. Again, I don't like the tournament because even if they do win the conference tourney that's basically rewarding them for a bad three months of basketball in exchange for four good days of basketball. I think a couple of Misouri Valley teams will now get hurt with Syracuse and an extra A-10 team getting in.

This is why I don't like conference tournaments. Basically, Syracuse is now getting rewarded for a mediocre season just because they waited until March 8th and 9th to play good basketball instead of doing it in December, January and February. Now, UConn may not get the #1 overall seed because of one bad game. I think Northern Iowa can say bye-bye to an invite.

What does this mean? I keep hearing the same thing from people, "Don't blame/pick on/single out/criticize/etc Mr. X, there are plenty of other people involved as well." If we can't pick out and discuss specific stories within the story, how in the hell do you get a grasp on the big picture? We keep hearing about how it's a huge mess that the league should have taken care of and the league failed. Well, all of these people being discussed are part of the league. It's like a bad school. You can't blame the student for not caring, you can't blame the teacher for not being able to handle 25 students who don't care, you can't blame the principal for not being able to get his teachers to teach better, you can't blame the superintendent because he has no funds to use, you can't blame the parents because they've tried. Everybody is a part of this mess. Regardless of all this, my main problem is with Dusty's BS about not knowing what steroids were, but still lamenting the loss of his friend Alzado. And then him saying he didn't know what was in the story, but then admitting he read it. Him talking about McCarthyism and the witch hunt, then talking about how he was one of the biggest people talking out on this subject. If you want to stay quiet to protect your team or player, you have the right. But don't come out years later saying you had no idea what was going on but you were also talking out against steroids at the same time even though you aren't even sure what steroids are. It means in my estimation, right or wrong it may be, I think it's an epidemic and everyone is guilty until proven innocent, and I don't want to be called a "do-gooder" when I suggest the possibilities of certain Cub pitchers may have juiced or be juicing. Those posters know that I'm addressing them specifically. I don't subscribe to the, "Don't just blame him" game, so I'll take your paragraph as responding to another poster. I didn't take Baker's quote as BS. He said he didn't read the book, but read the part that was in SI, and that excerpt was detailed (at least that's what he said). Regarding his knowledge of steroids, I still have no knowledge of steroids other than you inject it, but I couldn't tell you one specific thing about them. I think he said in essence the same as I said. Was he not telling the truth? Maybe, but maybe he was. In my opinion, he knew about Bonds, but I have no proof he never discussed it with Barry.

Could have been? I still think they could win this tourny and make the final four. Izzo is a genius. I don't think there's any reason to think they can suddenly turn it around and win it all or even go to the FF. They certainly have a ton of talent, but the fact is, they haven't played that well this season. They're incosnsistent, and they haven't shown the ability to beat even mediocre teams on the road. They're 5-5 in their last ten. Now, I understand the Big Televen is a very tough conference, but MSU has been very unimpressive every time I've seen them play. It's surprising, too because Izzo is so good. This year is the anti-Izzo team. MSU has surprised people with tourney runs because they always play defense, rebound fantastically, and on offense run so many sets that it's hard to prepare for in the NCAA's. This year the defense and rebounding just aren't there, PF was a question mark then they all got hurt, and they have zero bench scoring. That said, when all 3 of Davis, Ager, and Brown play well, they still D and rebound well enough that they are very tough to beat, and their offense is still tough to prepare for on a short timeframe. They'll need a good draw to do anything in the NCAA's, because I don't think they have it in them to knock off a top team, especially if they face a higher seed that has a quasi home court advantage. Trannon not playing really hurt their rebounding this year.

agreed. The white guy at the end of the bench the last 2 or 3 years has the same winning % as Brown. So what? are you kidding me? the fact that brown has been the team leader for 4 years (and no, to folks who don't know much about the illini but seem to think they do, deron wasn't ever the leader), playing a majority of the minutes and often dictating the pace of the games means nothing? i guess to you he's about as responsible for the team wins as some walk-on, though. hating. Sorry, but I can't believe any fellow Illinois fan would say that Dee was the leader last year. I believe Dee was not the leader last year, and I'd argue that there were three "leaders" ahead of Dee last year. Yeah, Dee is the media darling but he wasn't the leader of that team last year, in my opinion. I would put Derron, Roger and Jack Ingram (leader of the role players) ahead of Dee last year. In fact, as I've stated before, I believe if you switch Derron for Dee this year we would only have one or two losses. I also think if Dee was a true leader, he'd find some way to have made Augustine and Randle better this year. It's inexcusable that Augustine doesn't average 16 or 17 pts a game and Randle 10-12 pts per game. Dee is the leader this year, but only by default (Williams not being there). dee has overwhelmingly been the leader of the team since he stepped on campus. emotionally, motivationally, and play-style. deron may be the better player, and that's not what i'm arguing, but dee has been the leader of this team for four years. one of dee's primary attributes is the respect that he commands from his teammates--put on top of that the fact that he voted the BTPOY and DPOY last year and it's not even close. Overwhelmingly? I think you may be overstating that a bit. I'm an Illinois fan and I know a few others who also believe that Williams was the leader on the team last season. I'd like to see some opinions from other Illini fans on this subject, as well. Nice argument to have, though, isn't it? Personally, I think Deron made Dee a better player. I also think Deron would've made Augustine and Randle better this year, too. Brown deserved the BTPOY and DPOY honors last year, but that's performance awards and not necessarily leadership qualities. I still believe that if you put Dee in the NBA and returned Deron we would only have one or two losses this year, at most.

Baker deserves a lot of criticism for the many ridiculous things he says, but I think some like to jump on him for things that he may or may not have done, as well. Okay, Baker says he didn't know and I don't believe him. Just as I don't believe any manager saying they didn't know. But I also believe that it is possible that Baker said something to Bonds during that year or even over the years. Again, it's possible and Baker just doesn't want to tell reporters, "Yeah, I told him about the dangers of it and how it's ruining the integrity of the game....." So, then you turn it into a he said situation. At times last year I remember some poster(s) calling me a "do-gooder" for calling out MLBPA and players for not calling out teammates who they knew used. Remember Mike Sweeney last year saying he knew a few Royal players in the past who used but then refused to name names? Yeah, I hope Baker said something to him, but I doubt it. But then again he is one of hundreds of guilty people for letting this continue to happen. And, please, just remember there are probably lots and lots of people using and people who used who are only putting up average numbers. So, let's not be selective in who may be using or have used just based on numbers.

I agree with you. I might even throw the "Big V" from Northwestern in there, too.

He came in during the 4th I believe. Oops. Thanks. As soon as I finished typing it occured to me that maybe he didn't start.

I have no idea why he's even pitched into the fifth inning. He wouldn't be going that deep in Arizona right now.

agreed. The white guy at the end of the bench the last 2 or 3 years has the same winning % as Brown. So what? are you kidding me? the fact that brown has been the team leader for 4 years (and no, to folks who don't know much about the illini but seem to think they do, deron wasn't ever the leader), playing a majority of the minutes and often dictating the pace of the games means nothing? i guess to you he's about as responsible for the team wins as some walk-on, though. hating. Sorry, but I can't believe any fellow Illinois fan would say that Dee was the leader last year. I believe Dee was not the leader last year, and I'd argue that there were three "leaders" ahead of Dee last year. Yeah, Dee is the media darling but he wasn't the leader of that team last year, in my opinion. I would put Derron, Roger and Jack Ingram (leader of the role players) ahead of Dee last year. In fact, as I've stated before, I believe if you switch Derron for Dee this year we would only have one or two losses. I also think if Dee was a true leader, he'd find some way to have made Augustine and Randle better this year. It's inexcusable that Augustine doesn't average 16 or 17 pts a game and Randle 10-12 pts per game. Dee is the leader this year, but only by default (Williams not being there).

I was shocked that Augustine made 1st team. I wonder if the writers will have him on their first team. We have a difference of opinion in him, because I find him to be overrated. To me, offensively, he's no better than he was last year or the year before. I have little confidence that if Dee were to have a bad game that Augustine would be able to put the team on his back and carry them.

Well this discussion is definitely a step up from last year, which means we have a better roster this year than last. At least we're now debating on whether a guy should be a fourth, fifth or sixth outfielder instead of, "Why in the world is that guy (or those guys)starting?"

Man stupid Penn State. Without that loss we could have had an outside shot at a 1 seed. We are rounding into form at the right time though. Pruitt is so much better now than he was at the start of the year. We could be a real tough out if we play well, we could also easily be an upset victum if Dee doesn't show up. Either way I want a rematch with OSU on a neutral court. Had they played with any heart in Ann Arbor, that win would've nearly canceled the Penn State loss. The Illini played well today. I'm not too sure Pruitt is that much better now than at the beginning of the season. I still think the Indiana game in Bloomington was his best game of the year. When is Brian Randle going to realize that he's one of the most talented players on the floor day in day out? It's really inexcusable any game that he can't contribute 10 pts.

I honestly think the only way we get the sweet 16 is with a 2 seed (pretty much out of the question now). Even a three seed worries me since that likely means a 3-6 matchup in the 2nd round. A four seed and I pretty much see us out before the sweet sixteen. I'm extremely confident that we will win tomorrow, but I'm not so confident about the games at Minnesota and MSU.

Even with 18 you still would have problems though because it still would be unbalanced. You would have to go to 20 games to get it the way you used to and that's just never going to happen. The addition of Penn State screwed it up, just like they did with football scheduling. Now with the 12th game in football, it would definitely be easy to have everyone play 9 Big Ten games and play everyone. Either way in both sports if you play more conference games than every other conference, you're pretty much just adding extra losses and hurting yourselves. Personally, I'd like to see a 20-game schedule -- just drop the conference tourney -- but that's a whole other subject. Yes, you have an unbalanced schedule with 18 conference games, but at least you play two teams only once instead of four teams only once. I hate that the regular season Big Ten title seems to not mean as much anymore. Illinois had two separate weeks where they only played one game in that week. I think it could be done, but evidently the conference and others don't think the regular season title is important enough to schedule more games. We have 11 teams and the Pac-10 has ten, yet they play 18 conference games, so why can't we?

:shock: