brinoch

Sampson's gone. IU is crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's. I don't know enough about Greenspan's history to make a decision, but I know my sister and brother (also IU alums) are after his head.

This could be very good news for the Cubs.

Let's let the "insiders" at OH decide. [ob]My guy tells me that the mods will lock this thread early next week...[/ob]

Amusingly enough, I got to see Clemens (and the media circus surrounding him) in the hallway as I returned from lunch the other day.

I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way, but this post reminded me of a lecture you'd get from your dad when he got home from work after you did something dumb during the day and your mom told him he had to scold you, so he did, but his heart just wasn't it. I laughed much more than I should have. =D> It didn't; find your post quite funny. But, in all seriousness... listen to your mother.

This thread has, for better or worse, morphed into the transaction stream of consciousness thread. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, and much of the debate is pretty topical. Complaining that SS is more of a need than trading for Roberts is, indeed, topical -- as are the subsequent replies. Should the debate rage on too long, a mod/admin may split the thread (although right now that's kind of a real pain in the behind). One thing, though, please keep the debate civil. About 10 pages ago, there was an exchange where several posters clearly crossed the line. Debate all you like, but no insults; keep it about the topic of the debate -- not about someone being stupid or whatever. 'Kay?

When I say bad, please read that as an obvious double dribble and a travel with under a minute to go. And Eddie H wasn't even doing the game. :amen:

Didn't IU actually tie on the 3?

When I say bad, please read that as an obvious double dribble and a travel with under a minute to go.

Bad call gives Wisconsin an extra key possession at the end of the game. Typical Big Ten.

additional loss of scholarship and/or post season ineligiblity Depends on how they handle Sampson. My guess is that they fire Sampson at the end of the season.

Roberts is clearly available though, whereas there aren't any SS improvements over Theriot who are known to be on the market. We like to talk about Peralta and Greene, but there have been no indications that their teams want to trade them. True enough. But spending basically all of your available trading chips on one of your already solid positions isn't, to my mind, the best decision. I have no problem with trading for Roberts; I do have a problem overpaying for Roberts. The Cubs could do much better upgrading SP or holding on to Gallagher, Cedeno and Murton for a mid-season upgrade.

If the price is right, I would love Roberts at 2B. The problem is that SS is a more glaring need than 2B -- at least to some people (of course being one of those people, I believe they are entirely correct).

I thought it was awesome. :)

Good win against OSU for IU. The officials let them play, and for the first time IU effectively defended -- and attacked -- a larger team.

I'd grab an LT and move Tait back to RT.

:-" Most likely.

Just FWIW I watched Sean throw his last bullpen before he left for AZ and he had a MLB catcher from another team catching. He was consistently Mid 90's and his offspeed pitches were there and there were a few other MLB players watching and they had nothing but good things to say. He has been working out really hard as evidenced by his dropping twenty five pounds and has been working on being ready as soon as ST opens...... ;) I've got an great idea: don't trade him. :clapping:

It would've been more amazing if it wasn't called a BS foul and Jozy scored. I like how Marquez waited until Jozy was between him and the ref and then just bit it, even though he hadn't been touched. Oh wait, no I don't. marquez is such a giant bitch. I declare open season on Marquez. Have at him.

Seriously.

And it was a different situation. Whistles are blown based on context, it's just the way it's done. Webber was trapped in a corner by UNC defenders and stopped to motion for the time out. In doing so, he could've gained an advantage and gotten out of the trap. The Arizona player called it as time was clearly about to expire, and gained no advantage in doing so. Context shouldn't matter. The rules are black and white. It's all the contextual interpretations and application hat give us the awful reffing we see in every single Big Ten game. If you applied the rules without regard to context, you would cut down significantly on overly physical play, there would be more turnovers, and much higher scoring games. And, by the way, by your example, Pruitt gained an advantage for Illinois tonight (albeit a very slight one) when he prevented White from shooting. So, then, the foul should have been called. Because, after all, there's no way for the ref to know if that ball is going to go in -- despite the distance. Right? I can't believe you're arguing that the foul on Pruitt should have been called, to decide a hard fought tie game going into double overtime. I'm an Illini fan, and if the situation were reversed I'd be embarrassed to win a game that way. Sorry to butt in on the argument but unless a guy gets physically decked to the ground in that situation that should never be called. I really think you need to see my post re: being querulous.

Snipped the context discussion cause I already said I'd be fine with calling things to the letter of the law, but it's not how it's done. And yes, Pruitt gained a tiny advantage in doing such, just as every time a player fouls, there is some tiny advantage to them. I already admitted that Pruitt made a ridiculous decision in coming within 20 feet of White, I already told you why it wasn't called, unless your argument is that White was going to make his 3/4 court shot, I'm not really understanding the argument. I'm feeling querulous so I'm picking a useless argument.

And it was a different situation. Whistles are blown based on context, it's just the way it's done. Webber was trapped in a corner by UNC defenders and stopped to motion for the time out. In doing so, he could've gained an advantage and gotten out of the trap. The Arizona player called it as time was clearly about to expire, and gained no advantage in doing so. Context shouldn't matter. The rules are black and white. It's all the contextual interpretations and application hat give us the awful reffing we see in every single Big Ten game. If you applied the rules without regard to context, you would cut down significantly on overly physical play, there would be more turnovers, and much higher scoring games. And, by the way, by your example, Pruitt gained an advantage for Illinois tonight (albeit a very slight one) when he prevented White from shooting. So, then, the foul should have been called. Because, after all, there's no way for the ref to know if that ball is going to go in -- despite the distance. Right?

He'd look a lot worse if he shook everyone's hand and ignored Gordon. This is a kid that lied to him for months, I don't blame him for having some bad feelings to him. I'd rather he be the better man, but I can see where he's coming from. Especially after how painful these 2 losses to IU have been. Weber has just, in my opinion, tried to take the high road with this situation in his public comments. But to see him to a 180 as soon as he reaches Sampson goes against all that. Its not a big deal, just something I don't quite understand. If Sampson can walk through the line of Illinois players, Weber could do the same. Not the same thing at all the Illini dont have any players who lied to him for months like IU does. I'm pretty sure that there are players all throughout the Big Ten who lied to other coaches who recruited them. High school kids are often morons. And dealing with these kids and their AAU coaches... I'm sure there's a lot of lying going around. Weber and the Illinois players should rise above it. Lest you come back with more Gordon hatred... I'm just going to throw Luke Recker and Lawrence Funderburke out on the table.

No. There should be no judgment involved. A foul is a foul is a foul. If the whistle goes in the pocket for the last minute, then it goes in for both teams. Gordon thwacked Pruitt. So, I ask you, did Pruitt foul White? (I do disagree with the call on Ellis at the end of regulation. That was a crappy call.) In fact, I'd say that Gordon's foul was quite smart since Illinois shoots free throws about as well as my dead great-grandmother. Pruitt, on the other hand, stupidly hacked DJ White when there was about zero chance of him making the shot. That's a dumb foul and if Illinois isn't at home, that probably gets called. You won't get any argument that it was a colossally stupid play by Pruitt. Seriously? We need to get a hand in the face of a center as he shoots from 3/4 court??? I'd be fine if things were called strictly to the letter of the law, but you know that's not how things are done. The new rule seems to be if it had an adverse effect, you blow the whistle, otherwise you don't. In the game we lost to Arizona earlier in the year, Arizona got the ball tied with about 1 second left at around 3/4 court and called a timeout they didn't have. The ref ignored the timeout and let the clock run out. I wasn't on here pissing and moaning about it cause come on, it didn't have any effect on how that last second was played so why end it like that. In the same manner, DJ White was not hitting a 75 foot heave, so why end it like that? It's the way things are called now, and have been for the past 10 years. To expect that call is ridiculous. I seem to recall a technical called against Webber a while back for calling a time out when Michigan didn't have one... in a rather important game, too. I think Illini fans have a right to be pissed that the refs ignored that call. I've seen ridiculous things called (and not called) at the end of games. I see a TON of awful hacking going on, and it's rarely called... except, then, sometimes it is called. And then sometimes awful calls are made (which generally benefit the home team or Duke). Ellis, for example, got hit with a relatively ticky-tack call at the end of regulation, and then Gordon was called for a fair foul at the end of OT. White gets the rebound and, yes, it was a heave, but Pruitt stupidly grabbed him and interfered with White's ability to get his shot off. That was a foul. I don't really care whether or not it gets called, as a single example. I care about consistent application of the game's rules. If you call Ellis and then Gordon, you have to call Pruitt. It was stupidly obvious, and it was a bad no-call. If you're making foul calls with under 10 seconds left like that, you need to make it both ways. Hell... Pruitt wasn't far short of tackling White.