UK1679666180

Obviously his recruiting is his biggest strength and he was out-coached yesterday, but he did a great job of getting this team together. He did better performances with UMass than UK, when I say he has done his best job yet, I'm speaking of terms in Lexington. This was a different style of play from Feb. till now, blame should go to Cal for how poorly they started though. I still think the talent on this squad is vastly overrated, the only one I see being a major contributor is Randle at the next level, everyone else is likely a role player.

Sucks but not as devastating as '84, '03, and '97. Agreed as far as not utilizing Randle more, the game is setup to reward him plowing to the basket. I know anywhere from 5-7 will leave, Randle is prob. the only one who should go pro. Next year will be rough, the class isn't nearly as strong.

Getting nine McDonald's All-Americans to the championship game isn't something that can be done by mortals. Considering the situation with how far they've come in this past month, I stand by that. I'm well aware this on paper was one of the best classes of all-time and how disappointing they were up until March as well as how they bad they were in '12-'13, but for whatever reason they've changed their style and had to go thru the toughest bracket to get to the title game. People want to complain about how shady he is, he is more honest about what elite college athletics is about than Coach K, Self, et. ever will be. Coach K wants to give verbal BJs about how great Duke is academically (which it is) and how great the college experience is while recruiting players like Irving, Parker, Rivers, etc., just be honest and tell what Duke basketball stands for (NBA basketball factory where elite players are there b/c they have to get thru one year of college) and not pure BS.

That was a hell of a game, I hate everything about the state of WI but that was luck. If cheating on your wife/g/f is fair punishment for not recording in HD, what is the punishment for recording the Badgers broadcast instead of the UK or the National broadcast? I can't remember four games in a row like this. This is best job by Calipari so far.

Regardless it was a stacked bracket. An undefeated team, the most talented team in the country (arguably), last years champs with much of the same roster, and then 2 of the 3 best offenses in the country, one being last years runner up and the other having one of the 2-3 best players in the country in Duke. Agreed, it was by far the most difficult bracket in the tourney.

Fwiw, I think UL and Michigan would've knocked out the Shockers.

Of course he was frustrated, they didn't have any rhythm on offense.They were trying to run an offense basically set-up for a one on one battle and hope to draw a double team. It took them forever to buy into it. They were probably overrated at the beginning of the year, they're not as talented as the Wall/Cousins class or the Davis/Teague/Lamb/MKG class. To get this class into the FF is the job he's done since getting to UK. The 11-12 class had Miller, Hood and Vargas as the upperclassmen with Miller being the only one with any leadership qualities. Davis and Kidd-Gilchrist were that way from the beginning.

Not sure if it's a gift since they have to work for it, but I imagine it will be taxable. That is what I have been thinking. If the scholarships for these players is going to start being classified as compensation as an employee of the university there would have to be some kind of tax implications I would think. If that's the case, does the NCAA pull some BS declaring that they're no longer amateurs and now aren't eligible? Worst case scenario, they probably get to some middle ground. I'm all for opening the can of worms and paying athletes to play collegiate sports. What I would like to see if they don't go all the way as far as paying athletes: 1) Eliminate the rule that colleges can pull scholarships once an athlete gets hurt. 2) Eliminate partial scholarships and walk-ons, anyone as part of a collegiate sport should have a full ride. 3) If a player is injured during the process of training or competing in a sport, there should be something similar to pain and suffering if you get into an accident and someone else is at fault (sport they were brought to the Univ. to do). I haven't put too much thought into it beyond random brainstorming.

I hate the '13 UK comparisons to the Fab Five, it's not even close. Michigan was so better than the current Uk squad. I know UM was only a 6 seed going into the tourney but the talent level was so much greater than UK.

Let's hope they don't crash at midway, too. Unconventional landing. It made getting onto Cicero that much easier. Tim did not have a Time-Life Mysteries of the Unknown premonition.

Any truth to the rumor that the Cubs had the wrong scoreboard installed at Cubs Park? On the radio they were saying that the Cubs had told the contractor to go Salt River Fields and duplicate their state of the art scoreboard while putting a replica clock on top like at Wrigley. Instead, he went to Scottsdale stadium and duplicated that one... Cubs park (reduced for size) What it mimics... Scottsdale Stadium What they wanted... Salt River Fields

Based on the style of writing, I question that it came from a scout.

I don't think you realize how much of a draw Wrigley is. Compared to the temporary draw of a new stadium, increased seating, as well as what I previously mentioned, I don't get it. FWIW, Boers was on your side. He couldn't fathom that the fanbase wouldn't follow the Cubs. He thought there would be a business model that would work for them in another location, it just may not be the one that currently works in the Wrigleyville area. Since you put it that way.... http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Oane0JkxwJA/T-p85ckx_dI/AAAAAAAAABc/MFBYyxhL-4U/s1600/surrender_flag.gif I guess it would depend on how much of the new mock Wrigley Field would be financed via taxpayer, the more that has to come out directly of the Ricketts, the less likely. I'm just afraid they're realizing what they've done so far is not a sunk cost and the price they're paying for is not b/c of poor planning. Also, they're inclined to be doubling down on the fact something will get worked out between them and the rooftops and it could be completed in 4 years instead of 5. They've played nice with them for too long and it has cost them. I think several here are underestimating the new streams of revenue from a new stadium within a city willing to bend over backwards to get them and overstating the impact Wrigley has (especially with a declining interest/people in seats). If they're bad for the next two years and remain uncompetitive, Wrigley as a draw becomes minimized.

I don't think you realize how much of a draw Wrigley is. Compared to the temporary draw of a new stadium, increased seating, as well as what I previously mentioned, I don't get it.

Am I the only one confused by the study implying that the Cubs stand to lose profit by moving to the burbs rather than staying where they're at? Given advertising, retail, hotels, restaurants, tv inclusiveness, parking, communities willing to bend over backwards to get them that they would stand to make more in this current [expletive] compared to a new premier facility.

Agreed, I think that is a solid value for him at that price.

Who will have a higher WARP at the duration of their contracts, Garza or E. Jackson?

Not to sound like an idiot or a dick but... Did he imply they have 29 hired scouts solely for each team? Did he imply they cover each team at each level? I haven't looked at their BA Directory but I'm assuming they have pro scouts who cover the minors full-time, amatuer area scouts who cover the minor leagues within their territory and then further up with crosscheckers, etc as most teams (including mine) employ. Depending on which one it is, I would not be too impressed. It was implied they have a different scout assigned to each team and that person covers the entire system, top to bottom. Was not clear if this was that scouts ONLY job or not. Yeah, that's a Wilken thing. When each guy is assigned like 3 or 4 teams from Rookie on up (not sure if it extends to the majors). It's more valuable with trades considering the same guy has graded the entire system rather than 3-4 different guys, although I'm sure they still have territorial coverage for added eyes.

Not to sound like an idiot or a dick but... Did he imply they have 29 hired scouts solely for each team? Did he imply they cover each team at each level? I haven't looked at their BA Directory but I'm assuming they have pro scouts who cover the minors full-time, amatuer area scouts who cover the minor leagues within their territory and then further up with crosscheckers, etc as most teams (including mine) employ. Depending on which one it is, I would not be too impressed.

Think they have dual cardboard cutouts of GarPax like this...? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AxcpcFF_iHg/TdyCa3FFGxI/AAAAAAAACSM/7N9AyV2fSOg/s1600/ml.jpg

Nah, Zimmer is a good hire. 2nd best of the offseason, IMO, behind Bradley in Houston. I'll take proven coordinator or college coach getting promotions to HC over retread head coaches who have never won anything. I just think hiring a defensive-minded coach when your offense is a mess with no QB was a mistake. As bad as they were on offense, Minnesota was worse on defense.

I think Dew should start a 7 round mock draft next week.

Not to defend the FO too much, but I definitely think the new CBA hurt the dual fronts plan the most. Essentially the only way to stock up in the draft is to have a top pick. Yes, the Cardinals and Rays will make good picks and help their farm, but for the Cubs to stock the system (instead of those team re-stocking) they had to lose. I'm not at all happy about the MLB team sucking or the renovations, etc, but if the club could have spent freely in the draft I think the dual front campaign would have been more realistic to carry out. The Cubs have done well on this front, they've more than held up their end of the bargain as far as building up the farm. The changes in the draft have done little to impact that. The regression of key players is why this thing has been stunted for a year, had they finished around 75-80 wins last year with similar contributions as they did in '12 from Rizzo, Barney, Castro, and Samardzija while retaining Soriano and Garza for the entire '13, maybe we would see a more active FA plan. There's still a chance to get N. Cruz and another possibility of a SP (assuming Tanaka is not coming and they have a plan B). I want to be more confident in their future spending than I am at this point.

Kyle.

There's tons O'Irony here considering the source... It's been quiet lately on the FA market and minus bringing Tucker back not much at all.