XZero771679666304

Honestly, I have not been impressed with Florida at any point this year. I think they won today because of a combination of good inside presence and Nova playing like absolute crap. Tyrus Thomas wil own Noah.

While the refs may not have been perfect, they in no way "gave the game" to Washington. A friend of mine tried to tell me that the refs gave UNC the title last year because they were calling fouls on Augustine and not on May. But it's hard to get big men in foul trouble when all you do is shoot threes. But back to this year, what an amazing tournament. Who would've thought that the final four wouldn't have one single team from the Big East, the Big Ten, or the ACC. Simply amazing. Go George Mason. For some objectivity, I showed a copy of the Washington-Illinois game to some of my aquaintances down here (who could care less about Illinois or the big ten) And nearly all of them (in varying degrees) thought Illinois was jobbed. Illinois still could have won, but they were put at a clear disadvantage by clearly one sided officiating. For the record, I saw the same thing happen to MSU, Indiana and Washington. Something has been terribly wrong with the officiating this year, and goes far beyond the Illinois-Washington game. Now I am happy to see a team like GMU in the final four, as I am a big fan of parity. But overall, this tournament has been poorer because the officials haven't been letting the players really play like they have in previous seasons. Lopsided foul differentials and slow choppy play have been the order of the day this year, and a lot of people have noticed it, not just Illini fans.

I think LSU could very well beat either of those teams, if they could overcome the lack of experience. LSU wouldn't stand a chance. UNC had a better Davis in Sean May along with FAR superior supporting players. Illinois played a better Glen Davis down to the wire against a team with FAR superior supporting players. LSU couldn't handle either of those teams' guards. I think Arizona, Oklahoma St., and Michigan St. of last year would win it all as well. I'm not gonna go back over my Washington/Illinois game review again. If you didn't see it, it was one sided foul calls against Illinois. If you did see it then you're a pac-10 homer/illinois hater. Statistically and athletically speaking, I think LSU matches up with these teams quite well. Glen Davis is no Sean May, but he could still play quite well against May, and I think he's better than Augustine. Darrel Mitchell is their Luther Head/Deron Williams/Rashard McCants, and is solid all around. Tyrus Thomas is a freak of an athlete. If this team stayed together for two or three years, I think they'd be just as good, if not better, than the teams in last years championship game. Other than Thomas, LSU doesn't have a single player that projects to be as good as UNC's starters from last year. To put it simply, LSU's guards are average at best. Last season's Illinois backcourt would have absolutely dominated this year's LSU backcourt. UNC would have just flat out dominated. Even as an Illini fan I have to admit last season's UNC squad was as talented a team as I have ever seen. Given all that, I think LSU will win it all at this point.

Nova was a bit overrated, and UConn just played like crap all tournament. If it werent for the officiating, UConn wouldn't have beaten Washington. The Big East as a whole was overrated, but UConn was clearly the best team, except they couldn't seem to play anything like it. I think that would be the most frustrating thing, to know you were the best but screwed it up.

How's that? Get a copy of their second round game and see for yourself.

As far as power goes, here is about what I think it is reasonable to expect: Pierre - 1 Walker - 15 Lee - 40 Ramirez - 40 Jones - 25 Barrett - 18 Murton - 15 Cedeno - 5 Mabry - 5 Blanco - 5 Perez - 5 Hairston - 3 Grissom/Restovich - 7 That's 184 total, and I think that overall, that estimate may be conservative. 184 homers is a perfectly respectable team total.

I hope Washington wins. If they were going to beat us the way they did, they may as well make something of it. Plus I just hate UConn.

Washington is finding out that the refs giveth, and the refs taketh away.

I said it before, and I'l say it again, the officiating throughout theis tournament has been abysmal. It seems like a bad call or calls have had a hand in the outcome of every close game.

Lee: .305/.395/.990 45 HR 125 RBI Carpenter: 19-8 3.30 1.25 WHIP

Wow, Williams had some serious elevation on that block.

Overall, this tournament has featured some of the worst officiating I have ever seen.

And the mountain of paperwork and testimony they have assembled to support their assertions? Is that all a joke too? Doesn't sound like Bonds is laughing, by the way... [-( I don't doubt that a lot of stuff in the book is true. Just some of the stuff seems pretty far fetched. I don't think the jealousy is far fetched at all. If you have listened to and watched Bonds off the field over the years, you can tell that he is a egocentric, racist and generally spiteful person. So then you have McGwire, who is not as complete a player as Bonds as well as a suspected cheater at the time, getting all the press? I think that is ample motivation for a person like Bonds.

That's pretty optimistic. I have two main reasons that I disagree. 1. Clemens may not come back, and even if he does, it wont be until June at the earliest (according to his agent), and there's no guarantee it will be to the Astros. 2. Andy Pettitte had the best year of his career last year, and it is highly unlikely he repeats his 2005 performance. His 2005 numbers were so much better than his career norms that they almost have to be considered anomalous, especially at his age. The bottom line is that Clemens, Oswalt and Pettitte all had career years in 2005, and at the very least have some regression from Clemens (who you will have two months less of at least), and Pettitte. If Berkman stays healthy and Wilson performs at all, you guys might be as good as you were last year. Ensberg had a breakout year, but he is actually too old for that to be considered natural progression, so regression from him is quite possible. And the statement earlier in the thread about the Astros possibly having the best bullpen in baseball is pure fantasy. Outside of Lidge and Qualls, the bullpen is average at best. Hell, if Dempster stays healthy, you probably don't have the best bullpen in the division. The potential is there for the Astros to be better than last season, but it is equally likely they will be considerably worse.

ESPN just reported that a judge denied Bond's request for an injunction.

Oh, I give Illinois credit, they did hit their shots, and they had a lot to do with winning that game. But Arizona didn't play to win, they played not to lose. The Illinois steals you saw looked more like horrible passes from Arizona to me. They had a complete breakdown at the end of the game. I'm not taking anything away from Illinois, but it looked to me like Arizona just choked. Like I said, it depends on what side of the fence you sit. Illinois fans saw a tremendous comeback. Non-Illinois fans saw a tremendous collapse. Either way it was still a great game, and yes, should be an ESPN Classic. I think any dramatic comeback has to include a collapse. A good team up double digits with little time left isn't going to lose unless they cough it up. It happened in the Illinois-Arizona game, and it happened last night in the UCLA-Gonzaga game. Gonzaga was playing not to lose, went way to conservative on offense, and played piss poor on the press break. If Gonzaga played the same style of ball the got them a 17 point lead, they would not have lost. I think that when a team goes up big, they usually get complacent and lax for a brief period, and good teams can sense that and ramp it up to seize the opportunity to change the flow of the game. This can change an aggressive tem into a tentative and scared team, and make a game of a blowout. This is what I think happened in both the Illini and UCLA wins, and in most big comebacks. Sure, Gonzaga and Arizona choked, but only because their opponents smelled the blood in the water, and struck.

If only you were an illinois fan :) then you could of apprecated the zona game.....i doubt i will ever see a better basketball game Yes, that was truly awesome. Especially since I had nearly turned the game off in disgust.......ah, the memories.

I had that feeling last March.

We learn something new everyday, I guess.

throwing out the baby with the bathwater is a figure of speech, analagous to throwing out Hendry with Baker.

Make a good argument putting them in front of either UCLA, Indiana, UNC, Duke, or Kentucky. The top 5 go ahead I will wait for it. KU is a top 10 program or second tier. Hey Bill, that Sommerville kid can shoot might want to guard him. I think they're in front of Duke. They had a few Final Four appearances in the 60's, but other than that they were pretty much irrelevant until the late 80's. Yeah they've quite possibly been the best program since 1989, but that's not all that matters. It's close and they're right there, but I would give them the nod. There is a real ebb and flow to these things, IMO. A few years ago, I would have agreed with you, but Kansas hasn't looked like a top 5 in a while. Yeah, no FF since '02 and '03. What a drought. KU Since 1988-- five final fours, 3 title game appearances, one title. That's plenty to keep them in top program contention. UCONN is quickly becoming part of the discussion, too. It's their lack of history that hurts them. I realize it's all subjective, but I think it's silly to discount history and coaching trees just because you think they don't matter in the discussion. When people talk about UNC, they talk about Dean and MJ. When people talk UCLA they talk Wooden, Alcindor, etc. When people talk about KU, they talk Naismith, Chamberlain, the coaching tree. All of those are elements of what makes those programs great, and you don't get to discount them simply because it weakens the pro-KU argument to do so. And, and for the record, if UI lands Rose, they'll be damn good that year they have him. Instant title contender. I sincerely doubt recruits give a damn about any of that, and that matters more than what you or I think. And in terms of program health I would put UConn ahead of KU right now, along with Duke, UNC, MSU and maybe a couple others. And I don't think Self is a good enough coach to win a NC, and certainly not half the Coach Roy Williams is. In Self's 3 years at KU, he has had 3 very talented teams, and managed an Elite 8 and two first round exits. You can disagree all you want, but his winning to talent ratio isn't where it should be, and would be shocked if KU has the kind of success under him that you did under Williams.

Bullpen pitchers are hard to gauge. It's one of the most unpredictable things in baseball. Hendry has tried to go after solid bullpen people in the past, and it just didn't work out. You'd be hard-pressed to find people that were against the Hawkins or Remlinger signings at the time, as a few examples. And they would have fared better had Dusty used them according to their strengths. Hawkins is the prime example of that. He could have been a great asset, but Dusty single-handedly ruined him.

Bullpen pitchers are hard to gauge. It's one of the most unpredictable things in baseball. Hendry has tried to go after solid bullpen people in the past, and it just didn't work out. You'd be hard-pressed to find people that were against the Hawkins or Remlinger signings at the time, as a few examples. 2004 is good example. Farnsworth coming off a great year, Mercker coming off a great year, JOBO and the best setup man over the previous couple years in Hawkins, and Remlinger coming off a good year. That pen looked as good as it gets, and look how it turned out. You can't fault Hendry for that.

Last year Hendry screwed the pen. Going into 2004 the Cubs pen looked to be the best in the league. In 2003, the pen was good. On paper, the Cubs pen is the best in the division this year. Other than last season, I can't fault Hendry for the pen. However, he is responsible for the offense (ignoring OBP), and facilitating Dusty's lousy veteran fetish.

Rush is gone as soon as he can be. If the age limit hadn't been put in place, he would have bypassed college altogether. Thinking that Rush and Wright will stick around for the program is a fool's hope. As for Self, he can coach, but not nearly as well as he can recruit. IMO, the success he has had has been more a product of riding the talent more than brilliant coaching. And let's not forget that as good a recruiter as Self is, it's not like he has a long history of it like Coach K or Roy Williams. And if I am not mistaken, Gordon his a more highly rated recruit than any that Self brought to Champaign. Sure, that may be a product of Weber parlaying the success of Self's recruits into his own, but no more than Self building off Roy Williams' success. And UI will get back to or near 2005 level in 2008 or 2009, IMO. Especially if Weber can land Rose. Illinois has gotten a lot more press than usual in the past few years, and that is definately going to be a boon to Weber's recruiting efforts. If Gordon or Rose are as good as advertised, what makes you think they won't turn pro after one season? If you're so confident about Wright and Rush turning pro, Gordon and Rose (especially Rose since he plays a more 'in demand' position) should be just as likely to make that jump, imo. Could happen, but they are guards. Usually guards stick around longer, but good point none the less. And I don't expect Gordon to stay for four seasons. I would be satisfied with 2 years, and pleased with 3.