Rex Hudler

Random thoughts in general on the IU -UK game. 1. IU played well but has a lot of room to get better. I was surprised they were able to hang with Kentucky's athleticism. 2. Foul trouble on Davis played a HUGE part in the game, but that is part of basketball. 3. As well as IU shot 3's, they missed a lot of short shots in the lane in traffic. They only hit 43% total for the game, which is much worse than that have shot for the year so far. Of course, the competition has something to do with that. 4. IU's defense is night and day better than it has been. The biggest weakness and UK e xposed it late in the game is when they are spread out and have a PG who can drive the lane. Hulls, as much as I love the kid, can't guard talented PG's one on one. 5. The referees let them play. There was a lot of holding, hands slapping everywhere. Both teams were aggressive on defense, especially in the first half. They could have calls fouls on almost every possession so I think they did a pretty good job letting them play. 6. I don't mind listening to Vitale until he starts in on something and beats it to death. I don't know how many times he talked about getting the ball to Zeller (and he was right) but made it sound so easy. "He's open! Get him the ball!" I'm not a coach but it doesn't take a lot to know to get the ball in the post two things have to happen. The post player has to get position AND the player with the ball has to have a lane to get him the pass. If you watch it again, most of the time Kentucky had a defender tight on the guy with the ball and didn't give him much room or time to make the entry pass. You can't just lob it over him, Kentucky is way too athletic for that. 7. That said, IU has to get better at making those entry passes and looking for opportunities immediately and as Zeller is getting position rather than waiting. 8. The players for IU hitting the 3's have been the guys hitting them all year. Sheehey, Oladipo, Watford, Hulls, Jones and even Elston who curiously did not play yesterday have hit 3's consistently all year. IU does take some quick shots and shoots off the dribble a good bit, but they did it on the road at NC St. too so you can't think it is just a home court thing. 9. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist is GOOD. I really don't want to see him again playing against my team. That said, something was wrong with Terence Jones yesterday. As Vitale pointed out, he was playing passively, standing around when he didn't have the ball. It looked like he was sulking when he was sitting on the bench. He can be a very good player. Not sure what was up his arse yesterday. 10. "I hate to lose, but if I'm to lose, losing to Tommy is fine because what he's done here in four years and having to do it the way he did it where you're undermanned and now you're trying to fight," Calipari said. "For him to have this happen for him and his family, I'm happy for them. They deserve to win the game." Comments like this make it more difficult for me to dislike Calipari. I still dislike him, but it makes it harder.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Dec 10, 2011 -> 06:28 PM) LOL what a joke. IU makes another chuck. No surprise there. I'm not sure what's up with you and your hatred for IU but it has you making dumb posts. Watford has hit 3's for 2-3 years now and the last shot was a very good one. He had his feet under him and shoulders square. In that situation I don't think you can ask for a better shot. And if you have paid attention at all, which I'm sure you have had no reason to so far, Hulls has become a very good basketball player. He has been hitting shots like that all year long. He is far different than the kid 3 years ago who only shot 3's and only when wide open. It doesn't take much room or time for him to get off a quality shot now. He has also been very good inside the arc this year, making a lot of shots off the dribble and in traffic. He still has limitations with height and defensively he can't stop a guy like Teague, but he's become a much better defender in terms of getting steals. A long and athletic team like Kentucky will give him problems because of his height, but how many teams are going to have a 6'7" guy guarding him? I know you know basketbal so I am chalking this one up to not having seen IU much this year. But players can and do improve. Hulls has done so more in the last two years than anyone I can remember in a long time. It now should be pretty obvious this is a much different team than in past years. And before you get any big ideas, NO, I am not predicting a national title this year. lol

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 10, 2011 -> 05:31 PM) My main question is who the f*** thought it was a good idea to put Xavier players behind a microphone? The fight was bad enough, but that made it even worse. "We gotta bunch of gangsters in the locker room." "That's what you're going to get from Cincy/Xavier." What the f*** were they thinking letting them talk? Krush, you are dead on. I made that comment last night that the players even being at the press conference after what happened was a major mistake by both the coach and the SID. That falls aon more than just the coach. Hell, I'm sure the AD was even there. Still, I was disappointed in my old college buddy Chris Mack for that. I haven't heard or read comments from Mack yet, but I was VERY impressed with the Cincinnati coach reacted. I thought it was cool that he made the whole team take off their jerseys and he said he would decide who and when gets to put them back on and represent their school. Cincy has always had more of the reputation reflected by the players actions than the coaches reaction. I was impressed with him.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 10, 2011 -> 02:01 PM) He only has 2 picks. He deserves to be a finalist but not close to being a winner. A UM fan like yourself should appreciate the difference between a winner like Woodson and a finalist like HB. It's not just the picks with him. He forces fumbles, recovers them and returns for touchdowns, breaks up passes. A guy like him will never wow you with stats. That said, I'm not comparing him to Woodson. I just think he has been good enough this year to warrant being a finalist. I could argue that Matt Barkley should be there instead, but not everyone will agree on anything. But watching Mathieu play, he just seems to make big plays at big moments. But I agree, he isn't going to be the winner, nor should he be.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 9, 2011 -> 01:21 PM) Only the 2nd most TDs in a season in D-1 history. If Wisconsin hadn't given up those two late game hail marys, Ball would be the runaway winner. I disagree. If Wisconsin has not lost those on those two hail marys, Russell Wilson would be getting a lot of consideration too.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 08:26 PM) Am I the only person who thinks it's bogus that the Honey Badger is one of the five finalists for the Heisman? When is the last time a Heisman finalist was suspended a game during the season due to drug use? LaMichael James was suspended for a game last year and finished 2nd? Not sure why he was suspended. I have no problem with Mathieu being a finalist. The guy made plays all year long and not just on special teams. Usually guys who are consistently in the right place at the right time to make plays, are there for a reason.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 04:15 PM) Charlie Weis to Kansas. Who'd a thunk it?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 09:27 AM) I fully expect them to demolish VT by 20+, and thats from a buckeye. Will you people stop it?? I'm totally not comfortable with Michigan being in the role of favorite yet. I need more time (aka another season)!!

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 10:12 AM) Oh ya, because I b**** about every other playoff(keyword there) system that we have in sports. And who gives a s*** if it's the best system we've had, those sucked and this one f***in sucks. There is not a thing worse in sports than the BCS, it's f***in garbage. And it pains me that I'm so indifferent about the NC in a sport that I love. I'm one of the biggest college sports fans around but this stupid system is completely ruining the game for me. No one is forcing you to watch!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 08:16 AM) That is entirely subjective, which is the whole problem. Give me the tourney any day, even if they screwed it up with class ball. Yes, but my point was a new system is not always better than an old one, i.e class ball. What I am trying to say is someone will always have a problem with whatever system is in place.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 11:33 PM) There has to be a better way than this. A plus one at the very least. Just because it's an upgrade over an older system doesn't mean you shouldn't keep striving to perfect it, or even change it entirely if it's causing too many problems. I went from the biggest BCS supporter ever years ago (and seemingly the only one of my friends) to someone that's just said f*** it, we at least need a plus one. Krush, I have no problem with that line of thinking. My biggest thing is so many people react like this BCS thing is the worst thing ever, when in actuality it is the best system we've ever had. Making it better is fine by me, I'm just not sure how you do a playoff without there being even more b****ing. If you go 8 teams (and that is as big as I think it will ever get) do you give conference champions automatic bids? How do you handle the non-BCS schools? Would we really be better off having West Virginia and a 3-loss Clemson in an 8 team tournament and leaving better teams to the bowls? God forbid UCLA would have upset Oregon and gotten in at 7-6. Alternately, one of the announcers this weekend proposed something I thought was interesting. He suggested a plus one with the losers in the first round going to the bowls so the bowls don't get shortchanged. Not sure if it would actually work, but it was interesting nonetheless.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 02:13 AM) The playoff system would be easy: 11 conference champions and 5 wild card teams. Shorten the regular season to 10 or 11 games if you have to, and do that. Very similar to what 1-AA did before expanding their playoffs last season. The system would make such an incredible amount of money, and in that sense, I'm amazed it hasn't happened yet. I can tell you this much, if NIU were getting ready to play at Alabama in the 1st round of the tournament right now, I'd be incredibly excited. Even with the knowledge that we had absolutely no shot at winning the game. In the meantime though, I'll just hope for a plus 1. Baby steps. I see ZERO chance teams are going to shorten the season. It got more difficult to get a playoff done when they added the 12th game a few years ago. I'm not sure I would want to see 16 teams like you propose, but I am warming up to an 8 team playoff if and only if they play the first round games on campus sites and there is some kind of committe like they do in basketball to choose the 8 teams. I'm not sure it could work if you gave automatic bids to conferences, but that may be the only way. Problem is, to do a playoff the BCS schools will have to turn it over to the NCAA and that is what they are trying to avoid.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 11:07 PM) Ah okay didnt think about Stanford being 4 (doesnt make sense when Oregon beat them pretty easily, but this is the year of teams who dont win championships being in the top 4). Id guess Michigan is staying at home, but then again Big10 has always had 2 BCS teams. I would have been fine going to the Capital One if no Sugar Bowl. Like I said in a previous post. Circumstances this year made the Sugar Bowl bid a gift for Michigan. I don't have a problem admitting that. I just understand the landscape in which we play in. Instead of many others who want to find things they don't like and b**** about them every year. I have ZERO doubt that a playoff system would create just as much b****ing. The way I look at it is, this is what makes college football great. People care!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 11:01 PM) I dont really care if MSU or Michigan got selected, I just think MSU deserved the chance to be screwed. I assume that OSU would have gotten into the BCS, even if it meant no Stanford. Stanford was automatic being in the top 4, one of the other stipulations.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 10:48 PM) Rex, Im not saying that the loser gets a bid. Im saying that the loser should be able to be considered for a bid. If dont get taken so be it, but I really dont see the problem with making there 3-5 more eligible teams. The other way of thinking is with a non-AQ auto bid (had Houston won, TCU made it to 16 or Boise won their conference despite a loss) and Stanford being in the top 4, there was really only one at large spot to take. As it turned out there were two. With only one or two spots, is 14 not deep enough? Under the current rule, Michigan, VA Tech Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma and Boise State were all eligible for those two spots. Is that not enough teams to choose from?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 10:48 PM) Rex, Im not saying that the loser gets a bid. Im saying that the loser should be able to be considered for a bid. If dont get taken so be it, but I really dont see the problem with making there 3-5 more eligible teams. I don't really see a problem with that either. It just wouldn't change anything in the situation this year whether MSU was eligible or not. Michigan would have still been chosen. Here is a scenario I thought about before last Saturday's games. Let's say Houston won and gets an auto bid. Let's then say Oklahoma beats OK St in a squeaker in a well played game. Say OK State drops to 7 or 8 in the BCS standings. Let's assume Michigan made it in at 13 or 14. Oklahoma would have received the auto bid to the Fiesta. Would the Sugar Bowl still have chosen Michigan over OK State? Probably so. But maybe not. I think I would have a harder time swallowing that and seeing OK St left out of the BCS bowls, than what happened. There are just so many scenarios and they change each year to account for them all.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 10:24 PM) Rex, Why cant they make a rule that only involves conferences with championship games? The NCAA already has rules that only effect those conferences with championship games. It simply would read, "Both team that makes a conference championship where the winner would be entitled to an automatic bid BCS bid will be eligible for BCS game selection." BCS conferences are already limited to 2 teams, so all it really does is allow the bowl games to pick a better team, the spot still is going to a major conference. They can do anything they want. But I just don't think its necessary and I would say the same thing if UM lost Saturday night. In fact, I wish UM had that opportunity instead of sitting at home. Conference games can be good or bad. But even if MSU was eligible, they still wouldn't have been chosen over Michigan. Look at this scenario. Let's say Alabama did not make it into the NC game. Do you think runner up Georgia is more deserving of a BCS bid than Alabama just because they were in the weak SEC East? No. What if the losing team in a conference championship game had 4 or 5 losses? Lose a couple out of conference and land in a weak division and win with 2-3 losses and that's possible. Who wants that team to be BCS bowl eligible? There are just too many scenarios that don't make sense. But they can change the rules to however they see fit. They have rules committes for that, right? Those committees would be made up of representatives of schools.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 10:20 PM) Everyone into a tournament sounds better than the IHSAA just picking the two best teams out of Indy. If they were the best two teams would that be a bad thing?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 09:54 PM) If there is no BCS does MSU make a BCS bowl before Michigan? No. Wisky would go to the Rose Bowl and Michigan would likely get the next best bowl. That's the way it was before the BCS too. Again, this isn't something new. It's about selling tickets. Why do you think MSU isn't going to the Capital One this year? Partially because they went last year. But largely because they laid an egg there last year. If they shined last year you don't think the Capital One would have invited them back? Hell yes. It's about selling tickets. Always has been.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 09:42 PM) Nope, actually thats exactly what I was referring to when you incorrectly stated that the BCS had nothing to do with bowl selection. Michigan as the 3rd or 4th best Big Ten team made a BCS bowl by doing nothing but watching a team that beat their ass lose the championship game that they themselves werent good enough to make. Your opponent is the worst AQ school to be in a BCS bowl in the history of the system, but hey, the BCS has them #11 while actual rankings have them 17th. As for BSU and K-state, both should have been given a shot at the Sugar Bowl, unfortunately fan base was the main factor and UM is the obvious choice, and that probably had nothing to do with BCS rankings whatsoever. Thats a straight money game. But it always has been about money. That's my point. The BCS has nothing to do with it. Once the eligible teams are set, the bowls choose the teams regardless of ranking. The Big Ten played a conference championship game voluntarily to make money. I don't want to hear people whine about how they are effected by their own actions. In a wonderful happy world should other teams be there because they "deserve" it? Sure. But it never has and never will be that perfectly wonderful happy world. Last year MSU would have gotten in. Their own conferences choice to have a CG did them in. Oh well.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 09:28 PM) I just think that there is something stupid about having such a stringent rule as 14th team. Why not just amend the rule to 14th team or team to lose a CCG. That way they could have taken MSU if they thought they were deserving. I dont really care that Michigan got in, hopefully they dont play bad is all I care about. The eligibility rules are in place more for the non-AQ schools than anything. Why they chose 14 as the cut off, I don't know. But they can't make the eligibility rules based on anything that happens in the conference championship games because not all conferences have them. The conferences choose to have the CG because of $$. Until this year, it would have gone the other way for MSU, most likely. I just don't see how you can make rules to exclude something from negatively affect a team when their own conference voluntarily chose to have said game.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 09:12 PM) And the bottom line is that it f***in sucks. Whatever. Get a new system and you and everyone else will find something else to b**** about. The system we have now is better than anything that has ever existed. The most fairly perceived system isn't always the best. Ask ss2k about class basketball in Indiana.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 09:19 PM) I thought people were saying MSU should be in over Michigan because they beat Michigan head to head and would been the BCS selection but for losing a CCG against Wisconsin that Michigan didnt have to play. As for the other schools, bowl games need to sell tickets. Its hard enough to sell out games to teams with hundreds of thousands of fans. I doubt many casual fans are going to take a vacation to see Boise State play K-State. Michigan State fans are whining. And I would probabaly feel a little cheated if the situation were reversed. But I'm objective enough to understand the system and know sometimes it works for you and sometimes it doesn't. Think about it this way. If Houston would have won and Oklahoma doesn't get blasted, Michigan probably doesn't get into the top 14. Baylor jumped Michigan this weekend. Baylor would have likely been at #14 in that scenario. If that happened I would have been fine going to the Capital One Bowl, even thought it would have sucked getting jumped by a 3-loss team in Baylor.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 08:15 PM) Only 3 players deserve Heisman consideration, RG3, Ball and Wilson. Because Ball and Wilson are on the same team, I expect RGIII to win. I really don't like the Heisman any more. There is way too much hype early in the season. Remember recent Heisman frontrunners Tate Forcier and Denard Robinson? I hate that teams promote Heisman candidates (Oregon billboards in Times Square) and that we evaluate the Heisman week in week out. If the Heisman hype didn't exist or at least wasn't so in your face, I think it would be fun trying to figure out who is most deserving toward the end of the sason. I definitely would give serious consideration to Ball, RGIII and even Mathieu. Mathieu being suspended for a game won't help his chances. But I don't think I could argue against him being the most impactful non-QB/WR/RB since Charles Woodson. I sure as hell wish Michigan had someone that could return punts like he can, not to mention his ability to make plays on D.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 5, 2011 -> 08:54 PM) Rex, The BCS does have a slight impact on bowl selections. If you arent in the top 14 (or is it 16) you can not go to a BCS bowl game. Thus MSU could have not been selected. I also believe ND must be ranked higher than a certain spot in the BCS to be eligible. So its not a huge one, but it does happen. Right. I said outside a few parameters to determine eligibility. But MSU isn't the one everyone is whining about. They are whining about K ST, Boise and Baylor. All three of which in the history of bowl games would not have been chosen over Michigan. Personally I would have liked to have seen Baylor against Michigan, but that would have been a worse matchup for UM. I think RGIII vs Denard could have been an intriguing story line. That said, I hope everyone understands that I do realize Michigan got a gift BCS bowl bid this year. Things fell the right way for them. I don't think they are as strong as a "typical" BCS bowl team and their matchup against VA Tech is favorable as well. But at the same time, I was fully prepared that if things didn't fall the way they did and they didn't get into the top 14, I would have been just as happy to go to the Capital One Bowl. After the last few years, any bowl is a treat at this point, especially after that showing in Jacksonville last year that I personally witnessed. The bottom line is the system is what it is and most of the things people are b****ing about are the same things that have always happened. This isn't new stuff.