IlliniKrush

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 3, 2013 -> 10:35 PM) I of course benched him in my secondary league but no worries, Brady and Chris Johnson on my bench in my main league. I sat Brady for Pryor as well and got -9 from the Raiders defense. But with Stacy, Hilton, Witten, and Graham, I'll win anyway. I'm happy Brady went off though, could be a sign of things to come. Offense looked good today.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 3, 2013 -> 09:00 PM) Oh hey Andre. "Hey," says TY Hilton.

QUOTE (Brian @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 09:16 PM) I think I love Cheryl Scott. She's awesome. Hate Brant Miller.

Cliff was on campus today. Can't hurt...

Cubit bad call on 2nd, but the rest of that nonsense was scheelhaase.

http://www.hammerandrails.com/2013/10/31/5...an-late-morning

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 09:19 AM) Hahahahaha Nice!

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 03:51 PM) Brandon Pirri promoted to 2nd line. Eat a dick, Handzus. Hey, it's nothing against Handzus. I like him as a 4th liner and in a certain role, I think you'd agree. He didn't come here saying he was a 2nd line center, they just forced him there. It's more like, eat a dick Bowman, and thanks Q for finally not being stubborn about it. You have to give Pirri a shot here. Someone has to be an answer.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 01:23 PM) Yes, it is absolutely meaningless. Improving on a 2-10 team that should never have been 2-10 is meaningless. It's not an argument for Beckman and your followup questions are asking something different. My expectations were to be a remotely competitive team in a terrible Big Ten. We've since gone 0-3 losing on average by 28 points. Wow. We've played 3 of 8 games. This next stretch determines everything. You're stuck on last year. That's fine, but it's not the reality of the situation.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 06:44 AM) 1. Stop saying this. Stop, stop, stop. It's absolutely meaningless when he's the one responsible for setting the bar so incredibly low. Stop saying this. It's not meaningless. What exactly were your expectations coming into this season? Record, etc? We've played 3 BT games, all of which we knew we'd lose. Were your expectations to win those? Everything depends on what happens in these next 5 games, 4 of which we should be competitive.

No idea why caroll wasn't using time outs once it got to first and goal.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 04:07 PM) It's nice not being broke but I'd give anything to go back to college. You can take the kid out of college but you can't take the college out of the kid.

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 07:17 AM) Wonder why he moved it up a day. Noticed its a couple days after Kansas plays at UC. Groce should shadow him and keep KU away that week. Ha Espnu has a recruiting show that day or something.

http://mattcoldagelli.com/2013/10/27/firin...retty-bad-idea/

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 09:41 PM) They would be paying Beckman plus the new hire. I don't know if they are still paying Zook, but if they are, they would be paying as many coaches as games they win. What I'm saying is, which new coach do we pay afterwards? No one's knocking down doors to come here. It'd be even more of a reach to people than a MAC coach.

Nov 15th, Cliff to Illinois. I used to think this was crazy, now I think we're one of the two horses in the race with a legit shot. JFG.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 08:18 PM) There are Beckman supporters out there? and people called me crazy for supporting Zook I don't know that there are supporters out there as much as there are just realists looking at the situation and as the article points out, there's no easy answer here. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 08:21 PM) They would be paying Beckman not to coach, just like Weber, Zook and the old women's B-ball coach. This guy sucks and they know it. If they actually had a tradition of being any good in football like they do in basketball, a change would be made for sure by the end of the season, if not already. The AD said Zook was fired because he couldn't win conference games. Maybe they can beat Purdue.. 46k at a Homecoming game shows a lack of interest in the program. Yeah, but pay who afterwards? He was put in a no-win situation with s***ty recruiting from the last few Zook years. I'm not sure what people's expectations were for this season. We knew it'd be a long climb. What we need to see, is actual climbing. Last year wasn't as much about the record as it was how the hell it happened. If we lost every BT game but were in every one and showed improve play, that's climbing. We saw improvement early in the year, and then we saw the play dead 2nd half Saturday. If that continues, I can see the change coming. The last 5 games will tell a lot. There was a ton of improvement, and then one awful half (preceded by one ridiculous play etc). The jury's still out on whether or not he gets year 3.

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 05:38 PM) See, this is the thing that bugs me the most about that play. Red Sox fans want to find a way to make the play legal and the sports journalists want to generate controversy so there is a story to sell. But, I have not heard a lot said about the way he moved his legs. There is no way he was trying to get up with such a move and it is pretty easy to assume that the intent was to obstruct. If he tried to do a burpee type move and his butt tripped up the runner, I could understand the lack of intent argument since that is probably the quickest type of move to get yourself up of the ground in that situation. But he clearly made a motion that a kid on the playground will do to salvage a desperate situation. Even though it does not matter, the intent WAS clearly there and the second time he raised his legs, all doubt was erased. He knew the missed ball would lead to the run and in desperation he lifted his legs and hoped he would not be called. But, in a nod toward the Moises Alous of the world, rather than owning up to his actions after the fact, he has now let this be elevated to World Series controversy lore. What's worse is the deafening silence thus far by the experts that have failed to call him out for his actions. Whether intent matters or not, the public outcry needs to be quashed by someone with the guts to call Middlebrooks on his bush league play. He not only obstructed the runner, but he wanted to obstruct him. I agree with this completely. QUOTE (MAX @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 09:09 PM) I wish I could write it word for word. It was a rambling, incoherent mess. I am not even sure what he was trying to say. He started off talking about how he thinks the rule should be changed to include intent (which is stupid), but then kept changing what he was trying to say, then kept starting his thought/sentence over, about 4 different times. It was ridiculous.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 07:07 PM) No, what's hilarious, again, is that people keep citing "improvement" as some sort of reason to keep him around. The guy is maybe a genius, setting the bar so incredibly low for himself and the program that he may actually convince people to keep him around. We are not just losing games, we aren't being remotely competitive against a terrible Big Ten slate. It's really humorous just how bad they are, losing 3 conference games by an average of 28 games. Barring a bowl game appearance(lol), there's zero reason to go forward with who we all know is the wrong guy by now. No, let's set the bar at the Rose Bowl this year going in, because that's realistic, too.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 06:52 PM) I saw a picture on another board that showed Joyce was looking the other way when Craig first made contact with Middlebrooks. So I don't even think Joyce saw Middlebrooks legs up. But he saw him lying in the baseline and the collision. And the home plate ump had it too. QUOTE (MAX @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 07:21 PM) Was anyone listening to that? What in the hell did mccarver just say? Yeah, that was something.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 02:02 PM) You would think considering the AD said he was canning Zook because he couldn't win conference games. It it were basketball, he would probably be gone now, but the people who will actually shell out the money to pay for a new coach are used to bad football teams. They can probably tolerate another year of Beckman before they send him away. It seems obvious he is in over his head. To me, as an Iowa alum, this is like the Lickliter hire, even though football results take a little longer. You know this isn't going to work out. I think the big problem is ILL is still paying several former coaches. Adding more to that list while can't be too desirable, especially considering they aren't exactly maximizing revenue with the football program. Pay who, exactly? You likely didn't read what was in the link I posted, but you should. It's not simply "they don't care about football so they'll keep him around." Nonsense.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 04:28 PM) Terrible article there. I like how the author uses Beckman's ineptitude last season as justification to keep him around a third year. I mean what? Beckman has apparently set the bar incredibly low for himself that not winning Big Ten games is somehow meaningful improvement. That author is suffering from Stockholm syndrome, but even he ultimately agrees Beckman is going to need to go when we dont win another game. It was actually a great article. Good points besides the fire breathing OMG FIRE THE COACH! people. Look, I railed Beckman as much as anyone here last year. And yeah, I don't think he's the guy for the long haul. But let's face it. They've improved, which is what we wanted, and minus a f***ing awful half against MSU, it hasn't been clown shoes this year. We have 5 BT games left, so there's a lot to be decided, good or bad. Beckman inherited one terrible football team. Everyone's flipping out over an awful half yesterday. One half does not a season make. We weren't going to beat Wisky or Nebraska, so what exactly is surprising so far? If they play dead the rest of the year, like yesterday's 2nd half, fine. But there's way too much football to say he's for sure gone. It couldn't be further from the truth, at this moment in time. To think it's a foregone conclusion is hilarious.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 11:26 AM) Appreciate you knowledgeable opinion here, IK. Is there anything the runner could have done, other than to somehow get out of the baseline in time, to avoid that call? I guess there's just no way around the call unless you don't put yourself in the baseline there. Is it not true that the defender has a right to play a ball in the baseline? If so, he just can't remain there after he's made the play on the ball? Not a ton Middlebrooks could have done after the fact, besides trying to move towards the middle of the infield quicker to get out of the way (most players don't have a great understanding of obstruction to begin with, so it's usually not the first thing on their mind). Laying there certainly wasn't the way to go. That, and then raising his legs which had nothing to do with trying to get up. Hell, this isn't the rule, but for all the people trying to say "it should be based on intent," you could make an easy argument intent was there. Legs up, then down, then oh wait he's going to run home, legs up again. Defender has the right to make a play on a batted ball in the baseline, at which point it's the baserunner's right, and duty, to run outside the baseline to avoid collision and interference. And yeah, he has a right to that ball as the play is actually being made, not after the ball is in the outfield. At that point, it doesn't matter that he tried to make a play and was close. It's the same as if there was no play near him and he just sat in in the base line trying to obstruct him. Everyone's just starting to rally around "well what was he supposed to do?" But again, he's obstructing a base runner, who has a right to an unobstructed path towards home. You can't just ignore that, which is what a lot of people are doing. If Middlebrooks isn't in the baseline, which he had no right to be at that point, he scores easily and the game is over. He was only out because Middlebrooks obstructed him. It's pretty black and white.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 08:57 AM) Yep. http://www.thechampaignroom.com/2013/10/27...-isnt-that-easy

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 27, 2013 -> 09:51 AM) No I get that your program is in bad shape. I'm more talking about how so many of mizzous defining losses have had such absurd things happen in them (fleakicker, five downs, edney, missing a 3 foot field goal after being up 17-0 at home in fourth) We've had plenty of that, too.