danman31

QUOTE (Felix @ Feb 14, 2010 -> 06:30 PM) Gee, another loss. Good to see we don't want to take anything positive out of this season. Yeah, that was a weird game. Neither team had much of an at-large chance going in. Minnesota's has to be about 0 now and Northwestern probably has to win out plus an upset or 2 in the BTT.

Derozan should have won.

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 13, 2010 -> 08:09 PM) Both Penn St. and Oklahoma have had midlevel basketball programs overall. Yes, OK has had more recent Bball success (last 8-10 years). However, both PSU and OK are very similar in football; even though OK has a more successful overall history. Not important, but Penn State is not midlevel. 8 tourney appearances all time.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 13, 2010 -> 06:23 PM) Still trying to find the Texas relevance in your post. Are you saying that there is no competition in the Big Ten or something? Michigan has been bad for 2 years, if 3 years ago is "back in the day" then I guess I am getting very old. I am aware that OU has won a majority of the conference titles since Brown started at Texas, no sure how that makes Texas look like they would dominate the Big Ten and especially one of the best programs in the country over the last decade. The statement made was that OSU wouldnt win another conference title because Texas would dominate so much. I am still trying to figure out where that opinion would even come from considering they havent dominated their own conference. Texas and OSU have met 3 times in the last several years, 2 were ridiculously close contests and one was a blowout in Austin. I struggle to see how those Texas teams would blow through the B10 conference so easily that the top program wouldnt sniff a conference title. And forget about UM, PSU and Wisconsin, NO chance at that point. I'm just saying the Big 12 has been tougher than the Big 10 and that is part of the reason why Texas doesn't have as many conference titles. That's not to say they would dominate Ohio State or the Big 10. I just think if they swapped conferences, Texas wins more than they have and Ohio State wins less than they have. It's close enough that I'm not going to pick between the 2 in the long run. And back in the day was in reference to Nebraska. I realize Michigan hasn't been bad for long. QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 13, 2010 -> 06:56 PM) Let's see: As a fan of neither Big 10, nor Big 12, I'll make general comparisons of overall recent men's bball/football success. Ohio State =/ Penn State = Oklahoma Michigan > Nebraska Wisconsin =/> Texas Tech Michigan St. =/ Iowa > Missouri Purdue = Oklahoma St. Indiana = Colorado Illinois =/> Kansas St. Minnesota = Texas A&M Northwestern xxxxx ----- Baylor I'm not sure what recent means, but there are problems with these. Penn State was missing bowl games 4-5 years ago in football and is rarely making the tourney in basketball so I don't see a comparison to Oklahoma, who was just in the elite 8 last year and won 3 straight Big 12 titles in football 06-08. Iowa State > Northwestern? Same in basketball for last few years and Northwestern has been better at football. Sorry, I had to jab Heads lol.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 13, 2010 -> 12:36 PM) In football, Texas hasnt been more dominant than OSU so not sure what sport you are actually referring to. Maybe OSU wouldnt win back to back to back to etc, but they would still win their share of titles. Texas has won 2 conference titles under Mack Brown, they've only made 4 BCS bowls. OSU has 7 conference titles since 1998 (when mack joined texas) and 7 BCS games. OSU has had more first round NFL selections than Texas so there isnt a talent question. So I'm wondering, what makes you think that Texas would dominate the Big Ten and the most dominant team in the Big Ten just because they switch conferences. Ohio State doesn't have to compete with Oklahoma and back in the day Nebraska. You could compare Nebraska to Michigan because they once were great and now aren't. The last 6 Big 12 titles have gone to OU or Texas.

Fair points. It's an unusual situation because the Big Ten actually has a lot to offer with their network. Given the financial success of BTN you would think others will soon follow.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 13, 2010 -> 01:08 AM) Texas. Notre Dame. Syracuse. Any school that would actually provide new markets and millions more of BTN subscribers. Those 3 are about the only ones I could come up with. It's interesting that you say new markets and have Notre Dame on the list. Notre Dame to the Big Ten wouldn't add a ton more BTN subscribers because most Notre Dame fans are already in the Midwest and have (or can have) BTN. Obviously Notre Dame is the top pick for the Big Ten. I also don't think Syracuse is that great of a pick. It's a medium size school and may not bring the NYC market as much as you think. Also, Mizzou brings new markets (St. Louis and Kansas City) and millions more subscribers (6 million in the state, only FBS school in the state). As a Mizzou alum I don't want to see the Tigers switch to the Big Ten from an athletics perspective, however, the Big Ten currently offers more money. I'm just saying your qualifications "Any school that would actually provide new markets and millions more of BTN subscribers" don't eliminate Mizzou.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 13, 2010 -> 12:25 AM) Missouri would probably make the least sense if they're looking at just 12 teams. Pitt doesn't make any sense either. Who does make sense then?

Check out Cubs anal!

Earthquake in Illinois. I thought I felt a shake on my table and then my friend IM'd me asking if I felt that. Talk about eerie. Twitter has blown up over it. Insomnia can have its advantages ha. So for those of you who had a dream where you were shaken or something, this is why. Link proof

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Feb 10, 2010 -> 01:34 AM) Pretty sure Villanova was neither unranked nor a 9 point underdog. He didn't say biggest upset. The line was best road win of the season.

Weird. I was killing time on sporcle and just took this version (it allows bonus answers for guys not on WS roster) without seeing this thread. Trot on over to Soxtalk and see this thread. Proud to say I aced it, though I gotta admit I missed 2-3 when I took it a few months ago. Good times.

This Texas/Kansas game is both a sign of how good Kansas is and how bad Texas is lately. I'll be surprised if the Horns finish the year in the top 25.

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 8, 2010 -> 04:49 PM) Who cares about the Illini's record right now though, in all honesty? They have such a hard schedule left that if they get to 11 wins, then they deserve to make the NCAA Tournament. The list of bubble teams is pathetic anyways right now. I do believe they deserve a birth with only a little bit of work left to do, but they shouldn't and probably won't be higher than a 10 seed.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 8, 2010 -> 10:48 AM) Disagree here. I'm not convinced Lucas makes that game any different. Maybe less turnovers, but the game wasn't won/lost because of a lack of offensive efficiency. Both teams executed the entire game. It just came down to Illinois hitting big shots at the end. I DO think this team is a borderline top 25 team. They're easily 3-4 games better than the record indicates, even if you throw out the Clemson win. They've been soundly beaten twice this season (Missouri, 2nd half of MSU), the rest of their losses are from poor 2nd half play. That's what happens when you rely heavily on 3 freshman and 3 juniors. This is the 2nd youngest team in the conference (behind Indiana) and they're still tied for 2nd, within a game of first. I don't see how Michigan State having their best player would have no impact on the game. Regardless, I think Illinois is a team 3-4 games worse than their record. They are 8-3 in the Big Ten. They are 2-3 in the Big Ten against teams not named Iowa, Indiana or Penn State. Northwestern, a team no one is going to claim is near the top 25, is 4-6 against Big Ten teams not named Iowa, Indiana or Penn State. Same winning percentage. Illinois is a young team with potential for the future, but this year's team is very pedestrian and you're only setting yourself up for disappointment if you expectations are higher than a tourney birth.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Feb 6, 2010 -> 01:06 PM) James Franklin is gonna be a beast for Mizzou after Blaine leaves. I am still curious why Tyler Gabbert was so highly rated. Has bad numbers and really doesn't impress with his measureables. But I suppose at worst, he is a decent back-up. Tyler's numbers suck because that school sucks at football. I remember Blaine having relatively mediocre numbers for a 5 star QB recruit.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Feb 7, 2010 -> 11:17 AM) I bet he asks for more than Strasburg got regardless of where he is drafted, and I doubt he'd settle for anything less. Anyone who pays that would be a fool. As good of a prospect as this guy may seem, he's not as advanced as Strasburg is/was and isn't a pitcher. He'll get above average #1 money, but I don't think a team is going to give him into the stratosphere unless he hits .500 in juco. QUOTE (Springfield SoxFan @ Feb 7, 2010 -> 03:28 PM) I thought someone said that the Sox are focusing on pitching this draft at SoxFest, but I hope that we just take the best available players period. I also think that showing our hand by going after pitching is a smoke screen. Honestly, how much of a difference does it make? Player evaluation is so tough in the MLB draft I can't say I would mind the Sox taking a guy a couple spots lower on their overall rankings to take a pitcher instead of a hitter. Unless there is a Porcello type slide (which we know the Sox won't pay for) the difference between top hitter and top pitcher at each spot is going to be so small that it's a waste of energy to complain about taking position instead of 'best available.' If anything you should hope the Sox do well at finding out who the best available is instead of worrying that they will select by position instead of ability.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Feb 7, 2010 -> 10:09 AM) illinois is a boderline top 25 team right now IMO...if you are borderline top 25 team you don't rush the court unless you just beat a dominant college basketball team that is ranked #1...not a team that is ranked 5th, and likely to fall out of the top ten coming off an 18 point loss, and is also lacking their best player I don't think Illinois is close to that. They beat Michigan State in a close game without their best player. They don't win if Lucas plays. It's a shame Illinois gets a lucky tournament boost because they were a bubble team that now is more solidly in. There's a solid chance Illinois doesn't win more than 2 games the rest of the way. They're going to be big dogs in 3 of their 4 road games and small dogs hosting Ohio State and Wisconsin. They probably win 3 more, but their RPI is only 72 after beating MSU. The schedule boost from this tough stretch will make that go up, but this is not a borderline top 25 team by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, it seems the Sox take guys that are coming off big seasons and weren't in 1st round discussion until the 2nd half of their season. Mitchell, Broadway, Anderson are good examples of that. There's a solid chance the Sox take a guy who isn't on the radar yet.

Pretty good blog that I found through the FutureSox Twitter. It's all about draft coverage, some good stuff. Here's his second mock draft. He does admit the Sox don't take prep hitters, but I still don't see that happening. Regardless, it's been slow in here lately so I thought I could add this for some discussion. Also noteworthy: Obviously, it's before the season for almost every one of these guys and Morgado is certainly someone that needs to perform better in season to be considered for a pick this high.

And this is why the Valley is never on the ESPNs. Damn it. Not even a point a minute?!!

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Feb 6, 2010 -> 01:35 PM) I voted for Jeff, man rocks the stats knowledge. Me too. I'm surprised he doesn't have more votes.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 05:00 PM) If you look at top tens you'll see teams like Michigan, Pitt, South Carolina, etc. Sometimes the talent eval is dead on, other times its spotty. The one consistent you'll see is teams with good coaches take the talent they are given and succeed. The most consistent predictor of success is the coach. This article is an ESPN Insider article, but basically says recruiting classes are a better judge of a success than returning starters. There's a strong, but not perfect correlation between recruiting rankings and on the field success. There's almost no correlation between returning starters and wins.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 06:21 PM) 2 divisions of 7, most teams dont play if they arent in the same division. Do all Big 12 teams play each other in football? No, but I think missing more than 1/3 of the conference is too much. Play everyone in your division for 6 games and you only play 2 out of division games, missing 5 teams. I think 14 is just a bit too big.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 04:34 PM) So the new rumor floating around on a Wisconsin site is that 3 teams will join the Big 10: Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers Ugh, these rumors are stupid. How do you manage a 14 team conference schedule for football?