ZoomSlowik

Is it just me, or does there seem to be just a little too much Indians' love after last season? I find it hard to believe that they're going to do much better than last season, if they even do that. People seem to be willing to accept that the slow start was a fluke but aren't willing to accept the same thing about their ridiculous hot streak. Their starting pitching is only passable, and things will get interesting with Wickman as their closer. They obviously have a few guys that can hit, and they have some good young arms in the pen, but they remind me too much of the Sox teams from recent years, only with less power and arguably weaker pitching. As for the Yankees, whenever you can hit like they can, they're not going to slip too far. Their rotation is a bit of a mess, but they still have more talent there than most teams, and they still have Rivera at the back of the pen. They've had a similar or worse staff than this for the last several years, and it hasn't stopped them from winning the division. They should still make the playoffs again, and follow it up with an early exit because of weak pitching and an offense that doesn't produce when it matters. The only teams that I think are definitely better than them are the Sox and the Cards. After that, they're in that group that includes Cleveland, Boston, Oakland, and the Mets. All of those teams have some major flaws. That doesn't necessarily mean New York will finish with the best record out of those teams, but on paper they compare fairly well. The NL blows outside of the Cardinals though. Seriously, the Braves? They have two starters and no bullpen, and Jones is not hitting 51 homers again. The Mets are depending on Glavine to be their #2 starter, and if anything happens to Pedro their rotation is really brutal. The Giants are another Bonds injury away from possibly finishing in 4th. I really think the Twins would win at least 90 in the NL West or NL East.

ESPN College Basketball poll I love debates like this. Any thoughts on this? Personally I have one major gripe with this. They seem to place too much emphasis on whether a team won the title or not and their overall record. Some teams are seeded in bad spots because they happen to have played in a tough year. Some teams like Phi-Slamma-Jamma and the Fab Five are seeded way too low considering their talent level, which throws off the results a bit. I don't think a team should be penalized because they lost a tough game in the finals. I ended up with 67 UCLA as the best team, and they were a 3 seed because they lost to Houston during the regular season. They also left off some really talented UNC teams in the mid-90's that didn't win it all. They only had the 82 Heels, which probably wasn't the best of those teams, but it was included since they won it all. End rant. Anyways, as another possible topic, who is the best team or your favorite team that you've seen? I was always a big fan of the 96 Kentucky team. They were very deep and had an awful lot of future pros on the team. Another team that I don't think gets enough credit is the 2000 (or 2001?) Cincinnati team. They lost in the second round I believe, but it would have been a different story if Kenyon Martin, the National POY, hadn't broken his leg during the Conference USA tourney.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 01:03 PM) Wisconsin should be fine next year. They get back 2 players lost to Academic Ineligibility gain some good recruits who will fit holes (2 guards 1 who can dribble, 1 who can shoot), and bring back everyone not named Ray "I missed about 20 shots in the last 2 games" Nixon. The question is whether Gavinski is going to redshirt as Wisconsin will have a plethora of big men. I love it when people use the word plethora. They should be better, although whether or not they'll be good depends on how a few guys develop. Taylor needs to relocate the outside stroke that it appears he lost late in the year, and Butch needs to grow a pair. If he could become a legit post presence that would help a lot. Right now he's pretty inconsistent and really soft. It'll also help that Stiemsma comes back. He was a pretty good defensive player.

QUOTE(Jimbo's Drinker @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 01:15 PM) According to Rivals.com: San Bernardino (Calif.) Valley College's 6-foot-10, 220-pound center Jerome Habel, the second-ranked junior college prospect in the nation according to JucoJunction.com, is making an official visit to OU on Thursday and is on the verge of committing to the Sooners. "Jerome has really taken a liking to the Big 12 and will most likely give a verbal (commitment) to Oklahoma on his trip," Jerome's uncle and recruiting advisor Jerome Vinson said. "He really wants to get this (recruiting) process over with." The 6-foot-10, 220-pounder holds scholarship offers from Oklahoma, Nevada, Charlotte, Connecticut, Georgetown and many other programs have been showing interest too. But, the Sooners have made the best impression on Habel and made him feel the most wanted. That guy was a hell of a recruit originally if IIRC. That would certainly help, but I'm still not going to be a big fan of OU this year. Habel has to be a legit big man from the get go, and James or Clark has to play well. I don't think they'll totally suck, but I also think that at least Kansas, Oklahoma State, and Texas (with or without Aldridge) are going to be better teams.

QUOTE(SHAFTR @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:05 AM) I'd agree with last year's offseason ranking. Obviously in hindsight it is much higher, but his analysis is right. Low risk moves outside of the Podsednik trade. Just as important as the 05 offseason moves was the development of McCarthy, Garland, Cotts, Politte & Jenks. The asessment of each move wasn't bad, but there was no way we were going to finish behind the Tigers considering how poor their pitching staff was/is. I didn't even think Cleveland made that much sense given the state of their pitching at the time, but they obviously put together a good year, with virtually every player exceeding expectations (Westbrook was below, Hafner and Martinez were probably about right, although it's debateable).

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Mar 12, 2006 -> 11:25 PM) There are some weird ones in here, so I don't feel so bad anymore. I like a lot of the 11 seeds. I got SIU, San Diego State, and UW-Milwaukee in the second round, with San Diego State also taking down Gonzaga (yeah, I know, that's a bit of a stretch). I'm also sorely tempted to pick them to beat UCLA, but that is seriously pushing it. I've got Kansas taking down Memphis and UCLA. I also have Florida in the Final Four. I guess those are only mild upsets. I've got Wichita State over Tennessee. I've got Georgetown over OSU. I'm seriously considering taking GW over Duke. If I can get any indication that Mensah-Bonsu is even close to healty, I think I'm going to do it. If I don't I'll almost certainly have LSU taking them down. Only 1 out of 3 on the 11 seeds, and I guess SDSU counts as two losses. Big loss on Kansas, but I'm not counting it since that really wasn't an upset pick anyways. Nailed the two 7's over 2's listed here, but lost my Marquette in the Elite 8 pick. I'm glad I didn't take GW in the long run. The only one I wish I didn't do was Marquette.

QUOTE(Jimbo's Drinker @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:28 AM) OU has an awesome recruiting class next year. They also have reynolds and keith clark. It's not a good enough class to build a team around as freshmen, which is pretty much what they'll have to do. Unless Mayfield, another recruit, plays well right away, they're going to have virtually no post presence. Longar Longar and Taylor Griffin aren't going to cut it inside, and their guard play just isn't good enough to compensate for that deficiency. Is this lineup really going to compete for anything? PG Scottie Reynolds SG Michael Neal SF Damion James PF Keith Clark (a bit undersized) C Longar Longar?

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:46 AM) You may laugh, but Penn State has the chance to fair well next year also. And if Vaden and DJ stay, (I'm pretty confident at the least DJ is, Vaden's still undecided), IU has a great chance to compete next year. We could have a starting lineup of Calloway, Wilmont/Ratliff, Vaden, Allen, and DJ. I considered those two teams, but I still think they have some question marks. For Indiana, as you said, Vaden and White have to stay. Secondly, Wilmont and Calloway have to be a lot more consistent next year, as their guard play was often less than inspiring. They also don't get a lot of help in recruiting, although some guys on their roster might develop. As for Penn State, they're decent, but I don't think they'll be near the top of the Big Ten. Outside of Claxton and Cornley, their roster is pretty mediocre. They're a solid 6'8"-plus post presence away from really competing.

The Big Ten should definitely be down a bit next year. OSU will have a ton of talent, and Wisconsin should be decent with everyone coming back (well, besides Nixon). Also, in a weaker year than normal, I think Michigan could do fairly well. They'll still have a lot of talent, but of course I said that this year too, when injuries and poor defense came back to bite them. The rest of the teams have a ton of question marks. As for the Big 12, why do people think that OU is going to be good next year? They had a mediocre team this year, and they lose their 3 best players without a whole lot of replacements on their roster. They've got some good recruits, but it's not stellar, and only James looks like an instant impact type.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 12:51 PM) Uhhhh we suck..............I also had no teams going past the Sweet 16. This conference was a very good conference this year, but in my opinion there was no great team in this conference. It was a little discouraging to see no teams make it past the first weekend, but there was just no stand out team in the Big Ten this year. That's the difference between how you judge the best conference though. Last year, Illinois, MSU, and Wisconsin dominated the league and all of them made a pretty good run in the tournament. This year, we had more solid but not spectacular teams but no great ones. The Big East definitely looks like it was a better conference, but that doesn't mean that The Big Ten totally sucked. I still think it was a much better conference than the Big 12 or Pac 10, and the SEC doesn't really look that much better right now.

I'm still somewhat respectable. I got 10 of the Sweet 16, still have 5 of my Elite 8, and 3 of my Final Four. I actually am probably a little better than I was last year, since I had Cuse in the Final Four and I think something crazy like Cinci in the Elite 8.

QUOTE(iWiN4PreP @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 01:01 AM) Basically I traded Matsui, Holliday, Myers, Guarado FOR Vladdy, Tori Hunter, J. Vazquez, and Huston Street Good move by me? or? and remember Hunter wud be on my bench That's a really good trade, it might have been veto worthy, but if it went through all the better for you.

Jimbo, your team looks pretty solid. I'd keep an eye out for a productive outfielder at some point though. Griffey is probably going to get hurt at some point, and Maggs might too. Also, it might be advantageous to move Tracy to 3B once he gains eligibility (especially if Beltre tanks again), so you might need an extra OF.

QUOTE(ChWRoCk2 @ Mar 19, 2006 -> 11:58 PM) WV has a good chance at beating Texas virginia looks solid They played Northwestern State, a team that got beat fairly solidly today and would have been blown out again against Iowa if not for some brutal ballhandling. West Virginia didn't even beat them that soundly. Texas just destroyed a team that was a much bigger threat and runs the exact same offense as West Virginia. Plus, Texas already played WV, and they won despite playing a brutal game. They have a chance if they hit a lot of their outside shots, but I wouldn't call it a good one.

It depends on how you're defining "best league." Clearly they didn't have a group of multiple teams that looked like they could make a run deep in the tournament. Pretty much everyone was on here posting that there weren't any great teams in the league. We knew that it might be a stretch to put any teams in the Elite 8 a long time ago. However, the Big Ten was one of the deeper leagues, and I think they had numerous fairly good teams. Even teams like Minnesota Penn State were decent, and they were at the bottom of the league.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 19, 2006 -> 07:33 PM) Of course it is a situation. The reffing in NCAA basketball is terrible and needs to be improved. No way should anyone disagree with this. Officiating in general is a hit or miss proposition. When was the last time you watched a game in any sport without b****ing about a single call? It's never going to be perfect, so you just have to live with it. Granted some games are better or worse than others, but there is no fail safe solution where every game is called well.

I have a question for anyone that thinks that the Illini were intentionally screwed: Why would the powers that be want Washington to win? They weren't the favorites, it wasn't a major upset, they're not a powerhouse program, they don't have a massive fan base, and they don't have any big-name players that will draw a lot of viewers. There's no real reason to want Washington to stay in the tournament. In fact, it would probably slant the other way. Illinois is a visable program that made a monster run last year, they seem to have a growing fan base that travels well, and Dee Brown is a well-known, charismatic player. There's simply no real reason for the NCAA or any of it's partners to have a reason to favor Washington. The only possible motivator is someone with monetary interests exerting influence on the game; either the refs themselves or someone exerting influence on the refs. That doesn't make much sense either though. Why would they pick this particular game in the entire field? There's a lot more money to be made in other games, where there's a much bigger line. They'd have a lot more to gain by trying to fix it in favor of someone like Bradley, Northwestern State, Wichita State, or any of the other upsets (no, I don't think it was a fix in any of those). So basically, I'm trying to find a reason why someone would want to fix this game to favor Washington, and I don't see it. I think it was simply a tightly called game, which favors Washington a lot more than Illinois. Washington is an offensive minded team that wants to try to create easy baskets and is lax defensively, while Illinois is a physical defensive team that relies on a lot of jumpshots on offense. Because of that, the style of game the refs were calling clearly favored Washington, and Illinois failed to adjust.

The Oakland bracket is killing me. That's the only area where I'm really struggling. I lost both of my Elite 8 teams and 3 of my 4 Sweet 16 teams (yeah, I went a little crazy with the picks there). I lost two Sweet 16's outside of that bracket (Iowa and Illinois). I still got 23 of 32 first rounders, and I still have 7/8 of the Elite 8 and 3/4 of the Final Four. I can still put together a respectable bracket. Damn Kansas. I should have gone with some more chalk in that bracket.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Mar 19, 2006 -> 01:08 AM) But how about the fact that Illinois thrives on playing tough physical big 10 defense and they weren't allowed to? It would be one thing if they weren't and the other team was, but Washington isn't exactly a defensive intimidator. That kind of reffing often happens out of conference and in the tournament. It's not like they suddenly started calling everything in the second half either. In fact, I thought the touch fouls and fouls on the perimeter were worse in the first half. Is it that difficult to expect them to adjust, especially when they're up 10 points in the second half and don't need to be quite so aggresive when they know that they're calling it close?

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Mar 19, 2006 -> 01:05 AM) Illinois is much the same way. The motion offense that flourished last year with three guards often stagnated without a player willing to drive the ball. Dee never took enough initiative to put the team on his shoulders. He was consistently far too content to let the shot clock run down and chuck up a three pointer. Today, late in the game when Washington went to a zone defense, the Illini just stared at it like it was something they had never seen before. They spent most of the possessions with 5 players beyond the three point circle, which -- this may come as a surprise to some -- is an area of the floor where you don't get fouled with any regularity. I agree entirely. That's basically what I'm trying to say. The Illini don't have a real post prescence and they rarely take it all the way to the basket in any kind of traffic. Those are the major ways that you draw fouls and go to the free throw line, and Illinois just doesn't do that with any regularity. They've been held to the same number of free throw attempts several times this year. The difference is that Washington isn't that physical on defense while Illinois is, making the disparity a little more pronounced.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan99 @ Mar 19, 2006 -> 12:37 AM) Rich's fouls in the second half guarding Roy were on the perimeter. Jamar's fouls in the second half were on the perimeter. And yes I can say the guys sitting on the bench had a major affect. Its not how many minutes but when you play. And when you have 3 starters on the bench with 4 fouls with under 10 minutes left in a tourney game and have to have Warren Carter and Chester Frazier on the floor at the same time as a result that has a major impact on the game. And as for Jamar, Rich, and Dee taking the majority of the shots, that is true. But the majority of Dee's shots were going towards the basket today and Rich drove the ball quite a bit as well. And you are still ignoring the fact that Jones was allowed to make contact with Dee constantly 30 feet away from the basket which makes initiating an offense much harder and the fact that Brockman was getting away with all sorts of contact in the paint. And we had 18 more points in the paint than Washington so we clearly weren't just sitting on the perimeter. Define perimeter and define driving. Everything I saw in the foul department was out at the top of the key at the most. The 3 guys that were taking most of the free throws were Roy, Jones, and Dentmon. Those guys were driving with regularity. As for the Illini driving, outside of a couple of uncontested layups, when those guys drove they were generally pulling up for jumpers. Half of McBride's shots were still 3's, and 5 of Smith's 7 shots were. Dee had a couple layups, but those were in the first and he was missing them. He took more jumpers inside the arc than he normally does. As for the points in the paint, Washington didn't have as many because they were getting free throws. Those don't count as points in the paint. I didn't see all this ridiculous contact on Brown and Augustine that you supposedly saw. That's not exactly something you could verify, but I didn't see anything that was that out of the ordinary. It's not like in the Duke games where the guys attacking the basket get clobbered and there is no call. As for the fouls, I think you're overestimating the impact that had (outside of the free throws). First off, those guys are going to get some time anyways regardless of the foul situation. The only guy on the Illini that even comes close to playing 40 minutes a game is Dee. One of the times they're generally going to rest them is with around 10 minutes left so they're a little more fresh down the stretch. This is especially true since Illinois had the lead. Second, in the last 5 minutes when the game got close, all the key guys were out there, with the exception of Randle when he fouled out. Randle, McBride, and Brown were still in for most of the game. The only other guy that really matters is Randle, who is pretty foul prone anyways. Illinois generally plays more physical defense anyways. Suddenly Washington is really physical for the first time all season in the second game of the NCAA tourney? I find that unlikely.

Oh, I forgot about the Arizona game. One of my friends is convinced that Illinois threw the game, but I just don't buy it. First off, Arizona probably would have beat them anyways given the talent on that team. Second, Woods and Wright were killing them inside, and IIRC Jefferson was doing some damage as well. Lastly, Illinois was fouling a lot late in the game trying to extend the game. I think the last one was a major factor, accounting for like 15 of the free throws, maybe more.

In the case of Illinois, it seems like it's simply a case of not attacking the basket enough. They're generally a perimeter oriented team that takes a lot of jumpers, making it hard to draw a lot of fouls. When they do go inside, it's typically an open shot or a quick shot by Augustine, making it harder to draw contact. This has happened to them on a lot of occasions this year, although it wasn't as bad a descrepancy. Washington on the other hand was constantly attacking the basket. Pretty much all of the fouls on the Illini occurred in the paint in the second half. I'll admit there were numerous BS calls on the perimeter in the first half, but I didn't really see that in the second. As for the other games, I generally agree that Gonzaga and Duke get a lot of favorable calls, but at least in this game Mallon was a big factor inside. It's also hard to argue for Indiana when they jacked up 36 3's, which was over half their shots.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan99 @ Mar 19, 2006 -> 12:12 AM) Our offense attacked the basket quite a bit tonight. Jamar, Rich, Randle, and Dee all drove on several occasions. We also went inside to our bigs a lot more than usual. Usually Illinois does sit on the perimeter so we don't get to the foul line but that wasn't the case tonight until our entire starting lineup was out of the game with foul trouble. What kills me is that Randle and Rich got all their fouls on handchecks away from the basket. Yet, Jones was allowed to hold and grab Dee the entire game, which pushed Dee far away from the basket yet they didn't call him for it once. And I will continue to blame the refs thank you very much. If it wasn't for the refs UW wouldn't have even been in the game. We were getting great looks at the basket until 3 of our starters had to go to the bench with foul trouble. Augie needed more touches but Brockman was allowed to push him off the blocks and they were really making sure Augie wouldn't get the ball. Rich exploited this when we went on our run but unfortunately he got called for a couple of extremely weak fouls when he was actually moving his feet. We must have been watching a different game then, because I didn't see much of that in the second half. Brown, McBride, and Smith has more shots than the rest of the team combined, so that doesn't really suggest that they were taking it to the hole. When they did get inside, there generally wasn't anyone on Washington on them so they made the basket. They weren't initiating contact on the drives like Washington was. There were some crap calls on the perimeter, but most of the ones I saw were in the first half. Pretty much every foul on Illinois in the second half occurred in the paint. You can't really say that guys sitting on the bench had a major affect. Augustine still played 37 minutes and McBride was in there for 31. That's actually more than they average on the year. Randle played only slightly less than usual. The only major one was Pruitt.

I watched most of the game and while they were calling a lot of BS fouls in the first half, it wasn't that bad in the second. Illinois was constantly throwing the ball around the perimeter and shooting jumpers, while rarely driving into the lane or throwing the ball down low. Washington on the other hand was driving into the paint at every opportunity. It's kind of hard to draw a lot of fouls when you're not driving and initiating contact. This has happened to the Illini a lot IIRC, and I'd bet if you went back and looked at the stats from previous games it happened in most of their close games. You can keep blaming the refs, but Illinois wasn't getting easy shots in the second half and went a long time without scoring. Augustine was a complete non-factor after the 15 minute mark of the second half, which is unexcusable considering what he was doing earlier. I know some of that was foul trouble, but he stilled played for most of that stretch.