ZoomSlowik

I ran league 5 last year and was a member of keeper 2 (get moving Badger! ). I was in another league too, I think it was #2 (Knightni ran it). I'd definitely run a league again, although I'm not sure how many of the guys from my league last year want to stay in that one.

QUOTE(TLAK @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 08:07 AM) I was objecting to Jugg's assertion to another poster that just being around Don Cooper will make Javier Vazquez a better pitcher. "What shocks me about your suggestion is you're not even factoring the impact Cooper is going to have on Vazquez. Just look at what he did for Garland Contra. There's no reason to believe he can't make Vazquez a MUCH better pitcher as well." So, I showed that Contreras had success before Cooper got him and wasn't some failure that got magically turned around. Then I cited 22 guys who didn't fare so well under Coop, which to me is very good reason to question that his aura alone will cure Vazquez's tendency to stink the joint up 10 times a year. I like Coop and think he and Oz did a masterfull job of keep everyone focused and fresh despite the heavy innings. I just don't buy that a guy like Vazquez, who has been the same for 8 years, will suddenly change his stripes just because of a new pitching coach. How do you figure he was so successful with New York? They were ready to run him out of town. He was decent at the very beginning of his career because nobody had seen him yet, and then he started getting rocked. His ERA was 5.50 in 2004, and the only reason he got to 13 wins was that the Yankees gave him some ridiculous run support which made him 8-5 with them. He always had good stuff, but he had no consistency. He was light years better with us this year. The difference is night and day. You only rarely saw him have those days where he had no control and got hit around this year, that used to be about every third start (maybe more). How long do you think Contreras was pitching like his old self before he got to the Sox? He's listed at 35, and knowing the state of Cuban baseball he's been pitching heavy workloads in the pros since he was about 17. He's been around baseball a hell of a lot longer than Vazquez, and he has a lot more history of success than Contreras did when we got him. Vazquez is a very talented pitcher that could easily end up being the most dominant of our starters. All you have to do is look at what he did in his career before the second half of his season with the Yankees. He was obviously a bit worn down or hurt in that second half, and Arizona is just a terrible place to pitch, especially if you rely on a curveball. He's easily as good as Freddy, maybe better.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 12:32 AM) Gut is actually a pretty decent comparison for the Weber worries. Gut could coach very well, he just couldn't recruit. He's the reason the program went through the 8-20 debacle and the slide from the elite for a few years. He left the program with guys like Capel, Lang, Bersticker, Boone, Morrison etc. Gut coaches his first team to 33-4, and actually won the coach of the year award. He ended up with a .741 win percentage. His second final four team was a brilliant job of coaching. He had Ed Cota who was a very solid leader, Forte, who was one of the best players in the nation, and Haywood who could defend the paint. But he had absolutely no depth, playing a 6 man rotation. UNC was headed to the championship before Ed Cota got his 4th foul with about 6 minutes to play against Florida, and they made a comeback and won the game because he couldn't play any defense. Sure UNC lost both occasions, but thats nothing new, UNC has lost more final 4 games than any other college in the nation. With 5 titles in 17 final four appearances. I still don't think he was the greatest in game coach. Life's a little easier with that type of talent level. He was a top-notch assistant, but he didn't seem to fit as a head coach. That second team might not have had much depth, but who cares when you have that type of talent? The 6 guys they played were really good, as their tourney run proved. I'm still trying to figure out how they lost that many games in the regular season with a legit POY candidate, an imposing big man, and an elite scorer. Shamgod and Okalaja (probably spelled wrong) weren't exactly scrubs either. To be fair, those recruits were rated pretty high. Capel was a McD's All American, and IIRC Boone, Morrison, and Lang were all top 50. Obviously they weren't as good as people thought though. Again, apparently I should have gone a different route with my example.

Holy s***, fantasy baseball is starting already? Guess the guys on this site are going to have to get moving on setting up leagues.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 10:03 PM) Hey now, Guthridge took UNC to Final 4's in 2 of his 3 years. Come on, that guy couldn't coach, at least not in the head coaching capacity. The first team that made the Final Four was absolutely loaded. I could have coached Vince Carter and Antwan Jamison to the Final Four. The other time he had a another absolutely loaded team, and they finished the regular season like 19-12. They just barely got into the tournament, and then their talent finally took over. It also helped that Stanford was the #1 seed in their bracket. Cota and Haywood were studs, and Joseph Forte was a rising star. Anyways I digress. Maybe that was a bad example, that was just the first name that came to mind. Maybe Matt Dougherty is a better one.

I definitely agree with Jimbo that Williams didn't leave Kansas with a whole lot of talent when he left for UNC. All you need to do is look at their upperclassmen, and Simien was the only really good senior that was still there last year. Miles was decent, but they needed him to be more of a scorer, which wasn't his strong suit. Giddens had a world of talent, but he got fascinated with the 3 instead of taking it to the whole every possession like he should. The other 2 guards' name escapes me, but he was suffering from injuries most of the year. Padgett would have been a great fit if he stayed, but it just didn't work out. Give him a little time, Self is getting there. If he can get to the Elite 8 with Tulsa, he can do it at Kansas. Obviously we have different opinions on Self vs Weber. I'll agree that Weber is a better game coach, but he's not THAT much better. Self got a 4 or a 5 seed with basically Brian Cook and the Final Four group as freshmen, so he probably would have gotten at least a 3 seed. He recruited those guys to play in his system, so I really don't think Weber's work got them more than about 5 more wins, tops. Augustine would have played a much bigger role for Self, which would have helped them not rely on the 3 so much. Plus Dee was definitely more effective in his freshmen year than as a soph or this year, and Powell would probably be a better fit for Self too. Maybe Deron and Head don't play as well as the did in the motion, but they'd still be a very solid team. Unless they get absolutely screwed on the draw after they slip a bit they're still a legit Final Four threat. He had a Final Four caliber team in 2001, they just ran into a better Arizona team. He's such a good recruiter that he can overcome a lot of his deficiencies as a coach. I don't see why he can't do something similar to what Roy did before bolting to UNC. His teams often under-achieved, but he was still very successful at Kansas.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 04:59 PM) 2. Had Self coached the Illinois team not Weber last year, they do not make the final 2, they do not make the final 4, and they do not make the elite 8. Im sorry, but Weber is what makes Illinois the team it is, not the talent. In the end, if I had to chose to put my money on Illinois or KU being the better program over the next 10 years, I would go with Illinois. KU imo seems to be on the decline, and eventually will lose its "national program" status. Soon people are going to say "What have you done for me lately" and the answer will be not much. I seriously disagree with the first part of that statement. Self might not be the greatest coach out there, but he is still fairly competent. I think they probably would have lost 2 or 3 more games during the season, and they certainly wouldn't have made it to the title game. But they would have at least made it to the Elite 8 and probably still would have been a #1 seed. With the kind of talent they had on that team, who was he going to lose to in that run before Arizona? They got a good draw and two teams that Illinois wouldn't have matched up against as well as UW-Milwaukee (both Alabama and BC had the kind of size that might have given Illinois trouble) got upset. Even if the draw changed slightly, there weren't really any dangerous 8-9 seeds, and the only real 4-5 game threats were MSU, who they'd beaten and probably wouldn't have been in the same bracket, and Villanova, who would have been a fairly good matchup for Illinois once Sumpter went out. Weber is good, but it's not like we're talking about the difference between Coach K and Bill Guthridge. I will agree with you on the later part though. It seems like Weber is starting to make a bigger impact in recruiting, which is bad news for the rest of the conference. I think he's still one impact recruit away from totally removing the "can't recruit" label though.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 04:42 PM) Just like thedoctor, i realize we are not an elite program in college basketball right now. We are in the group below the elite. Maybe in 10 years or so we can say we are one of the elite programs in the nation, who knows. I also don't know where you see that we are getting "cocky" with our program. Must of us have never guaranteed anything from this team, and we are not overconfident about any Big Ten game against one of the top 7. No one's said this team is going to another Final Four. We are grateful for what we have, especially Bruce. I'm not so sure that at least some Illini fans aren't getting a little cocky. The guys on this board have all been pretty sane and intelligent, but there are definitely others that aren't like that. I spent four years down there, and my attitude towards the Illini was pretty neutral when I got on campus. After four years of hearing how great the Illini are, I've started rooting against them, and it wasn't just the drunken frat boys that ticked me off. Every time I tried to tell anyone that the team wasn't as good as they thought, people jumped on me, no matter how calm, reasonable, and logical I was in my argument. No one wanted to hear that the Elite 8 team wasn't going to win in all because they weren't even the best team in their bracket, or that the next year's team was highly suspect and might lose to ND in the second round, or that last year's team would eventually have some problems against better teams because of their dependence on the 3 and the relative lack of an inside prescence. I suppose that probably happens at every school, it amazed me that I couldn't seem to find too many reasonable fans. If they make the Final Four again this year, I really think that a whole lot of Illini fans are going to take a pretty ridiculous attitude toward the team, and those people will probably overreact if they have an 18-20 win season next year like it appears that they will.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 01:14 PM) Remember when Kansas lost to Bucknell last year? That was sweet. As long as Self is there, i'm not too worried about Kansas doing anything in the tournament. You'll have to be real lucky to win 2 games. Eventually he'll get enough talent in the program that they'll make at least an Elite 8 trip. He put together one group that did it at Illinois, and brought in basically every player of note on last year's Final Four team. Granted they might not have gone 30-1 and made it to the title game without him, but that's still a fairly easy Elite 8 trip even with the weaker coaching. I don't think he can do it next year because they'll still be pretty young, but the year after that they could be a major threat unless they get destroyed by the pros (more than just Rush leaving).

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 01:38 AM) It's pretty easy to realize why Duke players so often suck in the NBA when you see the kind of calls that team gets. I'm sure it's a culture shock for rookies out of Duke when they are called for holds, hacks, and push offs in the league. It might also be a reason that they underachieve in the tournament a bit. Yes, I know they still do better than anyone else, but when you're a #1 seed every year you're expected to make it to at least the Elite 8. The average #1 seed wins 3.3 games in the tournament, which is a total that Duke doesn't seem to match as much as they should.

BC is only down 4 to Duke, but they have some serious foul issues. There are about 3 minutes left and Craig Smith and Sean Marshall are already out of the game.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 09:57 PM) Michigan barely survives @ Penn State What the hell happened with Sims? He only played 12 minutes. Did he get hurt or something? That would be a big blow. Abram is still not playing much, so that would leave them with Horton and Harris carrying the team.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 06:11 PM) Well, there are two errors in your argument. 2. If you consider being "singled out" being one of 17 schools who faced removing Native American Imagery, then yes they have been. I also listed several schools that have been forced to change more than just their halftime performer, but their actual mascot as well. The schools that you previously listed were not "forced" to change their mascot. There was no ruling from the NCAA or any other body saying that they had to do it, and to the best of my knowledge there was no court ruling saying that either. They chose to do it and felt that it was the best move. That's their decision. The Illni on the other hand can't host post-season tournaments or bring the Cheif with them to the postseason because of this. That costs Illinois money because they host several major tournaments in lesser sports. There is outside pressure being put on the Illini, while that wasn't the case with schools like Stanford. How many of that original list of teams that were being ruled against won appeals? I know there were several. As I said, Illinois is now the only Division 1A school that this rule still affects. Schools like Florida State can take things at their leisure. There are a few other Division 1AA schools that it still affects, but obviously no one cares about that.

QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 06:07 PM) Kentucky is going to be a major force next year, theres going to be a big power shift in the Big 12. How is an SEC team going to cause a power s*** in the Big 12?

I have a couple of problems with this whole thing. One, the NCAA decided to put this rule in and it really only affects one school in Division IA. Several other schools won their appeals (can't remember who, the only one of note is FSU), but the Illini have been unsuccessful so far based mostly on the fact that there aren't any Illini left to gripe and/or buy off. Tribe approval isn't really the greatest criterion to use for whether or not it is okay. Other people have been influencing those people for years, so I don't see why their opinion suddenly has value now when it almost never has in the past. I don't have a problem with persuading schools to change the mascots, but when you're basically acting against one school, that's a poorly planned rule and approach. Another major issue that was brought up in an Anthropology course I took a while back was that people aren't supposed to speak for the group and tell them what they want, they're supposed to do things for themselves. They brought this up in the previous section, and then basically told us why the Chief is bad. None of the positions presented in the class were from any of the tribes, and none of the people making the case were Native American. Maybe that was just poor planning of the class material, but I found it interesting. Most of the people pushing this thing are middle-class white people, usually at college. I realize that there are some Native American groups coming out against the Chief, but they seem to be only a small portion of those opposed to it. Many people seem to be assuming that all Indians are against the Chief, but that doesn't really seem to be the case. I wish I could find it now, but Sports Illustrated did a rather large survey a while back concerning Indian mascots. They surveyed people of Native American descent and Native Americans still living on reservations. The results showed that a majority of these people either didn't care or supported those mascots. This wasn't just referring to the Illini, it was also referring to mascots that are generally considered more offensive, such as Chief Wahoo and the Washington Redskins. It's also somewhat vexing that they're taking this hard of a line considering that the pro teams go largely unbothered. It also kind of bugs me that they are picking on schools with Indian mascots without following the guidline that they used in their own rule. If you take the "hostile and offensive" clause seriously enough, there are other schools that could be subject to the rule, but aren't being affected. There are numerous warrior based names that could really fall under the same rule. The problem is that there aren't any Spartan or Trojan descendents making a stink (or descendents of the minutemen, volunteers, or musketeers), and we probably wouldn't care even if they did since most of those are out of the country. If you take it far enough, people could find the Hurricanes offensive after the events in the Gulf Coast. You've also got the animal rights people protesting the live animal mascots, but that movement's not really getting any help (I actually kind of agree with that one. I'm not saying they should lose the name, but does Colorado really need to keep a live buffalo in captivity and trot it out on the field during games?) They're being very selective with this rule. I can see where people that are against the Chief are coming from, but I just don't really think that it's that big a deal, and it kind of sucks that Illinois seems to be being singled out.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 05:00 PM) One can expect Iowa to crap out at Northwestern. It's what they do. As an NU fan, the only teams I really see them having any chance of beating the rest of the year are Minnesota and PSU, and even Penn State already beat us on our own floor. You simply can't underestimate our innate ability to go long periods of time without scoring any points.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 04:35 PM) Good win by Illinois, I think the most frustrating part as a Wisconsin fan is that you do not expect your team to be out coached, and that is what happened. Ryan just could not seem to get a grasp of the match ups, and the Badgers failed. The one that bothered me the most was Ray Nixon versus Dee Brown. Nixon is about 6'9 with a huge wingspan and was being gaurded by Brown. Why they did not post him every time, I will never understand. Ah well, Badgers better start picking up the pace or they may miss the NCAA tournament. I don't think you guys are going to fall that far. Tucker and Taylor are still studs, and the other players can come up with a good game once in a while. The way they are playing now it certainly looks like they are a long shot to win the conference, but they can still make some things interesting. They should still get in the tourney, although their seed is taking a major hit right now. In my opinion it's starting to look it'll come down to Illinois and the two Michigan schools. I just don't think the other teams have enough talent to stay in it. If anyone out of the rest of the group proves me wrong, I think it'll be OSU (even though their schedule is a little rough) because Wisconsin, Iowa, and Indiana just don't seem to have enough dependable players (on the other hand, Iowa has a pretty sweet schedule left if they can beat some people at home). The other three rely very heavily on 2 or 3 players to do almost all of their scoring. I know that Illinois and MSU do also, but here's why I have a little more faith in those two: Illinois has the lead, appears to play the best defense, and has four other players that make significant contributions besides their two big guns (Randle, Pruitt, McBride, and Smith). If those guys can step up and carry a bigger load more consistently like they have in spots, they'll be in very good shape. MSU has the best trio of players. Ager, Davis, and Brown can all carry the team on a good night. Neitzel is also playing a bit better, and played a big role in saving their ass against PSU with Davis out and Ager off. I really don't know who I'd pick right now. Illinois should probably be the favorite, but they still have tough games at MSU, Michigan, and OSU. MSU has trips to Iowa and Indiana, but gets a shot at Michigan and Illinois at home (plus OSU), meaning they probably have the best schedule of this group. I probably like Michigan's team the most, but they have to keep Abram on the floor and have a pretty tough schedule remaining, with trips to MSU, Iowa, and OSU with Illinois and Indiana at home.

What frustrates me even more is that the local Fox affiliate seems to keep trying to cram the same lesser new episodes down our throats with the reruns every week. They show the episodes from the last couple seasons considerably more than the really good ones between about seasons 4 and 10, or before that too. All of my favorite episodes that I can think of fall in the season 8-9 range (Homer joins NRA, Homer joins Naval Reserve, and Homer becomes the Beer Baron). The only one from the last few years that I thought was still pretty good was the episode where they go to Brazil, and the "Behind the Laughter" episode was pretty good. Other than that there are only one or two good lines/scenes per episode, tops. It really bothers me, because it was such a good show in its prime. Family Guy is pretty good, but it's not the same. The references are usually a bit more obscure, meaning that a higher percentage of the jokes go over the viewer's head. Also, some of the scenes go a lot longer than is really effective, especially the musical numbers (This week's endzone dance is a prime example. You probably could have shaved 30 seconds to a minute off of that without losing anything). There is definitely some good material, but like 5 minutes of every episode get wasted because of those two gripes of mine. At least that's my opinion of it.

I would imagine that Cuba will try to keep an eye on this to minimize the threat. You also might see some of the bigger name young guys staying home, especially Dayan Viciedo, a star 3B who is only 16 if you believe the reports. One guy that I would definitely expect to try it if he gets the chance is Yulieski Gonzalez, a 25 year old lefty that is supposedly one of their aces. I'm sure there are others too, but not all of them want to leave that bad (the Gourriel brothers for one seem intent on staying). It will be interesting because Castro will have conflicting intrests. On the one hand he doesn't want to lose all of his stars to the MLB, on the other hand he wants to put together the best team he can to prove that Cuba is a real baseball haven. I kind of hope this isn't a major issue, since most of the guys that did defect would probably end up in LA or New York, and the WBC loses a lot of credibility if Cuba drops out. Most experts seem to consider the WBC a borderline joke as it is, that situation would just make it worse.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 10:26 PM) If Indiana had DJ White, I'd pick them against UConn....but with him gone, I think UConn attacks Marco, getting him into foul trouble, and picks up a win. I still couldn't pick Indiana to beat UConn. Indiana's guards are very inconsistent in their production, and even with White the Hoosiers are still at a disadvantage inside against the Huskies. UConn just has too many players that can hurt you and don't have any glaring weaknesses.

Two teams I gotta give some credit tonight that I've been ripping on: the Illini and Pitt. The Illini played a pretty solid game. The defense was still pretty good and they got some help from other people on offense. McBride and Randle really got things going towards the end of the first half, Dee picked it up in the second, and Jamar provided a boost off the bench. If they could do that more regularly I wouldn't pick on them. I haven't totally changed my opinion on them, but at least they came up with a good game against a decent opponent on the road. On the other hand, I think this game finalizes the fact that Wisconsin is in a bit of a free fall. They just don't seem to have the horses to hang in there right now. Tucker and Taylor are very good players, but they aren't getting a lot of help. Butch has some talent, but he can't give them solid production consistently (especially against better teams), and the rest of the supportiing cast is lackluster. Pitt also came up with a good game even though they lost to the best team in the country. Krauser didn't have one of his better games, but they still put 76 points on the board and kept it close. Gray was huge, and their role players did some damage. Looking at the season averages I used to assume that Krauser and Gray did everything, but some of their other guys make good contributions.

I'd still just like to see one dissenter that knows that they won't get Contreras for nothing. We have quite a few people here that realize that, I didn't see any over on that board.

I've always thought that there are roughly the same number of die hard fans on both sides of town. Those people aren't going to change their alliances no matter what. They're actually knowledgable about the team and baseball in general. The difference is that the Cubs have had control of most of the casual fans for some time now. People who just like baseball or want to go somewhere for an outing or to have some fun go to that damn tourist trap in Wrigleyville. They're the ones that make a beer or food trip at least once every half inning and don't seem to care if their team has runners on 2nd and 3rd with nobody out. They often struggle to name more than 5 players on the team, and continue to say that next year is their year regardless of the painful truth. We seem to have grabbed some of these types of people during the playoff run, but we'd have to sustain it in order to really take control of this group of fans and even up the attendance a bit.

QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Jan 30, 2006 -> 05:51 PM) OK. you didnt read my question.. I asked IMAGINE IF VINCE YOUNG was the USC QB. And not Matt Leinart.. I really don't think there would be any difference. In fact, Young's production could suffer playing in a pro-style offense as opposed to always being in the shotgun and being able to read the defense as the play develops rather than before the snap. Leinart might actually be a better fit in Texas' offense (outside of the option plays) because he could just sit in the pocket and carve people up without having to drop back. I really don't think that there would be enough of a difference in raw talent level between the two receiving corps to drastically hinder Leinart's numbers.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 02:06 PM) Next year for the Illini will be one of those 20-10, #6 seed in the NCAA tournament kind of seasons. It will be fun to watch and see who steps up as the stud though, and I will enjoy it, although the new standards around Champaign will have people jumping off buildings. Also, Brian Carlwell is going to be a monster, about 6'11 265 with great hands. He just needs to continue to work on the post moves, the thought of him, Pruitt, and Jackson beating people's asses inside is nice. I don't know about that one. I don't know exactly what their schedule looks like next year, but unless Carlwell is an absolute stud or Smith starts scoring in the mid to high teens I see them fighting for a spot in the 8-9 game. Randle, Pruitt, an McBride are passable players but none of them can exactly carry a team. Someone is going to have to step up big time for them to have more than a middle of the pack Big Ten team, especially at the point (don't give me Frazier, he needs a lot of work). I see that as more of Kansas' profile next year. Chalmers and Robinson look like they'll be credible guards with Collins being effective in spots, Kaun and Giles will be much bigger threats with some development, and even if Rush leaves Wright should be a better player with his level of talent. They still look like they're at least two years away from their old selves, but they should get better. They seem to be suffering from some weak recruiting by Williams late in his tenure right now, kind of like the next couple of years for Illinois will probably look.