ZoomSlowik

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 20, 2013 -> 12:56 PM) Northwestern has to be the lowest scoring 1st half team in the history of life. I don't have the splits, but I have to imagine that horrendous 1999-2000 team was significantly worse. They were held to 30 or fewer three times (including 26 against Evansville for christ's sake) and had 12 more games where they scored under 50. This current team isn't any good, but it's depressing how bad they've been in the past .

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 10:26 PM) There is no "well the players aren't that good" tonight. These players are much better than Northwestern's (sorry NU fans, maybe when at full strength it'd make sense for a more competitive game). That leaves the coaching. Maybe things would be different if Groce had been here for 2 or 3 years, but he can't be losing to NU at all this year. We're a couple more bad losses away from missing the tourney. We need to look completely different next time out or else he needs to do drastic things with the lineup to send a message (to me and to the players). There's nothing to be sorry about, they have 2 1/2 definitively Big Ten caliber players (Swopshire has a habit of disappearing for long stretches, sometimes entire games).

These last two posts are funny. Care to trade rosters with NU?

Illinois should be embarassed. It's never a good sign when you're one of the few major conference teams to fall for NU's backdoor passes.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 02:39 PM) I know they are without 2 of their best players, but Northwestern is awful. I don't see how they are even close to a tournament team at full strength. I think this will probably be the end for Carmody. I don't think most really thought they'd make the tourney this year with the quality of the Big Ten (though there may have been a few). Pre-season, you probably would have guessed 6 wins in conference unless they hit their absolute ceiling. They should have had a pretty good backcourt with four experienced, talented options (two of which are out for the year and another has been battling a bad ankle) and the theory was maybe they'd get some production inside with two transfers at PF and a 7-footer. Of course, things never go their way. It wouldn't surprise me if he's gone, but knowing NU I would expect him to get one more year using the short-handed roster as an excuse. Crawford and Cobb should both be back, and maybe one of those 6 freshmen improves. As usual, getting something resembling Big Ten caliber production up front will be the key.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:08 PM) There's no reason to waste cap room on him, he's a cripple. That and I would guess some crappy team will give him an MLE-level contract, not worth it unless by some miracle he's 100% healthy.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 01:12 PM) That's not much of a reward, unless it's extremely long-term. Meh, it's something they can hype up in their first season. Otherwise the face of the franchise is DeMarcus Cousins. Certainly the timing would be better if they did it in 2014 when the big prize is Andrew Wiggins.

So I guess this means Nerlens Noel is going to be a Sonic. /conspiracy theory

Yeah, you kinda pointed out the problem with that already. They're already guaranteed another payout because of the Sugar Bowl (much like the other major conferences). They also get $6 million for participating in the playoff, which could be multiplied by two if they keep destroying everyone. Admittedly, that is less than now, where they get $18 million for each team they put in the BCS. They still didn't exactly agree to a straight revenue split (the other problem is there's still 5 "power conferences" at the moment, which screws up your math).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 8, 2013 -> 01:35 PM) I believe the SEC would be willing to agree to a format that guarantees them 1/4 of the revenue no matter what happens. And you are making my point. With uneven schedules, etc none of this really matters. Its all just for fun, which is why I think the simplest solution 4 conference champs, is the best solution. I doubt that because they get more than everyone else right now by consistently putting two teams in the BCS. Why would they give that up?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 8, 2013 -> 01:27 PM) Thats fine, I enjoy tournament conditions and I see this as a good thing where some more teams are involved. In all of the major sports we watch, the regular seasons matter, whether it is for merely getting into the playoffs at all or for getting seeded into a favorable matchup. These Upper level teams, the Alabamas, Georgias, Oregons are going to want to make sure they have a matchup that is best for them, or even a bye week. Whatever comes in the playoff format will be more appealing to me than the current system, so I am happy either way. The seeding isn't going to matter that much unless byes are involved. Is there really a difference for Alabama if they play Oklahoma or FSU? A top-5 team isn't likely to draw a horrible matchup in the first round, and after that it doesn't really matter because eventually you're going to have to beat someone legit. It's not remotely predictable either because the #7 team might be a better draw than the #10 team and in some cases these teams might be playing after your schedule is done already. Just look at this year: you'd have probably been in better shape as the #14 seed playing #3 Florida than you would be as the #7 seed playing Texas A&M (yes, I'm assuming they'd still use BCS rankings).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 8, 2013 -> 01:21 PM) My response was actually supposed to say (to Knightni) which is why it probably made no sense. It shouldnt matter the perceived strength of SEC, the reason is that if 2 SEC teams make it, likely they will be the SEC champion and the SEC 3, as opposed to SEC 2. The reason for this is SEC 2 may lose in CCG and thus SEC 3 will jump them. Which is why just taking the top team from each conference makes the most sense. If you want to be NC, you should win your conference. The perceived strength of the SEC does matter though because they have significantly more barriers to winning their conference. How many SEC teams could have won the ACC this year? I'd lean towards something like 5. It's a disincentive to play in a good conference that will make more money for your program. You'll never get the SEC to agree to something that gives them one bid and that's it given their dominance the last several years. As for the first part, I don't think you really know who the SEC 2-5 is most years because they don't play equal schedules anyways. Alabama missed Florida and SC, A&M missed Georgia and SC, Florida missed Bama and A&M, ect. They'd take whomever they think is the best option.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 8, 2013 -> 12:59 PM) No (referring to Zoom's question). Unless the Big10 is guaranteed as much money as the SEC regardless of teams, then it would be considered. The playoff that makes the most sense is 4 Conference Champions (Big, SEC, Pac and whoever is left of Big12/ACC). I don't think that quite works either because recent history suggests that there is at least one SEC team that is stronger than the champion from several other conferences. Disparity in schedule strength is why I think a lot of these championship games have been ugly of late, you're getting the two teams that had the best season instead of the two best teams. I think 8 teams is ideal because that should include anyone that has a legitimate claim to a title shot most years. I have no problem with auto-bids to conference champs, though the number is going to be in flux with conference re-alignment (right now, I'd say SEC, Big 10, Pac 12, Big 12 and ACC deserve it, though I doubt those all keep auto-bids the next 10 years). That would leave 3-4 wildcards, which makes room for a second SEC team (or whatever the power conference is should it shift), ND if they're deserving, and any undefeated non-AQ conference teams (who should probably get an auto-bid to keep them happy).

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 8, 2013 -> 12:14 PM) I think the larger the playoff pool, the more important the regular season is. The jockeying for playoff position will be huge, one small mistep during the year and you could be relegated to a "meaningless" one bowl game. Meaningless is relative of course. I don't agree with this at all. 16 teams would basically mean any major conference team with two losses or fewer gets in (Depending on eligibility rules of course. The SEC would demand no limit while everyone else would want a maximum). So many of the games that mattered this year would become meaningless because teams were already solidly in the field. Alabama and Georgia both make it, Oregon and K-State are both in even with a loss, the ND/Pitt game wouldn't have had nearly as dire consequences, ect. The only games that would REALLY impact the playoffs would be championship games in single-bid conferences. That's why I really don't want it getting bigger than 8 teams. You still have to have a pretty solid year to make the top-8, if you go much further than that you start getting teams that had disappointing seasons by their standards like LSU and FSU in the field when they didn't do a whole lot to really earn it.

QUOTE (Boogua @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 07:40 PM) Yeah. I know it's early, but Michigan looks like the best team in the big 10 thus far. By a decent margin too. Michigan looks solid, but the lineup Northwestern had to use was pretty horrible. Their best player (Crawford) is out for the year with a shoulder injury and their second best player (Hearn) missed the game with an ankle injury. Michigan probably had the 6 best players on the floor. I was half-expecting them to lose by 40.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 01:13 PM) I don't understand why they would do this. I would guess - and perhaps my assumption is wrong - that Gamestop and similar companies actually make more money for developers, especially the big developers with titles that have sequels. There have been several games that I started with a used copy and then later bought the new copy because I liked the franchise so much. I would imagine that the number of people that just keep buying used games is far greater than the number that eventually buy new ones. Then again, I'm weird about that and never buy used games. The far easier answer to me is to increase digital distribution so gamestop can't sell the same used game 4 times at $50 a pop.

I'll say it before the Illinois guys: Byrd never should have been given that timeout because he was falling out of bounds. Edit- and yeah, he was still sliding too.

Everyone knew he could defend and rebound. To me, the biggest thing is he's drastically cut his foul rate. I figured that'd limit him to closer to 25 MPG. He's still not a good offensive player, he's a mediocre finisher with a very high turnover rate.

Christmas Eve is always a Polish heavy meal at a relative's house. WAY too much kielbasa and pierogi. No plans today for once, probably just throwing a whole chicken in the oven. When we do have a real Christmas dinner, it's usually prime rib. I LOVE rare meat.

Has anyone ever used any of the free online youtube to MP3 converters (just google that if you aren't sure what I'm talking about)? I'm curious to know how well they work and how careful I have to be to avoid destroying my computer.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 12:47 PM) Could the Bulls actually use the MLE to sign Mirotic? I.e. if they signed a player beforehand to max out their cap space, could they then sign Mirotic with the MLE in the same year, and then fill up the remaining roster with veterans exemptions and a draftee or two? Under normal rules, no, you wouldn't be able to use both cap space and the MLE. Any potential exceptions would be subtracted from you cap space, so they'd have to renounce it to get that space. However, it's a little trickier since they already own the rights to Mirotic. I don't totally understand the rules for that. My inclination would be that they could offer him rookie scale, but would have to have space/MLE to give him more than that. I couldn't find an easy answer to that unfortunately. Even if you could, the problem is that they'd still have cap holds for those remaining roster spots at the rookie minimum (which is like $500k). That rule was specifically designed so you can't spend like $60 million on 4 players and then fill out the rest of your roster after the fact. So their total would be... Rose- $18.85 mil Noah- $13.15 mil Taj- $8 mil Teague- $2.12 mil Butler- $1.12 mil 2013 draft pick- $1.4 mil (estimate) 2014 draft pick- $1.2 mil (estimate) Cap Holds for remaing roster spots (6)- $3.04 mil Total- $48.88 mil. Assuming a $60 million cap (which would be a slight increase), that'd leave roughly $11 million. If they did get Charlotte's pick, that would add another $1.5 to $2.5 million to their salary total depending on where the pick actually landed. Also, as I posted earlier, the MLE would be added to their salary total (also possibly the Korver trade exception). So to summarize: No Mirotic and no deals besides Rose/Noah/Taj and their own picks- $11 mil unless the cap goes up more than a few million. With Mirotic (and assuming they can't sign him for more than scale if they're over the cap without the MLE)- roughly $6 mil unless the cap goes up a fair amount. Edit- fixed it after reading more info. Biggest change is what is used for cap holds for remaing roster spots.

Also, I don't think you can really fault their drafting given they've been in the 20's for a while. The success rate picking in the 20's is pretty low. Their last late-lottery pick was Joakim Noah, a similar caliber player would be a godsend.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 11:19 AM) Right. I was hoping for them to be horrible through 2016 and have a high lottery pick chance. I doubt we'll find much more than a role player with a pick 10 or higher, especially with Gorpax. Given their drafting history, it's still highly possible. That's especially true since the 2013 draft doesn't look like it has any surefire franchise guys. If they get two more Bismack Biyombo's, they're still going to suck. However, Rich Cho is the GM now and he seems fairly smart. The 2014 draft also appears to have significant homerun potential.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 10:53 AM) It was an equation, and Boozer followed a "minus" sign. I should have assumed a reading error.

Also, Bobcats' pick protections... Given that they've lost 13 in a row, the odds of them improving enough to be a fringe-playoff team next year (what would be needed for the Bulls to get the pick) don't seem very good. I could maybe see getting it for the 2015/16 season since Walker/MKG looks like an okay start and you'd be adding two more lottery picks.