illinilaw08

QUOTE (zenryan @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 06:41 AM) it was one mistake in a series of them. It wasnt even the first mistake of that led to the goal. Yedlin passing the ball into the center of the field, WTF was Omar Gonzalez doing in the position he was in?, and then Cameron not seeing the only guy making a run into the box. I was pretty upset watching what could've been done but the people just turning on Bradley is just pathetic. There is a Tampa sports host who watches soccer and has talked about soccer on his show in the past so he isnt some new fan. He was just shredding him apart from not scoring earlier in the game because he just went to "tap it in" to actually saying he thinks he sucks and is overrated because of the tying goal. And of course casual fans who are listening are joining the Bradley Sucks bandwagon. I guess that is what I deserve for listening to local radio during times like this. This. Absolutely this. Even Klinnsman deserves blame for the Gonzalez sub. If Zusi is still in, maybe Beasley has some cover on the wing, Ronaldo gets closed down, and the cross never gets through. Plenty of blame to go around. I thought we were beyond the Bradley hate when he earned his spot under Klinnsman (you know, he's only on the national team because his Dad was the coach nonsense). Regardless, the US needs the Bradley from the first half vs. Portugal or, even better, the last friendly vs. Mexico to show up on Thursday to get a result and render the Ghana-Portugal result irrelevant. Play Germany even for 80-85 minutes and then let both teams take a foot off the gas to get a draw.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 23, 2014 -> 09:11 AM) Or when Bradley kicked it at the defender on the goal line instead of the open net. That should have been a goal. Bradley hitting that first time was absolutely correct. The keeper is out. Don't mess around with a bouncing ball and try to pick a corner. Don't take an extra touch to give the defense time to recover. Hit it first time, with pace, on frame. Bradley did that. Tip your cap to the defender making a hell of a play and move on. Bradley was a lot better yesterday. He controlled the midfield in the first half (to the point that Portugal had to make a change at the half). Bradley and Dempsey combined really well a number of times in the first half. He ran more than anyone else on the roster and completed 87% of his passes. Yes, the last turnover was bad (though not nearly as bad as people are making it out to be), but there's plenty of blame to go around on the last goal (Bradley, Beckerman for not tracking back, Beasley for not closing Ronaldo down, Cameron and Fabian Johnson for not tracking the run, and Klinnsman for taking off the wing on that side - Zusi - to bring on Omar Gonzalez leaving Beasley on an island).

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jun 22, 2014 -> 05:57 PM) Michael Bradley sigh Bradley was better today, but that late giveaway was very, very costly. He's still by far the most important guy in a US jersey (and he shouldn't get criticism for the ball that was cleared off the line... goalie out of the net, put it on frame with pace... which he did - great play by the defender to keep the ball out). And give credit to Ronaldo... that last cross was brilliant. I would have taken a draw at halftime if offered. But that was a gut wrenching way to earn a point. Lot of options to get through still. Ghana-Portugal draw is the best case scenario. Portugal needs to make up 5 goals in GD. And the US is +1 vs. Ghana in goals scored (helpful in the event Ghana beats Portugal by 1 and the US loses to Germany by 1). Would have been phenomenal to get through today though. Thursday can't get here soon enough...

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 19, 2014 -> 08:41 AM) Not Snyder, George Preston Marshall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall Wikipedia entry for Marshall has an entire heading devoted to "Racism."

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 17, 2014 -> 08:56 AM) I think with who we have on the roster though, Jozy is more irreplaceable, plus a hot Jozy is as good as anyone and I really think he was going to carry his momentum from the last game forward. The US has always lacked primary goal scorers and Jozy was the closest we had (obviously Dempsey and Bradley are solid too). Bradley can't have a performance like he did against Ghana. Not sure what happened but it was just ugly and totally anti Bradley. I don't expect it to happen again. I tend to think Dempsey and Jozy are the two most but would have Bradley as third. Note, this doesn't mean I think that is the order of who is the best, rather just factoring depth into the equation. I think Bradley is most irreplaceable guy on the roster. When Bradley is good (which is almost always), he gives the US an opportunity to control possession through the midfield. I don't think anyone else on the roster gives the US that ability. Jozy is a close second though. I agree that he's one of three guys on this roster (Bradley and Dempsey being the other two) who have a proven track record as a goal scorer at this level. Yeah, he's inconsistent, but when he's in form, he scores goals like his second against Nigeria. More to the point, however, he's the only target guy on the roster. Aron is a really good talent, but he's not a hold up guy. Like Dempsey, he's better playing off a second striker (so is Wondo for the record). There just isn't another guy on the roster that has Jozy's skillset. And I agree with the earlier post that Guzan is so good it makes Howard more replaceable. Ultimately, awesome to steal three points on a day when Bradley was awful. Hopefully Bradley is Bradley vs. Portugal and the US can get a result there.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 16, 2014 -> 03:02 PM) Some states have that, at least for concealed carry. You have to pass a test in Illinois. There are several states that are more strict and some that have no restrictions whatsoever. One thing you will never overcome is the slippery slope argument, give them an inch, they take a mile. Because you know they will. Temporary income tax hike? Sure it is. Seat belt laws will NEVER be enforced on their own. Border security after amnesty? Yeah, ok, let's go with that...And on and on. What do you base the proficiency tests on? Police training? Harder? Easier? Who gets to decide? here is what you need just to apply in Illinois: A Valid Driver’s License or State Identification card. A valid FOID card. A head and shoulder electronic photograph taken within the last 30 days. Be able to provide the last ten years of residency. Fingerprints – Electronic fingerprints will expedite your application! Specify to the Live Scan vendor that your fingerprint application is for the Concealed Carry application (ORI = IL920707Z, Purpose Code = CCW).NOTE: Applicants will be assigned a transaction control number (TCN) at the time of fingerprinting and will be required to retain that TCN to complete the application. $150.00 payable with a credit card or electronic check. To obtain the Certificate of Completion, applicants MUST attend their required level of training and successfully pass the live fire proficiency exam. The live fire proficiency exam consists of 30 rounds total with a concealable handgun. 10 rounds at 10 yards, 10 rounds at 7 yards and 10 rounds at 5 yards with 70% of the shots hitting the scoring rings of the B27 target. Is that enough for you? If not, what would you consider to be correct? Serious question, not snark. Off the top of my head... Nationalize the standards. Make a minimum level of competence to legally own a firearm across the country. Include some sort of training on what to do in a crisis (especially to conceal and carry). It's very different to hit a target at 5-10 yards in a controlled setting and hitting an active shooter with bystanders in the area. Include a written test to test the response of the applicant to certain gray area scenarios. My understanding is that gun classes teach you to retreat if at all possible before resorting to shots fired. I think a minority of gun owners are emboldened by having a gun leading to situations escalating that should not escalate (see George Zimmerman... if the dude never gets out of his car, Martin is still alive... and I'm skeptical he ever gets out of the car if he's not armed). Require people to renew their license every 5 years or so. If my 80 year old grandfather suffers dementia, he should have his license to own firearms revoked (I'm not sure of the logistics that come with enforcement). Basically, I think owning a gun is a pretty important responsibility because of just how dangerous guns can be to others if they are used improperly. Accordingly, we should be taking as many steps as possible to ensure people don't take on that responsibility lightly.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 16, 2014 -> 02:58 PM) I'm not really opposed to this, and I agree that it's sorta nonsense that I can buy/own a gun with no certification/training required, but I then have to go get that training if i'm going to get a hunting license. That doesn't make much sense. Still, at the end of the day shooting a gun isn't rocket science. I'm not sure you need to create classes and make people spend more money to learn how to do that. Maybe if you offer up a state-sponsored program like drivers' ed that would make sense. But I think forcing people to pay/spend the time/energy to practice a constitutional right probably isn't going to fly from a legal perspective. That's restrictive and probably discriminatory (because poor people). I know it would cost money at the state/federal level to implement, but I think a driver's ed type of program could work. And while I agree that shooting a gun isn't rocket science, doing so accurately isn't so simple. Nor is gun maintenance necessarily intuitive (my father-in-law made me watch an instructional video on gun safety when I expressed interest in going shooting with him... hypothetically... at some point in the future). Finally, with respect to guns as a deterrent, either for home protection or to take down a shooter in a mass shooting, having some sort of training with respect to simulating the chaos that results increases the likelihood that someone will be able to effectively protect themselves, their family, innocent bystanders in such a crisis. Soldiers are sometimes killed by friendly fire. Guns as protection ultimately isn't as simple as point and shoot.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 16, 2014 -> 02:19 PM) And they have on guns as well. Right. I proposed what I think is a pretty reasonable restriction on gun ownership... you know, some sort of proof that you can competently handle the weapon before you own one. You responded by bringing up false equivalencies to voting and speech. Which are obviously distinguishable. I'd prefer we get to the meat of the argument. I'm genuinely curious why making people show they can operate a firearm before they can own one would be an overly onerous restriction. EDIT: Basically everyone I know who own and use guns, whether it's for hunting, protection, use at the range, whatever, respect firearms for what they are... a tool that can be pretty dangerous is used incompetently, but provide utility if used properly. I see plenty of reasonable uses for firearms. I don't need/want one, but I don't begrudge those that do. I just think people that own firearms should be competent with them before they can own one.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 16, 2014 -> 02:03 PM) People can die because of freedom of speech too. Yeah, but the courts are able to place reasonable restrictions on that type of speech. Ie, can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 16, 2014 -> 01:15 PM) I don't think it matters. The other people at this place don't know that this is a domestic thing and that he's only targeting two people. For all they know, he's going to keep shooting up the place. I'm OK with anybody who happens to be carrying taking this guy out. To me, this is one of those arguments that's great in theory. The assumption here is that everyone who is carrying in that bar (1) is proficient with their firearms; and (2) are able to calmly ascertain the situation and take down the correct person(s). I have never understood why there isn't a comprehensive exam required for firearm ownership (sort of like a driving test - mandated range time, instruction, etc. prior to obtaining the right to purchase a firearm) with mandated continuing education (on the range, firearm safety classes, whatever). As someone who doesn't own or use firearms, I would feel a lot safer around people who do carry if I had a reasonable expectation that they were competent with their weapon.

GREAT goal by Van Persie... Dutch equalize.

Wasn't sure which gun violence thread to put this in, but thought it was interesting and thought provoking. http://gawker.com/its-really-hard-to-be-a-...0306/+tcraggs22

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 29, 2014 -> 04:37 PM) ...with less than 20% of the population. You're a smart guy Balta, but this is another instance of posting an apples or oranges comparison because it fits your argument. Unfortunately, population size and density matter in cases such as this, whether you wish to ignore it or not. Allow me to reiterate... AUSTRALIA HAS ~ 23 MILLION PEOPLE LIVING ON A LAND MASS NEARLY THE SIZE OF THE US. THE US HAS ~ 315 MILLION. The vast, vast majority of the Australian population lives on the coasts. The interior is virtually uninhabitable... so the land mass argument doesn't really hold water.

Lots of homer picks in this thread... the US getting out of the group is 3/3. Group A: Brazil (1); Croatia (2) Group B: Spain (1); Chile (2) Group C: Colombia (1); Ivory Coast (2) Group D: Uruguay (1); Italy (2) Group E: Ecuador (1); France (2) Group F: Argentina (1); Bosnia (2) Group G: Germany (1); Portugal (2) - I don't see how the makeshift US backline gets to the 5 points they probably need to come out of the group... but I hope I'm wrong. Group H: Belgium (1); Russia (2) Round of 16: Brazil over Chile Spain over Croatia Italy over Colombia Uruguay over Ivory Coast Bosnia over Ecuador Argentina over France Germany over Russia Belgium over Portugal Quarters Brazil over Italy Germany over Bosnia Uruguay over Spain Belgium over Argentina Semis Brazil over Germany Belgium over Uruguay Winner Brazil Third Uruguay

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 8, 2014 -> 12:31 PM) No, not really. Ticket sales have zero to do with this decision, even if the game doesn't sell out it could still be a major success to them. It's also a 20,000 seat basketball arena, not a 70,000 seat football stadium. I think you are slightly over exaggerating how empty the place will be. They didn't move the tourney to Pullman, Washington. Late to this discussion... but yeah, the tournament has definitely been empty on Sunday in the past. The most recent example I can think of was the Penn State-Ohio State final in 2011 in Indianapolis. I was at that game... and I was probably one of 3,000 people there. When I lived in Indy, I loved having the B1G tournament there. They consistently drew well on Friday and Saturday and, if one of IU or Purdue were playing Thursday, they drew well Thursday too. Sundays were more problematic because people were getting out of town before the late championship game. Having the last championship game on Selection Sunday shows that the B1G cares way more about TV ratings than attendance at the championship game in any event. I honestly don't see the concern with D.C. getting the tournament every couple years. D.C. is a transplant town, so the base of local B1G alums is pretty strong. Maryland is extremely close. With two airports, sufficient public transportation to get around, and world class museums, restaurants, etc., I can see people making D.C. a destination trip for the tournament. Students will have more trouble getting there (much more expensive road trip from Madison or Iowa City to D.C. as compared to Indy or Chicago), but once every 4 or 5 years, I don't really see the problem.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Apr 29, 2014 -> 09:18 AM) I lean this way as well. FfC and DwD aren't awful perse, but there's a lot of lulls. It's not because there are fewer battles and less action either, it's because a lot of stuff didn't really go anywhere useful (yet). CoK isn't exactly brimming with action and battles outside of the Blackwater sequence, but I had no issues with the pacing of that one. s*** didn't really start hitting the fan until halfway through SoS either. Now obviously there was still stuff going on, but that's my point. I agree with this. Martin throws up somewhat arbitrary obstacles to keep characters marking time until he gets to books 6 and 7. I liked 4 and 5 better than some and a lot less than others, but I think the writing and character development goes down significantly in books 4 and 5.... I also get extremely annoyed with Martin for his glacially slow writing pace. If he is concerned about the shows passing the books, then spend less time working on other projects and finish the freaking books!

Was there yesterday, will be there again today. Here's hoping for a series win (and a positive outing from Johnson).

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 1, 2014 -> 08:54 AM) I know it was the title of the show, but the mother plot was a fraction of what was going on for years. The Mother plot was a major part of the show this season though. Some parts of the finale worked for me. The end absolutely did not. Part of that, to me, is because the timeline on the show isn't the timeline that we get while watching the show. They tell us 6 years passed between the Mother dying and the final moments, but we, as viewers, have about 20 seconds to process that fact before Ted is chasing Robin again. Rather than writing three terrible final seasons (Zooey, the Barney-Robin relationship), they could have told the story they told in the finale over the course of the final three seasons. Then it might have worked for me. We could have seen how good the Ted/Mother relationship was. We could have seen the emotional hit of her dying and seen why Ted/Robin made sense again (Robin steps in and is great with the kids, whatever). Instead, the ending felt rushed and felt way too soon. Oh and spending the last two seasons on the terrible Robin/Barney relationship, only to blow that up in the first 10 minutes of the finale was just awful.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 14, 2014 -> 02:15 PM) OSU is 3-15 on threes and 7 of 18 on FT's. I cant wait to finally get shooters back into the program. Yeah, I'm really interested to see Ohio State next year. This has been a pretty infuriating game to watch as a neutral observer. I can only imagine how you are faring, Rock.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 14, 2014 -> 02:12 PM) 1) Too many guards is not a problem, but when you're trying to project "when we add player A and B we'll be X much better!" it doesn't really work like that. Someone is going to be losing minutes. My guess is that Groce sticks with Abrams because of his "bulldog toughness" and all that, just like he stuck with Bertrand. I doubt anyone will be better than Rice, and Nunn is your future star. So adding Starks and Crosby is going to be nice, and we won't have to deal with Tate anymore, but I'm not sure that's such a huge jump in guard play simply based on available minutes. If they're all shooting 40% from three, maybe you got 4 guards and Egwu. Otherwise your 10 and 12 ppg projections don't mean much. 2) See, this is where the blind optimism comes in. Expecting ANYTHING out of Paul or Black next year is a complete crap shoot. We have no idea how they'll fair against Big Ten competition. None. It took Nunn/Hill 3/4 of the season to make big impacts. That may or may not happen with those guys. 3) We'll see what happens at PG next year. Does Groce take the tough defensive guy, or the offensive guy that can get the offense going (an assumption that Crosby can/will do this). MSU was a great win, but this was such a goofy Big Ten season. MSU lost weird games at home, Wisconsin lost weird games at home. Not much of this season really made sense. You take it as a good win and you move on. They also lost to NW. They lost to Purdue. They lost to Penn State. You can say the roster changed up, and that's true, but again, 3 of your starting 5 still lost to those crappy teams. I don't think #2 is blind optimism. Paul is more comparable to Rice than Hill/Nunn. He's had a year in the system and has a year of college basketball under his belt. I don't know where to set expectations for Paul, but I think it's reasonable to think that he will be able to provide competent minutes. And if both Black/Paul are awful (which is unlikely IMO), you can go small and give Hill the lions share of the minutes at 4. Again, the point here isn't that Illinois is an NC contender next year. And I also don't think they can reasonably be considered a LOCK for the tournament, but all the ingredients are in place for Illinois to be much improved next year.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 14, 2014 -> 02:00 PM) I agree with basically all of this, i'm just trying to temper expectations of being THAT much better. Yes, a tournament berth should be the expectation and it would be disappointing to miss out again next year based on what they have coming in and the hopeful jump that Nunn and Hill will take again next year. But I wouldn't call it a lock and I certainly wouldn't say a 7 seed or better is a lock. Keep in mind the shooting problems will continue next year. Abrams and Egwu are still your starters. Rice/Nunn/Hill played a lot of minutes here at the end and they weren't exactly lighting the world on fire. I understand that Crosby and Starks come in with a proven track record, but whose minutes do they take? And how much can you realistically expect from Black in his first season? I think if he contributes as much as Hill did you run away happy. And Hill was good, but not some unstoppable offensive force. Realistically, I think Black has a freshman season similar to Jereme Richmond (without the off the court stuff). Richmond averaged like 8 and 5 or something. He got a lot of hustle points and rebounded well. I expect the same out of Black. I think Groce has the opportunity to run out a lot of different lineups going 9 deep next year. Egwu's offense is irrelevant to me. Egwu is a difference maker defensively which should be a constant next season. Like I said before, hopefully Morgan (or Paul) is able to give 15 decent minutes a night at the 5. With as much energy as Egwu expends on defense (and, honestly, running around setting screens on offense), a reduction in minutes should reasonably lead to better jump shooting from Egwu. Tate was basically a nothing on the offensive end in the B1G. Starks will give you little to no drop off offensively from Tracy. Illinois won't have a go-to-guy next year, but they should have 6 guys (Abrams/Starks/Rice/Cosby/Nunn/Hill) who can go out and get 20 on a given night. I don't know how lineups are going to shake out, but Illinois should have much better offense next year. By the way, this Ohio State-Nebraska game has gotten really interesting.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 14, 2014 -> 01:39 PM) I don't disagree. Things are looking better. I just can't go so far as to predict this team is a "lock" for a top 25ish, top 7ish seed. That's insane with so many question marks. I would have said Indiana was a lock for the tourney this year and it didn't work out. And not because of injury, just because they had a lot of good talent on paper that didn't really pan out as their fans had hoped. I mean, you guys realize it'll be basically the same team next year but with a slightly better supporting cast right? It'll be the same starting five next year. You hope that the transfers can be better than Ekey and Bertrand. But that's not a certainty. Here are my issues with next years team: (1) Too many guards for this expected mass turn around - Abrams/Rice/Nunn are your starters. How do Starks and Crosby fit in? How do they play defense? Nunn shows flashes. Rice shows flashes. And both, Rice especially though, disappear for long stretches. (2) The four spot is a sophomore and a freshman. How's that going to work out over 40 minutes a game? Or do you go small (Starks is 6'2", Crosby is under 6') and give up rebounding? (3) The PG and C on the team aren't consistent threats offensively. Abrams will have a good game and then have 5 games with less than 5 pts. He didn't progress this year, why would you think that would change next year? Same with Egwu. All that stuff about him shooting 10000 shots, and by the end of the year he couldn't hit a jump shot to save his life. You can't rely on that. On 1, you can never have too many guards in CBB. It's reasonable to have a 5 guard rotation. Starks spells Tracy at the 1. Whoever doesn't start out of Cosby/Rice/Nunn takes on the Bertrand role this year. Plenty of minutes to go around. And are you really complaining about too many guys at a position? On 2, there are tons of options at the 4. Paul/Black/Hill should reasonably be able to give you consistent rebounding/effort points. The small lineups will feature Hill at the 4. On 3, some combination of Abrams and Cosby will provide offense at the 1. And you don't need Egwu to score if he's as much of a difference maker on defense as he was down the stretch. Today was a perfect example of Egwu. He got second chance points and influenced the game significantly defensively. It is also reasonable to expect that Morgan will make a leap from Year 1 to Year 2 allowing Egwu to play less minutes which, hopefully, translates to better jump shooting. This team closed the season really well (we all know how hard it is to win on the road in the B1G - especially when you are a mediocre team - so I find it odd that you are saying the win @East Lansing wasn't a really, really good win). Yeah, there are question marks but if you can't see why next year's team should be much better than this year, I don't know what to tell you.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 14, 2014 -> 01:27 PM) I'm not being condescending at all, just saying that calling something a lock when there are so many question marks and so much improvement needed is silly. Look at the "predictive formula" that is being applied to Illinois that is never looked at in regards to the rest of the conference that they have to play day in and day out. I am being skeptical since the program and the players havent made much noise since about 2005. I dont understand why there is such a problem with me being skeptical. I agree with you if this is an argument about semantics. Nothing in sports is a "lock." Next year's Illinois team should be much improved, but unless a team is an NC contender, no one is a lock for the tournament. The weaknesses this year, in my mind, were (1) depth, and (2) shooting. It's not a coincidence that the best stretch for Illinois this year came when Hill and Nunn were ready for big minutes (helping with both 1 and 2). Illinois doesn't have a top 10 recruiting class next year by an ordinary metric (incoming freshmen), but I would be surprised if anyone in the B1G gets greater production from newcomers next year than Illinois (save maybe Ohio State with as good as their class looks). Cosby averaged better than 12 ppg on 40% 3 pt shooting in the Big East last year. Starks averaged better than 10 ppg on 40% 3 pt shooting in the Pac-12. Darius Paul has the lowest pedigree of the three, but averaged 10 and 6 as a freshman. Add to that Leron Black, a top 40 incoming freshman at a position of need, and it's reasonable to see why Illinois is adding a LOT to next year's roster (and that's without taking into account reasonable improvement from Year 1 to Year 2 for Hill and Nunn). Illinois loses very, very little this year. Ekey was useful. Bertrand had his moments. But both were really limited players whose minutes should easily be replaced (Bertrand by Cosby; Ekey by either greater minutes for Hill or some combination of Paul/Black). So Illinois improves both depth and shooting next year from a team that won 5 of its last 7 (Nebraska, @Minnesota, @MSU, @Iowa, Indiana) with both losses coming to Michigan. I don't think anyone here is saying that Illinois is going to be a National Championship contender next year, but anything less than the NCAA tournament would be an extreme disappointment. Contrast that to this season when lots of people expressed concern about depth (10 eligible scholarship players, 5 of whom were freshmen) and shooting before the season. The point here... Groce has done a very impressive job of remaking this roster after the end of last season. This year was always going to be a down year because of the roster turnover. It's unreasonable to not be optimistic about Illinois basketball next year.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 14, 2014 -> 12:01 PM) How perfect. Missed lay up/floater near the rim. Perfect summation of the season. Got exactly the shot that you wanted there, just couldn't get it to go. Great character from this Illinois team getting back into the game, was a very fun game to watch. Looking forward to seeing more basketball from this team in the NIT. On Groce, not sure you can blame him for not being in the zone off a miss (the play Stauskas got to the line) with the way Michigan gets shots in transition. I'm sure Groce had them in zone off a make, man off a miss there. I thought they should have been in the zone on the last possession as well, but having Jordan Morgan beat you is something I guess you live with. Biggest mistake was not calling timeout on offense when it was clear nothing was happening that possession. I'm sure Groce would like to have that one back. EDIT: Also, give credit where credit is due. Groce deserves a great amount of credit for using the zone to get Illinois back in the game.

Pretty good half for the Illini all things considered. Michigan made 3 of their last 4 threes, and with the 2 turnovers late, things could have really gotten out of hand. Pleased to be down just 5. Illinois needs to control the tempo, stop Michigan's transition offense off makes, and limit turnovers. Do that, and I think this is close at the end...