Unverified Voracity Needs Otter Lawyers
Get your own otter. Aurelien the Otter of Win is an entirely inappropriate mascot for Illinois sports, for obvious reasons. That's not stopping some hopelessly optimistic Illini fans on the internet:
You have blasphemed against the Otter Gods and they will punish you with several dozen football and basketball seasons that will be indistinguishable from the ones you would have had anyway.
The next next one. Zeb Jackson one of those point guards who dunks explosively sometimes.
Zeb Jackson just went #SCTop10. pic.twitter.com/a730Ia6qAQ
— BCSN (@BCSNsports) March 6, 2019
Also in basketball recruiting, Franz Wagner told 247 that he's torn between signing a pro contract with Alba Berlin and taking the college route:
What are the advantages to going to the college route?
“It’s not so much the basketball standpoint, it’s experiencing something new,” Wagner said. “I think basketball-wise, I’m in a great position here but just thinking about studying, getting to know other culture and other people that’s the most intriguing part.”
If he does end up in college he mentioned Michigan (obvious), Butler (LaVall Jordan), and… uh… Stanford(?!?) as possible landing spots. This is going to be the latest of all recruitments if it does happen, as Wagner is a 2019 recruit and says that he would visit colleges over the summer. Michigan would know if they have a roster spot by then, certainly.
[After THE JUMP: nice rug]
I think he's doing this on purpose now. Joe Lunardi's latest bracket is rematch city for Michigan:
That's 3/3 in from last year's tournament in the first three rounds if higher seeds hold. (Also: Minnesota.) That can't happen since in-season rematches aren't permitted in the first two rounds and Michigan blew out Villanova in the nonconference schedule, which seems to be something Lunardi also does annually. At this point I assume he's trolling me specifically.
Otherwise this is more or less what Michigan wants: Gonzaga is the one and they are placed in the West, where they had a home-court advantage in the regional last year.
Also this bracket emphasizes the fact that the regionals are badly placed: both Michigan and MSU get stuck in Iowa because Virginia and Kentucky are in Columbus. Virginia is a one seed and they'll end up going to a place that's a 6.5 hour drive from Charlottesville. There are too many pods in the western half of the country.
This is a weird thing. Basketball's basketballs are not all the same basketball, which I think is common knowledge by now. But this is a step farther than that:
Maryland’s ball selection may have had something to do with [Michigan's first half parade of bricks].
“You’ve got these basketballs that we supposedly practiced with,” [Livers] said after the game. “But those were definitely two different balls.”
Though not commonly known by college basketball fans, the NCAA does not mandate what brand of basketballs teams use in their home arenas. In fact, the ball must be spherical, have eight panels and bounce evenly, but can vary in color (between three options), texture (leather can be substituted for a composite material), weight (between 20-22 ounces), bounce (between 49 and 54 inches when dropped from six feet) and even size (29.5 to 30 inches in circumference).
It is not a rule that the home team-provided warmup balls match the game balls, though the NCAA does recommend it.
That's baffling, probably an artifact from the 1950s no one bothered to fix after the money started rolling in. You'd think the Big Ten would standardize on the basketballs used in the tourney. Couldn't hurt their performance.
Might be a thin bubble. John Gasaway points out something about this year's edge of the field:
….at a minimum, we're already confronted with a perfect storm of exposure to bid thieves.
Start with the Pac-12. Washington is the only team in the conference that would definitely earn an at-large bid if the selection were held today, and Arizona State is, at this point, the only other team within feasible range of an at-large invite. …
…The bottom line is that, to the extent that we think Buffalo, Wofford and VCU are safely in the NCAA tournament, the stakes riding on whether they all win their conference tournaments increase accordingly.
Minnesota and Ohio State might not be safe, and Indiana could get squeezed out if this year's near-perfect bid thief setup bears fruit.
NBA shooting is bonkers. 29-footers have more EV than anything inside the line outside of two feet.
Today in "just in charge." The lengths people will go to justify their horrible decisions:
Gene Smith on Rutgers/Maryland additions: "Here’s one thing that people forget...At the time, the ACC was looking to expand. Part of our move was to protect Penn State. Had Penn State defected to the ACC, what would the conversation have been then?” https://t.co/HRTD9mtUiA
— Dave Briggs (@DBriggsBlade) March 6, 2019
Gene Smith's theory is that Penn State was going to join the conference that Maryland left because they were desperate for cash. Okay.
Today in Woke Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I don't even know any more guys.
Being a former student athlete myself, the #NCAA is making billions of dollars from these young athletes, so why aren't they paid fairly? Especially when they deal with injuries and their medical bills are not compensated after graduation. #AmateurismIsACon pic.twitter.com/7u8uz0bKAd
— Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (@Ahmadinejad1956) March 4, 2019
I… I mean… yeah? A guy who thinks 9/11 was an inside job has a better NCAA take than Jim Delany. Here we are.
Quit doing that. Wisconsin had a goal waved off in overtime Saturday on what appeared to be a ludicrous technicality: Michigan challenged the goal for offsides, which 1) it was not and 2) you should absolutely not be able to do. While reviewing for offsides, the referees caught a Wisconsin player coming off the bench slightly before his teammate came over for a change:
@ChrisDilks Here's the change that resulted in the too many men call that had the Wisconsin goal overturned like Notre Dame's pic.twitter.com/8N3BRVbhfY
— CJ Fogler (@cjzero) March 5, 2019
That was deemed illegal, but somehow not a penalty, and Michigan was given a second life they immediately squandered. A similar overturn happened in the Notre Dame-Penn State game. The NCAA rules committee immediately issued a memo saying FFS:
Situation 4: At the 6:00 mark of the first period, Team A is on a line rush and enters the attacking zone 3 on 2. Well behind the play and with no gained advantage present, Team A defenseman A57 is attempting to change and is not five feet from his team’s bench. This is unobserved by the officials on the ice. A3 comes onto the ice replacing A57 before A57 is five feet from the bench. Within seconds of this Team A player changes behind the play, Team A scores. What is the ruling?
RULING: Good goal following the review. This type of scenario did not create a gained advantage and did not lead directly to the goal being scored.
So those were two bogglingly bad review decisions that did not come from above. Which is better? Now get rid of offsides entirely please.
Etc.: Drew Magary's mentions must be fun today. Adidas corruption trial figures sentenced to 6 to 9 months. Seth charts explained. WAB and other bubble metrics explained. Dan Wolken on Delany. If you have the Athletic: Ben Wallace interview.
That shot graph is amazing. The article is interesting, too.
"Now get rid of offsides entirely please."
Second, have been saying this for years
Several of us had this discussion in the comments last time Brian brought this up. I couldn't disagree more. Hockey would be fundamentally different without the offsides rule. The offense would get a scoring chance basically any time they gained a numbers advantage because the defensemen couldn't rely on the blue line to restrict the offensemen's positioning. I acknowledge this might be an overstatement, but teams might have to compensate by having 3 defensemen and 2 forwards. Cats and dogs would live together, etc.
As somebody who played hockey and was less strong than most players but who was usually the fastest player on the ice, I would have thrived in a game without offsides because I could easily skate around the defense on every trip down the ice. But it wouldn't be the same sport. You'd have to legalize interference just to allow the defensemen skating backwards to have some kind of response to the massive disadvantage.
Edit: The compromise would be widening the blue line, which I think is actually what you and Brian should want if you hate offsides stoppages for split-second, inch-thin margins of error. Wider lines would retain the essence of the game while reducing offsides drastically.
The counter to your argument is that teams would need to keep more defenders back to mitigate the risk from fast rushes. I have always hated the offside rules since it causes unnecessary stoppage of play.
That's true, but I covered that: my theory is that the resulting equilibrium could be 3 defensemen and 2 forwards, which obviously is a fundamental change to the game. Widen the blue lines and you address the stoppages in play without changing the game. There will still be some stoppages but you can't eliminate all of them from the game.
No offsides is pretty fun for 3's, but I wouldn't want to give it up for real 5 on 5 hockey. Too many bodies to cover, too much offensive advantage and opportunities to impede defensemen.
I like dominant defense and shutouts. 2-1 is a real hockey score. 9-7 is bullshit hipster fake Crosby hockey.
I do like the wider blueline idea though.
So lots of cherry-picking? Maybe I don’t understand enough about hockey but, isn’t what would happen without offsides?
Maybe. I posit that there wouldn't necessarily be cherrypicking in the traditional sense, where someone just hangs out by the goal all game even when the puck is in their own zone. Instead I think the offense would gain an advantage by stretching the defense out more on rushes. Example: there's a 3-on-2, and one player (and it wouldn't be clear which one of the two players without the puck would do this) would essentially burst into the zone ahead of the puck and anticipate a pass. The defense is skating backwards and can't predict where they need to cover. If they sit back and react to the player that bursts around them, they give a free two-on-one with the added advantage of a screened goalie.
That sounds pretty game changing to me. I would rather they make the ice bigger and/or widen the blue lines like you said up-thread.
Cherry-picking is already plausible if a player hangs out on the offensive blue line. It doesn't happen now because it's too risky to give up a man advantage when the other team has the puck. I've always wondered though if it would be a viable strategy if you had a great penalty-killing line against a team that was weak on power plays. Anyone know if this happens in lower tier hockey ever?
Sorry, anyone that wants to get rid of the offside rule is wrong, period. What people need to understand is hockey coaches are ALL defensive coaches. Most of the work in practice goes to better preventing goals, not new or better ways to score them. What will happen is teams will start keeping a defenseman near center ice or farther to prevent a quick counter, meaning LESS men in the offensive zone, less odd man rushes and less scoring, not more. Further, every team would be coached that if they lose possession AT ALL, to immediately retreat to their own end of the ice, not even the neutral zone. The neutral zone largely becomes meaningless with no offsides.
You need to understand that hockey operates on the same basic wavelength as soccer. Offense is largely seem as free flowing, intuitive and instinctual. Creative, is probably the best way to put it. No coach is going to tell Gretzky or Ovechkin or Datsyuk what they should do offensively. Defense is seen as something you can coach, plan, teach and strategize.
Preach. One can't lament the neutral zone trap (which Brian has done many times) and also argue offsides should be eliminated. That rule change would essentially cement trapping (in some form) as the universal strategy. I'd much prefer the occasional stoppages in play over the boring-ass sport that would result.
I HATE the NJ Devil's trap-crap, and all other boring-ass, pack it in and count on getting lucky on a few counter-attacks styles of play. Preach it loud, brother!
I'm not sure I agree with the fundamental point (that scoring would decrease without offside). It doesn't make sense to me that adding a rule that only constrains an attacking team would result in an increase in scoring.
Basketball teams don't keep a guard near center court or farther to prevent a quick counter, and there is no offside in basketball.
Field hockey used to have an offside rule. They got rid of it, amid much controversy in the field hockey community. Now everybody agrees that field hockey is more exciting than it was, and nobody wants to go back to the offside rule. I think it could be the same for hockey.
One, basketball coaches do not have nearly the defensive single mindedness that hockey coaches do.
Two, hockey is the only sport (I think literally, actually) in which one team can maintain possession for 100% of the game, theoretically. Of course basketball doesn't do it. The absolute worst possible thing that could happen is they give up 4 points, which they will then immediately be given the opportunity to match. In hockey you could theoretically never have possession after being scored on.
further, even if I gave up 20 odd man transition points in a basketball game, that's likely 20-40% at most of the total scoring. One odd man transition goal in hockey could he 100% of the scoring for both teams combined.
The field hockey argument is meaningless, as it was similar to the soccer offside rule and nothing like the hockey offside rule.
Finally, the "neutral zone" in basketball is relatively small compared to hockey. Now, if you wanted to shrink the neutral zone in hockey by moving the blue lines out a couple feet and widening the lines, I'd be fine with that. But eliminating offsides entirely is foolish.
well said ...take that upvote dog
No disrespect but this statement sounds like it came from someone who has never played an organized game of hockey...with stripes on the ice.
Getting rid of the rule would be ridiculous for a lot of reasons...as the poster above points out a few.
Any old jo schmo can rip a wrister off the boards to push it on the other end very quickly...those stretch passes that are tape to tape while being onsides is a freakin thing of beauty and is very hard to do.
I was away from things last night. Does anyone know what happened in the Purdue game?
My memory isn't what it used to be, but if I recall correctly, the entire earth was destroyed.
Nope, nobody knows. Well, the Purdue and Minnesota teams know, but they've promised not to tell anyone.
Amir Coffey scored lots of points on a crazy amount of free throws, Haarms went 1-8 and Carsen Edwards had a horrendously inefficient, insane usage game (22 points on 35(!!!) shot equivalents)
Around Illinois, there are billboards saying "Hail to the Orange" and they make me want to puke. The Illini just can't come up with anything original I guess.
Just be glad they are taking their cues from us. There are far worse role models around the B1G.
strange, must be a pocket of intense Syracuse fans there
Just to clarify, "Hail to the Orange" is the alma mater for the University of Illinois (like "The Yellow and Blue" is for Michigan). It was originally written in 1910. I am not sure whether the title had anything to do with the words used in "The Victors" (written in 1898), but if it truly isn't "original," you have to give them some credit for sticking with it for more than 100 years.
People liked the word "hail" in the B1G territory back then. Purdue's fight song, written around the same time period as the Illinois alma mater, is called Hail Purdue and starts "Hail, hail, to old Purdue, all hail to our old gold and black"
The fact that Ahmadinejad is supporting pay-to-play student athletes is probably a good indicator that it is a bad idea.
And then you go and say this and make me take it away with a downvote...
maybe you do lack the will of the warrior...
Fine! I'll go make my own blog! With blackjack! And hookers!
If we dismissed all ideas supported by people with numerous human rights' violations and a warped view of genocide and terrorism, the world would be a much worse place.
At this point I assume he's trolling me specifically.
This made me LOL
I just assumed that most MGoBloggers were here simply to troll Brian.
Since you brought up recruiting. Are Hello posts a thing of the past now?
I think they have gotten stuck trying to figure out how to pronounce Mazzccua.
I know they were an Ace thing, but I figured they would have figured out who is going to write them by now. Seems like maybe a better use of time than the random Future Blue Originals that are being posted nearly half a year after the games were played.
I know they were an Ace thing, but I figured they would have figured out who is going to write them by now. Seems like maybe a better use of time than the random Future Blue Originals that are being posted nearly half a year after the games were played.
I know they were an Ace thing, but I figured they would have figured out who is going to write them by now. Seems like maybe a better use of time than the random Future Blue Originals that are being posted nearly half a year after the games were played.
would that jim delaney make some sort of off-hand comment about barstool sports, creating a critical mass of dipshit asshattery that completely deletes both from the face of the sports landscape.
Dude, there's still a school with "Redmen" as its mascot in 2019?
I recently watched the last 3 quarters of the 1971 Rose Bowl on Youtube (Stanford / OSU). The video showed the halftime show of the Stanford band. They were still the Indians at the time. It was pretty much the definition of politically incorrect. Juxtaposed with this are in-game ads for the upcoming Super Bowl including an extra long 1 HOUR pre-game show.
On the bright side, OSU lost a game where they ran for 400 yards and I like hearing Curt Gowdy do games.
Clearly we need a donor to buy two racks of basketballs of every brand of ball that could be used in away games. You're welcome.
Still working on that Rutgers/Maryland conundrum.
Unbelievably minor detail but in-season nonconference rematches are only avoided in the first round. Even that isn't a guarantee because USC and SMU rematched in the first round of 2017. Conference rematches are protected longer.
The USC-SMU rematch was a result of USC winning a play-in game though. The committee relaxes its rules a bit for play-in games, including allowing possible second-round intraconference matchups if it is unavoidable, especially if you have 9 or more teams from one conference in the tournament. So a 3 seed Purdue could find, for example, 11 seed OSU in a play-in game that feeds into their pod.
Since I double posted anyway, I'll just add that there is only so much that can be done about intraconference matchups if a conference has a lot of seeds on one side of a bracket, as the B1G might this year. I know that back when the Big East had 16 teams, they had a 3 vs. 6 game that I think was WVU vs. Marquette, and there was no getting around it because there were 5 Big East teams that were either 3 or 6 seeds.
It is easy to see Michigan, MSU, Purdue, Maryland, Iowa, OSU, and Minnesota all getting seeds that place them in the bottom halves of brackets (2,3,6,7,10,11). In fact, on the Bracket Matrix, only Iowa is out of this range right now, and they are the highest 8 seed. So it might only take one upset to deliver an all-B1G matchup in the Sweet 16.
but it would have to take at least one upset, since Michigan, MSU and Purdue will all end up in different brackets (because they'll be protected seeds and among the top 4 from the conference).
And maybe that wouldn't even do it, pending the Big Tenteen tournament games. If Purdue or MSU plays OSU for a third time in Chicago, then they can't meet in the NCAAs until the regional final ... so they can't be the 3 and 10 in the same region. Conference teams meeting in the Sweet 16 would have to have met no more than twice prior to the NCAAs. Same thing with Purdue and Minnesota. (In your example it would have been fine if WVU and Marquette had only played twice - if you only played once then you can actually meet in the second round.)
But just to make sure we should probably have MSU finish third in the conference, for reasons. Let the rest play out from there.
You mean Dan Wetzel, not Wolken.
Henri must be defended at all costs.
Henri doesn't care about it... or anything.
I second that it's amazing the NCAA itself hasn't standardized the basketballs. Is it the same in football?
Back when I played (just high school) the basketballs were different at various schools and it really did make a difference. I could never get used to the Nike balls- were more slippery and felt different shooting...maybe turned into a mental thing. Loved the Spaulding TF-1000's. That's what we used in our home gym.
Comments