CincySportsFan

An up-tempo team can still run up-tempo. Nothing says they can't. Obviously that's on offense. Now on defense...if you're saying they can't play defense against a stall-ball team...then what we're really saying is we want to bail out teams that can't play defense for more than 30-35 seconds.

Teams that could adapt to a shot clock day 1...are already shooting it quickly right now, because a.) they can (no rule saying you have to pass it 5 times, or use 30 seconds), and b.) because they've got the shooters that can make those shots (even with guys in their face). The teams that would struggle, are the teams that don't have those shooters and need to get a more open shot. How are they supposed to adapt? It's easy to say teams should just shoot better. I look at the shot clock the same way I would if they came out and said you had to always play straight up man-to-man defense like the NBA. No box-and-ones, no triangle-and-two's, no 3-2, no 2-3, no zone whatsoever. There are teams that could do it, and teams that couldn't. Or let me re-phrase...teams that wouldn't fare as well because they're being forced to do something that doesn't suit their team makeup.

No matter how much contradictory "evidence" is presented...the thing I keep coming back to is watching the man walk off the court when the game wasn't over yet. That is telling, on so many different levels, to me. And why it's going to take a whole lot more than an NKU player who wasn't on UC's squad to sway my decision.

Won't happen. Because someone somewhere will always say that so-and-so's 1 loss schedule is "tougher" than this undefeated team's. Heck, even just this past year, you had Iowa State, Florida and Georgia all with TWO losses ranked higher than an undefeated Cincinnati team. Going to 6 teams would've done absolutely nothing for the Bearcats. And if you say it's because they only played 8 games, compared to the 9 or 10 the others played...then what about Coastal Carolina?? They played 11 games, and were also undefeated. Yet, they were ranked 12th. I'm sorry, but there is such a bias that completely disregards the "weaker" conferences. These non-blueblood schools have no chance when you allow the human factor to make the decisions of who gets in and who doesn't.

True equality? No. But, more equitable than it is now? Yes. There will still be blue-bloods. And they may still be the same blue-bloods that we've had for the past 50 years. But, that doesn't mean that sharing the spotlight every now and then with these other schools isn't beneficial for the sport.

Facilities/resources are one thing...exposure is another. To have the Cinderella's (as you put it) be able to get in front of a national audience is critical, in my opinion. If a coach has the ability to go into a recruit's home and say "hey, you can go to Bama and be the 9th or 10th best wide receiver and probably not sniff a starting lineup until your junior year...or you can come play with us, have a great chance of getting on the field as a freshman or sophomore...AND still get a chance to showcase your skills at the end of the year if/when we win our conference and get to the national tournament." That's big. It's not going to happen overnight, but as more and more of these "Cinderellas" get exposure (and especially repeated exposure), they'll be able to be considered "legitimate" options for a lot of kids.

It didn't want to let me insert the link in the previous post.

Are you kidding me? Rodgers was roasted over this, due to the timing of it. Trying to take attention away from the draft, blah, blah, blah. I never like to deal with absolutes, but dang, this is almost as close as I can get to a sure thing that Rodgers did not "release" this. If anybody wanted upheaval on draft day and got it, it was Schefter. Watch the segment with Dan Patrick. And more importantly, listen to Dan's responses. I can only imagine him sitting there thinking "WTH? Nothing new came in? But, you HAD to release it right then?"

Now we find out today, that Schefter sat on the story and decided to release it on draft day. It was a freakin' PR piece for ESPN! They wanted everyone there at the draft saying "Adam Schefter/ESPN reporting that..." Everybody got played. Schefter was on the Dan Patrick Show and said this was just an accumulation of information that'd been gathered since the end of last year. There was nothing new...no phone call, no text, nothing...that came out that day. He just decided that "it was going to get out there sometime, so why not release it now?"

Wow.

I wonder how this news affected the draft last night. If you were a team that thought about trading up to get one of the QB's last night, or were even in a spot to get one initially...do you hold off, and fill another need, with the hopes of landing Aaron later? Don't know that we'll ever know the answer to that.

I have gotten to see a different side of him this past season, watching him on the Pat McAfee show each week. My opinion of him has completely changed. He is super smart, but also very reserved. I can see how some people might look at him being sensitive. I think the Packers screwed the pooch on this, starting with last year's draft. I think Aaron looked at this past season as a job application for a new job.

Big news breaking just a few hours before the NFL draft. The reining MVP tells the Green Bay Packers he does not want to return to the team. Will we see him traded tonight? Will the Pack wait him out? If so, I think he's willing to sit. Does he get traded later this summer?

While I was typing up my post, I saw that you had replied to the thread. I should've stopped and read what you wrote. Would've saved me some time writing my reply. ?

I understand where you are going with this, and to some extent I can agree on how helpful it could be. However, let me present these two scenarios... #1. Pitcher throws a 1-2 slider, off the inside part of the plate, at the belt (to a right-handed batter), and it breaks back over the plate. Batter flinches, and it's a called strike three. #2. Pitcher throws a 1-2 slider, on the outer-half (to a right-handed batter), and it breaks off the plate. Batter throws a defensive swing at it, and flips it over the first-baseman's head for a single. One pitcher gets a K, the other gives up a hit. The thing is, the first pitcher completely missed his mark. His was supposed to do the same thing that #2 did. He was just bailed out by a poor hitter. #2 on the other hand, hit his mark, and was just beaten by a good hitter. So, should #2 not throw the slider anymore? There's so much more than just the ball/strike result that should go into pitch consideration. Again, at the higher level, there's likely video that can be gone back and reviewed to see if the pitcher truly executed the pitch, and then what the result was. But, in my opinion, at the high school level, the margin of error on both the pitcher and the batter's side, make it much harder to diagnose what was a good pitch and what was a bad pitch. Now, can you track the number of each type of pitches? Sure. Is somebody using their curveball too much? Are they not using the change-up enough? That type of thing? Then, yeah, you can track that. Sort of like, the number of first pitch strikes. But, even still, it's going to take a super observant scorekeeper to keep track of things like this. And will they even know what pitch was initially called for?

At the higher levels, I agree. But, given the situation(s) presented above about the validity of stats that might be turned in at the high school level...there's probably not a lot about the opposition that you're going to be able to use. Yeah, you can probably see who their stolen base leaders are, and perhaps utilize a pitch out more than you regularly would. But, you're not going to see little Johnny's righty-lefty splits, how he does hitting curve balls, or whether he's a dead pull hitter or willing to go opposite field. Now, as to your own team, I'm guessing that most won't feel it's as important, just because they physically see each pitch/AB/play (the old eyeball test). They'll feel they know who's getting on base the most, who hits lefties better, who steals better, etc. Just a guess here.

Couple of things that I'd add to my list. Replay on fouled 3rd strikes. No reason to not allow this. And this one, which I believe some minor league is experimenting with...a modified DH rule. DH is in play as long as starting pitcher is still in the game. So nobody pitching well has to get pulled in order to try to generate some offense with a pinch hitter. But, it also brings into play the manager's ability to juggle his lineup/bench once he goes to the pen.

Can't say that I was following every rumor about who the next coach would be, but this came out of nowhere for me. Really thought it was going to be Martin, but this looks to be a potential home run type of hire. I wish Coach Miller the best!

Haven't they had issues in the past with someone opening one of the exteriors doors (because it's been so hot) and the cold air condensing all the moisture inside and making the floors slippery? Maybe I'm thinking of somewhere else.

Then maybe we need to get somebody not afraid of offending one of their fellow brethren. I look at it this way. Say you have three cameras (viewpoints) to pull from on replay, and you have three sets of eyes looking at the play, multiple times...IN SLOW MOTION...we should not be deferring to the field umpire (one person), with one instantaneous look, from one viewpoint. As I said before...once it goes to the booth, the call of the umpire is/should be inconsequential. You make the call based upon what the video evidence is. There is no certain amount needed to "overrule"...you're making the call based upon only what you can see in the video. Did you actually see the foot touch the base before the tag? If so, he's safe. If you say you're unsure the foot touched the bag, then he's out. It's so simple, but we've made it so convoluted. The technology is there, and it's not going away. Nor should it. The process of appealing may even be just fine. But, we've got a bunch of dodos obviously running (and ruining) it.

I've just now realized, with your post...that I'm old enough to be your father. Good Lord do I suddenly feel old. ?

Yes. I was at UC during some of the final years of Yates. Always heard that he was a good recruiter, but not necessarily a good X's and O's coach once the game started. I used to wonder what McClendon could have done under a different head guy.

Another change I'd make is to put someone with some kahunas in the replay booth. Check that, I'd put 3 people in the booth...majority rules. I'm not asking for 100% conclusive. I'm asking three people to make their own call, based upon what they see on replay. Once it goes to replay, the umpire's call is inconsequential. As Mel Allen used to say during TWIB, "you make the call." Last night's Phillies-Braves game review was a joke.

Wildest speculation that I've seen so far, was that the car was hacked and someone electronically disabled the brakes and engaged the accelerator. ?

Well, if the $1.2 million attributed to basketball is looking at all 15 games of the Sweet 16, and if football is only allowed to count 6 games, then there SHOULD be a discrepency.