Don't expect much B1G love this weekend.

J and I aren't fans of much of Purdue's conference.

It's fun to see these guys lose.

I won't be rooting for Penn State as long as their fans continue to worship at JoePa's altar.  aOSu, while not as bad as PSU, has a history of cheating and skirting rules...they rectified the situation by hiring the squeaky clean Urban Meyer.  On top of that, no one likes their fans...but people in their fan base.  Same goes for Wisconsin...and their head coach is a classless jerk who strives to be known as that. And IU, in spite of being completely unimportant, is still IU.

Outside of those four, the rest of the league is OK, I guess- we kinda like Fitzgerald, Dantonio and Hoke.  Sure, Pelini seems to be a surly, foul-mouthed jerk...but we still don't know enough about the 'Huskers to make a call...Minnesota is pretty harmless and the same goes for Illinois. And while Iowa is our most hated rival, we find their fans to be pretty fun to interact with.

As conference loyalty goes, I guess we don't have much of it...especially early in the season. Every time I choose to root for a team like Michigan, something like this happens.

We get a hard time on Twitter for not pulling for the B1G...and we really don't care.  The media (read as EsPN) doesn't like the conference...because they have vested interest in the SEC. Nothing changes that.  Our wanting to see Ohio beat PSU surely isn't going to change a damned thing.  But, days like today don't help the conference at all.

-The good guys, aOSU, Nebraska, MSU and Illinois all handled their business today.  The rest of the conference didn't fair well.

So I should be sad to see these guys lose?

-UM's shellacking at the hands of Alabama looks pretty horrible.

-Watching PSU get worn down by Ohio in Happy Valley was as bad as it seems.

I'll admit I almost like these Wisconsin fans.

-IU struggling with the mighty Sycamores of Indiana State and Wisconsin doing the same v. Northern Iowa might hurt more than about anything, short of losing to an FCS foe.

-Northwestern nearly giving away a game to a bad Big East team won't be received well by anybody...even those who choose to wear purple on the weekends. The same can be said about Iowa's squeaker over Northern Illinois.

Are our fellow Purdue fans angry at us not rooting for Wisconsin and others because they believe our opinion might change top-25 voters' opinions? Sure, BS is a powerful website...no doubt about that, but we don't affect polls too much.

And speaking of polls, when was the last season a BCS poll had our alma mater even mentioned in it? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it surely shouldn't be a big concern or worry for any us at this point.  When Hope elevates the program to the point in which Purdue is in the conversation, we'll probably change the way we think about and view the rest of the conference...until then, we are who we are, and some fanbases, teams and coaches don't deserve or receive any love.

It might be best for teams to just win and not play like IU did v. ISU...things generally work themselves out when that happens.

ESPN B10 Guys Say Purdue Needs LB Situation To Solidify Because How Many Times Can They Say QBs?

ESPN.com's Big Ten guys have been doing a feature they're calling "home run summer" but which might as well be called "we're desperate for college football content in June." That's not to say it may not scratch your itch, because right now we're all looking at that mirage in the distance that is the delicious refreshment of college football.

Anyway, the Purdue segment can be viewed here and is just a quick hit on the fact that the linebacking corps at Purdue needs to improve if they want to have among the better defenses in the league. And let's be honest, with some unknowns on offense (with Coach Hope implying there will be no clear cut #1 QB until the season starts, if at all), the defense will indeed need to be stout.

The Other Gameday Crew Is Coming To Our Citaaaay

As you no doubt already know, the ESPN College Gameday junior varsity is coming to Purdue this Saturday. Many of us remember what happened when the varsity team (the football crew) graced West Lafayette. But let's not go there... it makes me shudder to think about it.

What we want is for those of you lucky enough to be present (none of the BS brain trust will be there) to share the experience with us. Send photos (or videos, if you're savvy enough) of the experience. Pics of the campout the night before... the ESPN trucks, equipment and presence...Digger Phelps ignoring fans...you asking Rece Davis if he is related to Hubert Davis...Erin Andrews being beautiful...fans being awesome...use your imagination. We want to get a feel for how things are going. And if we can feel anything related to Erin Andrews, well.... okay, I'll stop.

Seriously, though, please send anything in that you think is worthwhile and others not fortunate enough to be there would like to see to BoiledSports@gmail.com, or hit us on Twitter @BoiledSports. Assuming we have a nice array of submissions, we'll get a post up before the game that day sharing as much as we can.

Good luck. We're all counting on you.

Sanctions? What Sanctions?

[Inside ESPN.com's offices this morning]

"We need to put together an image for the site about the kickoff of college football season."

"Oh, I know! How about a bunch of different teams all grafted together into one image?"

"Brilliant! Everybody take 5!"

"No, but which teams?"

"Oh....I don't care. Hmmm... doesn't matter. Any teams. Which ones do you want?"

"I'll just pick a bunch at random, but what about the one front and center?  That should be a marquee team, right? One that represents the best about college football. A paragon of virtue. One that makes us all proud to be college football fans and never makes anyone think about the dirty underbelly of NCAA athletics... right?"

"Sounds good to me. So who are you going to use?"

"Well, USC, of course. Will Ferrell likes them."

"Oh, and you know what would be cool just to see if people are paying attention? Let's have the guy kicking off wear #49, which is worn by WR Robbie Boyer."

"Brilliant!"

Get Ready To Welcome Digger; College GameDay Coming to Purdue in January

As first reported over at H&R, the basketball version of College Gameday is coming to Purdue on January 22, 2011. Purdue hosts Michigan State that evening.

All I can say about this is.... it's about fricking time.

Of course, it would be a hard one to ignore, since that game will almost certainly be a matchup of top 5 teams and could fairly easily be a matchup of #1 versus #2.

Clausen to "Face" Stanford? Hey, I Get It!

Does someone at ESPN.com have a sense of humor?


No, not about Weis still having authority over anything.

ESPN'S Rittenberg Joins Masses In Predicting Painful Year For Boilermakers

It's really no shocker to read Adam Rittenberg's three preseason predictions about the Boilermakers from yesterday. (For those interested, Adam's doing three fast facts about each team these days.)

He gives the defense props, which is warranted, he addresses the kind of fluid quarterback situation, and he sums up the season thusly:

Purdue misses a bowl for the second straight year -- Danny Hope has his work cut out for him in Year 1, and the schedule does him no favors. Purdue must visit Oregon, play an improved Northern Illinois team and host Notre Dame, a preseason Top 25 squad. There are questions at quarterback and wide receiver, and the Boilers have two new coordinators. We'll definitely see some signs of progress, but not enough wins to reach a bowl game.

We don't find this assessment unreasonable at all and continue to see Rittenberg as perhaps the only guy at the WWL who knows the Big Ten teams as thoroughly as a network like EsPN should. We do, however, like that in pointing out our tough schedule, he feels compelled to remind everyone that UND does again count as a tough game, since they're a top 25 team.

The Whole EA Thing

I feel oddly compelled to comment on the current Erin Andrews debacle. If you haven't heard, she was videotaped through a hotel peephole, walking around her room, wearing nothing but her cell phone earbud (I like to think she was doing a radio appearance in the buff).

Well, a blonde was, anyway. And it was kind of grainy. So the best course of action, I would have thought, would be to simply deny it, laugh it off, etc. And then put tape over all future hotel peepholes. However, ESPN (and maybe EA herself) felt differently, and confirmed it was everyone's favorite sideline reporter in the altogether. The only reason I see for confirming this is because they want to go after not only the videographer but the hotel as well. Which they should, because I'm fairly certain peepholes aren't supposed to work that way.

What's more interesting to me is how multiple leading sports sites have been muzzled and, it appears, scared. Perhaps for the first time, I might add. I know AJ Daulerio at Deadspin has crossed lines before and it's always served to underscore how cutting edge Deadspin was, and how they were beholden to nobody. However, now AJ has been compelled (either with legal threats or his own conscience) to put up the most humble, serious, tail-between-the-legs post I've ever seen on Deadspin. And all he did was follow the story for us, as Deadspin is expected to do. What were sports blogs supposed to do when news broke that there was a potential video of EA naked? Pretend it hadn't happened? Of course it's an invasion of privacy. But unless you took the video, you're simply saying "Hey, look at this!" Sure, sure, that's wrong, too, because it further violates privacy, but we're getting a little further down the line of who's really doing anything wrong. Either we are all ready to be a part of this new media world where everyone Twitters and videos go viral immediately, or we're not ready and we need to go back to everything being edited and proofed and re-read and vetted, etc., over and over.

I think it's kind of sickening that someone would stand outside EA's hotel room and video her in the buff. However, many sports blogs/sites out there have commented on EA's hotness and she's virtually admitted in interviews that if she gets more access thanks to her looks, so be it. And we all loved her for that. And yet now we're all expected to get all moral and, as AJ at Deadspin does, say "please don't get out of control in the comments." If he's really going to curttail coverage and commentary of something like this, then what's left of Deadspin?

And what the hell did ESPN threaten him with, anyway?

When Do We Start Getting Concerned About SportsCenter's Propaganda?

I know we all share a general disdain for the direction that ESPN has gone in, but we also are all in the same boat in that... hey, what are we sports fans going to do? Not watch ESPN? Kind of hard. They're everywhere.

Including on Twitter. And I am currently "following" them because I was curious if it would just be one of those lame Twitter feeds that's just a link dump to ESPN.com articles. But it's not. It's not bad, in the fact that it appears actual anchors and producers are Tweeting. What is getting a little obvious is that they really, really, really want us to all agree that Bulls-Celtics is the most amazing playoff series ever of all time ever, EVER. Take a look:


Josh E:Last night, hand ticking towards midnight, in a packed Manhattan restaurant. Diners leaving tables to watch the 3rd OT. Unforgettable
7 minutes ago


PRODUCER: We are all convinced that somehow the Bulls and Celtics will find a way to play EIGHT games in this series. Incredible basketball.
about 2 hours ago


Producer: 3 OT's = Tired morning SC Pod...but...WOW...what a game! What a series.
about 4 hours ago


Impromptu Poll: Who wins Game 7?
about 12 hours ago


Robert F: Wow. Don't have rooting interest in either team, but Bulls/Celtics reminds me of NBA in the 80's...when the league was Fan-tastic!
about 13 hours ago


Yes, we get it. It's amazing basketball. Especially the violent fouls that knock out people's teeth. Awesome. Now, I don't mean to be a conspiracy theorist here, but you don't suppose that... maybe... just possibly... they were encouraged to talk about just how awesome, life-changing and socially impacting this series has become? I mean, I know this is WAY out there....

Rick Reilly Wants You To Get Off His Lawn

I never had a big problem with Rick Reilly when he was at SI. Sure, he wasn't always in touch with things, but he was an old-school journalist who didn't seem to take himself too seriously. He wrote a nice little column in the back of SI that sometimes was really, really good. And sometimes was really stupid. But hey, we all mail things in from time to time (insert joke about my posts here).

But Reilly joined the Entertainment and sports Programming Network last year and he's gotten a little more annoying. And by having more of a Web presence, he's getting more noticed by other amateur writers -- or bloggers -- for whom Reilly does not much care. The pull quote of the article was this:

“I don’t really go on the blogs, because they don’t really like anybody," he said. "Jesus could do a column and they’d be like, ‘What the hell is with the hair?’ It’ll always be something.
"Charles Barkley told me a long time ago always half the people are going to hate you and half the people are going to love you. If you suddenly change who you are, the other half will hate you. I don’t really care what people holding down couch springs do or say."

Wow. Disrespect. Face! You showed us, Reilly. Of course, who do you think reads ESPN.com? 55-year-olds sitting on the toilet? Oh, no, that's right... that's who read your old column. Did you also know, Rick, that ESPN employs "bloggers"? Guys like Adam Rittenberg, who is always giving us interesting and sometimes insider info on Big Ten basketball and football.... and, you know, puts up content. And does it frequently. All while holding down couch springs.

Oh, no, wait... you probably don't mean him, because he's legit in your eyes, because he works for ESPN. So you mean... guys like me... the kinds of guys who are essentially paying your salary by paying attention to you, you old fart. Way to not come off like a haughty a-hole.

Let's go back to the article, shall we?

On whether he buys the criticism that he does not come off as well on TV as in print:

"I know I’m not Bob Costas, but I think if you can get past the big nose and nasally voice, I think I’m trying to bring interesting sentences, good writing, clear and maybe unusual opinions to television.’’

Yes, interesting, unusual, cutting-edge opinions on things like.... beer pong. Groundbreaking, Rick.

"But what I find out so far is when you write a great column, people are like, ‘Oh, I emailed it to my 100 best friends,’ or ‘I was able to talk to my dad finally,’ or ‘I buried the hatchet with my son,’ or ‘I realized I had a problem with alcohol.’ You really move people.

"When I write stuff on TV, it’s, ‘Hey, saw you on TV!’ ‘What was that shirt?’ ‘Why were you wearing those shoes?’ People can’t get past the odd looking person on TV to hear what you’re saying yet. It’s almost like they’re amazed that the electronics at their house worked: ‘Look, I saw you on TV!’ What about what I said about my father? ‘Uh, no, I just saw that that was a weird nose.’"

Okay, first off, I guess Reilly is less modest than I thought, if he thinks his 800-word sports vigniettes are changing people's lives. But moving on to his weird over-obsession with what people think of how he looks... I don't know, Rick, but I don't think people are glossing over some super-important point you're making to make fun of your shirt. I think your points are silly and your comments are often of the goofy-ass, unfunny type. The weak puns Reilly puts forth fit in nicely with Berman at the WWL, though.

This next passage might be my favorite, though.

[The] ... perception that there is tension between ... Bill Simmons [and Reilly]:

"Where do they get this stuff? I get along with him. I think he’s funny. I think he’s a great turner of phrases. I’ve tried to learn from him how he builds an audience on the Internet.

One of the first things Simmons does is try to avoid insulting his readership.

He definitely has that new blogger style where you write in stream of consciousness style, a lot of parentheses, a lot of tangents, and that’s not the way I was raised.

Gotcha. So you insult bloggers as a whole in this interview (because, you know, we all think in lockstep) and then you compare Simmons, who you're trying to convince us you like, to.... bloggers?

I also like "that's not the way I was raised." As though Bill Simmons is rude to old people while Rick Reilly helps them across the street.

"My whole thing was hey, you’ve got 800 words, choose them wisely. Pick the exact word you want and don’t waste a word and kill your darlings even if you love them, that it’s got to fit. He comes from a whole different era where it doesn’t have to fit. He can go on for 7,000 words if he wants. My kids read him.

Ah, the subtle (even possibly unintentional) dig about how your kids read him. We get it, Rick. Bill Simmons is for children; Rick Reilly is for the grown-ups.

More from Rickey:

On how he divides his time among his various ESPN duties:

"The number one thing for me by far is the column. That’s what I spend all of my time pulling my hair out and chewing through table legs about: writing a great column. Because I want to write something that no one else is writing, good sentences, 800 words, no more. Even though it’s on-line, I still believe in 800 words.

Something no one else is writing. Yes, like a stupid column about how we should take away a bunch of MVP awards and give them to other guys, who might just as well be steroid users. Yes, Rick, that's something nobody else has ever said. Doofus.

Whatever. Like I said, I don't have a huge problem with Reilly, but the more he talks -- especially about current media, like the Web and blogging -- the more he looks like a detached old man. As any politician will tell you, insulting your base is not the best way to get liked.

Baby Boilers Featured

Just to direct you to some national press we're finally seeing for the Boilers, ESPN in their typical fashion has finally caught up to the "Baby Boilers" terminology. And you can tell from the players' reactions and quotes that they're kind of tired of hearing it. Just in time for ESPN and CBS to beat it to death!

But hey, press is press. And they live in the Quad, which means they're our boys! Of course, this "shared bathroom" suite-sounding business is a bit newfangled to me, but whatever...

Glorified Mid-Major Purdue Creeps Into ESPN's Power 16

Andy Katz, ESPN.com's humorless, always-puffy-and-sweaty-looking college basketball writer reportedly referred to Purdue a "a glorified mid-major" last week.

Well, that glorified mid-major has climbed into the ESPN.com Power 16, a meaningless ranking that doesn't even mirror the real rankings. So what does this mean? About the same as a nerf vibrator. (I'll let your women explain that to you, guys.)

The Power 16 is voted on by a dozen ESPN bball "experts," and Purdue is currently 13th. But how did each of them vote? That's my favorite part. Let's take a look.

Jay Bilas has us at 11, two behind MSU (who we just beat) and one ahead of IU, who we haven't played with but are ahead of in the standings.

Hubert Davis does not have us in his top 16. Dirty Tar Heel. He does have MSU at #9. Okay.

Pat Forde ranks us 15th and has no other Big Ten teams in his Power 16. He has Drake, however, at number 9. Do with that what you will.

Fran Fraschilla and Andy Glockner both have Purdue at 12.

Doug Gottleib puts us at 16 and he, too, has no respect for the Big Ten since we're the only team he ranked. Also puts Drake ahead of us. Mmmmm, Drakes.

The aforementioned sweaty fratboy (Katz) lists us at 11, with Wisconsin the only other Big Ten team in his mix at 15.

Joe Lunardi, of whom we've expressed opinions on before, has us at a respectable 12, two ahead of his other Big Tenner, Wisco.

Dana O'Neil -- whom I'm not familiar with (male or female? you make the call!) -- has us all the way up at #9. NINE! Wow.

Reggie Rankin, from Scouts, Inc., does not rank Purdue in his Power 16, but does mail in Wisco at 11, IU at 13 and MSU at 15. Definitely some love for the Big Ten, but kind of uneducated love. Kind of like doing a Kinesiology major. (Another one you'll have to think about.)

Mark Schlabach, one of my favorite punching bags, shows some love, putting MSU at 10, Purdue at 13 and Wisco at 14.

And then, wrapping things up, is Dickie V. He doesn't think Purdue is shit. He does, however, like IU, State and Wisco, ranking them at 12, 14, and 15, respectively.

It's interesting to me to see these voters be all over the map. They can't even agree on the top teams, with Kansas being as high as #1 (Hubert) and as low as #6 (Rankin).

That's all. I have no way to end this post. Just sharing. How's your day going?

Insightful Emmitt

After Monday night football last night, Sportscenter went immediately back to the Superdome where they had a crack team of clowns onsite to break down the Saints third straight loss to open the season.

They showed some of the early highlights and Emmitt Smith decided that faking a handoff to Reggie Bush during a kick return and other such modes of deception were "gimmick plays." Now, never mind that faking a handoff on a play from scrimmage is simply considered "play-action," it's what Emmitt said next that I particularly enjoyed:

"I don't like gimmick plays because when they don't work, they're just a wasted play."

Right. As opposed to when you run a traditional, smash-mouth draw play that doesn't work. When that happens, your team is awarded three points because your play was "non-gimmick" and thus, not wasteful.

Idiot.

Self-Deprication Is Always Funny

Here at Boiled Sports (and simply by being Purdue fans) we often get criticized for being whiners or always feeling like we get screwed somehow. I think in general we would agree that we always get screwed somehow, but you have to hear us out; usually, it's by our own coaching staff, like anytime Brock Spack is allowed to drink an entire container of maple syrup and then go draw up a defensive game plan. He just gets antsy in his pantsy.

Anyway, with college football season coming up sooner than you think, I thought it'd be fun to poke fun at our own brethren because, really, when you're a blindly loyal fan, you really can be ridiculous sometimes. Hell, some clowns are even predicting a 10-win season for the Boilers this season.

Below is a video cobbled together by someone who then put it on YouTube. It's from a rant by Colin Cowherd, noted ESPN radio douchebag who intentionally took down The Big Lead for no apparent reason a couple of months ago. Anyway, I have to admit that this bit is kind of funny. And to whoever the Purdue fan is who called in and tried his best to get his wacky-ass scenario heard: kudos, my good man, and way to Boiler Up.

Only 30 days until the season opener.

The Idiot Brigade

I've never been a fan of Screamin' Stephen A. Smith on ESPN and, sadly, he has a regular midday radio show in New York on 1050 AM, the local ESPN radio affiliate. He says stupid things all the time that are just way too easy to skewer so I just don't. Basically, time and the ability to pick what thing to mock keep me from posting regular features on how big an idiot Stephen A. Smith is today. But the other day he had Donald Trump on his show, another schmuck of all schmucks who seems lately to really enjoy bashing other millionaires.

A few weeks ago, Trump went after equally-loathesome fatass Rosie O'Donnell, perhaps curious as to who the public would side with when both combatants are complete a-holes. On 1050 radio the other day, Trump chose to bash Mark Cuban and the Dallas Mavericks over and over and over again. He referred to them as "losers" and basically said they'd never win with Cuban as owner because he, too, was a loser and didn't "look like" a winner. Excellent analysis, Donald. I'm sure I'm not alone is saying that I wouldn't mind have Mark Cuban own my favorite NBA team. They didn't lose because Cuban's a bad owner or puts to much pressure on them. But that's neither here nor there.

At one point, while Trump is railing against Cuban, he remarks that Cuban "copied The Apprentice" (Trump's overrated show that's not nearly as original as Donald thinks it is/was) with his own show. Stephen A does his exaggerated chuckle at this and says, "Ha ha ha, yeah, da Bachelor..." before allowing Trump to continue pointificating.

Except Cuban's show was The Benefactor and not The Bachelor. Words are hard for Screamin' Stephen. I know this is a little thing but it's one of those small things that, when you hear it, provide an indication of just how stupid a person is.

----------------------------------------------------------------


Then the cavalcade of brainlessness continued yesterday on a show I normally enjoy very much. The drive-time show on 1050 is hosted by Michael Kay, the voice of the Yankees on the YES network. Now, a lot of people don't like Michael and I can see why you might not. But if you listen to his show on a regular basis, you'd grow to love it because it's actually very funny and it's not your typical clueless meatheads yelling at the callers like they're drunks in a sports bar.

However, yesterday, Michael was doing the day game the Yankees had so his backup, Don LaGreca was filling in for him. Don is a good guy, too, and does a good job as a sidekick and occasional host. However, he was paired with legendary idiot Steve Phillips and this is the death knell to anyone who has an aspiration to be successful on TV or radio. Whenever Phillips is on Baseball Tonight, it usually comes to a point where he says so many stupid things that John Kruk wants to strangle him.

On yesterday's show, Phillips was repeatedly credited with "coming up with" a way to measure Roger Clemens' value to the Yankees. I'm not making this up. I mean, I'd say you measure his value by how his mere prescence intimidates other lineups or how it makes your pitching staff that much deeper or, hey, you know, straight wins and losses and other quantifiable stats.

But no. No, Steve Phillips measure of figuring out Roger Clemens' worth to the Yankees is to take the Yankees five starters and the Red Sox five starters and to rank them in order from 1 to 10. Wherever you think Clemens fits in there is....your answer...? Really? I don't get it. And no matter how long I listened, I still didn't get it. And do you know why? Because it's idiotic. What do the Red Sox starters have to do with Roger Clemens being a Yankee? So what if I'd put Schilling or Beckett ahead of him? They aren't on the same team. And the group did nothing to explain how this helps us understand Clemens' value. Most of them had Clemens ranked 5th or 6th out of those 10. Okay. Now what? What does that tell us?

At one point, they actually got Michael Kay on the phone before he got on a plane with the Yankees to head to Seattle. LaGreca asked him about Clemens' value to the Yankees and then credited Phillips with this wonderful formula for figuring worthiness thusly:

"Steve Phillips came up with this and it's really a great one," says LaGreca, "You take the five starters for the Yankees and the five starters for the Sox and you rank them one to ten. Where does Clemens fit in there?"

There's a pause as you just know Kay is trying to do what I was trying to do in my car -- figure out what the frick this has to do with a pitcher's value. And then he comes back with this:

*sigh* "Oh... leave it to Phillips to come up with something like this."

Exactly. It makes no sense and this was about as close to saying it on the air as these guys were going to.

So those are my moron stories for today.

Lunardiology

Joe Lundari, he of "Bracketology," seems confused himself.

Yesterday afternoon, while on Michael Kay's radio show in New York, Lunardi said that the Big Ten was "weak" and he wasn't impressed with any of the teams, except for the top two. Oh, you mean, arguably the two best teams in the frickin' nation, Joe? Joe? Hello?

Joe went on to say that he thought the Big Ten should/would only get "four, maybe five teams." While he was talking -- while he was talking -- I brought up his Bracketology page on ESPN.com, which claimed to be updated on 3/9 (which was that day) and said he had six teams -- not four or five -- considered "in" the Tourney.

Then today, Lunardi made an appearnace on the ESPN tourney show that's currently wrapping up. Bilas called him out on a lot of his crap, specifically pointing out that if any of these major conference bubble teams (such as Kansas State, Illinois, etc.) lost to the teams that squads like Old Dominion and Drexel (who Lunardi has "in") have lost to, we wouldn't even be considering those major conference schools for the tourney. A solid point by the Bilastrator, I thought.

Lunardi's defense? He's not picking the teams he likes; rather, he's picking what he thinks the committee is going to do.

Well, now, Joe, then why is your opinion often injected into your interviews, usually accompanied by a haughty sneer when commenting on the "weak" Big Ten that has produced two teams who have held #1 rankings this season?

Also, Joe Lunardi still thinks Purdue needs to show well today to be considered a lock. Joe Lunardi is a bitch.

Game on in 15 minutes.

Hubert Davis Explains Boilers Chances

Now, on Monday night, Digger said the Boilers weren't in. Then Tuesday night, Digger said they would get in. Then tonight on Sportscenter when they were breaking it down, whoever the analyst on SC was said that Purdue had two bad losses, to Minnesota and to Indiana State.


That brings us to tonight, after Purdue beat down Minnesota to move to 19-10 on the season and 8-7 in the Big Ten. This evening on whatever that ESPN college hoops show is called, Hubert Davis was asked about Purdue's chances of making the Tournament. And he's squarely in the middle, saying the Boilers need to win their last game (against Northwestern) and then "make some noise" in the Big Ten tournament. Of course, it doesn't help Purdue's case that they're having games disappear from the record. The below graphic was shown during Hubert's analysis:



Only "one win on their opponents' home floor"? Wait, did the February 3 win at Penn State not count? I mean, I realize it was Penn State but it still counts as a road win, right? I mean, I realize the Boilers don't have many road wins this year but don't take away half the win total, Hubert. Do a smidge of research before going on the air. Thanks.

No Math Majors Work In ESPN Graphics Dept

So I'm watching Sportscenter last night, mainly because I'll watch a good test pattern if it's in HD, and they're talking about the (snore) NBA and how dominant the Suns and Mavs are. (Oh, and on a side note, I am certain neither of them will win it all. I don't know why...I'm just feeling the Spurs and nobody is even acknowledging they exist.)


Anyway, the point is, I was watching them rave about the season-long rolls the Mavs and Suns are on and the graphic about the Suns caught my eye. I rolled back the DVR and I had to re-read it ten times to make sure I wasn't adding wrong. But take a look:

43-8 in their last 55 games, you say? If you can go 43-8 in 55 games, that's quite a team indeed since 43-8 can only be accomplished by mortal teams in a 51 game span, not 55. What happened to those other four games? Were they striken from the record for some reason? Was Mike D'Antoni's hair out of place? Were Steve Nash and Shawn Marion busy playing pickup hoops in an airplane hangar somewhere?

I know, I know, it's just a typo but still.