CHARITY Stripe (you're not kidding)

Clemson and Duke did battle today, in what turned out to be a solid college basketball game. Duke ended up winning the game by 10 to improve to 16-0. (The last time they went 17-0 was in 1991 - Duke's first college basketball title year) The key stat in the game was free throws, hence the title. Duke shot their normal 80% for the game, going 29-36. Clemson, on the other hand, shot a miserable 6-22 for the game. I'm not a profession analyst, but I don't think you'll beat any elite team with that kind of shooting.

I'm sure i'll have to endure the usual excuses from UNC fans. (this time i'm prepared!!! Yes, I have this shirt.) NO, you are not allowed to say that if Clemson makes 11 more free throws, they win the game. That is not a valid logical argument. You can't be certain all other factors would remain constant. Regardless, it still helps when a team shoots 27% from the free-throw line.

Yes, love was flowing in full force from the charity stripe. But hey, a win is a win, right?!

USA v. Ghana: Line-up & Prediction

This is the most interesting game of the tournament as far as what is at stake. The USA need a win by at least 3 goals if the Czech and Italians were to tie. If Italy were to beat the Czech, all the USA would need is a win. Here is my "best-bet" line-up: GK - Keller D - Bocanegra, Gooch (yc), Cherundolo MF - Beasley, Reyna (yc), Dempsey, O'Brien, Donovan F - McBride, E. Johnson Notes: - 3 in the back will force play outside; Dempsey (RWM) and Beasley (LWM) are fast enough to play both ways - Midfield control will be the most crucial factor to a multi-goal win. We will not counter-attack well with the speed of the Ghana side. Also, if we don't control the midfield, Michael Essien will. - I think McBride and Johnson are the best bet up front. McBride receives the ball well. Johnson's size, quickness, and skill will serve us well. - A big question is who will play Def. MF. With no Mastroeni, we resort to either Dempsey or O'Brien in a 3-5-2 formation. SUBS: - Con...

Don't be 'Joe Fan'

The response from Wednesday's USA last minute thriller versus Algeria felt like the crest of a crescendo that had been swelling since 2000 or so, or maybe even 1996 at the outset of MLS. My favorite US Soccer fan type is 'Joe Fan' who only watches soccer for 1 month out of every four years. He knows general soccer lingo. He even knows the favorites to win the tournament. None of these, though, is his calling card. You'll know Joe Fan by this very one thing -- as the World Cup is discussed among him, he'll whip out his anti-USA soccer spiel that he's been working on all week, or worse -- the one he heard from Michael Wilbon on PTI the previous afternoon. Most Joe Fan-types have these things in common: They think soccer is boring because there isn't much scoring. Soccer isn't even as big as hockey in the US, so it must not matter much. He thinks that since the USA isn't a top 10 favorite to win the World Cup, they must not be any good. He sees the USA ...

Favre Talking Points

I was a closet Green Bay fan in high school, mainly because of some big-time Packer fans in my church. Granted, it was easy to pull for them, since they weren't rivals with America's Team -- that's right! What intrigues me the most is that three teams took different approaches to Brett Favre, and I believe they would've have been mistaken to respond differently. Packers were criticized (as was Favre) for not letting Favre come back. I'm sure there are still some detractors that would say Favre would've won more games than Rodgers (6). What's interesting is that Aaron Rodgers QB stats (other than wins) were better than Favre's. The point is that, the Packers weren't going to win the NFC last season, with or without #4. They could be a Super Bowl team in 2-3 years. The Packers made a great move by parting with Favre. It couldn't have happened better for them. Jets are a bit more troublesome to parse apart. The only thing that makes them look foolis...

Bodwin

Search This Blog