iggymcfly

I agree with everything you said except that the WVU game wasn't at home. If it's in the state of Oklahoma, it's a home game. It's no different than when the Cougars play home games in Spokane over Christmas. And the Big Ten is ridiculously close right now. If I were to name the best team right now, I'd have to give the edge to Illinois, but right now Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan are all tied for first with Ohio State, Michigan State, and Indiana only a game back.

They got consideration. They moved on to my close list and I basically have them at #27 right now. However, they also lost to Nebraska and Missouri, and when they played West Virginia, they got raped by 24 at home. Oh, and outside of Texas, they haven't beaten a ranked team all year. At this point, I'd think of them more as a Marquette kind of team that managed one big win then a consistent contender. They just don't have as good of an all-around resume as a team like Indiana or Northern Iowa.

Here's the AP Top 25 since that's out as well. Week 13 AP Top 25 1. Connecticut (65) 18-1 1,793 2. Duke (7) 19-1 1,727 3. Memphis 19-2 1,638 4. Villanova 15-2 1,548 5. Gonzaga 17-3 1,465 6. Illinois 19-2 1,414 7. Texas 17-3 1,355 8. Florida 18-2 1,287 9. Pittsburgh 17-1 1,284 10. George Washington 16-1 1,050 11. West Virginia 15-4 1,013 12. Michigan State 16-5 933 13. Tennessee 14-3 827 14. UCLA 17-4 797 15. Boston College 16-4 639 16. Washington 16-4 630 17. Georgetown 14-4 599 18. N.C. State 16-4 529 19. Oklahoma 13-4 471 20. Ohio State 14-3 464 21. Michigan 15-3 440 22. Indiana 12-5 289 23. Iowa 16-5 288 24. LSU 14-5 269 25. Northern Iowa 19-3 184 Michigan's way too low at 21, as they look like they might be the best team in the Big Ten right now. I didn't expect the AP to put them up at 11 where I had them, but they should at least be in the 15-17 range. No way on earth should they be behind a team like Boston College who hasn't beaten a Top 25 team all year long, and who was three points away from getting swept by Georgia Tech.

I've been all over the LeBron bandwagon since his rookie season, calling him the next Jordan on many occasions. However, now I'm starting to wonder if Kobe won't end up with a better career when it's all said and done. He's doing things that no perimeter player's done in history scoring-wise, and he's already got three rings. He's been in the league for a long time, but the fact is that he's still only 27, and may just now be hitting his peak. Obviously, LeBron's got loads of potential as he's only 21, but it's hard to say if that potential supercedes what Kobe has already accomplished. LeBron's way ahead of where Kobe was at 21, but that may be a function of the changing attitude toward HS players, and the different situations they were brought into (a rebuilding project vs. an established contender). Anyway, I'm curious where people stand on this. Which player do you think will have a better career?

If it involves the possible sexual abuse of a minor, I'm more than willing to give the alleged victim the benefit of the doubt, even if the allegations are later proven false. See, this is the fucked up attitude that makes so many girls make accusations like this. They automatically get credit for telling the truth, and the guy's reputation is automatically ruined even if it turns out that the allegations were completely false. The fact is that rape/sexual assault is probably the crime that is most often falsely alleged. When the police investigate and arrest someone for a crime people are willing to take the wait and see/innoncent until proven guilty attitude, but when some hysterical high school girl starts making random charges, everything she says is gospel. It just pisses me off. Oh, and Kobe was innocent too.

I know this sounds absolutely off the wall, but does anyone think Flair has an outside shot at winning the Royal Rumble? He's basically the #1 face on Raw right now, and it would be quite a story if a 50+ year old man pulled off "the biggest upset of all-time" and won the Rumble. I just don't see anything else that leads to an entertaining, intriguing feud at WM. Maybe HHH could eliminate Flair only to have him land on the referees who were checking on someone who was injured on the outside. Then, being "the dirtiest player in the game", Flair could sneak back into the ring and eliminate HHH while he was celebrating, leading to a Triple Threat match at WM. It just seems like it's too early for RVD to win right now, and the whole Smackdown title scene seems like a waste right now considering that they just crowned a new champion in a battle royal a few weeks ago and that champion isn't even guaranteed to make it to Wrestlemania. I know Flair/Edge/HHH is kind of a weak ME for WM, but it sounds better to me than Edge/HHH or HHH/Cena.

He gave both Jack and Hurley speeches on how they had to trust the island, and do what it wanted, even if meant believing in forces which they had no evidence for at all. Faith was a major theme for his discourse. He did this in reference to opening the hatch as well as pressing the button.

True, but the question is still - why? I have to think that Locke has an agenda that partially involves Claire and Aaron, and he can't do anything about it with Charlie around. Playing "hit the Hobbit" with Charlie's face almost seemed like he was protecting his property - there was really no need for it, so what game is John playing here? Because no one else has looked him in the eye and lied to him. He treats others as they treat him; he's nicer to Hurley or Michael than he is to Sawyer, for example, but Sawyer isn't that nice to him. Charlie's the only one that told him that he wasn't using and that all of the statues were destroyed ... and yet Locke found him holding bags of H and with a cache of statues. While it's not proof that he's using, it's proof that he's thinking about it AND proof that he blatantly lied. Go back and watch the first season. In Locke's life, he was emotionally vulnerable and had a hard time moving on. He lied about going and visiting his dad's house (even though it was hurting him and accomplishing nothing), the same way that Charlie lied about having the statues (which he apparently is not actually using from). Now instead of being sympathetic or trying to help Charlie move on, he's just condemning him and openly ripping him up the back to the other survivors. At least he didn't tell Claire about the statues; if he'd done that, he'd be past the point of no return. Also, Locke's whole credo on the island was that everyone has a path and you need to let them get there themselves. Now Locke's completely dismissing Charlie's psychic visions (which Locke himself had the first season and was trying to convince everyone to follow, even sending Boone to his death), and then he's trying to make Charlie's decisions for him. The first season, Locke actually offered Charlie the heroin and allowed him to take it when he requested it the third time. Now, for no particular reason, he's decided that he's dictator of the island, and he'll control everybody. It's not that the heel turn or character change doesn't make sense, it's that Locke's character was so good in his role that no one wants to see it change this fast. I detest using wrestling analogies for television shows, but it's basically like if Austin just took McMahon's offers to become corporate in 1998. I mean sure it would "make sense" that Austin didn't care about anybody and would be happy to just do what was best for himself and take the money, but it would turn off all the fans who loved his character.

TLC 3 was hardly even a good match, and it certainly wasn't a great one. It was a weakly strung together spotfest with a cliche storyline (wrestler returns from mid-match injury to win) and an obvious ending. It wasn't better than TLC I or TLC II, let alone Austin/Bret. I thought I knew the criteria for your list, but apparently I have no idea. If you're ranking them based on a combination of their star rating and their historical significance, then how the hell does a ***1/2 match from Smackdown go ahead of a **** WM match that was perhaps the biggest turning point that decade for the WWF or for that matter a ****1/2 match that main evented Survivor Series?

I'd think that the start of 24 would take away just as many viewers as the start of MNF would add. I think what happened is that the WWE put two good Raws together in a row so the fans that watched those shows decided that maybe they'd tune in again this week. I bet the Royal Rumble gets a hell of a buyrate.

They really fucked up this season bad. The cast has gotten so bloated that main characters often seem like they're just making token appearances so people remember they're there. There hasn't been one "holy shit" type moment at all since maybe the third episode of the season, and the only backstory that was remotely interesting was Eko's. Now, to make things worse, they're taking my favorite TV character ever, and changing his personality completely. Locke's gone from being the outsider who fails at corporate life but thrives in a different environment to being the insecure kid who's so thrilled to finally have friends that he's a total dick to anyone he perceives as being outside the clique. I came into the season with high hopes and I really can't believe what a disappointment Lost has been thus far. I've gone from "wow, I can't believe they have a show this good on network TV" to the point where I'll actually recommend that people don't watch it if they haven't seen the first season.

Tony, just tell us how you found this out. I mean if you "know" that Rey's on the Smackdown cover saying he won the Royal Rumble, you must have found this out somewhere right?

LeBron's not ready to win a title now. He's 21. As in his third year in the league. As in he could easily be in college right now. Like I said, MJ never won until he was 29. I just thinking it's likely that when LeBron enters his prime we're likely to say a stretch of rings somewhere between 2010 and 2020. Honestly, if Cleveland takes Redick next year and a young center the year after, I could see them becoming a dynasty about four or five years out.

I'm pretty sure that he's giving the star ratings out based purely on match quality, and the actual rankings are taking into account historical significance and hype as well. Thus, even if Hogan/Warrior was shitty from an in-ring perspective (which it certainly was, I think ** would be generous), to a whole lot of people it was the only match that mattered that year, and for that it merited a mention.

Russell had 10. Jordan had 6. Duncan has 3 and counting. Shaq has 3. Magic and Bird both had 3 as the star of their respective teams. Kareem had 2. I figure that averages out to about 4 or 5. I just can't see LeBron being happy to just linger in Cleveland his whole career like KG or somebody if they don't get him some help; he's going to do whatever it takes to win some titles.

All I can say is that HHH/HBK better be in the Top 5.

UConn's a similar situation, as their schedule's not quite as weak as Florida's, but they haven't really done anything outside of the Gonzaga win, and they're the only team in the Top 8 that has a really bad loss. A number 32 RPI says no. I'm not going to argue whether Duke should be Number 1, but there is no question who 2 should be. Despite their OOC SoS, they're in the best conference in the nation, bar none (last weekend proved this) and they've only lost to a team, while not a Top Team, with a RPI in the Top 35, who has a winning IC Record we last checked. So yeah, this is my first Major Disagreement your rankings. By bad loss, I meant not in the Top 25. Tennessee and Georgetown are both Top 20 teams IMO, and Marquette is just a cut below. Furthermore, the Huskies lost that game by 15 points, making the loss significantly worse. Connecticut may be in the best conference in the country, but they haven't played any of the really good teams from that conference yet. They haven't played Nova, WVU, or Pitt yet, and at this point, their schedule's vastly inferior to that of Memphis or Texas. Now come back in a month when they've played all the heavy hitters, and if they still have one loss, they'll deserve the #2 spot or maybe even the #1 ranking.

I like the LeBron vs. Kobe argument because when LeBron came into the league, it appeared that he was starting his career out at a rate that no one ever had before, and people thought he could be the best of all-time. Then, all of a sudden, Kobe (who had been hyped as the next MJ and then forgotten) starts putting up record-setting numbers himself. Basically, it seems to me like either Kobe or LeBron is likely to be remembered as the dominant player of this generation and I was just wondering who everyone thinks it will be. Personally, I still have to go with LeBron. People talk about Kobe's rings like there's any reason to think that LeBron won't win several throughout his career. He's 21. Michael Jordan was 29 when he won his first ring. I think LeBron has better potential as an all-around player and will probably end up with something like 4 or 5 rings as the #1 player on his team as well as the career scoring record. Unless Kobe goes absolutely nuts with his scoring or actually wins some more titles later in his career, I think LeBron will be remembered as the dominant player of this era.

It's because Tennessee is the best team they've played thus far. The only other team that Florida's played this year that's even in the Top 25 is Syracuse, and they only beat them by 5 at home. Texas on the other hand has defeated West Virginia and Iowa at neutral sites, Villanova at home, and Memphis on the road. That's four wins that are better than anything Florida's done all year. To put it another way, Texas is 4-2 against Top 25 teams while Florida is 1-1. Memphis, likewise has beaten UCLA, Gonzaga, and Tennessee, and only picked up losses against the Top 2 teams in the country. I don't think you can say that a Florida team that hasn't beaten a Top 20 team all year is better than Memphis because Memphis picked up two losses to the two best teams in the country. UConn's a similar situation, as their schedule's not quite as weak as Florida's, but they haven't really done anything outside of the Gonzaga win, and they're the only team in the Top 8 that has a really bad loss.

I didn't get them done on time this week, but here's my complete Top 25 anyway. Iggy's College Basketball Rankings for January 24, 2006 (through Monday's games; previous week's ranking in parenthesis) Duke 17-1 (1) Texas 16-2 (3) Memphis 17-2 (5) Connecticut 16-1 (7) Florida 17-1 (2) Villanova 13-2 (6) Illinois 17-2 (7) Gonzaga 16-3 (9) Washington 16-2 (10) Pittsburgh 15-1 (4) Michigan State 15-4 (13) Indiana 12-3 (15) West Virginia 14-3 (16) Tennessee 12-3 (21) NC State 15-3 (11) Ohio State 14-2 (14) George Washington 14-1 (19) Georgetown 12-4 (NR) UCLA 15-4 (18) Iowa 14-5 (20) Michigan 13-3 (23) Maryland 13-4 (NR) Syracuse 15-5 (22) Wisconsin 15-3 (12) LSU 12-5 (NR) Close: North Carolina, Bucknell, Boston College, Northern Iowa, Louisville Dropped out: Louisville (17), North Carolina (24), Xavier (25)

That's just comparing things like they're all equal when they're clearly not. For instance, you could compare the menu at two restaurants and find you like 12 items at Restaurant A and 7 items at Restaurant B, but if the only two things you actually want to eat are at Restaurant B, you're going there. Here's a list of things I enjoy on Raw and Smackdown from a scale of 1 to 10 (or zero if I don't enjoy them). Characters/wrestlers Raw: Edge (7), Ric Flair (5), RVD (5)*, HHH (3), HBK (3), Carlito (1) Smackdown: Kurt Angle (7), Randy Orton (4), Rey Mysterio (3), Chris Benoit (2), Mark Henry (2) * Since RVD isn't on yet, he gets half of the ten he'd otherwise receive. Raw wins 24 to 18. Storylines Raw: Edge/Flair feud (2.5)*, Edge/Cena feud (2), Trish drama (2) Smackdown: Angle/Henry feud (1), US Title situation (1) *Since Edge and Flair may or may not be through feuding, that storyline gets have of the 5 it would otherwise receive. Raw wins 6.5 to 1. Embarassing crap Raw: Vince acts like an asshole (-3), Edge and Lita have "live sex" (-1), Kane still exists (-1), Cena's still a face (-1) Smackdown: Boogeyman (-5), Jillian Hall (-2), Suicidal former ref (-1) Smackdown loses -8 to -6. So, my entertainment value from Raw is 24.5 and my entertainment value from Smackdown is 11. I'd say the minimum entertainment value of a show I'll watch regularly is around 20. However, with 24 on now, I really can't bring myself to care about either show at all.

Count me in the Kobe defender camp. The fact is that he started taking all the shots and it brought the Lakers from being down by 18 to winnning the game by 18. The game against Dallas where he had 62 through three quarters, the Lakers were up by 32 when he exited the game. The fact is that when he takes all those shots, it's usually because he's shooting better than his teammates, and it's the best way for the Lakers to win. One more stat from the 81-point game: Kobe: 28-46 Rest of team: 14-42

Not unless it's on at 8 since "24" is on at 9 followed by your local news at 10. But CBS is debuting "Courting Alex" with Jenna Elfman. And speaking of greatness, the "7th Heaven" episode is titled "Got MLK". That's just awesome. But no, no real competition tonight for the WWE. They should roll right along and I am pretty sure they will with it being the RAW leading into the Rumble. Are you fucking kidding me?

And Ray Allen hits a three at the buzzer to win it, 152-149. Wow.

The Sonics and Suns are playing the highest scoring game in recent memory right now. It's 149-149 with 0:11 in the 2nd OT.