JoeHova

Good call.

Now they're saying the guys will take the court at 9:30 AM Central (on ESPNU).

Congratulations on writing a book! Also, what album did you choose?

I didn't mean that as an insult. It's just that there haven't been many rallies lately in the match. The tennis being played was not exactly stunning, although that was obviously at least partly because of fatigue. The skill on display is not very comparable to, say, the Federer/Roddick marathon final from last year. Also, it appears that ESPN was lying because it's well past 8:30 central and the continuation of the match is nowhere to be found on ESPNU.

Mostly the latter but that hasn't made it any less exciting yet.

I just saw a commercial on ESPNews that said the match would be concluded on ESPNU at 9:30 AM Eastern (so, 8:30 AM Central).

I heard 8:30 am but that might have been eastern time.

Wow, I don't watch much golf but this is exciting. The JS article that burniebrewer linked to says the USGA is considering using the course to host the Open multiple times. I hope they do a great job the first time so that that comes to fruition.

But it didn't. Switzerland with the biggest upset of the tournament so far.

The Swiss are beating Spain with 3.5 minutes to go but they seem to have become too conservative and are just clearing it and giving away possession every time they get the ball. That could really cost them.

The Big 12 is staying together, according the twitter feeds of various college football writers. It will be interesting to see what kind of deals were made to make that happen. I'll be especially interested in hearing if there was some sort of loyalty oath that all the schools had to take. If not, I would think that collapse is still imminent, just delayed for a season or 2. I'll also be curious to see how uneven the revenue distribution will be. Regardless of the specifics, it's clear that Texas totally owns the other 9 schools in that conference. That must be a bitter pill for Missouri, especially, to swallow. They were complaining long and loud about how unfair the Big 12 was and it seems likely to have just become even more tilted in Texas's favor. Anyway, if this is true and there is some sort of guarantee binding these universities together for a while, I'll be relieved because it means no Missouri or Kansas State or Iowa State in the Big Ten.

I'm sure they're quite pleased they were able to leverage the uncertainty into an invite to the Pac-10.

I think he'll panic because the Pac-10 took the wheel and is now steering this (if Texas goes there). The Pac-10 is threatening the Big Ten's interests, imo. If this expansion goes through they've hooked the biggest fish out there and would have a significant presence in the Central time zone whereas before they only had 2 schools even in the Mountain time zone. There could be a lot more head to head TV competition between the two conferences. I think there is a significant chance that the Big Ten gets stuck with a couple of booby prizes if the Big 12 collapses. Probably nothing as outlandish as Iowa State but probably not much better either. I hope I'm wrong and just being pessimistic but I'll feel a lot better when this is over and there are no more Big 12 schools in the Big Ten.

That's exactly my question.

As long as the Big Ten doesn't end up taking the Big 12 leftovers after the Pac-10 destroys that conference, I'll be happy. Unfortunately, I feel like Delany will panic once the Pac gets to 16 teams. If the Big Ten, supposedly the strongest conference overall, ends up having to take the 8th and/or 9th most desirable school(s) from a collapsed conference, I will look on that as a massive failure on the part of Big Ten leadership. I hope they just stay at 12 for a few years if they can't get a game-changing school.

Where is it moving to, a new stadium or a new city? I remember a few years ago there was talk of moving it around like the Final 4, is that what's happening?

The Japan/Cameroon game was pretty good one. Japan pulled it out 1-0 but Cameroon had some exciting chances down the stretch.

OK. I don't know much about sailing. However, if this was easy, why wouldn't more people be doing it? Doing something like this solo is what seems to me to be the most dangerous part, not so much the sailing part. However, that part also seems dangerous, in the same way that you could say that jogging is relatively safe but running 100 miles is dangerous. Plenty of activities are generally safe but become dangerous when people are extremely fatigued and are pushing themselves to the limit of their stamina. Also, it most definitely is/was a crazy stunt. Any time somebody tries to set one of these bizarre records it is by definition a crazy stunt. I understand that people may want to sail around the world. I can even understand wanting to do that solo. However, why would somebody have to be the youngest ever to do so if not for the crazy stunt factor?

I'm happy the girl was found safe. However, it seems to me that if a person willingly puts their life on the line doing something stupid (although possibly extremely fun), they forfeit the right to have their possible death talked about as something heartbreaking. If someone does die doing something like that, I'm happy for them that they got a chance to go out doing what they loved, which is not something that most people get.

I really, really doubt that Tech will get to go to the Pac-10 if A&M and OU go to the SEC and Texas goes independent. The only reason to invite Tech would be to bring along one or more of the bigger Texas schools (or possibly Oklahoma). If people joke about AZ State being a garbage school, what will they say about Tech? I'm surprised the Pac-10 would take them at all but without at least one of the 3 prizes from the Big 12 South, they really have no reason to let Texas Tech get a cut of their pie.

If the Big Ten can't get Texas and/or Notre Dame, I hope they stay at 12 teams for a while. Also, if Texas goes to the Pac-10, Jim Delany seems to have misplayed his hand big time. The Pac-10 would be saddled with some pretty undesirable schools (Texas Tech, OK State) in that Pac-16 scenario but they get the biggest prize in college sports, which wouldn't have happened if Delaney hadn't ruined the Big 12. On the other hand, there's no question that Nebraska makes the Big Ten a stronger brand so maybe it was the right move anyway.

If the Big East gets destroyed, I think a Catholic league will be formed by Marquette, Georgetown, Villanova, DePaul, St. John's, Seton Hall, Providence, and a few other schools- maybe Dayton or Xavier or St. Louis or Creighton or St. Joe's or Holy Cross or one of the Loyolas (Chicago or Baltimore). The reason I think that will happen is that several of those schools are extremely desirable from a basketball standpoint but none have D 1-A football teams so they won't be attractive to one of the football super conferences. I doubt Marquette wants to go back to the Horizon League when they are top 10 in the country in attendance. I think the basketball-only schools would find a way to make a new conference work rather than join existing 2nd or 3rd tier leagues.

No doubt that increased ratings lead to increased advertising rates. My point is that Missouri is not near the top of the list in terms of schools that could bring in new households or better ratings. Even if you totally ignore their weakness in academics, that makes them a bad fit because they bring much less to the table than they would get in return. The Big Ten doesn't have to expand. It already receives (even without a football championship game), by far, the most TV revenue per school of any conference (also, much more than Notre Dame gets from their NBC deal). There is no real incentive for the Big Ten to expand unless it is with a school that can give something back to the conference. Nebraska gives back. So does Texas. So does Notre Dame. So does Kansas. Even Syracuse does if they could get the Big Ten network on cable in NYC. Missouri doesn't.

Who cares if anyone is watching it? They're getting the money from subscribers already. More viewers is nice but with cable they don't matter that much compared to how many households a channel is in. Adding Nebraska (or another school with a huge following) will help much more with carriage than adding Missouri (a school not many people care about, even the alums). Also, skyrocket is unlikely because people just don't care about Missouri. Their basketball attendance would rank 9th in the Big Ten (even though they've been "really good" lately (for comparison, Nebraska, despite winning only 2 conference games, was less than 500 per game behind Missouri)) and they would rank 7th in football (8th if you count Nebraska). Missouri's inability to sell bowl tickets is infamous so even though they do OK at home, they don't have a fervent fanbase by Big Ten standards. As for the journalism school, the Big Ten already has the best journalism school in the country (Northwestern) and if there is one academic discipline that doesn't seem like a smart thing to bet on right now, journalism is it. There is just no upside at all to adding Missouri. Missouri needs the Big Ten far more than the Big Ten needs Missouri. Missouri adds nothing at all to the Big Ten except another team. Meanwhile, Missouri benefits from being associated with much better academic and athletic universities, not to mention all the extra money they'll get. Why should Missouri get to reap the rewards while bringing nothing to the Big Ten? Almost every other school in consideration would bring huge benefits to the conference either academically, athletically, or both.

The only thing I know about Hannspree is that they make various neat NBA themed TVs. The scorer's tables at NBA arenas seem to be pretty happy with the TVs. I checked Consumer Reports for you but they don't seem to have rated any Hannspree TVs or monitors. However, they really liked the Hanns-G HH221 monitor, which is apparently made by the same corporation but is branded differently for whatever reason. Sorry I can't be of more help.