I guess making a gaff is one way to become internationally known.

Heller has caught the attention of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegragh of the UK.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/amb...

The reason Fredette gets to the free throw line so much is he always puts his body into the defender when he drives the lane, and the refs don't call it. If you look at why he scores so many points, it's because free throws make up half his scoring. He definitely is a super free thrower. And, his long range jumper is outstanding as well.

Again and again, free throws determine the outcome of games. This is something we have to remember when facing good free throw shooting teams. We got around CSU and SDS because they couldn't shoot free throws. We lost to BYU and Utah for the opposite reason. We'll have to stop fouling so much when facing good free throw shooting teams. And, we have to keep the ball in the hands of Willis and Stanback in the final minutes when we're ahead.

That should read, "justifiable homicide". This is about the only way home invasions will be reduced.

Let's face it, we have no front court presence. So when we shoot 8% on threes and put them on the free throw line in half their possessions, we can't win.

It wasn't Willis one free throw miss that lost the game. It was all the foolish fouls we committed simply to apply pressure. We drove the lane all night. Utah didn't We should have had twice the free throws. Instead they had more point on free throws than we did. It's not necessary to rack up fouls on a good free throw shooting team just to apply pressure.

Marshall blocks shots better than any of our bigs. How is that? We don't have a presence in the front court that is required of a winning team. And, what's with all the fouling? We made unnecessary fouls in many cases, just to apply pressure. Just because we have a deep team doesn't mean we can foul everyone. We've seen that good free throw shooting teams like BYU and Utah can eat our lunch at the free throw line. Why doesn't Kruger see that?

Coverage of a candidate who's no longer in the race, but no coverage of Edwards? That doesn't make much sense to me.

I guess the Democratic race has only two candidates, judging by the coverage in these Sun blogs. All Obama and Clinton. Polls show that Edwards is the candidate Republicans fear most. The general election won't be decided by Hispanics and union endorsements, or who has the most charisma or sheds the most tears. Fire in the belly and willingness to take on the Republican establishment will be the most important ingredient. The Republican smear machine will find it easy to shoot down the candidates of hope and nostalgia for the nineties. They might find it a little tougher to deal with a candidate that has been fighting and winning against corporations all his life.

I guess the Democratic race has only two candidates, judging by the coverage in these Sun blogs. All Obama and Clinton. Polls show that Edwards is the candidate Republicans fear most. The general election won't be decided by Hispanics and union endorsements, or who has the most charisma or sheds the most tears. Fire in the belly and willingness to take on the Republican establishment will be the most important ingredient. The Republican smear machine will find it easy to shoot down the candidates of hope and nostalgia for the nineties. They might find it a little tougher to deal with a candidate that has been fighting and winning against corporations all his life.

I guess the Democratic race has only two candidates, judging by the coverage in these Sun blogs. All Obama and Clinton. Polls show that Edwards is the candidate Republicans fear most. The general election won't be decided by Hispanics and union endorsements, or who has the most charisma or sheds the most tears. Fire in the belly and willingness to take on the Republican establishment will be the most important ingredient. The Republican smear machine will find it easy to shoot down the candidates of hope and nostalgia for the nineties. They might find it a little tougher to deal with a candidate that has been fighting and winning against corporations all his life.