Police are now looking for two black males, one of them described as being tall and slender. It’s also said the men fled in a white Chrysler 300 after the shooting. Andre Emmett, a former basketball player for Texas Tech, the NBA and the BIG3 league, was shot and killed in his hometown of Dallas, Texas, on Monday at 2:30 a.m. Andre Emmett, who played for the NBA and Big3 league, was shot and killed in his hometown of Dallas. (Photo: Jamie Squire / Getty Images Sport via Getty Images) He was selected by the Seattle Supersonics in the 2004 NBA draft as the 35th pick and also played for the Memphis Grizzlies, as well as the New Jersey Nets. A 6-foot-5 guard, Emmett was considered a star at Texas Tech when he played for the Red Raiders from 2001 to 2004, and he’s the school’s all-time leading scorer with 2,256 points. He was inducted into the Texas Tech Hall of Fame in 2018, and his name is currently engraved in United Supermarkets Arena. He was later found “several hundred feet” from his home by someone who called 911 and later died at the hospital at the age of 37. “Thank you for the competitor you were on the court and the incredible person you were off of it,” a tweet sent Monday read. “Thank you for the many amazing memories you helped create. “Thank you for inspiring the entire Texas Tech family. Rest In Peace, Dre.” According to KCBD 11, Emmett was sitting in his vehicle in front of his home when he was approached by two men who pulled out a gun. An “altercation” began, and Emmett was shot as he tried to run away. Texas Tech also put out a statement. Emmett played overseas as well and played two seasons for the BIG3 on 3’s Company, where he was the second-leading scorer in the league. “The BIG3 is in a state of shock over the sudden and tragic death of Andre Emmett,” said the league in a statement. “Andre was a member of the BIG3 family for two seasons and never without a smile on his face … His kindness towards others and easy-going demeanor made him a joy to be around.”
Why the team had to change this season isn’t much of a mystery. The high-low offense frequently puts the key decisions of a possession in the hands of the team’s big men, either after receiving a pass at the top of the key (the “sweet spot” that allows a player to shoot, pass or get back on defense) or down in the low post. This allows the offense to get its big men open through screens and ball reversals and for the bigs to find cutters for easy buckets. It requires bigs who can execute a moving, developing offense. But the Jayhawks’ frontcourt exploded just before the season, leaving the team without that crucial component.Five-star freshman Billy Preston never played a game for the Jayhawks after coming under investigation by the NCAA; he would eventually sign with a Bosnian professional team. Jack Whitman, a transfer from William & Mary, left Kansas abruptly in the summer of 2017 just a few months after committing to the school. Self had expected Whitman to contribute heavily along the front line: “We were thin up front,” Self said at the time, “and looking to add somebody that would be eligible immediately and was experienced. … He’s a great fit for what we need because we’re going to be so young up front and he’ll add some experience.”That left Kansas with sophomores Udoka Azubuike and Mitch Lightfoot, as well as late-arriving freshman Silvio De Sousa. Azubuike has been excellent — his 77.2 field goal percentage is the best in Kansas history — and De Sousa has emerged as a reliable backup. But this is not the polished frontcourt of your standard contending Kansas team. So Self has empowered his perimeter players to carry the team instead. Devonte’ Graham, Malik Newman and Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk each are shooting more than five threes per game this season and hitting better than 40 percent. LaGerald Vick is shooting four per game and making 37.8 percent.By contrast, party-crashing Loyola of Chicago takes only 35.8 percent of its shots from three, below the average — though still above Self’s preferred waypoint. That’s unusual for an upset-minded team — those teams often take advantage of the short college 3-point line to achieve short-term scoring parity. Loyola instead relies on skill and strategy to win, along with new inefficiencies in the modern game ripe to be exploited by the right team.While Kansas does not attempt threes at quite the same rate as Villanova or Michigan, it has gotten off a similar number of attempts thanks to another modern facet of the squad: Kansas plays at a relatively fast tempo, while the other three semifinalists play at a glacial pace.Despite taking an enormous 47.1 percent of their shots from beyond the arc, Villanova has not pushed tempo: The Wildcats rank 225th in the country in average length of offensive possession, at 17.8 seconds, according to KenPom.com. Michigan ranks 311th at 18.7 seconds. And Loyola comes in 285th at 18.4. It makes sense for Loyola to slow pace, since underdog teams are best served by minimizing possessions and leaning on variance to carry them over more talented opponents. But a team like Villanova, more talented than nearly all of its opponents, would be better off maximizing the number of shots taken by both its own players and its opponents. Talent wins out over time.Kansas has maintained a standard brisk tempo over the past several seasons, ranking in the top 100 and often the top 50 in the nation since 2013 by KenPom.com’s average offensive possession length. (The Jayhawks rank lower on overall tempo because their defense typically forces opponents late into the shot clock, which is a good thing for a defense to do.) This season, Kansas is at 16.5 seconds per offensive possession, 76th in the country and miles ahead of its Final Four competition, making it the only program remaining that’s playing by the modern guidelines for overdogs: Push pace and shoot threes.This seems to be the season that Bill Self finally, fully, adapted to his players — and the times and, OK, the catastrophe surrounding his preseason frontcourt. This concession has allowed the Jayhawks to reach the Final Four, playing Saturday in what sure seems like the de facto championship game. Villanova will be the favorite. But Kansas, for once, will not have its own ideologies holding it back.Check out our latest March Madness predictions. Across the years, Kansas men’s basketball head coach Bill Self has fashioned an unmistakable brand of play. The Kansas Jayhawks, playing Villanova on Saturday in the Final Four, feature a high-low motion offense — inside-out basketball that moves the ball and values polished big men who can score at the rim and make decisions on the perimeter. That insistence didn’t leave much room for Kansas to adopt the ongoing 3-point revolution in basketball. Kansas stuck with its high-low system even as the very premises of the game were shifting underfoot.“When highly successful coaches adapt and succeed, like win a championship, we say they adapted to their players,” ESPN’s John Gasaway told reporter Matt Giles for FiveThirtyEight in 2016. “Self does not adapt to his players.”The lights flickered on briefly in that 2015-16 season, as observers wondered whether Kansas was finally adopting a modern rate of 3-point shooting. It didn’t last. Kansas’s rate of 3-point attempts fell off late in the season, and the team finished ranked 238th in the country in the share of its field goal attempts that were 3-pointers, according to KenPom.com. The Jayhawks were eliminated in the Elite Eight that season by a Villanova team that lived on the 3-point shot but didn’t shoot well in the quarterfinal. Self’s team took away Nova’s range, limiting it to 4 of 18 shooting from three, and the Wildcats won anyway. Perhaps this shook something loose in Self.In 2016-17, the Jayhawks threatened to be the first KU team under Self to breach the Division I average for 3-pointers attempted per field goal attempt. They weren’t a team of gunners, exactly, but their 35.9 percent 3-point attempt rate was a large step up for Kansas. This season, the Jayhawks have climbed even higher, reaching 41.4 percent — easily clearing the D-I average of 37.5 percent. That’s a quantum leap for the program given its recent history and a shocking development given Self’s stated opinions on shot selection.“Based on our history and the success that we’ve had with our shot selection over the years,” Self told the Kansas City Star in 2015, “I think 30 percent is a pretty good number for us.”
A week before Thanksgiving, the NFL’s top teams had plenty to be grateful for. Eleven of the top 13 teams in Week 12’s edition of our Elo ratings won their games, with the lone exceptions either losing to another good team on the road (the Arizona Cardinals, then ranked No. 2, fell to the third-ranked Seattle Seahawks) or suffering a stunning upset (the Kansas City Chiefs’ ill-fated trip to Oakland). And eight of the bottom 10 teams lost, generating the widest spread this season between the league’s haves and have-nots (as measured by the standard deviation of every team’s Elo ratings).There’s been a lot of talk about 2014 being a season of parity in the NFL (especially after the aforementioned Raiders victory completed this year’s “circle of parity,” the phenomenon by which any team could claim superiority over another via the transitive property). In one sense, that’s accurate. There’s no dominant Super Bowl favorite: The New England Patriots, Green Bay Packers and Denver Broncos have gone through hot and cold periods over the past 12 weeks, and the Seahawks and San Francisco 49ers have not even consistently been favored to make the playoffs. Nobody knows what to make of the upstart Cardinals (now less so than ever). By that standard, this season is as wide open as any.But this year has also seen a stark disparity between the NFL’s good and bad teams. The 2014 season features the 10th-largest standard deviation of Elo ratings through 12 weeks of any season since the 1970 AFL-NFL merger and the second-largest since 1986 (trailing only the 2009 season).Nearly all of the most imbalanced seasons took place before the NFL instituted true free agency and a salary cap in the early 1990s, which evened out payroll spending across the league and prevented dominant teams from hoarding talent. These measures had the effect of increased parity, both within seasons and between them.Pockets of inequality still emerge from time to time, even in today’s equipoised NFL. But most of the teams at the bottom of our rankings were above average (some significantly so) at some point in the past few seasons. Late in 2012, the Houston Texans and Atlanta Falcons — now ranked No. 23 and No. 25, respectively — had Elo ratings that would rank second in the NFL right now. And among the bottom third of teams in this week’s rankings, Minnesota, Tampa Bay, Washington and the New York Giants also had above-average Elo ratings as recently as two seasons ago.The league’s bad teams look particularly bad right now, and the poor got even poorer this past weekend. But even at an imbalanced moment, you can see the handiwork of the NFL’s parity machine.Last week, we wrote about how the Denver Broncos were a team in disarray, losing more points of Elo rating over the previous three weeks than any team in the NFL. In this past Sunday’s game against the Miami Dolphins, it looked like disaster was imminent again — Denver’s win probability was down to 10.2 percent late in the third quarter — before Peyton Manning sparked a comeback victory for the Broncos.The game wasn’t especially crucial to the Broncos’ postseason odds (they gained just 8 percentage points of playoff probability last week), but in concert with the Chiefs’ stunning loss at Oakland, it had a big effect on the AFC West race. By the end of the weekend, the Broncos had gained 24 percentage points of division-win probability, bringing their chances to 79 percent. The Chiefs lost 25 percentage points — by far the week’s biggest change in division-win probability. What had been surprisingly close to a toss-up race for the AFC West is back under Denver’s control.Week 12 was pretty damaging to Kansas City’s playoff chances. A week ago, the team was looking at a 41 percent probability of chasing down the Broncos for the division, and it had the conference’s best chance of securing a wild card slot (42 percent). But with their AFC West odds dwindling, the Chiefs probably need the wild card to make the playoffs. It might seem as though the Chiefs are still well positioned in that department — the Dolphins had been their primary threat going into the weekend — but after the AFC North rivals Cincinnati Bengals and Baltimore Ravens both won, the AFC’s wild card picture is as crowded as ever.The NFC playoff picture didn’t change all that much, although the Seahawks are once again favorites to make the postseason after beating the Cardinals. Although the game could be seen as the proverbial “statement win” with regard to NFC West supremacy, the loss didn’t really affect Arizona’s playoff chances; the Cardinals are still 94 percent likely to be in.Elo’s had a few solid weeks against the point spread. Don’t let it fool you: You shouldn’t take these ratings to Vegas and bet with them. But it is always fun to compare the gambling lines to those which would be predicted by each team’s pregame Elo ratings.One of biggest differences this week between Elo and Vegas involves a marquee matchup, in which the Patriots travel to Green Bay to face the Packers. The Packers have been on a roll of late, gaining the most Elo rating points of any NFL team over the previous three weeks, but still they rank just sixth in Elo. At least some of that is because Green Bay entered the season ranked 17th in the league with a below-average 1495 Elo rating, owing to a relatively down 2013 season that saw quarterback Aaron Rodgers miss seven games.With Rodgers back and playing at an incredibly high level as of late, Vegas has reacted quickly. The oddsmakers clearly consider the Packers one of the two or three best teams in the NFL. For their part, the Patriots have been on fire as well, so the fact that they are three-point road underdogs implies that the market considers them about even with Green Bay. Elo thinks the Patriots are roughly four points better per game than the Packers at a neutral site, so it will be interesting to get some measure of a referendum on Vegas and Elo’s different opinions of the two teams.CORRECTION (3:53 p.m., Nov. 26, 2014): A previous version of the Week 13 NFL matchups table listed incorrect numbers for the Elo win percentages and point spreads. They and the language in the piece have been updated.
It always comes back to the use of performance-enhancing drugs. The “steroid era” may be over, but Major League Baseball is still dealing with its consequences. At the National Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremony over the weekend, Craig Biggio was the only batter among the four new inductees. Although some of the greatest hitting records in the history of the sport occurred in the past 20 years, many position players can’t catch a break with Hall voters.So we ran a SurveyMonkey Audience poll asking Americans how they feel about steroids, amphetamines and the pre-integration era and then gathered FiveThirtyEight’s baseball fans to talk about the results (the following transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity):Walt Hickey: It’s pretty clear the vast majority of people — even baseball fans — are not comfortable with just letting the records stand. Of everyone surveyed, 88 percent thought the records should be struck down entirely or have an indicator that there was some funny business going on.Neil Paine: I’m not surprised the majority of those polled want something — anything — to be done about the numbers compiled during the steroid era. Baseball is the most statistical of all the major sports, and it has always loved to foster the notion that you could compare, say, Honus Wagner’s stats to those of Alex Rodriguez side by side, without any adjustment, and still make a meaningful comparison. Sabermetricians have long acknowledged this as naive; between park effects and era adjustments, there are plenty of ways baseball stats need to be tweaked to level the playing field between different generations of players. But even for the lay fan, the age of PEDs [performance-enhancing drugs] destroyed any pretense that unadjusted numbers could be freely compared between eras, and I think that fact alone upset traditionalists as much as anything else.Harry Enten: I must admit that steroids to me is a highly emotional issue. Many of the players we associate with steroids are people we also associate with being jerks — people like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and A-Rod. But the real question is: Where does it end? Is it that stats are changed? Are champions changed? There can be no doubt that many, if not all, of the champions for a period in the 1990s and 2000s had steroid users. We’re not going to go back and change winners. In a lot of this polling, people are making an emotional argument.Walt: I, on the other hand, could not care less about steroid use. I feel like this notion of the game as some platonic ideal that existed prior to the big bad performance enhancers showed up is patently false. Every era had its own competitive advantages, as we’ll talk about in a second, but it’s only the steroid issue — and not, you know, the players who had the competitive advantages of rampant stimulant use and not having to compete with black players — that seems to make people think The Game is not somehow Pure.Rob Arthur: I’m under no illusions the game of baseball is Pure (nor will it ever be), but I also don’t know if it was ever dirtier than it was during the steroid era. Cheating is and has always been rampant, both on and off the field, but with steroids, we have a means of cheating that seems particularly effective. You can see that both in the scientific literature, where steroids seem to improve strength by as much as 20 percent, but also on the baseball field, where we had some notable steroid users like Bonds smashing records left and right.Harry: But what about during the “deadball era” — specifically between 1912 (I think) and 1920, when you had the spitball among other things? Offensive numbers took a dive. There is clear physical evidence that a spitball (or scuffing the ball) is a big deal. Now using that wasn’t illegal when it first started, but neither were steroids. They are now, yet people look at them so much differently than the pitching statistics that were occurring in the 1910s.Rob: Harry, you definitely have a point. But I think one of the reasons steroids are so objectionable is because of the asymmetry they created between players: Some players who used them seemed to become almost inhumanly effective, others didn’t use them at all and gained no benefit, and still others used but didn’t improve substantially. When the spitball was legal, it was available to all pitchers, and I doubt that any pitcher’s spit was 50 percent more effective at decreasing offense than any other pitcher’s spit. (I am aware that once the spitball was banned, some players were grandfathered in and still allowed to use it. Obviously, that wouldn’t fly in the modern era.)Neil: And don’t even get me started debating whether Lasik surgery counts as “unnatural” and “performance-enhancing.”Walt: Yeah, Tommy John called — he wants his pitching speed back. We will get back to the 1920s era of baseball soon enough, Enten. For now: My favorite part of this was comparing how different fan bases cared about steroids based on how much their teams gained from steroid use.Editor’s Note: On Friday, we introduced the idea of a steroid “discount” — a penalty in percentage terms that would be deducted from players’ individual statistics if they were found to be using PEDs. Our poll asked respondents to recommend said discount, which we can also break down by team fandom.The following table is color-coded by how much (red) or how little (white) each team’s fans would penalize steroid-using players.1Specifically, players who were suspended for PED offenses, were linked to the Biogenesis scandal, were named in the Mitchell Report or whose failed drug tests were leaked to the media. Because some teams had far more fans respond than others — and some teams’ fans hardly voted at all — the columns have been color-coded to represent a combination of average response and the number of respondents. In other words, results have been regressed to the mean based on sample size. Likewise, the correlations at the bottom of the table were weighted by the number of respondents from each fan base.Walt: Hot damn, Giants.Neil: It’s interesting that, as fandom intensifies, a relationship does begin to materialize between how much the voter’s favorite team relied on steroid users and how much tolerance he or she has for steroid users’ stats.If we look at all of our survey’s respondents — including those who were and were not self-professed baseball fans — there’s essentially no relationship between team steroid reliance and how much steroid-tainted stats the voter would recommend taking away. But when you throw out non-fans, a small2Correlation: -0.2 relationship emerges. Fan bases whose stars used steroids to generate more wins, whether on a per-season basis or as a percentage of the team’s total, tended to want steroid users to be punished less.Then again, it’s a slight relationship at best. While San Francisco Giants fans — hello Barry Bonds! — wanted juicers dinged much less than the average fan base, fans of the Oakland Athletics and Chicago Cubs (who rank fourth and fifth in the degree to which they were helped by steroid-using batters) asked for some of the highest penalties of any group of rooters.But that’s not the only way to measure the cognitive dissonance between a fan’s acceptance of steroids and the degree to which his or her team benefited from them.Walt: I whipped this up really quickly: It’s the scatterplot of teams, with that “how much did they gain from PEDs” metric plotted against the percentage of their fan base that said they thought the records of steroid users should be struck. What an interesting relationship:Walt: It’s a small sample size, but I really love that fans of teams that didn’t gain a lot from PEDs seem more likely to desire retribution against players who did.Rob: The relationship between steroid contribution and desire for retribution is really fascinating and upholds a long-held suspicion of mine. It also suggests (again) that these attitudes are largely driven by emotions: If my team benefited, then steroids were OK, but if not, steroids were terrible! It shows that fans, in particular, have a hard time divorcing their own fandom from the questions about how much steroids benefited particular players and how much we should care as a result.Walt: So then the question becomes where do we draw the line when it comes to performance-enhancing things in each era? I personally think it’s bullshit that people get so riled up about steroids and not, for instance, the widespread amphetamine use in MLB in the era prior to it.It turns out America agrees!Walt: So, Neil, who would this affect?Neil: Like you said, it’s pretty widely acknowledged that amphetamine use was prevalent in MLB throughout much of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. During a 1985 drug trial, former Mets and Pirates first baseman John Milner testified that he had received “greenies” (amphetamines) from Hall of Famers Willie Mays and Willie Stargell at various times during his career, and Hall of Fame third baseman Mike Schmidt said the substance was “widely available in major-league clubhouses” when he played.So it’s at least possible — if not probable — that some of that era’s greatest superstars used a now-banned substance to sharpen their focus and boost their energy levels. (Even if the evidence is mixed over whether greenies actually even help athletic performance.)Walt: I feel like higher focus and higher energy is probably a nice thing for batters to have. I imagine their record collections were remarkably well-organized as well.I’m pretty happy to see some consistency here. I compared how people answered the steroid question with how they answered the stimulant question, and 88 percent of respondents (and 86 percent of fans) stuck to their guns and replied with the same answer they gave for steroid policy. It seems like at least among the general population there’s a lot more consistency with how to handle the policy than there is in the league.Still, it’s surprising that at the end of the day, 44 percent of Americans would strip away statistical accomplishments from amphetamine users in the era of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Mickey Mantle.Neil: Agreed. The general attitude among sportswriters — even if it doesn’t necessarily make sense — is that there’s a distinction to be drawn between the supposedly widespread amphetamine use of the 1970s and the supposedly widespread steroid use of the 1990s. But according to those surveyed, there shouldn’t be. The moral judgment of the people appears to fall on both groups with equal fury.Harry: I really do wonder whether most people know that Mays may have used greenies. I tend to think not. If they did, there is no way that the polling numbers would look the way they do. I also tend to think that there is nothing ridiculous that Mays did in the sense that he looked normal, unlike Bonds who looked like someone shoved some orthopedic pillows in his arms. Not to mention that his head grew bigger than Donald Trump’s ego. It seemed natural. We tend to think of unnatural in how someone looks, not how they think.Neil: Right, and the bulked-up players and shifting head sizes gave fans and analysts a smoking gun of sorts. It added to the theatrical nature of the steroid hysteria. With a pill that doesn’t change appearance, you’re reduced to poring over stats and wondering whether a player’s out-of-the-blue power spike is just a career year or something much more sinister.Walt: But enough with the pharmaceutical advantages. What about the bigoted regime that kept black players out of the leagues? What about the competitive advantage conferred by excluding athletes based on the color of their skin?Walt: Kind of odd that baseball fans are nowhere near as mortified with pre-integration records standing than they are with stimulants. Neil, what’s the word on the effect that segregation had on baseball?Neil: One of the biggest tragedies of baseball’s color line is that we can’t know precisely how much the game’s pre-1947 stars benefited from only playing against white opponents. But we can certainly estimate how much more shallow the pool of available players was before the game was integrated. (As well as before the rise of Latin America and, now, Asia as a source of baseball talent.)As FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver notes in “Baseball Between the Numbers,” MLB was only drawing from a population of about 300,000 people per player in 1930. By 1960, when baseball was finally fully integrated, that number had more than doubled to 625,000, and it was a whopping 900,000 when Nate crunched the numbers in 2005. The bigger the talent pool, the tougher the competition, so it’s clear that pre-integration players had a major advantage in terms of the relative caliber of talent they played against.(A related note: Baseball’s level of talent is steadily increasing anyway as humans push the boundaries of athletic performance, which is another great reason statistics from the past can’t be compared to modern numbers straight-up.)Harry: My opinion on this is fairly simple: You can’t penalize players for things they didn’t control. Babe Ruth couldn’t play against a black player in the MLB even if he wanted to. It’s a tragedy that we were robbed of seeing Josh Gibson against Carl Hubbell, but we can’t go back and readjust the records.Walt: I don’t think it’s so much about penalizing players for things beyond their control as it’s about knocking down the idea that baseball was somehow defiled by pharmaceuticals. This nostalgia for baseball is wholly misguided — the Boston Red Sox integrated after Southern public schools! In 1959! — it’s not like this was an antiquated part of baseball history.Baseball’s commitment to some idyllic game that never existed — something that also manifests itself in a knee-jerk opposition to potential ways to improve the game, like the DH, speedier play and other experimentation — by now constitutes what I think is (on a long enough timespan) an existential threat for the league. The fact that more people aren’t more willing to look back in anger is a symptom of a much larger problem.Not to mention that at least the other two advantages at least made the game more interesting to watch. Segregation, if anything, made the game less interesting for fans out of mere spite. My main line? If you’re going to get indignant about steroids — something that unambiguously made the game more interesting — at least have the decency to be just as indignant about letting those segregated records stand un-asteriskedBut guys! We’re missing the point here. About 10 percent of Americans would strip Babe Ruth of his records! Including 8 percent of baseball fans. That’s awesome.Harry: What percentage of people believe we didn’t land on the moon?Walt: I mean Kubrick basically admitted as much in “The Shining,” man — learn how to read subtext.
Ohio State senior midfielder Megan McGillis handles the ball in the Buckeyes’ 13-9 win over Vermont on Feb. 12 at the Woody Hayes Athletic Center. Credit: James King | Lantern reporterThe Ohio State women’s lacrosse team (3-0) scored early and often in its 17-8 win over Cincinnati (0-1) on Sunday. The Buckeyes solved their early-scoring woes of the previous two games, netting five unanswered goals in the first four minutes of play.“The theme the whole week was getting off to a fast start,” coach Alexis Venechanos said. “I felt like we came in really focused and we were really on a mission. We knew Cincinnati was going to be well coached.”This was the sixth meeting between the two schools and the third in the past three seasons. The Buckeyes’ win kept them undefeated in six meetings against the Bearcats, with the series dating back to 2008.Within the first two minutes, sophomore midfielders Mackenzie Maring and Erika Keselman scored giving OSU the early lead. Then, for the second time this season, freshman midfielder Liza Hernandez scored two goals within 30 seconds, her first two of four on the day.“We wanted to just come out and play our game,” Hernandez said. “It feels amazing (to score four times). I just know I couldn’t have done it without my teammates and everyone around me.”Senior midfielder Morgan Fee added a goal of her own — her first of two in the first half — putting the Buckeyes up 5-0 with 25:16 remaining. The Bearcats would win the next draw, gaining possession of the ball for the first time in the game. Cincinnati took advantage of their first time with the ball when junior midfielder Brooke Kovinsky scored the first goal of the year for her program at the 24:52 mark in the first half. OSU went on to win 11 draw controls and take 25 shots compared to Cincinnati’s five and 12, respectively, showing how much the Buckeyes dominated the ball early. Venechanos said that a lot of that is attributed to the stellar play of Fee, who won 7 draw controls in the game.“She stepped up huge,” Venechanos said. “We put her in for the last five draws of the last game and she got those. So she’s been working really hard and I’m really happy for her.”Maring and Keselman again would score back-to-back goals moving OSU’s lead up six with 22:06 left in the first half. The Bearcats would respond with two goals from freshmen Monica Borzillo and McKenna Rushford.Up 7-3, OSU went on a 5-1 scoring run to close out the half, which included a hat trick from junior attacker Molly Wood, Fee’s second of the game and sophomore midfielder Baley Parrott’s sixth goal of the year.“We were just ready to show what we are and show what we’re made of this year,” Wood said. “We were firing on all cylinders today, we were all in control. It was really fun.”The Buckeyes opened up the scoring yet again in the second half when freshman attacker Alex Vander Molen scored her first of the day, second of the year, giving OSU a 13-4 lead. Cincinnati would try and fight its way back into the contest, going on a 3-1 scoring run cutting the Buckeyes’ lead to seven with 13:43 to play.OSU was plagued with turnovers in the second half, committing eight, turning their offense stagnant until Hernandez was able to score her fourth goal with 5:42 left on the clock. The Bearcats netted another goal, but OSU closed the game out with two more goals giving them the win, 17-8. One goal came from junior attacker Lauren Sherry and the other from sophomore attacker Alyssa Amorison in her season debut for the Buckeyes.For the second straight game freshman goalie Jillian Rizzo collected double digit saves, this time 11 on the day. Rizzo has been a constant safety blanket for this OSU team, helping them hold leads and coming up with big saves when needed.“She’s amazing,” Hernandez said. “She literally keeps us in games sometimes. I know she’s a freshman but she really doesn’t play like a freshman and we definitely need that.”In a game that was moved to Ohio Stadium due to some serendipitous February weather, OSU led from wire to wire. The Buckeyes, who took 40 shots compared to the Bearcats’ 25, were able to couple an aggressive attack on the offensive end with stout defensive play. “It’s always fun to score in the ‘Shoe,” Wood said. “But it was a team effort and that was what was really special.”OSU has the Stanford Cardinal up next, Friday at home at 6 p.m. Stanford is currently 1-3 on the year and have a game at Saint Mary’s on Tuesday before making the trip to Columbus.“Stanford is going to give us new challenges,” Venechanos said. “So we’re going to watch film this week, work on ourselves and then worry about Stanford … but it will be a big test for us.”
The Ohio State men’s hockey season starts this Friday with new head coach Mark Osiecki at the helm. “With a new coaching staff you have a different feel as a team,” senior forward Sergio Somma said. “It’s kind of like you have a new set of skin.” They are hoping their new ‘skin’ will change things for the team who finished last season with a disappointing 15-18-6 record. “We have to try to create our culture,” Osiecki said. “We’d like to play an up-tempo, very aggressive offensive game.” The differences don’t end on the ice. “Coach (Osiecki) expects you to be great off the ice,” senior forward Peter Boyd said. “If you’re struggling off the ice, it’s going to relate on the ice.” The attention to detail outside the rink has resulted in more contact with the coaches through phone calls and e-mails, Somma said. The increased communication has resulted in a better understanding of the coach’s goals. “There’s kind of a point to everything that we are doing. He explains it very thoroughly,” senior goaltender Dustin Carlson said. “Guys know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it and how to incorporate it to the game itself.” Players welcome the increase in detail and intensity. “You want to get pushed to a level that you feel uncomfortable because that makes you a better player,” Boyd said. Somma agreed. “He is going to push you to that edge, that physical edge and that mental edge that you need to get better,” he said. Seventeen of the players being pushed are upperclassmen. “I think (having so many upperclassmen) is positive on the front that there’s going to be a handful of these kids that are tremendous kids, very good hockey players that are going to definitely grasp what we’re talking about here and it’s going to help their careers,” Osiecki said. The coach was also excited about playing six of the first seven games on the road. “It brings your team close together,” Osiecki said. “It’s going to really tell us what we have, who can handle some tough situations, who can play at an up-tempo pace on a big ice sheet — we’ll learn a lot after the first few games.” Despite the early road trips and a losing record a year ago, expectations remain high. “There is no reason why we can’t win a (Central Collegiate Hockey Association Conference) title,” Somma said. Pre-season polls predict the Buckeyes to finish eighth out of eleven teams in the conference by the media and no player was on the preseason all-conference team. “I think we have a great team but it’s not going to come easy,” Boyd said. Osiecki was more concerned with implementing the proper attitude, indicating that if that was done, the wins would come. “Our goal is to develop the culture that we think that OSU hockey is going to bring to the table,” he said. “We want kids that are going to come in here and mature as hockey players and mature as a person away from the rink.” The team will showcase its new culture this Friday as the Buckeyes travel to Quinnipiac University (Hamden, Conn.). The puck is scheduled to drop at 7 p.m.
OSU redshirt freshman quarterback Dwayne Haskins (7) passes the ball in the Spring Game at Ohio Stadium on April 15, 2017. Credit: Jack Westerheide | Social Media EditorFans attending the spring game might have been given a look at the future as redshirt freshman quarterback Dwayne Haskins took the field behind center.The second-year signal-caller finished the game 26-for-37 with 293 passing yards and three touchdowns, while splitting time playing behind redshirt senior J.T. Barrett on the Gray team and sophomore Joe Burrow on the Scarlet team.For the bulk of the game, the offense of the Gray team was led by Haskins as he took over after Barrett completed the first quarter. Though he spent most of the time playing opposite Burrow, he did feel the need to outperform last season’s backup for a spot on the team.“We were on the same team at first. We went back and forth on the first series we were out there,” Haskins said. “I was just like, go out there, you know pick up the offense, keep moving, encourage my teammates.”The battle for the starting quarterback position might be over, but Haskins has provided Burrow with competition for the backup role. OSU coach Urban Meyer said the coaching staff is still undecided as to who will backup their three-time letter-winning quarterback.“I want to watch the film and have conversations with our coaches,” Meyer said. “We haven’t had that yet. I know it is very close. But I’m not prepared to say who is two, who is three, et cetera, yet.”Before the Fiesta Bowl, Haskins did not envision himself battling it out for the No. 2 spot, as he believed Barrett was on the way out.Now relegated to the bench for another season, Haskins has accepted his role with the team, and has found the return of Barrett could help him better prepare for the day he will compete to become the starter.“It’s J.T.’s team and I just know he’s doing everything he can to go win the game,” Haskins said. “We compete everyday at practice. It’s like he throws a deep ball, I’ve got to throw a deep ball. We make each other better.”Beyond a competition standpoint, Haskins feels he has been given an opportunity to learn a lot from Barrett. And as Barrett stood behind Haskins on the field, he said it was valuable to have someone there helping him understand everything he needs to understand under center.“(Barrett’s) a great leader,” Haskins said. “Just for me redshirting last year to now, he’s just been in my ear, you know, ‘Stay calm, get the people on the line of scrimmage, make sure receivers are set, just keep going, keep pushing.’”Having someone like Barrett who has been a starter for three years now has been helpful as Haskins learns more of the intricacies of the No. 1 role. As he continues to progress as a quarterback with OSU, he has learned more about the responsibilities of the signal-caller beyond just throwing the football.“I always knew I could throw the football, it was just coach (Ryan) Day told me it was more than that,” Haskins said. “How do you call plays in the huddle? How do you … showmanship? How do you adjust to blitzes and coverages and stuff? So it’s always been for me — I knew I could throw — so it was always just like being the better quarterback.”Haskins knows this season will not be his last chance to regularly start under center for OSU. He will still have to wait as Barrett again takes the reins for the Buckeyes.But serving as a second- or third-string quarterback for OSU this year will give him a chance to continue to perfect his game so he can tap into his potential and be more game-ready when his chance arrives.“Everyday I ask coach Day, ‘What can I do better?’ or we go into meetings and I write down notes and I go study them in my dorm after practice,” Haskins said. “You know, it’s just they’re always stressing to me, ‘How do you continue to get better because you have great potential, what are you going to do with it?’”OSU kicks off the season on Aug. 31, against Indiana.
Ohio State redshirt sophomore cornerback Damon Arnette (3) waits to defend against a Penn State offensive drive in the second quarter in the game against Penn State on Oct. 28. Ohio State won 39-38. Credit: Jack Westerheide | Photo EditorOhio State lost another player during its game against Michigan State as redshirt sophomore cornerback Damon Arnette was injured and helped off the field with about a minute left in Saturday afternoon’s game. He was able to walk off the field with assistance, but was carted from the sideline to the locker room. He did not return before the end of the first half.The injury took place on the first play of Michigan State’s final drive in the first half. Arnette had intercepted a pass from Michigan State quarterback Brian Lewerke on the last play of the previous drive. Arnette had also registered a tackle during the game.Though Ohio State was up 35-0 at the time of the injury, the Buckeyes were been down three starters. Linebackers Dante Booker and Jerome Baker missed the game with undisclosed injuries and defensive end Dre’Mont Jones was ejected from the game on the previous drive on a targeting call. Jones’ targeting call negated a would-be Arnette interception.
#gbbo the Knight looks a little excited to be in the quarter final Andrew 😂😂 pic.twitter.com/4wM1TunECY— Gingerella (@kevinspaceysbae) October 12, 2016 Beedle said she had been “horrified at how I looked and sounded” on television, with “no idea I pulled such funny faces”.Her most memorable moment, she said, was former contestant Kate “talking about apples and saying she loved the taste of a Cox”.”You couldn’t have written that, it was hilarious and completely innocent.” Want the best of The Telegraph direct to your email and WhatsApp? Sign up to our free twice-daily Front Page newsletter and new audio briefings. It has become famous for its cheeky innuendo, but the Great British Bake Off may have slipped in one naughty pun too many this series.Candice Brown, who competes in tonight’s final, has said watching herself on television was like “something out of a Carry On film”.Brown has endeared herself to fans with several unfortunate comments about sausages and jugs, although she avoided a soggy bottom with her pastry. Candice Brown has made it to the final with her impressive bakesCredit:Tom Graham/Love Productions They will be given just one sentence of instructions for their technical challenge.Last week Selasi Gbormittah was eliminated after the patisserie-based semi-final. He had promised to wear a dress if he made it to the final episode. Speaking ahead of the finale, Smyth said his favourite moment of the show had been when Paul Hollywood dissolved into laughter over the unfortunate placement of his pastry jousting knights. She said seeing and hearing herself on television was like watching the innuendo-laden comedy films come to life.Her fellow finalist Andrew Smyth said over the course of the series he had received some “steamier tweets” from fans “which I’m hoping my mum doesn’t see”, while Jane Beedle said “you couldn’t have written” some of the innuendos.The final, broadcast tonight, will see the three rivals take on the toughest showstopper challenge in the history of Bake Off, with five hours and 49 different bakes to impress the judges. Only three bakers have made it to the finalCredit:Mark Bourdillon /Love Productions
Dame Helen has spoken of the 1970s as a decade when sexism was rife. Her 1975 appearance on Sir Michael Parkinson’s chat show is seen by many as an example of that sexism, with the presenter introducing her as the “sex queen” of the Royal Shakespeare Company and asking if her “equipment” undermined her professional credibility”.“Serious actresses can’t have big bosoms – is that what you mean?” she replied.She later described him as a “sexist old fart”. Women who are sexually harassed by “sleazebags” should secretly record the encounters on their mobile phones, Dame Helen Mirren has advised.The Oscar-winning actress said she had been treated “like a piece of meat” by men during her younger days in the industry, and wished she had stood up for herself.“It’s the only thing I regret. Being old is cool but, oh, how I wish I were 18 right now with the strength and courage to say, ‘F— off,’” she told Vogue magazine.“Why women felt they shouldn’t hurt men’s feelings, I don’t know. Not only men in the film industry but drunken idiots in bars. I have watched with glee the rise of those women who are able to take on these men.“I do wonder why more women didn’t just record these sleazebags on their iPhones. Put the phone in your pocket, hit record and catch them out.”Dame Helen, 72, was speaking in light of the #metoo movement started by women expressing solidarity with women caught up in the Harvey Weinstein scandal.The actress said she was “absolutely shocked” to hear the allegations against Weinstein, although he was “famous as an out-of-control bully”.“I never saw it myself, that rage, or even saw it from a distance being perpetrated on someone I knew. But I heard about it. But the whole sexual side I had absolutely no idea about.”