The search resumed this morning for a Coppell High School senior and football standout Jacob Logan who went missing in Possum Kingdom Lake, near Fort Worth, Texas, over the weekend.Logan, 17, took a trip with several teammates to a family’s lake house, Coppell football coach Joe McBride said. Among other activities, the kids jumped off the cliffs into the lake. All of them emerged fine. But Logan went missing, said McBride, who was not on the trip.“I’m struggling,” he said. “Jacob jumped into the lake, and nobody has seen him.”The search for the student resumed Sunday morning at 7:30 a.m., according to a spokeswoman for the Brazos River Authority.Searchers were at the Bluff Creek Marina, with several boats and three divers. They were prepared to bring in more divers if the teen was not quickly found.At Coppell High School, grief counselors were available to students and staff, but no formal events related to the incident have been planned.Witnesses at the lake, which is about 80 miles west of Fort Worth, called 911 about 2:15 p.m. A spokeswoman for the Brazos River Authority said the teen resurfaced at least once after diving off a cliff, but went down and was not seen again.After several hours, divers called off the search as it grew dark Sunday evening.Several hundred people gathered under the lights at Coppell High School’s Buddy Echols Field on Sunday night for a prayer vigil.Members of the media were not allowed onto the field.Logan, a wide receiver, led Coppell in receiving yards last season and scored a touchdown in a victory against Hebron on Friday.
When LaVar Ball says he could beat Michael Jordan one on one and even challenged him pic.twitter.com/Rzfs8NGWRM— Chris (@Sports_FanChris) August 2, 2017Some saw it as a win for the outspoken NBA dad.Jordan responded to Lavar ball about him beating him in a 1 on 1 😂😭😂😭😂 Lavar ball wins again— Spank Horton (@SpankHorton) August 1, 2017 Not convinced LaVar could beat Adonis Jordan.— Russ Bengtson (@russbengtson) August 1, 2017 Six-time NBA champion Michael Jordan has finally responded to LaVar Ball’s claim that he could beat the retired baller one-on-one, leading Ball to issue yet another headline-grabbing remark that’s even more outlandish than the first.“C’mon, I didn’t even play basketball in the pros and they’re talking about me and Michael Jordan,” Ball tells The Really Big Show on ESPN 850 per Sports Illustrated Tuesday, Aug. 1 of Jordan’s response before chalking it up as “all entertainment.” “That’s what I’m talking about. He tells me he can beat me with one leg. Well, guess what: I can beat him with one hand. Now we both look like we out there like we can’t play.”During a Q&A session at the Michael Jordan Flight School camp Monday, July 31, Jordan responded to Ball’s statement that in his prime, he “would kill Michael Jordan one-on-one.”“You got to understand the source,” Jordan said to the Santa Barbara, Calif., crowd, according to The Washington Post. “I think he played college, maybe? He averaged 2.2 points a game. Really? It doesn’t deserve a response, but I’m gonna give it to you because you asked the question: I don’t think he could beat me if I was one-legged.”Ball had bragged about how he could ensure he would win against Jordan, telling USA Today Sports he “would just back [Jordan] in and lift him off the ground and call a foul every time he fouls me when I do a jump hook to the right or the left.”On Twitter, users celebrated Jordan’s witty response to Ball.Michael Jordan to Lavar Ball pic.twitter.com/zFWOtlMGaW— Medium Rare (@StickAForkInYou) August 1, 2017 LaVar Ball really had Shaq drop a diss record towards him and Michael Jordan respond to him, this man is winning right now— Okera J (@OkeraJ) August 2, 2017Ball’s Big Baller Brand had this to say in response.Michael, you vs Lavar | 1 v 1 | you with 1 leg, Lavar with 1 arm. Has to be on Pay-Per-View. Let’s make it happen. YOU WON’T. pic.twitter.com/F5jw4Fu1l5— Big Baller Brand (@bigballerbrand) August 1, 2017And folks chimed in on how the match would turn out.Come on. We all know how Michael Jordan vs. LaVar Ball would turn out … (via @theScore) pic.twitter.com/6VZ0aRFriB— Chris Walder Frey (@WalderSports) August 1, 2017 Michael Jordan would stir fry LaVar Ball 1 on 1 😂😂— Gilbert Arenas (@GilbertAgent0) August 1, 2017 Lavar is a genius. Got Michael Freaking Jordan to talk about him. Unreal https://t.co/bZXFZufNum— 🍒Joe L. Kinsley🍒 (@imjoekin) August 1, 2017
Croatia+6.5-3.1+4.7-8.9+3.3+0.5 Goal kick25.023.819.6+27.6 Based on the first 48 games of the 2018 World Cup. If you watched the World Cup these past few weeks, you likely noticed the game that exists within the game. Under most circumstances, when the score is tied, soccer is a simple matter of putting the ball in the net. But once a goal is scored, the shenanigans begin: The leading side typically takes on the task of delaying as much as possible before the referee’s final whistle. A player may dramatically embellish an injury, or players could drag their feet whenever and wherever possible.Last week, our article on the (lack of) accuracy in stoppage time had one clear takeaway: No matter how long a half actually takes, the ref will award only so much added time. So players have a clear incentive within the rules to stall play as the clock ticks away uninterrupted. Simply put, the strategy works — and it could mean the difference between winning and losing.As we amass data by tracking every stoppage during the World Cup, we’re able to see some clear trends. The team leading the match will take longer to perform even the simplest of tasks than the team trailing. Before taking a goal kick, the keeper might continue to gesture for his teammates to go forward, even though they’re as far up the field as possible. A player leaving the match might walk to the sideline slower than most 80-year-olds walk to the mailbox. Or maybe the captain of the squad is being subbed out, but he can’t figure out how to attach the apparently complicated armband to the new captain. These are all par for the course, but how much time do these tactics take up?We isolated five basic activities for which players control the pace: throw-ins, goal kicks, corner kicks, free kicks and substitutions.1We didn’t look at stoppages due to injury because the length varies significantly based on the specific injury … or lack thereof. Among the 4,529 points of data in these categories during the 48 group stage games, we found obvious differences in speed: Teams that are leading take about 34 percent longer to complete these activities than teams that are trailing. Belgium+4.2-0.8-2.8+9.0+2.0+0.1 Brazil-6.7-0.9-3.6-3.3+1.4-2.0 Substitution37.636.929.9+25.8 Russia+8.8+4.8+0.7-14.8+1.1+1.2 Portugal+7.7+3.1-0.1+4.7+1.8+2.3 Peru+2.2+7.9+8.6+15.0-1.9+6.1 Sweden+13.7+2.9+0.7+25.0+3.7+5.7 Uruguay+4.9+3.9+2.3-4.2+0.7+1.9 Mexico-0.3+2.9+3.0+12.0+0.9+2.8 Corner kick31.528.425.5+23.5 CountryCornersFree kicksGoal kicksSubsThrow-insTotal Avg. time above/below all team avg. Throw-in14.012.59.6+45.8% The time-wasting leaderboardHow World Cup teams rank in terms of taking the most time to complete routine soccer actions while leading compared to the average time for those actions for all teams, regardless of score Free kick26.423.820.3+30.0 France+5.1+8.6-0.1+10.3+4.2+5.6 Combined22.820.117.0+34.1 Serbia+11.2+5.4+8.8+20.0+2.0+5.7 Teams that were tied also took less time on these routine plays than those leading, though it was still more than those trailing. In many scenarios throughout group play, teams have an incentive for the game to end in a tie to nab 1 point — so it makes sense for those teams to stall. This sample also looks at the entire game, but this time-wasting practice increases as games get closer to the 90-minute mark. When we isolated for activities that occur after the 60th minute, that difference increased to 43 percent for teams winning versus teams that were trailing.To look specifically at which teams were most adept at running the clock out while nursing a lead, we first needed to eliminate teams that spent little or no time leading in the group stage. For example, defending champion Germany led for only two of the 295 minutes it played — and one of those minutes was spent celebrating the Toni Kroos goal that put it ahead against Sweden. Of the 32 teams in the tournament, 16 had at least 25 combined throw-ins, goal kicks, corner kicks, free kicks and substitutions while leading. Free kicks generally represent the biggest chunk here because they are frequent occurrences that can also include time spent getting a set piece in order. Senegal+16.4+0.1+1.1-5.3+8.2+3.7 Where teams bleed the clockHow long routine soccer actions at the World Cup took in seconds based on whether a team is ahead, tied or behind Avg. Length of time (seconds) Length of Time (Seconds) Above/Below Average LeadingTiedTrailingPercent increase when leading vs. trailing England-1.3+9.3-0.3+11.5+2.3+4.0 Japan+13.7-0.4-6.9-18.0-0.6-1.4 Spain-1.3-0.2-2.2+5.4+5.0+1.7 Poland-6.8-7.3-7.4-17.8+0.0-5.6 For teams with at least 25 actions while leading, through group stage only. Among the eight teams still fighting to take home the World Cup trophy, France and Sweden have been the most effective at bleeding the clock — taking an average of almost 6 seconds longer per activity than the average for all teams in all scenarios. These two dragged their feet in different ways: Sweden was slow making its substitutions and taking corners, while France was particularly slow on its free kicks and throw-ins. Interestingly, for all the negative attention Neymar and Brazil have gotten for wasting time by diving, the team was one of three in our sample that completed our five routine actions ahead of average pace while they were leading. The team with the fastest tempo while leading, Poland, didn’t actually hold a lead until it had already been eliminated from advancing out of the group stage.Looking at the entire group stage, across all scenarios, there were several moments of epic stalling that deserve mention. When Iran was nursing a scoreless tie against Spain, defender Ehsan Hajsafi took 48 seconds in the 35th minute to simply throw the ball back into play. And when Tunisia was sitting on a 2-1 lead over Panama near the end of its final group match, the Tunisian goalkeeper waited as if he were going to take a goal kick before striker Wahbi Khazri finally came off the field in a substitution — eating up a whopping 103 seconds.Sweden’s opponent in the quarterfinals, England, also earned some clock consumption accolades during the two group stages matches in which it had a lead. Ashley Young took a notably long free kick when he used 95 seconds while the team was beating Tunisia, while Kieran Trippier needed 70 seconds to set up a corner kick against Panama in England’s second match. That corner did result in a John Stones goal, giving England the lead, so it was time well spent.All of this wasted time came in the relative comfort of the group stage. If any of these teams finds itself ahead holding a precious lead in the quarterfinals on Friday or Saturday, expect a master class in the art of clock bleeding.Check out our latest World Cup predictions.
* With a minimum 12 games played. Share is out of possessions the team had while that player was on the court.Possession share includes possessions used via field goal attempts, drawing fouls, turning the ball over, passing for assists and extending possessions with offensive rebounds.Source: Basketball-Reference.com 2017Cavaliers1691Warriors18509.6 Unfortunately for LeBron James and the Cavs, though, none of the underdogs on the list above ended up winning the championship. That’s because the NBA Finals are particularly unkind to underdogs. We can split hairs about how much of a favorite Golden State should be, but no matter how you slice it, upsets of this magnitude basically never happen on this stage.LeBron James’s share of team possessionsJames has built an entire career out of doing everything for his teams: scoring, distributing, rebounding, defending and countless other little on-court acts that help you win games. But in these playoffs, his workload is approaching a level that’s unprecedented even by his standards.Through a combination of shooting, ball handling and rebounding, LeBron has personally been responsible for about 38 percent of the Cavs’ possessions when he’s on the floor in these playoffs. The only player (minimum 12 games played) who’s handled a higher percentage of possessions in any postseason since the merger? James himself in his 2015 playoff campaign, when he nearly willed an undermanned Cavs squad past the Warriors: 200176ers1592Lakers17687.8% 1993Michael JordanCHI38.029.45.036.8 2003Nets1624Spurs174615.1 2013Carmelo AnthonyNYK38.09.32.535.7 2018Cavaliers1611Warriors171019.6 2016Russell WestbrookOKC34.352.46.936.7 1999Knicks1631Spurs174516.5 1992Michael JordanCHI188.8.131.525.7 The biggest NBA Finals underdogs since 1977According to probabilities generated by pre-series Elo ratings 2014Russell WestbrookOKC34.340.57.335.6 2018James HardenHOU36.735.92.537.2 UnderdogFavorite 1996SuperSonics1695Bulls183212.8 Source: Basketball-Reference.com Last summer, we speculated that the NBA was getting more interesting, if not more competitive. That premise ended up mostly holding true this season: Although it’s Cleveland and Golden State in the NBA Finals once again, their fourth consecutive rendezvous was also nearly called off. The Houston Rockets and Boston Celtics helped make the Warriors and Cavs work harder to get here than they ever had to before.1The two teams played 35 combined games to get through the conference playoffs, the most they’ve had to play in any of their preceding Finals runs. Another rematch looked far from inevitable just a handful of days ago — that part was interesting! (As long as you put aside the generally lopsided nature of most games this postseason.)Now we’re left with the matchup that has become as much a part of late spring as commencement speeches and pollen allergies. And although this year’s version contains many of the same characters as earlier sequels, there are just enough possibilities here to keep things, well, interesting — albeit probably still not competitive. Here are six numbers to keep an eye on as we see whether the Warriors can hang onto their title, or if the Cavs can shock the world again.The Vegas oddsIs this the biggest NBA Finals mismatch ever? According to the Las Vegas bookmakers, it’s in the conversation. The Westgate SuperBook installed the Warriors as 1-to-10 favorites going into the series, which translates to about an 89 percent probability of winning after adjusting for the vigorish. Using the archived numbers at SportsOddsHistory.com, which go back to the 1998-99 season, the only Finals matchup more lopsided than this one came in 2001, when the Los Angeles Lakers had an implied 94 percent probability of beating the Philadelphia 76ers. (The Lakers ended up cruising to victory in five games.)Our own Elo model is slightly more optimistic about the Cavs’ chances. Based on both teams’ pre-series ratings, Cleveland has roughly a 20 percent probability of beating the Warriors. (Our interactive model gives the Cavs a slightly better chance because it takes into account things that Elo alone ignores, including playoff experience and travel distance.) That’s still the eighth-lowest of any Finals underdog since the 1976 ABA-NBA merger, but it’s actually about double what the Cavs’ odds were heading into last year’s Finals — and only a bit worse than Cleveland’s 27 percent probability before the 2016 Finals (which they won, of course, in one of the greatest upsets in NBA history). LeBron’s workload is historic (again)Largest share of team possessions an individual player was responsible for in the playoffs,* 1977-2018 2003Allen IversonPHI36.736.02.536.2 2002Nets1601Lakers171716.2 2009LeBron JamesCLE36.439.54.337.0 2014Heat1638Spurs173020.9 1981Rockets1573Celtics166820.4 2018LeBron JamesCLE35.946.73.637.6 SeasonTeamElo RatingTeamElo RatingUnderdog Win % 2015LeBron JamesCLE37.645.24.9%38.8% SeasonPlayerTeamUsage %Assist %Off. Reb. %Poss. % 1986Rockets1640Celtics18078.7 The bad news for James is that his supporting cast this season is even worse than it was that year (or in any of his other NBA Finals seasons, 2007 included). So he’ll need to keep shouldering this historic workload through the Finals if the Cavs are to have any shot at winning. James is a superhuman athlete, but between his 41.3 minutes per game, his 38 percent possession usage on offense and his likely defensive responsibilities — according to Second Spectrum, no Cavalier defended Kevin Durant for more possessions in last year’s Finals than James did — it’s fair to wonder how much more of this The King can handle before running out of gas.The Warriors’ assist-to-turnover ratioMy colleague Chris Herring once described the Warriors’ offense as “beautiful chaos,” a system of intricate off-ball screens designed to spring their many skilled shooters free for open shots. In order to work properly, though, that offensive machine requires a lot of patient and precise ball movement, which Golden State has had a bad habit of getting away from at times this year. While the Warriors did lead the league in assist-to-turnover ratio during the regular season, they frequently fell victim to stagnant offensive motion and careless passing against the Rockets, who held Golden State to a ridiculously low 1.1 assist-to-turnover ratio in the three games Houston won during the Western Conference finals — a mark that would have easily been the NBA’s worst during the regular season.Of course, the Warriors had a sky-high 2.1 assist-to-turnover ratio in the games they won over Houston, a sign of how well their offense still functions when it really clicks. But replicating that will also mean cutting out another of the bad habits Golden State slid into against the Rockets: too much iso-ball with Durant. Nobody runs more isolation plays than Houston, and somehow James Harden and friends convinced the normally free-flowing Warriors to do the same, with ugly results. After running only 11.0 isolations per 100 possessions during the regular season (according to Second Spectrum), the Warriors were up to an astounding 28.5 per 100 in the West final. Durant is a brilliant 1-on-1 player, and sometimes that type of offense is unavoidable, but the Warriors are at their best when these plays are selectively mixed in amid the beautiful chaos — not when they’re the centerpiece of the attack.The Cavaliers’ 3-point percentageAs I’ve written before, Cleveland is abnormally reliant on 3-point shooting to power its streaky offense — and to compensate for a defense that ranked next-to-last in efficiency during the regular season. In the postseason, the Cavs’ 3-point percentage has been 10.5 percentage points higher during wins than during losses (unsurprising from the team that had the league’s biggest regular-season gap). When the shots are falling, Cleveland can beat anybody. But it’s anybody’s guess as to whether that will be true on any given night.Nobody typifies this Cavs phenomenon more than Kyle Korver and JR Smith, a pair whose value is almost completely dependent on how well they shoot the basketball. In playoff wins this season, they’re shooting a combined 47 percent from downtown; in losses, that figure drops to 26 percent. This might be a chicken-and-egg thing: Do the Cavs win because Korver and Smith shoot better, or do Korver and Smith shoot better because the offense is working better overall? There could be something circular there. But it’s telling that the quality of looks the pair gets (as measured by Second Spectrum’s quantified shot quality) barely changes between wins and losses — rather, the difference is almost entirely driven by big fluctuations in shot-making after controlling for the difficulty of their shots.That makes the Cavaliers dangerous (and frustrating) for fans and haters alike. Although the Cavs’ hot-and-cold shooting touch might not matter as much against a team as talented as the Warriors — Cleveland got demolished in last year’s finals despite matching Golden State’s 3-point percentage — one of the Cavs’ best paths to victory rests in one of their patented hot streaks.Golden State’s third-quarter runsAs our ESPN colleague Baxter Holmes wrote earlier this month, one of the Warriors’ deadliest weapons is their ability to go on a devastating run in the blink of an eye that buries opponents before they even know what hit them. Although it can strike at any time, it often manifests itself right after the team emerges from the locker room for the second half: Golden State’s third-quarter scoring margin during the regular season was 199 points better than that of any other team in the league.2In other words, the difference between the Warriors’ third-quarter scoring margin and that of the next-best team would itself rank second in the league in third-quarter scoring margin! And in the playoffs, the Warriors have outscored opponents by 130 total points in third quarters, versus only 20 points in every other quarter combined. In Games 6 and 7 of the Western Conference finals, the Rockets watched their season slip away largely on the strength of massive runs staged by the Warriors during the third quarter.To a certain extent, there isn’t much that Cleveland — or anyone — can do to combat the Warriors’ quick-strike tendencies. But for a Cavs team prone to wildly up-and-down sequences of play (both from game to game and within the same contest), keeping Golden State from being able to capitalize on vulnerable moments will be a victory in itself. (For what it’s worth, the Cavs actually outscored the Warriors by 4 points in the third quarters of the 2016 finals.)Two deadly lineups?A decent chunk of the Warriors’ dominance over the past half-decade stems from the success of a few specific five-man units — matchup nightmares for whom opponents have no good answer. That has carried over into these playoffs, in which the so-called “Hamptons Five” lineup of Stephen Curry, Draymond Green, Andre Iguodala (who will miss Game 1 of the finals but could be available later on), Klay Thompson and Durant has outscored foes by 22.9 points per 100 possessions thus far. In concert with Golden State’s switch-heavy defensive scheme, the versatility and length of that group ensures that the Warriors don’t suffer defensively even while playing their top offensive players together.But the Cavaliers have a lineup that has somehow been even more effective in the playoffs than the Hamptons Five (although in fewer minutes): The group of James, Smith, Jeff Green, George Hill and Tristan Thompson, which is outscoring opponents by 25.7 points per 100 possessions during the postseason so far.Lineup data is so noisy that there’s no guarantee that a given group’s apparent synergy in the past will carry over into the future. But that’s all part of the bargain with this Cavaliers team. Since they remade their roster at midseason, they’ve been using the playoffs as a lineup laboratory of sorts, searching for the group that works best together — and it’s still a work in progress. None of Cleveland’s other common postseason lineups (among those that have played at least 50 minutes together) are in the same neighborhood as the group above, though, while Golden State has four separate combinations (including the Hamptons Five) that rank higher than the Cavs’ second-best unit of James, Hill, Smith, Korver and Kevin Love.When you’re as heavy an underdog as the Cavs are, experimentation might be the best option, so we’ll see what group(s) coach Tyronn Lue turns to as the series takes shape.Check out our latest NBA predictions.
OSU senior setter Emily Ruetter (11) sets up a teammate during a game against Penn State on Oct. 28 at St. John Arena. Credit: Eileen McClory / Senior Lantern reporterThe Ohio State women’s volleyball team lost 3-0 to the Penn State Nittany Lions on Wednesday night at St. John Arena in game that never reached its pre-match hype.The meeting between No.11 OSU and No.3 Penn State was one of the most highly anticipated matchups of the season thus far. However, it turned out to be one of its biggest disappointments..Since both teams were tied with conference records of 8-2 coming in, Wednesday’s match was seen as the ultimate showdown of talent. The OSU squad was taking on a team that acquired its seventh NCAA title a season ago. After graduating standout players, such as setter Micah Hancock, however, there was uncertainty as to whether or not Penn State would be able to rise to the challenge of yet another title. On Wednesday, it was OSU which ended up not playing to its full potential.“I think we did not execute the game as we thought we would,” freshman setter Taylor Hughes said.Penn State started off the first set with a six-point lead and OSU coach Geoff Carlston was forced to call a timeout early on. It wasn’t unforced errors on OSU’s part per se, but more so the unexpected intensity that Penn State had immediately brought to the court.The Buckeyes tailed behind consistently throughout the match, never taking a lead over the visitors. OSU finished off the first set with a total of nine errors. As a result, the Nittany Lions took the set with a score of 25-18 and Penn State’s outside hitter Ali Frantti, the 2014 Division I American Volleyball Coaches Association Freshman of the Year, led the team with four kills.With the first set proving to be a huge wakeup call for the Buckeyes, OSU came out ready to put up a fight.An improvement in effort by the Scarlet and Gray helped keep the score close for a while. But eventually, the Nittany Lions began to pull ahead. By the time OSU had used up its second timeout, Penn State redshirt freshman setter Bryanna Weiskircher was already leading with 22 assists, whereas OSU senior setter Emily Ruetter only had 13. The Buckeye defense took a beating from Nittany Lions middle blocker Haleigh Washington (five kills), as well as Frantti (14 kills).Despite solid play by OSU junior libero Valeria León with 11 digs, OSU ultimately lost the set by a score of 25-15.“A lot of our communication on the court, back row and front row, was a little frantic today,” senior middle blocker Tyler Richardson, who had five kills, said.Already down 2-0 in the match, the Buckeyes came out more focused in the third set.Hughes checked in for the first time in the third stanza, despite a nagging elbow injury, and contributed a total of nine assists. Regardless, the Buckeyes began to fall further and further behind as play progressed. Hughes managed an impressive tip on the Penn State defense, kicking off a series of brief rallies for the Buckeyes. But it was too late in the set, as Penn State held on to take the match.It was obvious to both the crowd and the Nittany Lions that the Buckeyes did not bring their A-games on Wednesday. Richardson said changes need to be made in order to win against the Penn State in the future, as the Buckeyes have not beaten the Nittany Lions since 2006.“We definitely need to have a more aggressive mindset, and pick up a little bit on the defensive side,” Richardson said.The two teams will face off again on Friday in State College, Pennsylvania, at 7 p.m.
A beautiful Sunday afternoon in Columbus was only made better by a three-home-run 6-2 victory by The Columbus Clippers against the Toledo Mud Hens in the fifth game of their six-game series. Starting on the mound for Columbus was left-hander David Huff. Throwing for Toledo was lefty Adam Wilk. Columbus tried to put numbers on the board early. Center fielder Ezequiel Carrera walked in his first at-bat, then stole second. Carrera stole third later, but never reached home when right fielder Chad Huffman popped out to center field. After both teams went scoreless in the first, Carrera would leave the game after twisting his arm diving for designated hitter Ryan Strieby’s pop-up. “I think he is going to be day-to-day. We will know more about it tomorrow,” manager Mike Sarbaugh said. “We wanted to be cautious so we got him out of the game.” Later in the inning, Huff walked third baseman Danny Worth, who went on to steal second before shortstop Cale Iorg also made it to first on balls. Toledo took a 1-0 lead when Worth stole third, then home, in a double steal after Clippers catcher Luke Carlin overthrew third baseman Luis Valbuena. Toledo then went up, 2-0, when Iorg stole home after first baseman Wes Hodges mishandled a throw from Huff. Columbus got on the board in the bottom of the second when Valbuena ran out a grounder to first, after Toledo first baseman Scott Thorman bobbled the ball. Valbuena made it to third after Hodges drove a liner into center field facing a full count with two outs. Carlin made sure Valbuena didn’t wait long, squeaking a grounder between third and short that cut the score to 2-1. The sixth inning brought right-hander Zach Putnam out of the bullpen to replace Huff for Columbus. Huff finished the game with five innings pitched, one hit, two runs, four walks, five strikeouts and an earned-run average of 0.00. Huffman got on first in the sixth inning. Clippers fans soon got a souvenir when right fielder Jerad Head smoked a two-run shot into the left-field stands, giving the Clippers a 3-2 lead. After Toledo put in right-handed pitcher Zach Simons in the sixth, Carlin doubled the lead to 4-2 with a single run homer in the seventh. Frank Herrmann took the mound for Columbus in the eighth inning, and allowed only one. The bottom of the eighth inning brought the Clippers’ third home run. After Brown walked, Head stared down a full-count pitch and knocked it over the left-field stands, giving Columbus a 6-2 lead. Columbus is now 8-3 on the season, 2-0 at home. They play Toledo again at 11:35 a.m. Monday.
Ohio State football appears to have settled on a quarterback in freshman Braxton Miller. So the question the team now faces is how to protect him. During his first career start for OSU, Miller was sacked three times and dealt several other hits during OSU’s 37-17 Saturday win against Colorado. Miller, who was visibly shaken after some of the hits, didn’t look any worse for the wear as he addressed media after the game. But that could change if the he continues to suffer physical punishment. The Buckeyes’ offensive line had their hands full with Colorado, which had blitzed opposing quarterbacks 64 times in its first three games, according to OSU senior center Michael Brewster. The defensive pressure figures to intensify for Brewster and Miller as they prepare for Saturday’s game against Michigan State, which leads the nation in total and pass defense. “We knew (Colorado) was going to give us a lot of different looks,” Brewster said. “We wish it (the offensive line) would have been a little cleaner, but sometimes you’ve got to adjust on the run. If we clean it up, we’ll take some more hits off (Miller).” Brewster added that Miller could help reduce the chance of injury, saying, “Maybe he’ll learn how to slide.” The offensive line will have to adjust to its tactics to suit Miller’s style as well. Redshirt sophomore offensive lineman Jack Mewhort said that Miller was unpredictable while practicing in the days leading up to his first career start. “This week in practice (Miller) would be rolling out and you’d just never know,” Mewhort said. “We’ll go back and watch the film and we’ll correct some things.” Some of the beating Miller appeared to take on Saturday can be attributed to his 17 rushing attempts. Miller finished the game with 83 rushing yards and averaged 4.9 yards per carry. First-year head coach Luke Fickell said that he didn’t expect Miller to run and scramble as much as he did in the quarterback’s first start. “Probably not … you’ve got some ideas about of what’s going to happen,” Fickell said. “And probably some of those (runs), he made the decision to run a little quicker, maybe.” Miller said that he will continue to take advantage of any openings he sees in opposing defenses and won’t shy away from running the ball. “Holes open up,” Miller said. “And if nobody’s open, I’m going to take off, get the yards because that’s what my team needs.” Offensive coordinator and offensive line coach Jim Bollman said that he believes Miller has performed well in three games he’s played this year. On the year, Miller has attempted 29 passes against 30 rushing attempts. Bollman said he’d like to see Miller throw the ball and, like Brewster, slide to avoid contact. “I’ll be just as excited when he sits back there in the pocket and throws one down there like he should too,” Bollman said. With 145 rushing yards on the year, Miller is OSU’s third-leading rusher. Fickell and Bollman might choose to favor Miller’s arm and throwing ability for the sake of the rest of his body. “How do you totally diminish (Miller’s rushing attempts) — you don’t want to diminish it entirely,” Bollman said. Bollman said the threat of a mix of rush and pass attempts by Miller is a valuable asset to the team. For now, Buckeye Nation can rest assured knowing that Miller survived his first start, despite the hits he took. “Braxton’s a tough kid,” Mewhort said. “He’ll bounce right back, so that was good to see.” Saturday’s game against the Spartans is set for a 3:30 p.m. kickoff.
For the fifth time in two years, President Barack Obama will come to Ohio State’s campus.As originally reported by The Lantern, Obama is scheduled to host a grassroots event on the Oval with special guest Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas Tuesday.Doors are scheduled to open 2 p.m. at the corner of Neil and West 17th avenues. The event is free and open to the public, although attendees will need to RSVP for entry, which can be done on Obama’s website.Tickets are also available at the Obama for America offices in the South Campus Gateway, Clintonville, Whitehall, Upper Arlington and German Village.Gustavo Castaneda, a third-year in aerospace engineering, said his schoolwork will keep him from attending the event.“I have midterms before and homework to do,” he said. “I really have to allocate my time to that.”Obama was last in Columbus Sept. 17, when he spoke in Schiller Park in German Village to a crowd of about 4,500. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has not yet visited OSU’s campus, but he was in Columbus Sept. 26 at Westerville South High School, where he spoke to a crowd of about 1,700. Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan are scheduled to visit Ohio this week.Peter Syverud, a first-year in undecided engineering, said he won’t miss an opportunity to see the president.“I just think that since I’m a citizen of the United States if the president’s coming to town I should go listen to him,” he said.Romney’s youngest son, Craig Romney, stopped on campus Saturday to help with a campaign effort called Buckeye Blitz.The 31-year-old talked to College Republicans at the Ohio Union and went door-to-door with them around the campus area talking about the campaign.“We’ve got a great group of volunteers here and we just wanted to get out and thank them for all they’re doing but also help them get on their way with the Buckeye Blitz this weekend,” Craig Romney said in an exclusive interview with The Lantern.Craig Romney said Ohio and the youth vote is critical for this election and that they’ve seen a swing of support among younger voters for his father.“They see this tremendous deficit that’s been left by this president and I think they understand that’s going to be our generation’s burden to pay that debt,” Craig Romney said.The first presidential debate was held Wednesday evening at the University of Denver in Colorado, a swing state, and many analysts declared Romney the winner.Results of the latest Gallup poll place Romney within three points of Obama, 49-46.Danielle Seamon and Todd Avery contributed to this story
Senior Peter Kobelt celebrates during a match against Northwestern March 28 at the Varsity Tennis Center. OSU won, 4-3.Credit: Sam Harrington / Lantern photographerAfter breaking the NCAA record for most consecutive home wins, the No. 2 Ohio State men’s tennis team didn’t have much time to catch its breath before a tussle with Big Ten rival No. 10 Illinois.Over the past decade, the Fighting Illini (14-6, 4-1) have played second fiddle to the Buckeyes (21-2, 6-0) in the Big Ten, losing to OSU in the Big Ten Tournament in seven of the last eight seasons, and that tune held true Sunday as the Buckeyes won, 5-2, at the Varsity Tennis Center.Coach Ty Tucker toyed with the Buckeyes’ doubles lineup and split up his No. 6 ranked duo of senior Peter Kobelt and redshirt-junior Kevin Metka to even up the teams.“We’ve been doing the same thing over and over again and haven’t seen the improvement,” Tucker said. “We thought it might work well (to split Kobelt and Metka). Sometimes you catch lightning in a bottle and, you know, we did today.”Redshirt-junior Hunter Callahan and redshirt-sophomore Chris Diaz cruised to an 8-4 victory over Illinois junior Blake Bazarnik and sophomore Alex Jesse.Metka and freshman Marko Goles-Babic meshed well together, grinding out an 8-7 (7-2) win over junior Farris Gosea and sophomore Jared Hiltzik to claim the doubles point for the Buckeyes.“I’m really proud of (Goles-Babic),” Metka said afterwards. “He stepped up and made some big returns and served well throughout.”Moving to singles play, redshirt-freshman Ralf Steinbach beat sophomore Julian Childers 6-1, 7-6 (7-3) and Metka defeated junior Ross Guignon 6-3, 6-4 putting the Buckeyes one match away from another win.The Illini came out with a new fire, though, and took the other four first sets including straight set victories against Diaz and No. 8 Kobelt.With either Callahan or freshman Herkko Pollanen needing to come back from one set down, the Buckeyes were on their heels.Both were able to win their second set, though, and use the emotion and enthusiasm of the home crowd to win in three sets.Callahan clinched the match with a 2-6, 6-3, 6-4 win over Bazarnik and Pollanen put on the finishing touches with a 4-6, 6-0, 6-3 upset of No. 9 Hiltzik.The team knew the importance of this match, as the winner would take sole possession of first place in the conference. The win gives the Buckeyes the inside track to the No. 1 seed in the Big Ten tournament, set to begin April 24.“We’re in the driver’s seat, also because we’ve won the Big Ten the past eight years … that makes us the top dogs.” Callahan said.Tucker said he’s happy to see steady improvement lately, though, especially after the recent battles they’ve had.“We’ve always played wars. Last Sunday we were at war with Michigan State, Friday night we were in a war with Northwestern,” Tucker said. “Today we played a little bit better tennis. Guys rise up a little bit and that’s what I was happy to see … in the past month that’s 15 percent better than we’ve played.”The Buckeyes are next scheduled to play at Minnesota Friday at 3 p.m.
Redshirt-freshman quarterback J.T. Barrett carries the ball during a game against Indiana on Nov. 22 at Ohio Stadium. OSU won, 42-27.Credit: Chelsea Spears / Multimedia editorOhio State redshirt-freshman quarterback J.T. Barrett was involved in a domestic dispute with his ex-girlfriend at his apartment late Tuesday night, according to a Columbus Police report.According to the report, both Barrett and his ex-girlfriend, 19-year old Alexandria Barrett-Clark, said they were the victims of assault, but no charges were filed following the incident.There were also no visible injuries reported.Police responded to a call at Barrett’s apartment just after midnight on Wednesday. When police arrived, Barrett said he asked his ex-girlfriend to leave his apartment and she refused his request. Barrett then said Barrett-Clark “ran at him and pushed him” and struck him before he pushed her onto a bed in self-defense.Barrett-Clark told police that when she was asked to leave Barrett’s apartment, she said she would leave in the morning. She then stated that Barrett confronted her in the bedroom and choked her upon the bed, before using his forearm to apply pressure to her neck in an effort to take her phone from her.After the incident upon the bed, Barrett-Clark said she was able to escape and call the police.There was a single witness, according to the report, who acknowledged that he heard a disturbance, but did not see any physical altercation.An OSU athletics spokesman said the university is aware of an issue regarding Barrett, and is working to gather more information as it becomes available.This story was first reported on Wednesday morning by local television outlet, ABC6.Barrett recently had surgery to repair a broken ankle suffered in OSU’s game against Michigan on Nov. 29.Neither Barrett nor Barrett-Clark responded to an email requesting comment.Clarification: Earlier reports said Barrett-Clark was Barrett’s girlfriend, when in fact, they are exes.