Barkley picks Cal

[jdubs30]

Greg Anthony also thinks they have a great chance to win.

Kiss of death?


MARSH, HELP!!!

 

[CarolinaCuse]

Didn't all three of the CBS talking heads pick Cal?

 

[jdubs30]

Didn't all three of the CBS talking heads pick Cal?

Barkley also picked Memphis and Oregon.

Anthony didn't make a pick, but he certainly sounded like he was favoring Cal.

Seth isn't on set on CBS right now.

 

[LennX6]

I doubt I was classify anyone as clinically insane for picking Cal, but Barkley and Davis have been betting on the wrong ponies all Tournament.

 

[pearl31]

Good, hope the players were watching that.

 

[Eric15]

Greg Anthony also thinks they have a great chance to win.

Kiss of death?


MARSH, HELP!!!

Charles Barkley knows less about college basketball than any poster on this board knows about any conceivable topic. I could pick a random poster out of a hat, and ask them to tell me everything they know about nuclear astrophysics, and they would know more about that than Barkley does college hoops.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Barkley = Pac12 homer.

Which is odd since he attended Auburn.

 

[KaiserUEO]

well, its a home game for them and the bigmidwest is showing to be a pathetic little conference that should only have sent 2 teams to the dance.

could you blame them for picking cal?

Oh Lord

 

[OrlandoCuse]

Barkley = Pac12 homer.

Which is odd since he attended Auburn.

But he lost all of his money gambling in the West, so he has a soft spot for them.

 

[JoeSU]

Barkley can't pick his nose (but JB could give him pointers).

 

[rstone7727]

Charles Barkley knows less about college basketball than any poster on this board knows about any conceivable topic. I could pick a random poster out of a hat, and ask them to tell me everything they know about nuclear astrophysics, and they would know more about that than Barkley does college hoops.

And here's proof:
The basic tenets of nuclear astrophysics are that only isotopes of hydrogen and helium (and traces of lithium, beryllium, and boron) can be formed in a homogeneous big bang model (see big bang nucleosynthesis), and all other elements are formed in stars. The conversion of nuclear mass to kinetic energy (by merit of Einstein's famous mass-energy relation in relativity) is the source of energy which allows stars to shine for up to billions of years. Many notable physicists of the 19th century, such as Mayer, Waterson, von Helmholtz, and Lord Kelvin, postulated that the Sun radiates thermal energy based on converting gravitational potential energy into heat. The lifetime of the Sun under such a model can be calculated relatively easily using the virial theorem, yielding around 19 million years, an age that was not consistent with the interpretation of geological records or the then recently proposed theory of biological evolution. A back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that if the Sun consisted entirely of a fossil fuel likecoal, a source of energy familiar to many people, considering the rate of thermal energy emission, then the Sun would have a lifetime of merely four or five thousand years, which is not even consistent with records of human civilization. The now discredited hypothesis that gravitational contraction is the Sun's primary source of energy was, however, reasonable before the advent of modern physics; radioactivity itself was not discovered by Becquerel until 1895[3] Besides the prerequisite knowledge of the atomic nucleus, a proper understanding of stellar energy is not possible without the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics.
After Aston demonstrated that the mass of helium is less than four times the mass of the proton, Eddington proposed that in the core of the Sun, through an unknown process, hydrogen was transmuted into helium, liberating energy.[4] 20 years later, Bethe and von Weizsäcker independently derived the CN cycle,[5][6] the first known nuclear reaction cycle which can accomplish this transmutation; however, it is now understood that the Sun's primary energy source is the pp-chains, which can occur at much lower energies and are much slower than catalytic hydrogen fusion. The time-lapse between Eddington's proposal and the derivation of the CN cycle can mainly be attributed to an incomplete understanding of nuclear structure, and a proper understanding of nucleosynthetic processes was not possible until Chadwick discovered theneutron in 1932[7] and a contemporary theory of beta decay developed. Nuclear physics gives a self-consistent picture of the energy source for the Sun and its subsequent lifetime, as the age of the solar system derived from meteoritic abundances of lead and uranium isotopes is about 4.5 billion years. A star the mass of the Sun has enough nuclear fuel to allow for core hydrogen burning on the main sequence of the HR-diagram via the pp-chains for about 9 billion years, a lifetime primarily set by the extremely slow production of deuterium,
1 1H +11H→21D+e++νe+0.42 MeV

 

[ImperialOrange]

Didn't Barkley pick Montana?

 

[All4SU]

Someone should tell him that Cal is from "Berkeley" California, not "Barkley. Obviously the guy is confused.

 

[Eric15]

And here's proof:
The basic tenets of nuclear astrophysics are that only isotopes of hydrogen and helium (and traces of lithium, beryllium, and boron) can be formed in a homogeneous big bang model (see big bang nucleosynthesis), and all other elements are formed in stars. The conversion of nuclear mass to kinetic energy (by merit of Einstein's famous mass-energy relation in relativity) is the source of energy which allows stars to shine for up to billions of years. Many notable physicists of the 19th century, such as Mayer, Waterson, von Helmholtz, and Lord Kelvin, postulated that the Sun radiates thermal energy based on converting gravitational potential energy into heat. The lifetime of the Sun under such a model can be calculated relatively easily using the virial theorem, yielding around 19 million years, an age that was not consistent with the interpretation of geological records or the then recently proposed theory of biological evolution. A back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that if the Sun consisted entirely of a fossil fuel likecoal, a source of energy familiar to many people, considering the rate of thermal energy emission, then the Sun would have a lifetime of merely four or five thousand years, which is not even consistent with records of human civilization. The now discredited hypothesis that gravitational contraction is the Sun's primary source of energy was, however, reasonable before the advent of modern physics; radioactivity itself was not discovered by Becquerel until 1895[3] Besides the prerequisite knowledge of the atomic nucleus, a proper understanding of stellar energy is not possible without the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics.
After Aston demonstrated that the mass of helium is less than four times the mass of the proton, Eddington proposed that in the core of the Sun, through an unknown process, hydrogen was transmuted into helium, liberating energy.[4] 20 years later, Bethe and von Weizsäcker independently derived the CN cycle,[5][6] the first known nuclear reaction cycle which can accomplish this transmutation; however, it is now understood that the Sun's primary energy source is the pp-chains, which can occur at much lower energies and are much slower than catalytic hydrogen fusion. The time-lapse between Eddington's proposal and the derivation of the CN cycle can mainly be attributed to an incomplete understanding of nuclear structure, and a proper understanding of nucleosynthetic processes was not possible until Chadwick discovered theneutron in 1932[7] and a contemporary theory of beta decay developed. Nuclear physics gives a self-consistent picture of the energy source for the Sun and its subsequent lifetime, as the age of the solar system derived from meteoritic abundances of lead and uranium isotopes is about 4.5 billion years. A star the mass of the Sun has enough nuclear fuel to allow for core hydrogen burning on the main sequence of the HR-diagram via the pp-chains for about 9 billion years, a lifetime primarily set by the extremely slow production of deuterium,
1 1H +11H→21D+e++νe+0.42 MeV

I can't believe you wrote all that off the top of your head, and even had time to include hyperlinks.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

And here's proof:
The basic tenets of nuclear astrophysics are that only isotopes of hydrogen and helium (and traces of lithium, beryllium, and boron) can be formed in a homogeneous big bang model (see big bang nucleosynthesis), and all other elements are formed in stars. The conversion of nuclear mass to kinetic energy (by merit of Einstein's famous mass-energy relation in relativity) is the source of energy which allows stars to shine for up to billions of years. Many notable physicists of the 19th century, such as Mayer, Waterson, von Helmholtz, and Lord Kelvin, postulated that the Sun radiates thermal energy based on converting gravitational potential energy into heat. The lifetime of the Sun under such a model can be calculated relatively easily using the virial theorem, yielding around 19 million years, an age that was not consistent with the interpretation of geological records or the then recently proposed theory of biological evolution. A back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that if the Sun consisted entirely of a fossil fuel likecoal, a source of energy familiar to many people, considering the rate of thermal energy emission, then the Sun would have a lifetime of merely four or five thousand years, which is not even consistent with records of human civilization. The now discredited hypothesis that gravitational contraction is the Sun's primary source of energy was, however, reasonable before the advent of modern physics; radioactivity itself was not discovered by Becquerel until 1895[3] Besides the prerequisite knowledge of the atomic nucleus, a proper understanding of stellar energy is not possible without the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics.
After Aston demonstrated that the mass of helium is less than four times the mass of the proton, Eddington proposed that in the core of the Sun, through an unknown process, hydrogen was transmuted into helium, liberating energy.[4] 20 years later, Bethe and von Weizsäcker independently derived the CN cycle,[5][6] the first known nuclear reaction cycle which can accomplish this transmutation; however, it is now understood that the Sun's primary energy source is the pp-chains, which can occur at much lower energies and are much slower than catalytic hydrogen fusion. The time-lapse between Eddington's proposal and the derivation of the CN cycle can mainly be attributed to an incomplete understanding of nuclear structure, and a proper understanding of nucleosynthetic processes was not possible until Chadwick discovered theneutron in 1932[7] and a contemporary theory of beta decay developed. Nuclear physics gives a self-consistent picture of the energy source for the Sun and its subsequent lifetime, as the age of the solar system derived from meteoritic abundances of lead and uranium isotopes is about 4.5 billion years. A star the mass of the Sun has enough nuclear fuel to allow for core hydrogen burning on the main sequence of the HR-diagram via the pp-chains for about 9 billion years, a lifetime primarily set by the extremely slow production of deuterium,
1 1H +11H→21D+e++νe+0.42 MeV

That's easy for you to say.

 

[tbonezone]

hey cool if that's what the fatboy really thinks. best be ready to bend over and apologize when he's wrong.

 

[omg_cuse_rules]

Doesnt barkley have aids? Give him a break

 

[rstone7727]

I can't believe you wrote all that off the top of your head, and even had time to include hyperlinks.

I didn't, I plagiarized it from James...

 

[tbonezone]

despite all evidence to the contrary chucky chunkley has been touting the strength of the pac 10 all week.

 

[Orangezoo]

ehh let them pick cal - they are in their own backyard and have as good a chance as anyone. we should win but lets not kid ourselves its wide open this year- and barkley is a ignorant dbag

 

[Bornorange]

I feel better already.

They both say ignorant things, they don't even know the NBA game.
Between CBS and ESPN the nations basketball I.Q. is being seriously undermined.

 

[tbonezone]

i do seem to remember the analysts votes being 0-3 going into the 2003 kansas game. and also eddington's proposal fails to address the anomaly of a c.j.fair left handed shot release and the so called "mooseman effect".

 

[Marsh01]

Beautiful! Guaranteed win now!

 

[Hoov50]

Granted, I have only seen Cal play a few times, once on Thursday, but unless they suddenly get a hell of a lot more disciplined on offense their up and down out of control style seems to play right to our strengths. I don't make many predictions but I can see us winning by 20+ unless Cal plays a lot differently than they did against UNLV Thursday. That game was a cluster with a ton of transition opportunities for UNLV. Our transition game is one of our strengths.

 

[Orangezoo]

cal reminds me a bit of nova- without the familiarity of playing us i am confident as well but cautiously.