Giants honor Peter Magowan, the man who taught them how to celebrate their past

first_imgA New York City native who followed the … SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco Giants honor their past as well as any franchise in sports.On Saturday morning outside Oracle Park, the Giants thanked Peter Magowan for showing them how to celebrate history.Magowan, the Giants’ longtime managing general partner who died on January 27, 2019, became the first non-player to have a plaque unveiled on the Giants’ Wall of Fame.“Can there be a more fitting tribute to Peter?” CEO Larry Baer asked.last_img read more

Read more on Giants honor Peter Magowan, the man who taught them how to celebrate their past

Science Confronts Philosophy, or Vice Versa

first_img1Peter Lipton, “Philosophy of Science: The World of Science,” Science, 11 May 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5826, p. 834, DOI: 10.1126/science.1141366.2Christoph Adami, “Philosophy of Mind: Who Watches the Watcher?”, Science, 25 May 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5828, pp. 1125-1126, DOI: 10.1126/science.1141809.These book reviews have been in the queue for three months but finally needed airing, because they are important.  Scientists cannot escape philosophy.  They are embedded within it, whether they like it or not.  To pretend philosophy has no bearing on their work is itself a philosophy.  The question is not whether a scientist practices philosophy, but how well he or she does it.  These two did not do it very well.  Both appealed to emotion and flights of fancy to defend objectivism and materialism.    Christians are objectivists, but are the only ones who have a warrant for it.  Christian objectivism is founded in the eternal, unchangeable Creator.  That “anchor on the infinite” is what gives us confidence in objective reality.  A materialist cannot anchor his thoughts on anything universal, necessary, or certain; he is trapped in his cage of limited perceptions.  He cannot prove that his sensations and perceptions pertain to anything that is “out there” in the world (the correspondence theory of truth).  The Christian has an infinite-personal God that gives us the completeness to our human incompleteness.    The case is stronger than this.  Philosopher of science Greg Bahnsen forcefully argued that only the Christian world view provides the “preconditions of intelligibility” for any rational response to existence, epistemology and morality (see American Vision for lecture series).  A skeptic might accuse Christians of having a world view based on faith (fideism).  Bahnsen’s comeback is that without the Christian world view, you cannot prove anything.  The world makes sense from a Christian view; it makes no sense from any other view.  Christians accept that they start with a world view and its presuppositions, just like everyone begins with presuppositions.  But if you want to argue anything rationally, you must start with Christian presuppositions, or your answers become arbitrary or inconsistent, or both – and once you permit arbitrariness or inconsistency, you cannot prove anything.  This, Bahnsen explains, is the transcendental proof of God’s existence.  It’s not a slippery proof based on reason (like Descartes), or on empiricism (like Paley), or on pragmatism (like one’s personal testimony), or on any of the other approaches that usually result in a stand-off.  It is a proof based on the preconditions of intelligibility: without the Christian world view, you cannot prove anything.  All rational discussion ends before it begins unless you accept as a precondition that the infinite-personal God of the Bible exists.  Then, and only then, observations and arguments make sense   A corollary is that the only way that secularists like Lipton and Adami can make their arguments is by pilfering the presuppositions of Christians.  In a vivid metaphor, Bahnsen says that the only way the bad boy can slap his father’s face is by sitting in his lap.    The Christian world view is also the precondition for intelligibility in science.  Both Greg Bahnsen and J. P. Moreland (see his book Christianity and the Nature of Science) have argued this case cogently that one must accept Christian presuppositions before one can even do science.  To do science, you must defend the correspondence theory of truth, be able to account for a world of natural law, defend the validity of inductive inference and deductive proof, accept the reality of the mind, believe in the universal applicability of the laws of logic, and uphold universal standards of morality.  All these functions come included in the Christian world view package.  They are indefensible in any other world view.    Christianity, then, is a precondition for the intelligibility of science and for reason itself.  This does not mean that non-Christians cannot do science or use reason, because clearly they do; it means that they cannot account for the validity of science from within their own world view.  Whether they are aware of it or not, they plagiarize Christian assumptions whenever they reason inductively or deductively about the world.  (This, Christians know, is because they retain the image of God impressed on their souls.)    The argument that a materialist, as a collection of particles and forces, can do science without God has no more power than plugging an extension cord into itself.  (That, indeed, would be a strange loop.)  For the power to flow, science has to be plugged into a socket named Christian Presuppositions.  We have minds that can reason about objective reality because we have an all-knowing, rational, all-wise God who imbued some of that rationality into us.  He is the completion to our incompleteness.  He is the one who watches the watcher.(Visited 47 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Practicing scientists often disdain philosophy.  To them, it seems like mumbo-jumbo with convoluted arguments telling them why they don’t exist or why two-ness cannot be represented on a chalkboard.  To a scientist dealing with real lab rats or chemicals off the shelf, such ramblings seem detached and worthless.  Who would know more what science is than a scientist?  Philosophizing about science seems far less productive than just doing science.  One described philosophy as “incomprehensible answers to insoluble problems.”    Philosophy’s domain is all-encompassing.  It attempts to address, in a systematic and rigorous manner, questions about what exists (ontology), how we know things (epistemology), and how we should live our lives (moral and political philosophy).  Philosophers ask the pointed questions that give precision to our thoughts.  A fairly new branch of philosophy is the philosophy of science.  The question “what is science?” is not and cannot be a scientific question.  It is a statement of philosophy about science, describing the limits of its epistemology and the nature of its ontology.    On the rare occasions when the scientific journals discuss philosophy of science, they usually delve into it only long enough to come back to a reassuring verdict that objectivism is still the only philosophy worth believing (i.e., that our sensations of the world correspond to what is objectively real).  Here were some examples in the form of book reviews in Science magazine.Perspectives on perspectivism:  Perspectivism (a form of constructivism, i.e., that our view of reality is a construct of our sensations) claims that the human mind cannot extricate itself from an observation in a bias-free manner: what we call a quark, for instance, or what we perceive as red, is a function of how we, as humans, classify and perceive things.  Peter Lipton reviewed a recent book by Ronald Giere on this view, Scientific Perspectivism, in Science May 11.1  Lipton reviewed the theories of Immanuel Kant and Thomas Kuhn (“Kant on wheels”), and discussed Giere’s own position.  Giere extended his discussion of color perception to all of science, concluding that “science is perspectival through and through.”Constructivists deny the “view from nowhere.”  Science can only describe the world from a human perspective.  Objectivists claim that, on the contrary, there is such a view.  You can’t think without thinking, but it does not follow that what you are thinking about–baryons, say–must somehow include the thinker.  Objectivists hold on to the idea that the world has its own structure, which science reveals.Lipton ended up disagreeing with Giere, but provided only fuzzy responses: he said the constructivist position “remains obscure” and “difficult to grasp.”  He said objectivists will “not be moved” by the book, because it has an “uncertain force.”  Here was his summary case for objectivism:Scientific descriptions surely are incomplete and affected by interest, but these are features the objectivist can take on board.  Completeness and objectivity are orthogonal.  Maybe in the end constructivism is true, or as true as a constructivist can consistently allow.  Nevertheless, the thought that the world has determinate objective structures is almost irresistible, and Giere has not ruled out the optimistic view that science is telling us something about them.It is not clear, however, that Giere or other constructivists would be put off by these arguments.  There is no necessary connection between an argument being pleasing and it being true.  Are not descriptions like “irresistible” and “optimistic” some of the very human perspectives Giere was talking about?Who watches the watcher?  Chris Adami, usually known for his evolutionary computing work, reviewed an unusual book by Douglas Hofstadter, I Am a Strange Loop, in Science May 25.2  Hofstadter tried to give a completely materialist explanation of mind:Hofstadter’s explanation of human consciousness is disarmingly simple.  Even though he spends most of the book giving examples and analogies from realms as disparate as particle physics and boxes of envelopes, the main idea is simply that our feeling of a conscious “I” is but an illusion created by our neuronal circuitry: an illusion that is only apparent at the level of symbols and thoughts, in much the same way as the concepts of pressure and temperature are only apparent at the level of 1023 molecules but not the level of single molecules.  In other words, Hofstadter denies consciousness an element of ontological reality, without denying that our thoughts and feelings, pains and longings have an “inner reality” when we have them.  But to show that consciousness is a collective phenomenon of sorts, he needs to delve deep into the theory of computation and, in particular, Austrian mathematician Kurt G�del’s proof of his incompleteness theorem, as these concepts are key to the idea the author wants to convey.  And he does this admirably in a mostly playful manner, choosing carefully constructed analogies more often than mathematical descriptions.Again, however, it is not at all certain a philosopher of another persuasion would be tongue-tied over these arguments.  Playful arguments have no necessary connection with truth.  As skilled and admirable as Hofstadter’s writing might be, he has a fundamental problem explaining consciousness from particulars of neurons.  To do it, he tried to extend G�del’s incompleteness realms upward into unknown territory where each higher realm provides the completion of each lower realm, then wraps in on itself: “Hofstadter suggests, our ability to construct symbols and statements that are about these symbols and statements creates the ‘strange’ reflexive loop of the book’s title out of which our sensation of ‘I’ emerges.”    At this point, Adami (though admiring the book) comes close to bringing the case down with a pointed question:This ambitious program aimed at a deconstruction of our consciousness is not without peril.  For example, if we posit that our consciousness is an illusion created by our thoughts “watching ourselves think” [as the philosopher of mind Daniel Dennett had previously suggested], we might ask “Who watches the watcher?”  Or, if I am hallucinating an “I,” who is hallucinating it?  However, an infinite regress is avoided because on the level of the neuronal circuitry, the impression of having a mind is just another pattern of firings–something consciousness researcher and neuroscientist Christof Koch of the California Institute of Technology calls “the neuronal correlate” of consciousness.Yet is this answer not begging the question?  The issue is whether a mind can be reduced to neurons, yet Adami just stated as a matter of fact that “the impression of having a mind is just another pattern of firings” without arguing for how or why this could be so.    Adami clearly enjoyed the book as a companion to Koch’s The Quest for Consciousness.  He accepted the premise that mind can be expressed as an artifact of neuron firing patterns.  One consequence is that humans should be able to build conscious robots some day.  A second consequence is almost purely metaphysical:Second, the G�delian construction suggests a tantalizing hypothesis, namely that a level of consciousness could exist far beyond human consciousness, on a level once removed from our level of symbols and ideas (which themselves are once removed from the level of neuronal firing patterns).  Indeed, G�del’s construction guarantees that, while statements on the higher level can be patently true but not provable on the lower level, an extension exists that makes the system complete on that higher level.  However, new unprovable statements emerge on the next higher level–that is, on a level that maps an improbable jumble of our thoughts and ideas to, well, something utterly incomprehensible to us, who are stuck at our pedestrian echelon.  How incomprehensible?  At least as inscrutable as the love for Bartok’s second violin concerto is to a single neuron firing away.Thus Adami ends on an irrational leap.  Appeals to higher levels of consciousness that are unknowable from our level, even in principle, beleaguer any attempts to encapsulate mind within a materialist world view.  (And, as a materialist himself, Adami clearly did not intend to suggest that the highest level includes God.)  Claiming such ideas are incomprehensible or inscrutable is no escape if Adami wants to play the philosophy game.  An interlocutor would call it another case of Adami begging his own question: who watches the watcher?last_img read more

Read more on Science Confronts Philosophy, or Vice Versa

Facebook: Again, We’re Not Doing a “Facebook Phone”

first_imgsarah perez Related Posts Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces Tags:#Facebook#mobile#news#NYT#web New rumors about a Facebook-branded phone resurfaced this week. Again, Facebook has shot them down. According to multiplepublications, mobile manufacturer HTC was readying either one or two so-called Facebook phones for launch at next month’s Mobile World Congress event in Barcelona. The smartphones would be the first to display Facebook’s branding and colors, and would offer deep integration with Facebook services.What Was the Rumor?Both BGR and City A.M. published rumors about the upcoming phones, with some hazy details on what the devices would offer. In BGR’s case, the source was a tipster who served on a recent focus group for what he or she believed was a “Facebook phone.” Based on the questions asked during the focus group session, BGR believed the new phone would offer always-on GPS and possibly automatic check-ins, location-aware coupons for Facebook Deals, a ticker-style message notification system on the device’s homescreen and more.City A.M. offered a similar report, noting that the tweaked version of Android on the phones will prominently display Facebook News Feed messages on the homescreen. It would also have integration with Facebook contacts, letting you call or email friends using the contact information they’ve stored on Facebook. City A.M. also identified the manufacturer as HTC.But a Reuters news report from today has squashed these Facebook phone rumors…. yet again. (This isn’t the first time we’ve heard reports of a Facebook-branded device, actually. But last time, the manufacturer was unknown). According to a statement made by Dan Rose, head of business development at Facebook, at a company event in London, “the rumors around there being something more to this HTC device are overblown,” he said. He also flatly denied the phones would support Facebook branding.But HTC is Doing Its Own Facebook Phone?So, wait. Rewind. HTC is launching a phone (or phones) featuring deep Facebook integration?Apparently so. “This is really just another example of a manufacturer who has taken our public APIs (application programing interfaces) and integrated them into their device in an interesting way,” Rose said, which essentially confirms that this device (or devices) do exist and that HTC is behind them.But you just can’t call it a “Facebook phone” because Facebook didn’t make the phone itself. And it’s not blue. And there’s no Facebook logo on it.The phones, the earlier reports say, will be unveiled next month. And both the older and newer reports say that two top-level Facebook engineers, Joe Hewitt and Matthew Papakipos, are involved. We’ll have to wait until next month to find out what the truth is, it seems.center_img What it Takes to Build a Highly Secure FinTech … Role of Mobile App Analytics In-App Engagement The Rise and Rise of Mobile Payment Technologylast_img read more

Read more on Facebook: Again, We’re Not Doing a “Facebook Phone”

Würth: control plant growth selectively with artificial light

first_img Continue Reading Previous Vecow: Coffee Lake based workstation-grade fanless Embedded systemNext Kontron: XMC mezzanine card features 1.2TFlop GPGPU from AMD Würth Elektronik eiSos presents WL-SMDC – the new mono-color ceramic LEDs for SMT assembly – optimally tailored to requirements in artificially illuminated greenhouses. Besides manufacturing products in the common colors of blue, yellow, green and red, these LEDs are also available in the wavelengths 450 nm (Deep Blue), 660 nm (Hyper Red) and 730 nm (Far Red). The emissions spectra of these horticulture LEDs correlates optimally with the absorption spectra of plant photosynthesis pigments.The horticulture LEDs from Würth Elektronik eiSos are distinguished by high efficiency and brightness, as well as by outstanding PPF values – the Photosynthetic Photon Flux determines the energy that plants can draw from LED light. The LEDs have a low thermal resistance, an electrically neutral heat path and also offer convincing advantages through their small package size (3535) and low power loss.While red and blue light provides plants with the most energy, different wavelengths control other growth processes. This fact is used in plant breeding with a controllable individual “light mix”. For instance, far red light (720-740 nm) in the infrared spectrum influences germination. This wavelength range can shorten the flowering time of plants, and promote elongation growth. The horticulture LEDs from Würth Elektronik eiSos provide manufacturers of horticultural lighting systems with LED selection and configuration to optimally match light spectra to certain plants. All articles of the WL-SMDC series are available from stock. Free samples are available on request.Share this:TwitterFacebookLinkedInMoreRedditTumblrPinterestWhatsAppSkypePocketTelegram Tags: Chips & Components last_img read more

Read more on Würth: control plant growth selectively with artificial light

10 months agoDONE DEAL: Barnsley sign Fulham striker Cauley Woodrow

first_imgDONE DEAL: Barnsley sign Fulham striker Cauley Woodrowby Paul Vegas10 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveBarnsley have signed Fulham striker Cauley Woodrow on loan until January, when the deal will become permanent.The 23-year-old scored eight times in 54 league appearances for the Craven Cottage side.The former England Under-21 international also had loan spells with Southend, Burton and Bristol City.Woodrow, who could make his debut against Scunthorpe on Saturday, will replace Tom Bradshaw after he joined Millwall on Thursday. TagsTransfersAbout the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your saylast_img read more

Read more on 10 months agoDONE DEAL: Barnsley sign Fulham striker Cauley Woodrow

9 months agoValencia coach Marcelino accepts he’s under pressure

first_imgTagsTransfersAbout the authorCarlos VolcanoShare the loveHave your say Valencia coach Marcelino accepts he’s under pressureby Carlos Volcano9 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveValencia coach Marcelino accepts his job is under review.Los Che drew 1-1 at home to Real Valladolid at the weekend, heaping more pressure on the head coach.”My job strengthens me and it gives me comfort,” he said. “I do not feel anything else because we are not winning at the moment and all I want to do is win.”I have never been given an ultimatum; it is a personal matter.”We are winners and when we do not win, we cause disappointment.”The other day [against Valladolid], we deserved to win but we just were not capable of turning it into a victory.”That is what saddens me the most.”It has happened to us a lot just lately and when it happens frequently, we begin to feel disillusioned.”I was already aware of the meeting before the game and I am not worried because if the owner decides he wants to get rid of the coaching staff then there is nothing I can do about it and I have to respect his decision.”I am convinced that we are on the right track and because of that I am optimistic and confident that our luck will soon change.”We have scored 17 goals from 263 chances.”This is something that has to change; it cannot last forever.” last_img read more

Read more on 9 months agoValencia coach Marcelino accepts he’s under pressure

Ohio State mens basketball grinds out overtime victory over Akron in NIT

OSU freshman guard JaQuan Lyle (13) scans the floor during a Big Ten tournament game against Penn State on March 10 in Indianapolis.Credit: Samantha Hollingshead | Photo EditorThe Ohio State men’s basketball team took just over 40 minutes to find a sliver of rhythm against the Akron Zips in the first round of the National Invitational Tournament.After a back-and-forth physical battle riddled with sloppy play and field-goal percentages hovering around a meager 30, the five minutes allotted in overtime was the narrow time window the Buckeyes needed to advance in postseason play.OSU held the Zips to just one point in the extra period, while redshirt sophomore guard Kam Williams led the offensive charge over the course of the second half and overtime. The Buckeyes’ focus during the extra period pushed the team into the second round of the NIT with a 72-63 victory at the Schottenstein Center.“They were very competitive, and it was a game down to the wire where I felt like we showed a little bit of growth,” said OSU junior forward Marc Loving. “I felt like at times this season we might’ve lost that game.”Loving, who recorded the sixth double-double of his career, was one of three Buckeyes who finished with 18 points on the night. Williams added 18 points as well as five rebounds, while freshman guard JaQuan Lyle also registered a double-double with 18 points and 14 rebounds.“We felt like there was a lot of room for us to play our style of basketball,” Lyle said. “We really didn’t have much pace on offense, and we really weren’t disrupting them on the defensive side as much as we wanted to.”Lyle’s comments were primarily true to the first half of the game. The team’s six lowest-scoring halves this season all occurred during the first 20 minutes of gameplay, with one of those periods taking place against Akron on Tuesday.While OSU struggled early on to close out possessions down low and outside, the Buckeye bigs constantly challenged the boards to keep Akron within striking distance, totaling 57 rebounds. The problem was with following through and finishing.The two teams combined to begin the game shooting 2-of-14 from the field, but the Buckeyes eventually pushed through the lethargic start to find their momentum later on in the contest.“We were a little bit shaky at the beginning, and I thought we did a pretty decent job of playing through that,” said OSU coach Thad Matta.However, despite collecting 18 offensive boards as a team, the Buckeyes only managed to muster up 12 second-chance points, two fewer than the Zips. In a postseason game in which neither team led by more than single digits, missing multiple scoring opportunities during a single possession usually spells out defeat.Heading into halftime with a 29-25 deficit, there was very little room for error on either side.OSU struggled to break the 20-point threshold throughout the course of the first half, but some minor halftime adjustments led to the Buckeyes outscoring Akron by 13 points over the final 25 minutes of the contest.“I thought they did a great job of closing the game out,” Matta said.With just over two minutes left in the second half, Lyle came up with arguably the game’s most important two-way play. After a 3-pointer by Akron senior forward Reggie McAdams put the Zips up by two points with just under three minutes left in regulation, Lyle stole the ball from senior guard Jake Kretzer and took it down to the other end to tie the game.“To have something like that disappear from your lineup that fast, the next man has to step up, and we all had to contribute in a different way,” Loving said.Despite falling short to the Buckeyes, Akron’s night consisted of a trifecta of effective players. The sharpshooting abilities of McAdams and Kretzer helped to combine for seven converted threes.Although the Zips shot just over 21 percent from beyond the arc, Akron junior center Isaiah Johnson added a more physical presence to the team’s contrasting perimeter play. Johnson tallied 16 points and 12 rebounds on the night, but that was not enough to offset the team’s uncharacteristic struggles from beyond the arc.“If you would’ve told me we would shoot 9-of-42 from three with the shots we got, I would tell you I’d be surprised,” said Akron coach Keith Dambrot. “That probably was a determining factor.”Even though OSU was sluggish at times, too, Akron’s inability to garner extended momentum might have been trifled by the team’s recent schedule. The Zips competed in their fourth contest in six days Tuesday, but Dambrot was not going to let possible fatigue excuse the team of a loss.Dambrot said after the game he still believes his team had the talent and discipline necessary to knock off a major school like OSU.“I felt like we should’ve won the game,” Dambrot said. “If we play up to our capabilities and they play up to their capabilities, I have enough respect for my team to think we should’ve won the game.”Williams, Matta’s usual sixth man, stepped in as a starter in aid of sophomore forward Keita Bates-Diop, who was held out of Tuesday’s contest with an undisclosed illness. Even though Williams was starting his first collegiate game against the Zips, he did not succumb to the pressure.The Buckeyes are next set to host the Florida Gators on Sunday in the second round of the NIT. Tipoff is slated for noon at the Schottenstein Center. read more

Read more on Ohio State mens basketball grinds out overtime victory over Akron in NIT

Womens basketball OSU South Carolina matchup will feature two of the best

OSU then-sophomore guard Asia Doss (20) defends during a game against Northwestern on Jan. 28 at the Schottenstein Center. Credit: Lantern file photoOn Nov. 13, 2015, the OSU women’s basketball team opened its 2015-16 season with an 88-80 road loss to the South Carolina Gamecocks. Just over a year later, the Buckeyes will get a chance at revenge.OSU will host the Gamecocks on Monday in a battle between two of college basketball’s best. South Carolina currently sits at No. 4 in the Associated Press Top 25 Poll with the Buckeyes close behind at No. 7.“We know we’re going to be in for a real battle,” OSU coach Kevin McGuff said.Tipoff in Columbus will serve as the season opener for the Gamecocks. In its only exhibition match on Nov. 6, South Carolina downed Benedict College by a score of 120-49.A season ago, the Gamecocks went 33-2 with an 11-0 record on the road. The team’s only loss in the regular season came to the eventual-champion UConn Huskies at home, snapping South Carolina’s perfect 22-0 record. The Gamecocks also fell 80-72 to Syracuse in the Sweet 16 of the NCAA tournament to end its season.South Carolina has lost seven players from last year’s team. Guards Khadijah Sessions, Tina Roy and Tiffany Mitchell, and forwards Sarah Imovbioh and Asia Dozier have graduated, and forwards Jatarie White and India Farmer have departed from the program as well.With the losses, South Carolina lost 37.7 points per game on offense, good for 47.9 percent of the team’s scoring a season ago.Despite the roster turnover, the Gamecocks still possess plenty of talent. Two of South Carolina’s top-three scorers from a season ago have returned. Junior forward A’ja Wilson led the team in scoring at 16.1 points per game and senior center Alaina Coates contributed 12.1 points and a team-high 10.3 rebounds per game.Three ESPN top-100 prospects have joined as true freshman. 5-foot-10 point guard Tyasha Harris (No. 28), 5-foot-6 point guard Araion Bradshaw (No. 33) and 6-foot-2 forward Mikiah Harrigan (No. 72) will join 5-foot-8 guard Victoria Patrick to form the Gamecocks’ talented new class.Former Kentucky forward Alexis Jennings, who put up 10 points and 7.1 rebounds per game for the Wildcats in 2015-16, has transferred into the program and will sit out the entirety of the 2016-17 season.“They have an absolutely loaded roster with talent,” McGuff said. “I have great respect for them.”The Buckeyes have no shortage of talent on its roster, either, and this year’s team figures to be in a more favorable position than a year ago.“We’ve got a little more depth,” McGuff said. “We’ve got a little more size and physicality around the basket.”In last season’s matchup between the two teams, the Buckeyes got 36 points from then-sophomore guard Kelsey Mitchell and 23 from then-senior guard Ameryst Alston. The rest of the team combined for just 21 points.The main difference in the contest was the play of the bigs. Wilson led the Gamecocks with 20 points and 14 rebounds and Coates added 17 points and 13 boards. OSU got just eight points out of its forwards and center, but the group did grab 33 rebounds.The Buckeyes will now be able to balance the Gamecocks’ post play with the addition of redshirt junior forward Stephanie Mavunga, who put up 15 points and 14 rebounds in OSU’s season opener against Duquesne.OSU looked like a much better all-around team against Duquesne than they did in its exhibition win over Ashland, but Mavunga knows the team must be even better to compete with South Carolina.“We need to still get better defensively and get better with rebounding,” Mavunga said. “We need to communicate a little bit more, but I think we’re headed towards the right direction.”The matchup itself is something that McGuff believes is a positive for women’s college basketball.“It’s a great opportunity and it’s great for our game,” McGuff said. “There needs to be more games like this in women’s basketball in November just to create some excitement.”Tipoff is set for 6:00 p.m. on Monday at Value City Arena. read more

Read more on Womens basketball OSU South Carolina matchup will feature two of the best

Onesided Bucks try to continue dominance of Cats

The No. 13 Ohio Sate field hockey team looks to finish its season strong against No. 20 Northwestern Saturday.The Buckeyes seek their first Big Ten road win of the season when they travel to Evanston, Ill. The Buckeyes are 0-2 on the road in conference play, having lost to Penn State and Michigan State.The Buckeyes will face a Wildcat team that has struggled through the Big Ten season, posting a record of 1-4. Past meetings between the conference foes have been dominated by the Buckeyes, who have won the last 21 contests. The Buckeyes have shut out the Wildcats in their past three meetings.Saturday’s game will be Senior Day for the Wildcats, who are are led by seniors Courtney Plaster-Strange and Elizabeth Dobbs. The duo is second and third in points, respectively. The Buckeyes need a victory over Northwestern to remain in second place in the Big Ten. A loss would open the door for Indiana to take control of second place in the conference. The Hoosiers travel to Ann Arbor to face Michigan Saturday.The Big Ten standings are critical as the conference tournament starts Nov. 5. in East Lansing on Michigan State’s campus. Michigan State has already secured the top seed in the conference tournament and the first round bye. The Buckeyes will earn either the second or third seed, depending on the results of Saturday’s games.The first round of the tournament is Nov. 5, followed by the semifinals on Nov. 6 and the finals Nov. 8.Last year’s Buckeye squad made a run to the conference championship game before falling to Iowa, 2-1, in overtime.Since that loss, many players, including seniors Lindsay Quintiliani and Natalia Ciminello, said winning the Big Ten is the team’s number one goal. While Michigan State has already clinched the regular season, the tournament championship is still up for grabs.If the Buckeyes achieve their goal and win the Big Ten tournament, they will receive an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. If they fall short, they will look to earn an at-large bid.The NCAA tournament begins Nov. 14, when the Buckeyes will look to achieve another team goal — a trip to the final four. read more

Read more on Onesided Bucks try to continue dominance of Cats

Gallery Rose Bowl Game vs Washington

Fans walk into Rose Bowl Stadium prior to the start of the Rose Bowl featuring Ohio State and Washington on Jan 1 in Pasadena, Calif. Credit: Casey Cascaldo | Photo Editor PASADENA, Calif. – The Ohio State Buckeyes faced off against the Washington Huskies in the 105th Rose Bowl Game in Pasadena, Calif. on Jan. 1. Ohio State won 28-23. Photos by Casey Cascaldo

Read more on Gallery Rose Bowl Game vs Washington