Conference USA’s second-best team, the UAB Blazers, lead 43-41 at halftime against #1-ranked, undefeated Memphis. UAB is at home.

UPDATE: Memphis survives, 79-78, rallying from down 7 with 1:30 left to win on a basket in the closing seconds. I wasn’t watching, but it sounds like a very exciting finish.

UPDATE 2: I wasn’t kidding. From the AP:

Chris Douglas-Roberts converted a three-point play with 6.5 seconds left, giving No. 1 Memphis a 79-78 win over UAB Saturday night to keep the Tigers’ hopes for regular-season perfection intact.

The Blazers’ Robert Vaden then missed badly on an off-balance 3-point attempt and Lawrence Kinnard grabbed the long rebound. He heaved up a shot in the paint that went in, and officials promptly headed to the scorer’s table to watch replays.

They ruled that Kinnard didn’t get the shot off in time.

Several Memphis players had angry exchanges with UAB fans who stormed the court celebrating what they thought was a win.

Argh:

Clinton’s ace-in-the-hole delegate counter, Harold Ickes…[a]cknowledges [the] campaign perhaps should have done more in caucus states, but belittles Obama wins in places like Idaho — says they aren’t general election battlegrounds.

No, they aren’t. And neither are California, Massachusetts or New Jersey — Hillary’s supposed “big wins” on Super Tuesday. Is Ickes seriously suggesting that Obama would lose those states in November? The same goes for New York, another of Hillary’s large-state victories.

On the flip side, although Bill won Arkansas in the 1992 and 1996 general elections, I think it would be a stretch to believe that Hillary can. Just as CA, MA, NJ and NY are rock-solid blue, AR is rock-solid red. The same goes for Tennessee and Oklahoma, also much-ballyhooed “big wins” for Hillary. These states are all little more than glorified Idahos.

So, in sum, that’s seven Clinton wins that came in states that aren’t “general-election battlegrounds,” and therefore are not “significant,” according to Ickes/Penn logic.

Even if we ignore the fact that this whole argument is transparently bogus — winning a primary in a given state does not mean you’ll win the general election there, and likewise, losing a primary doesn’t imply that you’ll lose the general — the Clintons’ argument defeats itself, on its own terms. To wit:

Excluding, as any intellectually honest person must, the states where both candidates agreed, in advance, that the primary didn’t count… Hillary has won exactly two true “swing states” (New Hampshire and New Mexico), plus two “red states” that you could potentially see a Democrat competing in (Nevada and Arizona). Obama has also won two true “swing states” (Iowa and Missouri) and two “red states” that you could see a Democrat competing in (Colorado and Virginia).

So, the candidates are doing equally well in this (meaningless) statistic… unless you tally up the electoral votes in their respective “general election battlegrounds,” in which case Obama is way ahead, 40 to 24. Are you listening, Harold?

Likewise, if you look at their popular-vote margins in those states’ primaries, Obama wins by a mile, 16.7% to 4.4%. Or, if you prefer raw totals, it’s still Obama in a romp. We have to throw out Iowa and Nevada, since those states don’t report actual vote totals, but Obama’s combined margin of 322,745 votes in MO, CO and VA dwarfs Hillary’s combined margin of 42,604 votes in NM, NH and AZ.

So… what is Harold Ickes’s point, exactly?

Pete Carroll and new UCLA football coach Rick Neuheisel have reportedly reached an agreement that will allow the Bruins and Trojans to renew the old tradition of both wearing their home jerseys when they play each other.

Sweet.

The Daily Bruin and Bruins Nation have more. (Hat tip: Doc and Chris Newbury.)