I have to admit, I am not much of a basketball fan to begin with. No surprise there for people who have read my posts before. But this final four matchup between all four #1 seeds has to be one of the most boring set of game matchups in recent history. NOT because the talent and level of play will not be good, and NOT because the game will be lacking in competitiveness. I think all of that will be extremely good. But honestly, there just is not much there that is intriguing or interesting.
Without question, there will be a LOT of future NBA talent on the floor this weekend. And the styles of play, along with the execution will be at a very high level. So, if you are a purist of the game of basketball, and just love the game itself, this weekend will be very interesting for you. And very fun to watch. Because these four teams have a great deal of talent.
But if you are just a leisure fan of the game of basketball, and are not a fan of any of the schools that are in the final four, this weekend holds very little interest for you.
I mean really, UNC vs KU and Memphis vs UCLA. Ho hum. In all fairness, because I am in an online bracket game, I will definitely find out what the outcomes of those games are, but I will not be watching. I just have no interest in those 4 teams, and because of this being the first full weekend of major league baseball, I will be occupied watching those games.
I think from the NCAA's point of view, and the point of view of many sports wonks, these matchups fall into the category of "great for college basketball". Ok, I will give them that, considering I have no idea what "great for college basketball" really means. That they were right in picking the 4 teams seeded #1 to get to the final four? So, "great" means they are "great" at picking winners?
All I can say is that there is very little interest because most people, who are not afficionado's of the game of college basketball, only will watch when there is some type of "underdog" chance of making it into the championship game. Otherwise, it is the "cast of usual suspects". And that just has not real interest for most of us.
Now, having said all of that, I would have been ecstatic to see Lousville in the final four...absolutely! That is the team I cheer for. But once they were bounced, and I saw the other 3 teams matched up, I just lost interest.
In any case, I am sure it will be a very competitive and exciting tournament for the sports wonks, fans of the teams, and the college basketball fan who can not get enough, but for the rest of us, this weekend holds a LOT more options. Not just baseball, but also two of the major Derby prep races are going on this weekend. The Wood and the Santa Anita.
So, enjoy the games if you are going to watch, but if you are not interested, take refuge in the fact that there are other sporting events that you can get into.
Showing posts with label College Basketball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label College Basketball. Show all posts
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
2nd round NCAA thoughts...
After the 1st round of the NCAA tourney, I maintained that the Big East has proven that it is the best conference in the nation. Primarily on the strength of the Be going 7-1 in the first round. While the 2nd round of the tourney saw four of those teams fall, including both the BE tourney champions Pittsburgh, and the regular season champs Georgetown, I still believe that. Only the PAC-10, which is now tied with the BE in terms of teams heading into the round of 16 has any other claim to that statement.
But even with that, I still contend the Big East is the better conference. Marquette was a defensive stop or a missed front end of a 1&1, or a missed layup away from taking down the #2 PAC-10 team, Stanford, and the Golden Eagles finished 5th in the Big East conference.
However, I will say that the top of the PAC-10 is looking much stronger and better than the top 2-5 of the Big East, because of the two head to head matchups, where while Stanford just squeeked by Marquette, Washington State just destroyed Notre Dame.
At the same time, some local sports wonks have been touting the Big-12 as being much stronger.
And yet in the head to head matchups in that regard between the BE and the B12, the BE has destroyed their one opponent. And while there is another chance to see that matchup, it is extremely doubtful whether a Villanova team that just barely made it into the tourney will be able to knock off the B12 champion in Kansas.
But, then again, not many people nationwide would have ever picked Davidson over Georgetown, or WKU over UConn, either.
But one thing we do know for sure, and most would agree with: the ACC and the SEC are just AWFUL; and have been all year, despite what "Dookie" V and Jay Bilas have to say about it.
But even with that, I still contend the Big East is the better conference. Marquette was a defensive stop or a missed front end of a 1&1, or a missed layup away from taking down the #2 PAC-10 team, Stanford, and the Golden Eagles finished 5th in the Big East conference.
However, I will say that the top of the PAC-10 is looking much stronger and better than the top 2-5 of the Big East, because of the two head to head matchups, where while Stanford just squeeked by Marquette, Washington State just destroyed Notre Dame.
At the same time, some local sports wonks have been touting the Big-12 as being much stronger.
And yet in the head to head matchups in that regard between the BE and the B12, the BE has destroyed their one opponent. And while there is another chance to see that matchup, it is extremely doubtful whether a Villanova team that just barely made it into the tourney will be able to knock off the B12 champion in Kansas.
But, then again, not many people nationwide would have ever picked Davidson over Georgetown, or WKU over UConn, either.
But one thing we do know for sure, and most would agree with: the ACC and the SEC are just AWFUL; and have been all year, despite what "Dookie" V and Jay Bilas have to say about it.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
1st round of NCAA tourney over...BE big winner
Here is the fact. The current field of 65 teams in the NCAA tournament have been whittled down over 4 days to just 32, and after today and tomorrow that will be down to just 16.
Of those 32 still standing, 7 of those teams are from the Big East conference. The best winning percentage of all of the conferences. And were it not for a late overtime last second shot, the Big East might have had all 8 of their 8 teams move into the 2nd round.
And what is even more impressive is that the Big East teams are doing it the way they have done it all year in the conference. With NASTY, stifling, suffocating defense that just grinds opponents down and into confusion, and dominating the backboards.
Without question the Big East has proven that it is THE best college basketball conference in the nation. Bar none.
Fans of opposing conferences and sports media wonks nationwide can talk about conference RPI and Sagarin ratings all they want, and how the PAC-10 was a 'better' conference, or that the ACC had the 'best' two teams. The Big East has proven it where it matters most. On the court, against the best competition in the nation.
Will the Big East continue to do that? Honestly, probably not. But when one conference makes up almost 25% of the TOTAL top 32 teams in the nation, can anyone deny that the Big East is THE best conference in the nation?
The facts do not lie. Especially when you consider how close, tight, lucky, or downright awful, some of the other conferences teams have played against competition that they were supposedly much better than. I.e. Duke vs Belmont, Vanderbuilt vs Siena.
Again, I doubt whether the Big East will be able to continue that pace, primarily because the competition against some of the more elite "teams" in the nation will force that number down. But that does not dilute the fact of how strong the Big East conference has proven itself. And that was proven by the fact that all but one of the game that Big East teams played were really even close. (Sorry UK fans, but without a superman effort by ONE player, (Joe Crawford), that game against Marquette was not even close.)
The Big East IS the BEAST of college basketball, and no one can deny that now.
Of those 32 still standing, 7 of those teams are from the Big East conference. The best winning percentage of all of the conferences. And were it not for a late overtime last second shot, the Big East might have had all 8 of their 8 teams move into the 2nd round.
And what is even more impressive is that the Big East teams are doing it the way they have done it all year in the conference. With NASTY, stifling, suffocating defense that just grinds opponents down and into confusion, and dominating the backboards.
Without question the Big East has proven that it is THE best college basketball conference in the nation. Bar none.
Fans of opposing conferences and sports media wonks nationwide can talk about conference RPI and Sagarin ratings all they want, and how the PAC-10 was a 'better' conference, or that the ACC had the 'best' two teams. The Big East has proven it where it matters most. On the court, against the best competition in the nation.
Will the Big East continue to do that? Honestly, probably not. But when one conference makes up almost 25% of the TOTAL top 32 teams in the nation, can anyone deny that the Big East is THE best conference in the nation?
The facts do not lie. Especially when you consider how close, tight, lucky, or downright awful, some of the other conferences teams have played against competition that they were supposedly much better than. I.e. Duke vs Belmont, Vanderbuilt vs Siena.
Again, I doubt whether the Big East will be able to continue that pace, primarily because the competition against some of the more elite "teams" in the nation will force that number down. But that does not dilute the fact of how strong the Big East conference has proven itself. And that was proven by the fact that all but one of the game that Big East teams played were really even close. (Sorry UK fans, but without a superman effort by ONE player, (Joe Crawford), that game against Marquette was not even close.)
The Big East IS the BEAST of college basketball, and no one can deny that now.
Monday, March 17, 2008
NCAA selection changing criteria again
Ok, it is less than 24 hours since we learned of the pairings for the yearly NCAA basketball tournament. And every year we have a large controversy as to who got in, and who did not. This year the major discussion of who did not centers around mostly, Virginia Tech, Dayton, Arizona State and Illinois State. All of the talking heads on ESPN are throwing out great arguments as to why those 3 teams deserve to be in, and maybe why this team or that team should not be in.
Every year at the beginning of the season we hear from every available news source that the RPI, (or basketball Ratings Percentage Index), is THE major determining factor as to what team gets into and is left out of the tournament. And some years that works. But looking at this year, that argument does not hold water.
And that is the whole problem with the selection process. It is not quantitative by any known measure. It is purely and completely subjective based on the makeup of the selection committee in any particular year! Now, I would be ok with that, IF the NCAA selection committee were forced to do two things:
1) Before meeting publish the criteria by which the committee will be using to determine the selections. Even if it is only a few days before they meet to do the selection.
2) Fully disclose how the voting went based on that criteria.
That would, I believe, take all of the debate as to "why" a team did or did not make it, and would just shift the debate by the sports media wonks to disagreement. That would be fine.
But as it stands no one has ANY idea how this process ends up with its decisions. The committee chair told ESPN last night that it was the "overall body of work", while last year it was the "overall RPI and schedule". Which clearly indicates that the criteria is shifting from year to year.
Because if the criteria from last year were applied to this year, then teams like Kentucky, Oregon and Kansas St, would NEVER have been selected over any of the teams I mentioned above. And some would counter that UK, UO and KSU had tougher schedules, as shown by the SOS. Wrong! They did not. Not over teams like Ohio State, Virginia Tech and Dayton. So that argument does not hold water either. (BTW, here is the source of my information: Realtime RPI)
What I have learned over the years is that the NCAA selection committee is not unbiased and wants all of the obfuscation it can get every year in the selection process so that they can reward some conferences and punish others. Anytime you can get people arguing over why this team or that team did or did not get in, it deflects them from asking the more pertinent questions. Questions that would back the committee into defending their positions, rather than giving some off the cuff nebulous criteria answer. An answer such as what we had yesterday from the committee chairman.
Every year at the beginning of the season we hear from every available news source that the RPI, (or basketball Ratings Percentage Index), is THE major determining factor as to what team gets into and is left out of the tournament. And some years that works. But looking at this year, that argument does not hold water.
And that is the whole problem with the selection process. It is not quantitative by any known measure. It is purely and completely subjective based on the makeup of the selection committee in any particular year! Now, I would be ok with that, IF the NCAA selection committee were forced to do two things:
1) Before meeting publish the criteria by which the committee will be using to determine the selections. Even if it is only a few days before they meet to do the selection.
2) Fully disclose how the voting went based on that criteria.
That would, I believe, take all of the debate as to "why" a team did or did not make it, and would just shift the debate by the sports media wonks to disagreement. That would be fine.
But as it stands no one has ANY idea how this process ends up with its decisions. The committee chair told ESPN last night that it was the "overall body of work", while last year it was the "overall RPI and schedule". Which clearly indicates that the criteria is shifting from year to year.
Because if the criteria from last year were applied to this year, then teams like Kentucky, Oregon and Kansas St, would NEVER have been selected over any of the teams I mentioned above. And some would counter that UK, UO and KSU had tougher schedules, as shown by the SOS. Wrong! They did not. Not over teams like Ohio State, Virginia Tech and Dayton. So that argument does not hold water either. (BTW, here is the source of my information: Realtime RPI)
What I have learned over the years is that the NCAA selection committee is not unbiased and wants all of the obfuscation it can get every year in the selection process so that they can reward some conferences and punish others. Anytime you can get people arguing over why this team or that team did or did not get in, it deflects them from asking the more pertinent questions. Questions that would back the committee into defending their positions, rather than giving some off the cuff nebulous criteria answer. An answer such as what we had yesterday from the committee chairman.
Friday, March 14, 2008
The college basketball post season is here!
Now that the conference post season tournaments are in full swing, it is the one time of year that I truly can not get enough college basketball. But maybe not for the reason you think...or even you do.
What I love most about the post season basketball tournaments are, the day games. This really, for me, is a throw-back to when I was a kid in grade school and the baseball World Series was played during the days. During those late october afternoons, every boy in my school had a dad, uncle, or even much older brother, who would call up the school during lunchtime and offer some really lame excuse about some type of "family problem", so that they would have come get "little Johnny" and take them home. After, of course, using even a dumber and MUCH lamer excuse on their bosses at work, so that they did not go in all day and spent most of the morning at the bars, talking about the upcoming pitching matchups. Of course, more often than not, the guy sitting across the table arguing why so-and-so pitcher was better than yours was often your dad's/uncle's boss anyway. (As if THEY would miss the game, and did not know what the real reason was they were not at work.) Then your dad/uncle/brother would drive to school, and having pulled us out of normally a packed nurse's room of boys with stomach aches and other assorted ailments, we would all pile in the back of a one dad's stationwagon and sneak off to the local bar to watch the game. At that, the bartenders and owners had NO fear of reprisal from local authorities about kids in a bar, because literally half the bar was cops, government officials, or some other authority figure of renown.
It was truly a "guy moment"!
With TV deals of the World Series putting EVERY game on at night, those days are long over. But, we can still have this type of "guy bonding" with our kids today every time the college basketball world begins dribbling out the clock beginning in mid-March.
And there is very little chance this will go away anytime soon as a result of TV deals. The shear volume of games and teams playing pretty much assures that. The only real crisis being when is your "favorite team" playing? And are there interesting matchups that you want to watch?
Yeah, yeah, I know. A LOT of guys can not do this sort of thing for fear of mad bosses who only have a nose for the bottomline and no life, can watch and/or listen to these afternoon games over the Internet in the comfort of their Dilbert cube. But that just does not have the "style points" of coming up with lame excuses and pulling your kids out of school just to watch a game together.
So as we head into the NCAA tournament this year, I say all of us sweatsock, armchair athletes, take some time, grab your kid and hustle off to the nearest "family friendly watering hole" and catch an afternoon game once. You and your kid will remember it for a long, long time.
What I love most about the post season basketball tournaments are, the day games. This really, for me, is a throw-back to when I was a kid in grade school and the baseball World Series was played during the days. During those late october afternoons, every boy in my school had a dad, uncle, or even much older brother, who would call up the school during lunchtime and offer some really lame excuse about some type of "family problem", so that they would have come get "little Johnny" and take them home. After, of course, using even a dumber and MUCH lamer excuse on their bosses at work, so that they did not go in all day and spent most of the morning at the bars, talking about the upcoming pitching matchups. Of course, more often than not, the guy sitting across the table arguing why so-and-so pitcher was better than yours was often your dad's/uncle's boss anyway. (As if THEY would miss the game, and did not know what the real reason was they were not at work.) Then your dad/uncle/brother would drive to school, and having pulled us out of normally a packed nurse's room of boys with stomach aches and other assorted ailments, we would all pile in the back of a one dad's stationwagon and sneak off to the local bar to watch the game. At that, the bartenders and owners had NO fear of reprisal from local authorities about kids in a bar, because literally half the bar was cops, government officials, or some other authority figure of renown.
It was truly a "guy moment"!
With TV deals of the World Series putting EVERY game on at night, those days are long over. But, we can still have this type of "guy bonding" with our kids today every time the college basketball world begins dribbling out the clock beginning in mid-March.
And there is very little chance this will go away anytime soon as a result of TV deals. The shear volume of games and teams playing pretty much assures that. The only real crisis being when is your "favorite team" playing? And are there interesting matchups that you want to watch?
Yeah, yeah, I know. A LOT of guys can not do this sort of thing for fear of mad bosses who only have a nose for the bottomline and no life, can watch and/or listen to these afternoon games over the Internet in the comfort of their Dilbert cube. But that just does not have the "style points" of coming up with lame excuses and pulling your kids out of school just to watch a game together.
So as we head into the NCAA tournament this year, I say all of us sweatsock, armchair athletes, take some time, grab your kid and hustle off to the nearest "family friendly watering hole" and catch an afternoon game once. You and your kid will remember it for a long, long time.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Center of college basketball...state of Tennessee??
Here we sit with only two weeks to go in the regular season of college basketball for the 2007-2008 season, and we need to take stock of some major shifts that have occurred this year.
With all due respect to UL, UK and IU fans who believe that the states of Kentucky and Indiana are the birthplace of college basketball; and to all of the Duke and UNC fans who know with their heart and soul that THEIR schools refined college basketball to be the center of it for the nation; and to all of the sports media wonks who believe that if basketball is not played on tobacco road, in the gyms of the mid-west, the streets of the northeast and the beach strips of the west coast, I have some shocking news.
The BEST basketball being played in the nation, is right there in Tennessee!! Yes, Tennessee.
Take a look at the most recent AP top-25 poll for factual evidence of that.
Not only are UT and Memphis University, (MU), sitting atop the poll still at the #1 & #2 spots, but coming in at #18 is Vanderbilt. The only other state that can say they have 3 schools in the top-25 is Indiana, with IU (#12), Purdue (#16), and Notre Dame (#17). But it is hard to make that case that the basketball is better there when the top two teams in the nation just flipped-flopped their positions without dropping after UT ended Memphis' bid to remain unbeaten in the regular season.
Sorry, Dookie Vitale and all of the Cameron crazies, but your blue devils are nothing more than devil cake dessert afterthoughts in the national rankings.
To the UNC fans: what can I say? With all of that sticky substance on your heels, no wonder your feet are dragging on the national college dribbling scene!
To UK and UL fans: Sorry, but the national attention just does not care about either one of you right now, no matter how many banners are in your rafters, or how much of a national presence your coach may have.
The question becomes, when did the state of TN eclipse all of these other bastions of basketball supremecy? How did it happen?
The truth is that all of these schools in TN have very steadily building their programs to this outcome. Both Memphis and Vandy have been known for years as "good" programs. But with little else in the way of revenue generating sports, and with both schools having to compete with pro sports in their home locations, the schools decided to throw all of their attention to building their men's basketball programs to compete on the national level for NCAA titles and top-25 rankings. Both after wallowing in some obscurity for a long period.
UT however is a newcomer on the stage. And you have to give the UT AD a ton of credit. After watching UF figure out ways to leverage their dominating national college football program, UT's AD decided to "keep up with the Jones", and put as much effort into the men's basketball program, as UT has done in both women's basketball and football.
And that brings up the next point, it is not ONLY men's basketball that the state of TN is dominating in. But also women's basketball as well. The UT women's program has been a powerhouse for years. But looking again at this week's AP standings and you again see TWO state of TN universities chiming in, in the top 25. UT Lady Vol's at the #3 spot and the Vandy women's team at #23. Yeah, yeah, I KNOW all of you Duke and UNC fans are going to start thumping about how both of your women's programs are also in the top-25 as well. UNC #2 and Duke #12. But I am talking about total programs for the state here, where the state of TN tops NC in that regard. And if you look a little closer you will also notice that in the "Others receiving votes", that Chattanooga's women's basketball team received 4 votes in the AP poll, and are close to breaking into that top-25. Which would again give the state 3 teams in both men's and women's programs spots in the AP top-25 polls.
The question becomes though, is this a trend? Can the state of TN continue to put teams into the top 25 year after year? That only time will tell. But one thing is for certain: at least for now, the state of TN is THE center of the NCAA college basketball universe.
With all due respect to UL, UK and IU fans who believe that the states of Kentucky and Indiana are the birthplace of college basketball; and to all of the Duke and UNC fans who know with their heart and soul that THEIR schools refined college basketball to be the center of it for the nation; and to all of the sports media wonks who believe that if basketball is not played on tobacco road, in the gyms of the mid-west, the streets of the northeast and the beach strips of the west coast, I have some shocking news.
The BEST basketball being played in the nation, is right there in Tennessee!! Yes, Tennessee.
Take a look at the most recent AP top-25 poll for factual evidence of that.
Not only are UT and Memphis University, (MU), sitting atop the poll still at the #1 & #2 spots, but coming in at #18 is Vanderbilt. The only other state that can say they have 3 schools in the top-25 is Indiana, with IU (#12), Purdue (#16), and Notre Dame (#17). But it is hard to make that case that the basketball is better there when the top two teams in the nation just flipped-flopped their positions without dropping after UT ended Memphis' bid to remain unbeaten in the regular season.
Sorry, Dookie Vitale and all of the Cameron crazies, but your blue devils are nothing more than devil cake dessert afterthoughts in the national rankings.
To the UNC fans: what can I say? With all of that sticky substance on your heels, no wonder your feet are dragging on the national college dribbling scene!
To UK and UL fans: Sorry, but the national attention just does not care about either one of you right now, no matter how many banners are in your rafters, or how much of a national presence your coach may have.
The question becomes, when did the state of TN eclipse all of these other bastions of basketball supremecy? How did it happen?
The truth is that all of these schools in TN have very steadily building their programs to this outcome. Both Memphis and Vandy have been known for years as "good" programs. But with little else in the way of revenue generating sports, and with both schools having to compete with pro sports in their home locations, the schools decided to throw all of their attention to building their men's basketball programs to compete on the national level for NCAA titles and top-25 rankings. Both after wallowing in some obscurity for a long period.
UT however is a newcomer on the stage. And you have to give the UT AD a ton of credit. After watching UF figure out ways to leverage their dominating national college football program, UT's AD decided to "keep up with the Jones", and put as much effort into the men's basketball program, as UT has done in both women's basketball and football.
And that brings up the next point, it is not ONLY men's basketball that the state of TN is dominating in. But also women's basketball as well. The UT women's program has been a powerhouse for years. But looking again at this week's AP standings and you again see TWO state of TN universities chiming in, in the top 25. UT Lady Vol's at the #3 spot and the Vandy women's team at #23. Yeah, yeah, I KNOW all of you Duke and UNC fans are going to start thumping about how both of your women's programs are also in the top-25 as well. UNC #2 and Duke #12. But I am talking about total programs for the state here, where the state of TN tops NC in that regard. And if you look a little closer you will also notice that in the "Others receiving votes", that Chattanooga's women's basketball team received 4 votes in the AP poll, and are close to breaking into that top-25. Which would again give the state 3 teams in both men's and women's programs spots in the AP top-25 polls.
The question becomes though, is this a trend? Can the state of TN continue to put teams into the top 25 year after year? That only time will tell. But one thing is for certain: at least for now, the state of TN is THE center of the NCAA college basketball universe.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Love him or hate...Bob Knight was centerstage
In shocking news last night we learned that Bob Knight is abruptly retiring as HC of the Texas Tech Red Raiders. My first reaction to this news was, "Man, I really hope this is because he wants to, and not because of some type of health or family crisis." I still hope that is the case today. But from everything we know, he was just tired of the gig.
I have to admit, I am one of the probably hundreds to thousands that both respect and despise Bob Knight.
I respect him for all that he did off the court for his players and his community. His sincere and honest care for not only the player to achieve as an athlete, but also in the classroom and as individuals. I achieved this respect years ago, when Bob Knight did something I have never heard of being done before, or since, in college basketball. During one season, Knight was reviewing the players grades from the semester, and even though all of them were passing grades well enough to be eligible to play basketball, Knight benched 3 of his 5 starters for the next game, because the players were not getting grades high enough. What coach today would even DREAM of benching a player for not getting higher than required NCAA eligibility grades?
I respect him for what he brought to the game of basketball. His motion offense and tough defense.
I despise him as an opponent and his tirades. If there was ever a coach I never wanted UL to face it was Bob Knight. Even though UL did well, he was a terrifying opponent, and he just hated opposing fans.
I wish Bob Knight all the best and hope his retirement years bring as much success to him as his years of success on the court have.
I have to admit, I am one of the probably hundreds to thousands that both respect and despise Bob Knight.
I respect him for all that he did off the court for his players and his community. His sincere and honest care for not only the player to achieve as an athlete, but also in the classroom and as individuals. I achieved this respect years ago, when Bob Knight did something I have never heard of being done before, or since, in college basketball. During one season, Knight was reviewing the players grades from the semester, and even though all of them were passing grades well enough to be eligible to play basketball, Knight benched 3 of his 5 starters for the next game, because the players were not getting grades high enough. What coach today would even DREAM of benching a player for not getting higher than required NCAA eligibility grades?
I respect him for what he brought to the game of basketball. His motion offense and tough defense.
I despise him as an opponent and his tirades. If there was ever a coach I never wanted UL to face it was Bob Knight. Even though UL did well, he was a terrifying opponent, and he just hated opposing fans.
I wish Bob Knight all the best and hope his retirement years bring as much success to him as his years of success on the court have.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
UL basketball...recent issue
I have been hearing a LOT of complaining going on by UL fans over recent losses to both Seton Hall and UConn.
Admittedly, both games UL has had more talent, and both games UL could have, and perhaps should have won. But the type of comments being made are sometimes pretty silly, and often just downright pathetic. And on both sides of the argument.
Some people saying that the kids are not talented, can't shoot, Pitino can't win close games, etc. While others say that Pitino is still one the best in the biz, and there is a lot of young, very good talent on this team that has suffered from lack of SR leadership due to injuries that have just started to get their games back.
Perhaps both are right. But neither argument has any real validity.
This is NCAA Basketball. NOT College football. Losing to teams that you can beat, and probably SHOULD beat, do not mean anything. The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not UL can win ENOUGH games to get invited to the NCAA tournament, where they would have a chance at winning the national championship.
Period. End of story.
(but not the end of diatribe blog entry...VBG)
Let's stop with all of the gnashing of teeth over whether "Sosa should have done this", "Palacios should have done that", "what Pitino could have done", "what T-Will should have done". Or why Padgett makes this team better and why Smith is a great 2 guard. NONE of that matters. NONE.
What DOES matter is that Louisville is sitting 15-6 (5-3) and plays in THE toughest basketball conference in the nation, but still has 10 games left to get at least 6 wins, and make both the BE and the NCAA post-season play. Losing a game here and there might hurt the Cards "seeding", but as long as they find a way to win at least 21 games, then they will have their chance. Unlike in football where 1 loss WILL drop a team out of the national title picture, a bad loss here and there for UL does nothing, except to give media-wonk critics something to write about to justify their so-called "expertise".
So, just cool down everyone, and let's see what happens now that we are in February. This is truly "crunch" time for the Cards, and they need to put it together for sure. But the season still has a LONG way to go.
Admittedly, both games UL has had more talent, and both games UL could have, and perhaps should have won. But the type of comments being made are sometimes pretty silly, and often just downright pathetic. And on both sides of the argument.
Some people saying that the kids are not talented, can't shoot, Pitino can't win close games, etc. While others say that Pitino is still one the best in the biz, and there is a lot of young, very good talent on this team that has suffered from lack of SR leadership due to injuries that have just started to get their games back.
Perhaps both are right. But neither argument has any real validity.
This is NCAA Basketball. NOT College football. Losing to teams that you can beat, and probably SHOULD beat, do not mean anything. The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not UL can win ENOUGH games to get invited to the NCAA tournament, where they would have a chance at winning the national championship.
Period. End of story.
(but not the end of diatribe blog entry...VBG)
Let's stop with all of the gnashing of teeth over whether "Sosa should have done this", "Palacios should have done that", "what Pitino could have done", "what T-Will should have done". Or why Padgett makes this team better and why Smith is a great 2 guard. NONE of that matters. NONE.
What DOES matter is that Louisville is sitting 15-6 (5-3) and plays in THE toughest basketball conference in the nation, but still has 10 games left to get at least 6 wins, and make both the BE and the NCAA post-season play. Losing a game here and there might hurt the Cards "seeding", but as long as they find a way to win at least 21 games, then they will have their chance. Unlike in football where 1 loss WILL drop a team out of the national title picture, a bad loss here and there for UL does nothing, except to give media-wonk critics something to write about to justify their so-called "expertise".
So, just cool down everyone, and let's see what happens now that we are in February. This is truly "crunch" time for the Cards, and they need to put it together for sure. But the season still has a LONG way to go.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Big East....at it again?....
Ok, the Big East this week announced that beginning in the 2009 season, that all 16 member basketball schools will be invited to play at Madison Square Garden, (MSG), as part of the post-season Big East Conference tournament.
Is it just me, or do others also feel this is just completely ignorant. The only reason I can see the BE doing this is to placate the non-football schools who have complained from day one that they are losing money because of the strength of the conference, and not being able to get in to the post-season tournaments.
Well, guess what. College sports is NOT kindergarten playgrounds. There are supposed to be winners and losers. And if you can not compete well enough why should you get any type of charity for having a losing conference record? Here is a thought. How about actually GETTING BETTER!!
Is it just me, or do others also feel this is just completely ignorant. The only reason I can see the BE doing this is to placate the non-football schools who have complained from day one that they are losing money because of the strength of the conference, and not being able to get in to the post-season tournaments.
Well, guess what. College sports is NOT kindergarten playgrounds. There are supposed to be winners and losers. And if you can not compete well enough why should you get any type of charity for having a losing conference record? Here is a thought. How about actually GETTING BETTER!!
college basketball season mirroring football?
The 2007-2008 college basketball season has not even really begun and already we have seen some almost unbelievable and shocking upsets. Admittedly, the Mich St and Ohio St losses to two NCAA Division II schools were exhibition games, but come on, we ARE talking about one pre-season top-25 Div I team and the other a team that went to the NCAA national championship game last season. And losing to Div II Grand Valley St and University of Finley on the Spartan's and Buckeye's home floor no less. (BTW, 100 points if you can tell us where University of Finley is located WITHOUT first looking it up. And that is "Finley", not "Finland".)
And now we have seen #22 University of KY lose in Rupp Arena to Div II Gardner-Webb, by no less than 18 points! That is the 3rd worse loss ever by a UK team on their home court in the history of UK basketball. At least the Spartans took double overtime to lose at home by only 3 points, and the Buckeye's were literally decimated by graduation. But, the KY Wildcats, losing at home by 18? In regulation? And never really even seriously in contention for taking a lead in the game, much less getting it close enough to win?
So, here is the question. Are we going to see the same topsy-turvy college basketball season that we have seen in college football this year? And if so, can we really explain it so easily as to say that it is all due to "parity" across the nation in sports?
Is the win by Gardner-Webb over UK as big of an upset as App St was in beating Michigan at home in football?
Ok, I just asked a ton of questions there, so let me give you my take.
First, as to the GW win over UK, I absolutely believe that, that win by GW is completely on par with Appalachian State's victory over Michigan in football. Absolutely. If GW had hit a 3-point shot as a last second buzzer beater, then I would not say that. But in this case, GW not only lead wire-to-wire from the opening tip-off, but almost never had less than an 8 point lead the entire game. And ended blowing UK off of their home court. So I truly believe that the two games are 100% equal as to their respective impacts. I think that win by GW has to rank up there as one of the top 5 biggest upsets in the history of college basketball. Because unlike App St, Gardner-Webb was not predicted to win their conference. (BTW, another 100 points if you can name a single other team from the Sun Mountain Conference. Yeah, like I really knew what conference GW was in before this.)
As to the issue of whether we will see the same type of incredible upsets and topsy-turvy situation in college basketball that we have seen in college football this year. That has yet to be determined. But one thing is for sure. The trend now, is that if I am a Div II coach my players would definitely be believing that they can go into any Div I schools home floor and beat them now. And if I am any kind of Div I HC, I am putting that GW-UK score on the whiteboard during film seesions today, to prove to my team that regardless of how many people are in their ears telling them how good they are, and how they can possibly make millions in the NBA, if they lose to teams like University of Finley, they can kiss that #1 draft position goodbye. (Ok, probably not true, but I would tell the kids that anyway.)
I have to admit, I am not a huge basketball fan. Other than when UL plays, I hardly watch college basketball. But I will this season. Especially if upsets like this continue. If for no other reason than it will be fun to see what shakes out as a result.
Finally as to "parity" in college basketball, I am not so easy to say that is the case. Because let's be real about this for a minute. None of those upsets, even the regular season one by GW over UK, mean anything. Unlike in college football, a team in college basketball can lose 1/3rd of their games, and if they get into the NCAA tournament in March, can actually still become national champions. So, season loses do not mean anything with regard to national championship desire or contention. But what those early upsets and especially those by such obviously lower talented teams do show, is that a lot of Div I teams have a lot of holes in their armor. And those holes are the things worth watching to see if the coach's can fix them before games become VERY important at conference and NCAA tournament time.
So, if a team like GW can beat UK on their home floor, but then make a run in their Division II playoffs and win the Div II national championship, then maybe I will be more apt to say, "Yeah, there is a great deal of parity in college ball today." But, right now, I have to think that this is more a symptom of trying to get kids with one eye on the court and the other on the NBA to show up to play every night, as opposed to kids who have learned how to play together as a team, and within the system that their coach teaches. For me, I think this is more a parallel with how the U.S.A basketball teams underperform time and time again in international and during Olympic Games play. Where foreign teams with obviously lesser talent jump and beat more powerful, more talented and even bigger US teams. I think in college today, kids who look to play the game of basketball as a means to get a 4 year degree, are just that much more focused and determined, than college teams loaded with McD's AA talent who only show up to play when the bright lights of TV are on. And just like in college football, the college game is all about "coaching" now. If you can get 6 to 9 kids to play for 4 years, by the time they reach their senior seasons they CAN make that NCAA tourney run for the national championship.
And now we have seen #22 University of KY lose in Rupp Arena to Div II Gardner-Webb, by no less than 18 points! That is the 3rd worse loss ever by a UK team on their home court in the history of UK basketball. At least the Spartans took double overtime to lose at home by only 3 points, and the Buckeye's were literally decimated by graduation. But, the KY Wildcats, losing at home by 18? In regulation? And never really even seriously in contention for taking a lead in the game, much less getting it close enough to win?
So, here is the question. Are we going to see the same topsy-turvy college basketball season that we have seen in college football this year? And if so, can we really explain it so easily as to say that it is all due to "parity" across the nation in sports?
Is the win by Gardner-Webb over UK as big of an upset as App St was in beating Michigan at home in football?
Ok, I just asked a ton of questions there, so let me give you my take.
First, as to the GW win over UK, I absolutely believe that, that win by GW is completely on par with Appalachian State's victory over Michigan in football. Absolutely. If GW had hit a 3-point shot as a last second buzzer beater, then I would not say that. But in this case, GW not only lead wire-to-wire from the opening tip-off, but almost never had less than an 8 point lead the entire game. And ended blowing UK off of their home court. So I truly believe that the two games are 100% equal as to their respective impacts. I think that win by GW has to rank up there as one of the top 5 biggest upsets in the history of college basketball. Because unlike App St, Gardner-Webb was not predicted to win their conference. (BTW, another 100 points if you can name a single other team from the Sun Mountain Conference. Yeah, like I really knew what conference GW was in before this.)
As to the issue of whether we will see the same type of incredible upsets and topsy-turvy situation in college basketball that we have seen in college football this year. That has yet to be determined. But one thing is for sure. The trend now, is that if I am a Div II coach my players would definitely be believing that they can go into any Div I schools home floor and beat them now. And if I am any kind of Div I HC, I am putting that GW-UK score on the whiteboard during film seesions today, to prove to my team that regardless of how many people are in their ears telling them how good they are, and how they can possibly make millions in the NBA, if they lose to teams like University of Finley, they can kiss that #1 draft position goodbye. (Ok, probably not true, but I would tell the kids that anyway.)
I have to admit, I am not a huge basketball fan. Other than when UL plays, I hardly watch college basketball. But I will this season. Especially if upsets like this continue. If for no other reason than it will be fun to see what shakes out as a result.
Finally as to "parity" in college basketball, I am not so easy to say that is the case. Because let's be real about this for a minute. None of those upsets, even the regular season one by GW over UK, mean anything. Unlike in college football, a team in college basketball can lose 1/3rd of their games, and if they get into the NCAA tournament in March, can actually still become national champions. So, season loses do not mean anything with regard to national championship desire or contention. But what those early upsets and especially those by such obviously lower talented teams do show, is that a lot of Div I teams have a lot of holes in their armor. And those holes are the things worth watching to see if the coach's can fix them before games become VERY important at conference and NCAA tournament time.
So, if a team like GW can beat UK on their home floor, but then make a run in their Division II playoffs and win the Div II national championship, then maybe I will be more apt to say, "Yeah, there is a great deal of parity in college ball today." But, right now, I have to think that this is more a symptom of trying to get kids with one eye on the court and the other on the NBA to show up to play every night, as opposed to kids who have learned how to play together as a team, and within the system that their coach teaches. For me, I think this is more a parallel with how the U.S.A basketball teams underperform time and time again in international and during Olympic Games play. Where foreign teams with obviously lesser talent jump and beat more powerful, more talented and even bigger US teams. I think in college today, kids who look to play the game of basketball as a means to get a 4 year degree, are just that much more focused and determined, than college teams loaded with McD's AA talent who only show up to play when the bright lights of TV are on. And just like in college football, the college game is all about "coaching" now. If you can get 6 to 9 kids to play for 4 years, by the time they reach their senior seasons they CAN make that NCAA tourney run for the national championship.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Is the time right for the Big East?
This week was the annual Big East media days to kick off, (or should I more correctly say, 'tip off'), the basketball season. The hottest topic among all of the coaches in attendance was the issue of the conference size, strength and schedule.
More and more we are seeing that the BBall coaches are becoming less and less enamoured with the current Big East makeup. One of the biggest topics centered around the Syracuse Orange getting a snub for the NCAA tournament last year with a very good record. That snub, and the imbalance of schedule regarding the strength of who is playing whom is driving a lot of the consternation.
Personally I agree.
So, I am very convinced that some type of changes are in the offing next year during the Big East conference annual meeting in June/July. What those changes are, is anyone's guess. Suggestions have ranged from "dumbing" down the in-conference schedule to even divisional play. As some of you may know I have for quite some time, almost from the start, have my take on what should be done, and once again I offer this as at least one possible solution.
I have never liked the idea of a large mega-conference format where everyone plays everyone. I actually like the idea of divisional play, and I really hope that it gets serious consideration during the off-season by the Big East schools. Divisional play in basketball, (and several other olympic sports that have more that 10 participating members), makes all the sense in the world to me. And for various reasons. In the current Big East configuration, with the BE having 16 member schools, splitting those members up into two 8-team divisions and having a full 14 game round-robin format would be ideal. You can then setup, if they so choose to, 2 to as many as 4, inter-division conference games just to ease the out of conferene scheduling. But I am thinking that with the strength of the BE conferene in bball, most AD's and cosches would opt out for non-conference games. Although I suggest that at 2 games be inter-divisional games just for rivalry sake.
The schools originally that were dead set against divisional play were those that did not participate in football. The thought, so they maintained, was that they needed to play some of those stronger football participating schools, (like UL, UConn, and Syracuse), to keep their conference strength of schedule up an bolster their RPI rating come NCAA selection sunday. They also wanted MORE schools available to play in the BE tournament at MSG, and the thinking was that with all schools playing everyone that would be a more "fair" breakdown. That has not worked out well so far. What has happened is that the league is SO competitive that they end up beating up on each other creating some mediocre in-conference records, which then the NCAA has to try and justify to other conferences. Those non-football schools though rely HEAVILY on the money brought in by the appearance in the NCAA tournament. Every year they miss costs them a lot of money that feeds their other athletic engines. So, I think the time is right for those schools to be finally willing to look at divisional play.
With 2 divisions of 8 teams, it not only allows for a true intra-divisional round-robin format, but also sets up a great bracket breakdown for the BE tournment in MSG every year. How are those divisions to be setup? Which schools would go in which divsions? Well, I have a suggestion, but I think the member schools themselves are better able to determine that. But here is my thought:
Break the schools down by relative geographic dispersion first, but give consideration to long standing rivalries.
For example:
Division A: Marquette, Notre Dame, DePaul, Cincy, UL, WVU, USF, Pitt
Division B: Georgetown, Providence, St. Johns, UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, Seton Hall, Villanova
Now, given that breakdown, with only 14 intra-divisional games, you could then also setup 2 other inter-divisional games which could cross over and keep some long running rivalries going. And that still only sets up a 16 game in-conference schedule, so OOC scheduling would give you at least 14 games, (and anymore schools play 32 regular season games), to play prior to the conference start.
But how to break down selection for the BE tournament? Here again is my suggestion. First, the top two teams from each division get a "bye" are seeded in the tournment for the 2nd round as the top 4 teams in the conference. That means the 1st round of 4 games includes 8 additional teams from both of the divisions, giving you a total of 12 of the total of 16 schools. Sorry but I do NOT think that EVERY team should be allowed to play in a post-season tournament. Some teams, some years, are just going to be bad, and should not play. And in this scenario, only the bottom 4 teams would be left out. But how to choose those 4? I suggest that be based on the total conference record and not their standing in their division. I understand that in some years one division might be much stronger than the other and due to weaker play the bottom two teams in each division might have better records but not be quite as strong a team. That just happens, that kind of situation though is very cyclical, and that is what MANY schools always seem to forget.
So that is my suggestion. Modest proposal as it may be, if the BE does adopt a divisional format, I think you will see actually MORE schools from the BE getting into the NCAA tournament, only because the paring down of the schools will work in the BE's favor. Right now, I think the NCAA has to work too hard to figure out what are the better schools. In divisional format, I think it makes their job easier.
Also, if the BE does set up that situation, it also sets up a future blog for me about what the BE future makeup might be...(wink)....but that is a future blog.
More and more we are seeing that the BBall coaches are becoming less and less enamoured with the current Big East makeup. One of the biggest topics centered around the Syracuse Orange getting a snub for the NCAA tournament last year with a very good record. That snub, and the imbalance of schedule regarding the strength of who is playing whom is driving a lot of the consternation.
Personally I agree.
So, I am very convinced that some type of changes are in the offing next year during the Big East conference annual meeting in June/July. What those changes are, is anyone's guess. Suggestions have ranged from "dumbing" down the in-conference schedule to even divisional play. As some of you may know I have for quite some time, almost from the start, have my take on what should be done, and once again I offer this as at least one possible solution.
I have never liked the idea of a large mega-conference format where everyone plays everyone. I actually like the idea of divisional play, and I really hope that it gets serious consideration during the off-season by the Big East schools. Divisional play in basketball, (and several other olympic sports that have more that 10 participating members), makes all the sense in the world to me. And for various reasons. In the current Big East configuration, with the BE having 16 member schools, splitting those members up into two 8-team divisions and having a full 14 game round-robin format would be ideal. You can then setup, if they so choose to, 2 to as many as 4, inter-division conference games just to ease the out of conferene scheduling. But I am thinking that with the strength of the BE conferene in bball, most AD's and cosches would opt out for non-conference games. Although I suggest that at 2 games be inter-divisional games just for rivalry sake.
The schools originally that were dead set against divisional play were those that did not participate in football. The thought, so they maintained, was that they needed to play some of those stronger football participating schools, (like UL, UConn, and Syracuse), to keep their conference strength of schedule up an bolster their RPI rating come NCAA selection sunday. They also wanted MORE schools available to play in the BE tournament at MSG, and the thinking was that with all schools playing everyone that would be a more "fair" breakdown. That has not worked out well so far. What has happened is that the league is SO competitive that they end up beating up on each other creating some mediocre in-conference records, which then the NCAA has to try and justify to other conferences. Those non-football schools though rely HEAVILY on the money brought in by the appearance in the NCAA tournament. Every year they miss costs them a lot of money that feeds their other athletic engines. So, I think the time is right for those schools to be finally willing to look at divisional play.
With 2 divisions of 8 teams, it not only allows for a true intra-divisional round-robin format, but also sets up a great bracket breakdown for the BE tournment in MSG every year. How are those divisions to be setup? Which schools would go in which divsions? Well, I have a suggestion, but I think the member schools themselves are better able to determine that. But here is my thought:
Break the schools down by relative geographic dispersion first, but give consideration to long standing rivalries.
For example:
Division A: Marquette, Notre Dame, DePaul, Cincy, UL, WVU, USF, Pitt
Division B: Georgetown, Providence, St. Johns, UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, Seton Hall, Villanova
Now, given that breakdown, with only 14 intra-divisional games, you could then also setup 2 other inter-divisional games which could cross over and keep some long running rivalries going. And that still only sets up a 16 game in-conference schedule, so OOC scheduling would give you at least 14 games, (and anymore schools play 32 regular season games), to play prior to the conference start.
But how to break down selection for the BE tournament? Here again is my suggestion. First, the top two teams from each division get a "bye" are seeded in the tournment for the 2nd round as the top 4 teams in the conference. That means the 1st round of 4 games includes 8 additional teams from both of the divisions, giving you a total of 12 of the total of 16 schools. Sorry but I do NOT think that EVERY team should be allowed to play in a post-season tournament. Some teams, some years, are just going to be bad, and should not play. And in this scenario, only the bottom 4 teams would be left out. But how to choose those 4? I suggest that be based on the total conference record and not their standing in their division. I understand that in some years one division might be much stronger than the other and due to weaker play the bottom two teams in each division might have better records but not be quite as strong a team. That just happens, that kind of situation though is very cyclical, and that is what MANY schools always seem to forget.
So that is my suggestion. Modest proposal as it may be, if the BE does adopt a divisional format, I think you will see actually MORE schools from the BE getting into the NCAA tournament, only because the paring down of the schools will work in the BE's favor. Right now, I think the NCAA has to work too hard to figure out what are the better schools. In divisional format, I think it makes their job easier.
Also, if the BE does set up that situation, it also sets up a future blog for me about what the BE future makeup might be...(wink)....but that is a future blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)