It's most likely that the people who read this blog already know me on a personal level, or they have come in close enough contact with me to know that I am a Kansas fan. They won the National Championship when I was seven years old, and since then it's been in my blood. Across the sporting landscape, there is no team that I support more than I support Kansas. I haven't written about Kansas yet, largely because there hasn't been anything in the world of Jayhawk that is so interesting that I couldn't avoid writing about it. Also, this is not a Kansas blog. I don't intend for it to ever be a Kansas blog, and while people may or may not care about Kansas basketball, they almost certainly don't about my fandom.
Sunday, something interesting did happen. Kansas became the fourth member of the Final Four by becoming the nation's biggest bullies and stealing a great big victory from tiny little Stephen Curry and tiny little Davidson. Almost everyone who follows college basketball already saw the game, and there's no need to elaborate beyond the fact that ho-hum Kansas is a bunch of lucky assholes and ho-hum Bill Self is no longer the best coach without a Final Four. What's especially interesting about Kansas' berth into the Final Four is that they'll be matching up against North Carolina, led by former Kansas coach and current Huckleberry Hound impersonator, Roy Williams.
A friend asked me if, five years later, I was still bitter about Roy Williams' decision to leave Kansas in favor of his alma mater, and I felt this was probably a good arena for me to spell out my feelings about the situation. To put it simply, yes, I am still bitter. It doesn't mean that I don't like Bill Self as a coach every bit as much as I liked Roy Williams, and it doesn't mean that I wish the last five years of Kansas basketball had gone differently. Bill Self is a very fine coach who, in my opinion, improves every year. Beyond that, I root for the name on the front of the jersey more than I root for any one individual - player or coach.
My feelings, and the feelings of plenty of other Kansas fans, are feelings of a divorcee. We are, collectively, a perfectly attractive catch, as loyal as any man could hope for. To take the divorce analogy further, imagine that you have enjoyed a very successful marriage over the course of fifteen years. You've been to the Champs-Élysées for an incredible weekend, you've welcomed into your family a couple of beautiful children, you've paid cash for your house, and even though neither of you are quite as fit as you once were, the fact that you've grown together more than makes up for it. It hasn't always been perfect, but it has always been great.
One unfortunate day, your lover gets a call from an ex. Come to find out, this person was your lover's high school sweetheart, and everyone thought they'd always end up together. Sadly, that sweetheart is now a widow. Sweetheart previously had a very fruitful, even very lucrative relationship, and while it's quite likely said sweetheart would love your lover, it's unlikely your lover would ever really "compare." Still, your lover is having second thoughts about the current situation...thoughts that make your heart sink into your stomach. For days, you can barely stand to look at each other, as your lover is weighing the great times you've shared against what could be.
But alas, your lover chooses you! All is well again, your lover has said he will never leave, and you find you love each other more than ever. You go on more trips, and you achieve more milestones. Love does, indeed, conquer all.
But what is this? Here you had these wonderful plans for your anniversary, yet the high school sweetheart comes calling again. So painful are the new inquiries that you don't even enjoy your anniversary. Before you know it, your home has been officially wrecked by the high school sweetheart, and the two of them have eloped to a trailer park outside of Appalachia. Why? What the hell was so wrong with you? What could your lover have hoped to find that you couldn't offer?
Soon enough, you start dating again. Things are certainly going well, and you're happy enough. In due time, you'll likely even accomplish many of the same things you did with the first lover. It helps that you don't have to see your ex-lover. All the same, could you be blamed for still having bitterness in your heart? Of course you're thankful for the good times, but those good things didn't give your lover the right to just jump ship.
OK, so it's a windy and not-too thinly veiled analogy. You get it. I'm thankful for the time that Williams spent at Kansas, and if he wanted to leave, it's ultimately his prerogative. I don't have to be happy for him (and I'm not), and I think it can be excused if I and any other Kansas fans still want to harbor some resentment. More than I resent Williams, I resent North Carolina for even asking. They asked, they were turned down, and that should have been the end of it. It didn't help that the decision to remove Matt Doherty, Williams' predecessor at North Carolina, came just days before Kansas was to play Syracuse in the National Championship - a game the Jayhawks would ultimately lose. While it would be sophomoric and foolish to outright blame the Championship failure on the Williams situation, one has to wonder how heavily it weighed on Williams' mind and on the minds of his players.
So while once Kansas and North Carolina were kindred spirits, hand in hand in the annals of basketball history, it simply isn't so in the heart of this Kansas and college basketball fan. I root for Duke but only 2-3 times a year.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
It's Convenient For Me To Say This Now
As a Tennessee resident, I've watched (and enjoyed) more than a fair amount of Tennessee basketball. They had a very impressive schedule against very impressive competition, and by and large, they were a joy to watch. Still, when the brackets were announced on March 16, I couldn't bring myself to pick them to go beyond the Sweet 16. I saw the potential matchup with Louisville lurking, and I knew it would be trouble.
For one, Louisville was vastly underrated. They dropped a few places in seeding by virtue of losing a buzzer beater to the Big East Conference Champions and by losing a heartbreaker in the Big East Tournament to eventual Tournament Champions, Pittsburgh. I suppose the Selection Committee thought this was enough to put them as a 3 seed, and the competition for 2 seeds was pretty stiff. Before the brackets were announced, I thought Louisville would be a good pick for the Final Four, but I chickened out when I saw that they'd probably have to play North Carolina in Charlotte. This is all to say, the fact that Tennessee had to play Louisville was a tough hand to be dealt.
Perhaps a bigger reason for my reluctance to pick Tennessee was their recent dip in form at the point guard position. The one thing that is always stressed in the NCAA Tournament is that you have to have tremendous guard play in order to keep playing. Their's just wasn't that good, and judging by Bruce Pearl's decision to start someone new at point guard 33 games into the season, Pearl knew it as much as anyone. The point guard futility was on display again last night, but with limited options, there just wasn't a lot to be done about it. There was, however, one option that could have potentially remedied this, at least in last night's game...
Chris Lofton. Hear me out on this. I know that his role in every other game this season has been to spot up and take open shots. Those shots weren't often there for the SEC's all-time leading three-point shooter last night, and when they were there, they didn't fall. It wasn't much of an anomaly, either, as he had been a shadow of himself in the games against American and Butler, possibly because of the lack of a competent point guard to get him the ball. Given his shooting woes, I think the right thing to have done would have been to let him contribute in other ways. He was easily the most seasoned veteran on the floor, and no one plays with more poise than him. He makes good decisions, when the ball is in his hands, good things generally happen. He may be a little less of a threat to score, but he wasn't scoring anyway. He went just 3 of 15 from the field. Who knows? Maybe it wouldn't have made that much of a difference, as a 19 point drubbing is difficult to overcome. Given the alternative, it would have been worth a shot.
For one, Louisville was vastly underrated. They dropped a few places in seeding by virtue of losing a buzzer beater to the Big East Conference Champions and by losing a heartbreaker in the Big East Tournament to eventual Tournament Champions, Pittsburgh. I suppose the Selection Committee thought this was enough to put them as a 3 seed, and the competition for 2 seeds was pretty stiff. Before the brackets were announced, I thought Louisville would be a good pick for the Final Four, but I chickened out when I saw that they'd probably have to play North Carolina in Charlotte. This is all to say, the fact that Tennessee had to play Louisville was a tough hand to be dealt.
Perhaps a bigger reason for my reluctance to pick Tennessee was their recent dip in form at the point guard position. The one thing that is always stressed in the NCAA Tournament is that you have to have tremendous guard play in order to keep playing. Their's just wasn't that good, and judging by Bruce Pearl's decision to start someone new at point guard 33 games into the season, Pearl knew it as much as anyone. The point guard futility was on display again last night, but with limited options, there just wasn't a lot to be done about it. There was, however, one option that could have potentially remedied this, at least in last night's game...
Chris Lofton. Hear me out on this. I know that his role in every other game this season has been to spot up and take open shots. Those shots weren't often there for the SEC's all-time leading three-point shooter last night, and when they were there, they didn't fall. It wasn't much of an anomaly, either, as he had been a shadow of himself in the games against American and Butler, possibly because of the lack of a competent point guard to get him the ball. Given his shooting woes, I think the right thing to have done would have been to let him contribute in other ways. He was easily the most seasoned veteran on the floor, and no one plays with more poise than him. He makes good decisions, when the ball is in his hands, good things generally happen. He may be a little less of a threat to score, but he wasn't scoring anyway. He went just 3 of 15 from the field. Who knows? Maybe it wouldn't have made that much of a difference, as a 19 point drubbing is difficult to overcome. Given the alternative, it would have been worth a shot.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
And I'm Tired of Hearing About the NFL Draft
John Q. Public is tired of hearing about steroids. John Mellencamp is tired of hearing people sing his songs to him. Probably. John Calipari is tired of hearing about his team's poor free throw shooting.
He's expressed this in a variety of ways, using everything from humor to outright denial. He's tried everything, it seems, except for acknowledgement. Really, though, what is he supposed to say? I think there is one right answer, and I will provide it on his behalf:
"I get it. We're bad at the free throw line. In fact, we're one of the worst. We're still 35-1, and just because we're bad as a team doesn't mean that we don't have anyone who can make them. I know a lot of our misses come from our bigs, but we can't do anything more about it than we already are. It doesn't mean that I'm going to play them any less or that I have any less trust in their abilities. Now get me some pizza."
Is there really more that can be said about it? It's certainly a better alternative than what he offered up. Presenting: "What I'm taking great pride in is we won it with Chris (Douglas-Roberts)'s free throw. So all that stuff about our free-throw shooting now goes out the window, I guess."
In Coach Calipari's wonderful world, up is down, good cholesterol is bad cholesterol, people care what Skip Bayless thinks, and going 15-32 at the free throw line against an 8 seed is enough to make criticism "go out the window." Let's get a few things straight. Making a crucial free throw does not make you a good free throw shooting team, nor does it mean that all those other misses had no effect on the game. They were, after all, the difference between a sweat-inducing 3 point game and a laughable 20 point game.
There are, as always, a few other things to take into account. First and foremost, we are talking about a team that is 35-1. In close, one-possession games, they're 4-1. Granted, they missed free throws down the stretch against Tennessee (their one loss, for those that don't know), but Tennessee didn't (and doesn't) shoot free throws all that much better. My point is that every team has flaws, and every team makes adjustments in other parts of their game to account for those flaws. North Carolina overcomes its weak defense by having a ridiculously good offense. Tennessee overcomes its poor halfcourt defense by playing full court press and forcing a lot of turnovers. Memphis overcomes its free throw shooting woes by having a very efficient offense that gets great open shots and by having a staunch defense. That is to say, missing free throws certainly doesn't help, but they've found ways to make it hurt less and less (You can read about this in much more detail at BasketballProspectus.com).
All this aside, Coach Calipari is doing a disservice to himself by denying that his team is a poor free throw shooting team. They are. It would be accurate for him to say that it hasn't had much of an effect on his team, but denying it altogether just makes him sound like a lunatic. At the same time, what purpose does it serve for the media to keep asking about it? It's certainly not ground-breaking to point out that Memphis struggles at the line, and it's become obvious that John Calipari isn't going to give them the "We do struggle at the line, I guess we won't win it all" line that they're so eagerly awaiting. Why not just move on? It will save Calipari from having to look like a headcase, and it'll save us from hearing his bullshit.
He's expressed this in a variety of ways, using everything from humor to outright denial. He's tried everything, it seems, except for acknowledgement. Really, though, what is he supposed to say? I think there is one right answer, and I will provide it on his behalf:
"I get it. We're bad at the free throw line. In fact, we're one of the worst. We're still 35-1, and just because we're bad as a team doesn't mean that we don't have anyone who can make them. I know a lot of our misses come from our bigs, but we can't do anything more about it than we already are. It doesn't mean that I'm going to play them any less or that I have any less trust in their abilities. Now get me some pizza."
Is there really more that can be said about it? It's certainly a better alternative than what he offered up. Presenting: "What I'm taking great pride in is we won it with Chris (Douglas-Roberts)'s free throw. So all that stuff about our free-throw shooting now goes out the window, I guess."
In Coach Calipari's wonderful world, up is down, good cholesterol is bad cholesterol, people care what Skip Bayless thinks, and going 15-32 at the free throw line against an 8 seed is enough to make criticism "go out the window." Let's get a few things straight. Making a crucial free throw does not make you a good free throw shooting team, nor does it mean that all those other misses had no effect on the game. They were, after all, the difference between a sweat-inducing 3 point game and a laughable 20 point game.
There are, as always, a few other things to take into account. First and foremost, we are talking about a team that is 35-1. In close, one-possession games, they're 4-1. Granted, they missed free throws down the stretch against Tennessee (their one loss, for those that don't know), but Tennessee didn't (and doesn't) shoot free throws all that much better. My point is that every team has flaws, and every team makes adjustments in other parts of their game to account for those flaws. North Carolina overcomes its weak defense by having a ridiculously good offense. Tennessee overcomes its poor halfcourt defense by playing full court press and forcing a lot of turnovers. Memphis overcomes its free throw shooting woes by having a very efficient offense that gets great open shots and by having a staunch defense. That is to say, missing free throws certainly doesn't help, but they've found ways to make it hurt less and less (You can read about this in much more detail at BasketballProspectus.com).
All this aside, Coach Calipari is doing a disservice to himself by denying that his team is a poor free throw shooting team. They are. It would be accurate for him to say that it hasn't had much of an effect on his team, but denying it altogether just makes him sound like a lunatic. At the same time, what purpose does it serve for the media to keep asking about it? It's certainly not ground-breaking to point out that Memphis struggles at the line, and it's become obvious that John Calipari isn't going to give them the "We do struggle at the line, I guess we won't win it all" line that they're so eagerly awaiting. Why not just move on? It will save Calipari from having to look like a headcase, and it'll save us from hearing his bullshit.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
The 10,000th Person to Make a "Davidson vs Goliaths" Pun
Hypothetically...
You are the coach of a major college basketball program. You are no stranger to success. In fact, you appeared in the Final Four less than a calendar year ago. Going into this season, things were certainly looking up. You lost only one key player from said Final Four team, and among your returnees was an All-Major-Conference 7'2" hulk of a post player. Looking up, indeed.
So when you glance at the bracket, and you see that the next team on the docket doesn't have a key player over 6'8", and this team has never played against a team that has such a dominant interior, the solution is obvious. Isn't it? No?
WELL, WHY THE HELL NOT?
Of course, this scenario is not hypothetical. It was very much real, and a solution so obvious to everyone whose initials are not John Thompson, III was apparently too "meta" for Coach Thompson. Roy Hibbert, the all Big East post player/Naismith Award Candidate/scarecrow, took (and made) but three shots in Sunday's loss to little-tiny Davidson. He managed to record five fouls to his one blocked shot. The team with the most experienced big man in the tournament hoisted 18 three-point shots over the top of a team of little-tiny Davidsons with absolutely no one that could compete on the interior against such a Goliath (HA! Did you see!).
More pathetic than Georgetown's lack of an offensive interior presence was the lack of a defensive interior presence. Little-tiny teams often overcome giants by raining threes, yet Little-tiny Davidson made only six. This tiny tiny tiny team from a little-tiny school was not only able to drive the lane with success on the Hoyas, but they did so by only having three of their shots swatted. Three. In the entire game.
After such a humiliating display of coaching ineptitude, Thompson added, "I guess I just want to say, I've got a very special senior class. I've got a class that is Georgetown basketball," meaning that they exemplify an uncanny knack for bottling it on the biggest of stages. "You know, I just feel like I've let them down," he added, pretty much hitting the nail on the head.
You are the coach of a major college basketball program. You are no stranger to success. In fact, you appeared in the Final Four less than a calendar year ago. Going into this season, things were certainly looking up. You lost only one key player from said Final Four team, and among your returnees was an All-Major-Conference 7'2" hulk of a post player. Looking up, indeed.
So when you glance at the bracket, and you see that the next team on the docket doesn't have a key player over 6'8", and this team has never played against a team that has such a dominant interior, the solution is obvious. Isn't it? No?
WELL, WHY THE HELL NOT?
Of course, this scenario is not hypothetical. It was very much real, and a solution so obvious to everyone whose initials are not John Thompson, III was apparently too "meta" for Coach Thompson. Roy Hibbert, the all Big East post player/Naismith Award Candidate/scarecrow, took (and made) but three shots in Sunday's loss to little-tiny Davidson. He managed to record five fouls to his one blocked shot. The team with the most experienced big man in the tournament hoisted 18 three-point shots over the top of a team of little-tiny Davidsons with absolutely no one that could compete on the interior against such a Goliath (HA! Did you see!).
More pathetic than Georgetown's lack of an offensive interior presence was the lack of a defensive interior presence. Little-tiny teams often overcome giants by raining threes, yet Little-tiny Davidson made only six. This tiny tiny tiny team from a little-tiny school was not only able to drive the lane with success on the Hoyas, but they did so by only having three of their shots swatted. Three. In the entire game.
After such a humiliating display of coaching ineptitude, Thompson added, "I guess I just want to say, I've got a very special senior class. I've got a class that is Georgetown basketball," meaning that they exemplify an uncanny knack for bottling it on the biggest of stages. "You know, I just feel like I've let them down," he added, pretty much hitting the nail on the head.
Monday, March 24, 2008
He Is Risen
Forgive me, readers, for it has been four days since my last blog post. In founding this blog, I fully intended to update daily. During the Tournament, I even had a few designs of posting several times a day, as if all seven of you couldn't live even a few hours without my witty quips, limitless imagination, and inflated view of myself. It's amazing what a little beer can do to these best laid plans, which should go a long way toward explaining what a whole lot of beer can do. I decided early that I could be the self-important guy at the bar who was blogging in public, I could write from behind the hanging cloud of inebriation at the end of each day, or I could wait until the weekend was over to provide random thoughts that occurred to me over the course of my four-day bender. So here we go:
It takes no credentials to be on ESPNU
Thursday and Friday mornings, before the games tipped off, ESPNU hijacked the morning hours of SportsCenter and opined and speculated about the forthcoming action. Poorly. Don't confuse them with the normal ESPN College Hoops crew - these clowns were (somehow) several steps beneath the Gameday Crew in terms of quality. I can't be assed to present all of their names, but some random white guy anchored the show. Analysis was provided by some faceless middle-aged white dude who probably coached JV basketball at a high school in Akron and an inarticulate black man, likely the sixth man at a west coast school back in the day. I think it was Adrian Branch, who may or may not fit into the latter two categories, but he was most definitely an inarticulate black man.
But I digress. They were awful. At no point was their incompetence more on display than when faceless white guy lauded Kansas State head coach Frank Martin as "a true American success story," clearly illustrating that he had not done any homework, and instead gone with the obvious: Frank Martin was an assistant coach for awhile until an administration took a gamble on him. Now, he's won an NCAA Tournament game. Sadly, Kansas State University suits didn't do much more homework than this when they hired the man.
The fact is, Frank Martin's resumé contains work as a high school basketball coach in Miami. His team, which included Steve Blake and Udonis Haslem, won the Florida State Championship, only to be stripped of every single win that season because he invented addresses in order to make his star players eligible to play for his team. Scandalous, isn't it? Yet Kansas State didn't even investigate this matter when presented with the option of hiring Frank Martin - a man who had only spent six years as a collegiate assistant coach. Why were they so hell bent on hiring him, you do not ask but will be told, anyhow? Because he had the ability to keep Bob Huggins' prized recruit, Michael Beasley. How could he do so? By retaining Beasley's AAU basketball coach, Dalonte Hill. Hill was formerly an assistant at Charlotte, where Beasley had originally and not-coincidentally committed.
All of this information has already been reported by various media outlets, and I'm by no means insisting that the hacks at ESPNU were obligated to put an asterisk next to K-State's win over USC. It was neither the time nor place for reporting such things, and I don't have that much of a problem with the hiring of Delonte Hill, as it was all handled within the boundaries of NCAA rule. It's just ridiculous to think that Frank Martin is the definition of an American success story. At best, he is a moderately capable coach, opportunistic enough to land a moderately good coaching gig and uncannily had the means by which to hang on to the one player who could take him anywhere. At worst, he is a cheating, incompetent coach who, despite having the most talented player in the country, was not able to take his team further than the second round. Unless he can continue a pattern of hiring AAU coaches who are linked to stud basketball players, my guess is that he'll be fired in five years.
I was right about Indiana
I just had to point it out. It's not as if Arkansas was a wickedly talented team, either. To have picked Indiana over Arkansas wouldn't have been a terrible choice, but those that thought Indiana might upset UNC need look no further than UNC's dismantling of Arkansas. Now, their two best players are likely off to the NBA. Their interim coach should undoubtedly be removed from his post. To say they'll be rebuilding next year is a massive understatement.
I was wrong about the Tournament in general
I stand by my statement that it's the worst tournament field in recent memory. While I didn't come out and say it, I really thought it was going to be something of a boring tournament with very few upsets. I'm pleased to say that nothing could have been further from the truth. It's the first time I can remember two second-round matchups of 12 vs 13 seeds, which has made for some very interesting Sweet 16 participants. Folks who didn't go to work on Friday were treated to arguably the best two games of the tournament when Western Kentucky hit a three pointer in overtime to knock off over-seeded Drake, and San Diego hit a shot in the lane with under two seconds to go in their improbable overtime victory over peaked-too-soon UConn. While I was quite pleased to have seen the end of both of these games, I regret not going to a bar to do so. You see, in Nashville, we were stuck watching Texas annihilate Tennessee's own Austin Peay State University by virtue of Nashville's proximity to Clarksville, TN. It was never close, and it was an absolute snooze of a game. That's neither here nor there. My point is, it's been a real joy so far.
We've seen the new Duke
The worst thing that happened to Duke was that it managed to actually beat 15 seed, Belmont. The Bruins fought mightily, but class prevailed. That narrow victory allowed Duke apologists to deny that anything was really "wrong," and instead Duke can accept the fact that they were bounced out by a good West Virginia Team. Fans can look forward to something similar next year. A loss to Belmont would have rattled a few cages, but a loss to West Virginia just makes one say, "Maybe next year." For those that closely follow college basketball, the late-season decline of Duke (2-3 in their last five games) is not unprecedented or unexpected. Since last making it to the Final Four in 2004, March swoons have been the norm. Coach K has decided that he's no longer going to schedule non-conference road games, and maybe the ACC isn't quite as strong as everyone thinks. They were over-seeded as a 2 seed, and they just didn't look prepared. I think we're more likely to see another early exit next year than we are a Final Four appearance.
Don't be deceived, Kansas is not a lock for the Final Four
A 3, a 10, and a 12. It sure looks like the Midwest Region has opened up like the Red Sea for Kansas to waltz into the Final Four. It isn't so. Granted, neither Villanova or Davidson really match up that well with the Jayhawks, but Wisconsin is a beast. They're style is boring, plodding, and ugly. They've not won over a lot of "basketball people" along the way, but they're statistically one of the stiffest challenges left in the tournament. Wisconsin was fully deserving of a 2 seed. They were even better than the 2 seed in their own Region. Add to it that the game will be played in Michigan, and it should be enough to make Kansas fans sweat.
For those that are curious, the easiest path to the Final Four has to be UCLA. Once they've brushed aside the plucky little Hilltoppers, they're left to face either the West Virginia one-man show or an unhealthy Xavier. In Phoenix. Honestly. All seeding aside, I just don't see any way that Kansas' path would be easier than UCLA's.
There will probably be more to come, but it seems my job requires me to do actual "work." The humanity.
It takes no credentials to be on ESPNU
Thursday and Friday mornings, before the games tipped off, ESPNU hijacked the morning hours of SportsCenter and opined and speculated about the forthcoming action. Poorly. Don't confuse them with the normal ESPN College Hoops crew - these clowns were (somehow) several steps beneath the Gameday Crew in terms of quality. I can't be assed to present all of their names, but some random white guy anchored the show. Analysis was provided by some faceless middle-aged white dude who probably coached JV basketball at a high school in Akron and an inarticulate black man, likely the sixth man at a west coast school back in the day. I think it was Adrian Branch, who may or may not fit into the latter two categories, but he was most definitely an inarticulate black man.
But I digress. They were awful. At no point was their incompetence more on display than when faceless white guy lauded Kansas State head coach Frank Martin as "a true American success story," clearly illustrating that he had not done any homework, and instead gone with the obvious: Frank Martin was an assistant coach for awhile until an administration took a gamble on him. Now, he's won an NCAA Tournament game. Sadly, Kansas State University suits didn't do much more homework than this when they hired the man.
The fact is, Frank Martin's resumé contains work as a high school basketball coach in Miami. His team, which included Steve Blake and Udonis Haslem, won the Florida State Championship, only to be stripped of every single win that season because he invented addresses in order to make his star players eligible to play for his team. Scandalous, isn't it? Yet Kansas State didn't even investigate this matter when presented with the option of hiring Frank Martin - a man who had only spent six years as a collegiate assistant coach. Why were they so hell bent on hiring him, you do not ask but will be told, anyhow? Because he had the ability to keep Bob Huggins' prized recruit, Michael Beasley. How could he do so? By retaining Beasley's AAU basketball coach, Dalonte Hill. Hill was formerly an assistant at Charlotte, where Beasley had originally and not-coincidentally committed.
All of this information has already been reported by various media outlets, and I'm by no means insisting that the hacks at ESPNU were obligated to put an asterisk next to K-State's win over USC. It was neither the time nor place for reporting such things, and I don't have that much of a problem with the hiring of Delonte Hill, as it was all handled within the boundaries of NCAA rule. It's just ridiculous to think that Frank Martin is the definition of an American success story. At best, he is a moderately capable coach, opportunistic enough to land a moderately good coaching gig and uncannily had the means by which to hang on to the one player who could take him anywhere. At worst, he is a cheating, incompetent coach who, despite having the most talented player in the country, was not able to take his team further than the second round. Unless he can continue a pattern of hiring AAU coaches who are linked to stud basketball players, my guess is that he'll be fired in five years.
I was right about Indiana
I just had to point it out. It's not as if Arkansas was a wickedly talented team, either. To have picked Indiana over Arkansas wouldn't have been a terrible choice, but those that thought Indiana might upset UNC need look no further than UNC's dismantling of Arkansas. Now, their two best players are likely off to the NBA. Their interim coach should undoubtedly be removed from his post. To say they'll be rebuilding next year is a massive understatement.
I was wrong about the Tournament in general
I stand by my statement that it's the worst tournament field in recent memory. While I didn't come out and say it, I really thought it was going to be something of a boring tournament with very few upsets. I'm pleased to say that nothing could have been further from the truth. It's the first time I can remember two second-round matchups of 12 vs 13 seeds, which has made for some very interesting Sweet 16 participants. Folks who didn't go to work on Friday were treated to arguably the best two games of the tournament when Western Kentucky hit a three pointer in overtime to knock off over-seeded Drake, and San Diego hit a shot in the lane with under two seconds to go in their improbable overtime victory over peaked-too-soon UConn. While I was quite pleased to have seen the end of both of these games, I regret not going to a bar to do so. You see, in Nashville, we were stuck watching Texas annihilate Tennessee's own Austin Peay State University by virtue of Nashville's proximity to Clarksville, TN. It was never close, and it was an absolute snooze of a game. That's neither here nor there. My point is, it's been a real joy so far.
We've seen the new Duke
The worst thing that happened to Duke was that it managed to actually beat 15 seed, Belmont. The Bruins fought mightily, but class prevailed. That narrow victory allowed Duke apologists to deny that anything was really "wrong," and instead Duke can accept the fact that they were bounced out by a good West Virginia Team. Fans can look forward to something similar next year. A loss to Belmont would have rattled a few cages, but a loss to West Virginia just makes one say, "Maybe next year." For those that closely follow college basketball, the late-season decline of Duke (2-3 in their last five games) is not unprecedented or unexpected. Since last making it to the Final Four in 2004, March swoons have been the norm. Coach K has decided that he's no longer going to schedule non-conference road games, and maybe the ACC isn't quite as strong as everyone thinks. They were over-seeded as a 2 seed, and they just didn't look prepared. I think we're more likely to see another early exit next year than we are a Final Four appearance.
Don't be deceived, Kansas is not a lock for the Final Four
A 3, a 10, and a 12. It sure looks like the Midwest Region has opened up like the Red Sea for Kansas to waltz into the Final Four. It isn't so. Granted, neither Villanova or Davidson really match up that well with the Jayhawks, but Wisconsin is a beast. They're style is boring, plodding, and ugly. They've not won over a lot of "basketball people" along the way, but they're statistically one of the stiffest challenges left in the tournament. Wisconsin was fully deserving of a 2 seed. They were even better than the 2 seed in their own Region. Add to it that the game will be played in Michigan, and it should be enough to make Kansas fans sweat.
For those that are curious, the easiest path to the Final Four has to be UCLA. Once they've brushed aside the plucky little Hilltoppers, they're left to face either the West Virginia one-man show or an unhealthy Xavier. In Phoenix. Honestly. All seeding aside, I just don't see any way that Kansas' path would be easier than UCLA's.
There will probably be more to come, but it seems my job requires me to do actual "work." The humanity.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Got an Indiana Jones?
Since the NCAA Tournament has officially tipped off, it might be appropriate to post about the play-in game that took place last night in Dayton, Ohio. Rather, it might be an appropriate time to lament the fact that it even exists (Mt. St. Mary's defeated Coppin State, by the way). In the end, vocally hating the play-in game is about as bold as going to a Southern Baptist convention and praising small government.
Instead, focus turns to a team that may tempt you, the bracket predictor, into something you'll regret later.
Attached to the name of Indiana University, you'll find five National Championships, eight Final Fours, 32 trips to the NCAA Tournament, and 52 victories within those trips. A possible 2nd round game between Indiana and North Carolina would, any other year, make one salivate over the possibility of a fat, juicy upset. Some of it might be wishful thinking, as North Carolina and Indiana are seeded as they are for a reason, but it's also the sort of upset that does occasionally happen.
Don't even think about it.
The Hoosiers got of to a decent start, opening the season at a 17-1 record. Bloomington was abuzz with dreams of another Final Four, and why shouldn't they have been? They have a stud freshman in Eric Gordon, and they have talented senior leadership in DJ White. Kelvin Sampson, in his second year at Indiana, has Final Four experience and posted a very solid record in his time at Oklahoma.
It all went downhill from there. Kelvin Sampson was then accused of recruiting infractions and forced out as head coach. In his last two games as head coach, Indiana won somewhat-impressive games against Michigan State and Purdue. Since then, they've gone 3-3. Victories have included a three-point home win over an average-at-best Ohio State team, a 3-point road win over the second-worst major-conference team in the country, and an expected win over an average-at-best Minnesota team. Losses have included a one-point loss to the aforementioned average-at-best Minnesota team, an overtime loss to another one of the worst major-conference teams in the country, and 29-point beatdown at the hands of Tournament 5 seed, Michigan State. Players even skipped a practice when it was announced that assistant coach Dan Dakich (who posted a pedestrian 156-140 at Bowling Green State University) would be taking over as head coach. That is to say, there doesn't appear to be a lot of "heart" on display. Insert obligatory line about how Indiana falls short of the team in the film Hoosiers.
New coach whom the players don't believe in + entering the tournament having lost 3 of 4 + losses to bad teams + bad losses to good teams = recipe for failure. When the brackets were announced, I was a little disappointed that Indiana wasn't seeded higher, for it would have been the easiest upset pick of the entire bracket. Flip a coin as to whether they somehow knock off Arkansas, it doesn't matter that much. Choose them to beat North Carolina at your own risk.
Inevitably, someone who reads this is going to day, "But they may just have the talent to give North Carolina a run for their money." Putting aside jokes that no one actually reads this, talent can only do so much. I have no doubt that Indiana is more talented than Arkansas, but the nature of the tournament is that talented teams lose to less talented teams because they can't get up for it. They lack heart. For a reference, see every upset that has ever happened in the Tournament.
Instead, focus turns to a team that may tempt you, the bracket predictor, into something you'll regret later.
Attached to the name of Indiana University, you'll find five National Championships, eight Final Fours, 32 trips to the NCAA Tournament, and 52 victories within those trips. A possible 2nd round game between Indiana and North Carolina would, any other year, make one salivate over the possibility of a fat, juicy upset. Some of it might be wishful thinking, as North Carolina and Indiana are seeded as they are for a reason, but it's also the sort of upset that does occasionally happen.
Don't even think about it.
The Hoosiers got of to a decent start, opening the season at a 17-1 record. Bloomington was abuzz with dreams of another Final Four, and why shouldn't they have been? They have a stud freshman in Eric Gordon, and they have talented senior leadership in DJ White. Kelvin Sampson, in his second year at Indiana, has Final Four experience and posted a very solid record in his time at Oklahoma.
It all went downhill from there. Kelvin Sampson was then accused of recruiting infractions and forced out as head coach. In his last two games as head coach, Indiana won somewhat-impressive games against Michigan State and Purdue. Since then, they've gone 3-3. Victories have included a three-point home win over an average-at-best Ohio State team, a 3-point road win over the second-worst major-conference team in the country, and an expected win over an average-at-best Minnesota team. Losses have included a one-point loss to the aforementioned average-at-best Minnesota team, an overtime loss to another one of the worst major-conference teams in the country, and 29-point beatdown at the hands of Tournament 5 seed, Michigan State. Players even skipped a practice when it was announced that assistant coach Dan Dakich (who posted a pedestrian 156-140 at Bowling Green State University) would be taking over as head coach. That is to say, there doesn't appear to be a lot of "heart" on display. Insert obligatory line about how Indiana falls short of the team in the film Hoosiers.
New coach whom the players don't believe in + entering the tournament having lost 3 of 4 + losses to bad teams + bad losses to good teams = recipe for failure. When the brackets were announced, I was a little disappointed that Indiana wasn't seeded higher, for it would have been the easiest upset pick of the entire bracket. Flip a coin as to whether they somehow knock off Arkansas, it doesn't matter that much. Choose them to beat North Carolina at your own risk.
Inevitably, someone who reads this is going to day, "But they may just have the talent to give North Carolina a run for their money." Putting aside jokes that no one actually reads this, talent can only do so much. I have no doubt that Indiana is more talented than Arkansas, but the nature of the tournament is that talented teams lose to less talented teams because they can't get up for it. They lack heart. For a reference, see every upset that has ever happened in the Tournament.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Tofu on White Rice
Admittedly, I'm late to the party. 40 hours is probably well past the time when a "first impression" of the bracket should be posted. I suppose the reason for that is because it all seems...I don't know...tepid. Insipid. Pedestrian.
Don't get me wrong, I love this tournament like Iggy Pop loves heroin. I'm obsessed about it to the point that it's probably not healthy. I'm even using up vacation days so that I don't have to come up with a bullshit excuse for missing work. And it's not that I wasn't excited when the brackets were announced, either. Their mere existence fills me of anticipation. I'm not exaggerating when I say, "This is my Christmas."
So why the indifferent reaction from yours truly?
Well, I suppose it's because the Selection Committee got it right. Sure, there are a few teams who may have a legitimate case for inclusion, but it's not because they were really "deserving." Rather, it's because so few teams - including teams that DID receive bids to the tournament - were really "deserving." Therein lies my subtle apathy.
Exhibit A.) There's not much to complain about. I have a few beefs with the way a few teams were seeded, but I can't be assed to get too upset about it. There are a few double-digit seeds that are playing a little too close to home, but it really feel like I'm being nit-picky. The major-conference talking heads on ESPN's Bracketology show would have you believe that Arizona State and Virginia Tech were far more deserving than South Alabama, St. Mary's or Baylor, but it's not true. There was little to separate the teams on the bubble, and none of the admissions or omissions are really that outlandish. It's just more sensationalism; latching onto whatever flaws can be found and crying "bloody murder." So predictable was the bracket that both of ESPN.com's college basketball gurus (Joe Lundardi and Andy Glockner, for those that don't know) were both 100% correct in guessing which teams would receive bids. In truth, the controversy is sort of what's great about Selection Sunday. It's more fun to get your panties in a bunch than to take a glance at the bracket and say, "Hmm. That makes sense." It's ridiculous, I know.
Exhibit B.) This might be the worst field since the Tournament expanded to 64 (now 65) teams. The elite teams are as good as any elite teams to participate in the tournament, and there's not a single team for which I would say, "I'll take this team, you take the rest of the field." There are about eight of these elite teams, and there are about six teams that are a half-step below them in terms of quality. Beyond those 14, the field is weak weak weak. You may have heard a few people lament the fact that the bubble was exceptionally soft in the two weeks leading up to the Tournament. It's been that way for well over a month now, and very few teams did anything to distinguish themselves from anyone else. In any other year, there's no way a team that lost at home to Gardner-Webb and San Diego would have even been in the discussion. This year, they are in safely. The bubble teams that did manage to record a few good wins either coupled those with horrendous losses or other wins against laughably bad competition. The teams that benefitted most and actually received bids, often did so simply by avoiding really, really bad losses...despite not really beating anyone of any substance. There are reasons for all of this, most of which revolve around quality small-conference teams being unable to schedule games against quality major-conference teams, but an entire blog could be written about that.
Beyond the bubble, even some of the automatic bids were disappointing. There are a handful of teams from extremely small conferences that proved they could hang with some major conference opponents. Since they had no hope of receiving an at-large bid despite winning their respective conferences, their only hope was in winning their conference tournaments. Stephen F. Austin very well could have been a popular pick as a true bracket buster, as they had already beaten Oklahoma during the season. They fell to Northwestern State in the Southland Conference Tournament semifinals. Robert Morris beat Boston College in Boston, but fell in the semis of the Northeast Conference Tournament. Morgan State sat atop a much-improved MEAC for the majority of the season. They received the 1 seed in their tournament, yet lost to a 20-loss Coppin State team that now finds itself playing in tonight's play-in game. UNC-Asheville gave North Carolina and Tennessee both stern tests during the season (and they have a 7'7" giant playing for them), but they lost on their homecourt to a Winthrop team they had previously beaten twice this season.
Essentially, the top of this tournament is very good, the middle and bottom tiers of teams are much weaker than normal.
Exhibit C.) The Selection Committee has a habit of matching intriguing small-conference teams against fellow intriguing small-conference teams. Historically, I've spent three days before the tournament tips off salivating over the chances of very capable David's against unprepared Goliath's. For at least two year's now, the Selection Committee has deprived us of this. Last year, they paired a good Old Dominion team against a very good Butler team. Creighton and Nevada, both of whom have made Sweet 16 appearances in recent memory, were left to play each other.
This seems to have gotten worse. Very capable teams like Drake, Gonzaga, Kent State and Butler are all paired with equally capable and just as intriguing teams like Western Kentucky, Davidson, UNLV, and South Alabama. Much of the appeal of the first two rounds revolves around these smaller teams finally getting a shot at the big boys on a neutral court. While these current matchups at least ensure that a smaller team is going to make it into the next round, they also take a little luster off of what makes this the best sporting event of the year (suck it, Super Bowl).
The NCAA Tournament itself is not doomed to be as tepid as the release of its bracket, but it's made the time between Selection Sunday and Tipoff all the more excruciating without anything to debate ad nauseum. I can only imagine how bored you must be, having just read an article about how the bracket itself is not interesting.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Plans for an Orange Sky
"If there were no automatic bids, they'd (Arizona State, Syracuse, et al) all be in," said former coach and eternal hothead, Bobby Knight in reference to what he deems to be a flaw in the NCAA Tournament. Knight, who was only able to coach a team out of the first round of this shambolic field of 65 twice in the last 14 years, went on to announce his plans to alter the tournament to a field of 128 teams in which no team automatically qualifies by winning their conference tournament.
Stunned, the local paper hack stuttered for a moment before Knight continued, "I know that, for as long as we can all remember, we've awoken to find a blue sky. I've never understood the science behind it, per se, but surely a better solution would be to put for a plan for an orange sky. That way, when our livers have given out due to excessive drinking, no one will be able to casually see our jaundice."
As Digger Phelps nodded and patted him on the back, the model citizen slumped back in his chair, crossed his arms and said, "When we sing the National Anthem, it's never made sense to me that we refer to it as a 'star-spangled banner,' even if that is the title of the song. Shit, clearly it's a fucking starred and striped flag. We should fucking change the fucking words to fucking say so. That way none of you cunts will be confused about what we're singing about. Ass. Shit. Fuck."
Frustrated with the lack of eyebrows being raised and disgusted at the amount of attention being diverted elsewhere, Knight left the set and clunked away in his car with square wheels.
"I don't quite know what ESPN was thinking, hiring someone to provide analysis to a competition that has never cared much for it," should have been but wasn't the response from ESPN biwigs the day after the Selection Committee announced the brackets for their hugely popular and well-liked tournament. Really, why should they be surprised at the outcome of their decision to hire a man that said, not coincidentally after losing a first round game in 2002, that he always thought they should just take the 64 best teams and do away with the very essence of the tournament? The inevitably poor result of hiring a man that once said he would consider denying a bid to the NCAA Tournament in favor of a better-paying NIT bid has also led ESPN to halt its plans to have Jim Rome provide color analysis for this summer's Euro 2008 soccer competition. Curbed plans also include a proposed contract extension for Stephen A. Smith to provide analysis of anything at all.
"I just feel like the basketball has always fit too conveniently through the hoop," Ol' Red Nose added later. "If we make it oblong, it will make dribble-driving less effective and shooting percentages will go down." When questioned about his comments regarding the size of the tournament, merits of inclusion into said tournament and shape of the basketball, the hunting enthusiast just berated a local paper hack, stating, "You'll never be as good as your father was. Kiss my ass. I heard you fuck sheep."
Stunned, the local paper hack stuttered for a moment before Knight continued, "I know that, for as long as we can all remember, we've awoken to find a blue sky. I've never understood the science behind it, per se, but surely a better solution would be to put for a plan for an orange sky. That way, when our livers have given out due to excessive drinking, no one will be able to casually see our jaundice."
As Digger Phelps nodded and patted him on the back, the model citizen slumped back in his chair, crossed his arms and said, "When we sing the National Anthem, it's never made sense to me that we refer to it as a 'star-spangled banner,' even if that is the title of the song. Shit, clearly it's a fucking starred and striped flag. We should fucking change the fucking words to fucking say so. That way none of you cunts will be confused about what we're singing about. Ass. Shit. Fuck."
Frustrated with the lack of eyebrows being raised and disgusted at the amount of attention being diverted elsewhere, Knight left the set and clunked away in his car with square wheels.
"I don't quite know what ESPN was thinking, hiring someone to provide analysis to a competition that has never cared much for it," should have been but wasn't the response from ESPN biwigs the day after the Selection Committee announced the brackets for their hugely popular and well-liked tournament. Really, why should they be surprised at the outcome of their decision to hire a man that said, not coincidentally after losing a first round game in 2002, that he always thought they should just take the 64 best teams and do away with the very essence of the tournament? The inevitably poor result of hiring a man that once said he would consider denying a bid to the NCAA Tournament in favor of a better-paying NIT bid has also led ESPN to halt its plans to have Jim Rome provide color analysis for this summer's Euro 2008 soccer competition. Curbed plans also include a proposed contract extension for Stephen A. Smith to provide analysis of anything at all.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Dick Vitale, ACC Hack
I'm watching SportsCenter this morning, and for some reason, they think Dick Vitale is even remotely qualified to give his opinion about why Virginia Tech should receive a bid. OK, I get that he's actually coached before, and I get that he's seen more live basketball than I've seen live nudes. Given his time away from vocal-chord surgery, I don't think he's followed the season well enough to give an honest, unbiased opinion about Virginia Tech's merits. For one, Dick Vitale washes the ACC's balls every time he opens his mouth. For two, he just called Virginia Tech's admittedly good game against North Carolina yesterday. Of course they're going to have made the most immediate impression on him.
Vitale's reasons mimic those of every other ACC hack: The ACC is the best conference (RPI #1), ergo they should have the most bids. Going 9-7 in the ACC is apparently on par with scaling K2 or sleeping with Scarlett Johansson.
Myth #1 - the RPI is even capable of determining which conference is the best. I know the Selection Committee uses it to a degree, but it's less valuable now than it ever has been before. The Selection Committee has left out teams with an RPI inside 20, and it's given at-large bids to teams above 50. To let you know how flawed the RPI is, after Kentucky received their 41-point drubbing at the thunderous hands Vanderbilt, their RPI WENT UP. The year that Kansas lost in the first round to Bucknell, their RPI before (and after) the tournament was #1. It's just not that great of an indicator of quality.
Myth #2 - The ACC is the best conference. The ACC benefits greatly from having two teams that are elite and no teams that are completely inept in the way Northwestern, Oregon State, South Florida, and Colorado are in their respective major conferences. Having a very high ceiling and not a very low basement will make it so the math says the ACC is the best, but it doesn't in any way mean that they'll have more tournament-worthy teams than any other conference. It sure as shit doesn't mean that the 5th place team in the ACC is automatically better than the 5th place team in, say, the Big 12 or Pac 10.
Myth #3 - Virginia Tech's 9-7 record in the ACC is a marvelous achievement. It's not. The way their conference schedule was weighted, Virginia Tech had an easier conference schedule than just about every other team in conference. They only had to play North Carolina and Clemson (1st and 3rd in the conference) once, and they benefitted from playing Georgia Tech, Virginia, BC, and Wake Forest each twice. Their 9-7 record is a little gaudier than it appears.
Myth #4 - Having played a close game against a very good team yet losing should help their case. This is the crappest reason of them all. It was, after all, one game. Kudos to them for getting up for it, but it's their body of work that either will or will not get them in. Over the course of the season, Davidson (at-large merits were debatable before they received their auto-bid), UNC Asheville (not an at-large team), Boston College (not an at-large team), and Virginia (not an at-large team) have played very close games with North Carolina and still lost. Maryland, another team that won't be dancing, even BEAT North Carolina, and that is not enough to solely get them into the Tournament.
Add on top of this the fact that VT's best nonconference win was against UNC Asheville, and I just don't see how this can be one of the 34 best at-large teams. This is already my second post of the day, it's not yet 11:00 am, and this is way more than I even wanted to discuss Virginia Tech. I just couldn't let Dick Vitale's ACC homerism go unchecked.
Villanova's Losses are Still Losses
With Selection Sunday merely hours away, there may not be a team more squarely on the bubble than Villanova. By virtue of blowing away fellow bubblemates, Syacuse, some pundits feel 'Nova has done enough to warrant inclusion. Among the reasons many feel they should be in, you'll hear, "They lost two games because of the refs," a reference to what truly were bullshit foul calls at the end of games against NC State and Georgetown.
I find this to be a little baffling. Should these games suddenly be considered wins? Should this really even be considered at all?
In my opinion, that is an emphatic, "No." I'm not standing up for the calls themselves, and I think it's usually appropriate to just swallow the whistle as the final buzzer approaches. I even agree with those that think they weren't fouls to begin with, especially those that disagree with the foul called against Georgetown, about 80 ft from the basket. The problem is, they were fouls. They were fouls because the referees said they were fouls, and they are the ones who are paid to make such calls. They may have used poor judgement in calling those fouls, but that's their call.
Had Villanova lost because a clear rule had been violated and failed to be called (say, because the other team had made a shot from behind the backboard), the Selection Committee might then have reason to look at their record a little differently. Giving Villanova a bid because they disagree with the referee's judgement, however, would be farcical. How far could you take it? Would the Selection Committee (and the general public) even know about these calls if both games weren't aired on ESPN?
I say this because a similar situation happened early in the season in a game between Florida and Georgia Southern. No one saw it, and it was long before Florida put together a bubble-worthy resumé. Florida, and not massive underdogs Georgia Southern, benefitted from the foul called at the end of the game, and they won the game 52-49. If 'Nova's losses become wins, it would only be fair for Florida's win to become a loss - in which case, the talking heads could have saved a whole lot of breath as Florida would have never been able to overcome such a blemish on their own resumé. This has sort of been mooted by Florida's choke job and Donovan's lack of desire to coach his team next year, but you get the point.
Perhaps the Committee already feels Villanova has done enough without looking to the referee's errors in judgement, and that's their prerogative. In that case, we'd have little to complain about as the Selection Committee members would just be doing their jobs. If they get included because of the bad fouls, every other bubble team should protest. If they're left out, get used to hearing talking heads from every network moan about their losses that shouldn't have been.
I'll probably post again later today with knee-jerk bracket reaction, most likely how I don't understand how New Mexico received a bid. Tomorrow, I'll react to the inevitable bitching that we'll hear from Boeheim and Gary Williams about how South Alabama and Saint Mary's couldn't compete in the Big East or ACC. Seriously, though. Just how good do you think Maryland or The Cuse could have done in those mid-major conferences?
Friday, March 14, 2008
The Voice of People Who Aren't Thinking
With the bubble being undeniably weak, and with teams failing to do the obvious thing to differentiate themselves from the rest of the weak bubble (i.e., win), you're likely to hear a myriad of reasons why Team A is better than Team B. Naturally, some arguments are better than others. For instance, the committee will likely sympathize with teams that were without a key player for a portion of the season (Arizona comes to mind). They'll also take note of the fact that a team only lost to elite competition (it's what Davidson is currently banking on). Teams that are grasping at straws will like to point out that, whereas team A got to beef up their resumé on mid-major conference fodder, they had to go through the rigors of a major conference. There's something to it, but I'm not sure how much the Selection Committee cares.
One argument is more ignorant and less relevant than all the others. "When it comes down to it, this is a business. The NCAA would much rather have a team like Kentucky (or Florida, Maryland, Syracuse, et al) than Virginia Commonwealth because they know they'll sell tickets and people will watch on TV."
Asinine.
I'm not naïve. In fact, I'm pretty damned cynical. Above all, though, I'm a realist. Money does make the world go round, and there's not a doubt in my mind that the NCAA wants to make as much money as possible. The problem is, there's just no benefit to including a team in the tournament because of the name on the front of the jersey.
Understand that, as is the case with most teams on the bubble, they're not going to get a very good seed. A team seeded in the 9-16 range is not expected to last too terribly long in the NCAA Tournament, meaning that for all intents and purposes, they're being selected to play in one game. Would the Selection Committee really care so much about revenue that they'd select a team on marketability for one game out of a 63 game tournament? Common sense says, "no." Not surprisingly, fans say, "yes."
So, let's assume that the NCAA does indeed care about the extra profits it can make from one solitary first round game in a massive, three-week tournament. Logically, a team like Kentucky really would bring a lot of fans to a first-round game. The problem is, tickets for the entire first weekend are usually sold out by the time the brackets are announced - either by fans of highly-seeded teams anticipating their team's first round location or (more often) by scalpers and third-party ticket websites looking to exploit teams in Kentucky's position. As far as the NCAA is concerned, their tickets are sold, and they can wash their hands of the issue. Undoubtedly, the scalpers and third-party websites would much rather see a team like Kentucky in the field, but they don't have a voice on the Selection Committee. In the case of ticket sales, it is of no great benefit for the NCAA to choose Kentucky or any other name-brand school over a capable mid-major.
But what about TV? Surely, the NCAA would want to include teams that will appeal to the broadest possible fanbase, wouldn't they? First of all, I'm not entirely sure that a team like a low-seeded Kentucky would appeal to more fans than Virginia Commonwealth or South Alabama. Kentucky appeals greatly to Kentucky fans, but it could be argued that the rest of the country either doesn't care about them or actively dislikes them. When mid-major teams take on highly-seeded major opponents, the entire country tends to rally around them in a Horatio Algar love-fest.
For the sake of argument, though, we'll say that Kentucky would bring in a better TV audience. It still doesn't matter. For one, whenever Kentucky plays in the first round, they're going to be up against three other games. This means that if Kentucky was to be replaced by a less glamorous team, there is a good chance that another game that is airing simultaneously will be airing a more competitive or more glamorous game. Secondly, the NCAA is in the middle of an 11 year deal with CBS that they signed in 2003, meaning that between 2003 and 2014, 693 NCAA Tournament games will have aired. Kentucky's solitary 2008 NCAA Tournament game would account for at best 1/693 or 0.14% of the revenue of the NCAA's television contract, assuming that the team that would be selected in Kentucky's stead would attract 0 viewers.
Would CBS prefer to have team like Kentucky? Possibly, though the increase in their profits would be between marginal and negligible. But again, they have no voice on the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee.
All this aside, Kentucky will probably make the NCAA Tournament. I can assure you that it will be on merit alone. You can crack a smug smile when someone suggests otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)