By Matt Vachlon
The Big Ten announced its new divisional alignment last week and Michigan and Ohio State were placed in separate divisions.
Yet there was no rioting here in Big Ten country. No people with torches on a march to Park Ridge, Ill., home of the Big Ten Conference Headquarters.
After all, Ohio State and Michigan will still be playing each other the last game of the season.
Thus, the fans won!
But really it was Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany who emerged victorious, simply for holding his ground.
You see, logic definitely dictated that the league’s four premier programs: Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State and Penn State needed to be split. It’s always a big event in college football when two bluebloods share the field, so they rightfully were spread evenly across divisions.
And splitting the Michigan and Ohio State was absolutely the right move.
Big Ten championships have historically been on the line when these two meet, so while playing for a division title sounds nice as a concept, it’s just not the same. The only way to keep these high stakes was to leave the opportunity open for Michigan and Ohio State to meet in the Big Ten Championship Game.
And while I probably would’ve moved the game to a date earlier in November, those who worry that “The Game” might lose some of its luster by being played at the end of the season, with a potential repeat matchup in the championship game a week later, are being foolish. Remember, the credo of the BCS is that the whole season is a playoff. If anything, there’s now less room for error since the game will be played so close to the end of the season.
As for the rest of the divisional make up, I was a little disappointed. I think Delaney over thought the process.
Competitive balance should not have been the main priority after dealing with the four aforementioned programs. Rivalries, after all, are what make college football special, and, for the most part, they go hand in hand with geography. Having those games have implications on the divisional standings when it doesn’t involve tradition-rich programs also doesn’t hurt.
Consider that in-state rivals Illinois and Northwestern are now split up. Over 100 years of history between Wisconsin and Minnesota has been banished to opposite divisions. And worst of all, since a protected crossover game will at least assure that the first two aforementioned matchups will still occur on an annual basis, Iowa and Wisconsin won’t be protected.
Sorry, I’m just not convinced that Wisconsin and Iowa are so elite that they had to be separated. Check how their all-time records stack up against their Big Ten brethren if you don’t believe me.
And while I know that Delany looked at data from 1993 to the present to determine balance, the move is still short-sighted. Iowa and Wisconsin have indeed ranked up with the big boys during that time frame, however, Northwestern, Illinois and Purdue have all made Rose Bowl appearances since then, as well. What’s to stop one of them from forming the next dynasty?
Add in the fact that the ACC has been criticized for a very similar format and I would’ve done a geographical North-South split.
To do so, I would’ve flip-flopped Northwestern and Wisconsin. The move appears minor as it only preserves one more trophy game than was previously protected, but Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota should be in the same division. It also allows for an annual Nebraska-Wisconsin game which is what both schools reportedly wanted and puts Illinois and Northwestern back in the same division.
Now I know my divisions appear unbalanced, but name one school (besides Michigan and Ohio State) that is missing any of its traditional rivals. And happiness is what really matters anyway.
Just ask Nebraska.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
One, two, three strikes Selig’s out regarding baseball’s most recent issues
By Matt Vachlon
Apparently, I was being too nostalgic for Bud Selig’s taste.
It was only two weeks ago when I called for Selig to step down, based on a decade of poor decision-making. The commissioner responded last week by taking his ineptitude to a whole new level.
He stepped up to the plate and whiffed on three pretty significant issues: the 2011 All-Star Game, the Phillies binoculars scandal and the relocation of the Blue Jays-Phillies series.
I kid, of course, that Selig’s decisions had anything to do with what I said. But, all kidding aside, his actions continue to raise red flags regarding his decision-making skills.
In simply ignoring calls to move next year's All-Star Game from Phoenix, as a result of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, Selig missed the opportunity to make an important political statement, regardless of his stance. As Bob wrote, “whether you disagree with the bill or not, you must realize that sports are more than just a getaway for a 40-year-old guy to decompress after a day’s work.”
The Phoenix Suns, who are in the midst of a playoff run, certainly weren’t afraid to take that stand.
But Selig, instead, took the coward’s way out spewing something about Major League Baseball’s minority hiring record and how he received a lifetime achievement award from the Jackie Robinson Foundation. That’s fantastic and congratulations to him, but it has little to do with addressing the issue at hand.
And it’s one that certainly requires his attention.
Two-time All-Star Adrian Gonzalez of the San Diego Padres has already gone on record as saying he will boycott the All-Star game next year if the law is still in place. So has White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen. With nearly 25 percent of Major League players being of Latin American origin it’s a fair assumption that many of them could be impacted by this new law.
Add in the fact that the All-Star game determines home-field advantage in the World Series and it make’s Selig’s view (or lack thereof) incredibly short-sighted. After all, can you really play such an important game without some of the game’s best players?
Of course not, which is why such a gutless response was so unacceptable in the first place. If he truly believes the game absolutely must remain in Phoenix, then the players are owed an explanation, and one that amounts to more than just saying “we’ve built up enough good will, so deal with it.”
Then again what do you expect when your commissioner supports cheating?
I was truly disheartened by Selig’s response to accusations that the Phillies were stealing signs from the Colorado Rockies’ bullpen with binoculars. While I have no problem with players or coaches stealing signs with their own eyes (the signs are meant to prevent this in the first place), the use of foreign devices is a different story. A commissioner simply must be above the “back in my day this happened so that makes it okay” response. As I’ve said before, think of what used to happen “back in the day” regarding any facet of history.
At least we know that excuse can’t be the reason behind the bone-headed decision to shift the Blue Jays-Phillies series from Toronto to Philadelphia because of the G20 summit.
Prior precedent in those cases would’ve moved the series to a neutral site. Upon looking at the schedule for that weekend, Cleveland, Pittsburgh or Detroit were all suitable and available locations.
The end result is that Phillies get three more “home” games than everyone else (even if they’re technically going to be the visitors), while Blue Jays get three less and lose out on welcoming Roy Halladay back and drawing perhaps their biggest crowds of the season. Why the G20 summit wasn’t taken into consideration when the schedule was made is beyond me, but as I’m sure you now realize, much of what that man does is baffle me.
With about 75 percent of the season still to go, one can only wonder what Bud is still capable of screwing up.
Apparently, I was being too nostalgic for Bud Selig’s taste.
It was only two weeks ago when I called for Selig to step down, based on a decade of poor decision-making. The commissioner responded last week by taking his ineptitude to a whole new level.
He stepped up to the plate and whiffed on three pretty significant issues: the 2011 All-Star Game, the Phillies binoculars scandal and the relocation of the Blue Jays-Phillies series.
I kid, of course, that Selig’s decisions had anything to do with what I said. But, all kidding aside, his actions continue to raise red flags regarding his decision-making skills.
In simply ignoring calls to move next year's All-Star Game from Phoenix, as a result of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, Selig missed the opportunity to make an important political statement, regardless of his stance. As Bob wrote, “whether you disagree with the bill or not, you must realize that sports are more than just a getaway for a 40-year-old guy to decompress after a day’s work.”
The Phoenix Suns, who are in the midst of a playoff run, certainly weren’t afraid to take that stand.
But Selig, instead, took the coward’s way out spewing something about Major League Baseball’s minority hiring record and how he received a lifetime achievement award from the Jackie Robinson Foundation. That’s fantastic and congratulations to him, but it has little to do with addressing the issue at hand.
And it’s one that certainly requires his attention.
Two-time All-Star Adrian Gonzalez of the San Diego Padres has already gone on record as saying he will boycott the All-Star game next year if the law is still in place. So has White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen. With nearly 25 percent of Major League players being of Latin American origin it’s a fair assumption that many of them could be impacted by this new law.
Add in the fact that the All-Star game determines home-field advantage in the World Series and it make’s Selig’s view (or lack thereof) incredibly short-sighted. After all, can you really play such an important game without some of the game’s best players?
Of course not, which is why such a gutless response was so unacceptable in the first place. If he truly believes the game absolutely must remain in Phoenix, then the players are owed an explanation, and one that amounts to more than just saying “we’ve built up enough good will, so deal with it.”
Then again what do you expect when your commissioner supports cheating?
I was truly disheartened by Selig’s response to accusations that the Phillies were stealing signs from the Colorado Rockies’ bullpen with binoculars. While I have no problem with players or coaches stealing signs with their own eyes (the signs are meant to prevent this in the first place), the use of foreign devices is a different story. A commissioner simply must be above the “back in my day this happened so that makes it okay” response. As I’ve said before, think of what used to happen “back in the day” regarding any facet of history.
At least we know that excuse can’t be the reason behind the bone-headed decision to shift the Blue Jays-Phillies series from Toronto to Philadelphia because of the G20 summit.
Prior precedent in those cases would’ve moved the series to a neutral site. Upon looking at the schedule for that weekend, Cleveland, Pittsburgh or Detroit were all suitable and available locations.
The end result is that Phillies get three more “home” games than everyone else (even if they’re technically going to be the visitors), while Blue Jays get three less and lose out on welcoming Roy Halladay back and drawing perhaps their biggest crowds of the season. Why the G20 summit wasn’t taken into consideration when the schedule was made is beyond me, but as I’m sure you now realize, much of what that man does is baffle me.
With about 75 percent of the season still to go, one can only wonder what Bud is still capable of screwing up.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Sports: Both entertainment and forum
By Bob Herman
Things have blown up in the past couple weeks since Arizona passed Senate Bill 1070, which aims to identify and deport illegal immigrants from the state. Protests, rallies, and general discussion of the much-overlooked issue of immigration have exploded, and it's even seeped into the world of sports.
And I couldn't be happier.
I understand many people would prefer that their favorite athletes and teams stay out of the political discussions. They are around to play ball, nothing more. Well, I disagree. Athletes just so happen to play ball in one of most widespread and noticed open forums in the country: sport.
Things particularly intensified in the areas surrounding and including Arizona roughly two weeks after the bill had passed. The Phoenix Suns wore their "Los Suns" jerseys during their Cinco de Mayo playoff matchup versus the San Antonio Spurs. A few days before, prominent Hispanic slugger Adrian Gonzalez of the nearby San Diego Padres said he'd even go so far as to boycott next year's All-Star Game in Arizona because of the bill.
Whether you disagree with the bill or not, you must realize that sports are more than just a getaway for a 40-year-old guy to decompress after a day's work. We are all surrounded by athletics--newspapers, magazines, TV shows devoted to the area--so I find it invigorating when people like Gonzalez and Steve Nash take advantage of the great forum that is sport and state their views. As Dave Zirin said in this interview on Democracy Now!, "anybody who believes that sports cannot be an effective platform for social justice need only to have watched the [Suns game] last night and they would’ve been forever changed."
These recent acts of solidarity among America's professional sports leagues are not anything new, especially in the international sporting community. Who could forget Tommie Harris and John Carlos, in the 1968 Olympics, raising their arms for "Black Power" and adorning themselves in symbolic artifacts during the civil rights movement? And South African sports especially used their political voices during the apartheid era.
The point being, this is good for sports. Moreso, this is good for the country. Expressing the beauty that is our First Amendment right--and having it expressed to millions of sports fans--is a great way to create debate. Heck, it even prompted Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to defend the bill on ESPN of all places.
So props to the sports and political figures for using the platforms that reach many people, and actions like these definitely make me respect someone like Adrian Gonzalez even more. He's not afraid to belt a dinger out of Petco, and he's not afraid to speak out against a bill that brings racial profiling to the surface. Regardless of how you feel about the bill, you have to admire the way a stereotypically inactive, national sports community is responding.
Things have blown up in the past couple weeks since Arizona passed Senate Bill 1070, which aims to identify and deport illegal immigrants from the state. Protests, rallies, and general discussion of the much-overlooked issue of immigration have exploded, and it's even seeped into the world of sports.
And I couldn't be happier.
I understand many people would prefer that their favorite athletes and teams stay out of the political discussions. They are around to play ball, nothing more. Well, I disagree. Athletes just so happen to play ball in one of most widespread and noticed open forums in the country: sport.
Things particularly intensified in the areas surrounding and including Arizona roughly two weeks after the bill had passed. The Phoenix Suns wore their "Los Suns" jerseys during their Cinco de Mayo playoff matchup versus the San Antonio Spurs. A few days before, prominent Hispanic slugger Adrian Gonzalez of the nearby San Diego Padres said he'd even go so far as to boycott next year's All-Star Game in Arizona because of the bill.
Whether you disagree with the bill or not, you must realize that sports are more than just a getaway for a 40-year-old guy to decompress after a day's work. We are all surrounded by athletics--newspapers, magazines, TV shows devoted to the area--so I find it invigorating when people like Gonzalez and Steve Nash take advantage of the great forum that is sport and state their views. As Dave Zirin said in this interview on Democracy Now!, "anybody who believes that sports cannot be an effective platform for social justice need only to have watched the [Suns game] last night and they would’ve been forever changed."
These recent acts of solidarity among America's professional sports leagues are not anything new, especially in the international sporting community. Who could forget Tommie Harris and John Carlos, in the 1968 Olympics, raising their arms for "Black Power" and adorning themselves in symbolic artifacts during the civil rights movement? And South African sports especially used their political voices during the apartheid era.
The point being, this is good for sports. Moreso, this is good for the country. Expressing the beauty that is our First Amendment right--and having it expressed to millions of sports fans--is a great way to create debate. Heck, it even prompted Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to defend the bill on ESPN of all places.
So props to the sports and political figures for using the platforms that reach many people, and actions like these definitely make me respect someone like Adrian Gonzalez even more. He's not afraid to belt a dinger out of Petco, and he's not afraid to speak out against a bill that brings racial profiling to the surface. Regardless of how you feel about the bill, you have to admire the way a stereotypically inactive, national sports community is responding.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Hey MLB this isn’t rocket science: This Bud isn’t for you
By Matt Vachlon
Bud Selig has had his fair share of critics over the years and I’ll admit me calling for his ouster is not a novel concept.
But at some point you have to wonder how many lives this cat has.
In a year where the Milwaukee Brewers have decided to honor their former owner with a statue, Selig has continued to do what he does best:
Perpetually make Major League Baseball a laughingstock.
The man who has overseen such dazzling achievements as the 1994 player’s strike, the failure of the Montreal Expos and a steroid scandal that has tainted baseball’s record book forever has offered us two more gems so far in this early season: the possibility of floating divisions and, this past week, the adoption of more rules changes to the All-Star Game.
Hey Bud, I know you plan to retire in 2012, but do us all a favor and go away now!
Seriously, I could write a novel about the stupidity of each of these ideas, but for your sake I’ll try and stress only the most obvious flaws. In the case of floating realignment, baseball in steeped in tradition and part of that tradition comes from rivalries. That can’t continue when your divisional rivals change each season.
Then there’s the message that it sends. Shifting divisions based on a team’s outlook on winning should raise all kinds of competitive red flags. Is there really much of a difference between shifting divisions in order to play more popular opponents because you plan on being bad, and fixing a World Series?
While obviously a bit of a stretch, I think it’s a slippery slope. Fortunately, I don’t think this plan will come to fruition, but Selig’s 14-person “special committee for on-field matters” should be fired for even considering such a thing.
Sadly though, the abomination that the All-Star Game has become is very real.
As if having home-field advantage in the World Series determined by an exhibition game in July wasn’t stupid enough, Selig has outdone himself this time. In making the designated hitter a permanent fixture in every All-Star Game, no matter the venue, he has now assured that home-field advantage will be determined by exclusively playing by one league’s rules. If I were a fan of a National League team, I’d be outraged.
Also, expanded rosters wouldn’t be necessary if the game, and remember it counts, weren’t managed like a Little League contest. Currently, we have fans voting who starts for each team and each manager trying to make sure that everybody plays.
Bud’s solution to this problem: Let’s make up a special rule, for this game only, which says one position player can be designated as eligible to return to the game.
You just can’t make this stuff up.
Oh, and now starting pitchers that pitch on Sunday are ineligible. This rule would be fine if it weren’t for the magnitude of the game. If you’re a manager of a first-place team you might be tempted to not pitch All-Star starter in a critical Sunday matchup because you hope he can help secure you home-field advantage by participating in the All-Star Game. Laugh at this scenario if you want, but it is plausible.
Essentially, Selig implemented rules that would be perfect for an exhibition contest, except that he’s made the All-Star Game anything but that.
It’s Selig in a nutshell. He never quite gets things right.
Unless, of course, he decided to step down now.
He would get that one right.
Bud Selig has had his fair share of critics over the years and I’ll admit me calling for his ouster is not a novel concept.
But at some point you have to wonder how many lives this cat has.
In a year where the Milwaukee Brewers have decided to honor their former owner with a statue, Selig has continued to do what he does best:
Perpetually make Major League Baseball a laughingstock.
The man who has overseen such dazzling achievements as the 1994 player’s strike, the failure of the Montreal Expos and a steroid scandal that has tainted baseball’s record book forever has offered us two more gems so far in this early season: the possibility of floating divisions and, this past week, the adoption of more rules changes to the All-Star Game.
Hey Bud, I know you plan to retire in 2012, but do us all a favor and go away now!
Seriously, I could write a novel about the stupidity of each of these ideas, but for your sake I’ll try and stress only the most obvious flaws. In the case of floating realignment, baseball in steeped in tradition and part of that tradition comes from rivalries. That can’t continue when your divisional rivals change each season.
Then there’s the message that it sends. Shifting divisions based on a team’s outlook on winning should raise all kinds of competitive red flags. Is there really much of a difference between shifting divisions in order to play more popular opponents because you plan on being bad, and fixing a World Series?
While obviously a bit of a stretch, I think it’s a slippery slope. Fortunately, I don’t think this plan will come to fruition, but Selig’s 14-person “special committee for on-field matters” should be fired for even considering such a thing.
Sadly though, the abomination that the All-Star Game has become is very real.
As if having home-field advantage in the World Series determined by an exhibition game in July wasn’t stupid enough, Selig has outdone himself this time. In making the designated hitter a permanent fixture in every All-Star Game, no matter the venue, he has now assured that home-field advantage will be determined by exclusively playing by one league’s rules. If I were a fan of a National League team, I’d be outraged.
Also, expanded rosters wouldn’t be necessary if the game, and remember it counts, weren’t managed like a Little League contest. Currently, we have fans voting who starts for each team and each manager trying to make sure that everybody plays.
Bud’s solution to this problem: Let’s make up a special rule, for this game only, which says one position player can be designated as eligible to return to the game.
You just can’t make this stuff up.
Oh, and now starting pitchers that pitch on Sunday are ineligible. This rule would be fine if it weren’t for the magnitude of the game. If you’re a manager of a first-place team you might be tempted to not pitch All-Star starter in a critical Sunday matchup because you hope he can help secure you home-field advantage by participating in the All-Star Game. Laugh at this scenario if you want, but it is plausible.
Essentially, Selig implemented rules that would be perfect for an exhibition contest, except that he’s made the All-Star Game anything but that.
It’s Selig in a nutshell. He never quite gets things right.
Unless, of course, he decided to step down now.
He would get that one right.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Look for NCAA to add a cherry to its expansion sundae
By Matt Vachlon
...And then, like a bad dream, it was all over.
At least, that’s how I felt upon hearing the news Thursday that the NCAA was only expanding to a 68-team tournament. After watching the quality of some of the games from this year’s NIT, it truly was unsettling to realize that all those teams could’ve been in the NCAA’s 96-team expansion model.
However, after returning to my senses, I realized that the NCAA’s new plan still had one glaring omission, which leads to one major question.
How will new teams be added into the bracket?
It’s a pretty safe bet that since the NCAA already had one play-in game with 65 teams, that it will simply add three more play-in games so that each region will now have a play-in game. Who will be playing in those games is a different story.
A common assumption is that the play-in games will continue to be for the right to be a 16-seed. I don’t deny that sounds like something the NCAA would do. After all, you can’t humiliate the big schools by making them play an extra game.
Or can you?
You can if the NCAA goes for the money grab. Seriously, I hope the NCAA goes all fifth-grade bully in a school cafeteria on this plan and tries to shake out every bit of loose change available before its implementation.
Now, before I go any further, I know what you’re thinking.
You’re saying to yourself, “How can you utter those words, Matt, especially after writing this a mere two months ago? And even more than that, why are you now backing the same selfish interests that you directly criticized the NCAA of when you wrote about expansion?”
In short: because it’s a win-win for everybody.
Let’s acknowledge for a second that the play-in game was going nowhere. Even though no one even remotely cared about Winthrop vs. Arkansas Pine-Bluff (except those associated with the schools) this past year, you never heard any rumor that the NCAA would go back to a 64-team field. That’s because you’d have to give up an at-large bid to do that since both were recipients of automatic births and likely cost yourself the presence of a big-name school.
I understand that logic, even if I disagree with it. But now, you’re going to tell me that one of the attractions of signing this TV deal for CBS/Turner was to have four of these games?
Nope, the draw is that you match up the bubble teams.
This accomplishes two things. First, it turns that Tuesday night of play-in games into a must-see event. Using teams suggested by ESPN’s Dana O'Neil, a quadruple header featuring Florida-Virginia Tech, UTEP-Illinois, Minnesota-Utah State and Mississippi State-Georgia Tech becomes instantly more palatable than the aforementioned match-up. I know that despite my protests against a larger field, I wouldn’t be against an extra day of meaningful basketball.
Second, from the NCAA’s side of things it gets us used to an extra round of games. According to CBS’s Gary Parrish, the NCAA hasn’t promised it won’t revisit expanding to 96 in teams in the future and I don’t doubt that. The jump to adding an extra round isn’t as great when you’re already used to an extra day.
I realize that my plan pushes us closer to the evil that is a 96-team field. But the reality is that if the NCAA wants it, it will come, no matter what we think. In the meantime, I just want 68 teams to be a great as it can possibly be.
...And then, like a bad dream, it was all over.
At least, that’s how I felt upon hearing the news Thursday that the NCAA was only expanding to a 68-team tournament. After watching the quality of some of the games from this year’s NIT, it truly was unsettling to realize that all those teams could’ve been in the NCAA’s 96-team expansion model.
However, after returning to my senses, I realized that the NCAA’s new plan still had one glaring omission, which leads to one major question.
How will new teams be added into the bracket?
It’s a pretty safe bet that since the NCAA already had one play-in game with 65 teams, that it will simply add three more play-in games so that each region will now have a play-in game. Who will be playing in those games is a different story.
A common assumption is that the play-in games will continue to be for the right to be a 16-seed. I don’t deny that sounds like something the NCAA would do. After all, you can’t humiliate the big schools by making them play an extra game.
Or can you?
You can if the NCAA goes for the money grab. Seriously, I hope the NCAA goes all fifth-grade bully in a school cafeteria on this plan and tries to shake out every bit of loose change available before its implementation.
Now, before I go any further, I know what you’re thinking.
You’re saying to yourself, “How can you utter those words, Matt, especially after writing this a mere two months ago? And even more than that, why are you now backing the same selfish interests that you directly criticized the NCAA of when you wrote about expansion?”
In short: because it’s a win-win for everybody.
Let’s acknowledge for a second that the play-in game was going nowhere. Even though no one even remotely cared about Winthrop vs. Arkansas Pine-Bluff (except those associated with the schools) this past year, you never heard any rumor that the NCAA would go back to a 64-team field. That’s because you’d have to give up an at-large bid to do that since both were recipients of automatic births and likely cost yourself the presence of a big-name school.
I understand that logic, even if I disagree with it. But now, you’re going to tell me that one of the attractions of signing this TV deal for CBS/Turner was to have four of these games?
Nope, the draw is that you match up the bubble teams.
This accomplishes two things. First, it turns that Tuesday night of play-in games into a must-see event. Using teams suggested by ESPN’s Dana O'Neil, a quadruple header featuring Florida-Virginia Tech, UTEP-Illinois, Minnesota-Utah State and Mississippi State-Georgia Tech becomes instantly more palatable than the aforementioned match-up. I know that despite my protests against a larger field, I wouldn’t be against an extra day of meaningful basketball.
Second, from the NCAA’s side of things it gets us used to an extra round of games. According to CBS’s Gary Parrish, the NCAA hasn’t promised it won’t revisit expanding to 96 in teams in the future and I don’t doubt that. The jump to adding an extra round isn’t as great when you’re already used to an extra day.
I realize that my plan pushes us closer to the evil that is a 96-team field. But the reality is that if the NCAA wants it, it will come, no matter what we think. In the meantime, I just want 68 teams to be a great as it can possibly be.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Phil's big day a blessing for PGA
By Matt Vachlon
Phil needed this. His wife needed this. His family needed this.
But the PGA needed this more.
I mean they really, really needed this.
When Phil Mickelson’s putt on 18 clinched his third victory at the Masters and led to his ensuing embrace with his wife, Amy, it may have brought about one of the more touching sports moments in recent memory, but it very likely caused some of the PGA’s big wigs to high five as well.
And they’d be smart to cash in on it.
I’m not trying to be crass. There is nothing more touching in sports than raw emotion in its truest form and this was a prime example. While I will not pretend to know what Mickelson and his family have been through over the past year in dealing with Amy’s and his mother’s breast cancer, the fact is it had to be hellish.
So the Mickelsons were understandably ecstatic to have something positive happen.
But if you’re the PGA, you also had to be ecstatic.
You see, the coverage leading up to this week wasn’t about Mickelson. It was about Tiger. That’s not a total shock. After all, Tiger is back and unquestionably he’s the straw that stirs the PGA’s drink. Add to the fact that he kept himself in the running to win the tournament all the way through Sunday, and you can see why much of the coverage was warranted.
The problem is, Tiger still has a bit of an image problem right now. The resulting chaos doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon and the PGA desperately needs to distance itself from this.
However, thanks to one of the most ironic weekends in sports history it now has an opportunity to do so.
Sure a noticeably rusty Woods gutted out a tie for fourth place at his first tournament in five months. But his absence was due to self-induced marital issues. Mickelson also had distractions which kept him away from the game of golf. However, his distractions were of the life or death variety and were beyond his control.
Phil ended up the winner, both athletically and morally.
An added plus is that Phil Mickelson is not some Johnny-come-lately with a great story. He’s a pillar of the sport, as evidenced by the winning of his third green jacket and fourth Major and, as a result, he’s one of the few who can rival Tiger’s popularity.
Let me be clear, I’m still not an advocate for making athletes into role models, as I explained here . But what happened at Augusta on Sunday was something so truly special on an emotional level and so badly needed for the sport that the PGA would be foolish to not try and capitalize on it.
Phil needed this. His wife needed this. His family needed this.
But the PGA needed this more.
I mean they really, really needed this.
When Phil Mickelson’s putt on 18 clinched his third victory at the Masters and led to his ensuing embrace with his wife, Amy, it may have brought about one of the more touching sports moments in recent memory, but it very likely caused some of the PGA’s big wigs to high five as well.
And they’d be smart to cash in on it.
I’m not trying to be crass. There is nothing more touching in sports than raw emotion in its truest form and this was a prime example. While I will not pretend to know what Mickelson and his family have been through over the past year in dealing with Amy’s and his mother’s breast cancer, the fact is it had to be hellish.
So the Mickelsons were understandably ecstatic to have something positive happen.
But if you’re the PGA, you also had to be ecstatic.
You see, the coverage leading up to this week wasn’t about Mickelson. It was about Tiger. That’s not a total shock. After all, Tiger is back and unquestionably he’s the straw that stirs the PGA’s drink. Add to the fact that he kept himself in the running to win the tournament all the way through Sunday, and you can see why much of the coverage was warranted.
The problem is, Tiger still has a bit of an image problem right now. The resulting chaos doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon and the PGA desperately needs to distance itself from this.
However, thanks to one of the most ironic weekends in sports history it now has an opportunity to do so.
Sure a noticeably rusty Woods gutted out a tie for fourth place at his first tournament in five months. But his absence was due to self-induced marital issues. Mickelson also had distractions which kept him away from the game of golf. However, his distractions were of the life or death variety and were beyond his control.
Phil ended up the winner, both athletically and morally.
An added plus is that Phil Mickelson is not some Johnny-come-lately with a great story. He’s a pillar of the sport, as evidenced by the winning of his third green jacket and fourth Major and, as a result, he’s one of the few who can rival Tiger’s popularity.
Let me be clear, I’m still not an advocate for making athletes into role models, as I explained here . But what happened at Augusta on Sunday was something so truly special on an emotional level and so badly needed for the sport that the PGA would be foolish to not try and capitalize on it.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Butler Still Wins
By Bob Herman
It's the perfect story that just didn't technically quite happen, yet we all wanted to happen.
When Butler barely lost to Duke 61-59 Monday night in the NCAA championship game, and I mean barely, the first reaction was utter shock and disbelief. Butler had gotten this close, and it came down to a missed Gordon Hayward fade-away baseline jumper and the most dramatic half-court shot that couldn't go in.
For a team like Butler to make the national championship game is, well, not very common. It was the first time the Dawgs had ever sniffed this kind of territory, and to get that close and not seal the deal was devastating to say the least.
But this all needs to be put into perspective.
Heading into this year, Butler was ranked 11th in the nation, but no one really expected this team to make it to the national championship game. For god sakes, this well-oiled machine of a team made it to the school's first-ever Elite Eight, Final Four, and national championship game.
Anyone who is a fan of Butler--and even those who aren't--will always remember this college basketball season for what Butler did. The Dawgs took on the biggest of the bigs and beat nearly all of them. Yes, this is the ultimate goal for any team, but it's the way Butler almost did it that gives hope to every other small school out there (I apologize for the indirect "Hoosiers" reference, but it's true...).
Now the big news is whether Brad Stevens will take this, that, or the other thing and if Gordon should stay or go now. But those are side items to a season that I and every other Butler fan will never, never, forget.
To the entire 2009-10 Butler Bulldogs basketball team, we can't thank you enough for what you've given us and the basketball world in an age that is rampant with recruiting malfeasance and teams run by the almighty dollar. You gave everyone a team to cheer for, and you played the right way, The Butler Way.
Sure, Duke won according to the record books, and I can't stop thinking about the "what ifs" from that game, but Butler is still the true winner of this year's college basketball season. Butler took the sport back to its roots and captured the hearts of millions along the way.
And as Ron Nored was quoted, "This isn't the end of our story. It's only the beginning."
It's the perfect story that just didn't technically quite happen, yet we all wanted to happen.
When Butler barely lost to Duke 61-59 Monday night in the NCAA championship game, and I mean barely, the first reaction was utter shock and disbelief. Butler had gotten this close, and it came down to a missed Gordon Hayward fade-away baseline jumper and the most dramatic half-court shot that couldn't go in.
For a team like Butler to make the national championship game is, well, not very common. It was the first time the Dawgs had ever sniffed this kind of territory, and to get that close and not seal the deal was devastating to say the least.
But this all needs to be put into perspective.
Heading into this year, Butler was ranked 11th in the nation, but no one really expected this team to make it to the national championship game. For god sakes, this well-oiled machine of a team made it to the school's first-ever Elite Eight, Final Four, and national championship game.
Anyone who is a fan of Butler--and even those who aren't--will always remember this college basketball season for what Butler did. The Dawgs took on the biggest of the bigs and beat nearly all of them. Yes, this is the ultimate goal for any team, but it's the way Butler almost did it that gives hope to every other small school out there (I apologize for the indirect "Hoosiers" reference, but it's true...).
Now the big news is whether Brad Stevens will take this, that, or the other thing and if Gordon should stay or go now. But those are side items to a season that I and every other Butler fan will never, never, forget.
To the entire 2009-10 Butler Bulldogs basketball team, we can't thank you enough for what you've given us and the basketball world in an age that is rampant with recruiting malfeasance and teams run by the almighty dollar. You gave everyone a team to cheer for, and you played the right way, The Butler Way.
Sure, Duke won according to the record books, and I can't stop thinking about the "what ifs" from that game, but Butler is still the true winner of this year's college basketball season. Butler took the sport back to its roots and captured the hearts of millions along the way.
And as Ron Nored was quoted, "This isn't the end of our story. It's only the beginning."
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Final Four is nice, but these Dawgs can do better
By Matt Vachlon
Before I’m accused of being arrogant, let me first admit that Saturday will go down as one of the greatest days of my life as a sports fan. I’ve never been so nervous about a game, and that includes watching the White Sox go all the way in 2005. But after the Butler defense locked down the Kansas State scoring duo of Jacob Pullen and Denis Clemente, the Butler Bulldogs will be playing in the Final Four, in Indianapolis.
Let me repeat, Butler is in the Final Four. Saying those words continues to blow my mind.
With that said, over the next week you’re going to hear a lot of "Hoosiers" references and there’s also the storyline of Butler being the first amongst its peers, Xavier and Gonzaga, to reach the Final Four. Those stories are nice and they each have their fair share of validity, but they each miss the major storyline behind Butler’s Final Four run.
These Bulldogs have a legitimate chance to win the national championship.
I know I’m getting ahead of myself and no one dislikes looking ahead more than head coach Brad Stevens. But it’s not like the team hasn’t already acknowledged this as its goal.
And they have legitimate reasons to be confident.
For starters, while every Butler fan knows the team has had its fair share of doubters throughout each round, each ensuing victory has more and more given the team the look of a champion. Against UTEP the Bulldogs made outstanding halftime adjustments, they gutted out a victory against Murray State when they weren’t at their best and they withstood late charges by both Syracuse and Kansas State, the top two seeds in their region.
Instead of wilting under the pressure this team has risen to the occasion. The nation’s sixth best defense in the country, according to Pomeroy, has held all four of its NCAA Tournament opponents below 60 points, including holding Syracuse and Kansas State to their lowest totals of the season. And the Bulldogs bona fide stars have shown up as Gordon Hayward and Shelvin Mack have scored in double figures in each game and Matt Howard has been solid when he hasn’t been plagued by foul trouble.
Still, it’s always acknowledged that things need to fall into place for a champion and Butler has seemingly had those intangibles as well.
The Bulldogs have had players step up as Ron Nored made clutch shots in both the Murray State and Syracuse games and seldom-used backup center Andrew Smith logged 12 key minutes for the foul-plagued Howard in the victory against Kansas State. They’ve made the hustle plays as epitomized by Hayward and Howard each laying out to knock balls into the backcourt on key defensive possessions against Murray State and Kansas State respectively. And finally, they’ve made the lucky plays like this shot (about 1:35 into the clip) by Willie Veasley against Syracuse.
Butler will no doubt have its hands full with Michigan State next weekend as every team that gets this far is obviously very good. And only one team can cut down the nets. Just don’t be totally surprised if the Bulldogs are that team.
Before I’m accused of being arrogant, let me first admit that Saturday will go down as one of the greatest days of my life as a sports fan. I’ve never been so nervous about a game, and that includes watching the White Sox go all the way in 2005. But after the Butler defense locked down the Kansas State scoring duo of Jacob Pullen and Denis Clemente, the Butler Bulldogs will be playing in the Final Four, in Indianapolis.
Let me repeat, Butler is in the Final Four. Saying those words continues to blow my mind.
With that said, over the next week you’re going to hear a lot of "Hoosiers" references and there’s also the storyline of Butler being the first amongst its peers, Xavier and Gonzaga, to reach the Final Four. Those stories are nice and they each have their fair share of validity, but they each miss the major storyline behind Butler’s Final Four run.
These Bulldogs have a legitimate chance to win the national championship.
I know I’m getting ahead of myself and no one dislikes looking ahead more than head coach Brad Stevens. But it’s not like the team hasn’t already acknowledged this as its goal.
And they have legitimate reasons to be confident.
For starters, while every Butler fan knows the team has had its fair share of doubters throughout each round, each ensuing victory has more and more given the team the look of a champion. Against UTEP the Bulldogs made outstanding halftime adjustments, they gutted out a victory against Murray State when they weren’t at their best and they withstood late charges by both Syracuse and Kansas State, the top two seeds in their region.
Instead of wilting under the pressure this team has risen to the occasion. The nation’s sixth best defense in the country, according to Pomeroy, has held all four of its NCAA Tournament opponents below 60 points, including holding Syracuse and Kansas State to their lowest totals of the season. And the Bulldogs bona fide stars have shown up as Gordon Hayward and Shelvin Mack have scored in double figures in each game and Matt Howard has been solid when he hasn’t been plagued by foul trouble.
Still, it’s always acknowledged that things need to fall into place for a champion and Butler has seemingly had those intangibles as well.
The Bulldogs have had players step up as Ron Nored made clutch shots in both the Murray State and Syracuse games and seldom-used backup center Andrew Smith logged 12 key minutes for the foul-plagued Howard in the victory against Kansas State. They’ve made the hustle plays as epitomized by Hayward and Howard each laying out to knock balls into the backcourt on key defensive possessions against Murray State and Kansas State respectively. And finally, they’ve made the lucky plays like this shot (about 1:35 into the clip) by Willie Veasley against Syracuse.
Butler will no doubt have its hands full with Michigan State next weekend as every team that gets this far is obviously very good. And only one team can cut down the nets. Just don’t be totally surprised if the Bulldogs are that team.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Mid-major Final Four would be a dream come true
By Bob Herman
Matt and I have been highlighting mid-majors and underdogs throughout this entire men's NCAA tournament, and deservedly so. Butler, Northern Iowa, Saint Mary's, Cornell, Murray State, Old Dominion, and Ohio have made their marks with huge victories against good competition.
Naturally, the mainsteam media doesn't pay attention until they have to, but that's the whole appeal of the mid-majors that play the role of spoiler: They're the little guys, the non-flashy, down-to-earth, right-to-basics teams that everyone can relate to, be it as an alumnus/alumna who has lived off that basketball for ages or as a regular basketball fan who appreciates the game outside of the self-promoting dunks and large, big-program egomaniacs.
That's why I was appalled upon reading this article today by Gary Parrish, who normally defends the mid-majors. Gary, are the Big 6 conferences paying you off to say a "BracketBuster Final Four" would be a bore? Because that's complete rubbish.
Not only would a Final Four of Butler, Northern Iowa, Cornell, and Saint Mary's be incredibly entertaining, it's what I'm hoping will happen. Clearly, the odds are stacked against it, as Butler and Cornell both play No. 1 seeds this week, but if it were to happen, this would be the greatest string of upsets in the history of sport. Period. Nothing would really compare because it would hypothetically involve four small schools playing the best basketball of their lives--and beating the "best" competition in the country. It is the ultimate David vs. Goliath scenario.
Yet Gary Parrish is telling us that the greatest string of upsets in the history of sports won't be entertaining because the Cinderella storylines don't match up well against...other Cinderellas. Seriously? The more I think about it, the more idiotic that sounds.
Think about it. There hasn't been an upset winner of the men's tournament since 1985 when Villanova won as an 8-seed. Whenever a smaller team makes a run at the big boys (most recently, George Mason in 2006), it most definitely makes things interesting because no one sees it coming.
I, apparently unlike Gary Parrish, do not need a high-tempo game with 42 turnovers and a couple of "thunder" dunks. Yes, it depends a little on the a person's proximity to a given program, and I'll admit I'm a sucker for a good dunk. But that's one moment. It's fleeting. And I'm a fan of my team and the sport. They aren't mutually exclusive. I'd rather see a well-played basketball game end in a 54-52 nail biter than a sloppy yet TV-friendly display of "athleticism."
I can only hope that by the end of this week, I will see Northern Iowa, Butler, Cornell, and Saint Mary's in the Final Four. It probably won't happen (then again, 98 percent of the 4.8 million people in the ESPN.com bracket had Kansas in the Sweet 16...), but it would be a spectacle to see. To those who are anti-mid-major and are more concerned with your bracket, get a grip and realize how great the sport is right now. It's not every year that this many Cinderellas have such a good chance at taking the prize.
(A semi-unrelated and very homerish closing thought and link: How's this for athleticism?)
Matt and I have been highlighting mid-majors and underdogs throughout this entire men's NCAA tournament, and deservedly so. Butler, Northern Iowa, Saint Mary's, Cornell, Murray State, Old Dominion, and Ohio have made their marks with huge victories against good competition.
Naturally, the mainsteam media doesn't pay attention until they have to, but that's the whole appeal of the mid-majors that play the role of spoiler: They're the little guys, the non-flashy, down-to-earth, right-to-basics teams that everyone can relate to, be it as an alumnus/alumna who has lived off that basketball for ages or as a regular basketball fan who appreciates the game outside of the self-promoting dunks and large, big-program egomaniacs.
That's why I was appalled upon reading this article today by Gary Parrish, who normally defends the mid-majors. Gary, are the Big 6 conferences paying you off to say a "BracketBuster Final Four" would be a bore? Because that's complete rubbish.
Not only would a Final Four of Butler, Northern Iowa, Cornell, and Saint Mary's be incredibly entertaining, it's what I'm hoping will happen. Clearly, the odds are stacked against it, as Butler and Cornell both play No. 1 seeds this week, but if it were to happen, this would be the greatest string of upsets in the history of sport. Period. Nothing would really compare because it would hypothetically involve four small schools playing the best basketball of their lives--and beating the "best" competition in the country. It is the ultimate David vs. Goliath scenario.
Yet Gary Parrish is telling us that the greatest string of upsets in the history of sports won't be entertaining because the Cinderella storylines don't match up well against...other Cinderellas. Seriously? The more I think about it, the more idiotic that sounds.
Think about it. There hasn't been an upset winner of the men's tournament since 1985 when Villanova won as an 8-seed. Whenever a smaller team makes a run at the big boys (most recently, George Mason in 2006), it most definitely makes things interesting because no one sees it coming.
I, apparently unlike Gary Parrish, do not need a high-tempo game with 42 turnovers and a couple of "thunder" dunks. Yes, it depends a little on the a person's proximity to a given program, and I'll admit I'm a sucker for a good dunk. But that's one moment. It's fleeting. And I'm a fan of my team and the sport. They aren't mutually exclusive. I'd rather see a well-played basketball game end in a 54-52 nail biter than a sloppy yet TV-friendly display of "athleticism."
I can only hope that by the end of this week, I will see Northern Iowa, Butler, Cornell, and Saint Mary's in the Final Four. It probably won't happen (then again, 98 percent of the 4.8 million people in the ESPN.com bracket had Kansas in the Sweet 16...), but it would be a spectacle to see. To those who are anti-mid-major and are more concerned with your bracket, get a grip and realize how great the sport is right now. It's not every year that this many Cinderellas have such a good chance at taking the prize.
(A semi-unrelated and very homerish closing thought and link: How's this for athleticism?)
Saturday, March 20, 2010
A closer look at this year's Cinderella candidates
By Matt Vachlon
I wrote in this space last week that mid-majors had a chance to put a major stamp on this tournament and lo and behold, 11 of the 32 second round spots are currently occupied by teams from outside the power six conferences.
Now, I could simply use this week’s entry as a means to gloat about my amazing ability to predict the future, but to do so would be neither productive nor honest, as, truth be told, I only had 21 out of the 32 first round games picked correctly. Needless to say my bracket is pretty much garbage and since yours likely is too, I won’t waste anymore time discussing brackets.
Instead, I’ll focus on \ the remaining Cinderella teams and I’ll reevaluate their chances at advancing farther into the tournament. It’s worth noting that in my previous entry, I only acknowledged double-digit seeds as true Cinderella teams. Thus, my analysis will not include New Mexico, Butler, Xavier, BYU or Gonzaga. I will, however, amend my sample to include 9-seed Northern Iowa since the Panthers are technically underdogs for the entire tournament as well, based on seeding projections.
Thus we are left with six potential Cinderellas:
(Note: All offensive and defensive efficiency statistics were taken from kenpom.com):
1. Northern Iowa (9 seed, Midwest Region; First round defeated No. 8 (seed) UNLV 69-66; Next up: vs. No. 1 Kansas)
The Panthers certainly fit my criteria of a team that could make a deep run. They won the Missouri Valley regular season title and bring an impressive 29-4 record into the game against Kansas. The problem is the Jayhawks are the No. 1 overall seed. And Northern Iowa is a nine. Add the fact that Kansas is in the Top 5 in both offensive and defensive efficiency and that should more than offset any defensive advantage that the Panthers might have brought into this game. Although I believe they will slow the Jayhawks down, I simply can’t see any way that Northern Iowa pulls this one out.
2. Saint Mary’s (10 seed, South Region; First round defeated No. 7 Richmond 80-71; Next up: vs. No. 2 Villanova)
The Gaels may not have been a regular season conference champion, but they certainly should present a matchup problem for Villanova. Center Omar Samhan makes Saint Mary’s click and at 6’ 11” he towers over many of the regulars for the Wildcats. Both teams are almost mirror images on the offensive and defensive ends and, as a result, it will likely come down to whether ‘Nova can get Samhan into any type of foul trouble. I think Saint Mary’s certainly has a shot, but ultimately I think Villanova’s previous tournament experience will pay off for them.
3. Old Dominion (11 seed, South Region; First round defeated No. 6 Notre Dame 51-50; Next up: vs. No. 3 Baylor)
Old Dominion presents a special case since they hail from the same league as George Mason and have the same seed that the Patriots had during their historic run to the Final Four in 2006. The Monarchs matchup with Baylor should be interesting as both teams have similar strengths. Old Dominion is outstanding on the offensive glass ranking No. 1 overall according to KenPom, but the Bears are no slouches either as they rank in the Top 30. Both teams are also solid defensively, but the game should be decided by three-point shooting as Baylor generally excels at it, while Old Dominion does not. If the Monarchs do pull it out, they would seem to match up favorably with both Villanova or Saint Mary’s in the next round.
4. Cornell (12 seed, East Region; First round defeated No. 5 Temple 78-65; Next up: vs. No. 4 Wisconsin)
On paper, this would seem to be a tough matchup for Cornell as Wisconsin ranks third in KenPom’s overall rankings. However, the Big Red took Kansas (Pomeroy’s No. 2 team) down to the wire in Lawrence back in January and the Badgers certainly are not a threat to run them out of the building. While Wisconsin is solid defensively, Cornell is outstanding from behind the arc and also takes pretty good care of the basketball. I think Cornell has the best chance of all the mid-major underdogs of getting through this round and I have a gut feeling they’ll get it done.
5. Murray State (13 seed, West Region; First round defeated No. 4 Vanderbilt 66-65; Next up vs. No. 5 Butler)
Given the first-round statement made by Butler this game has flown under the radar a bit. However, Murray State has won 31 games this season and provides an interesting stylistic matchup for the Bulldogs. On paper they are a poor man’s version of Butler (Top 50 vs. Top 15 defensively and Top 70 vs. Top 50 offensively), but the Racers have six players who can score and this could potentially cause matchup problems for Butler. However, Murray State struggles with turnovers more so than UTEP did and I’ll believe that they can speed up the game on Butler when I see it. I expect the Bulldogs to win a closer than expected game.
6. Ohio (14 seed, Midwest Region; First round defeated No. 3 Georgetown 97-83; Next up vs. No. 6 Tennessee)
There was no bigger surprise in the first round than Ohio shocking the Hoyas. After finishing in ninth place in the Mid American Conference, the Bobcats flew under everyone’s radar. While a 14 seed has only advanced to the Sweet 16 twice, it is worth noting that both times it occurred against a 6 seed. And while Tennessee ranks No. 8 defensively, they are less than impressive on the offensive end. Although it goes against almost all the criteria I stated last week, if Armon Bassett can once catch fire for Ohio, a second upset is not out of the realm of possibility.
I wrote in this space last week that mid-majors had a chance to put a major stamp on this tournament and lo and behold, 11 of the 32 second round spots are currently occupied by teams from outside the power six conferences.
Now, I could simply use this week’s entry as a means to gloat about my amazing ability to predict the future, but to do so would be neither productive nor honest, as, truth be told, I only had 21 out of the 32 first round games picked correctly. Needless to say my bracket is pretty much garbage and since yours likely is too, I won’t waste anymore time discussing brackets.
Instead, I’ll focus on \ the remaining Cinderella teams and I’ll reevaluate their chances at advancing farther into the tournament. It’s worth noting that in my previous entry, I only acknowledged double-digit seeds as true Cinderella teams. Thus, my analysis will not include New Mexico, Butler, Xavier, BYU or Gonzaga. I will, however, amend my sample to include 9-seed Northern Iowa since the Panthers are technically underdogs for the entire tournament as well, based on seeding projections.
Thus we are left with six potential Cinderellas:
(Note: All offensive and defensive efficiency statistics were taken from kenpom.com):
1. Northern Iowa (9 seed, Midwest Region; First round defeated No. 8 (seed) UNLV 69-66; Next up: vs. No. 1 Kansas)
The Panthers certainly fit my criteria of a team that could make a deep run. They won the Missouri Valley regular season title and bring an impressive 29-4 record into the game against Kansas. The problem is the Jayhawks are the No. 1 overall seed. And Northern Iowa is a nine. Add the fact that Kansas is in the Top 5 in both offensive and defensive efficiency and that should more than offset any defensive advantage that the Panthers might have brought into this game. Although I believe they will slow the Jayhawks down, I simply can’t see any way that Northern Iowa pulls this one out.
2. Saint Mary’s (10 seed, South Region; First round defeated No. 7 Richmond 80-71; Next up: vs. No. 2 Villanova)
The Gaels may not have been a regular season conference champion, but they certainly should present a matchup problem for Villanova. Center Omar Samhan makes Saint Mary’s click and at 6’ 11” he towers over many of the regulars for the Wildcats. Both teams are almost mirror images on the offensive and defensive ends and, as a result, it will likely come down to whether ‘Nova can get Samhan into any type of foul trouble. I think Saint Mary’s certainly has a shot, but ultimately I think Villanova’s previous tournament experience will pay off for them.
3. Old Dominion (11 seed, South Region; First round defeated No. 6 Notre Dame 51-50; Next up: vs. No. 3 Baylor)
Old Dominion presents a special case since they hail from the same league as George Mason and have the same seed that the Patriots had during their historic run to the Final Four in 2006. The Monarchs matchup with Baylor should be interesting as both teams have similar strengths. Old Dominion is outstanding on the offensive glass ranking No. 1 overall according to KenPom, but the Bears are no slouches either as they rank in the Top 30. Both teams are also solid defensively, but the game should be decided by three-point shooting as Baylor generally excels at it, while Old Dominion does not. If the Monarchs do pull it out, they would seem to match up favorably with both Villanova or Saint Mary’s in the next round.
4. Cornell (12 seed, East Region; First round defeated No. 5 Temple 78-65; Next up: vs. No. 4 Wisconsin)
On paper, this would seem to be a tough matchup for Cornell as Wisconsin ranks third in KenPom’s overall rankings. However, the Big Red took Kansas (Pomeroy’s No. 2 team) down to the wire in Lawrence back in January and the Badgers certainly are not a threat to run them out of the building. While Wisconsin is solid defensively, Cornell is outstanding from behind the arc and also takes pretty good care of the basketball. I think Cornell has the best chance of all the mid-major underdogs of getting through this round and I have a gut feeling they’ll get it done.
5. Murray State (13 seed, West Region; First round defeated No. 4 Vanderbilt 66-65; Next up vs. No. 5 Butler)
Given the first-round statement made by Butler this game has flown under the radar a bit. However, Murray State has won 31 games this season and provides an interesting stylistic matchup for the Bulldogs. On paper they are a poor man’s version of Butler (Top 50 vs. Top 15 defensively and Top 70 vs. Top 50 offensively), but the Racers have six players who can score and this could potentially cause matchup problems for Butler. However, Murray State struggles with turnovers more so than UTEP did and I’ll believe that they can speed up the game on Butler when I see it. I expect the Bulldogs to win a closer than expected game.
6. Ohio (14 seed, Midwest Region; First round defeated No. 3 Georgetown 97-83; Next up vs. No. 6 Tennessee)
There was no bigger surprise in the first round than Ohio shocking the Hoyas. After finishing in ninth place in the Mid American Conference, the Bobcats flew under everyone’s radar. While a 14 seed has only advanced to the Sweet 16 twice, it is worth noting that both times it occurred against a 6 seed. And while Tennessee ranks No. 8 defensively, they are less than impressive on the offensive end. Although it goes against almost all the criteria I stated last week, if Armon Bassett can once catch fire for Ohio, a second upset is not out of the realm of possibility.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Five Gut Instincts in this Year's March Madness
By Bob Herman
This is, perhaps, one of the greatest sports weeks of the year. Selection Sunday was a joy fest as Greg Gumbel so eloquently rattled off every one of the 65 teams who will square off in the NCAA Tournament.
Tonight officially commenced the race to Indianapolis, and it took off with a bang to say the least (well, for those who give a crap about the play-in game). A scrappy University of Arkansas-Pine Bluff team, which lost 11 straight to begin its seemingly inauspicious year, took down Winthrop and will now face Duke.
UAPB is now 18-15, has won 17 of its last 21, and so far is the epitome of a Cinderella that Matt referenced last week (somewhat). How is that not a sign of things to come?
Now, I may not be as cool at Joe Lunardi or as lucky as, well, anyone, but everyone has gut instincts. While I will dutifully exclude Butler from this list to avoid any sort of jinx (...ok, ok, I have them going to the Final Four, but that's all I'm saying), here are five of my big gut instincts for this year's tournament:
1. North Texas (15-seed) will take down Kansas State (2-seed) in the first round.
KSU is really limping into this tournament, losing three of its last five (yeah, yeah, yeah, two of those were to Kansas; but if you can't beat the best once out of two times, then that's a sign). North Texas, on the other hand, has won its last 11 (albeit against creme puffs). We haven't seen a 2-seed fall in the first round since in a good nine years. If there were to be a 2-seed to go down, it most certainly seems like Kansas State would be that team. UNT is a good free-throw shooting team and have solid players in George Odufuwa and Josh White; KSU's biggest momentum was before 2010 started (they team was 12-1 pre-new year)--this seems so right.
2. The mythical "12-seed defeating 5-seed" game will be Utah State over Texas A&M.
The Pomeroy rankings have the Aggies only winning 48 percent of the time over...well...the other Aggies of Utah State. This is an unintentional rip on the Big XII so far, but Utah State can put up points, while A&M is not all that effective in stopping teams defensively. Utah State is the most efficient offensive team in the country--put them up against an average defense at best, and this appears to be the closest thing to a no-brainer among the 5-12 matchups.
3. The Big East will be the most productive team in the tournament.
Yes, they got the most bids, but this is in terms of who will advance the farthest. As of right now, I can easily see four Big East schools making it to the Elite Eight (five, if you count Syracuse over Butler...). This conference is spread out all over the bracket, so when it's all said and done, the Big East should be making the most noise.
4. Purdue will not lose in the first round.
Siena might be the trendiest pick I've heard thus far. Yes, we get it. Robbie Hummel is out for the year, and Purdue now doesn't have their true offensive anchor.
Honestly, that's a load of bull. The offense runs just as much through JaJuan Johnson as it does Hummel, and E'Twaun Moore and the other guards are still more than capable of running a basketball (the Minnesota game was an anomaly...Moore will not shoot 1-14 again, and his ankle is fine). If Purdue clogs the middle and prevents Ronald Moore from dishing the ball--which is his forte--this game should be manageable for the Boilers. Siena is not a terribly good outside shooting team (32 percent on the year). If they settle for jump shots, this game will not be nearly as trendy as most of the U.S. thinks.
5. West Virginia will make it to the title game.
Of the Mountaineers' six losses, none are to bad teams (well, save for Notre Dame, which really isn't that great of a team...ND's defense is as porous as they come). Their main free-throw shooters hover around 73 percent, which is more than sufficient for those late games that will be mired in clock-stoppage fouls. And most importantly, West Virginia--in addition to its efficient offense--has a decent path to the title. Kentucky and New Mexico are the two biggest deterrents to their Final Four run, but the run-and-gun of Kentucky and UNM can be easily matched by Da'Sean Butler, Kevin Jones, and Devin Eubanks--all of whom pursue rebounds as well as anyone in the country. West Virginia's overbearing frontcourt will no doubt be the make or break of their run.
This is, perhaps, one of the greatest sports weeks of the year. Selection Sunday was a joy fest as Greg Gumbel so eloquently rattled off every one of the 65 teams who will square off in the NCAA Tournament.
Tonight officially commenced the race to Indianapolis, and it took off with a bang to say the least (well, for those who give a crap about the play-in game). A scrappy University of Arkansas-Pine Bluff team, which lost 11 straight to begin its seemingly inauspicious year, took down Winthrop and will now face Duke.
UAPB is now 18-15, has won 17 of its last 21, and so far is the epitome of a Cinderella that Matt referenced last week (somewhat). How is that not a sign of things to come?
Now, I may not be as cool at Joe Lunardi or as lucky as, well, anyone, but everyone has gut instincts. While I will dutifully exclude Butler from this list to avoid any sort of jinx (...ok, ok, I have them going to the Final Four, but that's all I'm saying), here are five of my big gut instincts for this year's tournament:
1. North Texas (15-seed) will take down Kansas State (2-seed) in the first round.
KSU is really limping into this tournament, losing three of its last five (yeah, yeah, yeah, two of those were to Kansas; but if you can't beat the best once out of two times, then that's a sign). North Texas, on the other hand, has won its last 11 (albeit against creme puffs). We haven't seen a 2-seed fall in the first round since in a good nine years. If there were to be a 2-seed to go down, it most certainly seems like Kansas State would be that team. UNT is a good free-throw shooting team and have solid players in George Odufuwa and Josh White; KSU's biggest momentum was before 2010 started (they team was 12-1 pre-new year)--this seems so right.
2. The mythical "12-seed defeating 5-seed" game will be Utah State over Texas A&M.
The Pomeroy rankings have the Aggies only winning 48 percent of the time over...well...the other Aggies of Utah State. This is an unintentional rip on the Big XII so far, but Utah State can put up points, while A&M is not all that effective in stopping teams defensively. Utah State is the most efficient offensive team in the country--put them up against an average defense at best, and this appears to be the closest thing to a no-brainer among the 5-12 matchups.
3. The Big East will be the most productive team in the tournament.
Yes, they got the most bids, but this is in terms of who will advance the farthest. As of right now, I can easily see four Big East schools making it to the Elite Eight (five, if you count Syracuse over Butler...). This conference is spread out all over the bracket, so when it's all said and done, the Big East should be making the most noise.
4. Purdue will not lose in the first round.
Siena might be the trendiest pick I've heard thus far. Yes, we get it. Robbie Hummel is out for the year, and Purdue now doesn't have their true offensive anchor.
Honestly, that's a load of bull. The offense runs just as much through JaJuan Johnson as it does Hummel, and E'Twaun Moore and the other guards are still more than capable of running a basketball (the Minnesota game was an anomaly...Moore will not shoot 1-14 again, and his ankle is fine). If Purdue clogs the middle and prevents Ronald Moore from dishing the ball--which is his forte--this game should be manageable for the Boilers. Siena is not a terribly good outside shooting team (32 percent on the year). If they settle for jump shots, this game will not be nearly as trendy as most of the U.S. thinks.
5. West Virginia will make it to the title game.
Of the Mountaineers' six losses, none are to bad teams (well, save for Notre Dame, which really isn't that great of a team...ND's defense is as porous as they come). Their main free-throw shooters hover around 73 percent, which is more than sufficient for those late games that will be mired in clock-stoppage fouls. And most importantly, West Virginia--in addition to its efficient offense--has a decent path to the title. Kentucky and New Mexico are the two biggest deterrents to their Final Four run, but the run-and-gun of Kentucky and UNM can be easily matched by Da'Sean Butler, Kevin Jones, and Devin Eubanks--all of whom pursue rebounds as well as anyone in the country. West Virginia's overbearing frontcourt will no doubt be the make or break of their run.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
You've been forewarned: A mid-major perfect storm looms on the horizon
By Matt Vachlon
Granted the brackets aren't out yet and obviously we won't know specific matchups until later this evening. But like Bob, I just couldn't help myself anymore. After watching the carnage that has occurred in the Big Six conferences during "Championship Week," one thing has become abundantly clear:
If you're a fan of Butler, or any other mid-major, you should be licking your chops at the prospect of who you might face in this year's NCAA tournament.
For starters, there has been a baffling amount of mediocrity with regard to the pool of at-large candidates. But the major networks have already given too much attention to this ineptness. The fact of the matter is a lot of winning has been going on around the country and the media hasn't taken notice yet.
As of today, 14 regular season champions or co-champions from one-bid leagues have won their their league's automatic bid. And three more from possible two-bid leagues are in a position to earn at-large births.
So why does this matter?
For starters, regular season champions qualifying mean better overall teams making the tournament. These teams have been solid over the long haul, as opposed to simply getting hot over a four-day stretch. Thus, it's reasonable to believe they can put up a better fight against the big boys. But there's also historical precedent to suggest their success as well.
I looked back at the five Cinderella stories that stood out in my mind the most since I began following college basketball. Each was at least a double-digit seed and each went at least as far as the Sweet 16. The candidates were 1998-1999 Gonzaga (10 seed), 2001-2002 Kent State (10), 2002-2003 Butler (12), 2005-2006 George Mason (11) and 2007-2008 Davidson (10).
The results were that all five were either the outright or co-champions of their league in the regular season. All except Butler made it at least as far as the Elite Eight. While three of those five did win their conference tournaments, George Mason did not, but, the Patriots are the only one of the bunch to make the Final Four.
The correlation to this year is that Butler (5 seed) and Northern Iowa (7) are projected to be much higher than those "Cinderella" teams of years past. Old Dominion (10), Cornell (11) and Siena (12) are also in the mix, along with at-large candidates Gonzaga (7), UTEP (9) and Utah State (11).
Adding to this advantage is the fact that the teams at the top of the major conferences have shown chinks in their armor this week as well. We've already seen two conference co-champs, Michigan State and Maryland, lose in conference quarterfinals and even Kansas, Kentucky, Duke and Ohio St. have let inferior of opponents hang around. And don't forget the chaos that occurred in the Big East.
If there's one thing March Madness proves to us each year is that it's far from predictable. But if next weekend you find yourself wanting to tear up your bracket because of all the Cinderellas, well, don't say I didn't warn you.
Granted the brackets aren't out yet and obviously we won't know specific matchups until later this evening. But like Bob, I just couldn't help myself anymore. After watching the carnage that has occurred in the Big Six conferences during "Championship Week," one thing has become abundantly clear:
If you're a fan of Butler, or any other mid-major, you should be licking your chops at the prospect of who you might face in this year's NCAA tournament.
For starters, there has been a baffling amount of mediocrity with regard to the pool of at-large candidates. But the major networks have already given too much attention to this ineptness. The fact of the matter is a lot of winning has been going on around the country and the media hasn't taken notice yet.
As of today, 14 regular season champions or co-champions from one-bid leagues have won their their league's automatic bid. And three more from possible two-bid leagues are in a position to earn at-large births.
So why does this matter?
For starters, regular season champions qualifying mean better overall teams making the tournament. These teams have been solid over the long haul, as opposed to simply getting hot over a four-day stretch. Thus, it's reasonable to believe they can put up a better fight against the big boys. But there's also historical precedent to suggest their success as well.
I looked back at the five Cinderella stories that stood out in my mind the most since I began following college basketball. Each was at least a double-digit seed and each went at least as far as the Sweet 16. The candidates were 1998-1999 Gonzaga (10 seed), 2001-2002 Kent State (10), 2002-2003 Butler (12), 2005-2006 George Mason (11) and 2007-2008 Davidson (10).
The results were that all five were either the outright or co-champions of their league in the regular season. All except Butler made it at least as far as the Elite Eight. While three of those five did win their conference tournaments, George Mason did not, but, the Patriots are the only one of the bunch to make the Final Four.
The correlation to this year is that Butler (5 seed) and Northern Iowa (7) are projected to be much higher than those "Cinderella" teams of years past. Old Dominion (10), Cornell (11) and Siena (12) are also in the mix, along with at-large candidates Gonzaga (7), UTEP (9) and Utah State (11).
Adding to this advantage is the fact that the teams at the top of the major conferences have shown chinks in their armor this week as well. We've already seen two conference co-champs, Michigan State and Maryland, lose in conference quarterfinals and even Kansas, Kentucky, Duke and Ohio St. have let inferior of opponents hang around. And don't forget the chaos that occurred in the Big East.
If there's one thing March Madness proves to us each year is that it's far from predictable. But if next weekend you find yourself wanting to tear up your bracket because of all the Cinderellas, well, don't say I didn't warn you.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Butler men's basketball awaits NCAA Selection Committee bureaucracy
By Bob Herman
I debated about this post in my head: Do I wait until Sunday to comment about Butler's seeding in this year's NCAA men's basketball tournament, or do I let it out now, especially since the thrashing of Wright State in the Horizon League championship is still fresh in my mind?
The fact that this has been posted proved that the latter idea won.
Now that the Bulldogs have clinched the automatic bid, it's a simple waiting game until Sunday rolls around, when all the other "big" conferences wrap up their individual tournaments and when the NCAA Selection Committee goes behind its closed doors to concoct its always debatable field of 65. (Thankfully, Matt, it still isn't 96 yet...).
Here's the cold hard facts, not brought to you by Coors Light: Butler is 28-4 (20-0 in conference...please look at that again), with an RPI of 14 and a SOS of 76. Qualities wins include an Evan Turner-less Ohio State, Xavier, and Siena (Northwestern is a borderline quality win, depending on its showing in the Big Ten Tourney). The Bulldogs have no "bad losses," as their four losses have come to Georgetown (20-9), UAB (23-7), Minnesota (18-12), and Clemson (21-9). Not too shabby, right?
Bob Kravitz of the Indianapolis Star made a case for Butler, too, after last night's win. Unfortunately, his article is pretty shoddy. Aside from the fact that the entire piece is Kravitz paying lip service to a productive college basketball school within the city that he normally otherwise could give a crap about, he indirectly sympathizes with Collegerpi.com's Jerry Palm that Butler won't score anything higher than a six-seed yet is hopeful that Butler does land something higher because they pass the "eye test."
The "eye test," my friends, is nothing more than the bureaucratic, subjective feeling of placing an NCAA team in a spot simply because it seems like it belongs there.
And now, Butler's fate rests on the NCAA Selection Committee's multiple eye tests. Yes, I understand it's a rigorous process for those poor individuals who have to compose the tournament bracket, but let's be honest. It's subjective results based on objective data. And it's all done the day tournament championships finish.
When Butler was striken with a seven-seed in 2008 after going 29-3 (I think that's the snubbing Kravitz referred to, by the way), that honestly could not have been based on the objective data surrounding Butler's 2007-08 regular season.
Things will be better this around because, frankly, Butler has garnered more national attention this year than any other year before. It all comes down to the dollar signs, though, as most things unfortunately do in life. March Madness is up there with the Super Bowl in terms ad rates, and it lasts two weeks instead of four hours. The NCAA wants the most viewer-friendly matchups; it's just too PC to say such.
So although the Selection Committee will put out its "finest" slab of a bracket this Sunday, I--along with others who are associated with mid major programs--have fallen to the mindset of "hope for the best, plan for the worst." A six-seed appears to be in store; pinch me if Butler gains a five-seed or higher; and sweet mother, hold me back if it's anything lower than a six. We can only wait with baited breath now.
I debated about this post in my head: Do I wait until Sunday to comment about Butler's seeding in this year's NCAA men's basketball tournament, or do I let it out now, especially since the thrashing of Wright State in the Horizon League championship is still fresh in my mind?
The fact that this has been posted proved that the latter idea won.
Now that the Bulldogs have clinched the automatic bid, it's a simple waiting game until Sunday rolls around, when all the other "big" conferences wrap up their individual tournaments and when the NCAA Selection Committee goes behind its closed doors to concoct its always debatable field of 65. (Thankfully, Matt, it still isn't 96 yet...).
Here's the cold hard facts, not brought to you by Coors Light: Butler is 28-4 (20-0 in conference...please look at that again), with an RPI of 14 and a SOS of 76. Qualities wins include an Evan Turner-less Ohio State, Xavier, and Siena (Northwestern is a borderline quality win, depending on its showing in the Big Ten Tourney). The Bulldogs have no "bad losses," as their four losses have come to Georgetown (20-9), UAB (23-7), Minnesota (18-12), and Clemson (21-9). Not too shabby, right?
Bob Kravitz of the Indianapolis Star made a case for Butler, too, after last night's win. Unfortunately, his article is pretty shoddy. Aside from the fact that the entire piece is Kravitz paying lip service to a productive college basketball school within the city that he normally otherwise could give a crap about, he indirectly sympathizes with Collegerpi.com's Jerry Palm that Butler won't score anything higher than a six-seed yet is hopeful that Butler does land something higher because they pass the "eye test."
The "eye test," my friends, is nothing more than the bureaucratic, subjective feeling of placing an NCAA team in a spot simply because it seems like it belongs there.
And now, Butler's fate rests on the NCAA Selection Committee's multiple eye tests. Yes, I understand it's a rigorous process for those poor individuals who have to compose the tournament bracket, but let's be honest. It's subjective results based on objective data. And it's all done the day tournament championships finish.
When Butler was striken with a seven-seed in 2008 after going 29-3 (I think that's the snubbing Kravitz referred to, by the way), that honestly could not have been based on the objective data surrounding Butler's 2007-08 regular season.
Things will be better this around because, frankly, Butler has garnered more national attention this year than any other year before. It all comes down to the dollar signs, though, as most things unfortunately do in life. March Madness is up there with the Super Bowl in terms ad rates, and it lasts two weeks instead of four hours. The NCAA wants the most viewer-friendly matchups; it's just too PC to say such.
So although the Selection Committee will put out its "finest" slab of a bracket this Sunday, I--along with others who are associated with mid major programs--have fallen to the mindset of "hope for the best, plan for the worst." A six-seed appears to be in store; pinch me if Butler gains a five-seed or higher; and sweet mother, hold me back if it's anything lower than a six. We can only wait with baited breath now.
Friday, March 5, 2010
“Scarlet fever" may come back to haunt Big Ten
By Matt Vachlon
The symptoms were already there: great academics, the "Birthplace of Intercollegiate Football" and a close proximity to New York City for a league looking to expand the presence of its cable network. All we were waiting for was a diagnosis.
Fast forward to Monday when Big Ten expansion took another step toward becoming a reality as Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune reported that Rutgers was the early favorite in the much anticipated Big Ten expansion plans. The Scarlet Knights' potential to be a home run acquisition was cited as the primary cause.
But that potential is exactly why I have Rutgers at the bottom of my list of candidates. When you’re the Big Ten, why expand based on potential?
You're the most profitable conference in collegiate athletics; you don't NEED to be blinded by dollar signs. Instead, you should be picky.
And that's the main problem with Rutgers. There's a lot to pick apart.
For starters, they bring nothing to the table athletically. Even in the most positive light, the athletic history of the school leaves something to be desired. In football, the Scarlet Knights didn’t appear in their first bowl game until 1978 and it didn’t appear in its next one again until 2005. Although Rutgers has now appeared in five consecutive bowl games and finished 2006 ranked 12th in the country, this sudden upswing under one head coach is not enough to overlook its previous century of futility. The same goes for basketball, in which Rutgers did advance to the NCAA Final Four in 1976, but has, overall, made a grand total of only six NCAA Tournament appearances.
Then there's the issue of New York's perception as a pro sports town first and likely a Big East basketball town second. I don't buy Greenstein's argument about New York's support of the 2006 football team because anyone can support a winner. In 2005, the Illinois basketball team captured Chicago's hearts during its run to the NCAA Tournament championship game, but hasn't since. Thus, the question remains, does New York care enough about Rutgers for the Big Ten to get the leverage necessary with the cable companies to insure their network's inclusion on their packages? Even if they succeed, can it be guaranteed that viewers will watch year round? Advertisers will want to know this and with Rutgers history of toiling at the bottom of the Big East, it's doubtful the school can draw interest away from Big East basketball during the winter.
Finally, there is the issue of the Big Ten footprint. Is it really worth only establishing a token presence in the Northeast when you could strengthen your Midwest presence instead? Schools like Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas have all been mentioned as candidates at one time or another, but the addition of one (or even all three?) could significantly weaken the league's closest geographic rival, the Big XII. The populations of each of those states are limited, but surely with a higher proportion of viewers watching in those states, as well as no major competition, would offset the small fraction of viewers that might watch in New York and New Jersey.
Look, I think Rutgers is a great school and it certainly brings a lot to the table. But I just don't see what seperates it so definitively from all the other candidates that would make taking a risk on them worthwhile.
Hopefully this fever, like all the others, will pass.
The symptoms were already there: great academics, the "Birthplace of Intercollegiate Football" and a close proximity to New York City for a league looking to expand the presence of its cable network. All we were waiting for was a diagnosis.
Fast forward to Monday when Big Ten expansion took another step toward becoming a reality as Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune reported that Rutgers was the early favorite in the much anticipated Big Ten expansion plans. The Scarlet Knights' potential to be a home run acquisition was cited as the primary cause.
But that potential is exactly why I have Rutgers at the bottom of my list of candidates. When you’re the Big Ten, why expand based on potential?
You're the most profitable conference in collegiate athletics; you don't NEED to be blinded by dollar signs. Instead, you should be picky.
And that's the main problem with Rutgers. There's a lot to pick apart.
For starters, they bring nothing to the table athletically. Even in the most positive light, the athletic history of the school leaves something to be desired. In football, the Scarlet Knights didn’t appear in their first bowl game until 1978 and it didn’t appear in its next one again until 2005. Although Rutgers has now appeared in five consecutive bowl games and finished 2006 ranked 12th in the country, this sudden upswing under one head coach is not enough to overlook its previous century of futility. The same goes for basketball, in which Rutgers did advance to the NCAA Final Four in 1976, but has, overall, made a grand total of only six NCAA Tournament appearances.
Then there's the issue of New York's perception as a pro sports town first and likely a Big East basketball town second. I don't buy Greenstein's argument about New York's support of the 2006 football team because anyone can support a winner. In 2005, the Illinois basketball team captured Chicago's hearts during its run to the NCAA Tournament championship game, but hasn't since. Thus, the question remains, does New York care enough about Rutgers for the Big Ten to get the leverage necessary with the cable companies to insure their network's inclusion on their packages? Even if they succeed, can it be guaranteed that viewers will watch year round? Advertisers will want to know this and with Rutgers history of toiling at the bottom of the Big East, it's doubtful the school can draw interest away from Big East basketball during the winter.
Finally, there is the issue of the Big Ten footprint. Is it really worth only establishing a token presence in the Northeast when you could strengthen your Midwest presence instead? Schools like Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas have all been mentioned as candidates at one time or another, but the addition of one (or even all three?) could significantly weaken the league's closest geographic rival, the Big XII. The populations of each of those states are limited, but surely with a higher proportion of viewers watching in those states, as well as no major competition, would offset the small fraction of viewers that might watch in New York and New Jersey.
Look, I think Rutgers is a great school and it certainly brings a lot to the table. But I just don't see what seperates it so definitively from all the other candidates that would make taking a risk on them worthwhile.
Hopefully this fever, like all the others, will pass.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
LeBron raises 'prima donna' status
By Bob Herman
When LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers lost to Orlando last year in the playoffs, his mostly squeaky-clean image finally took a hit that it deserved.
He walked off the court (please ignore the annoying pop-ups) without shaking the hands of any Magic players who had so deservedly taken down he and the Cavs.
Lack of sportsmanship aside, this seemingly small act really showed LeBron's personality: When something doesn't go his way--and it should go his way, naturally--his constantly fluffed ego gets offended and takes it out on others.
Well, LeBron has now officially filed paperwork to change his number from 23 to 6, and this reinforces what I hope has become brazenly apparent during his NBA tenure: He needs that constantly fluffed ego to be, well, constantly fluffed.
This jersey change is under the guise of it being a tribue to Michael Jordan. That rationale takes a big shot as he's changing his number to that of Julius Erving and Bill Russell, two players who were of Michael Jordan-value before Michael Jordan even sniffed the pros. If LeBron really wanted to pay homage to an NBA great, he should've acknowledged all of the greats, not just one.
But that's small potatoes. Again, this goes back to his ego, which is unfortunately growing every time someone grovels over one of his dunks.
LeBron is about to be a free agent this summer; he's one of the most recognizable players in the NBA today; and he's profitable. Therefore, it's asinine and, honestly, stupid to think that this jersey number switch is anything other than a marketing ploy--and it's working. What kid who only sees LeBron as the high-flying scorer rather than the sulky ego-maniac wouldn't want LeBron's new jersey? And why wouldn't LeBron (and his ego) want to see his image spread even farther among NBA fans, perhaps as he's about to jump ship for another team this summer?
No one can stop the guy from changing his jersey, a seemingly commonplace task. But to say the reason for the switch is a tribute to Michael Jordan--and then change the number to that of two other NBA greats--is simply misleading. Don't fall for this marketing trap; it's just another act showing how LeBron has become one of the most annoying prima donnas in the league.
When LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers lost to Orlando last year in the playoffs, his mostly squeaky-clean image finally took a hit that it deserved.
He walked off the court (please ignore the annoying pop-ups) without shaking the hands of any Magic players who had so deservedly taken down he and the Cavs.
Lack of sportsmanship aside, this seemingly small act really showed LeBron's personality: When something doesn't go his way--and it should go his way, naturally--his constantly fluffed ego gets offended and takes it out on others.
Well, LeBron has now officially filed paperwork to change his number from 23 to 6, and this reinforces what I hope has become brazenly apparent during his NBA tenure: He needs that constantly fluffed ego to be, well, constantly fluffed.
This jersey change is under the guise of it being a tribue to Michael Jordan. That rationale takes a big shot as he's changing his number to that of Julius Erving and Bill Russell, two players who were of Michael Jordan-value before Michael Jordan even sniffed the pros. If LeBron really wanted to pay homage to an NBA great, he should've acknowledged all of the greats, not just one.
But that's small potatoes. Again, this goes back to his ego, which is unfortunately growing every time someone grovels over one of his dunks.
LeBron is about to be a free agent this summer; he's one of the most recognizable players in the NBA today; and he's profitable. Therefore, it's asinine and, honestly, stupid to think that this jersey number switch is anything other than a marketing ploy--and it's working. What kid who only sees LeBron as the high-flying scorer rather than the sulky ego-maniac wouldn't want LeBron's new jersey? And why wouldn't LeBron (and his ego) want to see his image spread even farther among NBA fans, perhaps as he's about to jump ship for another team this summer?
No one can stop the guy from changing his jersey, a seemingly commonplace task. But to say the reason for the switch is a tribute to Michael Jordan--and then change the number to that of two other NBA greats--is simply misleading. Don't fall for this marketing trap; it's just another act showing how LeBron has become one of the most annoying prima donnas in the league.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Message to Bettman: Let the stars shine bright
By Matt Vachlon
You’re NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and you’re under pressure from your peers to commit your players (a tradition only started in 1998) to the 2014 Winter Olympic Games. You ask yourself, “Is it ever a good idea for a professional sports league to go on a two-week hiatus nearly three-quarters of the way through its season?”
When considering the factors, there’s admittedly a lot at stake. But don’t overanalyze Gary, just look at this year:
You’ve put together the perfect All-Star game.
In his defense, I was originally conflicted with NHL players participating in the Winter Olympics too. As a Chicago Blackhawks fan I’ve waited all my life to finally have a great team. Coming off last year’s run to the Western Conference finals, the Blackhawks haven’t disappointed and currently have the third highest point total in the league standings. That just doesn’t happen in Chicago!
But when I found out that six Blackhawks would be participating in the Olympics my interest was piqued. Sure I was afraid that they might wear themselves out or, even worse, get injured, but I was also curious to find out the extent of their patriotic pride, to see how they would play against some of their other teammates.
That fear of injury and fatigue still exists by the way. But these games have been so captivating that the reward is well worth the risk.
Now I can’t get enough of them.
Take Wednesday, where three of the four quarterfinal games were decided by two goals or less. Goalie Ryan Miller put together a solid 19-save shutout to advance the top-seeded United States to the semifinals, while defending silver-medalist Finland advanced to face them with a shutout of its own. Meanwhile, defending gold-medalist Sweden couldn’t quite rally back as it was eliminated 4-3 by Slovakia.
Ironically, the only game that wasn’t close may have been the most exciting of them all. Canada’s 7-3 victory was its first against Russia in 50 years. The game featured an international version of the NHL’s best rivalry as Alexander Ovechkin of Russia squared off against Canadian Sydney Crosby. Despite the one-sided affair, the two teams combined for a total of 70 shots while putting together an offensive clinic.
The benefits go way beyond drama though.
First, these games are being watched, not just by hockey fans, but fans of all sports, as evidenced by these ratings from last Sunday’s United States-Canada game. Second, the rosters are stacked, meaning the product has a chance to be as good as the one that’s showcased in the World Cup in soccer. And finally, players like Ovechkin have said they will play in the Olympics anyway, regardless of the rule, so Bettman would be wise to shut the league down anyway, rather than play without one of his signature stars.
As a fan of the Blackhawks, I realize that one key injury could mean trading a potential Stanley Cup for a chance at a gold medal. But as a hockey fan, and a sports fan in general, I realize that I have had a chance to see a real All-Star game, and that is truly special.
You’re NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and you’re under pressure from your peers to commit your players (a tradition only started in 1998) to the 2014 Winter Olympic Games. You ask yourself, “Is it ever a good idea for a professional sports league to go on a two-week hiatus nearly three-quarters of the way through its season?”
When considering the factors, there’s admittedly a lot at stake. But don’t overanalyze Gary, just look at this year:
You’ve put together the perfect All-Star game.
In his defense, I was originally conflicted with NHL players participating in the Winter Olympics too. As a Chicago Blackhawks fan I’ve waited all my life to finally have a great team. Coming off last year’s run to the Western Conference finals, the Blackhawks haven’t disappointed and currently have the third highest point total in the league standings. That just doesn’t happen in Chicago!
But when I found out that six Blackhawks would be participating in the Olympics my interest was piqued. Sure I was afraid that they might wear themselves out or, even worse, get injured, but I was also curious to find out the extent of their patriotic pride, to see how they would play against some of their other teammates.
That fear of injury and fatigue still exists by the way. But these games have been so captivating that the reward is well worth the risk.
Now I can’t get enough of them.
Take Wednesday, where three of the four quarterfinal games were decided by two goals or less. Goalie Ryan Miller put together a solid 19-save shutout to advance the top-seeded United States to the semifinals, while defending silver-medalist Finland advanced to face them with a shutout of its own. Meanwhile, defending gold-medalist Sweden couldn’t quite rally back as it was eliminated 4-3 by Slovakia.
Ironically, the only game that wasn’t close may have been the most exciting of them all. Canada’s 7-3 victory was its first against Russia in 50 years. The game featured an international version of the NHL’s best rivalry as Alexander Ovechkin of Russia squared off against Canadian Sydney Crosby. Despite the one-sided affair, the two teams combined for a total of 70 shots while putting together an offensive clinic.
The benefits go way beyond drama though.
First, these games are being watched, not just by hockey fans, but fans of all sports, as evidenced by these ratings from last Sunday’s United States-Canada game. Second, the rosters are stacked, meaning the product has a chance to be as good as the one that’s showcased in the World Cup in soccer. And finally, players like Ovechkin have said they will play in the Olympics anyway, regardless of the rule, so Bettman would be wise to shut the league down anyway, rather than play without one of his signature stars.
As a fan of the Blackhawks, I realize that one key injury could mean trading a potential Stanley Cup for a chance at a gold medal. But as a hockey fan, and a sports fan in general, I realize that I have had a chance to see a real All-Star game, and that is truly special.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Thunder thrive at the expense of forgotton Seattle souls
By Bob Herman
If I were a Seattle Supersonics fan, man, would I hate former owner Clay Bennett and others for moving the team to Oklahoma City.
For those unfamiliar with the situation, Bennett (who was an Oklahoma City "investor") and others bought the Sonics in 2006 but never intended to keep them in Seattle. So in 2008, when the lease was up on the Sonics' arena, the team was hightailed to OKC, where it floundered last year but is flourishing now.
Think that upset some people, to lose a team that won an NBA championship and three conference titles? You have no idea. It was as if a mobster took arbitrarily away the collective child of millions of diehard Sonics fans. In the process, it was as though this mobster ripped out their hearts, stepped on them, and then put out his filthy cigarette in them.
Yes, the Sonics played poorly in their final year, going 20-62, but there was so much hope for the team. Kevin Durant and Jeff Green were rookies at the time, and Durant was quickly budding into the star he is. It was not going to be a long rebuilding process, yet Bennett had his own financial interests in mind, over a stupid arena, and moved things to his backyard. All of this occurred, mind you, right underneath NBA Commisioner David Stern's nose, who is notorious for suspending players at the glimmer of wrongdoing yet didn't even try to impede the theft of the Sonics to Oklahoma City.
Fast forward to today. The Oklahoma City Thunder are currently sitting in fifth place in the Western Conference at 33-21 and have three rising stars in Green, "Durantula," and Russell "Jet Zero" Westbrook. Durant is having a career year, having scored at least 25 points in each of his last 28 games. This team is poised to win now. Yet, it doesn't seem right.
I have no affiliation with Seattle or Oklahoma City, and the Thunder, for me, is simply nothing more than an entertaing team to watch. But it's impossible to not think that something's askew, that Sonics fans are cursing the situation every night before they go to bed, watching Durant drop 30 points and Westbrook flirting with triple-doubles...that they don't deserve this.
Maybe I'm being overdramatic--but really, I'm not.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Sonics fan, though. What if your team in any sport was moved because a sleazy investor wanted his, all the while his greedy efforts went unimpeded.
Nothing could've be done after that. Poof, gone.
I love watching the Thunder play when they hit cable here and there, and I will continue to do so. It's a fun team to watch with a core group of good leaders, good lead-by-example players. But I always think of those Sonics fans, who sit 2,000 miles away from me and who are still trying to pick the cigarettes out of their hearts, wondering what could have been in Seattle.
If I were a Seattle Supersonics fan, man, would I hate former owner Clay Bennett and others for moving the team to Oklahoma City.
For those unfamiliar with the situation, Bennett (who was an Oklahoma City "investor") and others bought the Sonics in 2006 but never intended to keep them in Seattle. So in 2008, when the lease was up on the Sonics' arena, the team was hightailed to OKC, where it floundered last year but is flourishing now.
Think that upset some people, to lose a team that won an NBA championship and three conference titles? You have no idea. It was as if a mobster took arbitrarily away the collective child of millions of diehard Sonics fans. In the process, it was as though this mobster ripped out their hearts, stepped on them, and then put out his filthy cigarette in them.
Yes, the Sonics played poorly in their final year, going 20-62, but there was so much hope for the team. Kevin Durant and Jeff Green were rookies at the time, and Durant was quickly budding into the star he is. It was not going to be a long rebuilding process, yet Bennett had his own financial interests in mind, over a stupid arena, and moved things to his backyard. All of this occurred, mind you, right underneath NBA Commisioner David Stern's nose, who is notorious for suspending players at the glimmer of wrongdoing yet didn't even try to impede the theft of the Sonics to Oklahoma City.Fast forward to today. The Oklahoma City Thunder are currently sitting in fifth place in the Western Conference at 33-21 and have three rising stars in Green, "Durantula," and Russell "Jet Zero" Westbrook. Durant is having a career year, having scored at least 25 points in each of his last 28 games. This team is poised to win now. Yet, it doesn't seem right.
I have no affiliation with Seattle or Oklahoma City, and the Thunder, for me, is simply nothing more than an entertaing team to watch. But it's impossible to not think that something's askew, that Sonics fans are cursing the situation every night before they go to bed, watching Durant drop 30 points and Westbrook flirting with triple-doubles...that they don't deserve this.
Maybe I'm being overdramatic--but really, I'm not.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Sonics fan, though. What if your team in any sport was moved because a sleazy investor wanted his, all the while his greedy efforts went unimpeded.
Nothing could've be done after that. Poof, gone.
I love watching the Thunder play when they hit cable here and there, and I will continue to do so. It's a fun team to watch with a core group of good leaders, good lead-by-example players. But I always think of those Sonics fans, who sit 2,000 miles away from me and who are still trying to pick the cigarettes out of their hearts, wondering what could have been in Seattle.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Woods owes the public no apology
By Matt Vachlon
At the end of the day it really only matters what Elin Nordegren thinks.
Whether or not the number of women Tiger Woods has had an affair with reaches 100 or had stopped at one, I stand by this statement. So no matter what Woods says in his much publicized apology Friday, you really shouldn’t take much notice. It’s just not that important.
Simply put, just because the 24-hour news cycle reports something, that doesn’t make it automatically pertinent to our lives. We’ve reached a point where we really need to start thinking for ourselves when it comes to these things.
Now before you jump on me for being a womanizer or someone who doesn’t support the sanctity of marriage, let me clarify. From a moral standpoint I find Woods’ infidelity utterly reprehensible. In fact, the number of women coming forward has already reached a point that is so high in my mind that I’m pretty much numb to it now. And I know that I would personally never dream of cheating on my girlfriend/wife.
But that doesn’t mean that what he has done has affected me in any way. And it shouldn’t for you either.
For starters, can you honestly say that your being a fan of Tiger Woods stems from his being married and having children? After all, he’s been a pro since 1996, won his first of 14 majors in 1997 and it wasn’t until 2004 that he was married and 2007 when his first child was born. So unless you’re somehow related to Elin, or are Jesper Parnevik, sorry, that argument doesn’t fly.
Additionally, does what Tiger did really impact your enjoyment of the game of golf? I agree that he has certainly given himself, and to a certain extent the PGA, a black eye in terms of harming his image and losing endorsements, but most of that image was built on winning golf tournaments. It’s not as if Woods was caught taking steroids or other performance enhancing drugs or doing anything else that would compromise his legacy relative to the sport. Regardless of how this apology goes, he will still be four behind Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18 major titles heading into his next major.
I also never really expected an apology. As an adult, it would be naïve of me to assume that any athlete is the perfect role model that he or she make themselves out to be. All I have to do is think back to some of my teammates in high school and I know not everyone is a standup individual.
And please don’t tell me that children who look up to him are victims here either. That’s where parents come in, to provide proper perspective. After all, a young aspiring golfer only needs to adopt Woods’ work ethic, not his personality.
Who knows what Woods will ultimately say Friday. But I advise you to save yourself the trouble of worrying because what you think is the least of Tiger’s worries. Ask Elin.
At the end of the day it really only matters what Elin Nordegren thinks.
Whether or not the number of women Tiger Woods has had an affair with reaches 100 or had stopped at one, I stand by this statement. So no matter what Woods says in his much publicized apology Friday, you really shouldn’t take much notice. It’s just not that important.
Simply put, just because the 24-hour news cycle reports something, that doesn’t make it automatically pertinent to our lives. We’ve reached a point where we really need to start thinking for ourselves when it comes to these things.
Now before you jump on me for being a womanizer or someone who doesn’t support the sanctity of marriage, let me clarify. From a moral standpoint I find Woods’ infidelity utterly reprehensible. In fact, the number of women coming forward has already reached a point that is so high in my mind that I’m pretty much numb to it now. And I know that I would personally never dream of cheating on my girlfriend/wife.
But that doesn’t mean that what he has done has affected me in any way. And it shouldn’t for you either.
For starters, can you honestly say that your being a fan of Tiger Woods stems from his being married and having children? After all, he’s been a pro since 1996, won his first of 14 majors in 1997 and it wasn’t until 2004 that he was married and 2007 when his first child was born. So unless you’re somehow related to Elin, or are Jesper Parnevik, sorry, that argument doesn’t fly.
Additionally, does what Tiger did really impact your enjoyment of the game of golf? I agree that he has certainly given himself, and to a certain extent the PGA, a black eye in terms of harming his image and losing endorsements, but most of that image was built on winning golf tournaments. It’s not as if Woods was caught taking steroids or other performance enhancing drugs or doing anything else that would compromise his legacy relative to the sport. Regardless of how this apology goes, he will still be four behind Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18 major titles heading into his next major.
I also never really expected an apology. As an adult, it would be naïve of me to assume that any athlete is the perfect role model that he or she make themselves out to be. All I have to do is think back to some of my teammates in high school and I know not everyone is a standup individual.
And please don’t tell me that children who look up to him are victims here either. That’s where parents come in, to provide proper perspective. After all, a young aspiring golfer only needs to adopt Woods’ work ethic, not his personality.
Who knows what Woods will ultimately say Friday. But I advise you to save yourself the trouble of worrying because what you think is the least of Tiger’s worries. Ask Elin.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Media darling Lindsey Vonn: It's a win/win for her, and that's ridiculous
By Bob Herman
I've about had it with Lindsey Vonn, and I still have never seen her ski.
That is, until tomorrow, when she will finally have to hit the slopes and do the damn thing already.
This melodramatic hype around Vonn isn't completely her fault. ESPN, NBC, and all other sports journalism outlets have manically covered her godforsaken shin injury (which has been the most covered injury in the long span OF...two weeks. Sorry Dwight Freeney, maybe you should've been in a body cast, then we'd still be talking, tweeting, and texting about it). I couldn't care less that she's now treating her shin with cold cheese, but alas, here I am, talking about it and hating myself for it.
But in many ways, this hype was her fault. She did, after all, willingly pose for her infamous Sports Illustrated photoshoot, much to the outrage of feminists everywhere. She could've played things coyly, realized that yes, she is an attractive female athlete that happens to be one of the best in her sport, but no, she'll take the quiet road to publicity: by letting her skiing do the talking.
And now after this ridiculous shin injury (and Mother Nature postponing her premiere skiing event until tomorrow), all eyes will inevitably be on her. And the sad thing it, nothing can go wrong for her. There are two options, and I really don't see any middle ground between them:
1. She wins medals, hip-hip hooray, lives up to the hype, continues to be the media darling for the next four-odd years, more photoshoots, endorsements, everything that "America" wants to see her do, a Kerri Strug of sorts, except with more bikinis.
2. She fails miserably or performs mediocre/unimpressively, thus leading to the plethora of "What If" stories. "What if Vonn were healthy? Things would've been different!" "What if she used more cheese to help assuage the shin injury? Things would've been different!"
Either way, she'll come out of this Olympics as the ultimate female ski legend, or the media will turn her into the most annoying "What If" story. It's the recipe that has been used for sports journalism for far too long now--find a story, beat it to death, and continue to beat it to death because it makes headlines and consequently makes money.
Unfortunately, there's nothing I can change about the situation. What's done is done. But as far as I'm concerned, the U.S. hockey teams, the women's moguls, and the men's snowboarding have impressed me more thus far than anything Lindsey Vonn can do right tomorrow night.
I've about had it with Lindsey Vonn, and I still have never seen her ski.
That is, until tomorrow, when she will finally have to hit the slopes and do the damn thing already.
This melodramatic hype around Vonn isn't completely her fault. ESPN, NBC, and all other sports journalism outlets have manically covered her godforsaken shin injury (which has been the most covered injury in the long span OF...two weeks. Sorry Dwight Freeney, maybe you should've been in a body cast, then we'd still be talking, tweeting, and texting about it). I couldn't care less that she's now treating her shin with cold cheese, but alas, here I am, talking about it and hating myself for it.
But in many ways, this hype was her fault. She did, after all, willingly pose for her infamous Sports Illustrated photoshoot, much to the outrage of feminists everywhere. She could've played things coyly, realized that yes, she is an attractive female athlete that happens to be one of the best in her sport, but no, she'll take the quiet road to publicity: by letting her skiing do the talking.
And now after this ridiculous shin injury (and Mother Nature postponing her premiere skiing event until tomorrow), all eyes will inevitably be on her. And the sad thing it, nothing can go wrong for her. There are two options, and I really don't see any middle ground between them:
1. She wins medals, hip-hip hooray, lives up to the hype, continues to be the media darling for the next four-odd years, more photoshoots, endorsements, everything that "America" wants to see her do, a Kerri Strug of sorts, except with more bikinis.
2. She fails miserably or performs mediocre/unimpressively, thus leading to the plethora of "What If" stories. "What if Vonn were healthy? Things would've been different!" "What if she used more cheese to help assuage the shin injury? Things would've been different!"
Either way, she'll come out of this Olympics as the ultimate female ski legend, or the media will turn her into the most annoying "What If" story. It's the recipe that has been used for sports journalism for far too long now--find a story, beat it to death, and continue to beat it to death because it makes headlines and consequently makes money.
Unfortunately, there's nothing I can change about the situation. What's done is done. But as far as I'm concerned, the U.S. hockey teams, the women's moguls, and the men's snowboarding have impressed me more thus far than anything Lindsey Vonn can do right tomorrow night.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
NCAA tournament expansion plan needs fine tuning
By Matt Vachlon
By no means do I think the NCAA has this one right.
I hate the idea of expanding the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. I think 96 teams are way too many to invite and I’d be more in favor of eliminating the play-in game and reducing the amount of participants by one back to 64. Consider that the lowest seed (No. 16) has still yet to win a first round game.
But to continue to argue that point is futile.
First, it’s already been done, as the NCAA’s plan has already taken considerable abuse from sportswriters, pundits and fans alike. And when exactly has the NCAA ever proven it’s willing to listen to anyone? This is the same group that won’t do anything about the tragedy that is the BCS system in football; so it’s safe to predict that change in some form is on the way.
Instead, I focused my attention on creating a best-case scenario, something that could at least make the concept of a 96-team field palatable.
The idea, I must admit, stemmed from reading this article. Overall, I really don’t agree with much of Gregg Doyel’s argument supporting expansion, as he largely bases it on tradition (think of what used to be acceptable traditions in this country), but he does challenge us to think about the 96-team field at the end of the article and I took him up on that offer.
One of my biggest concerns about tournament expansion of this scale, other than the lack of quality teams, is that it’s just an excuse to invite more marginal teams from the “BCS conferences.” While the NCAA has claimed expansion would give greater access to smaller schools, that concern seems warranted when looking at this mock bracket that applies the selection committee’s criteria to a bigger pool of candidates.
If the NCAA’s intentions are to truly help the small schools, then it needs to protect itself from itself. And I came up with two tweaks that could do just that.
First off, regular season winners from each league need to be given automatic bids, while conference tournament winners continue to get them as well. This does two things: first, it eliminates some of the extra at-large spots, which clearly aren’t necessary, given the results of the mock bracket, and, it retains the validity of the regular season, especially in the “BCS conferences.”
Now I realize this isn’t a new concept as I’ve heard this idea thrown around before, but it does allow me to address a loophole that I’ve never heard anyone acknowledge before. Under this format, what would be the incentive for the regular season champion in a non-BCS conference to win the league tournament?
The answer is that you use the 32 byes in the first round that are created by a 96-team field to your advantage. You make a rule that states that any school that wins both titles in the same season automatically qualifies for a Top 32 seed. The result is that league tournaments in smaller conferences retain their competitiveness, while the BCS leagues can potentially gain additional at-large bids back from “double winners.”
My other tweak would be to finally add the much-needed rule that a team must finish .500 or better in its league to gain consideration for an at-large bid. This rewards teams like Wichita State of the Missouri Valley and Old Dominion and George Mason of the Colonial for having solid seasons in underrated leagues, while effectively eliminating teams like Connecticut that hang around due to playing a tough schedule, but ultimately losing those tough games. In essence you have to put up or shut up.
Thus, I draw my line in the sand.
I offer a system that rewards champions and winning teams while still offering “Cinderella” access to the Big Dance through winning its conference tournament. Under these conditions a 96-team field becomes workable.
I think I’m being reasonable, so I ask the NCAA: Will you return the favor?
By no means do I think the NCAA has this one right.
I hate the idea of expanding the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. I think 96 teams are way too many to invite and I’d be more in favor of eliminating the play-in game and reducing the amount of participants by one back to 64. Consider that the lowest seed (No. 16) has still yet to win a first round game.
But to continue to argue that point is futile.
First, it’s already been done, as the NCAA’s plan has already taken considerable abuse from sportswriters, pundits and fans alike. And when exactly has the NCAA ever proven it’s willing to listen to anyone? This is the same group that won’t do anything about the tragedy that is the BCS system in football; so it’s safe to predict that change in some form is on the way.
Instead, I focused my attention on creating a best-case scenario, something that could at least make the concept of a 96-team field palatable.
The idea, I must admit, stemmed from reading this article. Overall, I really don’t agree with much of Gregg Doyel’s argument supporting expansion, as he largely bases it on tradition (think of what used to be acceptable traditions in this country), but he does challenge us to think about the 96-team field at the end of the article and I took him up on that offer.
One of my biggest concerns about tournament expansion of this scale, other than the lack of quality teams, is that it’s just an excuse to invite more marginal teams from the “BCS conferences.” While the NCAA has claimed expansion would give greater access to smaller schools, that concern seems warranted when looking at this mock bracket that applies the selection committee’s criteria to a bigger pool of candidates.
If the NCAA’s intentions are to truly help the small schools, then it needs to protect itself from itself. And I came up with two tweaks that could do just that.
First off, regular season winners from each league need to be given automatic bids, while conference tournament winners continue to get them as well. This does two things: first, it eliminates some of the extra at-large spots, which clearly aren’t necessary, given the results of the mock bracket, and, it retains the validity of the regular season, especially in the “BCS conferences.”
Now I realize this isn’t a new concept as I’ve heard this idea thrown around before, but it does allow me to address a loophole that I’ve never heard anyone acknowledge before. Under this format, what would be the incentive for the regular season champion in a non-BCS conference to win the league tournament?
The answer is that you use the 32 byes in the first round that are created by a 96-team field to your advantage. You make a rule that states that any school that wins both titles in the same season automatically qualifies for a Top 32 seed. The result is that league tournaments in smaller conferences retain their competitiveness, while the BCS leagues can potentially gain additional at-large bids back from “double winners.”
My other tweak would be to finally add the much-needed rule that a team must finish .500 or better in its league to gain consideration for an at-large bid. This rewards teams like Wichita State of the Missouri Valley and Old Dominion and George Mason of the Colonial for having solid seasons in underrated leagues, while effectively eliminating teams like Connecticut that hang around due to playing a tough schedule, but ultimately losing those tough games. In essence you have to put up or shut up.
Thus, I draw my line in the sand.
I offer a system that rewards champions and winning teams while still offering “Cinderella” access to the Big Dance through winning its conference tournament. Under these conditions a 96-team field becomes workable.
I think I’m being reasonable, so I ask the NCAA: Will you return the favor?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Butler primed for '07 repeat
By Bob Herman
OK, let me clarify. I didn't think Matt or I would be writing about Butler's basketball team so early, considering we're both fresh graduates and avid fans from there. But the Bulldogs' win versus Youngstown State tonight is worth mentioning (homerism aside) for all too many reasons.
For starters, tonight's thrashing was Butler's 14th straight win, and the team is now 15-0 in conference. No Butler team has jetted out to this kind of Horizon League play, and it's been roughly 15 years since a Horizon League schmoe has had this kind of dominance (UW-Green Bay went 16-0 in 1996).
Oh, right. They also clinched a tie for the regular season title. Already.
This is so significant because within the Butler fandom, hundreds upon thousands of Chicken Littles were overreacting when Butler hit one of its hardest out-of-conference schedules in school history back in late November and parts of December. That rough stretch, in which the team was still a respectable 8-4 overall after the team's loss to UAB, also gave enough reason for the camera-happy media schmucks at ESPN and other large outlets to turn their nose to their trendy preseason pick.
Oh how time heals wounds. The loss at UAB seems like a distant memory now. And the weird thing is, this team still isn't playing to its potential.
Gordon Hayward has been living up to his hype. He is one of the most efficient offensive players in the country (tonight, he had 22 points, 17 rebounds, 2 blocks, 6-10 FGs, 8-9 FTs...hot damn). Shelvin Mack has had a terrific sophomore season, too, averaging more than 14 points, three rebounds, and three assists per game.
But Matt Howard, last year's Horizon League Player of the Year, has hardly played up to that title this year as he has been riddled in foul trouble (3.6 fouls per game) and consistently overextending on defense. The bench play has been average at best, and the usually solid 3-point shooting has been surprisingly lackluster (33.7 percent as a team on the year).
Who would've thought that Butler would potentially run the table in the Horizon league after such a nightmarish tournament in Anaheim? I certainly didn't, mainly because no other Butler team before had accomplished that harder-than-it-seems feat and also because it feels like this team can play so much better.
But this team is certainly as good as the preseason rankings indicated. Sure, Butler plays better when no one notices, but that simply won't happen anymore. A Sweet Sixteen run in 2007 and two solid tourney showings in 2008 and 2009 have finally caught everyone's attention. This team is a Midwestern Gonzaga, and it has been for a while now.
If Butler beats Siena in the BracketBuster Feb. 20 and also takes down the Horizon League tourney crown, there's no question that this team can breeze to the Sweet Sixteen again. Albeit, Butler has been tossing around ragtag Horizon League teams, but there's a lot to be said about dominating a conference. The early (and tough) out-of-conference schedule has appeared to pay dividends, and may I place my shoe in my mouth if this team's March run falls anything short of the Sweet Sixteen.
OK, let me clarify. I didn't think Matt or I would be writing about Butler's basketball team so early, considering we're both fresh graduates and avid fans from there. But the Bulldogs' win versus Youngstown State tonight is worth mentioning (homerism aside) for all too many reasons.
For starters, tonight's thrashing was Butler's 14th straight win, and the team is now 15-0 in conference. No Butler team has jetted out to this kind of Horizon League play, and it's been roughly 15 years since a Horizon League schmoe has had this kind of dominance (UW-Green Bay went 16-0 in 1996).
Oh, right. They also clinched a tie for the regular season title. Already.
This is so significant because within the Butler fandom, hundreds upon thousands of Chicken Littles were overreacting when Butler hit one of its hardest out-of-conference schedules in school history back in late November and parts of December. That rough stretch, in which the team was still a respectable 8-4 overall after the team's loss to UAB, also gave enough reason for the camera-happy media schmucks at ESPN and other large outlets to turn their nose to their trendy preseason pick.
Oh how time heals wounds. The loss at UAB seems like a distant memory now. And the weird thing is, this team still isn't playing to its potential.Gordon Hayward has been living up to his hype. He is one of the most efficient offensive players in the country (tonight, he had 22 points, 17 rebounds, 2 blocks, 6-10 FGs, 8-9 FTs...hot damn). Shelvin Mack has had a terrific sophomore season, too, averaging more than 14 points, three rebounds, and three assists per game.
But Matt Howard, last year's Horizon League Player of the Year, has hardly played up to that title this year as he has been riddled in foul trouble (3.6 fouls per game) and consistently overextending on defense. The bench play has been average at best, and the usually solid 3-point shooting has been surprisingly lackluster (33.7 percent as a team on the year).
Who would've thought that Butler would potentially run the table in the Horizon league after such a nightmarish tournament in Anaheim? I certainly didn't, mainly because no other Butler team before had accomplished that harder-than-it-seems feat and also because it feels like this team can play so much better.
But this team is certainly as good as the preseason rankings indicated. Sure, Butler plays better when no one notices, but that simply won't happen anymore. A Sweet Sixteen run in 2007 and two solid tourney showings in 2008 and 2009 have finally caught everyone's attention. This team is a Midwestern Gonzaga, and it has been for a while now.
If Butler beats Siena in the BracketBuster Feb. 20 and also takes down the Horizon League tourney crown, there's no question that this team can breeze to the Sweet Sixteen again. Albeit, Butler has been tossing around ragtag Horizon League teams, but there's a lot to be said about dominating a conference. The early (and tough) out-of-conference schedule has appeared to pay dividends, and may I place my shoe in my mouth if this team's March run falls anything short of the Sweet Sixteen.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Why the Saints will win Super Bowl XLIV
By Bob Herman
For those have been looking at the Saints to win Super Bowl XLIV, there’s always the one statistic that is so obviously in the New Orleans Saints favor that it goes unmentioned: The Saints have the best offense in the league this year, period.
Yes, yes, I know. “Defense wins championships,” yaddy yaddy yada. But sometimes the best defense is an unparalleled offense. The Saints best defense February 7, 2010, will be to stay on offense and keep Indianapolis Colts QB Peyton Manning off the damn field.
Let’s cut through the crap. This game will be about the quarterbacks: Peyton Manning and Drew Brees. They are impetuses of both offenses, without a doubt, and both have only complementary running games, not dominant ones (sorry, but Joseph Addai, Pierre Thomas, and the other merry band of running backs most likely won’t win the game running the ball…and if they do, may I eat my words). And throughout the year, defenses simply couldn’t get to either quarterback with any type of consistency (Colts have allowed the fewest sacks, while the Saints have allowed the fourth-fewest sacks).
Drew Brees, the pride of all those rootie-tootin Boilermakers in Lafayette, has arguably had his best year as a pro. He tied his career-high in touchdown passes (34), fourth-most passing yards in his career (4,388), but he set new career high in completion percentage: 70.6 percent. So not only is he the same Brees of old, but he’s a more accurate Brees of old.
The Saints made the Cardinals, the Super Bowl XLIII runners-up, look like fools in a 45-14 thrashing in the NFL Divisional game. Brees was his same self, and, to many people’s surprise, Reggie Bush showed flashes of his USC days on the return game. And after squeaking by the Vikings two weeks ago, 31-28, the Saints can actually thank their defense for solidifying that win: They forced six fumbles, three of which were recovered, and they picked off two passes from the “holy” Brett Favre (OK…those interceptions were more or less of Favre turning into his reckless and stupid gunslinging alter-ego, but the picks were impressive nonetheless).
This isn’t an anomaly. The Saints don’t have a dominant defense by any means (25th in the league), but they have had an opportunistic defense all year. They have rolled in eight defensive touchdowns, more than any other team in the league, and three of which are courtesy of safety Darren Sharper. And to keep things in perspective, the Colts only have the 18th best defense in the league.
Either way, this game will be about two very mediocre defenses pitted against two incredible high-octane offenses. Drew Brees, an effective special teams game featuring Reggie Bush, and the Saints’ opportunistic defense are the three keys for Nawlins to take the figurative Super Bowl cake. But the biggest reason why the Saints will win the Super Bowl?
Because EA Sports says so.
These simulations have correctly picked the winner of five of the past six Super Bowls. (The one they didn’t pick correctly? The Giants-Patriots Super Bowl. But really, who expected that?)
And the day I don’t listen to artificial intelligence is the day I’ll be dead.
For those have been looking at the Saints to win Super Bowl XLIV, there’s always the one statistic that is so obviously in the New Orleans Saints favor that it goes unmentioned: The Saints have the best offense in the league this year, period.
Yes, yes, I know. “Defense wins championships,” yaddy yaddy yada. But sometimes the best defense is an unparalleled offense. The Saints best defense February 7, 2010, will be to stay on offense and keep Indianapolis Colts QB Peyton Manning off the damn field.
Let’s cut through the crap. This game will be about the quarterbacks: Peyton Manning and Drew Brees. They are impetuses of both offenses, without a doubt, and both have only complementary running games, not dominant ones (sorry, but Joseph Addai, Pierre Thomas, and the other merry band of running backs most likely won’t win the game running the ball…and if they do, may I eat my words). And throughout the year, defenses simply couldn’t get to either quarterback with any type of consistency (Colts have allowed the fewest sacks, while the Saints have allowed the fourth-fewest sacks).
Drew Brees, the pride of all those rootie-tootin Boilermakers in Lafayette, has arguably had his best year as a pro. He tied his career-high in touchdown passes (34), fourth-most passing yards in his career (4,388), but he set new career high in completion percentage: 70.6 percent. So not only is he the same Brees of old, but he’s a more accurate Brees of old.
The Saints made the Cardinals, the Super Bowl XLIII runners-up, look like fools in a 45-14 thrashing in the NFL Divisional game. Brees was his same self, and, to many people’s surprise, Reggie Bush showed flashes of his USC days on the return game. And after squeaking by the Vikings two weeks ago, 31-28, the Saints can actually thank their defense for solidifying that win: They forced six fumbles, three of which were recovered, and they picked off two passes from the “holy” Brett Favre (OK…those interceptions were more or less of Favre turning into his reckless and stupid gunslinging alter-ego, but the picks were impressive nonetheless).
This isn’t an anomaly. The Saints don’t have a dominant defense by any means (25th in the league), but they have had an opportunistic defense all year. They have rolled in eight defensive touchdowns, more than any other team in the league, and three of which are courtesy of safety Darren Sharper. And to keep things in perspective, the Colts only have the 18th best defense in the league.
Either way, this game will be about two very mediocre defenses pitted against two incredible high-octane offenses. Drew Brees, an effective special teams game featuring Reggie Bush, and the Saints’ opportunistic defense are the three keys for Nawlins to take the figurative Super Bowl cake. But the biggest reason why the Saints will win the Super Bowl?
Because EA Sports says so.
These simulations have correctly picked the winner of five of the past six Super Bowls. (The one they didn’t pick correctly? The Giants-Patriots Super Bowl. But really, who expected that?)
And the day I don’t listen to artificial intelligence is the day I’ll be dead.
Why the Colts will win Super Bowl XLIV
By Matt Vachlon
Two weeks is a lot of time to analyze in the sporting world. While it allows for every possible scenario of a game to be broken down, it can also sometimes mask the obvious.
I’ll provide some clarity:
The Indianapolis Colts will win Super Bowl XLIV.
For starters, the Colts have the firepower to match the Saints’ top-ranked offense. They were ninth in total offense during the regular season, a stat that was boosted by the NFL’s second-best passing attack. And for those who question their 32nd-ranked rushing attack, well, it didn’t hinder them from becoming just the third team in league history to begin a season at 14-0.
While the offenses garner the attention, there’s still the adage that defense wins championships. The Colts are a better team on the defensive side of the ball than they were when they won the Super Bowl in 2007 (from No. 21 overall to No. 18) and are giving up over three fewer points per game than they did that season (from 22.5 to 19.2). Even with Dwight Freeney’s injury possibly hampering the Colts’ defense, the Saints were only 25th in total defense and gave up an average of 21.3 points per game. And keep in mind that Peyton Manning was the MVP of Super Bowl XLI while going against a Chicago Bears’ defense that ranked fifth.
Speaking of Manning, he enters the game battle-tested from these playoffs, having gone through the Jets’ No. 1 and Ravens’ No. 3 defenses and gauging them for a combined 623 yards, five touchdowns and only one interception. In the AFC Championship game, against the Jets’ top-ranked pass defense, which had allowed only eight touchdowns the entire season, he threw three, while passing for 377 yards, more than doubling the average against the Jets’ of 153.7 per game.
There is also historical significance to a second Super Bowl victory for Manning as he would become the 11th quarterback in NFL history to win at least two Super Bowls joining Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana (4 each), Troy Aikman and Tom Brady (3) and Jim Plunkett, Bart Starr, Ben Roethlisberger, Bob Griese, Roger Staubach and John Elway (2). Of those 10, only Brady and Roethlisberger, who are still active, and Plunkett are not in the Hall of Fame and Manning has always had a fond appreciation for the history of the game and his place in it.
If these factors weren’t enough of a problem, the Saints also have history working against them.
Two times in the past four years an NFC team has made its first appearance in the Super Bowl and gone on to lose. Overall, 27 different franchises have played in at least one Super Bowl and only eight have been victorious in their first game.
If that wasn’t enough, the Colts Super Bowl in 2007 victory followed the Steelers championship in 2006. Your 2009 Super Bowl champion: those same Pittsburgh Steelers.
Sunday’s game will know doubt be a thrilling offensive show, but the result will be 2007 all over again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)