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.
Friday, February 26, 2010
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)