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.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)