Today's USA Today has a column from Christine Brennan arguing that even someone as talented as LSU running back Leonard Fournette should be allowed to declare for the NFL draft before he's out of high school three years.
I don't particularly agree with her argument, especially her statement that she'd rather trust talented college football players like Fournette in the hands of college coaches and adminstrators than agents, but I also think we're looking at the whole issue of when college football and basketball players are eligible to go pro the wrong way.
Whether it's after one year out of high school (men's basketball, women's is a little more complicated, but bascially four years; otherwise Breanna Stewart wouldn't be getting ready for her senior year at UConn) or three years (football), when the time comes, we are asking 18- to 21-year-olds, plus whoever is advising them, to make irrevocable decisions about their futures.
Remember ... irrevocable. Once that final decision gets made, before the draft, you can't go back, even if it doesn't turn out as well as hoped. (At least for now ... it could change if a rule allowing basketball undergrads to test the waters goes through.)
Why should the player have to make that decision? Why shouldn't the teams, with the adults who are getting paid to make decisions, have to make them?
Let teams draft whatever players they want, whenever they want to draft them, even if it's after high school. Make the teams responsible for making offers to the players they draft, so the players know exactly what they're getting into. If the player likes the deal, go ahead and sign. If not, go to school and see what the next year brings.
There would be a deadline to sign, and a team that doesn't sign a player it drafts could get some form of compensation. Oh, I'm sure there would be some outcry, since teams wouldn't have full control over the futures of the players in their uncompensated minor league systems, but again, they hire people to make those decisions.
So force them to make them.
Showing posts with label ncaa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ncaa. Show all posts
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Sunday, March 15, 2015
If I were in charge of sports
I have finally decided to do it -- to list the things I would do if I became Supreme Ruler of the Sports World, capable of making decisions by fiat. I am willing to be a benevolent dictator, in that if the people remember the "dictator" part, I'll try to remember the "benevolent" part.
And we'll start with the development in sports that has been making me pull my hair out all week ...
All NFL contracts would be fully guaranteed -- I've always considered the concept of the "non-guaranteed contract" to be someone oxymoronic. Isn't a contract by its very nature a guarantee that a player will play for a certain amount of time, and in exchange, the club will pay a certain amount of money?
Instead, what we have now in the NFL is a situation where if a team doesn't want to pay a player any more, it demands he rework his contract or cuts him outright. Strangely enough, it doesn't work the other way, that a player can demand more money, and if the club doesn't comply, he becomes a free agent.
Sure, it'll mean lots of bad contracts for aging players whose pay doesn't match their performance. Oh well, too bad ... players are expected to live up to contracts, and so should teams.
Of course, none of this could matter if ...
No salary caps -- Players are the game. Sports is the business it is because of them. No one buys tickets or turns on the TV to watch owners own. They deserve all the money they can get.
"But the rich teams will buy all the best players and win everything!!!" you cry. I know I certainly enjoyed that Dodgers-Yankees World Series last year, but I am willing to consider revenue plans that make sure everyone has a chance, although I don't think it's as big a problem as some claim.
Speaking of deserving money ...
All college athletes would be allowed to be paid -- Maybe the university would pay. Maybe boosters would pay. Maybe endorsers would pay. However, it's done, if someone wanted to pay college athletes, it would be legal.
If Kentucky wants to buy a team of great basketball players ... oh wait, bad example.
If every SEC football team wants to pay all its players ... oh wait, another bad example.
You get my drift.
Staying in college ...
The NCAA basketball tournaments would be run by a straight S-curve -- The top team would play No. 68 and have the No. 8 team as the second seed in its region. The second team would play No. 67 and have the No. 7 team as its second seed.
There wouldn't be any of this crap where Wisconsin might be the second seed in Kentucky's region, even thought the Badgers are definitely not the No. 8 team, because Cleveland is the closest site to both schools. (And is Wisconsin wins the Big 10 title game, it should be a No. 1, rendering the whole discussion moot.)
And while we're at it ...
So long, pods -- If the committee wants to give the top seeds early round games close to home (and congratulations, NCAA, for having yet another subregional in North Carolina; God forbid Duke or North Carolina actually have to travel), that's fine, but otherwise, teams go to the sites the S-curve tells them to.
If a team from the eastern half of the country is in the West regional, it'll have the change to see the country from 33,000 feet.
Generic floors go, too -- I have written about this before, and have not changed my mind.
Regarding who plays in the tourney...
New format for play-in games -- First of all, they would be called just that, "play-in" games. Also, they would all be the lowest-seeded at-large teams, not the split of at-large teams and 16 seeds. Teams that actually won something to get into the tournament should not have to win something else just to make the main bracket. Let the lower-ranked teams from power conferences, who otherwise have just about every advantage when it comes to being chosen, play for bids.
As for college football ...
Four teams are good, but more are better -- The college football playoff would be a minimum of 16 teams, and perhaps 20 or 24 with byes. Every conference champion would get in, plus the best of the rest.
And yes, it would run on an S-curve.
As for the sport that's about to start, even though you wouldn't know it with all the talk of NFL free agents ...
Day games are a wonderful thing -- This is why, with the exception of the ESPN Sunday night game and playoff weekends where there are three or more games in a day, all weekend games would be day games, starting at 1 p.m. locally.
Being able to see the end of a game ... what a concept!
Let's make Ernie Banks smile in Heaven -- Every team would play one single-admission Sunday doubleheader a month. They'd play the first game at 1, retreat to the clubhouse for a half-hour to get ready for the second game, and then play that one. One ticket price would cover both games.
It's a little bit of a break for the fans, and it would also shave about a week from the schedule, lessening the chance of November baseball.
Bring Pete Rose back -- I've always been torn on this one. He bet on his own team's games, so I can understand a lifetime ban, but he never bet on them to lose (and yes, I understand the argument that he may have indirectly by managing the Reds differently on days he did bet), and by this point, letting him back in probably just means he can go in the Hall of Fame and perhaps get work as an ambassador of some type. I highly doubt he'll be managing again.
So I'll let him back in the game so he can go in the Hall of Fame.
Be consistent on cheaters -- Until someone tells me why it's OK for guys who doctored baseballs to be in the Hall of Fame but not guys who doctored their bodies, I expect the writers to either vote for guys involved with PEDs or move to throw guys like Gaylord Perry out. And, by the way, they have to go tell Perry personally.
Shift away -- If a team knows where someone is going to hit the ball, why not let them arrange their defense accordingly? If hitters don't like it, they can actually learn how to hit differently. Yes, it might change their precious routines, but the best baseball players in the world (even Brendan Ryan) should be able to figure it out.
Changing gears (see what I did there?) ...
You're paid to race the whole race, so do it and don't whine -- I'm not tuning in to the Insert Sponsor Name Here 50; I'm watching the Insert Sponsor Name Here 300/400/500/600, so I expect drivers to try the whole time. If they don't, and they complain about guys who do, they can give back their prize money.
Let's go old-school -- NASCAR needs to find a way for its top divisions to race at North Wilkesboro, Rockingham, South Boston, the Milwaukee Mile and other tracks that may not be as lucrative or architecturally majestic, but are still fun.
A bit of a business lesson ...
If you don't take yourself seriously, no one else will, either -- If one of your best and most-recognizable players isn't playing this year because another team is paying her more not to play, that's a bad thing, and it makes you look like a joke. You really should do something about that.
Also, if there's an announcement about a famous player coming to play in your league, you should make sure he comes when you say he's going to. Otherwise, you also look like a joke.
And finally, even though I'm not sure what I would do to enforce it (although I have a few ideas, being Supreme Ruler of the Sports World and all), some words of advice for fans ...
Don't be f---ing idiots -- While the players are the game, it's your willingness to pay that makes people rich. I get that, but that doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want, in spite of what you may have been taught.
You don't get to throw things. You don't get to run onto the field/court/pitch (unless it's a court-storming after a big college basketball win, which I will allow as long as it's safe). You get to boo, but you don't get to make racist, sexist or homophobic remarks.
And while we're on the topic of sexism, any woman athlete is a better athlete than you or I will ever be, and if you actually challenged her at her sport, she would embarrass you.
Think a female sports announcer should just "stay in the kitchen"? Give it a try yourself, and you'll be begging to make her sandwiches. Also, for every woman announcer who you think is terrible, there are 20 men who are as bad or worse. Trust me on this one. Actually, you have to; I'm the Supreme Ruler of the Sports World.
So those are the first-day items. More could be coming as I see fit.
And we'll start with the development in sports that has been making me pull my hair out all week ...
All NFL contracts would be fully guaranteed -- I've always considered the concept of the "non-guaranteed contract" to be someone oxymoronic. Isn't a contract by its very nature a guarantee that a player will play for a certain amount of time, and in exchange, the club will pay a certain amount of money?
Instead, what we have now in the NFL is a situation where if a team doesn't want to pay a player any more, it demands he rework his contract or cuts him outright. Strangely enough, it doesn't work the other way, that a player can demand more money, and if the club doesn't comply, he becomes a free agent.
Sure, it'll mean lots of bad contracts for aging players whose pay doesn't match their performance. Oh well, too bad ... players are expected to live up to contracts, and so should teams.
Of course, none of this could matter if ...
No salary caps -- Players are the game. Sports is the business it is because of them. No one buys tickets or turns on the TV to watch owners own. They deserve all the money they can get.
"But the rich teams will buy all the best players and win everything!!!" you cry. I know I certainly enjoyed that Dodgers-Yankees World Series last year, but I am willing to consider revenue plans that make sure everyone has a chance, although I don't think it's as big a problem as some claim.
Speaking of deserving money ...
All college athletes would be allowed to be paid -- Maybe the university would pay. Maybe boosters would pay. Maybe endorsers would pay. However, it's done, if someone wanted to pay college athletes, it would be legal.
If Kentucky wants to buy a team of great basketball players ... oh wait, bad example.
If every SEC football team wants to pay all its players ... oh wait, another bad example.
You get my drift.
Staying in college ...
The NCAA basketball tournaments would be run by a straight S-curve -- The top team would play No. 68 and have the No. 8 team as the second seed in its region. The second team would play No. 67 and have the No. 7 team as its second seed.
There wouldn't be any of this crap where Wisconsin might be the second seed in Kentucky's region, even thought the Badgers are definitely not the No. 8 team, because Cleveland is the closest site to both schools. (And is Wisconsin wins the Big 10 title game, it should be a No. 1, rendering the whole discussion moot.)
And while we're at it ...
So long, pods -- If the committee wants to give the top seeds early round games close to home (and congratulations, NCAA, for having yet another subregional in North Carolina; God forbid Duke or North Carolina actually have to travel), that's fine, but otherwise, teams go to the sites the S-curve tells them to.
If a team from the eastern half of the country is in the West regional, it'll have the change to see the country from 33,000 feet.
Generic floors go, too -- I have written about this before, and have not changed my mind.
Regarding who plays in the tourney...
New format for play-in games -- First of all, they would be called just that, "play-in" games. Also, they would all be the lowest-seeded at-large teams, not the split of at-large teams and 16 seeds. Teams that actually won something to get into the tournament should not have to win something else just to make the main bracket. Let the lower-ranked teams from power conferences, who otherwise have just about every advantage when it comes to being chosen, play for bids.
As for college football ...
Four teams are good, but more are better -- The college football playoff would be a minimum of 16 teams, and perhaps 20 or 24 with byes. Every conference champion would get in, plus the best of the rest.
And yes, it would run on an S-curve.
As for the sport that's about to start, even though you wouldn't know it with all the talk of NFL free agents ...
Day games are a wonderful thing -- This is why, with the exception of the ESPN Sunday night game and playoff weekends where there are three or more games in a day, all weekend games would be day games, starting at 1 p.m. locally.
Being able to see the end of a game ... what a concept!
Let's make Ernie Banks smile in Heaven -- Every team would play one single-admission Sunday doubleheader a month. They'd play the first game at 1, retreat to the clubhouse for a half-hour to get ready for the second game, and then play that one. One ticket price would cover both games.
It's a little bit of a break for the fans, and it would also shave about a week from the schedule, lessening the chance of November baseball.
Bring Pete Rose back -- I've always been torn on this one. He bet on his own team's games, so I can understand a lifetime ban, but he never bet on them to lose (and yes, I understand the argument that he may have indirectly by managing the Reds differently on days he did bet), and by this point, letting him back in probably just means he can go in the Hall of Fame and perhaps get work as an ambassador of some type. I highly doubt he'll be managing again.
So I'll let him back in the game so he can go in the Hall of Fame.
Be consistent on cheaters -- Until someone tells me why it's OK for guys who doctored baseballs to be in the Hall of Fame but not guys who doctored their bodies, I expect the writers to either vote for guys involved with PEDs or move to throw guys like Gaylord Perry out. And, by the way, they have to go tell Perry personally.
Shift away -- If a team knows where someone is going to hit the ball, why not let them arrange their defense accordingly? If hitters don't like it, they can actually learn how to hit differently. Yes, it might change their precious routines, but the best baseball players in the world (even Brendan Ryan) should be able to figure it out.
Changing gears (see what I did there?) ...
You're paid to race the whole race, so do it and don't whine -- I'm not tuning in to the Insert Sponsor Name Here 50; I'm watching the Insert Sponsor Name Here 300/400/500/600, so I expect drivers to try the whole time. If they don't, and they complain about guys who do, they can give back their prize money.
Let's go old-school -- NASCAR needs to find a way for its top divisions to race at North Wilkesboro, Rockingham, South Boston, the Milwaukee Mile and other tracks that may not be as lucrative or architecturally majestic, but are still fun.
A bit of a business lesson ...
If you don't take yourself seriously, no one else will, either -- If one of your best and most-recognizable players isn't playing this year because another team is paying her more not to play, that's a bad thing, and it makes you look like a joke. You really should do something about that.
Also, if there's an announcement about a famous player coming to play in your league, you should make sure he comes when you say he's going to. Otherwise, you also look like a joke.
And finally, even though I'm not sure what I would do to enforce it (although I have a few ideas, being Supreme Ruler of the Sports World and all), some words of advice for fans ...
Don't be f---ing idiots -- While the players are the game, it's your willingness to pay that makes people rich. I get that, but that doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want, in spite of what you may have been taught.
You don't get to throw things. You don't get to run onto the field/court/pitch (unless it's a court-storming after a big college basketball win, which I will allow as long as it's safe). You get to boo, but you don't get to make racist, sexist or homophobic remarks.
And while we're on the topic of sexism, any woman athlete is a better athlete than you or I will ever be, and if you actually challenged her at her sport, she would embarrass you.
Think a female sports announcer should just "stay in the kitchen"? Give it a try yourself, and you'll be begging to make her sandwiches. Also, for every woman announcer who you think is terrible, there are 20 men who are as bad or worse. Trust me on this one. Actually, you have to; I'm the Supreme Ruler of the Sports World.
So those are the first-day items. More could be coming as I see fit.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
A Last Honest college basketball preview
I've stayed away from the blog for way too long, but the start of college basketball season is enough to make me blow off the dust.
I love college basketball, especially with the new format where the selection committee chooses the men's Final Four teams. Yes, the tournament was great, especially with games all day and night the first weekend, but football rules, and so why not decide the champion the same way football does? Also, since the champion can be decided in just one weekend, that's more time to concentrate on what really matters -- spring football practice and NFL draft previews. (Every minute Dick Vitale gets on ESPN is one less that Mel Kiper Jr. gets, after all.)
For me, the big question isn't just what four teams the committee picks (Vitale, of course, will have 27 teams in the Final Four), but which team will get the automatic ACC bid. As a Syracuse fan, I obviously hope it's the Orange, but they always seem to find a way to mess up, and it looks like Duke is being tipped as the team to beat in the league this year.
But maybe the ACC will get two. Why not? After all, the league has Duke, Syracuse, North Carolina, Louisville and Virginia, among others, but there are no easy outs in the conference. You try going to any of those arenas and win. In any other league, losing to one of the lesser teams is a huge upset; in the ACC, it's just a testament as to the awesomeness of the league.
What other league can say that? Maybe the Big 10, especially now that they've imported Maryland from the ACC. Perhaps you can pencil the league in for a Final Four spot, but I wouldn't use Seth Davis' Sharpie ... just in case.
I know Kentucky's the top-ranked team in the preseason, they went to the final last year and the Wildcats' end-of-the-bench walk-on is probably a low first-round NBA pick, but other than Florida and Kentucky, the league hasn't been any great shakes lately. Probably the best thing for an SEC resume is a close loss to an ACC team. (There is no truth, however, to the started-by-me rumor that, to keep ratings up, ESPN plans to replay the entire football season on the SEC Network in lieu of basketball, complete with alternate ending in the unlikely event that a team from some other conference is allowed in the college football playoff and dares to actually win the thing.)
What about UConn? After all, they won the national title last year! Yeah, but did they really deserve it? All they did was win a bunch of games at the end of the year. Big deal! If they were the team in New England worth having and had the sterling academics of a school like North Carolina, the Huskies would be in the ACC and not the American.
At least the American and maybe the Big Ersatz are on the fringes of the conferences good enough to send a team to the Final Four if everything goes right. Those other conferences should feel happy that their champions will be allowed in the NIT, which will continue. After all, the ACC teams not picked for the Final Four need something to do.
(In case you're wondering about the women, will anyone beat UConn? There is the question of this season.)
Let the games begin!
I love college basketball, especially with the new format where the selection committee chooses the men's Final Four teams. Yes, the tournament was great, especially with games all day and night the first weekend, but football rules, and so why not decide the champion the same way football does? Also, since the champion can be decided in just one weekend, that's more time to concentrate on what really matters -- spring football practice and NFL draft previews. (Every minute Dick Vitale gets on ESPN is one less that Mel Kiper Jr. gets, after all.)
For me, the big question isn't just what four teams the committee picks (Vitale, of course, will have 27 teams in the Final Four), but which team will get the automatic ACC bid. As a Syracuse fan, I obviously hope it's the Orange, but they always seem to find a way to mess up, and it looks like Duke is being tipped as the team to beat in the league this year.
But maybe the ACC will get two. Why not? After all, the league has Duke, Syracuse, North Carolina, Louisville and Virginia, among others, but there are no easy outs in the conference. You try going to any of those arenas and win. In any other league, losing to one of the lesser teams is a huge upset; in the ACC, it's just a testament as to the awesomeness of the league.
What other league can say that? Maybe the Big 10, especially now that they've imported Maryland from the ACC. Perhaps you can pencil the league in for a Final Four spot, but I wouldn't use Seth Davis' Sharpie ... just in case.
I know Kentucky's the top-ranked team in the preseason, they went to the final last year and the Wildcats' end-of-the-bench walk-on is probably a low first-round NBA pick, but other than Florida and Kentucky, the league hasn't been any great shakes lately. Probably the best thing for an SEC resume is a close loss to an ACC team. (There is no truth, however, to the started-by-me rumor that, to keep ratings up, ESPN plans to replay the entire football season on the SEC Network in lieu of basketball, complete with alternate ending in the unlikely event that a team from some other conference is allowed in the college football playoff and dares to actually win the thing.)
What about UConn? After all, they won the national title last year! Yeah, but did they really deserve it? All they did was win a bunch of games at the end of the year. Big deal! If they were the team in New England worth having and had the sterling academics of a school like North Carolina, the Huskies would be in the ACC and not the American.
At least the American and maybe the Big Ersatz are on the fringes of the conferences good enough to send a team to the Final Four if everything goes right. Those other conferences should feel happy that their champions will be allowed in the NIT, which will continue. After all, the ACC teams not picked for the Final Four need something to do.
(In case you're wondering about the women, will anyone beat UConn? There is the question of this season.)
Let the games begin!
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Fans get angry ... that's what they do
I'll give Seth Davis this much ... he called it.
Needless to say, Davis crowed after the game ended.
The first is that a team can play badly enough to lose on the merits, and still be screwed by the refs. Had the game turned out the exact same way without the bad calls, Orange fans would have had plenty to be upset about: falling down by double digits and never being able to come all the way back, Carter-Williams' poor game (two points on 1-6 shooting, two assists and five turnovers), James Southerland's five points, including 1-5 from three-point range; Syracuse's 2-3 zone not being as effective against Michigan as it had earlier in the tournament.
But to deny the calls had an impact, especially when Syracuse had to rely on Trevor Cooney to handle the ball on its most-important possession of the year because the starting backcourt was fouled out, is folly. When my new best friend fortyfourist and I tried to make this point to Davis, he didn't have anything to say.
The second thing Davis seems not to understand is that fans are ALWAYS going to scream about bad calls, especially when they have the added advantage of being right.
As stated above, teams that lose, like Syracuse did last night, generally lose for any number of reasons, but officials are always going to take a rap if there are any controversial calls. It has always happened. It will always happen.
Yes, when will sports fans learn, like the ones in Boston who booed Johnny Damon for years because he went to the Yankees, or the ones in Boston who booed Ray Allen when he returned with the Miami Heat this season? Surely Cafardo remembers that, right? Has he ever taken Boston fans to task for that? If he has, I'd love to see it, and I would stand corrected. (I asked him about Damon on Twitter yesterday; like Davis, he didn't respond.)
Cafardo is right when he says people change jobs to improve their lives, and in a perfect world, fans would not be angry if a player leaves because they're seeking better situations for themselves. In a perfect world, it would also be possible to go to an Italian restaurant and have the wait staff keep bringing me plates of spaghetti until I got tired of eating it and never getting fat; that's not going to happen either.
If a player (or manager) leaves, fans are usually going to boo. Red Sox fans booed Damon. Celtics fans booed Allen. Cleveland fans boo LeBron James (and they get to, everyone else needs to shut their pie holes about him going to the Heat). Texas fans booed Josh Hamilton the other day. And fans will never see the hypocrisy of booing someone who leaves (particularly as a free agent, but demanding to be traded also applies), but cheering someone who left his fans to play in their city.
It's not right, but I understand.
But maybe Cafardo doesn't think anyone who goes to Boston should be booed, because it's the center of the sporting universe and all.
"I wonder which call is going to be cited by fans of the losing team as the reason they lost. Whatever it is will be the worst call ever."That Twitter message came during the middle of last night's Final Four game between Syracuse and Michigan, and sure enough, we Syracuse fans came out of the game howling about the officials, in particular the fourth foul against Michael Carter-Williams with 1:40 left, in which he got pushed to the ground (he fouled out with 1:14 remaining), and the charge against Brandon Triche with 19.5 seconds left (his fifth foul) in which the defender slid under Triche while he was in the air.
Needless to say, Davis crowed after the game ended.
"Told you the losing team's fans would have a call to blame. So much easier than admitting you got outplayed."Not blaming refs, even as he admits they're terrible, is kind of a thing for Davis. Since there are a couple things he seems not to understand, I, as a service, will enlighten him. (My good friend Cy Nical weighs in with the theory that Davis may not understand because his alma mater, Duke, seems to get all the calls that other teams' fans howl about, but I will not stoop to that level.)
The first is that a team can play badly enough to lose on the merits, and still be screwed by the refs. Had the game turned out the exact same way without the bad calls, Orange fans would have had plenty to be upset about: falling down by double digits and never being able to come all the way back, Carter-Williams' poor game (two points on 1-6 shooting, two assists and five turnovers), James Southerland's five points, including 1-5 from three-point range; Syracuse's 2-3 zone not being as effective against Michigan as it had earlier in the tournament.
But to deny the calls had an impact, especially when Syracuse had to rely on Trevor Cooney to handle the ball on its most-important possession of the year because the starting backcourt was fouled out, is folly. When my new best friend fortyfourist and I tried to make this point to Davis, he didn't have anything to say.
The second thing Davis seems not to understand is that fans are ALWAYS going to scream about bad calls, especially when they have the added advantage of being right.
As stated above, teams that lose, like Syracuse did last night, generally lose for any number of reasons, but officials are always going to take a rap if there are any controversial calls. It has always happened. It will always happen.
* * * * *
So that was how yesterday ended. It started with this delightful bit of nonsense from Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe, bemoaning the fact that Blue Jays fans John Farrell Friday night when the Red Sox played in Toronto for the first time since Farrell left the Jays (with a year left on his contract) to take over the Red Sox.
"Jays fans are mad. They feel betrayed.
When will sports fans understand that people come and people go? People go for the money, for a better situation, for a better life for them and their families.
Farrell simply did what any Canadian or American would do — he sought to improve his life."
Yes, when will sports fans learn, like the ones in Boston who booed Johnny Damon for years because he went to the Yankees, or the ones in Boston who booed Ray Allen when he returned with the Miami Heat this season? Surely Cafardo remembers that, right? Has he ever taken Boston fans to task for that? If he has, I'd love to see it, and I would stand corrected. (I asked him about Damon on Twitter yesterday; like Davis, he didn't respond.)
Cafardo is right when he says people change jobs to improve their lives, and in a perfect world, fans would not be angry if a player leaves because they're seeking better situations for themselves. In a perfect world, it would also be possible to go to an Italian restaurant and have the wait staff keep bringing me plates of spaghetti until I got tired of eating it and never getting fat; that's not going to happen either.
If a player (or manager) leaves, fans are usually going to boo. Red Sox fans booed Damon. Celtics fans booed Allen. Cleveland fans boo LeBron James (and they get to, everyone else needs to shut their pie holes about him going to the Heat). Texas fans booed Josh Hamilton the other day. And fans will never see the hypocrisy of booing someone who leaves (particularly as a free agent, but demanding to be traded also applies), but cheering someone who left his fans to play in their city.
It's not right, but I understand.
But maybe Cafardo doesn't think anyone who goes to Boston should be booed, because it's the center of the sporting universe and all.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Basketball from back home
My buddy Rob posted this on his Facebook page the other day:
I do remember it being an exciting time for all of us in the towns small and large around Albany, NY, as Siena's Loudonville campus is just a short ride up the Northway from New York's capital city. (Rob still lives a stone's throw from the campus, and I used to live a couple miles away.)
Like a lot of New York, except for maybe the immediate New York City area, I grew up in Syracuse country. When Syracuse won the 2003 national championship, they played the East Regional in Albany, and the only way they could have had a bigger home-court advantage was if the games were in the Carrier Dome itself.
Yes, the RPI men's hockey team won the 1985 national title, but where I grew up, big-time college sports meant Syracuse, much in the same way that professional sports mostly means the New York City teams and the Buffalo Bills, at least when the Bills are good. Rob has actually lamented on this often over the years.
And then Siena came along. I was a high school junior, and my social studies teacher/baseball coach promised us that if Siena beat Stanford in their first-round NCAA tournament game, we wouldn't have a quiz the next day. During baseball practice, we got the news ... Siena had done it! I happened to be standing next to the coach when we found out, and he sort of gave me a hug.
(Because of the quiz being called off, I've always remembered that the game was on a Thursday, because our quizzes were Fridays.)
We taped the game at my house, and as soon as I got home from practice, we all watched it together. If memory serves, CBS had the rights for all the tournament games back then, but didn't produce all of them for broadcast, including the Siena-Stanford game, so the NCAA produced the game in-house and made it available locally on the CBS affiliate.
It was amazing to watch back then -- and I am so going to have to watch the video of the game linked to above -- but not just because the local team pulled off the huge upset. It was almost certainly the first time in my and my friends' lives, and probably the first time for most of the people I knew, that our region had hit the big time in sports.
Siena has made other NCAA tournaments since then, and even sprung another big tournament upset. Of course, they were all exciting, but for me, there will be nothing like standing in my high school gym, next to my baseball coach, and having someone tell us that Siena had just knocked off Stanford.
"Who remembers the 1988-89 Siena men's basketball team? And who remembers where they were the day the Saints marched into the NCAA Tournament for the first time by beating Boston University in an empty Hartford Civic Center due to a measles outbreak that started in Loudonville?"I don't actually remember where I was that day, just reading about it in the paper the next day, or that the tournament was in what is now the XL Center. Not only did the tournament have no spectators, but its winner had no nickname most of the year, as Siena had dropped its Indians name that season and didn't choose its current Saints moniker right away.
I do remember it being an exciting time for all of us in the towns small and large around Albany, NY, as Siena's Loudonville campus is just a short ride up the Northway from New York's capital city. (Rob still lives a stone's throw from the campus, and I used to live a couple miles away.)
Like a lot of New York, except for maybe the immediate New York City area, I grew up in Syracuse country. When Syracuse won the 2003 national championship, they played the East Regional in Albany, and the only way they could have had a bigger home-court advantage was if the games were in the Carrier Dome itself.
Yes, the RPI men's hockey team won the 1985 national title, but where I grew up, big-time college sports meant Syracuse, much in the same way that professional sports mostly means the New York City teams and the Buffalo Bills, at least when the Bills are good. Rob has actually lamented on this often over the years.
And then Siena came along. I was a high school junior, and my social studies teacher/baseball coach promised us that if Siena beat Stanford in their first-round NCAA tournament game, we wouldn't have a quiz the next day. During baseball practice, we got the news ... Siena had done it! I happened to be standing next to the coach when we found out, and he sort of gave me a hug.
(Because of the quiz being called off, I've always remembered that the game was on a Thursday, because our quizzes were Fridays.)
We taped the game at my house, and as soon as I got home from practice, we all watched it together. If memory serves, CBS had the rights for all the tournament games back then, but didn't produce all of them for broadcast, including the Siena-Stanford game, so the NCAA produced the game in-house and made it available locally on the CBS affiliate.
It was amazing to watch back then -- and I am so going to have to watch the video of the game linked to above -- but not just because the local team pulled off the huge upset. It was almost certainly the first time in my and my friends' lives, and probably the first time for most of the people I knew, that our region had hit the big time in sports.
Siena has made other NCAA tournaments since then, and even sprung another big tournament upset. Of course, they were all exciting, but for me, there will be nothing like standing in my high school gym, next to my baseball coach, and having someone tell us that Siena had just knocked off Stanford.
* * * * *
Things haven't been as good for the Saints lately. Their history since the mid-1980s has been success when they get the right coach (Mike Deane, Paul Hewitt, Louis Orr, Fran McCaffery) and failure when they don't (Bob Beyer, Rob Lanier, the recently fired Mitch Buonaguro). However, the University at Albany Great Danes have stepped into the Capital Region void, advancing to this morning's America East championship against Vermont.
My master's degree is from UAlbany, but I'd be lying if I said I have especially fond memories of the place. It wasn't horrible, but the good times were more about living on my own in an apartment for the first time, the woman I dated at the time (no, not the one who ultimately became Mrs. Last Honest) and the radio station I worked at for my graduate internship and the friends I made there.
As for the actual grad-school experience? Meh. I went to my office hours for my advising job in the communication department, went to classes and went home. I don't have any friends among my professors or classmates, and if I talk about it, it's mostly about the idiot undergrads I dealt with. (I once had one threaten to sue because I wouldn't let her keep an advising appointment for missing a mandatory meeting that was cleverly called the "mandatory meeting" and spelled out in black-and-white on a letter. Her excuse? She hadn't read that far.)
It's basically the difference between a school being a place where you go and a place where you are, such as my undergrad days.
So I haven't really kept up with the Danes. I don't know who anyone is on their team. I'm glad to see that Will Brown is still the coach, though.
But today? With a chance to go to the NCAA tournament? I'm watching ESPN2 as I type, and today, I change from an ambivalent alum to an excited one.
Is it jumping on a bandwagon?
Yup.
Do I care?
What do you think?
Monday, April 9, 2012
Is it the Kentucky players we're mad about?
On his Twitter feed this morning, Jay Bilas recommended an article by William C. Rhoden of the New York Times about the "outrage" (Rhoden's word) over the impending departures of University of Kentucky basketball players for the NBA, the latest John Calipari players to leave after just a year or two in college.
Rhoden has a guess as to why.
But I think Rhoden is missing one potential reason why people are so up in arms over what's going on at Kentucky.
The white guy.
Calipari.
Let's just say that Calipari has a bit of a history with the folks at the NCAA ... if you consider two vacated Final Fours to be "a bit of a history." I know, I know, he personally was never actually implicated; it was just a giant coincidence that all this stuff was going on at UMass and Memphis while he was there.
Combine Calipari's penchant for coincidence, his ability to restock his teams with top recruits at will and the Wildcats' seemingly having no academic issues despite all the one-and-dones even as other teams are being thrown out of future tournaments (by the way, if I read the article right, it seems like the APR would encourage schools to have their players leave early), and there's one thought that comes to mind pretty quickly.
The guy's getting away with something.
In fact, people are so convinced that Calipari's just biding his time until this year's title is stripped, that Dick Vitale brought it up in conjunction with the news that Baylor is possibly facing sanctions over excessive phone calls and text messages, leading to this exchange with Richard Deitsch of Sports Illustrated.
Rhoden has a guess as to why.
If the core of the Kentucky team had been made up of white players with phenomenal athleticism and acumen at every position — operating in the context of a largely black sport — we would not be hearing the complaining. Their success would not be seen as a debasement. The team would be celebrated and feted — as Butler was, as Gonzaga used to be.Last week, I asked Tom Izzo, the basketball coach at Michigan State, if he thought a highly talented, highly athletic team of white players would be viewed differently.“I want to answer that as honestly as I can,” Izzo said. “I think it would be different. I hate to say that.”
Rhoden's piece actually has a fairly interesting anecdote about Izzo encouraging Zach Randolph to go the NBA after his freshman year, even though he didn't think Randolph was mentally ready for it.The perception is that these five black players are not serious students and don’t belong at the university. If they were white, there would be more acceptance that they belong at the university.
“When Zach Randolph wanted to go, I thought he should go,” Izzo said. “I thought he was one of the poorest kids I ever recruited. I thought he was a good enough player that he could survive. I did not fight him at all.”
Randolph entered the 2001 N.B.A. draft. After the 2004 season, he signed a six-year, $84 million extension; last April, he agreed to a four-year extension with the Memphis Grizzlies worth a guaranteed $66 million.
“His mother was 100 percent for him staying at the time,” Izzo said, “although I’m sure she feels pretty good about it now.”I think Rhoden's point about race has some basis in fact. As a matter of fact, I think it may have had a role in the sudden concern people had about the NBA's free agency system when LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony were playing out their free-agent dramas.
But I think Rhoden is missing one potential reason why people are so up in arms over what's going on at Kentucky.
The white guy.
Calipari.
Let's just say that Calipari has a bit of a history with the folks at the NCAA ... if you consider two vacated Final Fours to be "a bit of a history." I know, I know, he personally was never actually implicated; it was just a giant coincidence that all this stuff was going on at UMass and Memphis while he was there.
Combine Calipari's penchant for coincidence, his ability to restock his teams with top recruits at will and the Wildcats' seemingly having no academic issues despite all the one-and-dones even as other teams are being thrown out of future tournaments (by the way, if I read the article right, it seems like the APR would encourage schools to have their players leave early), and there's one thought that comes to mind pretty quickly.
The guy's getting away with something.
In fact, people are so convinced that Calipari's just biding his time until this year's title is stripped, that Dick Vitale brought it up in conjunction with the news that Baylor is possibly facing sanctions over excessive phone calls and text messages, leading to this exchange with Richard Deitsch of Sports Illustrated.
@dickiev Ppl in BBN - just saying if Baylor situation was about the Cats there would be a wild frenzy attacking Calipari. Read correctly b4 u react.I'm with Deitsch on this one, and had my own response, one which I think Gary Parrish might have agreed with.
@richarddeitsch Given UK are the champs, of course there would be more frenzy. But this straw man take makes you come off like a Cal apologist.
@dickiev Apologist 4 what - check NCAA - HAS never been charged-what school in USA would not play Rose if NCAA said he is eligible.
@lasthonestsport Or would people say, "Is that all?"I have yet to get a reply.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
The volleyball game that showed I'm getting old
My wife, father-in-law and I were walking out of the Ryan Center at the University of Rhode Island Tuesday night at about 9:30 p.m. after watching Connecticut win the NCAA East Regional Final -- by the way, the Ryan Center is a splendid little place to watch a basketball game or three -- when we saw people playing volleyball in a gym.
Seeing college kids playing volleyball reminds me of when I was that age, when my weeks during the summer revolved around volleyball. Every Wednesday night, starting back when I was in high school, we gathered at a friend's house -- Chuck, Dan, Dave, Grayson, Vinnie, Jeremy, Renee, Marnie, plus regulars I probably forgot and whoever else showed up from the neighborhood. We'd play 2-on-2, 3-on-3, 4-on-4, 2-on-everyone else (one of Chuck's and my favorites) or whatever configuration we came up with.
Pretty much all that could stop us was rain or dark, and we fought both of those as hard as we could, especially the dark. We basically only stopped when we literally couldn't see at all. It was just pickup volleyball in a backyard in a small town in upstate New York, but it was important to us, both for the competition and the camaraderie.
Then life happened, and it started to break up. Chuck and Jeremy found another group to play with, and I joined them for a little while. They were nice enough, and the volleyball was pretty good, but it wasn't the same.
Then Chuck died. It was July 2004, not quite two years since he had been an usher in my wedding. After the funeral, we gathered in the backyard of his house, which hosted the volleyball for most of the years we played. I was on a team with Vinnie (Chuck's brother), and I played one game before my wife and I had to leave, since we lived in Massachusetts by that time.
It's kind of ridiculous to say I'm "retired" from recreational backyard volleyball, but I'll be perfectly content if that was the last volleyball game I played.
But back to the kids playing volleyball in the gym at URI. My reaction was a testament to how old I've gotten, and not because I couldn't physically do what they were doing, what I was able to do when I was that age.
After all, that ship has long since sailed. I've resigned myself to the fact that I can't run or jump anywhere near like I used to, and now things hurt when I do anything physical.
No, the realization was that if I was a college student and it was my friends in that gym, I would have been on the other side of that window. If, 10 years ago, I had stumbled across or been invited to a game, I probably would have been there.
Five years ago, I probably would have realized that my time for playing had come and gone, but I would have thought what they were doing was pretty awesome.
But last night? The first thought that came to my mind was ... "9:30 at night is awful late to be playing volleyball."
Seeing college kids playing volleyball reminds me of when I was that age, when my weeks during the summer revolved around volleyball. Every Wednesday night, starting back when I was in high school, we gathered at a friend's house -- Chuck, Dan, Dave, Grayson, Vinnie, Jeremy, Renee, Marnie, plus regulars I probably forgot and whoever else showed up from the neighborhood. We'd play 2-on-2, 3-on-3, 4-on-4, 2-on-everyone else (one of Chuck's and my favorites) or whatever configuration we came up with.
Pretty much all that could stop us was rain or dark, and we fought both of those as hard as we could, especially the dark. We basically only stopped when we literally couldn't see at all. It was just pickup volleyball in a backyard in a small town in upstate New York, but it was important to us, both for the competition and the camaraderie.
Then life happened, and it started to break up. Chuck and Jeremy found another group to play with, and I joined them for a little while. They were nice enough, and the volleyball was pretty good, but it wasn't the same.
Then Chuck died. It was July 2004, not quite two years since he had been an usher in my wedding. After the funeral, we gathered in the backyard of his house, which hosted the volleyball for most of the years we played. I was on a team with Vinnie (Chuck's brother), and I played one game before my wife and I had to leave, since we lived in Massachusetts by that time.
It's kind of ridiculous to say I'm "retired" from recreational backyard volleyball, but I'll be perfectly content if that was the last volleyball game I played.
But back to the kids playing volleyball in the gym at URI. My reaction was a testament to how old I've gotten, and not because I couldn't physically do what they were doing, what I was able to do when I was that age.
After all, that ship has long since sailed. I've resigned myself to the fact that I can't run or jump anywhere near like I used to, and now things hurt when I do anything physical.
No, the realization was that if I was a college student and it was my friends in that gym, I would have been on the other side of that window. If, 10 years ago, I had stumbled across or been invited to a game, I probably would have been there.
Five years ago, I probably would have realized that my time for playing had come and gone, but I would have thought what they were doing was pretty awesome.
But last night? The first thought that came to my mind was ... "9:30 at night is awful late to be playing volleyball."
Friday, March 23, 2012
Syracuse and Wisconsin cause some domestic anxiety
Of course Jordan Taylor's three-pointer was going to go in.
It didn't matter that between Syracuse's tight defense and Wisconsin being the latest team to completely foul up its late-game offense, the shot was an off-balance 25-footer, it was always going to go in.
After all, the Badgers were raining threes, including one I'm pretty sure was tossed up from my back yard 15 miles away from the TD Garden (an impressive feat, given the trees in the yard). And because it's Syracuse, for whom shooting free throws late in games is a decades-long adventure, Kris Joseph missed the front end of a one-and-one that would have given the Orange a three-point lead if he hit both.
I just knew it was going to slip away.
But Taylor's shot didn't go in, and neither did Mike Bruesewitz's follow. Somehow, Syracuse won.
And when it was over, my wife and I, in stereo, sagged from the edge of our seats to the back of the couch where we had sat on opposite sides all game ... me out of relief, her out of disappointment.
I'm a lifelong Syracuse fan, and my wife has a master's degree from Wisconsin, so we were on opposite sides, which is unusual unless Syracuse is playing her other team, Connecticut. Otherwise, we root for each other's teams, as I would have done going forward if Wisconsin pulled it out. (Fortunately, I didn't marry a Georgetown fan, and she didn't marry a Michigan State supporter.)
There wasn't any trash talk, other than me joking on the way to dinner that I wanted to go someplace that served badger, and her replying that she wanted to smash an orange. A friend of mine said he would have liked to have watched us watching the game, but I pooh-poohed it. After all, we watch the UConn-Syracuse games every year; we're used to it!
And then Wisconsin cut what had been a 10-point Syracuse lead just before halftime to six, and then they couldn't miss three-pointers. Still no trash talk, but excitement for her when another Wisconsin three went in, then for me when Syracuse scored to either take back the lead or extend it just a little bit.
It was like this the entire second half, as something started to set in:
This time, my team came out on top. I was thrilled they won, but more thrilled that it was over. Bring on someone neither of us can stand!
It didn't matter that between Syracuse's tight defense and Wisconsin being the latest team to completely foul up its late-game offense, the shot was an off-balance 25-footer, it was always going to go in.
After all, the Badgers were raining threes, including one I'm pretty sure was tossed up from my back yard 15 miles away from the TD Garden (an impressive feat, given the trees in the yard). And because it's Syracuse, for whom shooting free throws late in games is a decades-long adventure, Kris Joseph missed the front end of a one-and-one that would have given the Orange a three-point lead if he hit both.
I just knew it was going to slip away.
But Taylor's shot didn't go in, and neither did Mike Bruesewitz's follow. Somehow, Syracuse won.
I'm a lifelong Syracuse fan, and my wife has a master's degree from Wisconsin, so we were on opposite sides, which is unusual unless Syracuse is playing her other team, Connecticut. Otherwise, we root for each other's teams, as I would have done going forward if Wisconsin pulled it out. (Fortunately, I didn't marry a Georgetown fan, and she didn't marry a Michigan State supporter.)
There wasn't any trash talk, other than me joking on the way to dinner that I wanted to go someplace that served badger, and her replying that she wanted to smash an orange. A friend of mine said he would have liked to have watched us watching the game, but I pooh-poohed it. After all, we watch the UConn-Syracuse games every year; we're used to it!
And then Wisconsin cut what had been a 10-point Syracuse lead just before halftime to six, and then they couldn't miss three-pointers. Still no trash talk, but excitement for her when another Wisconsin three went in, then for me when Syracuse scored to either take back the lead or extend it just a little bit.
It was like this the entire second half, as something started to set in:
This was a hell of a game, and one of our teams was going to lose it.I didn't want it to be my team any more than she wanted it to be hers. This was different than all the other games we've watched together. Someone's team was going to move on, and someone's was going to be done.
This time, my team came out on top. I was thrilled they won, but more thrilled that it was over. Bring on someone neither of us can stand!
Saturday, March 17, 2012
If it's Saturday, we must be in Pittsburgh, or is it Portland?
There are very few things I dislike about the NCAA basketball tournaments. (Yes, that's supposed to be plural. I watch the men and women.)
I detest the pods, and not just because it lets the tournament committee put Duke and North Carolina is a home-state subregional every year ... although I also hate that, even if it didn't help Duke much last night. The regions should be regional, and the pods place convenience over competition. Seth Davis basically admitted as such after the men's tournament brakcets were released.
But as I'm watching the women's tournament, where it's pretty clear where each game is, I'm reminded that I hate that men's games are played on generic courts. Other than the fact that one is a seminal moment in tournament history and the other was just another first-round game ... oops, round of 64 ... looking at the difference between these two clips, it's hard to believe they're in the same building, The Pit in Albuquerque.
Combine that with the names of some of the arenas -- just in case you were wondering, the Consol Energy Center is in Pittsburgh, the Nationwide Arena is in Columbus, the Bridgestone Arena is in Nashville and CenturyLink Center is in Omaha -- all the games could be in Anywhere, USA. It's sterile, and sucks some of the flavor out of the event.
I detest the pods, and not just because it lets the tournament committee put Duke and North Carolina is a home-state subregional every year ... although I also hate that, even if it didn't help Duke much last night. The regions should be regional, and the pods place convenience over competition. Seth Davis basically admitted as such after the men's tournament brakcets were released.
@sethdavishoops If you look at the seed list and the bracket you realize the S curve doesn't really exist. It's all about geography.They should just call the men's First Four games what they are -- play-in games, and dispense with the "round of 64" and "second-round" nonsense. It's not fooling anybody. I also rather the First Four games be all at-large teams, but it beats expanding the tournament to 96, 128 or everybody.
But as I'm watching the women's tournament, where it's pretty clear where each game is, I'm reminded that I hate that men's games are played on generic courts. Other than the fact that one is a seminal moment in tournament history and the other was just another first-round game ... oops, round of 64 ... looking at the difference between these two clips, it's hard to believe they're in the same building, The Pit in Albuquerque.
Combine that with the names of some of the arenas -- just in case you were wondering, the Consol Energy Center is in Pittsburgh, the Nationwide Arena is in Columbus, the Bridgestone Arena is in Nashville and CenturyLink Center is in Omaha -- all the games could be in Anywhere, USA. It's sterile, and sucks some of the flavor out of the event.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Football playoff comments that boggle my mind
Right off the top, let me say that I'm in favor of a 16-team college football playoff with conference champions and at-large teams selected by a committee. (Sound familiar?) It would use the current bowls, with lesser bowls rotating through first- and second-round games and the top bowls (let's say Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton ... and Gator and Chick-Fil-A for the sake of discussion) hosting the semifinals and finals.
The smaller bowls that don't host first- and second-round games could hold their bowls with teams that don't make the playoff, sort of like an NIT. As a bonus, they'd probably have better teams and games than they do now with the ninth-place team from the Big Ten against the seventh team from the ACC or whatever the matchup is.
I'd go into more detail, but I really want to get into this article by Andy Staples in which he talked to nine college presidents about playoffs and different scenarios. It included two statements that were so profoundly stupid as to boggle the mind.
The first is from Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman.
Meanwhile, I saw my first NCAA basketball tournament bubble watch in December, based solely on non-conference schedules ... or what in football they call "Alabama versus Chudley State." Do too much of that in basketball, and you might hear those three fateful letters ... N-I-T. Right, Virginia Tech?
And for the past three weeks, the interest has ramped up because everyone is trying to play their way into the tournament ... and everyone not in the Ivy League has that chance.
As for the "undisputed winner of a playoff"? Really? The New York Giants, St. Louis Cardinals and University of Connecticut would like to discuss whether you dispute their championships.
But wait, there's more! This is from Kansas State president Kirk Schulz.
Hopefully, these guys are better at running colleges than college sports.
The smaller bowls that don't host first- and second-round games could hold their bowls with teams that don't make the playoff, sort of like an NIT. As a bonus, they'd probably have better teams and games than they do now with the ninth-place team from the Big Ten against the seventh team from the ACC or whatever the matchup is.
I'd go into more detail, but I really want to get into this article by Andy Staples in which he talked to nine college presidents about playoffs and different scenarios. It included two statements that were so profoundly stupid as to boggle the mind.
The first is from Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman.
Perlman, one of the members of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, disagrees. He sees no benefit in a playoff, and he worries any additional television revenue gained might be lost again in the next round of media rights negotiations if the playoff causes interest in the regular season to wane. "I've given all the arguments why I don't want to see a playoff even if it's a plus-one," Perlman said. "More recently, I've just been asking the question, 'What benefit does it have?' I can't find one. This notion that now we'll have an undisputed national champion is a pipe dream. We're not going to have an undisputed national champion. We'll have an undisputed winner of a playoff."In FBS football, if you lose one game, the only way you get to play for a national title is if enough teams also lose one so that there are fewer than two undefeated teams, and then only if you're in a BCS conference and get a lot of help. And if you lose two, forget it. If you're lucky, you might win your conference and go to a BCS bowl that no one cares about because everyone is fixated on the title game.
Meanwhile, I saw my first NCAA basketball tournament bubble watch in December, based solely on non-conference schedules ... or what in football they call "Alabama versus Chudley State." Do too much of that in basketball, and you might hear those three fateful letters ... N-I-T. Right, Virginia Tech?
And for the past three weeks, the interest has ramped up because everyone is trying to play their way into the tournament ... and everyone not in the Ivy League has that chance.
As for the "undisputed winner of a playoff"? Really? The New York Giants, St. Louis Cardinals and University of Connecticut would like to discuss whether you dispute their championships.
But wait, there's more! This is from Kansas State president Kirk Schulz.
Schulz, who took over at Kansas State in 2009, doesn't fall far from Perlman on the issue. "My comment on that always is, if we have an eight-team playoff, the ninth-place team goes, 'I got screwed.' There's always going to be some sense in college football of somebody not quite getting a fair deal," Schulz said. "I like the bowl system. I'm not sure it's as broken as everybody likes to think it is. Personally, I'm happy to have us tweak it a little bit."
Hopefully, these guys are better at running colleges than college sports.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Do basketball teams practice late-game situations?
It's one of my favorite times of the year ... NCAA basketball tournament time. It means games all the time (especially since I follow the men's and women's tourneys, which means I don't sleep for an entire month) wild finishes, upsets ...
... and wondering if anyone has any idea of what to do at the end of games.
For example, today, I caught the end of the Big 10 women's final between Purdue and Nebraska. With roughly 30 seconds in the second overtime, Purdue was up 71-70 and taking the ball out of bounds, I believe after a Nebraska basket. They inbounded the ball ... and passed it around ... and dribbled ... and dribbled some more. Finally, with about 16 seconds left, someone from Nebraska finally fouled.
Remember, this was in a one-point game. Unless Purdue got an offensive rebound on a missed free throw or for some reason took and hit a three-pointer, Nebraska was going to get the ball back in a one-possession game, but by not fouling, they gave themselves less time for that possession, and eventually threw up a three under pressure with eight seconds left.
It landed about six feet short in the hands of a Purdue player.
Ballgame.
There are other things I see all the time that drive me to ... dare I say ... madness. (Given the time of year and the fact that I watch it the most, this refers primarily to college ball, but I'm sure some applies to the NBA.)
Pointless fouls -- There are times when, unless the foul is someone's fifth, where fouling has absolutely no consequence, and that's when a team has fewer than six fouls ... or "fouls to give."
If a team is leading and the opposition is trying to set up a last shot, teams with fouls to give will often give them to run a little time off the clock and force their opponents to run another play. If a team is losing, they give fouls to get to seven so the free throws can start.
What I don't understand is that so often, the team will give a vanilla, garden-variety foul. Why not run through the opposing player to steal the inbounds pass? Why not grab the ball and pull for all its worth? The best-case scenario is that the ref forgets what the whistle is for. The worst-case is that they give up a foul they were going to give up, anyway.
It's all reward, and no risk.
Letting one bad thing happen instead of four -- Remember this? I bet John Calipari does.
That, of course, is Mario Chalmers' three-pointer to send the 2008 Kansas-Memphis final into overtime, which Kansas won.
But it didn't have to happen, if Memphis had fouled before Chalmers could get the shot off.
By fouling with a three-point lead and, let's say, less than five seconds left, these are the things that happen for the leading team to lose that lead:
1. Making the first free throw.
2. Intentionally missing the second free throw while still hitting the rim, which can be harder than it seems. (I've seen them go in more than once.)
3. The shooting team getting the rebound from the outside position.
4. Scoring, usually in a scramble, as time is running out.
That's four things, instead of one shot going in. My semi-educated guess is that more coaches don't encourage fouls in this situation because if it doesn't work out, it means some uncomfortable questions in the post-game press conference. There's less second-guessing if a coach can say what Calipari said ...
"Ten seconds to go, we're thinking we're national champs, all of a sudden a kid makes a shot, and we're not."
Waiting too long to take the wrong shot -- This is actually in two parts, but they're both related.
The first is that teams don't follow the sage advice of my first basketball coach, who said that when looking for the last shot, take it with seven seconds left, so there's time for an offensive rebound. Instead, they dribble, dribble, dribble before chucking up a contested shot as time runs out.
And too often, that shot is a three-pointer.
If a team is down three points, obviously, it has to take a three at some point. If it's down two, there's a choice to make of going for the win or tie. But if they're down one or tied, they don't need a three, but take it all the time, anyway.
Why? I'm guessing it's because everyone wants the walk-off, SportsCenter, Austin Rivers highlight (although to be fair, Duke was down two, so they had the tie/win choice) that a short-jumper just won't provide.
The dumbest play in basketball --If you're watching a game with me, hide the sharp objects if this happens ...
... Team down by four, under 30 seconds ... has the ball ... announcer says, "They don't need to go for a three here" ... team shoots a layup.
Until the rules-makers add a four-point shot (which I think should be called the Antoine Walker Rule), a four-point lead is two possessions. And if teams trade two-point baskets for two free throws, it will stay two possessions until the end of the game.
Going for two requires the team with the lead to miss a free throw for it to work. Going for three and making it means that the likely worst-case scenario is having the last shot with a three-point deficit, and that's only if the opposing team makes both its free throws. Sure, a team can shoot itself out of the game by missing threes, but even if the team misses a three and the team with the lead makes both free throws, it's a six-point game, meaning it's still two possessions.
Yes, it's two harder possessions, since it requires two threes, but it's still two possessions. The risk-reward ratio is tilted in favor of going for three.
Also, and I admit I never thought of this before recently ... depending on the shooters, the three-pointer might be a higher-percentage play. Let's say the percentage for a generic decent three-point shooter is 33 percent and a generic decent free-throw shooter will shoot 70 percent. That 70 percent means missing 30 percent, so there is a greater chance of making a three than missing either of two free throws.
Granted, teams generally make more than 70 percent of their layups, but a 70 percent free-throw shooter still doesn't leave a lot of chance for missing a shot. Now, if a team can make sure Andre Drummond of UConn is shooting the freebies, by all means, go for two.
I guarantee each of these will come up, likely multiple times, over the next few weeks.
... and wondering if anyone has any idea of what to do at the end of games.
For example, today, I caught the end of the Big 10 women's final between Purdue and Nebraska. With roughly 30 seconds in the second overtime, Purdue was up 71-70 and taking the ball out of bounds, I believe after a Nebraska basket. They inbounded the ball ... and passed it around ... and dribbled ... and dribbled some more. Finally, with about 16 seconds left, someone from Nebraska finally fouled.
Remember, this was in a one-point game. Unless Purdue got an offensive rebound on a missed free throw or for some reason took and hit a three-pointer, Nebraska was going to get the ball back in a one-possession game, but by not fouling, they gave themselves less time for that possession, and eventually threw up a three under pressure with eight seconds left.
It landed about six feet short in the hands of a Purdue player.
Ballgame.
There are other things I see all the time that drive me to ... dare I say ... madness. (Given the time of year and the fact that I watch it the most, this refers primarily to college ball, but I'm sure some applies to the NBA.)
Pointless fouls -- There are times when, unless the foul is someone's fifth, where fouling has absolutely no consequence, and that's when a team has fewer than six fouls ... or "fouls to give."
If a team is leading and the opposition is trying to set up a last shot, teams with fouls to give will often give them to run a little time off the clock and force their opponents to run another play. If a team is losing, they give fouls to get to seven so the free throws can start.
What I don't understand is that so often, the team will give a vanilla, garden-variety foul. Why not run through the opposing player to steal the inbounds pass? Why not grab the ball and pull for all its worth? The best-case scenario is that the ref forgets what the whistle is for. The worst-case is that they give up a foul they were going to give up, anyway.
It's all reward, and no risk.
Letting one bad thing happen instead of four -- Remember this? I bet John Calipari does.
That, of course, is Mario Chalmers' three-pointer to send the 2008 Kansas-Memphis final into overtime, which Kansas won.
But it didn't have to happen, if Memphis had fouled before Chalmers could get the shot off.
By fouling with a three-point lead and, let's say, less than five seconds left, these are the things that happen for the leading team to lose that lead:
1. Making the first free throw.
2. Intentionally missing the second free throw while still hitting the rim, which can be harder than it seems. (I've seen them go in more than once.)
3. The shooting team getting the rebound from the outside position.
4. Scoring, usually in a scramble, as time is running out.
That's four things, instead of one shot going in. My semi-educated guess is that more coaches don't encourage fouls in this situation because if it doesn't work out, it means some uncomfortable questions in the post-game press conference. There's less second-guessing if a coach can say what Calipari said ...
"Ten seconds to go, we're thinking we're national champs, all of a sudden a kid makes a shot, and we're not."
Waiting too long to take the wrong shot -- This is actually in two parts, but they're both related.
The first is that teams don't follow the sage advice of my first basketball coach, who said that when looking for the last shot, take it with seven seconds left, so there's time for an offensive rebound. Instead, they dribble, dribble, dribble before chucking up a contested shot as time runs out.
And too often, that shot is a three-pointer.
If a team is down three points, obviously, it has to take a three at some point. If it's down two, there's a choice to make of going for the win or tie. But if they're down one or tied, they don't need a three, but take it all the time, anyway.
Why? I'm guessing it's because everyone wants the walk-off, SportsCenter, Austin Rivers highlight (although to be fair, Duke was down two, so they had the tie/win choice) that a short-jumper just won't provide.
The dumbest play in basketball --If you're watching a game with me, hide the sharp objects if this happens ...
... Team down by four, under 30 seconds ... has the ball ... announcer says, "They don't need to go for a three here" ... team shoots a layup.
Until the rules-makers add a four-point shot (which I think should be called the Antoine Walker Rule), a four-point lead is two possessions. And if teams trade two-point baskets for two free throws, it will stay two possessions until the end of the game.
Going for two requires the team with the lead to miss a free throw for it to work. Going for three and making it means that the likely worst-case scenario is having the last shot with a three-point deficit, and that's only if the opposing team makes both its free throws. Sure, a team can shoot itself out of the game by missing threes, but even if the team misses a three and the team with the lead makes both free throws, it's a six-point game, meaning it's still two possessions.
Yes, it's two harder possessions, since it requires two threes, but it's still two possessions. The risk-reward ratio is tilted in favor of going for three.
Also, and I admit I never thought of this before recently ... depending on the shooters, the three-pointer might be a higher-percentage play. Let's say the percentage for a generic decent three-point shooter is 33 percent and a generic decent free-throw shooter will shoot 70 percent. That 70 percent means missing 30 percent, so there is a greater chance of making a three than missing either of two free throws.
Granted, teams generally make more than 70 percent of their layups, but a 70 percent free-throw shooter still doesn't leave a lot of chance for missing a shot. Now, if a team can make sure Andre Drummond of UConn is shooting the freebies, by all means, go for two.
I guarantee each of these will come up, likely multiple times, over the next few weeks.
Friday, January 6, 2012
But the players don't deserve any money...remember that
When I first saw this ad last year, I literally laughed, not because it was funny, but because the message behind the propaganda couldn't have been more clear unless the ad actually said, "SEE! STOP ASKING US WHY PLAYERS AREN'T GETTING PAID!'
If you think that ad is justification for not allowing the people responsible for bringing in the ungodly sums college sports raises every year, I give you this report from ESPN. Some of the highlights:
-- After having to buy tickets Arkansas reported a measly $5,525 profit from the 2011 Sugar Bowl, while Ohio State made $288,876.
-- Meanwhile, the bowl's chief execituve, Paul Hoolahan, made $593,718.
But the players get scholarships and bowl game "swag bags" (at least in football, I have no idea what basketball players get, much less those awful "non-revenue" sports), so it's all good.
If you think that ad is justification for not allowing the people responsible for bringing in the ungodly sums college sports raises every year, I give you this report from ESPN. Some of the highlights:
-- After having to buy tickets Arkansas reported a measly $5,525 profit from the 2011 Sugar Bowl, while Ohio State made $288,876.
-- Meanwhile, the bowl's chief execituve, Paul Hoolahan, made $593,718.
But the players get scholarships and bowl game "swag bags" (at least in football, I have no idea what basketball players get, much less those awful "non-revenue" sports), so it's all good.
Friday, December 23, 2011
If you think her face is pretty, check out her jumper
Over on ESPN's website, Scoop Jackson writes about Skylar Diggins of Notre Dame, in particular about how, as he puts it, she's one of those people who "defies the sentence that condemns the rest of us. Every now and then, someone shows up with sovereign skills and supreme attractiveness, and it's unfair."
While I'm not so naive as to think that Diggins' looks don't get her extra attention (and some of those 131,000-plus Twitter followers), I'm going to guess that she's not the only attractive woman on the Notre Dame campus. I've never been there, but I feel fairly comfortable going out on that limb.
But it's because of basketball that Scoop Jackson, I and basketball fans know who she is.
Scoop gets it.
"The hard thing about beauty is that it can't be ignored," Jackson writes. "Especially when it's so hard to ignore that it obscures something deeper, something that in this case is the attempt to out-ball damn near every yet-to-turn-pro female basketball player in the world.
Beauty, in Skylar Diggins' case, should come secondary. I said should ."
While I'm not so naive as to think that Diggins' looks don't get her extra attention (and some of those 131,000-plus Twitter followers), I'm going to guess that she's not the only attractive woman on the Notre Dame campus. I've never been there, but I feel fairly comfortable going out on that limb.
But it's because of basketball that Scoop Jackson, I and basketball fans know who she is.
Scoop gets it.
Indeed it is. Can we?
"Skylar Diggins will tell you that, for her, it's ball above all. It's on us to look past her beauty to see that."
Thursday, December 22, 2011
How much for that game in the window?
"Are rising sports broadcast fees going to lead to pay-for-only-what-channels-you-want?"The above Tweet from Darren Rovell linked to this video on sports rights fees and the possibility of a la carte sports programming in the future.
Whether or not it's through special packages of channels that only subscribers have to pay for or some other means, it's likely that sports fans (and all consumers of media, really) will eventually have to answer the question "How much is seeing that game worth to me?"
In a way, the option already exists, at least to a point. The money I pay to watch baseball online is worth it for me to see the Yankees when they're not on national TV or playing the Red Sox. Even though it costs a lot less, my wife and I decided to not renew our Hoop Streams subscription to watch UConn women's basketball online because the lousy games, uneven streaming and terrible announcing were no longer worth it.
I like to watch boxing on HBO, but we didn't order the channel for that reason; it's just a nice bonus, and I wouldn't have subscribed to it just for that purpose. I also don't think there's a fight I would order a pay-per-view for as opposed to reading about it the next morning or catching the highlights somewhere.
Even our choice of satellite provider and package had at least something to do with sports, as we picked the one with the most options. We also got a lot of channels we never watch, but that's the way it's set up right now.
So how far will this go? Will sports programming move beyond even subscribing strictly to sports packages into pay-per-view for the big events, including eventually the biggest of all ... the Super Bowl?
I don't know the answer to that, but it does seem like there's a lot of untapped financial potential for sports programming, and someday, someone's going to figure out ways to get their hands on more of that money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)