Thursday, November 15, 2007

college basketball! (again...one day I'll come up with more creative titles)

As always there are several reasons why I’m excited about college basketball. Here they are!

· Top Teams: Last year I was pretty confident that Florida, North Carolina, Ohio State, and Kansas were by far going to be the best teams in the country. The by far thing didn’t so much play out, but they WERE the four one seeds. Actually, this brings me to another point. When people make their Final Four predictions in the preseason that’s really stupid. It would make a whole lot more sense to make predictions of who will grab the four one seeds. Anyway, the main point is that this year I don’t know that I’m too confident in picking even one one seed. Let’s look at a few of the candidates and try to poke holes in them. One is Memphis. The problem is that they are Memphis. Until I see them actually be more than a bunch of uber-athletic players that aren’t very good at playing basketball I’m going to have a hard time believing that they’re actually more than a bunch of uber-athletic players that aren’t very good at playing basketball. Another popular pick is North Carolina. They’re probably my number one team right now, but if they play a team that can neutralize Hansbrough or even get him in foul trouble they are very lean behind him in the frontcourt. UCLA will be solid but with their style they can be in trouble if they were to get in a high scoring battle because they sometimes struggle to score. They will probably hope that Love will remedy some of that. Kansas is going to have to get used to life without Julian Wright. I know they’re happy to have Rush back but he rarely (if ever) truly took over games. I know they’re also excited about Darrell Arthur but he really didn’t do a whole lot last year but a lot of that was due to limited minutes. Relying heavily on a guy that averaged fewer than 20 minutes per game last year is not something that inspires a lot of confidence. Outside of that, who are we looking at? Georgetown? Louisville? Indiana? Tennessee? I don’t know, but I don’t see any of those teams being as good as the four teams I mentioned from last year. That’s not to say we won’t see the four one seeds coming from this group but I don’t feel all that confident about any of them. That makes for a fascinating year in which truly anything can happen.

· Hyped Newcomers: I don’t really remember ever being this excited about seeing a group of freshmen. Based on hype I’m most excited to see and form opinions on Eric Gordon, Michael Beasley, Kevin Love, OJ Mayo, and Derrick Rose. I know there are other names out there too and I’m ready to find out about them too.

· The Dominance of the Atlantic Sun: Although I really like the little guys it admittedly never dawned on me that the Atlantic Sun was the best conference in college basketball. Now, after the wins of Gardner Webb (@Kentucky), Belmont (@Cincinnati), and Mercer (@USC) we have seen the Atlantic Sun get not only wins against big name schools and not only get those wins on the road but also get them pretty easily. I mean, Belmont’s 11-point win was the close call of the group. It will be interesting to see if any of these teams continue with a solid rest of the year and it will be interesting to see if any of these teams show up again in March. Regardless, I’d have to imagine that fans of the team facing the Atlantic Sun conference tournament champion in the first round of the NCAA Tournament will not be taking the game for granted (not only because the Atlantic Sun is incredible but also because of the lack of great teams).

· Mid-Majors: I’m always way more interested in these teams not only because I am a fan of Creighton, a school in a mid-major conference, but because these teams are what make the NCAA Tournament fun. I’m always way more excited about a 6-11 match-up like Duke-VCU rather than Louisville-Stanford. By that point in the season we usually know what we’re getting with all the big conference schools that are seeded in double digits; typically bad play. We often don’t know what we’re getting with the schools that had gotten less publicity. Sure, it might be bad play but we don’t know that for sure, unlike what is often the case with the middle of the pack big conference schools. The question is always asked, “Which teams are considered mid-majors?” Basically the way I look at it is that it’s anyone outside of the football BCS conferences. So, with that in mind, which teams am I keeping an eye on? With that definition I guess Memphis, but Memphis isn’t really interesting. And it’s hardly fun anymore but I’ll be seeing how Gonzaga does this year. Southern Illinois (and the rest of the Valley, even in a down year) figures to be solid. Butler has also climbed into the top 25 and we have seen that Davidson can hang with UNC. VCU has a number of guys back from last year and are a fun team to watch. I’ll also be keeping an eye on Western Kentucky. Then again, as mid-majors will knock off some big conference schools in the non-conference schedule certainly more names will be added to this list.

· Media Stupidity: Chad already pointed out Gottlieb’s shocking omission of Beasley in his list of great freshmen this year although Gottlieb admitted it was an error. I’m going to go ahead and go out on a limb and say this will not be the first time we notice stupidity in the media. In fact, I have a more recent example from Andy Katz. Katz was introducing ESPN’s coverage of mid-majors this year with a question about what is a mid-major? Like I said, I would include everyone that is not in one of the BCS conferences. That said, this is a pretty stupid topic in the first place. The very term implies inferiority, which is usually true. There is a reason, beyond tournament committee stupidity (which I guarantee we’ll discuss in March), why the BCS conferences dominate the at-large bids. If you were to take a random BCS conference team and a random non-BCS conference team it is certainly a safe bet that the BCS conference team is better. Obviously though, that’s not always the case and the difference seems to be shrinking. However, when discussing the linguistics I have a problem with elevating teams outside of their conference. If we are not going to call Memphis a mid-major but we are going to call the rest of Conference USA mid-majors then how can we not have the reverse be true and call, for example, everyone in the Big 12 a major except Baylor, Colorado, Iowa State, Nebraska, and….well, actually where do you draw the line? What is even the point of having the term? Anyway, even if you did want to go that route and decide that some schools from mid-major conferences have graduated past the term then the only two schools for which I will even listen to the argument are Gonzaga and Memphis. The reason for that is their domination of their conferences. On a year in year out basis it is pretty shocking if either of those teams do not win both their regular season title and their conference tournament. Other than some pretty good UAB teams, that is why you usually see just one representative from C-USA and the WCC. This is where Andy Katz comes in. He has included Southern Illinois and Xavier with Gonzaga and Memphis. That’s insanity. As a fan of the Missouri Valley I can obviously speak more to the Salukis. Including SIU with Gonzaga and Memphis implies that the Salukis are far and away the best team in that conference. Truly SIU has been the best team in the conference for several years now. That said, the difference between SIU and the rest of the conference is not nearly large enough to warrant putting them in a separate group from the rest of the teams. Before I mentioned that Gonzaga and Memphis really dominate their conference in both the regular season and the tournament. That’s not even close to true with SIU. When SIU won the conference tournament in 2006 it was the first time they had won since 1995. SIU won the conference last year by 2 games, they were in a three way tie for second in 2006 although they won the conference outright the three years prior to that. To claim that SIU is to the Valley as Gonzaga is to the WCC and Memphis is to C-USA is insane, insulting, and stupid. Without knowing the conference as well, I would say the same about claiming that is equal to what Xavier is to the A-10.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

College football is lame

It seems like every year around this time I get bitter about college football. I pretty much always disagree with who is picked to play in the national title game. For example, last year I thought Boise State should have played for the national title. Did I actually think they were one of the two best teams in college football? No, but if Boise State is in D1-A (or FBS or whatever stupid name they gave it now) and can go undefeated but not have a chance to win the championship then why do they even exist? What makes college basketball so great is that literally every team has a chance to win a national title every year (and I would argue even the independents because if they go undefeated they’ll still get an at large berth unless there is something about how during their transition to Division 1 they are ineligible for some reason). Now this year I’m rooting pretty hard for a Kansas-Hawaii Sugar Bowl on January 7.

Again, I’m pretty convinced at this point that these are not the two best teams in the country (although Kansas might be able to make a believer out of me if they can beat Missouri and Oklahoma). But this year, more than most other years even, a college football playoff would be outrageously entertaining because no team is any good. Instead we have this ludicrous system in which we’re going to have 2 teams picked when there really could be about 15 teams that could be one of those 2 teams. How entertaining with a playoff be? Unfortunately, instead the current system renders the regular season essentially pointless. I mean, it’s completely pointless for Hawaii. This should be one of the most fascinating college football seasons ever but instead I can’t bring myself to care because the eventual payoff is so dull. While I should be pumped about what should be an interesting finish to the college football season what I hear most about in the media is boring stuff like what the BCS rankings will say if Kansas wins out.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Media Idiot of the Week

This is likely to be the first reoccurring segment of our blog and while it is tentatively referred to as "Media Idiot of the Week", it may be posted more than once a week and may be titled in different ways. In fact, I am certain that over the next few months, this segment will often be titled "How does Joe Lunardi have a job with ESPN?", and when we get into baseball season it will likely be named "Joe Morgan loves bunting and hates math."

The first person that I will honor with the title of "Media Idiot of the Week" is Doug Gottlieb. With the beginning of the college basketball season, much of the media attention has focused on the incoming freshman. ESPN is no different and asked each of their basketball "experts" to name their top 10 freshman of the year, which you can find here. Across the board, each analyst rated Michael Beasley at #2 or #3 except to Doug Gottlieb, who did not even rate Beasley in the top 10 freshman in the nation. Beasley was a consensus top-5 recruit, including being named the #1 recruit by Rivals.com. In addition, Beasley seems to be a consensus top-3 pick in next year's NBA draft. So far, Beasley appears to be living up to the hype. He has scored 30+ points in his frist two games at Kansas State and is averaging 19 rebounds per game, including a Big 12 record 24 rebounds in his college debut. So, Mr. Gottlieb, for you oversight of one of the best freshman basketball players in the nation, you are our first "Media Idiot of the Week".