I CANNOT believe I didn't remember what was coming today in the Big 10 Tourney....The Semi's and Finals aren't televised by ESPN..but rather, CBS.
Soooooo....that means S & M moves over for the soul-sucking Billy Packer and his partner in crime, Jim Nantz. Gone are silly nicknames, comparison of schools' bands, and, well, humor.
In the booth will be lots of stern faces, no criticism of any coach or player EVER unless they talk to a ref, references to Big Ten Champions from at least 4 decades ago, and absolutely no mention whatsoever from B. Pack about teams from mid-major conferences. Just like Helly says--if you don't want it to exist, then it simply doesn't. Unfortunately, Packer enjoys taking this theory nationally.
So, in conclusion, we're sorry, our bad for the previous post. If you have any questions, please direct them to the brick wall.
Lastly--here's things that I hate worse than Billy Packer.
Snow
Back pain
Soccer
Any commercial involving Kyzezshwski or Vitale
Anything else involving Vitale
Manu Ginobili
That's it, that's the list.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Lavs and a Burger
This will be short and sweet.
Steve Lavin and Brent Musberger need to stop. I mean, just stop it. Right now.
The Big 11 conference tourney semi-finals are today. MSU-Wisconsin, followed by Minnesota-Illinois. That means more S & M (Steve and Mus) yukking it up courtside at Conseco together.
Musberger, in the 80's, was a STUD. He did a ton of great NBA games. Lavin knows his stuff. I just think his hair product and affinity for inane nicknames gets in the way of the game, and both guys simply have no use for pronouncing names correctly (or even the same way the other guy does). With the guys at the mike, their banter is a bit tough to take sometimes, and I think I can write the script for both games.
In Game 1, there will be roughly 17 references to Brian Butch calling him a "Polar Bear", more than a few conversations about Drew Neitzel's toughness, Drew Naymick will be called "Big Red", at least 3 references to how one of these teams is going to try to "knock out the Cinderella team coming from the 2nd semi-final game", they will certainly talk about how "Bo Ryan gets the most out of his players", and Lavin will somehow talk about UCLA at least twice. Let's hope they somehow work in a U.P.-Izzo talk (Did you know Izzo and Mariucci are friends?)
Oh, and you can bet the ranch that Ohio State's bubble profile will be worked into the conversation. I'm just glad OSU isn't playing today so S & M can't butcher Kosta Koufos's name anymore, and I don't have to hear Lavin refer to the "O-Hawk" again.
The second game will show Blake Hofberger's high school shot while he was on his back at least twice, with the potential of a "kooky" shootaround re-enactment of both shots, possibly involving his Minnesota teammates and/or Erin Andrews. Definitely some tounge-bathing from S & M on how great Tubby and Bruce Weber are (and they are, I agree). They'll be tired, so a second-half conversation will take place discussing either a trip to Las Vegas, In & Out Burger, or Lavin's hair, or some combo of all 3. Also, there will definitely be some awkward flirting with Erin Andrews.
What won't be talked about (but should be) are the following--Kelvin Sampson, is Eric Gordon ready for the NBA, how the heck Illinois finished behind Penn State in the Big Mediocre this year, if Northwestern will ever finish in the top 4 of the league standings or ever make the NCAA Tourney (they never have, you can look that up), why the center floor design was created to look like a logo from the 1972 World's Fair, and if any Big Ten team will be playing on the 2nd weekend of the tournament.
Steve Lavin and Brent Musberger need to stop. I mean, just stop it. Right now.
The Big 11 conference tourney semi-finals are today. MSU-Wisconsin, followed by Minnesota-Illinois. That means more S & M (Steve and Mus) yukking it up courtside at Conseco together.
Musberger, in the 80's, was a STUD. He did a ton of great NBA games. Lavin knows his stuff. I just think his hair product and affinity for inane nicknames gets in the way of the game, and both guys simply have no use for pronouncing names correctly (or even the same way the other guy does). With the guys at the mike, their banter is a bit tough to take sometimes, and I think I can write the script for both games.
In Game 1, there will be roughly 17 references to Brian Butch calling him a "Polar Bear", more than a few conversations about Drew Neitzel's toughness, Drew Naymick will be called "Big Red", at least 3 references to how one of these teams is going to try to "knock out the Cinderella team coming from the 2nd semi-final game", they will certainly talk about how "Bo Ryan gets the most out of his players", and Lavin will somehow talk about UCLA at least twice. Let's hope they somehow work in a U.P.-Izzo talk (Did you know Izzo and Mariucci are friends?)
Oh, and you can bet the ranch that Ohio State's bubble profile will be worked into the conversation. I'm just glad OSU isn't playing today so S & M can't butcher Kosta Koufos's name anymore, and I don't have to hear Lavin refer to the "O-Hawk" again.
The second game will show Blake Hofberger's high school shot while he was on his back at least twice, with the potential of a "kooky" shootaround re-enactment of both shots, possibly involving his Minnesota teammates and/or Erin Andrews. Definitely some tounge-bathing from S & M on how great Tubby and Bruce Weber are (and they are, I agree). They'll be tired, so a second-half conversation will take place discussing either a trip to Las Vegas, In & Out Burger, or Lavin's hair, or some combo of all 3. Also, there will definitely be some awkward flirting with Erin Andrews.
What won't be talked about (but should be) are the following--Kelvin Sampson, is Eric Gordon ready for the NBA, how the heck Illinois finished behind Penn State in the Big Mediocre this year, if Northwestern will ever finish in the top 4 of the league standings or ever make the NCAA Tourney (they never have, you can look that up), why the center floor design was created to look like a logo from the 1972 World's Fair, and if any Big Ten team will be playing on the 2nd weekend of the tournament.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Syracuse should be IN!!
Okay, I really truly don't mean that at all...just wanted to get you riled up.
The Big East Dilemna. Does playing in a 16-team conference mean more to a (mediocre) at-large team than playing in a traditional-sized conference?
This is the 3rd season of the mega-sized Big East, as the league added Marquette, Cincinnati, Louisville and South Florida prior to the 2005-06 season. Those schools have various degrees of success, both in and out of league play, since becoming part of the Big East. Louisville and Marquette are national powers, Cincy is in the early stages of the rebuilding process, and S. Florida has been in the bottom four of the league standings for all 3 seasons.
Adding those to premier programs like Georgetown, UConn, Pittsburgh, Villanova and Notre Dame leaves a league which is incredibly top-heavy; which, again, being 16 teams, should take place.
Over the past two seasons, the league is 18-14 in the Tourney, including an 8-6 record in the first round. In comparison, the Big Ten is 12-12, 8-4 (1-7 in the second round), the ACC is 13-11, 9-2 (3-6 in 2nd round), and the Big 12 is 10-8, 5-3.
Obviously the Big East should get more teams in, having more teams in the league, but they have a better winning % than those other leagues. Simple stats, such as that one, may indicate a strong league top to bottom. Or they may just be a 2-year snapshot and not enough of a sample size to demonstrate the league's strength.
Now, I'm not advocating taking the 9th place Big East team over the 6th place ACC team as a blanket statement. I believe a team's body of work must be considered on a yearly basis, regardless of conference affiliation, if they are a bubble team. A great example of this was on Sportscenter tonight. They put the "resumes" of South Alabama and Villanova next to each other. USA's RPI--37. Nova RPI--56. USA--Strength of Schedule--119. Nova--50. Numbers aside, USA has a number of victories against teams likely in the tournament and is 3-2 against the current RPI top 50. Nova is 4-6 against the Top 50.
Despite the losing record, does it help Nova to play twice as many games against Top 50 teams? I believe it HAS to help you. Playing in a league like the Big East really illuminates your strengths and weaknesses. I believe that type of schedule can both harm and hurt your team, especially early in the season. If a team like Nova can handle adversity within the Big East schedule and succeed late the in season, that speaks well of the team's mental toughness and ability to get better.
For example, Nova lost 4 straight games in late January, 3 on the road. Rather than throw in the towel, they rallied to win games in February against tourney-bound teams Marquette, UConn, and West Virginia. They did lose to Louisville, Syracuse and a 2-point buzzer-beater at Georgetown in that late stretch, but gaining that level of mental toughness during that schedule simply has to be beneficial....IF a team accepts that challenge and works to get better every day. And I'm not saying that S. Alabama shouldn't make it. In fact, I think they SHOULD make it this year. Further, I'm not necessarily saying Nova is a lock; they have played up and down and struggled against teams with size; however, they are tourney-tested and have a great coach in Jay Wright.
Here's another example. Let's say the Big Ten next year accepts (regional non Big East schools for the comparison) Butler, Iowa State, WMU (won their division of the MAC this year) and Drake. Butler and Drake are LEGIT, tough-minded teams who run great offensive systems. This would give the Big Ten (likely) 8 tournament teams this year. Wouldn't playing each of those teams just once (and 2 of those games taking place on the road) help, say, a middle of the road team such as Ohio State in the same way that it helped Villanova?
Or would it HURT OSU in the same way that it hurt, say, SYRACUSE this year? Playing that kind of schedule would take away a couple of lesser nonconference opponents off the OSU schedule, put a little more emphasis on conference play, and put a even bigger priority on playing well in a bigger league in order to have a better at-large resume and a better seed in what would be an even more competitive Big 16 tournament. On a year-in, year-out basis, would that hurt or help teams? Again, I simply think that must be applied to each team separately, rather than applying it across the board to every team.
Hopefully I didn't surprise or shock anyone by using logic, rather than saying something like, "THE BIG EAST IS AWESOME! 16 IS BETTER THAN 10!!" It's tough for common sense to permeate through the level of screaming and Vitale at this point in the year, I know. I really didn't give a definitive answer to the question because I don't believe there is a definitive answer. Every team can always point to a game (or games) and blame themselves for not making the tournament.
I think there are some years where the Big East, in its presently constituted form, will have deserving teams miss the tournament because of the schedule they must endure within the league (Syracuse last year). I also believe that some years, the 16-team grind may wear some teams down and possibly drag the league's overall quality down. I also believe that the teams who finish near the top of the league standings should be extremely tournament-ready, and the numbers in the first 2 years of this format prove that out.
Teams from the Big East who gain a 1st thru 4th seed in the field of 65 are 12-4 , including a perfect 8-0 on the opening weekend. In comparison, Big Ten teams are 8-5 (5-4), ACC 10-6 (9-3), and Big 12 9-5 (7-2). Those numbers would seem to indicate that really good teams playing more games against really good teams helps.
Of course, this is all a moot point when the bracket hits this weekend, which is why college basketball is a great sport at EVERY level. You are either in or out, and you either advance or die. It's pretty simple. But what has happened to your team before you land on that seeding line has a direct effect on how far your team travels.
The Big East Dilemna. Does playing in a 16-team conference mean more to a (mediocre) at-large team than playing in a traditional-sized conference?
This is the 3rd season of the mega-sized Big East, as the league added Marquette, Cincinnati, Louisville and South Florida prior to the 2005-06 season. Those schools have various degrees of success, both in and out of league play, since becoming part of the Big East. Louisville and Marquette are national powers, Cincy is in the early stages of the rebuilding process, and S. Florida has been in the bottom four of the league standings for all 3 seasons.
Adding those to premier programs like Georgetown, UConn, Pittsburgh, Villanova and Notre Dame leaves a league which is incredibly top-heavy; which, again, being 16 teams, should take place.
Over the past two seasons, the league is 18-14 in the Tourney, including an 8-6 record in the first round. In comparison, the Big Ten is 12-12, 8-4 (1-7 in the second round), the ACC is 13-11, 9-2 (3-6 in 2nd round), and the Big 12 is 10-8, 5-3.
Obviously the Big East should get more teams in, having more teams in the league, but they have a better winning % than those other leagues. Simple stats, such as that one, may indicate a strong league top to bottom. Or they may just be a 2-year snapshot and not enough of a sample size to demonstrate the league's strength.
Now, I'm not advocating taking the 9th place Big East team over the 6th place ACC team as a blanket statement. I believe a team's body of work must be considered on a yearly basis, regardless of conference affiliation, if they are a bubble team. A great example of this was on Sportscenter tonight. They put the "resumes" of South Alabama and Villanova next to each other. USA's RPI--37. Nova RPI--56. USA--Strength of Schedule--119. Nova--50. Numbers aside, USA has a number of victories against teams likely in the tournament and is 3-2 against the current RPI top 50. Nova is 4-6 against the Top 50.
Despite the losing record, does it help Nova to play twice as many games against Top 50 teams? I believe it HAS to help you. Playing in a league like the Big East really illuminates your strengths and weaknesses. I believe that type of schedule can both harm and hurt your team, especially early in the season. If a team like Nova can handle adversity within the Big East schedule and succeed late the in season, that speaks well of the team's mental toughness and ability to get better.
For example, Nova lost 4 straight games in late January, 3 on the road. Rather than throw in the towel, they rallied to win games in February against tourney-bound teams Marquette, UConn, and West Virginia. They did lose to Louisville, Syracuse and a 2-point buzzer-beater at Georgetown in that late stretch, but gaining that level of mental toughness during that schedule simply has to be beneficial....IF a team accepts that challenge and works to get better every day. And I'm not saying that S. Alabama shouldn't make it. In fact, I think they SHOULD make it this year. Further, I'm not necessarily saying Nova is a lock; they have played up and down and struggled against teams with size; however, they are tourney-tested and have a great coach in Jay Wright.
Here's another example. Let's say the Big Ten next year accepts (regional non Big East schools for the comparison) Butler, Iowa State, WMU (won their division of the MAC this year) and Drake. Butler and Drake are LEGIT, tough-minded teams who run great offensive systems. This would give the Big Ten (likely) 8 tournament teams this year. Wouldn't playing each of those teams just once (and 2 of those games taking place on the road) help, say, a middle of the road team such as Ohio State in the same way that it helped Villanova?
Or would it HURT OSU in the same way that it hurt, say, SYRACUSE this year? Playing that kind of schedule would take away a couple of lesser nonconference opponents off the OSU schedule, put a little more emphasis on conference play, and put a even bigger priority on playing well in a bigger league in order to have a better at-large resume and a better seed in what would be an even more competitive Big 16 tournament. On a year-in, year-out basis, would that hurt or help teams? Again, I simply think that must be applied to each team separately, rather than applying it across the board to every team.
Hopefully I didn't surprise or shock anyone by using logic, rather than saying something like, "THE BIG EAST IS AWESOME! 16 IS BETTER THAN 10!!" It's tough for common sense to permeate through the level of screaming and Vitale at this point in the year, I know. I really didn't give a definitive answer to the question because I don't believe there is a definitive answer. Every team can always point to a game (or games) and blame themselves for not making the tournament.
I think there are some years where the Big East, in its presently constituted form, will have deserving teams miss the tournament because of the schedule they must endure within the league (Syracuse last year). I also believe that some years, the 16-team grind may wear some teams down and possibly drag the league's overall quality down. I also believe that the teams who finish near the top of the league standings should be extremely tournament-ready, and the numbers in the first 2 years of this format prove that out.
Teams from the Big East who gain a 1st thru 4th seed in the field of 65 are 12-4 , including a perfect 8-0 on the opening weekend. In comparison, Big Ten teams are 8-5 (5-4), ACC 10-6 (9-3), and Big 12 9-5 (7-2). Those numbers would seem to indicate that really good teams playing more games against really good teams helps.
Of course, this is all a moot point when the bracket hits this weekend, which is why college basketball is a great sport at EVERY level. You are either in or out, and you either advance or die. It's pretty simple. But what has happened to your team before you land on that seeding line has a direct effect on how far your team travels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
