The last week has shed quite a bit of light on the college basketball season. Teams like Seton Hall and Temple had big weeks while other teams like Louisville and Wake Forest played their way out of the "projected" tournament field. I made a few changes to my "projected" automatic bids for the weaker conferences. I also added Seton Hall, S. Illinois, Arkansas and California to the at-large teams. They replaced Louisville, Wake Forest, Iowa St., and Missouri St.
Here are the changes I made to the projected automatic bid winners:
MAAC Iona replaces Manhattan
Atl. Sun Lipscomb replaces E. Tenn St.
Northeast C. Connecticut St. replaces Sacred Heart
MCC IUPUI replaces Oral Roberts
MAC Akron replaces Kent St.
Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC Duke
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East UCONN
4 Big 12 Texas
5 Big Ten Illinois
6 Pac-10 Washington
7 MVC N. Iowa
8 MWC Air Force
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Akron
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt W. Kentucky
16 Horizon Wisconsin-Mil.
17 MAAC Iona
18 Big Sky Montana
19 MCC IUPUI
20 Big West UC-Irvine
21 OVC Samford
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Bucknell
25 Southland Northwestern St.
26 Northeast C. Connecticut St.
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Lipscomb
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Seton Hall
33 At-Large Syracuse
34 At-Large Villanova
35 At-Large Pittsburgh
36 At-Large W. Virginia
37 At-Large Cincinnati
38 At-Large Marquette
39 At-Large Georgetown
40 At-Large NC State
41 At-Large Boston College
42 At-Large N. Carolina
43 At-Large Maryland
44 At-Large California
45 At-Large MSU
46 At-Large Indiana
47 At-Large Michigan
48 At-Large Ohio St.
49 At-Large Wisconsin
50 At-Large Iowa
51 At-Large Kentucky
52 At-Large Tennessee
53 At-Large LSU
54 At-Large Vanderbilt
55 At-Large Oklahoma
56 At-Large Kansas
57 At-Large Colorado
58 At-Large Arkansas
59 At-Large Arizona
60 At-Large UCLA
61 At-Large UAB
62 At-Large GW
63 At-Large Wichita St.
64 At-Large Creighton
65 At-Large S. Illinois
I haven't listed the 65 teams in order yet. I'll start doing that in a few weeks. The field that I have "projected" now assumes that there are no upsets in the conference tournaments. There could be anywhere from 5-10 teams that make the tournament who wouldn't have otherwise made it just from the conference tournaments alone. That would push five of my "projected" teams out of the field. Come conference tournament time, the last two or three teams that I have in the tourney will probably get pushed out by upsets.
The last five teams in the tourney right now:
1. California
The Bears are easily the worst team that I have in the tournament field right now. Nonetheless, their 6-3 conference record could easily reach 9-3 with three easy conference games in a row. The Pac-10 will almost certainly get four bids to the tournament. UCLA, Washington, and Arizona will be three of those teams. Cal or Stanford will be the fourth. Both will likely finish with a +.500 record in the conference but only one will make it. As average as Cal's resume is, Stanford's is even worse.
RPI rating: 72
Pomeroy rating: 56
Quality wins: UCLA, Washington, Akron, San Diego St.
Bad losses: @ Eastern Michigan, Oregon St.
2. Seton Hall
I didn't even have Seton Hall on my "waiting in the wings" list last week. The Pirates were 10-6 with no marquee wins. They were 1-3 in a loaded conference. Throw in the fact that they lost by 53 to Duke and Seton Hall seemed out of luck. That was before this week. No team has made a bigger one-week jump in terms of tournament chances than Seton Hall. They beat N. Carolina St. and Syracuse on the road to improve to 12-6 (3-3). If Seton Hall can just beat the bad teams left on the schedule, they should make the tournament.
RPI rating: 39
Pomeroy rating: 40
Quality wins: @ NC State, @ Syracuse, Manhattan, Iona
Bad losses: @ Richmond, Northwestern
3. Arkansas
Arkansas pulled the choke-job of all choke-jobs yesterday at Kentucky. A win would've pretty much sealed the Razorback's tourney fate. They were up by 18 before falling apart in the second half. It would've been such a disappointment to watch had I not known it was coming. Despite its best efforts to ruin its tourney hopes, I think Arkansas had done enough to date to merit a selection. Arkansas has beaten an impressive array of teams while limiting "bad losses" to just one. How the rest of the season plays out remains to be seen but if Arkansas can finish 9-7 in the SEC, they will probably get in.
RPI rating: 58
Pomeroy rating: 41
Quality wins: Kansas (neutral site), Missouri St., Vanderbilt
Bad losses: Mississippi St.
4. Colorado
The Buffaloes are quite possibly the luckiest team in college basketball this season. They are the antithesis of Notre Dame which is by far the unluckiest team. Check the bottom of the post for more on Notre Dame's unlucky season. Colorado has exactly zero impressive wins. They've played two "good" teams this year and lost by more than ten in both games. Fortunately for Colorado, they play in the weak Big XII conference where they get a healthy dose of Nebraska, Baylor, Texas A & M, Texas Tech, and Kansas St. among others. That's why the Buffaloes are 15-3 with an RPI lower than St. Joseph's which stands at 9-8. Barring a major disaster, Colorado will make the tournament.
RPI rating: 47
Pomeroy rating: 18
Quality wins: None
Bad losses: @ Colorado St.
5. Wichita St.
I think it's time people start arguing on behalf of the Missouri Valley Conference in a more vocal manner. This conference is definitely making a run at being considered a "major" in college basketball. The MVC has six teams in the RPI top 55. The conference has wins over Iowa, Indiana, LSU, and Xavier just to name a few. The MVC rates ahead of the Pac-10 and just percentage points behind the Big XII in the RPI. Of the top four teams in the MVC, Wichita St. probably has the least impressive resume. They don't have any marquee victories but they've beaten quality opponents without suffering any bad losses. Wichita St. should manage to rack up enough wins to make the tournament assuming the MVC gets the proper respect from the selection committee.
RPI rating: 23
Pomeroy rating:26
Quality wins:@ Bradley, @ Missouri St., Bradley, Missouri St., Northwestern St., Providence, Miami (OH)
Bad losses: none
The teams waiting in the wings:
1. Iowa St.
It would be unfortunate to see Iowa St's impressive wins over N. Iowa and Iowa go to waste but it appears as though that could be the case. Iowa St. stands at 3-4 in the Big XII with bad conference losses to Texas Tech and Texas A & M. If the Cyclones can't beat those teams, then they don't have much of a chance at finishing above .500 in the conference. They have a relatively easy stretch of games coming up. If they can get to .500 in conference, they might get a bid since the Big XII is short on tournament-deserving teams.
RPI rating: 57
Pomeroy rating: 65
Quality wins: N. Iowa, Iowa, Northwestern St. (neutral site)
Bad losses: Fresno St., Texas Tech, Texas A & M
2. Missouri St.
Missouri St. has the computer ratings to get into the tournament but they don't have the quality wins to merit a selection. They have one win in the RPI top 100 which is a very low number. This team is good enough to win the MVC conference tournament but an at-large bid is probably out of reach unless Missouri St. finishes on a big winning streak.
RPI rating: 41
Pomeroy rating: 48
Quality wins: S. Illinois
Bad losses: none
3. Temple
Temple did its best Seton Hall impersonation this week by catapulting onto the tournament bubble. The Owls were left for dead with a terrible loss to Auburn. However, Don Chaney's crew has won two straight over top 50 teams in Maryland and Xavier. If the Owls can finish 11-5 in the A-10, I think they'll get a bid. However, that means they'll have to go 7-2 in their last nine conference games. I'm not holding my breath.
RPI rating: 38
Pomeroy rating: 76
Quality wins: Miami (FL), Alabama, Xavier, Maryland
Bad losses: Auburn, Massachusetts
4. Bradley
Bradley doesn't have Missouri St's combination of computer rating and record, but I would argue that Bradley has a better set of wins. Bradley could easily win its next four games which would put them among the best bubble teams. If Bradley can finish 18-8, they might just make the tournament.
RPI rating: 55
Pomeroy rating: 43
Quality wins: @ DePaul, W. Kentucky, N. Iowa, Creighton, Missouri St.
Bad losses: @ Loyola Chicago, @ Butler, @ Drake
5. Louisville
The Cardinals are finding out why it was crazy to leave Conference USA. What were they thinking? They would have easily made the tournament with a #5 seed this season if they had just stayed in Conference USA. Memphis certainly isn't griping about anything. Louisville has the players to make a run but the Big East is just too difficult. S. Florida is the only easy out on the schedule and even they have been playing teams tough lately. It would take a miracle for Louisville to turn the season around.
RPI rating: 65
Pomeroy rating: 46
Quality wins: Akron, Miami (FL) (neutral site), @ Providence, Cincinnati
Bad losses: @ St. John's
6 Old Dominion
7 NC Wilmington
8 Stanford
9 Rutgers
10 Miami (FL)
11 Utah St.
12 FSU
13 USC
14 St. Joe's
15 Alabama
16 Kent St.
17 Manhattan
My guess is that Stanford or California will make the tournament. I'm also guessing that the Big XII would get a fifth team as long as that team finishes at .500 in conference. Iowa St. is really the only team that could grab the fifth spot. Alabama and Arkansas look to be battling for the last SEC spot. St. Joseph's and Temple have such high computer ratings that if either goes on a big winning streak, they could easily get an at-large bid despite their current records. Old Dominion has good computer ratings but they don't have a very impressive resume. As inconsistent as Seton Hall has been, it will be hard for them to stay afloat in the Big East. At this point, I'm guessing that either Seton Hall, Rutgers or Louisville will make the tournament. That would give the Big East nine teams.
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (5)
Duke
NC State
Boston College
N. Carolina
Maryland
SEC (6)
Florida
Kentucky
LSU
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Arkansas
Big East (9)
UCONN
Syracuse
Villanova
Pittsburgh
W. Virginia
Cincinnati
Marquette
Georgetown
Seton Hall
Big 12 (4)
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Big Ten (7)
Illinois
MSU
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pac-10 (4)
Washington
Arizona
UCLA
California
C-USA (2)
Memphis
UAB
A-10 (2)
Xavier
GW
MVC (4)
N. Iowa
Creighton
Wichita St.
S. Illinois
Poor Notre Dame
Notre Dame is a solid team. You wouldn't know it from its record but the Irish can play with anyone. The problem is that they can't beat anyone. Notre Dame is 10-8 on the season. Seven of those losses have come to teams in the RPI top 32. Here is how some of those games turned out:
Michigan 71 Notre Dame 67
Pittsburgh 100 Notre Dame 97 (2 OT)
DePaul 73 Notre Dame 67
Syracuse 88 Notre Dame 82
Marquette 67 Notre Dame 65
Georgetown 85 Notre Dame 82 (2 OT)
Villanova 82 Notre Dame 80
The question now is, since Notre Dame didn't manage to beat anyone, will any of these teams be able to claim Notre Dame as a "quality win" in the eyes of the selection committee? Notre Dame's RPI is a paltry 99. Unfortunately for these teams, Notre Dame's season was so unlucky that even the teams that beat them will get nothing for their efforts.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Friday, January 27, 2006
Go Army! Beat Someone!
From time to time on this blog, I address a situation in sports that I would like to see changed. I guess that’s the aspect of the blog that I like the most. I can take my frustrations, put them into cyberspace and then pretend that all of the important people that have a say in the injustice will eventually come upon my thoughts and right the wrongs. That was the case for my post on the need for a college football playoff and the need for the Pistons get rid of Larry Brown just to name a few. Although, I’m pretty certain nobody within an earshot of anyone important (other than my faithful readers of course) read those posts. I can still hope I guess. This post will be along the same lines. I’ll be pointing out something that I think is haywire and then proposing an idea that would easily fix the problem. As I mentioned above, these are definitely the posts I enjoy the most.
For the longest time, Army and Navy were two of the premier college football programs in the country. They have three National Championships and five Heisman Trophy winners between them. Despite those tangible numbers, the Army and Navy football programs today have more in common with the lost city of Atlantis than they do with the rich history that used to define these programs. Army has been to one bowl game since 1989. Before Paul Johnson arrived at Annapolis in 2002, Navy had been to one bowl game since 1982. Johnson has since righted the Navy ship somewhat but don’t let Johnson’s record fool you. Navy’s program succeeds today because Navy is an independent which gives them the power to schedule the worst teams in college football. Army left Conference USA for the same reason after the 2004 season. The Army athletic department realized that the Black Knights could not consistently win by playing the best teams that a conference has to offer even if that conference was the lowly Conference USA. So, Army followed Navy’s model of success and moved into a position where it could schedule the worst teams in college football. Sadly, that is the only way these once great programs can even remotely taste success in college football today.
For those of you that are unfamiliar with the success and subsequent drop-off of the Army and Navy football programs, here is a brief comparison of then and now:
----------Year------Record----Winning %-------
Army 1890-1973 489-208-45 (70%) 3 National Titles; 3 Heisman Winners
Army 1974-2004 135-207-6 (40%) 0 National Titles; 0 Heisman Winners
Navy 1879-1964 428-252-52 (64%) 2 Heisman Winners
Navy 1965-2004 172-266-5 (39%) 0 Heisman Winners
If we could somehow get a hold of Marty McFly’s De Lorean and go back to the beginning, we may have been able to predict Army and Navy’s colossal decline from the college football elite. My grandpa went to Iowa Pre-Flight back when that school was a national football power. As a kid, I remember looking in the record books and wondering what the heck Iowa Pre-Flight was. It sounded like a made up school to me. My grandpa assured me that Iowa Pre-Flight was real and the football team was a force to be reckoned with. He qualified that statement by giving me a little background into the college football landscape at the time. Since the country was engaged in a number of military conflicts in the first half of the 20th century, the academies were often seeing potential students going off to war that had initially shown interest in attending the academies. After a number of years in the war, these veterans would then come back to the schools and enroll as they had previously intended on doing a number of years before. As a result, many of the athletes at the academies were significantly older than the athletes at other schools. The difference between a 27 year old and an 18 year old in football can clearly be seen by taking a quick look at the NFL. 18, 19, and 20 year olds are nowhere to be found in the NFL because they are not physically mature enough to compete with the average 27 year old. Army, Navy, and Iowa Pre-Flight had that advantage back in the early days of college football.
As the US’s involvement in large military affairs died down a bit and the manner in which people signed up and served in the military changed a bit, the advantage of having an older, more mature athlete went away. The academies were then forced to compete against the other schools with athletes that were the same age. At the same time, the “dream” of playing in the NFL became realistic for many of the top college football players. Since the academies required their students to serve in the military for a number of years, the “dream” of playing in the NFL was not compatible with the academies. That brings us to the current state of the academies in the college football world. The same effects occurred with other academy sports like basketball.
Army, Navy, and Air Force have virtually no chance of recruiting any players that are good enough to play in the NFL or NBA. Since the top 500 high school football players all have a decent or realistic shot at playing in the NFL, the academies don’t even get a sniff from those players. As if that weren’t difficult enough, the academies have stringent academic standards that deplete the potential talent pool down even further. The resulting affect is that the academies have to run “gimmick” offenses just to lose gracefully against most D-1 schools. The biggest discrepancies between the academy football teams and other D-1 football teams are the size differentials on the offensive and defensive lines and the speed differential at the skill positions. Every once a while, these schools will find a gem under a rock as was the case with David Robinson and Napoleon McCallum at Navy. Any athlete that desires to play professionally in the NFL or NBA has to fulfill their military obligation before they can move on. The Navy let David Robinson out of his five year military commitment two years early so he could enter the NBA. Robinson’s case was unique though. At 7’1, Robinson’s height made it difficult for him to do much of anything in a naval capacity. McCallum’s path was more indicative of what a current academy athlete would have to follow. He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1986. He then spent five years in the Navy before being able to continue on with his football career for the Raiders in 1991. So, even the most highly touted college football prospect that an academy has seen in recent memory had to wait five years before playing professionally. That is a deal-breaker for virtually any highly-skilled football or basketball recruit.
The good news and the aspect that I have the biggest qualm with is the fact that the academies can fix all of this. There is no question that a college football program is just a small sub-group of a University. However, the amount of positive exposure that a football or basketball program can give a University is unquantifiable not to mention the potential monetary benefits that go along with that exposure. I can vouch for this personally. When I was seven years old, I became a big Michigan fan. By the time I was 18, I had seen so many Michigan football games and worn so many Michigan sweatshirts that I might as well have sent in my application at eight years old. I applied to one college out of high school and it was probably never going to be any different. The academies are missing out on that kind of exposure. I wanted to go to Michigan because I had developed an affiliation before I ever became a rational thinker. Nobody develops that kind of relationship with the academies in this day and age. The academies look to find the best and brightest minds that America has to offer. That pool of bright minds could increase exponentially if younger kids could develop an affinity for the academies. The only way that affinity would be available to young sports fans is if the academies became consistent winning programs. I’m not talking about beating up on the worst teams that D-1 has to offer. I’m talking about competing for National Championships and sending players to the pros.
The only way the academies could contend on a national level in college football is to do away with the locked in five-year commitment ONLY for players that are offered a contract in the NBA or NFL. The amount of positive exposure that a top 50 high school athlete could give to West Point or Annapolis as a viable option for America’s youth is considerably more productive than the amount of physical labor that same athlete could do serving in the military. The academies need to be resourceful. They need to understand the best way to use their athletic programs. There would have to be some thought put into waiving the commitments. The academies wouldn’t even necessarily have to waive the five-year commitment. They could move the exempted athlete to the reserves to serve the remainder of the commitment. The academies are smart. They could come up with a fair system. The waiver would probably have to be limited to football and basketball simply because those are the only two sports that have a). the national exposure that could benefit the academies to a degree in which adding the exemption would be worthwhile to the cause of the academy and b). the professional options that could trump what the graduate would have available as an officer. The academies wouldn’t have to change their acceptance standards. Notre Dame is a perfect example of a school that can recruit nationally without compromising the academic requirements of attending that school.
Navy and Army still command respect among college football fans even if it’s just from their once proud histories. My guess is that if the academy leadership amended the commitments for athletes that could move on to the pros, made that amendment public, and then hired a big-time football coach; these academies would be National Championship contenders within five years. The same success could be reached by the basketball programs as well. In fact, the parity in college basketball today would make it much easier for the academy basketball programs to compete. Once upon a time, Bobby Knight and Coach K were on the same coaching staff at West Point. That history, along with the rich football history at West Point, should be celebrated and honored. Those histories could be used as springboards for future success. Instead, people say, “really?” with a confused look on their faces when they find out that Army actually won National Championships or that Army had a coaching staff that featured two of the great college basketball coaches of all-time. Notre Dame certainly hasn’t compromised its legacy by being competitive in football and basketball. Notre Dame embraces its history and uses it as a recruiting tool for its overall student population. Army and Navy should be no different. Do you really think a Notre Dame graduate looks down on his/her degree because the football team is winning and sending superior athletes to the NFL? Next time you run into a Notre Dame alum, they can answer that question for you.
I want to make something clear before I say anything else. For many high school athletes today, being an officer in the military is an excellent fallback option if a professional sports career is not attainable. If a high school player signs up at West Point, completes his four years of football, and finds out that the NFL is not interested for one reason or another, that player could hardly find a better job that combines a fair wage and a resume enhancing job experience than as an officer in the military. My suggestion is not to let all academy athletes out of their commitments. That would be unfair to the non-athletes at these schools. My suggestion is to market the academy sports programs to the best athletes in America by giving them an unbeatable 1-2 option. Once you graduate, if you are good enough to play professionally in the NFL or NBA, you will be permitted to move on and fine tune your craft at the professional level. If you don’t have professional options, you will take one of the most honorable jobs available combined with a more than fair salary. That has to be so much more marketable to elite college athletes than, “if you are good enough to play in the NFL, too bad, you’ll have to wait five years while having virtually no exposure to the rigors of your sport before you can give it a try.”
I realize that the argument that an Academy graduate would make against exempting athletes with a realistic professional career is that it would somehow take away from the greatness of the academies. It would somehow damage the integrity of the academy and consequently cheapen the experience and the degree to have some graduates rewarded with an exemption. While I can understand academy graduates not wanting to look worse, I highly doubt that would be the case at all. On any given roster of a top 25 college football team, there are at most 25 players that will get a contract in the NFL. That would be the case for the top schools like USC or Miami (FL). The number would probably be less for the academies even if they returned to prominence. So, we’re talking about exemptions for 1/6 of the football team at the most. Every other member of the team would have to honor their five year commitment. That would mean close to 15 exemptions for the entire team and maybe three or four per year. In any given year, there are roughly 1,000 graduates from each academy. That would mean that only .4% of the graduates would get an exemption. The number could rise slightly if there are players that could garner a professional contract in basketball. A degree or experience gets cheapened if that degree no longer has the same value in the real world. If every member of the academy is either honoring their commitment to the military or playing in the NFL or NBA (which is the only way they would get the exemption), then I don’t see how that cheapens the academy education or experience. In order to make in the NFL, athletes have to be the best of the best in terms of dedication and commitment. Only the hardest working athletes get a chance to play professionally. That sounds like something that the academies could be proud of. It’s not like the athletes will be getting “off” or “out of their” commitments in the normal sense. I know from first hand experiences that, on average, athletes in the NFL have to work longer and harder than the average military officer from an academy. That’s not a knock on the officers or the academies. That just shows how hard a professional athlete has to work to make it.
The bigger benefit of revitalizing the academy football programs would be the effects this would have on the army and navy as a whole. Academy graduates make up an infinitesimally small amount of the overall force. Yet, West Point, Navy, and Air Force represent each member of their respective forces. When Army does well in football, an army sergeant in Iraq can stick his/her chest out a little farther. Over the last thirty years, the academy football programs have done very little in facilitating pride in the services. The Sgt. Slaughters of the world have no idea what it’s like to see the academy representing his/her specific service accomplish great things in sports. I’m not trying to say that sports are the end all. But, don’t discount the positive effects it has as well. The sports world helped many Americans get back to their everyday lives after 9-11. The same distraction from the everyday grind could be given to hundreds of thousands of service members across the world. Sports gives people something to believe in. I take pride in the accomplishments of my alma mater just as a simple fan. One could only imagine the pride that a service member could have in watching the Army or Navy dominate in an athletic venue. I wouldn’t be surprised if academy graduates were against exemptions for professional athletes but I think it would be somewhat single-minded to do so. There are hundreds of thousands of service members, and millions of sports fans that could experience remarkable highs from watching the academies compete with the best the college sporting world has to offer as they once did. All this could be achieved for exempting as little as three or four graduates per year. That seems like an awfully small price to pay for the potential benefits.
A sports program at a collegiate institution is a recruiting tool for the overall University. It’s a method of exposing your institution to the masses. The University of Michigan doesn’t exist because of football. It doesn’t exist to produce volleyball players or baseball players. Michigan exists for the primary purpose of educating people. Likewise, the academies don’t exist for football. However, Michigan uses its football program to shed the University in an extremely positive light (for the most part anyways). The academies would get the same benefit. A good program will shed your institution in a positive light. A bad program will do nothing for you efforts. It’s a tool. The academies should do everything in their power to use it. The unintended benefits would be the revitalization of a group of football programs that used to run the college football world. The intended benefits would be a much larger pool of highly-qualified potential officers to choose from as well as a morale boost for countless service members. It’s a no-lose situation for everyone involved.
For the longest time, Army and Navy were two of the premier college football programs in the country. They have three National Championships and five Heisman Trophy winners between them. Despite those tangible numbers, the Army and Navy football programs today have more in common with the lost city of Atlantis than they do with the rich history that used to define these programs. Army has been to one bowl game since 1989. Before Paul Johnson arrived at Annapolis in 2002, Navy had been to one bowl game since 1982. Johnson has since righted the Navy ship somewhat but don’t let Johnson’s record fool you. Navy’s program succeeds today because Navy is an independent which gives them the power to schedule the worst teams in college football. Army left Conference USA for the same reason after the 2004 season. The Army athletic department realized that the Black Knights could not consistently win by playing the best teams that a conference has to offer even if that conference was the lowly Conference USA. So, Army followed Navy’s model of success and moved into a position where it could schedule the worst teams in college football. Sadly, that is the only way these once great programs can even remotely taste success in college football today.
For those of you that are unfamiliar with the success and subsequent drop-off of the Army and Navy football programs, here is a brief comparison of then and now:
----------Year------Record----Winning %-------
Army 1890-1973 489-208-45 (70%) 3 National Titles; 3 Heisman Winners
Army 1974-2004 135-207-6 (40%) 0 National Titles; 0 Heisman Winners
Navy 1879-1964 428-252-52 (64%) 2 Heisman Winners
Navy 1965-2004 172-266-5 (39%) 0 Heisman Winners
If we could somehow get a hold of Marty McFly’s De Lorean and go back to the beginning, we may have been able to predict Army and Navy’s colossal decline from the college football elite. My grandpa went to Iowa Pre-Flight back when that school was a national football power. As a kid, I remember looking in the record books and wondering what the heck Iowa Pre-Flight was. It sounded like a made up school to me. My grandpa assured me that Iowa Pre-Flight was real and the football team was a force to be reckoned with. He qualified that statement by giving me a little background into the college football landscape at the time. Since the country was engaged in a number of military conflicts in the first half of the 20th century, the academies were often seeing potential students going off to war that had initially shown interest in attending the academies. After a number of years in the war, these veterans would then come back to the schools and enroll as they had previously intended on doing a number of years before. As a result, many of the athletes at the academies were significantly older than the athletes at other schools. The difference between a 27 year old and an 18 year old in football can clearly be seen by taking a quick look at the NFL. 18, 19, and 20 year olds are nowhere to be found in the NFL because they are not physically mature enough to compete with the average 27 year old. Army, Navy, and Iowa Pre-Flight had that advantage back in the early days of college football.
As the US’s involvement in large military affairs died down a bit and the manner in which people signed up and served in the military changed a bit, the advantage of having an older, more mature athlete went away. The academies were then forced to compete against the other schools with athletes that were the same age. At the same time, the “dream” of playing in the NFL became realistic for many of the top college football players. Since the academies required their students to serve in the military for a number of years, the “dream” of playing in the NFL was not compatible with the academies. That brings us to the current state of the academies in the college football world. The same effects occurred with other academy sports like basketball.
Army, Navy, and Air Force have virtually no chance of recruiting any players that are good enough to play in the NFL or NBA. Since the top 500 high school football players all have a decent or realistic shot at playing in the NFL, the academies don’t even get a sniff from those players. As if that weren’t difficult enough, the academies have stringent academic standards that deplete the potential talent pool down even further. The resulting affect is that the academies have to run “gimmick” offenses just to lose gracefully against most D-1 schools. The biggest discrepancies between the academy football teams and other D-1 football teams are the size differentials on the offensive and defensive lines and the speed differential at the skill positions. Every once a while, these schools will find a gem under a rock as was the case with David Robinson and Napoleon McCallum at Navy. Any athlete that desires to play professionally in the NFL or NBA has to fulfill their military obligation before they can move on. The Navy let David Robinson out of his five year military commitment two years early so he could enter the NBA. Robinson’s case was unique though. At 7’1, Robinson’s height made it difficult for him to do much of anything in a naval capacity. McCallum’s path was more indicative of what a current academy athlete would have to follow. He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1986. He then spent five years in the Navy before being able to continue on with his football career for the Raiders in 1991. So, even the most highly touted college football prospect that an academy has seen in recent memory had to wait five years before playing professionally. That is a deal-breaker for virtually any highly-skilled football or basketball recruit.
The good news and the aspect that I have the biggest qualm with is the fact that the academies can fix all of this. There is no question that a college football program is just a small sub-group of a University. However, the amount of positive exposure that a football or basketball program can give a University is unquantifiable not to mention the potential monetary benefits that go along with that exposure. I can vouch for this personally. When I was seven years old, I became a big Michigan fan. By the time I was 18, I had seen so many Michigan football games and worn so many Michigan sweatshirts that I might as well have sent in my application at eight years old. I applied to one college out of high school and it was probably never going to be any different. The academies are missing out on that kind of exposure. I wanted to go to Michigan because I had developed an affiliation before I ever became a rational thinker. Nobody develops that kind of relationship with the academies in this day and age. The academies look to find the best and brightest minds that America has to offer. That pool of bright minds could increase exponentially if younger kids could develop an affinity for the academies. The only way that affinity would be available to young sports fans is if the academies became consistent winning programs. I’m not talking about beating up on the worst teams that D-1 has to offer. I’m talking about competing for National Championships and sending players to the pros.
The only way the academies could contend on a national level in college football is to do away with the locked in five-year commitment ONLY for players that are offered a contract in the NBA or NFL. The amount of positive exposure that a top 50 high school athlete could give to West Point or Annapolis as a viable option for America’s youth is considerably more productive than the amount of physical labor that same athlete could do serving in the military. The academies need to be resourceful. They need to understand the best way to use their athletic programs. There would have to be some thought put into waiving the commitments. The academies wouldn’t even necessarily have to waive the five-year commitment. They could move the exempted athlete to the reserves to serve the remainder of the commitment. The academies are smart. They could come up with a fair system. The waiver would probably have to be limited to football and basketball simply because those are the only two sports that have a). the national exposure that could benefit the academies to a degree in which adding the exemption would be worthwhile to the cause of the academy and b). the professional options that could trump what the graduate would have available as an officer. The academies wouldn’t have to change their acceptance standards. Notre Dame is a perfect example of a school that can recruit nationally without compromising the academic requirements of attending that school.
Navy and Army still command respect among college football fans even if it’s just from their once proud histories. My guess is that if the academy leadership amended the commitments for athletes that could move on to the pros, made that amendment public, and then hired a big-time football coach; these academies would be National Championship contenders within five years. The same success could be reached by the basketball programs as well. In fact, the parity in college basketball today would make it much easier for the academy basketball programs to compete. Once upon a time, Bobby Knight and Coach K were on the same coaching staff at West Point. That history, along with the rich football history at West Point, should be celebrated and honored. Those histories could be used as springboards for future success. Instead, people say, “really?” with a confused look on their faces when they find out that Army actually won National Championships or that Army had a coaching staff that featured two of the great college basketball coaches of all-time. Notre Dame certainly hasn’t compromised its legacy by being competitive in football and basketball. Notre Dame embraces its history and uses it as a recruiting tool for its overall student population. Army and Navy should be no different. Do you really think a Notre Dame graduate looks down on his/her degree because the football team is winning and sending superior athletes to the NFL? Next time you run into a Notre Dame alum, they can answer that question for you.
I want to make something clear before I say anything else. For many high school athletes today, being an officer in the military is an excellent fallback option if a professional sports career is not attainable. If a high school player signs up at West Point, completes his four years of football, and finds out that the NFL is not interested for one reason or another, that player could hardly find a better job that combines a fair wage and a resume enhancing job experience than as an officer in the military. My suggestion is not to let all academy athletes out of their commitments. That would be unfair to the non-athletes at these schools. My suggestion is to market the academy sports programs to the best athletes in America by giving them an unbeatable 1-2 option. Once you graduate, if you are good enough to play professionally in the NFL or NBA, you will be permitted to move on and fine tune your craft at the professional level. If you don’t have professional options, you will take one of the most honorable jobs available combined with a more than fair salary. That has to be so much more marketable to elite college athletes than, “if you are good enough to play in the NFL, too bad, you’ll have to wait five years while having virtually no exposure to the rigors of your sport before you can give it a try.”
I realize that the argument that an Academy graduate would make against exempting athletes with a realistic professional career is that it would somehow take away from the greatness of the academies. It would somehow damage the integrity of the academy and consequently cheapen the experience and the degree to have some graduates rewarded with an exemption. While I can understand academy graduates not wanting to look worse, I highly doubt that would be the case at all. On any given roster of a top 25 college football team, there are at most 25 players that will get a contract in the NFL. That would be the case for the top schools like USC or Miami (FL). The number would probably be less for the academies even if they returned to prominence. So, we’re talking about exemptions for 1/6 of the football team at the most. Every other member of the team would have to honor their five year commitment. That would mean close to 15 exemptions for the entire team and maybe three or four per year. In any given year, there are roughly 1,000 graduates from each academy. That would mean that only .4% of the graduates would get an exemption. The number could rise slightly if there are players that could garner a professional contract in basketball. A degree or experience gets cheapened if that degree no longer has the same value in the real world. If every member of the academy is either honoring their commitment to the military or playing in the NFL or NBA (which is the only way they would get the exemption), then I don’t see how that cheapens the academy education or experience. In order to make in the NFL, athletes have to be the best of the best in terms of dedication and commitment. Only the hardest working athletes get a chance to play professionally. That sounds like something that the academies could be proud of. It’s not like the athletes will be getting “off” or “out of their” commitments in the normal sense. I know from first hand experiences that, on average, athletes in the NFL have to work longer and harder than the average military officer from an academy. That’s not a knock on the officers or the academies. That just shows how hard a professional athlete has to work to make it.
The bigger benefit of revitalizing the academy football programs would be the effects this would have on the army and navy as a whole. Academy graduates make up an infinitesimally small amount of the overall force. Yet, West Point, Navy, and Air Force represent each member of their respective forces. When Army does well in football, an army sergeant in Iraq can stick his/her chest out a little farther. Over the last thirty years, the academy football programs have done very little in facilitating pride in the services. The Sgt. Slaughters of the world have no idea what it’s like to see the academy representing his/her specific service accomplish great things in sports. I’m not trying to say that sports are the end all. But, don’t discount the positive effects it has as well. The sports world helped many Americans get back to their everyday lives after 9-11. The same distraction from the everyday grind could be given to hundreds of thousands of service members across the world. Sports gives people something to believe in. I take pride in the accomplishments of my alma mater just as a simple fan. One could only imagine the pride that a service member could have in watching the Army or Navy dominate in an athletic venue. I wouldn’t be surprised if academy graduates were against exemptions for professional athletes but I think it would be somewhat single-minded to do so. There are hundreds of thousands of service members, and millions of sports fans that could experience remarkable highs from watching the academies compete with the best the college sporting world has to offer as they once did. All this could be achieved for exempting as little as three or four graduates per year. That seems like an awfully small price to pay for the potential benefits.
A sports program at a collegiate institution is a recruiting tool for the overall University. It’s a method of exposing your institution to the masses. The University of Michigan doesn’t exist because of football. It doesn’t exist to produce volleyball players or baseball players. Michigan exists for the primary purpose of educating people. Likewise, the academies don’t exist for football. However, Michigan uses its football program to shed the University in an extremely positive light (for the most part anyways). The academies would get the same benefit. A good program will shed your institution in a positive light. A bad program will do nothing for you efforts. It’s a tool. The academies should do everything in their power to use it. The unintended benefits would be the revitalization of a group of football programs that used to run the college football world. The intended benefits would be a much larger pool of highly-qualified potential officers to choose from as well as a morale boost for countless service members. It’s a no-lose situation for everyone involved.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Kobe's Revenge
I woke up Monday morning and turned on ESPNews only to see a news alert in the bottom right hand corner of the screen that said “Pittsburgh vs. Seattle in the Super Bowl” and “Kobe scores 11 points”. Or, at least that’s what I thought it said. My TV is a little warped so it was hard for me to read the small print. Kobe scoring 11 points is no big deal but the only other number it could’ve been was 81. I called my wife into the room and she confirmed it said 81. I felt like a kid waking up on Christmas morning to a boatload of gloriously wrapped presents. I’ve never been the biggest Kobe fan but it could’ve been Brian Cardinal scoring 81 points and I would’ve had the same “kid in a candy store” reaction. Something like an 81-point game literally happens once in a lifetime. By the way, I’d like to personally thank Kobe for putting me in that mood. I don’t experience those moods nearly as much as I’d like. I’d also like to thank Brian Cardinal for not scoring 81 points. I don’t think I would be able to respect the NBA if that happened.
The most impressive aspect of Kobe’s performance was the fact that the Lakers were down by 18 points in the third quarter before Kobe went off. That means that the only real chance the Lakers had of winning was to let only one man shoot every time down the court. Using that strategy, the Lakers went from being down by 18 to winning by 18. That should give you an indication of how unstoppable Kobe was against Toronto in the second half. As one would expect, there were the normal share of people bemoaning Kobe’s shot total and the fact that team basketball was somehow dead. Not coincidentally, many of the antagonists were a part of the Miami Heat organization. Big surprise, eh?
Here are just a few comments made that were clearly meant to downplay the significance of Kobe’s 81 points:
Pat Riley
"Anybody who's got the kind of energy to try to hoist up [nearly] 70 shots is going to score a lot of points," Riley told reporters in Miami, referring to Bryant's 66 field-goal and free-throw attempts. "It's remarkable, the execution and the efficiency, but we've got a lot of guys in this league, if they took 70 shots, they'd score a lot of points." (LA Times online article)
File this comment under the “duh” category. If I took 1,000 shot in an NBA game, I might get 70 points. The problem is that I couldn’t get off 1,000 shots. Likewise, 99.9% of NBA players couldn’t get off 70 total shots even if they tried. Riley seems oblivious to how difficult it is to a). get off 70 (combined) shots while constantly being double and tripled-teamed, b). shoot over 50% from the field under those same conditions, and c). be in a position where the only chance your team has of winning is for you to shoot every time down the floor. Riley clearly outs himself as being bitter for whatever reasons. If any NBA player could win a game single handily by taking 70 shots per game, then every team in the NBA would employ that strategy. Is the object in the NBA to play team ball or to win? There’s no question that the goal is to win at all costs. The only way it’s about team ball is because that generally gives teams a better chance of winning. If not playing team ball gave teams the best chance of winning, then nobody would play team ball. Maybe Riley can show us just how easy it is for someone to score 81 points AND win by letting either Shaq or Dwyane Wade shoot the ball 46 times next game.
Shaquille O’Neal
O'Neal declined to comment. "He told us to get him 50 shots," Walker said, suggesting that O'Neal was fully aware of Bryant's display. (LA Times online article)
This comment made me laugh. The day Shaq has the stamina to get 50 shots is the day that Shaq is playing one on one against me. It’s amazing to me how great these players think they are. If Shaq was such a team player, and he thought he could score 81 points and lead the Heat to victory, wouldn’t he be letting his team down by not doing that? Let’s see it Shaq. In the playoffs last year, Shaq made virtually every shot he took against the Pistons to start each game. The problem for the Heat is that Shaq had to rest after the first quarter just to be able to play in the fourth quarter. Plus, the minute Shaq gets double-teamed, he has NO options other than to pass because he can’t dribble or shoot outside of eight feet. Kobe was constantly being double-teamed the entire second half and Toronto still couldn’t stop him.
Antoine Walker
"I think with the 81 now, no other team or other players will let that happen," he told reporters. "Now guys will foul out trying to stop him from doing that. If someone gets 81 on me, I'm going to clothesline him." (LA Times online article)
Has Antoine Walker heard of the rule in the NBA that permits players to shoot free throws when fouled? Apparently, the answer is no. Unless, of course, Walker would like to allow Kobe to score more than 81 points. Sending him to the free throw line every time he touched the ball would be a sure-fire way of ensuring that. I just read a first hand account by David Robinson about his 71 point game against the Clippers in 1994. Here is what Robinson said to some dude named Bert Rosenthal, “Once my teammates realized that I had such a hot hand, they kept looking for me, trying to get me the ball.The Clippers, of course, were trying hard to stop me. They were fighting, clawing, bumping, grinding, and double- and triple-teaming me to try and keep me from scoring. I had the scratches and bruises to show for it. In fact, I went to the foul line 25 times that night. That's a remarkable number under any circumstances.” According to Antoine Walker, stopping Kobe is as simple as fouling him. It sounds like that philosophy worked wonders for the Clippers.
David Thompson
"With the 3s, I could have easily been in the 80s," Thompson said Monday. "I only took 38 shots. The way I was going, I probably could have been at 80 or 90 (points). I probably would have made seven or eight 3-pointers. “If I took more shots, I would have made five from the field. But 81 points, that's impressive. It takes a great player like that to put up those numbers." (Denver Post online article)
If Kobe was somehow warped back to the 1970’s, he could’ve probably scored 100 points. He is so athletically superior to the average player in the 1970’s that they would have no idea how to guard him. Plus, Kobe only hit seven three pointers. If Thompson wants to say that he would have also made seven three pointers, then that would’ve given him 80 points. For Thompson to say that he would’ve scored 80 or 90 points had there been a three point line, he’s stretching the truth quite a bit. In fact, for Thompson to score 90 points, he would’ve need to make 17 three pointers. That seems reasonable, I guess. Additionally, Thompson’s Nuggets LOST the game in which he scored 73 points. The Raptors knew that Kobe was going to take every shot and still couldn’t keep him from single handily bringing the Lakers back from an 18 point second half deficit. Thompson’s “what if”-game could be played by many other players. The fact of the matter is that he scored 73 points in an era that was much less competitive than today’s era.
Vince Carter
"It is great for the league, for him, just because of the buzz it has created," said Vince Carter, who this season with the Nets tied his career high of 51 points. "The only bad thing about it is younger kids, whose minds are easily warped, are going to think, 'Ohhh! I am going to go out there and do it' instead of the team concept first. That is what is missing, guys understanding how to play as a team. “They (the NBA) want scoring, they want ratings so you are going to get that,” said Carter. (NY Post online article)
The only thing I have to say about this comment is that Carter has gone on record saying that he didn’t play hard in games while he was playing for Toronto. Apparently, Carter felt that was actually helpful for today’s basketball youth to see a player purposefully not try because he was unhappy.
People can say whatever they want about Kobe’s role in breaking up the Lakers dynasty or his conduct that led to allegations of rape in Denver. However, to downplay Kobe’s 81-point performance only exposes people for being ignorant and envious. I just want to make it clear that there is nothing negative, whatsoever, about Kobe’s performance. Kobe’s team was playing so poorly that they were getting blown out by one of the worst teams in the NBA. Kobe’s shooting percentage was an unbelievable 61% on 46 shots. He also shot a blistering 90% from the free-throw line and 54% from the three-point line. Before Kobe took the game over, the Lakers were losing by 18 points. After Kobe’s onslaught, the Lakers ended up winning by 18! It could be argued that no other player in the history of sports has had a greater impact on a single game. Yet, Kobe has been criticized for taking too many shots in that game. I find that criticism to be unbelievable. Had he not taken the game over, the Lakers would’ve lost. Some people are spinning things so violently that they would have you believe that Kobe would’ve been a better team player by letting the Lakers get blown out. If that doesn’t tell you that there will always be people on the other side no matter how ridiculous the other side is, then nothing will.
To put the ridiculous response to Kobe’s performance in perspective, I’d like rehash the game I mentioned above involving David Robinson. The San Antonio Spurs entered the final game of the 1993-94 season firmly entrenched in their playoff position. The Spurs were playing the Clippers who also had nothing to gain from the game. In a purely selfish move, Robinson scored 71 points to pass Shaq to win the scoring title. Kobe’s performance was the antithesis of Robinson’s, yet Kobe has already received considerably more criticism than David Robinson ever did. The Admiral is one of my favorite NBA players of all time. I have no qualms about his 71 point performance. My point is that if nobody made a stink about that purely self-centered performance, then how can anyone slight Kobe’s infinitely more meaningful performance?
My guess is that most sports fans feel the same way that I do. It’s just that the criticism has been enough to actually take away from the performance in my view. If it were just one or two people saying something negative, then I probably wouldn’t care. Regardless, Kobe’s 81-point game was the greatest performance in NBA history. Wilt’s 100 was the equivalent of me dunking on a seven foot rim over and over against my 4th grade neighbors (which I actually did and I loved every minute of it). While Wilt was great, his dominance has to be put into perspective. The “greatest ever” discussions inevitably work their way towards the idea that you have to win championships and be great. Kobe is only 27 and has already accomplished a career’s worth. He has three Championship rings to go with his 81 point game. I have to say I’m quite intrigued with regards to how the rest of Kobe’s career will pan out. All I can say is that nothing would surprise me.
The most impressive aspect of Kobe’s performance was the fact that the Lakers were down by 18 points in the third quarter before Kobe went off. That means that the only real chance the Lakers had of winning was to let only one man shoot every time down the court. Using that strategy, the Lakers went from being down by 18 to winning by 18. That should give you an indication of how unstoppable Kobe was against Toronto in the second half. As one would expect, there were the normal share of people bemoaning Kobe’s shot total and the fact that team basketball was somehow dead. Not coincidentally, many of the antagonists were a part of the Miami Heat organization. Big surprise, eh?
Here are just a few comments made that were clearly meant to downplay the significance of Kobe’s 81 points:
Pat Riley
"Anybody who's got the kind of energy to try to hoist up [nearly] 70 shots is going to score a lot of points," Riley told reporters in Miami, referring to Bryant's 66 field-goal and free-throw attempts. "It's remarkable, the execution and the efficiency, but we've got a lot of guys in this league, if they took 70 shots, they'd score a lot of points." (LA Times online article)
File this comment under the “duh” category. If I took 1,000 shot in an NBA game, I might get 70 points. The problem is that I couldn’t get off 1,000 shots. Likewise, 99.9% of NBA players couldn’t get off 70 total shots even if they tried. Riley seems oblivious to how difficult it is to a). get off 70 (combined) shots while constantly being double and tripled-teamed, b). shoot over 50% from the field under those same conditions, and c). be in a position where the only chance your team has of winning is for you to shoot every time down the floor. Riley clearly outs himself as being bitter for whatever reasons. If any NBA player could win a game single handily by taking 70 shots per game, then every team in the NBA would employ that strategy. Is the object in the NBA to play team ball or to win? There’s no question that the goal is to win at all costs. The only way it’s about team ball is because that generally gives teams a better chance of winning. If not playing team ball gave teams the best chance of winning, then nobody would play team ball. Maybe Riley can show us just how easy it is for someone to score 81 points AND win by letting either Shaq or Dwyane Wade shoot the ball 46 times next game.
Shaquille O’Neal
O'Neal declined to comment. "He told us to get him 50 shots," Walker said, suggesting that O'Neal was fully aware of Bryant's display. (LA Times online article)
This comment made me laugh. The day Shaq has the stamina to get 50 shots is the day that Shaq is playing one on one against me. It’s amazing to me how great these players think they are. If Shaq was such a team player, and he thought he could score 81 points and lead the Heat to victory, wouldn’t he be letting his team down by not doing that? Let’s see it Shaq. In the playoffs last year, Shaq made virtually every shot he took against the Pistons to start each game. The problem for the Heat is that Shaq had to rest after the first quarter just to be able to play in the fourth quarter. Plus, the minute Shaq gets double-teamed, he has NO options other than to pass because he can’t dribble or shoot outside of eight feet. Kobe was constantly being double-teamed the entire second half and Toronto still couldn’t stop him.
Antoine Walker
"I think with the 81 now, no other team or other players will let that happen," he told reporters. "Now guys will foul out trying to stop him from doing that. If someone gets 81 on me, I'm going to clothesline him." (LA Times online article)
Has Antoine Walker heard of the rule in the NBA that permits players to shoot free throws when fouled? Apparently, the answer is no. Unless, of course, Walker would like to allow Kobe to score more than 81 points. Sending him to the free throw line every time he touched the ball would be a sure-fire way of ensuring that. I just read a first hand account by David Robinson about his 71 point game against the Clippers in 1994. Here is what Robinson said to some dude named Bert Rosenthal, “Once my teammates realized that I had such a hot hand, they kept looking for me, trying to get me the ball.The Clippers, of course, were trying hard to stop me. They were fighting, clawing, bumping, grinding, and double- and triple-teaming me to try and keep me from scoring. I had the scratches and bruises to show for it. In fact, I went to the foul line 25 times that night. That's a remarkable number under any circumstances.” According to Antoine Walker, stopping Kobe is as simple as fouling him. It sounds like that philosophy worked wonders for the Clippers.
David Thompson
"With the 3s, I could have easily been in the 80s," Thompson said Monday. "I only took 38 shots. The way I was going, I probably could have been at 80 or 90 (points). I probably would have made seven or eight 3-pointers. “If I took more shots, I would have made five from the field. But 81 points, that's impressive. It takes a great player like that to put up those numbers." (Denver Post online article)
If Kobe was somehow warped back to the 1970’s, he could’ve probably scored 100 points. He is so athletically superior to the average player in the 1970’s that they would have no idea how to guard him. Plus, Kobe only hit seven three pointers. If Thompson wants to say that he would have also made seven three pointers, then that would’ve given him 80 points. For Thompson to say that he would’ve scored 80 or 90 points had there been a three point line, he’s stretching the truth quite a bit. In fact, for Thompson to score 90 points, he would’ve need to make 17 three pointers. That seems reasonable, I guess. Additionally, Thompson’s Nuggets LOST the game in which he scored 73 points. The Raptors knew that Kobe was going to take every shot and still couldn’t keep him from single handily bringing the Lakers back from an 18 point second half deficit. Thompson’s “what if”-game could be played by many other players. The fact of the matter is that he scored 73 points in an era that was much less competitive than today’s era.
Vince Carter
"It is great for the league, for him, just because of the buzz it has created," said Vince Carter, who this season with the Nets tied his career high of 51 points. "The only bad thing about it is younger kids, whose minds are easily warped, are going to think, 'Ohhh! I am going to go out there and do it' instead of the team concept first. That is what is missing, guys understanding how to play as a team. “They (the NBA) want scoring, they want ratings so you are going to get that,” said Carter. (NY Post online article)
The only thing I have to say about this comment is that Carter has gone on record saying that he didn’t play hard in games while he was playing for Toronto. Apparently, Carter felt that was actually helpful for today’s basketball youth to see a player purposefully not try because he was unhappy.
People can say whatever they want about Kobe’s role in breaking up the Lakers dynasty or his conduct that led to allegations of rape in Denver. However, to downplay Kobe’s 81-point performance only exposes people for being ignorant and envious. I just want to make it clear that there is nothing negative, whatsoever, about Kobe’s performance. Kobe’s team was playing so poorly that they were getting blown out by one of the worst teams in the NBA. Kobe’s shooting percentage was an unbelievable 61% on 46 shots. He also shot a blistering 90% from the free-throw line and 54% from the three-point line. Before Kobe took the game over, the Lakers were losing by 18 points. After Kobe’s onslaught, the Lakers ended up winning by 18! It could be argued that no other player in the history of sports has had a greater impact on a single game. Yet, Kobe has been criticized for taking too many shots in that game. I find that criticism to be unbelievable. Had he not taken the game over, the Lakers would’ve lost. Some people are spinning things so violently that they would have you believe that Kobe would’ve been a better team player by letting the Lakers get blown out. If that doesn’t tell you that there will always be people on the other side no matter how ridiculous the other side is, then nothing will.
To put the ridiculous response to Kobe’s performance in perspective, I’d like rehash the game I mentioned above involving David Robinson. The San Antonio Spurs entered the final game of the 1993-94 season firmly entrenched in their playoff position. The Spurs were playing the Clippers who also had nothing to gain from the game. In a purely selfish move, Robinson scored 71 points to pass Shaq to win the scoring title. Kobe’s performance was the antithesis of Robinson’s, yet Kobe has already received considerably more criticism than David Robinson ever did. The Admiral is one of my favorite NBA players of all time. I have no qualms about his 71 point performance. My point is that if nobody made a stink about that purely self-centered performance, then how can anyone slight Kobe’s infinitely more meaningful performance?
My guess is that most sports fans feel the same way that I do. It’s just that the criticism has been enough to actually take away from the performance in my view. If it were just one or two people saying something negative, then I probably wouldn’t care. Regardless, Kobe’s 81-point game was the greatest performance in NBA history. Wilt’s 100 was the equivalent of me dunking on a seven foot rim over and over against my 4th grade neighbors (which I actually did and I loved every minute of it). While Wilt was great, his dominance has to be put into perspective. The “greatest ever” discussions inevitably work their way towards the idea that you have to win championships and be great. Kobe is only 27 and has already accomplished a career’s worth. He has three Championship rings to go with his 81 point game. I have to say I’m quite intrigued with regards to how the rest of Kobe’s career will pan out. All I can say is that nothing would surprise me.
Monday, January 23, 2006
NCAA Tournament projections
Starting today, I will take a look at the teams vying for the NCAA Tournament and predict which teams will be in the field come March. My selections won’t necessarily be how I view the field if the season ended today. For instance, Kansas, Kentucky and Louisville all have horrible computer ratings which would probably keep them out of the tournament if the season ended today. However, I anticipate these teams improving their ratings considerably before Selection Sunday. While my picks will be mostly based on the season to date, my goal is to accurately project who will be there in March, not who should be there if the season ended today. As of now, I’ll be listing teams in no particular order. As the season moves along, I’ll start listing teams in order.
Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC Duke
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East UCONN
4 Big 12 Texas
5 Big Ten Illinois
6 Pac-10 Washington
7 MVC N. Iowa
8 MWC Air Force
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Kent St.
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt W. Kentucky
16 Horizon Wisconsin-Mil.
17 MAAC Manhattan
18 Big Sky Montana
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West UC-Irvine
21 OVC Samford
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Bucknell
25 Southland Northwestern St.
26 Northeast Sacred Heart
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun E. Tennessee St.
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Louisville
33 At-Large Syracuse
34 At-Large Villanova
35 At-Large Pittsburgh
36 At-Large W. Virginia
37 At-Large Cincinnati
38 At-Large Marquette
39 At-Large Georgetown
40 At-Large NC State
41 At-Large Boston College
42 At-Large N. Carolina
43 At-Large Maryland
44 At-Large Wake Forest
45 At-Large MSU
46 At-Large Indiana
47 At-Large Michigan
48 At-Large Ohio St.
49 At-Large Wisconsin
50 At-Large Iowa
51 At-Large Kentucky
52 At-Large Tennessee
53 At-Large LSU
54 At-Large Vanderbilt
55 At-Large Oklahoma
56 At-Large Kansas
57 At-Large Colorado
58 At-Large Iowa St.
59 At-Large Arizona
60 At-Large UCLA
61 At-Large UAB
62 At-Large GW
63 At-Large Wichita St.
64 At-Large Creighton
65 At-Large Missouri St.
This is the easiest time of the year to project the tournament because we can pencil in teams like Nevada, Gonzaga, and Air Force as the recipients of the automatic bids from their conferences. Once March hits and some of these teams lose in their conference tournaments, then it becomes difficult to decide which teams get bumped from the field.
The last five teams in the tourney right now:
1. Louisville
Rick Pitino is in danger of missing the tournament. If Louisville doesn’t go 3-1 in its next four games, then it will be out of the field. Louisville is 1-4 in the Big East with a deplorable RPI rating of 82. The Cardinals have only beaten two teams in the top 100 (Miami Fl and Akron). This very well could be the last week that I have this team in the field.
2. Wake Forest
Wake is also 1-4 in conference play but unlike Louisville, Wake could easily go 4-0 in its next four games. Wake also has the good fortune of playing in the best conference in America where anything less than six bids would be a travesty. Wake is probably the 6th team out of the ACC. Its RPI of 62 will likely rise with the rigors of ACC play. Wake has two good non-conference wins in beating Wisconsin and George Mason. Wake’s fortunes look bleak now but I think they will turn around quickly.
3. Iowa St.
ISU did everything it needed to do in the non-conference. It beat N. Iowa, Iowa, Colorado St., and Northwestern St. However, two bad losses to Texas Tech and Texas A&M have basically derailed ISU’s tourney hopes. If the Cyclones don’t go at least 2-2 in their next four, they will be on the outside looking in.
4. Colorado
There are some teams that I don’t have in the field right now that I think are better than Colorado. However, the Buffaloes understand how to get to the tourney. They are 3-2 in the Big XII and could easily win their next two games. They don’t have a great computer rating but in looking at their remaining conference games, Colorado could easily go 10-6.
5. Missouri St.
To date, the MVC has done enough to get four teams in. I think that’ll change by the end of the season. There will probably only be three bids for the conference. However, as of now, four teams have done enough to get into the tourney. Missouri St. barely edges out S. Illinois for the conference’s fourth and final bid. Missouri St. should win its next four games before embarking on a season-deciding stretch of games to end the season.
The teams waiting in the wings:
The problem with making a case against a team like Louisville, Wake Forest, or Kansas is making the case for another team. I don’t have Louisville in the tournament because of how impressive its been this season. I have them in because no other teams have accomplished enough to merit a selection. That may change in the next week or two but there are only about 36 worthy teams for the 34 at-large bids. Here are the 16 teams (in no particular order) that have at least a small chance of working their way into the field should Louisville continue its slide and other teams falter:
1. Old Dominion
Old Dominion has a respectable resume and up until this past week was almost a lock to get the automatic bid for the Colonial Conference. That was until George Mason made it clear that they were the team to beat. If OD doesn’t win the conference, they might have a good enough resume to get an at-large bid.
2. Arkansas
The SEC is weak this year which makes more than five bids highly unlikely. Arkansas will probably be the odd team out unless they can finish 10-6 or better in the conference. Arkansas has had an impressive non-conference resume in beating Kansas, Missouri, Missouri St., and Texas Tech. Its RPI rating is on the borderline at 43. The Hogs stand at 2-3 in the SEC right now which means they would likely be left out.
3. S. Illinois
Believe it or not, the Missouri Valley Conference is the fifth strongest conference in America according to the RPI. That means they are ahead of the Pac-10 and the Big XII. S. Illinois started out 6-0 in conference play. At that point, I had them winning the MVC’s automatic bid. However, they lost two of three and now stand as the odd team out. I see four MVC teams getting into the tourney. S. Illinois has the least impressive non-conference slate so they are left out. However, a few wins could put this team right back in the field. I have Missouri St. in ahead of S. Illinois because of two things. 1). Missouri St. beat S. Illinois, and 2). Missouri St. has zero bad losses while S. Illinois lost to Monmouth and Alaska-Anchorage.
4. Oklahoma St.
I had OSU in the field before it lost to Colorado on Saturday. In fact, after that game, I switched OSU and Colorado. Those teams along with Iowa St. are so close in terms of resume and ability. I don’t believe the Big XII will get more than five teams into the tourney which means one of those three teams is out if not two. OSU has the worst RPI rating of the three. They have also fizzled in the conference. Iowa St.’s wins over N. Iowa and Iowa are keeping them afloat. If Iowa St. loses to Missouri this week, they will be on the outside looking in.
5. Florida St.
We’re starting to get into the group of teams that really have no chance of getting in. FSU has a high Pomeroy rating at 29 but its RPI rating is 99. This team will be an afterthought in just two weeks as the ACC schedule sends this team packing.
6 Kansas St.
7 NC Wilmington
8 California
9 Rutgers
10 Washington St.
11 Missouri
12 Miami (Fl)
13 USC
14 Notre Dame
15 Alabama
16 Georgia
17 Virginia
Most of these teams will fade away as a result of their conference schedules. The teams that really have a chance of rocketing into contention are Missouri, Miami, NC Wilmington and Georgia/Alabama. I don’t think any of those teams will make the tourney but the conference slate is a whole new season. Teams can erase early season misery by simply going 10-6 in conference. If any of these teams can do that, they may sneak in. NC Wilmington is a different story. Wilmington is a mid-major that will have good computer ratings and an impressive overall record. However, with no good non-conference wins, they will likely have to win the Colonial tournament.
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (6)
Duke
NC State
Boston College
N. Carolina
Maryland
Wake Forest
SEC (5)
Florida
Kentucky
LSU
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Big East (9)
UCONN
Syracuse
Villanova
Pittsburgh
W. Virginia
Cincinnati
Marquette
Georgetown
Louisville
Big 12 (5)
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Iowa St.
Big Ten (7)
Illinois
MSU
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pac-10 (3)
Washington
Arizona
UCLA
C-USA (2)
Memphis
UAB
A-10 (2)
Xavier
GW
MVC (4)
N. Iowa
Creighton
Wichita St.
Missouri St.
Here are a couple predictions for the end of the season:
-The Big East will get eight teams into the tournament with Louisville or Georgetown not getting in.
-The MVC will get three bids (one automatic and two at-large bids) with Missouri St. being the odd team out.
-The Big XII will only get four bids with Iowa St. and Oklahoma St. both missing the tournament.
-Don’t be surprised if California or Stanford goes 10-6 in the Pac-10 and steals a bid despite a miserable resume.
-If Michigan goes 8-8 in the Big Ten, it’ll make the tourney. If Michigan goes 7-9, it’ll be NIT bound. It seems like a 50/50 proposition either way.
Each week I'll update my projection with an explanation of why I've dropped or added teams to the field.
Here is how I view the field right now (in no particular order):
1 ACC Duke
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East UCONN
4 Big 12 Texas
5 Big Ten Illinois
6 Pac-10 Washington
7 MVC N. Iowa
8 MWC Air Force
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Kent St.
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt W. Kentucky
16 Horizon Wisconsin-Mil.
17 MAAC Manhattan
18 Big Sky Montana
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West UC-Irvine
21 OVC Samford
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Bucknell
25 Southland Northwestern St.
26 Northeast Sacred Heart
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun E. Tennessee St.
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Delaware St.
32 At-Large Louisville
33 At-Large Syracuse
34 At-Large Villanova
35 At-Large Pittsburgh
36 At-Large W. Virginia
37 At-Large Cincinnati
38 At-Large Marquette
39 At-Large Georgetown
40 At-Large NC State
41 At-Large Boston College
42 At-Large N. Carolina
43 At-Large Maryland
44 At-Large Wake Forest
45 At-Large MSU
46 At-Large Indiana
47 At-Large Michigan
48 At-Large Ohio St.
49 At-Large Wisconsin
50 At-Large Iowa
51 At-Large Kentucky
52 At-Large Tennessee
53 At-Large LSU
54 At-Large Vanderbilt
55 At-Large Oklahoma
56 At-Large Kansas
57 At-Large Colorado
58 At-Large Iowa St.
59 At-Large Arizona
60 At-Large UCLA
61 At-Large UAB
62 At-Large GW
63 At-Large Wichita St.
64 At-Large Creighton
65 At-Large Missouri St.
This is the easiest time of the year to project the tournament because we can pencil in teams like Nevada, Gonzaga, and Air Force as the recipients of the automatic bids from their conferences. Once March hits and some of these teams lose in their conference tournaments, then it becomes difficult to decide which teams get bumped from the field.
The last five teams in the tourney right now:
1. Louisville
Rick Pitino is in danger of missing the tournament. If Louisville doesn’t go 3-1 in its next four games, then it will be out of the field. Louisville is 1-4 in the Big East with a deplorable RPI rating of 82. The Cardinals have only beaten two teams in the top 100 (Miami Fl and Akron). This very well could be the last week that I have this team in the field.
2. Wake Forest
Wake is also 1-4 in conference play but unlike Louisville, Wake could easily go 4-0 in its next four games. Wake also has the good fortune of playing in the best conference in America where anything less than six bids would be a travesty. Wake is probably the 6th team out of the ACC. Its RPI of 62 will likely rise with the rigors of ACC play. Wake has two good non-conference wins in beating Wisconsin and George Mason. Wake’s fortunes look bleak now but I think they will turn around quickly.
3. Iowa St.
ISU did everything it needed to do in the non-conference. It beat N. Iowa, Iowa, Colorado St., and Northwestern St. However, two bad losses to Texas Tech and Texas A&M have basically derailed ISU’s tourney hopes. If the Cyclones don’t go at least 2-2 in their next four, they will be on the outside looking in.
4. Colorado
There are some teams that I don’t have in the field right now that I think are better than Colorado. However, the Buffaloes understand how to get to the tourney. They are 3-2 in the Big XII and could easily win their next two games. They don’t have a great computer rating but in looking at their remaining conference games, Colorado could easily go 10-6.
5. Missouri St.
To date, the MVC has done enough to get four teams in. I think that’ll change by the end of the season. There will probably only be three bids for the conference. However, as of now, four teams have done enough to get into the tourney. Missouri St. barely edges out S. Illinois for the conference’s fourth and final bid. Missouri St. should win its next four games before embarking on a season-deciding stretch of games to end the season.
The teams waiting in the wings:
The problem with making a case against a team like Louisville, Wake Forest, or Kansas is making the case for another team. I don’t have Louisville in the tournament because of how impressive its been this season. I have them in because no other teams have accomplished enough to merit a selection. That may change in the next week or two but there are only about 36 worthy teams for the 34 at-large bids. Here are the 16 teams (in no particular order) that have at least a small chance of working their way into the field should Louisville continue its slide and other teams falter:
1. Old Dominion
Old Dominion has a respectable resume and up until this past week was almost a lock to get the automatic bid for the Colonial Conference. That was until George Mason made it clear that they were the team to beat. If OD doesn’t win the conference, they might have a good enough resume to get an at-large bid.
2. Arkansas
The SEC is weak this year which makes more than five bids highly unlikely. Arkansas will probably be the odd team out unless they can finish 10-6 or better in the conference. Arkansas has had an impressive non-conference resume in beating Kansas, Missouri, Missouri St., and Texas Tech. Its RPI rating is on the borderline at 43. The Hogs stand at 2-3 in the SEC right now which means they would likely be left out.
3. S. Illinois
Believe it or not, the Missouri Valley Conference is the fifth strongest conference in America according to the RPI. That means they are ahead of the Pac-10 and the Big XII. S. Illinois started out 6-0 in conference play. At that point, I had them winning the MVC’s automatic bid. However, they lost two of three and now stand as the odd team out. I see four MVC teams getting into the tourney. S. Illinois has the least impressive non-conference slate so they are left out. However, a few wins could put this team right back in the field. I have Missouri St. in ahead of S. Illinois because of two things. 1). Missouri St. beat S. Illinois, and 2). Missouri St. has zero bad losses while S. Illinois lost to Monmouth and Alaska-Anchorage.
4. Oklahoma St.
I had OSU in the field before it lost to Colorado on Saturday. In fact, after that game, I switched OSU and Colorado. Those teams along with Iowa St. are so close in terms of resume and ability. I don’t believe the Big XII will get more than five teams into the tourney which means one of those three teams is out if not two. OSU has the worst RPI rating of the three. They have also fizzled in the conference. Iowa St.’s wins over N. Iowa and Iowa are keeping them afloat. If Iowa St. loses to Missouri this week, they will be on the outside looking in.
5. Florida St.
We’re starting to get into the group of teams that really have no chance of getting in. FSU has a high Pomeroy rating at 29 but its RPI rating is 99. This team will be an afterthought in just two weeks as the ACC schedule sends this team packing.
6 Kansas St.
7 NC Wilmington
8 California
9 Rutgers
10 Washington St.
11 Missouri
12 Miami (Fl)
13 USC
14 Notre Dame
15 Alabama
16 Georgia
17 Virginia
Most of these teams will fade away as a result of their conference schedules. The teams that really have a chance of rocketing into contention are Missouri, Miami, NC Wilmington and Georgia/Alabama. I don’t think any of those teams will make the tourney but the conference slate is a whole new season. Teams can erase early season misery by simply going 10-6 in conference. If any of these teams can do that, they may sneak in. NC Wilmington is a different story. Wilmington is a mid-major that will have good computer ratings and an impressive overall record. However, with no good non-conference wins, they will likely have to win the Colonial tournament.
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (6)
Duke
NC State
Boston College
N. Carolina
Maryland
Wake Forest
SEC (5)
Florida
Kentucky
LSU
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Big East (9)
UCONN
Syracuse
Villanova
Pittsburgh
W. Virginia
Cincinnati
Marquette
Georgetown
Louisville
Big 12 (5)
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Colorado
Iowa St.
Big Ten (7)
Illinois
MSU
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pac-10 (3)
Washington
Arizona
UCLA
C-USA (2)
Memphis
UAB
A-10 (2)
Xavier
GW
MVC (4)
N. Iowa
Creighton
Wichita St.
Missouri St.
Here are a couple predictions for the end of the season:
-The Big East will get eight teams into the tournament with Louisville or Georgetown not getting in.
-The MVC will get three bids (one automatic and two at-large bids) with Missouri St. being the odd team out.
-The Big XII will only get four bids with Iowa St. and Oklahoma St. both missing the tournament.
-Don’t be surprised if California or Stanford goes 10-6 in the Pac-10 and steals a bid despite a miserable resume.
-If Michigan goes 8-8 in the Big Ten, it’ll make the tourney. If Michigan goes 7-9, it’ll be NIT bound. It seems like a 50/50 proposition either way.
Each week I'll update my projection with an explanation of why I've dropped or added teams to the field.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Random Thoughts in my head NBA Edition
-The anti-LeBron James bandwagon is growing by the day. After seeing ESPN cut down LeBron for what seems like the thousandth time, I decided to compare LeBron's statistics to ESPN's wonderboy Carmelo Anthony. Keep in mind that ESPN likes to mention that LeBron is NOT a clutch player while Carmelo is a clutch player. They use Carmelo’s 4-2 head to head advantage as proof. Before, I could even get into a statistical comparison, this is what I found under LeBron’s profile:
“Status Alert: James had a strong all-around game (24 points, 11 rebounds, nine assists) Wednesday night in his head-to-head matchup with Carmelo Anthony and the Nuggets, but as usual in these matchups couldn't find his shot (7-for-20 FG, 8-for-15 FT). (Jan 18)”
In the same game, Carmelo Anthony scored a grand total of 17 points with ONE rebound and three assists. Yet, there is no “Status Alert” under Anthony’s profile saying that he struggled in the game.
Here is a comparison of the two player’s statistics this season:
----------LeBron James------Carmelon Anthony
PPG----------30.9--------------------25.5
RPG----------6.7----------------------5.4
APG----------6.1----------------------2.7
FG %--------.499--------------------.464
3P%---------.353--------------------.243
TO’s---------3.17--------------------3.18
BLK----------.89-------------------- .54
STL----------1.58--------------------1.28
Here is LeBron’s ESPN profile. Note the “alert” that undercuts an extremely productive game. Here is Carmelo’s ESPN profile that mentions nothing of his 6 for 17 shooting night that only produced 17 points and ONE rebound.
-ESPNews just came on and the lead story was “another ugly incident of an NBA player going into the stands.” ESPN is in a class of its own as far as sensationalism goes. For those of you that didn’t catch what happened, there was nothing ugly about it. Antonio Davis thought he saw a man threatening his wife in the stands so he jogged over to her seat to make sure everything was fine. No punches were thrown nor did anyone get hurt. Davis may have warranted an ejection and possibly a suspension by the league since he did break an NBA rule but there was nothing “ugly” about what happened. The game featured a game-winning three pointer by Chicago's Ben Gordon in overtime. The ESPN broadcaster said something like "Gordon's heroics were overshadowed by the incident involving Davis going into the stands." Since 99% of all basketball fans did not watch this game, the only reason why Gordon's three-pointer was "overshadowed" was because ESPN chose to overshadow it by focusing its attention on the better "story". If I were watching this game, there's no question tha I come away remembering Gordon's three-pointer. This was a perfect opportunity for ESPN to give Ben Gordon his due since he's been on fire recently. Instead, they tried pawning off a non-incident on the viewing audience as the "real" story.
-Speaking of Ben Gordon, how can a guy who averages 28 points per 48 minutes and shoots 41% career from the three point line be so under-utilized? I just read a scout's comments the other day that said Gordon is a liability on the floor and won't amount to anything. If I were an NBA GM, I would be more than happy to take Gordon off the hands of the Bulls. It seems like they don't no what they've got especially since it took 1.5 years to realize this guy should be starting.
-I would not take Steve Francis on my team for free; or Stephon Marbury for that matter.
-Regardless of its regular season record, the Miami Heat will be just as difficult come playoff time this year as it was last year. The same can’t be said for the Pacers without Ron Artest.
-The NBA salary cap is around $60 million. The New York Knicks team payroll is $124 million. The Detroit Pistons team payroll is $58 million. The second highest payroll in the NBA belongs to Dallas at $96 million. Here is comparison of notable teams:
1). New York Knicks-----$124 million
2). Dallas Mavericks-----$97 million
3). Philadelphia 76ers----$84 million
4). Indiana Pacers---------$79 million
5). Orlando Magic--------$75 million
10). San Antonio Spurs--$63 million
13). Miami Heat----------$61 million
17). Detroit Pistons------$59 million
24). Phoenix Suns--------$54 million
-If the Golden State Warriors are refusing to give up Michael Petrius or Ike Diogu for Ron Artest, then they’re crazy. Artest would immediately make that team one of the top four teams in the Western Conference.
-Because I didn’t get it all off my chest earlier, I must say that the Carmelo Anthony hype is ridiculous. He’s the most overrated player in the NBA right now. Anthony may develop into a superstar but he has nothing on Lebron James or Dwyane Wade both of which have better all-around games after two NBA seasons.
-The San Antonio Spurs will be in the NBA finals again this season. They are clearly the best team in the West and will not be challenged for the second year in a row.
-If the Detroit Pistons hang on to home-court advantage, there’s a 75% chance they’ll win the NBA Championship. If they don’t hang on to home-court, there’s a 25% chance.
-The list of the top 30 salaries in the NBA includes the following players:
2). Allan Houston----------$19,125,000
4). Michael Finley---------$18,612,500
10). Brian Grant------------$16,128,438
13). Anfernee Hardaway--$15,750,000
14). Keith Van Horn-------$15,694,250
19). Tim Thomas-----------$13,975,000
20). Antonio Davis---------$13,900,000
Allan Houston makes 58% of the entire Charlotte Bobcats payroll. Only Shaq makes more than Houston. Each of the players listed above make more than; Dirk Nowitzki, Vince Carter, Paul Pierce, Baron Davis, Shawn Marion, Steve Nash, Elton Brand, Ray Allen, Michael Redd, and every player on the Detroit Pistons. In fact, Houston makes more money than any two Pistons combined.
-Despite having an otherwise stellar season, Dwyane Wade is 3 for 38 from beyond the three point line this season.
-The over/under for J.J. Redick’s NBA career should be set at Shawn Respert. I really have no idea if I’d take the over or under on that one.
-The ending of the Shaq/Kobe feud made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. No wait, that was the oatmeal I just ate. My mistake. The Shaq/Kobe reconciliation actually made me throw-up in my mouth.
-Andre Kirilenko is the most underrated player in the NBA
-Despite playing the toughest schedule in the NBA, and having the second lowest payroll in the NBA, the NO/Oklahoma City Hornets are 19-19 and within one game of the 8th playoff spot. That should give you an idea of how good Chris Paul is.
“Status Alert: James had a strong all-around game (24 points, 11 rebounds, nine assists) Wednesday night in his head-to-head matchup with Carmelo Anthony and the Nuggets, but as usual in these matchups couldn't find his shot (7-for-20 FG, 8-for-15 FT). (Jan 18)”
In the same game, Carmelo Anthony scored a grand total of 17 points with ONE rebound and three assists. Yet, there is no “Status Alert” under Anthony’s profile saying that he struggled in the game.
Here is a comparison of the two player’s statistics this season:
----------LeBron James------Carmelon Anthony
PPG----------30.9--------------------25.5
RPG----------6.7----------------------5.4
APG----------6.1----------------------2.7
FG %--------.499--------------------.464
3P%---------.353--------------------.243
TO’s---------3.17--------------------3.18
BLK----------.89-------------------- .54
STL----------1.58--------------------1.28
Here is LeBron’s ESPN profile. Note the “alert” that undercuts an extremely productive game. Here is Carmelo’s ESPN profile that mentions nothing of his 6 for 17 shooting night that only produced 17 points and ONE rebound.
-ESPNews just came on and the lead story was “another ugly incident of an NBA player going into the stands.” ESPN is in a class of its own as far as sensationalism goes. For those of you that didn’t catch what happened, there was nothing ugly about it. Antonio Davis thought he saw a man threatening his wife in the stands so he jogged over to her seat to make sure everything was fine. No punches were thrown nor did anyone get hurt. Davis may have warranted an ejection and possibly a suspension by the league since he did break an NBA rule but there was nothing “ugly” about what happened. The game featured a game-winning three pointer by Chicago's Ben Gordon in overtime. The ESPN broadcaster said something like "Gordon's heroics were overshadowed by the incident involving Davis going into the stands." Since 99% of all basketball fans did not watch this game, the only reason why Gordon's three-pointer was "overshadowed" was because ESPN chose to overshadow it by focusing its attention on the better "story". If I were watching this game, there's no question tha I come away remembering Gordon's three-pointer. This was a perfect opportunity for ESPN to give Ben Gordon his due since he's been on fire recently. Instead, they tried pawning off a non-incident on the viewing audience as the "real" story.
-Speaking of Ben Gordon, how can a guy who averages 28 points per 48 minutes and shoots 41% career from the three point line be so under-utilized? I just read a scout's comments the other day that said Gordon is a liability on the floor and won't amount to anything. If I were an NBA GM, I would be more than happy to take Gordon off the hands of the Bulls. It seems like they don't no what they've got especially since it took 1.5 years to realize this guy should be starting.
-I would not take Steve Francis on my team for free; or Stephon Marbury for that matter.
-Regardless of its regular season record, the Miami Heat will be just as difficult come playoff time this year as it was last year. The same can’t be said for the Pacers without Ron Artest.
-The NBA salary cap is around $60 million. The New York Knicks team payroll is $124 million. The Detroit Pistons team payroll is $58 million. The second highest payroll in the NBA belongs to Dallas at $96 million. Here is comparison of notable teams:
1). New York Knicks-----$124 million
2). Dallas Mavericks-----$97 million
3). Philadelphia 76ers----$84 million
4). Indiana Pacers---------$79 million
5). Orlando Magic--------$75 million
10). San Antonio Spurs--$63 million
13). Miami Heat----------$61 million
17). Detroit Pistons------$59 million
24). Phoenix Suns--------$54 million
-If the Golden State Warriors are refusing to give up Michael Petrius or Ike Diogu for Ron Artest, then they’re crazy. Artest would immediately make that team one of the top four teams in the Western Conference.
-Because I didn’t get it all off my chest earlier, I must say that the Carmelo Anthony hype is ridiculous. He’s the most overrated player in the NBA right now. Anthony may develop into a superstar but he has nothing on Lebron James or Dwyane Wade both of which have better all-around games after two NBA seasons.
-The San Antonio Spurs will be in the NBA finals again this season. They are clearly the best team in the West and will not be challenged for the second year in a row.
-If the Detroit Pistons hang on to home-court advantage, there’s a 75% chance they’ll win the NBA Championship. If they don’t hang on to home-court, there’s a 25% chance.
-The list of the top 30 salaries in the NBA includes the following players:
2). Allan Houston----------$19,125,000
4). Michael Finley---------$18,612,500
10). Brian Grant------------$16,128,438
13). Anfernee Hardaway--$15,750,000
14). Keith Van Horn-------$15,694,250
19). Tim Thomas-----------$13,975,000
20). Antonio Davis---------$13,900,000
Allan Houston makes 58% of the entire Charlotte Bobcats payroll. Only Shaq makes more than Houston. Each of the players listed above make more than; Dirk Nowitzki, Vince Carter, Paul Pierce, Baron Davis, Shawn Marion, Steve Nash, Elton Brand, Ray Allen, Michael Redd, and every player on the Detroit Pistons. In fact, Houston makes more money than any two Pistons combined.
-Despite having an otherwise stellar season, Dwyane Wade is 3 for 38 from beyond the three point line this season.
-The over/under for J.J. Redick’s NBA career should be set at Shawn Respert. I really have no idea if I’d take the over or under on that one.
-The ending of the Shaq/Kobe feud made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. No wait, that was the oatmeal I just ate. My mistake. The Shaq/Kobe reconciliation actually made me throw-up in my mouth.
-Andre Kirilenko is the most underrated player in the NBA
-Despite playing the toughest schedule in the NBA, and having the second lowest payroll in the NBA, the NO/Oklahoma City Hornets are 19-19 and within one game of the 8th playoff spot. That should give you an idea of how good Chris Paul is.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
No Manning=Fun
I have returned from the land of Queens and Pasties. Oddly, I find myself not having too much to say so I’ll do something I forgot to do last week as well as write a little bit about the NFL playoffs. First, I neglected to pass along the final tally of the Coin Flip Challenge. The final standings looked like this:
Jake--------118-113-9
Coin Flip---100-131-9
I clearly dominated the Coin Flip in the challenge but was my success enough to make money? Not quite. Assuming that all bets were $110 to win $100 (the $10 goes as commission to the bookmaker), I would’ve lost $630 on the season had I wagered on every game. The break even point would have been 121-110-9. I missed that by three games.
The Coin Flip, on the other hand, would have lost $4,410.
The NFL playoffs took an interesting twist this week as co-favorites Indianapolis and New England were eliminated. Since that means that Peyton Manning won’t be winning the Super Bowl this year, I will be content with whoever wins. I watched a little bit of the Pittsburgh/Indy game at my hotel in London. In fact, I watched it with a man from Akron. Coincidentally, the Griswald’s also met someone (a couple) from Akron on their European Vacation. I can’t believe that Nick Harper pulled a Tyler Ecker and cut back when he could’ve beaten Big Ben to the corner and gone the distance to send Indy to the AFC Championship game. Bettis would’ve been remembered as a goat of Ernest Byner proportions if that happened. Also, we got to see Peyton Manning’s face after Mike Vanderjagt missed a 45 yard field goal. Remember when Vanderjagt said that Manning needed to be more emotional as the leader of the Colts? Apparently, saying that someone should be more emotional is an insult in the Manning family as well as not winning a Heisman, playing in San Diego, and quite possibly winning a playoff game. Anyhow, If you remember that, then you probably remember Manning calling Vanderjat an “idiot” who got “liquored up and ran his mouth off.” Well, it’s been three years since that statement and Manning still can’t do didly squat in the playoffs. Vanderjagt was right back then and his miss kept him right now.
All four teams remaining are solid football teams. Denver has to be the odds on favorite to win since they get Pittsburgh in Denver and Seattle and Carolina could both have running games far less effective than what they had in the regular season. My feeling is that the winner of the Denver/Pittsburgh game will win the Super Bowl. It is very possible that the winner of the 2006 Super Bowl will be the worst Super Bowl Champion in a number of years. Pittsburgh was 7-5 at one point during the season not to mention that they are one of the least talented Steelers teams in the last few years. Denver has Jake Plummer at quarterback and the entire defensive line of 2004 Cleveland Browns. Need I say more? With DeShaun Foster and Stephen Davis out, Carolina has one offensive threat. Also, the injuries make this Panther team virtually the exact same team that didn’t make the playoffs last year. That brings me to Seattle. I’d like to play a game with you the reader. In your head, name as many Seattle Seahawks as you can. Did you start slowing down after four? This game is null and void for readers who are from Detroit but root for the Seahawks over the Lions. Anyhow, none of the four teams are overwhelming. The winner will easily be the worst Super Bowl Champion of my lifetime. That’s not such a bad thing though. Carolina or Seattle could win its first Super Bowl or Denver and Pittsburgh could add to their rich legacies. Either way, no Manning means excitement for everyone.
Jake--------118-113-9
Coin Flip---100-131-9
I clearly dominated the Coin Flip in the challenge but was my success enough to make money? Not quite. Assuming that all bets were $110 to win $100 (the $10 goes as commission to the bookmaker), I would’ve lost $630 on the season had I wagered on every game. The break even point would have been 121-110-9. I missed that by three games.
The Coin Flip, on the other hand, would have lost $4,410.
The NFL playoffs took an interesting twist this week as co-favorites Indianapolis and New England were eliminated. Since that means that Peyton Manning won’t be winning the Super Bowl this year, I will be content with whoever wins. I watched a little bit of the Pittsburgh/Indy game at my hotel in London. In fact, I watched it with a man from Akron. Coincidentally, the Griswald’s also met someone (a couple) from Akron on their European Vacation. I can’t believe that Nick Harper pulled a Tyler Ecker and cut back when he could’ve beaten Big Ben to the corner and gone the distance to send Indy to the AFC Championship game. Bettis would’ve been remembered as a goat of Ernest Byner proportions if that happened. Also, we got to see Peyton Manning’s face after Mike Vanderjagt missed a 45 yard field goal. Remember when Vanderjagt said that Manning needed to be more emotional as the leader of the Colts? Apparently, saying that someone should be more emotional is an insult in the Manning family as well as not winning a Heisman, playing in San Diego, and quite possibly winning a playoff game. Anyhow, If you remember that, then you probably remember Manning calling Vanderjat an “idiot” who got “liquored up and ran his mouth off.” Well, it’s been three years since that statement and Manning still can’t do didly squat in the playoffs. Vanderjagt was right back then and his miss kept him right now.
All four teams remaining are solid football teams. Denver has to be the odds on favorite to win since they get Pittsburgh in Denver and Seattle and Carolina could both have running games far less effective than what they had in the regular season. My feeling is that the winner of the Denver/Pittsburgh game will win the Super Bowl. It is very possible that the winner of the 2006 Super Bowl will be the worst Super Bowl Champion in a number of years. Pittsburgh was 7-5 at one point during the season not to mention that they are one of the least talented Steelers teams in the last few years. Denver has Jake Plummer at quarterback and the entire defensive line of 2004 Cleveland Browns. Need I say more? With DeShaun Foster and Stephen Davis out, Carolina has one offensive threat. Also, the injuries make this Panther team virtually the exact same team that didn’t make the playoffs last year. That brings me to Seattle. I’d like to play a game with you the reader. In your head, name as many Seattle Seahawks as you can. Did you start slowing down after four? This game is null and void for readers who are from Detroit but root for the Seahawks over the Lions. Anyhow, none of the four teams are overwhelming. The winner will easily be the worst Super Bowl Champion of my lifetime. That’s not such a bad thing though. Carolina or Seattle could win its first Super Bowl or Denver and Pittsburgh could add to their rich legacies. Either way, no Manning means excitement for everyone.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
The Recruiting Lowdown
I started writing this post mid-way through the college football season and then I realized that it would probably be a better read if it included the entire season so I put it on the shelf for a while. It’s nothing revolutionary but it’s something worth looking at. Hopefully it’s an enjoyable read for you. My next post will likely be Monday or Tuesday. I am headed to London for the weekend where I will not be able to watch what will surely be an exciting weekend of football. My guess is that we’ll see the Colts vs. Pats and Seahawks vs. Panthers in the Conference Championships although, nothing would surprise me. I’ll keep you all in mind while I’m eating “fish and chips” and trying to “get left”.
The college football recruiting rankings are not 100% accurate by any means. With hundreds of thousands of high school football players, it would be nearly impossible to precisely measure which players are better than other players. However, most recruiting services are in agreement when it comes to which players are in the top 500 to 1,000 in any given year. Likewise, most recruiting services are in agreement in terms of “star” rankings, or how many stars a certain player is worth on a five star system. Sure, one service might give a player four stars while another service gives that same player five stars. However, when it comes to how many stars a certain player is worth, most services are in agreement. It gets very difficult when trying to rank these players in order in a top 100 or top 150-list. But, it’s not nearly as difficult to group these players into similar skill levels like in the star-system. Recruiting services rate players based on factors such as; statistics, physical attributes, performance against other top recruits, camp performances, scholarship offers, and film study. While no service will be able to perfectly rate players, I think these services give a pretty fair indication of which players are the best and which players are closer to average.
One of the most disappointing aspects of the Michigan football program is the consistent underachievement on the field compared to the caliber of recruiting class. Most Michigan fans have uttered the phrase, “Michigan should be competing for National Championships every year with the top five recruiting classes that they get every year.” Just like there’s a group out there that still finds underachievement to be soothing, there’s also a group out there that thinks that Michigan doesn’t get a top five recruiting class every year. So, I looked it up. The most notable recruiting service and the easiest to look up happens to be the Rivals recruiting service. Rivals has sortable records that date back to the 2002 recruiting classes. I would’ve liked to have had the 2001 recruiting numbers but Rivals doesn’t list them. Even still, all current players are covered with the exception of 5th-year seniors and Ohio St.’s kicker. The amount of 5th year seniors per team varies but they do not make up a great percentage of the players on a particular team. These rankings also include players that are not on the team for one reason or another. Since the number of players that have left any given football program probably isn’t a significant amount, I don’t think it makes a big difference over a four year period. Here are the top 20 college football programs in terms of recruiting over the last four years. I ranked these teams in terms of average rating per player. Over four years, a college team pretty much fills their entire roster so it makes sense to rank these teams based on average ranking per player rather than total points.
1). Texas------3.679012346
2). Oklahoma--3.677419355
3). Florida St.--3.652173913
4). Miami------3.612903226
5). Michigan--- 3.590361446
6). USC-------- 3.582417582
7). Tennessee-- 3.556701031
8). LSU-------- 3.548387097
9). Ohio St.-----3.469879518
10). Georgia----3.462365591
11). Florida-----3.455555556
12). Notre Dame3.185714286
13). Penn St.----3.155844156
14). Texas A&M-3.128712871
15). Virginia-----3.10989011
16). UCLA-------3.076086957
17). Maryland--- 3.02247191
18). Alabama----3.020408163
19). Auburn------2.990825688
20). B.C.---------2.987012987
Michigan is ranked #5 on the list of recruiting rankings over the last four years. Only, four teams are better. It is clear that Michigan is superior than 95% of all D-1 college football teams in terms of recruiting and caliber of athlete that makes up its current roster. Not surprisingly, Texas is number one on the list. But, just to emphasize how close Michigan is from being on the top of this list, here is the breakdown of recruits and total recruit points for Texas and Michigan over this time:
Texas # of recruits=81 total points= 298
Michigan # of recruits=83 total points=298
Clearly, these teams are essentially even in terms of recruiting strength. Two recruits separate these teams on a roster of 80+ players. Michigan doesn’t have a top five recruiting class every single season. If you’re judging which teams have top five recruiting classes by looking to see who finishes in the top five every season, then nobody has a top five recruiting class every year. However, if you’re comparing teams over time, which is vastly more important than single year rankings, then Michigan has a top five recruiting class year in and year out. Since Michigan doesn’t play Texas, Oklahoma, Miami and Florida St. on a regular basis, Michigan has the talent advantage over virtually every team it plays. Ohio St. has a very good average at 3.47 so I would never fault Michigan for losing to the Buckeyes based on recruiting. On average, Michigan brings in a more prolific recruiting class than Ohio St., but the differential is pretty small.
I don’t know what to deem a “significant” difference in recruiting rating but it’s important to remember that a team with a 3.50 rating has a .50 advantage over a team with a 3.00 rating at every position on the field. For instance, Michigan has a rating of 3.59 and Minnesota has a rating of 2.44. This means that on average, Michigan has an advantage of 1.15 at every single position and every single roster spot. That’s above and beyond a significant advantage. I would say that a differential of .33 or more would be a fairly significant difference in recruiting ranking. There’s really no right answer but just remember that whatever the difference is will be the difference at every position. A difference of .33 might not seem that much but that means that every player on Team A has a .33 advantage over every player on Team B. That seems significant to me.
If all teams were coached by the exact same coaching staff, one could reasonably expect the team with the advantage in recruiting to beat the teams that don’t have the advantage in recruiting. Recruiting rankings are not so precise as to guarantee that a team with a rating of 3.59 will always beat a team with a rating of 3.50 even with the exact same coaching staff. Rivals could have an error of at least +/- .05 per player in terms of that players actual ability. If that’s the case, then a team with a 3.59 rating could be even with a team with a 3.50 rating and still be within a reasonable error. So, recruiting ratings aren’t the end all in terms of how good a college football team will be. Having said that, any time there is a significant difference in recruiting rankings, and the coaching staffs are the exact same, then the team with the significant advantage in recruiting should be the winner. Even with the same coaching staffs, I suppose it is possible for a lesser team to beat a better team due to injury, home-field advantage, breaking in of a new quarterback or a significant mismatch at one or two positions. However, barring injury, and the coaching staffs are the exact same, the team with a significant advantage in recruiting average over four years should win. As we all know, coaching staffs are not the exact same. Some are better than others. In order for a team with a significantly weaker recruiting class to beat a team with a significantly higher recruiting class, they will likely have to have the advantage in coaching.
Here is a list of top 20 teams on this list and the level of recruiting classes that they’ve lost to this season (2005-6):
1). Texas (3.68)
Losses= (0)
2). Oklahoma (3.68)
Losses= (4) Texas (3.68), UCLA (3.08), Texas Tech (2.60), TCU (2.39)
3). Florida St. (3.65)
Losses= (5) Florida (3.46), Penn St. (3.16), Virginia (3.11), NC State (2.92), Clemson (2.81)
4). Miami (3.61)
Losses= (3) Florida St. (3.65), LSU (3.55), Ga. Tech (2.51)
5). Michigan (3.59)
Losses= (5) Ohio St. (3.47), Notre Dame (3.19), Nebraska (2.98), Minnesota (2.44), Wisconsin (2.63)
6). USC (3.58)
Losses= (1) Texas (3.68)
7). Tennessee (3.56)
Losses= (6) Georgia (3.46), Florida (3.46), Notre Dame (3.19), Alabama (3.02), S. Carolina (2.96), Vanderbilt (2.21)
8). LSU (3.55)
Losses= (2) Tennessee (3.56), Georgia (3.46)
9). Ohio St. (3.47)
Losses= (2) Texas (3.68), Penn St. (3.16)
10). Georgia (3.46)
Losses= (3) Florida (3.46), Auburn (2.99), W. Virginia (2.41)
11). Florida (3.46)
Losses= (3) LSU (3.54), Alabama (3.02), S. Carolina (2.96)
12). Notre Dame (3.19)
Losses= (3) USC (3.58), Ohio St. (3.47), Michigan St. (2.78)
13). Penn St. (3.16)
Losses= (1) Michigan (3.59)
14). Texas A & M (3.13)
Losses= (6) Texas (3.68), Oklahoma (3.68), Colorado (2.90), Clemson (2.81), Texas Tech (2.60), Iowa St. (2.52)
15). Virginia (3.11)
Losses= (5) Miami (3.61), Maryland (3.02), Boston College (2.99), Va. Tech (2.90), N. Carolina (2.70)
16). UCLA (3.08)
Losses= (2) USC (3.58), Arizona (2.76)
17). Maryland (3.02)
Losses= (5) Florida St. (3.65), NC State (2.92), Va. Tech (2.90), Clemson (2.81), W. Virginia (2.41)
18). Alabama (3.02)
Losses= (2) LSU (3.55), Auburn (2.99)
19). Auburn (2.99)
Losses= (3) LSU (3.55), Wisconsin (2.63), Georgia Tech (2.51)
20). Boston College (2.99)
Losses= (3) Florida St. (3.65), Va. Tech (2.90), N. Carolina (2.70)
There are upsets in college football. To expect every team with better recruits and athletes to win every game against teams with inferior talent is unreasonable. However, it is obvious that teams with very good recruiting classes don’t lose very often to teams with significantly lesser recruiting classes.
Here is a list of the top 20 teams in recruiting over the last four years and the average rank of recruiting class of the teams they’ve lost to this season:
Texas=no losses
Oklahoma=2.94
Florida St.=3.09
Miami= 3.24
Michigan=2.94
USC=3.68
Tennessee=3.05
LSU=3.51
Ohio St. =3.42
Georgia= 2.95
Florida=3.17
Notre Dame=3.28
Penn St.=3.59
Texas A&M=3.03
Virginia=3.04
UCLA=3.17
Maryland=2.94
Alabama=3.27
Auburn=2.90
BC=3.08
Of all the teams with a recruiting rating above 3.00, Michigan is the worst on the list. Michigan’s five losses came to teams with an average recruiting ranking of 2.94. Michigan is the only team in the top 13 that lost three games to teams with a recruiting rating of less than 3.00. Michigan’s recruiting ranking is 3.59. That means that Michigan had an average advantage of .65 at every position over the teams it lost to this season. When asked if Michigan’s season was disappointing, Michigan defender Pierre Woods said that Tennessee’s season was a disappointment, not Michigan’s. Tennessee’s average loss came to teams with a recruiting ranking of 3.05. That doesn’t justify Tennessee’s six loss season but in terms of how bad their losses look, Michigan’s were clearly worse. Oklahoma was also a big disappointment this season having had an advantage of .74 in its losses. However, Oklahoma doesn’t perennially lose to teams with inferior talent. Michigan has been the major culprit over the last few years and they continued that trend this season. That doesn’t excuse Oklahoma from underachievement this season but it’s important to remember that even the best programs have a down season. One of the factors that I mentioned above that could allow a team to lose to a noticeably inferior team talent-wise is the breaking in of a new quarterback. Oklahoma was clearly hindered by the graduation of six-year quarterback Jason White. Nonetheless, Oklahoma clearly underachieved in 2005-6 compared to the talent on the roster.
There have been four “surprise” teams in college football this year with the unexpected emergence of Notre Dame, UCLA, Alabama and Penn St. These schools have been relegated to mid-tier programs recently but the recruiting rankings over the last four years put these four schools in the top 16. The success of these four schools may have been a surprise based on recent play on the field but it certainly wasn’t a surprise if you look at each team’s recruiting over the last four years.
In looking at the losses that the top 20 recruiting programs sustained this year on the field, certain lesser teams keep popping up. TCU, Texas Tech, Minnesota, Wisconsin, W. Virginia, and Ga. Tech all had ratings of 2.63 or less yet they all beat a top 20 recruiting program and made it to a bowl game. The coaches of these teams clearly made “something” out of nothing as they generally were the less athletic team on the field. Gary Patterson, Mike Leach, Glen Mason, Barry Alvarez, Rich Rodriguez, and Chan Gailey were among the more accomplished coaches this year. Leach, Mason, and Alvarez have successful teams virtually every year despite having a significant disadvantage in recruiting. Even more impressive may be the success that Northwestern, Louisville, and Fresno St. had this season. None of those three schools had a four year recruiting rating of more than 2.34. Randy Walker, Bobby Petrino, and Pat Hill clearly achieved more than their rosters would suggest. These coaches are clearly more efficient than the Michigan coaching staff. I often wonder how Michigan’s coaching staff would fare at a school with less talent. If they can’t beat lesser teams at Michigan on a regular basis, then how would they beat better teams with a considerably less athletic roster? It’s important to remember that wins and losses aren’t the only measure of success in college football. A coach at Texas Tech will never be able to recruit the same players as Texas. As a result, seven wins at Texas Tech is considerably more impressive than seven wins at Texas. The same can be said for Minnesota. Seven wins at Minnesota is considerably more impressive than seven wins at Michigan.
It would be interesting to take a look at these numbers after every season just to see which teams make the most of their talent and which teams underachieve. The biggest potential drawback of this analysis is the accuracy (or perceived accuracy) of the recruiting services. Whereas college football actually has wins and losses that success can be based on, the recruiting services use subjectivity to rate each recruit. There is no right answer for a recruit’s ranking. It’s possible for certain recruiting services to overrate players from their own region or overrate simply because that player received interest from a major school. As a result, evidence of a team underachieving or overachieving based on the ratings of their recruits over the previous five seasons would likely not hold water. It would be too easy for a coach to say, “just because a recruiting service (Rivals etc.) says that a player is worth five stars doesn’t mean that the player really is that good.” Rating a recruit is not an exact science. However, over five years, I would guess that the recruiting rankings would be accurate enough that the teams with the best rating over five years should, in reality, be the best teams in college football. There might be a difference of a star here and there but over five years, I think the recruiting services end up with a pretty accurate depiction of the talent on a college football roster. However, I doubt any school would ever put any weight on its success on the field compared to its success in recruiting. That would force coaches at major college football programs to look at who they’re beating and who they’re losing to rather than just looking at the overall win total. A coach looks much better if he can simply say, “I won nine games” instead of having to justify not winning eleven games when the talent differential dictated eleven wins.
Five-year recruiting rankings can be helpful in a number of ways. They can indict programs that do less with more. They can highlight programs that win with less. They can give an indication of which teams will break through like Alabama, UCLA, Notre Dame, and Penn St. this season. Since recruiting rankings are not given a whole lot of credence, the extent of this type of analysis will likely end at the fan level.
The college football recruiting rankings are not 100% accurate by any means. With hundreds of thousands of high school football players, it would be nearly impossible to precisely measure which players are better than other players. However, most recruiting services are in agreement when it comes to which players are in the top 500 to 1,000 in any given year. Likewise, most recruiting services are in agreement in terms of “star” rankings, or how many stars a certain player is worth on a five star system. Sure, one service might give a player four stars while another service gives that same player five stars. However, when it comes to how many stars a certain player is worth, most services are in agreement. It gets very difficult when trying to rank these players in order in a top 100 or top 150-list. But, it’s not nearly as difficult to group these players into similar skill levels like in the star-system. Recruiting services rate players based on factors such as; statistics, physical attributes, performance against other top recruits, camp performances, scholarship offers, and film study. While no service will be able to perfectly rate players, I think these services give a pretty fair indication of which players are the best and which players are closer to average.
One of the most disappointing aspects of the Michigan football program is the consistent underachievement on the field compared to the caliber of recruiting class. Most Michigan fans have uttered the phrase, “Michigan should be competing for National Championships every year with the top five recruiting classes that they get every year.” Just like there’s a group out there that still finds underachievement to be soothing, there’s also a group out there that thinks that Michigan doesn’t get a top five recruiting class every year. So, I looked it up. The most notable recruiting service and the easiest to look up happens to be the Rivals recruiting service. Rivals has sortable records that date back to the 2002 recruiting classes. I would’ve liked to have had the 2001 recruiting numbers but Rivals doesn’t list them. Even still, all current players are covered with the exception of 5th-year seniors and Ohio St.’s kicker. The amount of 5th year seniors per team varies but they do not make up a great percentage of the players on a particular team. These rankings also include players that are not on the team for one reason or another. Since the number of players that have left any given football program probably isn’t a significant amount, I don’t think it makes a big difference over a four year period. Here are the top 20 college football programs in terms of recruiting over the last four years. I ranked these teams in terms of average rating per player. Over four years, a college team pretty much fills their entire roster so it makes sense to rank these teams based on average ranking per player rather than total points.
1). Texas------3.679012346
2). Oklahoma--3.677419355
3). Florida St.--3.652173913
4). Miami------3.612903226
5). Michigan--- 3.590361446
6). USC-------- 3.582417582
7). Tennessee-- 3.556701031
8). LSU-------- 3.548387097
9). Ohio St.-----3.469879518
10). Georgia----3.462365591
11). Florida-----3.455555556
12). Notre Dame3.185714286
13). Penn St.----3.155844156
14). Texas A&M-3.128712871
15). Virginia-----3.10989011
16). UCLA-------3.076086957
17). Maryland--- 3.02247191
18). Alabama----3.020408163
19). Auburn------2.990825688
20). B.C.---------2.987012987
Michigan is ranked #5 on the list of recruiting rankings over the last four years. Only, four teams are better. It is clear that Michigan is superior than 95% of all D-1 college football teams in terms of recruiting and caliber of athlete that makes up its current roster. Not surprisingly, Texas is number one on the list. But, just to emphasize how close Michigan is from being on the top of this list, here is the breakdown of recruits and total recruit points for Texas and Michigan over this time:
Texas # of recruits=81 total points= 298
Michigan # of recruits=83 total points=298
Clearly, these teams are essentially even in terms of recruiting strength. Two recruits separate these teams on a roster of 80+ players. Michigan doesn’t have a top five recruiting class every single season. If you’re judging which teams have top five recruiting classes by looking to see who finishes in the top five every season, then nobody has a top five recruiting class every year. However, if you’re comparing teams over time, which is vastly more important than single year rankings, then Michigan has a top five recruiting class year in and year out. Since Michigan doesn’t play Texas, Oklahoma, Miami and Florida St. on a regular basis, Michigan has the talent advantage over virtually every team it plays. Ohio St. has a very good average at 3.47 so I would never fault Michigan for losing to the Buckeyes based on recruiting. On average, Michigan brings in a more prolific recruiting class than Ohio St., but the differential is pretty small.
I don’t know what to deem a “significant” difference in recruiting rating but it’s important to remember that a team with a 3.50 rating has a .50 advantage over a team with a 3.00 rating at every position on the field. For instance, Michigan has a rating of 3.59 and Minnesota has a rating of 2.44. This means that on average, Michigan has an advantage of 1.15 at every single position and every single roster spot. That’s above and beyond a significant advantage. I would say that a differential of .33 or more would be a fairly significant difference in recruiting ranking. There’s really no right answer but just remember that whatever the difference is will be the difference at every position. A difference of .33 might not seem that much but that means that every player on Team A has a .33 advantage over every player on Team B. That seems significant to me.
If all teams were coached by the exact same coaching staff, one could reasonably expect the team with the advantage in recruiting to beat the teams that don’t have the advantage in recruiting. Recruiting rankings are not so precise as to guarantee that a team with a rating of 3.59 will always beat a team with a rating of 3.50 even with the exact same coaching staff. Rivals could have an error of at least +/- .05 per player in terms of that players actual ability. If that’s the case, then a team with a 3.59 rating could be even with a team with a 3.50 rating and still be within a reasonable error. So, recruiting ratings aren’t the end all in terms of how good a college football team will be. Having said that, any time there is a significant difference in recruiting rankings, and the coaching staffs are the exact same, then the team with the significant advantage in recruiting should be the winner. Even with the same coaching staffs, I suppose it is possible for a lesser team to beat a better team due to injury, home-field advantage, breaking in of a new quarterback or a significant mismatch at one or two positions. However, barring injury, and the coaching staffs are the exact same, the team with a significant advantage in recruiting average over four years should win. As we all know, coaching staffs are not the exact same. Some are better than others. In order for a team with a significantly weaker recruiting class to beat a team with a significantly higher recruiting class, they will likely have to have the advantage in coaching.
Here is a list of top 20 teams on this list and the level of recruiting classes that they’ve lost to this season (2005-6):
1). Texas (3.68)
Losses= (0)
2). Oklahoma (3.68)
Losses= (4) Texas (3.68), UCLA (3.08), Texas Tech (2.60), TCU (2.39)
3). Florida St. (3.65)
Losses= (5) Florida (3.46), Penn St. (3.16), Virginia (3.11), NC State (2.92), Clemson (2.81)
4). Miami (3.61)
Losses= (3) Florida St. (3.65), LSU (3.55), Ga. Tech (2.51)
5). Michigan (3.59)
Losses= (5) Ohio St. (3.47), Notre Dame (3.19), Nebraska (2.98), Minnesota (2.44), Wisconsin (2.63)
6). USC (3.58)
Losses= (1) Texas (3.68)
7). Tennessee (3.56)
Losses= (6) Georgia (3.46), Florida (3.46), Notre Dame (3.19), Alabama (3.02), S. Carolina (2.96), Vanderbilt (2.21)
8). LSU (3.55)
Losses= (2) Tennessee (3.56), Georgia (3.46)
9). Ohio St. (3.47)
Losses= (2) Texas (3.68), Penn St. (3.16)
10). Georgia (3.46)
Losses= (3) Florida (3.46), Auburn (2.99), W. Virginia (2.41)
11). Florida (3.46)
Losses= (3) LSU (3.54), Alabama (3.02), S. Carolina (2.96)
12). Notre Dame (3.19)
Losses= (3) USC (3.58), Ohio St. (3.47), Michigan St. (2.78)
13). Penn St. (3.16)
Losses= (1) Michigan (3.59)
14). Texas A & M (3.13)
Losses= (6) Texas (3.68), Oklahoma (3.68), Colorado (2.90), Clemson (2.81), Texas Tech (2.60), Iowa St. (2.52)
15). Virginia (3.11)
Losses= (5) Miami (3.61), Maryland (3.02), Boston College (2.99), Va. Tech (2.90), N. Carolina (2.70)
16). UCLA (3.08)
Losses= (2) USC (3.58), Arizona (2.76)
17). Maryland (3.02)
Losses= (5) Florida St. (3.65), NC State (2.92), Va. Tech (2.90), Clemson (2.81), W. Virginia (2.41)
18). Alabama (3.02)
Losses= (2) LSU (3.55), Auburn (2.99)
19). Auburn (2.99)
Losses= (3) LSU (3.55), Wisconsin (2.63), Georgia Tech (2.51)
20). Boston College (2.99)
Losses= (3) Florida St. (3.65), Va. Tech (2.90), N. Carolina (2.70)
There are upsets in college football. To expect every team with better recruits and athletes to win every game against teams with inferior talent is unreasonable. However, it is obvious that teams with very good recruiting classes don’t lose very often to teams with significantly lesser recruiting classes.
Here is a list of the top 20 teams in recruiting over the last four years and the average rank of recruiting class of the teams they’ve lost to this season:
Texas=no losses
Oklahoma=2.94
Florida St.=3.09
Miami= 3.24
Michigan=2.94
USC=3.68
Tennessee=3.05
LSU=3.51
Ohio St. =3.42
Georgia= 2.95
Florida=3.17
Notre Dame=3.28
Penn St.=3.59
Texas A&M=3.03
Virginia=3.04
UCLA=3.17
Maryland=2.94
Alabama=3.27
Auburn=2.90
BC=3.08
Of all the teams with a recruiting rating above 3.00, Michigan is the worst on the list. Michigan’s five losses came to teams with an average recruiting ranking of 2.94. Michigan is the only team in the top 13 that lost three games to teams with a recruiting rating of less than 3.00. Michigan’s recruiting ranking is 3.59. That means that Michigan had an average advantage of .65 at every position over the teams it lost to this season. When asked if Michigan’s season was disappointing, Michigan defender Pierre Woods said that Tennessee’s season was a disappointment, not Michigan’s. Tennessee’s average loss came to teams with a recruiting ranking of 3.05. That doesn’t justify Tennessee’s six loss season but in terms of how bad their losses look, Michigan’s were clearly worse. Oklahoma was also a big disappointment this season having had an advantage of .74 in its losses. However, Oklahoma doesn’t perennially lose to teams with inferior talent. Michigan has been the major culprit over the last few years and they continued that trend this season. That doesn’t excuse Oklahoma from underachievement this season but it’s important to remember that even the best programs have a down season. One of the factors that I mentioned above that could allow a team to lose to a noticeably inferior team talent-wise is the breaking in of a new quarterback. Oklahoma was clearly hindered by the graduation of six-year quarterback Jason White. Nonetheless, Oklahoma clearly underachieved in 2005-6 compared to the talent on the roster.
There have been four “surprise” teams in college football this year with the unexpected emergence of Notre Dame, UCLA, Alabama and Penn St. These schools have been relegated to mid-tier programs recently but the recruiting rankings over the last four years put these four schools in the top 16. The success of these four schools may have been a surprise based on recent play on the field but it certainly wasn’t a surprise if you look at each team’s recruiting over the last four years.
In looking at the losses that the top 20 recruiting programs sustained this year on the field, certain lesser teams keep popping up. TCU, Texas Tech, Minnesota, Wisconsin, W. Virginia, and Ga. Tech all had ratings of 2.63 or less yet they all beat a top 20 recruiting program and made it to a bowl game. The coaches of these teams clearly made “something” out of nothing as they generally were the less athletic team on the field. Gary Patterson, Mike Leach, Glen Mason, Barry Alvarez, Rich Rodriguez, and Chan Gailey were among the more accomplished coaches this year. Leach, Mason, and Alvarez have successful teams virtually every year despite having a significant disadvantage in recruiting. Even more impressive may be the success that Northwestern, Louisville, and Fresno St. had this season. None of those three schools had a four year recruiting rating of more than 2.34. Randy Walker, Bobby Petrino, and Pat Hill clearly achieved more than their rosters would suggest. These coaches are clearly more efficient than the Michigan coaching staff. I often wonder how Michigan’s coaching staff would fare at a school with less talent. If they can’t beat lesser teams at Michigan on a regular basis, then how would they beat better teams with a considerably less athletic roster? It’s important to remember that wins and losses aren’t the only measure of success in college football. A coach at Texas Tech will never be able to recruit the same players as Texas. As a result, seven wins at Texas Tech is considerably more impressive than seven wins at Texas. The same can be said for Minnesota. Seven wins at Minnesota is considerably more impressive than seven wins at Michigan.
It would be interesting to take a look at these numbers after every season just to see which teams make the most of their talent and which teams underachieve. The biggest potential drawback of this analysis is the accuracy (or perceived accuracy) of the recruiting services. Whereas college football actually has wins and losses that success can be based on, the recruiting services use subjectivity to rate each recruit. There is no right answer for a recruit’s ranking. It’s possible for certain recruiting services to overrate players from their own region or overrate simply because that player received interest from a major school. As a result, evidence of a team underachieving or overachieving based on the ratings of their recruits over the previous five seasons would likely not hold water. It would be too easy for a coach to say, “just because a recruiting service (Rivals etc.) says that a player is worth five stars doesn’t mean that the player really is that good.” Rating a recruit is not an exact science. However, over five years, I would guess that the recruiting rankings would be accurate enough that the teams with the best rating over five years should, in reality, be the best teams in college football. There might be a difference of a star here and there but over five years, I think the recruiting services end up with a pretty accurate depiction of the talent on a college football roster. However, I doubt any school would ever put any weight on its success on the field compared to its success in recruiting. That would force coaches at major college football programs to look at who they’re beating and who they’re losing to rather than just looking at the overall win total. A coach looks much better if he can simply say, “I won nine games” instead of having to justify not winning eleven games when the talent differential dictated eleven wins.
Five-year recruiting rankings can be helpful in a number of ways. They can indict programs that do less with more. They can highlight programs that win with less. They can give an indication of which teams will break through like Alabama, UCLA, Notre Dame, and Penn St. this season. Since recruiting rankings are not given a whole lot of credence, the extent of this type of analysis will likely end at the fan level.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Finally, a post.
I apologize for the considerable delay between posts. My computer broke and it has yet to be fixed. I'm currently at my wife's work using a computer with high speed internet. For those of you who don't know (which is pretty much everyone) I've spent the last seven months on this site using dial-up because high speed internet is not available where I live. That should give you an indication of where I live. Anyhow, I've been wanting to post something about the Lions for a better part of a week so here goes...
About three weeks ago, I said the following:
"If:
-Houston or SF win their last two games
-Tennessee beats Miami or finishes with a higher SOS than Detroit
-Arizona beats Philly or Indy
-NY Jets beat Buffalo
-Green Bay beats Chicago or Seattle
-Buffalo finishes with a higher SOS than Detroit or beats Cincy
-Detroit loses to New Orleans.
Then, the Lions would own the 2nd pick in the 2006 NFL draft. It would take a miracle for that to happen. As it stands now, the Lions would have a 1/3 shot at the #5 pick if they simply lose to the New Orleans Saints."
Ok, let's see how those things worked out.....
Houston or SF wins their last two games CHECK
Arizona beats Philly or Indy CHECK
NY Jets beat Buffalo CHECK
Green Bay beats Seattle CHECK
Buffalo beats Cincy CHECK
Tennessee finishes with a higher SOS than Detroit Check
Detroit loses to New Orleans DOHHHHH!
The stars were aligned. Everything that needed to happen ended up happening. Bad teams beat good teams. The SOS of schedule battle tipped heavily in the Lions favor. All the Lions needed to do was lose to an equally poor team on the road. It looked like it was going to happen until Joey Harrington decided it was time that he bring the fans of Detroit a W with a game-winning drive. Harrington's irrelevant heroics deprived the Lions of having Matt Leinart or Vince Young for the next 10-15 years. Leinart and Young should both be sending Joey a basket of the finest cheeses the world has to offer. He saved them from having to play in Detroit.
Joey's win moved the Lions from the 2nd pick in the draft to the 9th pick where they'll have a choice of Santonio Holmes or Jason Avant. I know NFL players and coaches say they don't care about the off-season stuff despite how idiotic that stance is. The Lions victory on Christmas Eve only proved that point.
Since I might not get a chance to post something for a few days, I'd like to comment on a few non-Lions, non-draft ruining topics.
First, the bowl season was crazy. In my ESPN Bowl Mania picks, I gave the three highest confidence games to Auburn over Wisconsin, Georgia over W. Virginia, and Michigan over Nebraska. None of those things happened. That was surprising to say the least. I was not surprised that Texas won but it was amazing to watch Vince Young single handily beat the Trojans. It was clearly a game for the ages. A few years from now, the NFL will be littered with players from that game. Vince Young proved that he is capable of being a productive passer from the pocket. Although he's been proving it all season, some draft people may have only begun to notice in the Rose Bowl. I would definitely take Young over Leinart. Leinart seemed shaky in most of USC's big games this year including Notre Dame, Texas, and Arizona St. Leinart also seems to be a bit injury prone. When was the last time Young even got hit hard? Young is bigger than everyone trying to tackle him. He can punish people and run past people. The Lions lost out on a big-time NFL star.
I have a lot of respect for the Ohio St. football program. They have everything that Michigan wants. However, I have to seriouly question Kirk Herbstreit's bias after naming them pre-season #1 next season. The Buckeyes lose Santonio Holmes, A.J. Hawk, Bobby Carpenter, and Anthony Schlegel among others. Ohio St. will be good as usual. In fact, they'll probably be better than Michigan again. But, number one? I don't think so.
Once I get my computer up and running, I'll start focusing a little more on college basketball. There are a minimum of 80 teams right now that could easily get a bid in the NCAA tournament. The bubble will probably be as packed as ever with an abundance of mid-major hopefuls. There are 12 teams in the Big East that have a shot at making the Tournament including DePaul which lost to Old Dominion by 44.
About three weeks ago, I said the following:
"If:
-Houston or SF win their last two games
-Tennessee beats Miami or finishes with a higher SOS than Detroit
-Arizona beats Philly or Indy
-NY Jets beat Buffalo
-Green Bay beats Chicago or Seattle
-Buffalo finishes with a higher SOS than Detroit or beats Cincy
-Detroit loses to New Orleans.
Then, the Lions would own the 2nd pick in the 2006 NFL draft. It would take a miracle for that to happen. As it stands now, the Lions would have a 1/3 shot at the #5 pick if they simply lose to the New Orleans Saints."
Ok, let's see how those things worked out.....
Houston or SF wins their last two games CHECK
Arizona beats Philly or Indy CHECK
NY Jets beat Buffalo CHECK
Green Bay beats Seattle CHECK
Buffalo beats Cincy CHECK
Tennessee finishes with a higher SOS than Detroit Check
Detroit loses to New Orleans DOHHHHH!
The stars were aligned. Everything that needed to happen ended up happening. Bad teams beat good teams. The SOS of schedule battle tipped heavily in the Lions favor. All the Lions needed to do was lose to an equally poor team on the road. It looked like it was going to happen until Joey Harrington decided it was time that he bring the fans of Detroit a W with a game-winning drive. Harrington's irrelevant heroics deprived the Lions of having Matt Leinart or Vince Young for the next 10-15 years. Leinart and Young should both be sending Joey a basket of the finest cheeses the world has to offer. He saved them from having to play in Detroit.
Joey's win moved the Lions from the 2nd pick in the draft to the 9th pick where they'll have a choice of Santonio Holmes or Jason Avant. I know NFL players and coaches say they don't care about the off-season stuff despite how idiotic that stance is. The Lions victory on Christmas Eve only proved that point.
Since I might not get a chance to post something for a few days, I'd like to comment on a few non-Lions, non-draft ruining topics.
First, the bowl season was crazy. In my ESPN Bowl Mania picks, I gave the three highest confidence games to Auburn over Wisconsin, Georgia over W. Virginia, and Michigan over Nebraska. None of those things happened. That was surprising to say the least. I was not surprised that Texas won but it was amazing to watch Vince Young single handily beat the Trojans. It was clearly a game for the ages. A few years from now, the NFL will be littered with players from that game. Vince Young proved that he is capable of being a productive passer from the pocket. Although he's been proving it all season, some draft people may have only begun to notice in the Rose Bowl. I would definitely take Young over Leinart. Leinart seemed shaky in most of USC's big games this year including Notre Dame, Texas, and Arizona St. Leinart also seems to be a bit injury prone. When was the last time Young even got hit hard? Young is bigger than everyone trying to tackle him. He can punish people and run past people. The Lions lost out on a big-time NFL star.
I have a lot of respect for the Ohio St. football program. They have everything that Michigan wants. However, I have to seriouly question Kirk Herbstreit's bias after naming them pre-season #1 next season. The Buckeyes lose Santonio Holmes, A.J. Hawk, Bobby Carpenter, and Anthony Schlegel among others. Ohio St. will be good as usual. In fact, they'll probably be better than Michigan again. But, number one? I don't think so.
Once I get my computer up and running, I'll start focusing a little more on college basketball. There are a minimum of 80 teams right now that could easily get a bid in the NCAA tournament. The bubble will probably be as packed as ever with an abundance of mid-major hopefuls. There are 12 teams in the Big East that have a shot at making the Tournament including DePaul which lost to Old Dominion by 44.
Monday, January 02, 2006
UM football continues trek to mediocrity
The Michigan football team lost a close battle to Nebraska in the Alamo Bowl thus ending a poor season by Michigan standards. For some reason unbeknownst to me, Tyler Ecker chose to run out of bounds on what could’ve been the greatest play in college football history. He had three options as he sprinted down the field.
1). Run towards the left which would’ve been away from the only two Nebraska players that could’ve made a play and turn it into a sprint to the goal line. That would’ve had a 40% chance of success.
2). Pitch it to Steve Breaston who almost certainly would’ve scored. That would’ve been a 100% chance of success.
3). Run straight towards the two Nebraska defenders and then dive out of bounds. That had a 0% chance of success.
Ecker chose option three. I can pretty much guarantee you that Breaston was screaming for Ecker to pitch the ball to him so Ecker clearly knew Breaston was there. Ecker also knew that diving out of bounds would’ve ended the game. I hate to single someone out for making a ridiculous mistake but I can’t rationalize what Ecker did in any way. It was ridiculous. However, the last play was one lateral to Chad Henne from ending in even worse fashion. The following is a quote by Chad Henne taken from the Detroit News. "I stayed back there in case anybody wanted to throw back to me and let me throw it down the field. Jason tried, but Nebraska kept pressuring him." Well, I for one am glad nobody pitched it to Henne because Henne apparently thought it was legal to throw two forward passes on the same play.
I can’t say that I’m surprised by Michigan’s 7-5 record. Even though Michigan has routinely finished with three and four losses over the last ten years, the five loss barrier has been treated as an impossibility by a large portion of the Michigan fan base. Michigan’s talent alone has been enough to keep that from happening but eventually, with the lack of innovation by the coaching staff, the “bad” season was going to come. It just turned out that season was this season. It would be a mistake to think that all of the bad things that happened this season were a result of everything going wrong at the same time. It would also be a mistake to think that this year was an anomaly and that Michigan will return to form next season.
This year’s Michigan team was not much different than the average Michigan team over the past ten years. There is a very good chance that Michigan will lose somewhere between three and five games next year as well. The coaching staff has become totally in effective in preparing Michigan for big games. Michigan has failed in the majority of its big games recently and that failure has become more prominent over the last few seasons. The lack of innovation on offense against Tennessee in the 2002 Citrus Bowl was ridiculous. The lack of preparation to combat USC’s constant blitzing in the 2003 Rose Bowl was embarrassing especially when you consider that Lloyd Carr’s response to why Michigan couldn’t handle USC’s blitzing was something to the effect of “honestly, we didn’t devote any practice time to block USC’s blitz because we didn’t think they would blitz.” The lack of game-planning to stop Vince Young from scrambling in the 2004 Rose Bowl exposed Michigan’s defense to a National audience as being outdated and ineffective. This was particularly troublesome considering Michigan played a team much like Texas in the regular season finale against Troy Smith and Ohio St. Smith single handedly dominated Michigan’s defense and should’ve given the UM coaching staff a head start in game planning for Texas. Instead, it appeared that the Michigan coaching staff learned absolutely nothing from the Ohio St. game. The lack of a killer instinct against Ohio St. in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 speaks of a head coach who’s scared to make a mistake. Even in 2003 when Michigan won, Lloyd Carr was far too conservative. Most Lloyd defenders argue that kneeling at the half was the right call because Michigan had control of the game. Well, Michigan had control of the game this year too and we saw how that worked out.
Lloyd Carr’s paranoia has crippled his ability to keep Michigan in the upper echelon of college football. Michigan still has the talent. Michigan’s overall recruiting over the last 5-10 years is among the top five in the nation. This year’s team is no different. Five and four star prospects litter the roster. Despite the coaching staff’s desire for Michigan to be a winner, they don’t hold themselves accountable enough. They blame too many things on officiating, surprises from the opponent, one-play mistakes and a plethora of other external circumstances. The Wolverines don’t have the coaching on offense or defense to compete with the elite teams in college football. However, they do have the players. The loss to Nebraska was no big deal. I was definitely surprised by the loss considering the talent differential. It doesn’t make anything worse than it already was. In fact, this five loss season doesn’t make anything worse than it already was either. The reality was that Michigan was perennially underachieving for the majority of the last decade. Because there is so much pride in being a Michigan person (fan, coach or player) nobody wanted to admit it. For a lot of people, 2005 marked the decline of the program. The reality is that the program was in a decline a long time ago. For people that knew that already, this season was no big surprise. I am one of those people. Now I’m forced to take the team and program at face value.
This is a team with a lot of talent that can beat most teams on any given day. However, this is also a team that lacks sufficient leadership that could also lose to any team that’s average or better. As long as that’s the case, I have no choice but to lower my expectations and be happy with 7+ wins and a bowl appearance. I have no problem with that. There are countless other programs that have those expectations. My expectations used to be based on what the average expectations would be considering the talent level of the program. Expecting that has led to miserable college football season after miserable college football season. Now it’s obvious to me that those expectations need to be changed.
Whereas I used to expect Michigan to win every game that they “should” win, it would be more beneficial to just be happy when Michigan wins regardless of the opponents. It’s easier said than done though. You can’t just change what you believe. I’ll never cease to believe that Michigan should be a perennial top five team with its talent. However, the Lloyd Carr factor negates that feeling. My goal is to enter next season with no expectations other than rooting for Michigan to win. I’m starting to think that it would do me well to stop following recruiting. The fact that I know Michigan wastes talent and matches up favorably with virtually every D-1 school makes Michigan’s underachievement obvious to me. If I didn’t know that Michigan was underachieving, then I could probably enjoy the season more. I could stop looking at losses as being “bad” or “underachieving” and I could just look at them as losses. Sometimes, too much knowledge can make life miserable. In some situations, the more ignorant you are, the more peaceful you can be. I guess that means I’ll be trying to become ignorant about Michigan football. The fact that Michigan’s loss to Nebraska was no big deal to me makes me hopeful about my future as a Michigan fan.
1). Run towards the left which would’ve been away from the only two Nebraska players that could’ve made a play and turn it into a sprint to the goal line. That would’ve had a 40% chance of success.
2). Pitch it to Steve Breaston who almost certainly would’ve scored. That would’ve been a 100% chance of success.
3). Run straight towards the two Nebraska defenders and then dive out of bounds. That had a 0% chance of success.
Ecker chose option three. I can pretty much guarantee you that Breaston was screaming for Ecker to pitch the ball to him so Ecker clearly knew Breaston was there. Ecker also knew that diving out of bounds would’ve ended the game. I hate to single someone out for making a ridiculous mistake but I can’t rationalize what Ecker did in any way. It was ridiculous. However, the last play was one lateral to Chad Henne from ending in even worse fashion. The following is a quote by Chad Henne taken from the Detroit News. "I stayed back there in case anybody wanted to throw back to me and let me throw it down the field. Jason tried, but Nebraska kept pressuring him." Well, I for one am glad nobody pitched it to Henne because Henne apparently thought it was legal to throw two forward passes on the same play.
I can’t say that I’m surprised by Michigan’s 7-5 record. Even though Michigan has routinely finished with three and four losses over the last ten years, the five loss barrier has been treated as an impossibility by a large portion of the Michigan fan base. Michigan’s talent alone has been enough to keep that from happening but eventually, with the lack of innovation by the coaching staff, the “bad” season was going to come. It just turned out that season was this season. It would be a mistake to think that all of the bad things that happened this season were a result of everything going wrong at the same time. It would also be a mistake to think that this year was an anomaly and that Michigan will return to form next season.
This year’s Michigan team was not much different than the average Michigan team over the past ten years. There is a very good chance that Michigan will lose somewhere between three and five games next year as well. The coaching staff has become totally in effective in preparing Michigan for big games. Michigan has failed in the majority of its big games recently and that failure has become more prominent over the last few seasons. The lack of innovation on offense against Tennessee in the 2002 Citrus Bowl was ridiculous. The lack of preparation to combat USC’s constant blitzing in the 2003 Rose Bowl was embarrassing especially when you consider that Lloyd Carr’s response to why Michigan couldn’t handle USC’s blitzing was something to the effect of “honestly, we didn’t devote any practice time to block USC’s blitz because we didn’t think they would blitz.” The lack of game-planning to stop Vince Young from scrambling in the 2004 Rose Bowl exposed Michigan’s defense to a National audience as being outdated and ineffective. This was particularly troublesome considering Michigan played a team much like Texas in the regular season finale against Troy Smith and Ohio St. Smith single handedly dominated Michigan’s defense and should’ve given the UM coaching staff a head start in game planning for Texas. Instead, it appeared that the Michigan coaching staff learned absolutely nothing from the Ohio St. game. The lack of a killer instinct against Ohio St. in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 speaks of a head coach who’s scared to make a mistake. Even in 2003 when Michigan won, Lloyd Carr was far too conservative. Most Lloyd defenders argue that kneeling at the half was the right call because Michigan had control of the game. Well, Michigan had control of the game this year too and we saw how that worked out.
Lloyd Carr’s paranoia has crippled his ability to keep Michigan in the upper echelon of college football. Michigan still has the talent. Michigan’s overall recruiting over the last 5-10 years is among the top five in the nation. This year’s team is no different. Five and four star prospects litter the roster. Despite the coaching staff’s desire for Michigan to be a winner, they don’t hold themselves accountable enough. They blame too many things on officiating, surprises from the opponent, one-play mistakes and a plethora of other external circumstances. The Wolverines don’t have the coaching on offense or defense to compete with the elite teams in college football. However, they do have the players. The loss to Nebraska was no big deal. I was definitely surprised by the loss considering the talent differential. It doesn’t make anything worse than it already was. In fact, this five loss season doesn’t make anything worse than it already was either. The reality was that Michigan was perennially underachieving for the majority of the last decade. Because there is so much pride in being a Michigan person (fan, coach or player) nobody wanted to admit it. For a lot of people, 2005 marked the decline of the program. The reality is that the program was in a decline a long time ago. For people that knew that already, this season was no big surprise. I am one of those people. Now I’m forced to take the team and program at face value.
This is a team with a lot of talent that can beat most teams on any given day. However, this is also a team that lacks sufficient leadership that could also lose to any team that’s average or better. As long as that’s the case, I have no choice but to lower my expectations and be happy with 7+ wins and a bowl appearance. I have no problem with that. There are countless other programs that have those expectations. My expectations used to be based on what the average expectations would be considering the talent level of the program. Expecting that has led to miserable college football season after miserable college football season. Now it’s obvious to me that those expectations need to be changed.
Whereas I used to expect Michigan to win every game that they “should” win, it would be more beneficial to just be happy when Michigan wins regardless of the opponents. It’s easier said than done though. You can’t just change what you believe. I’ll never cease to believe that Michigan should be a perennial top five team with its talent. However, the Lloyd Carr factor negates that feeling. My goal is to enter next season with no expectations other than rooting for Michigan to win. I’m starting to think that it would do me well to stop following recruiting. The fact that I know Michigan wastes talent and matches up favorably with virtually every D-1 school makes Michigan’s underachievement obvious to me. If I didn’t know that Michigan was underachieving, then I could probably enjoy the season more. I could stop looking at losses as being “bad” or “underachieving” and I could just look at them as losses. Sometimes, too much knowledge can make life miserable. In some situations, the more ignorant you are, the more peaceful you can be. I guess that means I’ll be trying to become ignorant about Michigan football. The fact that Michigan’s loss to Nebraska was no big deal to me makes me hopeful about my future as a Michigan fan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
