Thursday, January 31, 2008

I love New York (NL)

I’d like to send a big “shout-out” to my dawg, Omar Minaya, for bringing Johan Santana to Queens. I’d also like to send out smaller “shout-outs” to Hank Steinbrenner and Theo Epstein for haggling themselves out of the best pitcher of the 21st century. Boston and New York fans alike seem to be buying the “company line” that Minnesota’s asking-price was simply too much. Somehow, Boston convinced itself that Jacoby Ellsbury (oh ye of 116 regular season at-bats) and Jon Lester (1.566 career WHIP) were too much value to give up for one of the 15 best pitchers in MLB history in his 20s no less. The Yankees—no doubt using the same highly questionable logic—convinced themselves that Phil Hughes and Melky Cabrera were too much to part with. I would hate to be a Yankees or Red Sox fan five years from now when Santana is in the midst of throwing down Greg Maddux-caliber seasons like they’re Kwame Kilpatrick-perjuries. Remember, Santana has only been a full-time starter for four seasons. He has a lot of innings left.

The Tigers—facing the same "unproven talent or proven awesomeness" dilemma—gave up Cameron Maybin and Andrew Miller—who were both rated among the top 10 prospects in baseball—along with Dallas Trahern, Eulogio De La Cruz, Mike Rabelo, and Burke Badenhop for Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis. Willis was essentially a “throw in.” The Tigers clearly weren’t offended by having to take Willis but the only way Cabrera was coming to Detroit was by giving up both Maybin and Miller. That package is considerably more potent than anything the Yankees and Red Sox discussed for Santana. Despite parting with two uber-prospects and four of the top six prospects in the organization, Dave Dombrowski jumped all over the deal without the slightest reservation. Tigers fans were universally ecstatic. Adding a player of Cabrera’s caliber for prospects was a no-brainer. As good as Cabrera is—and part of his allure is the fact that he’s only 24—Santana is even better. It is astonishing to me that the Yankees and Red Sox failure to land Santana can be construed as anything other than a disaster. At least Boston can point to its World Championship. New York has no excuse.

Yet, it seems like Boston and New York fans are actually breathing a sigh-of-relief that their coveted prospects are still with the team. I understand that fans obsess over prospects. I’ve fawned over a Juan Encarnacion or two so I’m not going to come down too hard on the folks who love prospects. However, please show some semblance of discretion. A Yankees fan left a comment on a related-article that said, “I really am finding this Santana thing a bit overkill. The Yankees might have 4 Santanas right in front of their noses…” Of course, those four Santanas are Chien-Ming Wang, Ian Kennedy, Joba Chamberlain, and Phillip Hughes. The latter three have 16 career starts between them. Who needs Santana when you can have uncertainty? Apparently, it's the Yankees. Boston fans feel the same way about Jacoby Ellsbury. He has been touted as “the next coming” because of one stellar postseason. He’ll have to be pretty damn good to justify passing on Santana.

The Mets gave up four of their top seven prospects (Guerra, Gomez, Mulvey, and Humber) according to Baseball America. I haven’t seen or a heard a single mention by anyone that the Mets gave up too much. The Mets instantly became a World Series contender and possible favorite by adding Santana to its rotation. One would think that with the Tigers putting together an all-world lineup capable of rockin’ out 1,000 runs that an AL team would feel the need to get involved. To be fair to Boston, it actually has a pitching staff that can be counted on. Still, it had the means to add Santana and didn't. While Boston and New York are patting themselves on the back because the other didn’t get Santana, the Tigers are the big winner in all of this. Here are just a few of the gazillion reasons why the Tigers scored big-time with this trade…

* The two biggest threats to the Tigers in the AL are New York and Boston. Santana to either of those teams would’ve changed the landscape for 2008 dramatically. Instead, the Red Sox and Yankees come back with essentially the same teams—unless you want to make a big deal about Pettitte in NY—while the Tigers added Cabrera, Willis, and Renteria.

*Santana is no longer in the division which means the Tigers won’t see him six times per year like they did last season.

*The Tigers don’t have to contend with the Johan Santana/Francisco Liriano combo that propelled the Twins through a 31-7 stretch in 2006 that culminated in winning the division after trailing by 12.5 games. The Twins are annoying with Santana alone. They are downright scary with Santana and Liriano.

*Since the Yankees and Red Sox passed on him, the Tigers won’t have to face Santana at any point in the AL playoffs where a pitcher of his caliber does the most damage.

*The Yankees play six games against the Mets which could very well mean they’ll have to face Santana twice. The Tigers won’t face him at all. Last season, the Tigers faced Santana six times and the Yankees only had to seem him once. That should be worth a few games in the standings for the Tigers.

All of these little things add up to one huge boost for Detroit’s chances of reaching and ultimately winning the World Series.

I thought for sure that the Yankees or Red Sox would reach into their unlimited pocketbooks—with Detroit’s $130 payroll, am I still allowed to say things like this?—and gleefully plug Santana right into the top of the rotation. I’m blown away that this didn’t happen. Back in early December when the Santana-negotiations heated up—even after the Tigers had added Cabrera—I felt that if either the Yankees or the Red Sox added Santana, they would be the favorite to come out of the AL slightly ahead of Detroit. If neither ended up with him, Detroit’s addition of Cabrera and Willis would put the Tigers on top. I haven’t changed my mind. This trade was huge for the Tigers. If it can be assumed that Santana was definitely going to be traded and it can be assumed that the Red Sox and Yankees were the two primary contenders for his services, then this trade may end up being nearly as important as the Miguel Cabrera-trade. Avoiding the wrath of Santana/Liriano while also avoiding having to face Santana against the Red Sox or Yankees in the post-season is huge.

I could understand New York’s decision to pass on Santana if it had focused its attention on adding another top-flight starter. Thankfully, that doesn’t seem to be in the works either. The Yankees passed on Dan Haren who is now in Arizona. They also appear to be passing on Erik Bedard who is likely headed to Seattle. Midway through the 2007-season when the Tigers were an offensive juggernaut, Dave Dombrowski said he would not be adding offense at the trade-deadline. That statement broke my heart considering the Tigers were getting subpar offensive production from third base, first base, and left-field all of which are positions that are generally counted on for offensive production. Despite Dombrowksi's optimism, the Tigers needed to look at adding offense. Instead, they decided to pass. Gary Sheffield got hurt just a short time later and the offense fell apart. My point is that Boston is in love with its rotation in the same way Dombrowski was in love with his lineup. Dombrowski no doubt learned a lesson and brought in "Miggy" in the off-season. Thankfully, Boston has chosen to learn its lesson before making a similar addition.

The 2007-season showed just how difficult it is to make the playoffs even if you bring back a team that just went to the World Series the year before in tact. The Tigers seemed to be poised for another run at the World Series with an even more talented team coming back last season. Injuries and inconsistencies proved to be too much and the Tigers came up just a few games short. Boston and New York’s indifference this off-season may go overlooked now but it should pay huge dividends for the Tigers in 2008.

Monday, January 28, 2008

NCAA Tournament projections goes to 5 OTs

The ACC needs some bad teams

The ACC is the #1 conference in America and—according to the RPI—it’s not close. The worst team in the ACC is Virginia with an RPI of 108 (Virginia's RPI was 86 heading into Sunday). No other conference can claim a “worst team” in the RPI 150. While there is no question that the ACC is the deepest conference in America, there is also no question that the ACC is in danger of only placing three teams in the NCAA Tournament. There is a lot of time before Selection Sunday so things can obviously change. Miami’s win over Clemson on Sunday was huge for the conference in terms of potential bids. However, as impressive as it is that the ACC’s worst team has an RPI of 108, the fact that it only has four teams in the RPI 45 is equally unimpressive. There is little difference between Virginia, Florida St., Virginia Tech, Boston College, Wake Forest, Maryland, and Georgia Tech. None are likely to make the tournament. In fact, it’s getting to the point where there are only five possibilities for bids. North Carolina and Duke are in. Clemson is in barring a disaster. NC State and Miami (FL) control their own destiny but I would be surprised if both teams could weather the storm of the ACC schedule. So, if you’re an ACC fan, take pride in the fact that your team plays in the #1 conference--statistically speaking--in America because you probably aren’t going to be taking pride in too much else come Selection Sunday.


The Big East is a bubble beast

Various TV personalities love to argue that the Big East is the best conference in America. The problem is that nobody disagrees. The ACC has the best computer average but the Big East clearly has the best colleciton of teams. The Big East has 11 teams in the RPI 65. The ACC only has 12 teams in its conference. So, I’m not sure who they’re arguing with. Since the Big East has 16 teams, it would be a shock if it weren’t the best conference. So, maybe we can put an end to the, “Some people may disagree but the Big East is the best conference in America” arguments. Nobody disagrees.

The Big East is a solid conference magnified by having an additional four teams. With that magnification come a larger group of mid-tier teams. That’s why the conference has four teams squarely on “the bubble” and will probably have at least that many come March. It has seven teams that should safely find at-large bids. After those, however, the conference could be looking at anywhere from zero to four additional bids. Providence, Syracuse, Seton Hall, and Villanova will all struggle to stay above .500 in the conference (Pomeroy doesn’t predict any of the four to finish better than 8-10 in conference). I could see West Virginia potentially joining that group as well. I could certainly foresee a situation in March where the entire “bubble” is filled with Big East teams. Contrast that to a conference like the Big Ten which will likely have zero teams on the bubble.

The big winner in Big East's monstrosity is, of course, Memphis. Why join a 17-team mega conference when you can destroy Conference-USA? The big loser in all of this is Cincinnati. Has any athletic administration in the history of sports made a worse 1-2 combo of decisions than when Cincy’s ad-wizards canned Bob Huggins and chose to join the Big East?

Projections

Here is how I view the field right now (at-large bids are sorted by conference):

1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Tennessee
3 Big East Georgetown
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Michigan St.
6 Pac-10 UCLA
7 MVC Drake
8 MWC BYU
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Akron
13 WCC St. Mary’s
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt S. Alabama
16 Horizon Butler
17 MAAC Niagara
18 Big Sky N. Arizona
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Cal St. Northridge
21 OVC Austin Peay
22 Ivy Brown
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Holy Cross
25 Southland Sam Houston St.
26 Northeast Wagner
27 AEC MD Baltimore County
28 Big South NC Asheville
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Hampton
32 At-Large Gonzaga
33 At-Large Duke
34 At-Large Clemson
35 At-Large NC State
36 At-Large Miami (FL)
37 At-Large Marquette
38 At-Large Pittsburgh
39 At-Large West Virginia
40 At-Large Notre Dame
41 At-Large Connecticut
42 At-Large Louisville
43 At-Large USC
44 At-Large Stanford
45 At-Large Arizona
46 At-Large Washington St.
47 At-Large Baylor
48 At-Large Oklahoma
49 At-Large Kansas St.
50 At-Large Texas A&M
51 At-Large Texas
52 At-Large Purdue
53 At-Large Ohio St.
54 At-Large Wisconsin
55 At-Large Indiana
56 At-Large Mississippi St.
57 At-Large Vanderbilt
58 At-Large Mississippi
59 At-Large Florida
60 At-Large St. Joe's
61 At-Large Dayton
62 At-Large Massachusetts
63 At-Large Rhode Island
64 At-Large Kent St.
65 At-Large BYU

Changes from last week:

In: Connecticut, Purdue, St. Joe's, BYU, Kent St., Miami (FL)
Out: Villanova, Providence, Illinois St., Cleveland St., Oregon, Arizona St.

*I don't look at other projections—Lunardi's included—at any point in the season. Everything I do is based on researching each team's resume. My projections are based on who I think will be there based on the results of games played and the difficulty of remaining schedules. This isn’t a “if the season ended today”-deal.

This projected field 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. Come conference tournament time, the last two or three teams that I have in the tourney will probably get pushed out by upsets if not more.

Last five “in” (no particular order)

1). St. Joseph’s

Resume

St. Joe’s has unexpectedly jumped onto the A-10 train headed for the NCAA Tournament. All along, it looked like the A-10 was going to shock the college basketball world with four bids. Now, it looks like it might shock the college basketball world with five bids. St. Joe’s will need at least 11 conference wins to garner a bid, IMO. The remaining schedule is manageable with a number of games against the bottom of the A-10. Pomeroy predicts an 11-5 conference record so Phil Martelli might be headed to another tourney.

2). BYU

Resume

The Cougars should have no problem getting to 12-4 in conference. That would come with a pretty good RPI which would likely mean an at-large bid.

3). Kent St.

Resume

Kent St. has wins over Illinois St., George Mason, and Cleveland St. The Golden Flashes could be in competition for an at-large bid with all three of those teams.

4). Texas A&M

Resume

The Aggies only have one win over a team in the RPI 50. They’ll get an opportunity to change that this week with home games against Texas and Oklahoma. Win one and you’ll see A&M in my projections next week. Lose both, and they’ll be on the outside looking in.

5). NC State

Resume

We should know by Valentine’s Day if NC State is tourney bound. It’ll have to go 3-2 to between now and then or things could get ugly. Pomeroy predicts a 3-8 finish for NC State. I’m not sure it’ll be that bad but it could be close. If the Wolfpack don’t end up getting a bid, I’d love to see Sydney Lowe’s suit-coat get an “honorary” bid.

First five “out” (no particular order)

1). Villanova

Resume

Villanova has issues. Its next five games are against teams in the RPI 50. Five of its next six games after that are against teams in the RPI 35. I didn’t even know a schedule like that was possible. Still, a 5-5 record over that span would leave ‘Nova in good shape for a bid.

2). Seton Hall

Resume

The Pirates (a tip of the cap to Captain Feathersword) started off 0-3 in the Big East. Four consecutive wins later and they’re fighting for a tourney bid. Seton Hall has one of the easiest schedules in the conference from here on out so it might be the best bet of the four bubble teams so Andrew Gaze and Luther Wright eligibility inquiries shouldn't be necessary.

3). Providence

Resume

I don’t have much confidence in Providence’s tourney chances despite non-conference wins over Arkansas, BC, Temple, and Florida St. It would help if even one of those teams was tourney bound.

4). Syracuse

Resume

Syracuse is 1-5 against the RPI 50. The Big East schedule is going to eat the “Cuse” alive. Six of its remaining ten games are on the road and six of its remaining ten games are against teams in the RPI 50. A miss this season would make it two-straight years without a NCAA Tournament bid for James Arthur Boeheim. It would be three had Syracuse not shockingly won the Big East tournament two years ago.

5). Arkansas

Resume

Losing back to back games to S. Carolina and Georgia is not a recipe for making the tournament. In the end, those two games will likely be the reason the Razorbacks are playing in the NIT. Arkansas is about to enter a five-game stretch against teams that are 20-5 in the SEC. If Arkansas has any prayer of making the tourney, it’ll need to go 3-2 in those games, or get bailed out by the Selection Committee for the second year in a row by beating a bunch of “has beens” in the SEC tourney.

Top Seeds

#1 Seeds

Memphis
Kansas
North Carolina
Duke

#2 Seeds

Michigan St.
Tennessee
UCLA
Georgetown


Big Games this Week

Monday

Louisville @ Connecticut

Tuesday

VCU @ George Mason

Wednesday

Kansas @ Kansas St.
Texas @ Texas A&M
Villanova @ Pittsburgh
Memphis @ Houston
Creighton @ Drake
Mississippi St. @ Arkansas
Vanderbilt @ Mississippi

Thursday

NC State @ Duke
Indiana @ Wisconsin
Providence @ Notre Dame
Arizona @ USC
Arizona St. @ UCLA

Friday

None

Saturday

Dayton @ Rhode Island
Miami (FL) @ Duke
Baylor @ Texas
Oklahoma @ Texas A&M
Pittsburgh @ Connecticut
Seton Hall@ Georgetown
Syracuse @ Villanova
West Virginia @ Providence
Winthrop @ NC Asheville
Arizona @ UCLA
Arizona St. @ USC
Stanford @ Washington St.
Florida @ Arkansas
Tennessee @ Mississippi St.
Utah St. @ Nevada

Sunday

New England vs. NY Giants

Thursday, January 24, 2008

A Pryor-ity but not a necessity

The most famous uncommitted recruit in the history of Michigan football is very likely Terrelle Pryor. He is a big, tall, dual-threat QB who likely represents the future of NFL signal-callers. He is the #1-rated recruit at any position according to Rivals which, of course, makes him important. I would continue to address those who haven’t heard of him but I’m not sure any such person exists. So I’ll skip over the “Pryor is the next Vince Young” hyperbole and get to the point. By most accounts, Pryor’s destination of choice will either be Ann Arbor or Columbus making this another Michigan/Ohio St. recruiting showdown. Pryor to Michigan could quickly turn the momentum in the rivalry. Pryor to Ohio St. could be four more years of Buckeye-domination. Clearly, it behooves Michigan to get Pryor to Ann Arbor. From a Michigan-perspective, though, it’s vastly more important for Ohio St. to not get him than it is for Michigan to get him.

Short-term success is likely with or without Pryor

There is no question that the Michigan football program would explode with the combined momentum of Rich Rodriguez’s spread offense and a commitment from a recruit as sought-after as Pryor. However, too many people are tying Michigan’s fate to Pryor’s arrival. Michigan doesn’t need Pryor. He would be a godsend for a coaching staff trying to delicately transition a pro-style football roster into a full-on spread offense. But, not getting Pryor won’t mean years of mediocrity and—contrary to what most seem to believe—likely won’t mean one year of mediocrity. The cavalcade of “doomsday”-predictors for 2008 seem to have forgotten that Michigan has more talent than every team on its schedule sans Ohio St. The defense returns seven starters including All-Big Ten candidates Morgan Trent, Donovan Warren, Terrance Taylor, Brandon Graham, and Tim Jamison. Even if the offense is putrid next season—which is doubtful considering putrid spread offenses are as common as a Wade Phillips playoff-win—Michigan’s defense will be good enough to keep it in every game.

The year-one offense is clearly the big worry among Michigan fans and a favorite point of emphasis for Michigan-haters. However, I don’t think that the question is whether the offense will be bad enough to keep Michigan from a bowl game as many have speculated. I think the question is whether the offense can be good enough for Michigan to win 10+ games. If the offense has any continuity whatsoever, Michigan should be quite good next season. If the offense is in a state of flux for the entire season, the overall talent of the roster should still be good enough to yield Michigan’s status quo of at least eight wins.

Worst Case for 2008

Worst case scenario entering the 2008-season is that Pryor chooses OSU and Rodriguez can’t land a mid-level recruit capable of stepping in as a freshman. That would leave Steven Threet—a top 10 QB recruit coming out of High School—to run the offense. On the surface, there doesn’t seem to be much comfort in that. However, remember the spread Michigan unveiled in the Capital One Bowl? That’s the same spread Rodriguez would’ve used if Ryan Mallett stuck around. It’s not like Rodriguez is going to try to install a run-based spread offense with Threet. He’s not an idiot. He would put Threet in the shotgun and spread the field like Purdue or Texas Tech. Purdue and Texas Tech have formidable offenses whether they have a fifth-year senior or a freshman at QB. Michigan—even in a year in which it loses Chad Henne, Mike Hart, Jake Long, Mario Manningham, and Adrian Arrington—will have more talent on its roster than Purdue or Texas Tech has ever had. Greg Mathews and Carson Butler are very good receiving threats. Among the bevy of capable underclassmen receivers (Toney Clemons, Junior Hemingway, Darryl Stonum, LaTerryal Savoy and Martell Webb) will almost undoubtedly be a break-out performer.

Michigan will have a number of options at running back including Kevin Grady, Carlos Brown, Brandon Minor, Avery Horn, and Sam McGuffie. That’s eight four-star recruits and a five-star recruit at the skill-positions alone that Rodriguez will have to work with. Rodriguez could only dream of that level of talent when he was forced to work with 2 and 3-star recruits exclusively at WVU. In the four recruiting classes from 2003-2006, WVU signed zero four-star recruits who actually contributed meaningful minutes on the field (the three he did sign got booted from the team). The players that Rodriguez inherited at Michigan are extremely talented. Most would be feature players at Texas Tech, Purdue or West Virginia. There is no question in my mind that you can plug Threet into an offense with Michigan’s current crop of running backs and wide receivers and come up with a product that isn’t awful.

A lot will be made of Michigan’s problems on the OL. Fortunately, the spread can mask weaknesses on the OL. The Michigan OL was marginal at best in 2007. That “marginal” line didn’t just magically mold into a fantastic line for the Capital One Bowl. The spread gave Henne more time to throw and forced Florida to dedicate more players to defending the pass. Thus, the OL becomes less of an issue. Even still, Rodriguez will have some very talented players at his disposal. Justin Boren, Steve Schilling, and Dann O’Neil were all Rivals100 recruits. I don’t want to make recruiting seem like the end all. I just want people to realize that year-one isn’t all “doom and gloom” like many have speculated. The defense will be very good and the offense will have a number of talented players to work with.

The schedule

This is going to sound totally revolutionary to some people but winning eight or nine games at Michigan is not a difficult feat. In fact, winning eight games per year is about the worst possible outcome in any given year considering roster talent and relative ease of Michigan’s typical schedule. In most seasons, Michigan plays about five or six “loseable” games. It is the results of those games which determines how successful the season is going to be. Nothing has changed in that regard for the 2008 schedule. Michigan “should” beat Utah, Miami (OH), Toledo, Minnesota, and Northwestern. That’s five wins right there. I have no problem penciling in Ohio St. as a likely loss. That leaves Notre Dame, Illinois, Wisconsin, Penn St., Michigan St., and Purdue. A loss at Notre Dame is possible but not probable. A loss at home to Michigan St. is possible but not probable. And, a loss at Purdue is possible but not probable. I would be surprised if Michigan fared worse than 2-1 in those games. Much has been made of Michigan’s personnel-losses but Michigan St., Purdue, and Notre Dame lose a considerable amount as well. I don’t see how any of those three teams are better off than Michigan for 2008.

It will undoubtedly become chic to predict losses at home to Wisconsin and Illinois and at Penn St. All three could happen but I would be surprised if all three did happen. Wisconsin and Illinois also lose a number of important players. Michigan should be good enough to take one of those games at a minimum. That adds up to eight wins. I would be very surprised if Michigan won fewer than eight games even with a transition-year.

Long Term

There is no question in my mind that Michigan would do just fine in the short term without Pryor. There is even less of a question that Michigan will do just fine in the long term without Pryor. Rodriguez doesn’t need Terrelle Pryor to have an unstoppable offense. He just needs Pat White. White was merely a three-star, wide receiver recruit in high school. He didn’t succeed at WVU because he was a great-passer. He had the athletic-ability to run the spread and was smart enough to make the right reads. One can daydream about the explosiveness of a Pryor-led Michigan offense. But, there is no guessing necessary to understand the explosiveness of Rodriguez’s offense even when it’s led by an unheralded, three-star, wide receiver who can make the right read. Much has been made of the Big East’s reputation for weak defenses but surely Georgia, Georgia Tech, and Oklahoma count as formidable defensive obstacles. With White at the helm, WVU put up 38, 38, and 48 points against the #4, #20, and #9 defenses in its last three bowl games. Rodriguez has success with a system—not with a player. The skills required to run Rodriguez’s offense are so specific that a mid-tier recruit like White can and will flourish at the helm. There are a gazillion more Pat Whites out there than Terrelle Pryors. That certainly bodes well for Michigan but Rodriguez will find out soon enough that he won’t have to “take chances” on guys like White at Michigan. As Rodriguez has stated numerous times, you're dealing with a whole different caliber of player when you’ve got the block “M” on your hat. If it isn't Pryor this year, it'll be his equivalent next year.

So, if—or more likely when—Pryor chooses OSU on signing day, don’t go removing “Michigan” from the top of the “most consecutive bowl appearances” list. Michigan is—and always has been—more than one player.

Monday, January 21, 2008

NCAA Tournament projections look like Tom Coughlin's face

I may be chasing the "White Rabbit" but I wont rest—except when I need to—until I project all 65 teams correctly. Last year, I missed a perfect projection by one spot. Syracuse—my only miss—was no lock but it was the best option as the 65th team. The team that the Selection Committee put in over Syracuse—Arkansas—had no business making the tournament. The Selection Committee has made some terrible decisions over the last two years. So, trying to emulate terrible decision-makers might seem a bit insane. And, I admit that it probably is. Nonetheless, come March, I'll throw out a 65-team projection with hopes that I'll get them all correct. I am not alone in my pursuit of perfection, though. Famed bracketologist, Joe Lunardi, has been projecting the 65-team field since 1998 and has yet to be perfect.

This first week of projections won’t feature the normal extracurriculars (last five out, last five in etc). I moved back the first week of projections as it is because there is just too much clutter after the top 10-15 teams. It was difficult to even find 65 teams that were worthy of being classified as “in the field.” But, that’s one of the reasons why I enjoy the projections so much. With each passing week, the projections mold into a more accurate depiction of the field. The parity in the major conferences thus far (the ACC and Big XII only have two teams in the RPI 25, the Big Ten, SEC, and Big East only have three) and the rise of the mid-majors (eight of the RPI 25 are not from one of the six major conferences) have created too much ambiguity to take these projections seriously. But, we have to start somewhere. Things should look a whole lot better two weeks from now.

Don’t Mess with the A-10

After catapulting itself into semi-major status over the last couple years, the Missouri Valley Conference will struggle to get two bids this year and even if it does continue its streak of at least two bids for the 10th straight year, it will do so in less impressive fashion. That would normally mean more bids up-for-grabs for the major conferences but "not so fast, my friend". Contrary to what we have been led to believe over the last decade, the A-10 still exists and it’s pissed. The A-10s list of non-conference victims is shocking. The conference has 25 wins over the RPI 100 (the Big Ten has 18) despite having the most difficult non-conference schedule of any of the top 10 conferences. Despite its grueling SOS, it has managed a non-conference record of 116-66 (.637 %) which is considerably better than its 98-83 (.515 %) record a year ago. The A-10 has six teams in the RPI 60 including four in the RPI 20. The result will likely be at least four A-10 teams receiving tournament-bids which is the most it has had in 10 years. Even more surprising is that George Washington, Temple, and St. Joe’s aren’t fueling the charge. Rhode Island (hasn’t made the tourney since ’99) and UMASS (hasn’t made the tourney since ’98) along with Xavier and Dayton have done the most damage thus far. Tyson Wheeler and Lari Ketner must be proud. I can’t say I saw this coming but I’m glad it did. College basketball is better off when the A-10 isn’t terrible. On a side note, the A-10 has had 20 basketball members since its inception in 1975. One million pretend dollars to anyone who can name every existing team in the A-10 and pretend ownership of the world to anyone who can name all 20 schools that have participated in the A-10. Answer.

Teen Wolf

The much ballyhooed freshman class of 2007 has yielded a wealth of stars (Derrick Rose, O.J. Mayo, Kevin Love, and Michael Beasley just to name a few) but I haven’t seen a better freshman than Eric Gordon. He reminds me of Teen Wolf. Remember the scene when Scott Howard turns into “The Wolf” and throws down dunk after thunderous dunk in a video montage set to "Way to Go" by Mark Vieha? That’s what Gordon reminds me of. He dunks like Charles Barkley. He is “lights-out” from 3-point range (42%). He can get to the rim on anyone at anytime. He could be a star in the NBA right now. The closest thing to Teen Wolf in the NBA is Baron Davis (the beard is just "icing on the cake") and I think Davis is Gordon’s NBA-equivalent.

The worst comparison I have ever heard in the history of comparisons was when the announcers of the Michigan-Indiana game two weeks ago (don’t quote me on this but I believe Musberger was involved with said comparison) compared him to Jason Kidd. There has never been a player in the history of great point-guards who compares less favorably to Eric Gordon than Jason Kidd. Gordon is a prolific 3-point shooter with freaky athletic ability who shoots first and dunks second. Kidd is a questionable shooter who passes first and second and rarely—if ever—dunks and certainly never dunks in traffic. So, please keep Gordon-comparisons to Teen Wolf, Baron Davis or anyone not named Jason Kidd.

As everyone in the free-world knows, Gordon originally committed to Illinois before Kelvin Sampson politely redirected him to Indiana. Generally, one recruit doesn’t make a team or a season. In this case, that couldn’t be more wrong. If Gordon kept his commitment to Illinois, the Illini would be better than Indiana and would easily be ranked in the top 10. Instead, Gordon went to Indiana and now the Hoosiers are clearly better than Illinois and ranked in the top 10. However, Illinois shouldn’t be too pissed. Gordon will likely take his monster-dunks to the NBA next season. Missing out on four years of Gordon would’ve been unbearable. One season isn’t nearly as bad. Plus, I’m not sure Alex Legion transfers to Illinois if Gordon were around. It’s possible those four years of Legion end up being better than one year of Gordon. It's also possible that Legion transfers to four more schools.

Projections

Here is how I view the field right now (at-large bids are sorted by conference):

1 ACC North Carolina
2 SEC Tennessee
3 Big East Georgetown
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Michigan St.
6 Pac-10 UCLA
7 MVC Drake
8 MWC BYU
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial George Mason
12 MAC Akron
13 WCC St. Mary’s
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt S. Alabama
16 Horizon Butler
17 MAAC Niagara
18 Big Sky N. Arizona
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Cal St. Northridge
21 OVC Austin Peay
22 Ivy Brown
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Holy Cross
25 Southland Sam Houston St.
26 Northeast Wagner
27 AEC MD Baltimore County
28 Big South NC Asheville
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Hampton
32 At-Large Gonzaga
33 At-Large Duke
34 At-Large Clemson
35 At-Large NC State
36 At-Large Notre Dame
37 At-Large Marquette
38 At-Large Pittsburgh
39 At-Large West Virginia
40 At-Large Villanova
41 At-Large Providence
42 At-Large Louisville
43 At-Large USC
44 At-Large Arizona St.
45 At-Large Arizona
46 At-Large Washington St.
47 At-Large Stanford
48 At-Large Oregon
49 At-Large Kansas St.
50 At-Large Texas A&M
51 At-Large Texas
52 At-Large Oklahoma
53 At-Large Baylor
54 At-Large Wisconsin
55 At-Large Indiana
56 At-Large Ohio St.
57 At-Large Vanderbilt
58 At-Large Mississippi
59 At-Large Florida
60 At-Large Mississippi St.
61 At-Large Dayton
62 At-Large Massachusetts
63 At-Large Rhode Island
64 At-Large Cleveland St.
65 At-Large Illinois St.

*I don't look at other projections—Lunardi's included—at any point in the season. Everything I do is based on researching each team's resume. My projections are based on who I think will be there based on the results of games played and the difficulty of remaining schedules. This isn’t a “if the season ended today”-deal.

This projected field 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. Come conference tournament time, the last two or three teams that I have in the tourney will probably get pushed out by upsets if not more.

Big Games this Week

Monday

Syracuse @ Georgetown

Tuesday

Drake @ Creighton

Wednesday

Massachusetts @ St. Joe’s
Baylor @ Texas A&M
Akron @ Kent St.
San Diego St. @ BYU

Thursday

Dayton @ Xavier
UCLA @ Oregon
Washington St. @ Arizona

Saturday

St. Joe’s @ Temple
Connecticut @ Indiana
Minnesota @ Ohio St.
Wisconsin @ Purdue
Oklahoma @ Baylor
Texas Tech @ Texas
Georgetown @ West Virginia
Notre Dame @ Villanova
Gonzaga @ Memphis
Creighton @ S. Illinois
UNLV @ San Diego St.
New Mexico @ BYU
USC @ Oregon
Washington St. @ Arizona St.
Mississippi @ Mississippi St.

Sunday

Xavier @ Massachusetts
Clemson @ Miami (FL)
Duke @ Maryland
Providence @ Syracuse
Vanderbilt @ Florida

Friday, January 18, 2008

Nothing to see here

Two things on this very bright and cold Friday afternoon: First, heads up to Mgoblog for passing along this beauty of a story by Stewart Mandel. I haven’t commented on the ridiculous West Virginia/"woman scorned"-thing because it really isn’t worth commenting on. However, Mandel commented on it and I’m throwing my support behind his column.

Second, so that’s why the Minnesota Vikings gave up five players and six draft picks for Herschel Walker in 1989. They had to give up fair value for—not one, but—two personalities. The funniest quote that I’ve read in quite a while closes out that story. I didn’t realize Vince Dooley was such a comedian. All jokes aside, Walker is the man. I rushed for over 1,000 yards in many-a-game using Georgia ’80 in Bill Walsh’s College Football for Sega Genesis. The only player in the game who could even compete with him was Bo Jackson on Auburn '84. Hopefully Walker makes life easier for people with multiple personality disorder (dissociative identity disorder) by bringing attention to it. And, hopefully he does more for the disorder than that no-good, lying, Aaron Stampler did in Primal Fear.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Detroit is Hockeytown Sportstown

I received an email from a friend the other day. Said friend is a diehard Boston-fan. The list of boy names for his first child was narrowed down to “Boston” and “Beckett”. When a girl popped out, she was promptly given the middle name, “Lynn”. Only he knows if that was purely a coincidence or inspired by the first player in MLB history to win the MVP and Rookie of the Year in the same season. Nonetheless, the email went as follows:


First, a thought has been bugging me for some time now. How annoying are Boston
Sports fans right now. Isn't it approaching a ridiculous level? Are people
outside of New England just completely sick and tired of Boston sports? It is
impossible for me to tell since I am such a huge Boston Sports fan, but the fan
of all things sports is screaming to me that Boston Sports must not be playing
well in the rest of the country…Still, if I were an objective witness, I would
loathe the Patriots, and the Sox story would probably be wearing thin. I think
the Celts probably get a pass this year, because they have been down for so long
and they are one of the NBA's great franchises. People seem glad that they are
relevant again. Like I said though, it doesn't really matter to me. I make no
apologies for the success of my teams. I would be crazy to. I only bring it up
because it's something I have been noticing lately in conversation with other
sports fans.
Clearly, my friend isn’t a “jerk” fan. He has perspective and that—in my opinion—is the most important attribute to being a good sports fan. There is no question that Boston is rollin' right now and it very well could be the case that America is growing tired of it. I pondered a response to his questions for all of about five seconds before replying that he had written to the wrong person if he was trying to find someone who is jealous of Boston’s sports success. I reminded him that Detroit is second-to-none when it comes to sports even if most people outside of Michigan don't realize it.

The Red Wings are the best team in hockey. The Pistons are one of the three best teams in the NBA. The Tigers are one of the three best teams in MLB. The Lions are terrible but so are the Bruins (and every team in Chicago). Michigan football was already one of the premier programs in the country and that was before all things stale were removed. Michigan St. basketball is poised for its annual run at the Final Four. No city or state—not even California with its 15 professional sports teams—can match Detroit’s sports “mojo.” There is a decent chance that the best NHL, NBA and MLB teams all play in Detroit. Given that free agents avoid Detroit like the plague—that is remarkable. Clearly, the fact that Detroit’s worst team is in the most popular sport in America and its best team is in the least popular sport in America hurts the profile a bit. Boston has the luxury of claiming the opposite. And, given the choice, who wouldn’t rather have an elite football team over an elite hockey team?

The biggest difference between Detroit and Boston is that Boston has turned regular season success into championships more recently. The Red Sox won the World Series. New England is well on its way to winning the Super Bowl. Until Detroit can get back to winning championships, Boston will get the headlines. But, Detroit doesn’t play “little brother” (not even with Michigan St. football in the house =)) to any city when it comes to sports. Anyone who doubts this may want to check back in June when Detroit is the epicenter of the sports world. It won’t be a surprise to those who have been paying attention because this isn’t a new phenomenon.

Of course, winning never happens by accident. Detroit has the best collection of front office personnel in professional sports. There isn’t a better GM in baseball than Dave Dombrowski. His track-record is near-flawless. Joe Dumars took over an organization in disarray and turned it into a championship-team within three seasons. Ken Holland is the best GM in the NHL and it might not be close. Tom Izzo is easily one of the five best coaches in college basketball and John Beilein, Rich Rodriguez and Mark Dantonio have great reputations as well. Unlike Boston, NY, or Chicago, Detroit never has the luxury of signing high-priced free agents. Nobody wants to come to Detroit. Detroit has had to build its franchises through savvy trades, unheralded free agent signings, and solid drafts. There is no question that there is a much greater degree of difficulty for Detroit to field competitive teams than any other major sports city. While it’s certainly not ideal that the city can’t attract star-power via free agency, the fact that the blue-collar reputation of the city is replicated in its sports teams makes it all the more rewarding as a sports fan.

Interestingly, as successful as Detroit sports has been over the last few years, the failed playoff-runs seem to trump the regular-season success and that is understandable. I know I’m guilty of looking at the narrow picture too often and I think most fans are as well. But, if we step back for a minute I think we’re fortunate to be in the middle of such a motown sports revival if you will (shameless, I know). I’m not sure if sports fans across the country think that Detroit sports fans are obnoxious as my friend suspects is the case with Boston fans. However, if they’re sick of Boston, then they should be sick of Detroit, too. Boston might be getting the pub, but Detroit just keeps trucking along as the best sports city in America.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Clemens, his legacy, and the Hall of Fame

Those of you who are familiar with my blog know that I think Roger Clemens is the greatest pitcher who ever lived based on a number of factors. If it turns out that he did take steroids, then I would certainly emphasize that fact whenever making such a claim in the future. I don’t have a problem acknowledging his numbers. I don’t have a problem calling him the best ever. However, in fairness to every other great pitcher who has played the game who very likely didn’t take steroids (i.e. Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux), the first sentence describing Clemens’ accomplishments should include the phrase, “steroid-use.” That is really the only way I can reconcile his super-human statistics while appropriately acknowledging the players who did it the “right” way.

We may never know for certain whether Clemens took steroids or not. However, based on what there is to go on at this point, I believe that he did. With one notable exception—that being Todd Helton—whenever there has been “smoke”, there has been “fire” when it comes to players accused of taking steroids. That certainly isn’t conclusive but clearly players from the steroid-era have not earned the benefit of the doubt. I believe that Clemens is lying through his teeth to save his legacy. While I don’t condone “lying”, he clearly has a lot to lose if these allegations prove to be legit. He stands to gain a considerable amount of fanfare for the remainder of his life by being billed as “the greatest pitcher who ever lived.” The thought of losing that and losing the legitimacy of his eye-popping-accomplishments are probably too much for Clemens to simply acknowledge steroid-use without putting up a fight. However, he’ll have to factor “jail time” into that equation if he agrees to testify in front of Congress on February 13.

Preponderance of Evidence

Clemens’s former trainer, Brian McNamee, was dead-on about Andy Pettitte’s HGH-use. Clemens and Pettitte are best pals. Clemens denies even knowing that Pettitte took HGH. I find that hard to believe. I also find it hard to believe that McNamee would tell the truth about Pettitte and make up a lie about Clemens—his good friend—just to drag his name through the mud. Without anything to gain, McNamee has stood steadfast behind his allegations and has certainly come off as credible in lieu of Pettitte’s admission to HGH-use.

On the other hand, Clemens’s camp has looked incredibly suspect throughout this whole ordeal. From the multi-day silence following the release of the Mitchell Report to the lame attempts to clear his name by secretly recording a phone-conversation with McNamee, Clemens has been scrambling. He looked desperate when he played the tape of the conversation to the media because it didn’t reveal anything except that McNamee would not relent on his accusations even in a private telephone conversation with Clemens. McNamee even sounded sympathetic to Clemens on the tape and still never wavered. I’m still not sure what Clemens thought he was proving by playing the tape. It actually made him look worse. Clemens then accounted for the injections that McNamee claimed to have administered by saying they were B-12 and Lidocaine. McNamee has said that Clemens sported an abscess (don't click) from the injections which is “far less likely” to come from B-12 and Lidocaine than it is from steroids according to a doctor from the World Anti-Doping Agency. Clemens also claimed that he was unaware that his name would be mentioned in the Mitchell Report. According to Mitchell, that seems highly unlikely.

Considering the above information, I am forced to site Occam’s razor in believing that Clemens is guilty. Either I believe the following; 1). McNamee told the truth about Pettitte and lied about Clemens, 2). Clemens didn’t know that Pettitte—his best pal—was taking steroids, 3). Mitchell lied about notifying Clemens that he was in the report, 4). Clemens just happens to be the only player with a myriad of circumstantial evidence pointing towards steroid-use who turns out to be innocent, 5). Clemens developed an abscess from B-12 or Lidocaine, 6). Clemens—like Bonds as a hitter—is the only elite pitcher who not only peaked after the age of 35 but got better into his mid-40s and beyond or, I can believe that he very likely took steroids. I’m going with option #2.

The “lying” is more annoying than the steroid-use.

I am not going to pretend that taking steroids is akin to murder. In the grand scheme of things, “Joe Roidman” taking steroids at the local gym isn’t that big of a deal. Everyone makes mistakes. However, in the world of athletics, there are a number of additional dynamics in play. Competitive-sports are based on fairness and a level playing-field. If those are compromised, sports like baseball lose legitimacy. Steroid-users in the sports world are often rewarded with larger profiles and bigger paydays. On the flip side, the respective legacies of players like Randy Johnson and Ken Griffey Jr.—players who almost certainly did not take performance-enhancing drugs—are minimized.

I don’t despise the gains achieved by taking steroids as much as I despise the fact that steroid-users take away from people who achieved success the right way. For instance, the worst part of Ben Johnson’s steroid-use prior to the ’88 Seoul Olympics wasn’t that he broke the law. It was that Carl Lewis—who, as far as I know, did things the “right” way—was denied what he had rightfully earned. Lewis was eventually awarded the “gold” three days later but only after first experiencing the initial heartbreak of losing the race. Not everyone is as lucky as Lewis. Marion Jones won five gold medals in the 2000 Sydney Olympics and it wasn’t until seven years later that she was caught.

There is no doubt that “cheating” leaves a path of destruction in the sports world. However, the thing that bothers me most about Clemens, Bonds, Marion Jones and everyone else who has denied use in the face of fairly serious evidence is the “lying.” Let's forget for a moment that nobody ever gets away with a weak-denial. Lying is such a heinous act. It's the ultimate form of insult to the American public especially when it comes in front of a Grand Jury or Congress. Then there's the fact that lying almost always ends up making things much worse than telling the truth would've yielded. Pete Rose isn’t still banned from the HOF because he bet on baseball. He’s still banned because he lied about it for so long. Bonds isn’t facing jail time because he took steroids. He’s facing jail time because he lied about it. The same goes for Marion Jones. However cliché this is to say, America does love to give people second chances. That ceases to be true when the “people” in question refuse to accept responsibility. Bonds, Rose, Palmeiro, and Marion Jones are almost universally viewed with shame in America more so because they lied than because of the “cheating” (or in Rose’s case, “Cardinal sinning”). Clemens will likely follow suit if he steps in front of Congress.

The Hall of Fame-question shouldn't be about statistics.

While my opinion of Clemens—both personally and statistically—has changed, one thing that hasn’t changed for me—and shouldn’t change for anyone else—is his candidacy for the Hall of Fame based on numbers. If you’re going to argue that Clemens shouldn’t be elected to the HOF, you’re better off leaving numbers out of the argument.

Whenever a superstar is accused of taking steroids, everyone asks, “is he still a Hall of Famer?” I think some people interpret this question the wrong way. Many rush to recreate career statistics or simply choose to only acknowledge statistics attained before the alleged steroid-use. Let’s throw aside the fact that recalculating career numbers to account for steroid-use is impossible. Nobody knows how much better steroids make a player. There are number of bad players who were still bad after taking steroids (i.e. Alex Sanchez, Nook Logan, Neifi Perez and more than half the guys in the Mitchell Report). Conversely, Bonds likely took steroids and hit 24 more home runs than he had ever hit in a single-season. The effects obviously differ from person to person so recalculating career numbers isn’t even a reasonable option. The real problem with the question is that it assumes that there actually is a player who became a Hall of Famer because of steroids. I’m not so sure that steroids can make a non-Hall of Famer, a Hall of Famer. There is a lot more to baseball than brute strength. Mechanics, instincts, hand-eye coordination, and work ethic are, by far, the most important factors in determining the caliber of a baseball player. Barry Bonds was a Hall of Fame-player before he took steroids. Roger Clemens was a Hall of Fame-player before he took steroids. Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro would’ve almost certainly reached 500 career home runs without steroids. To suggest that there is a logical way to figure out if steroid-use turned a good player into a Hall of Fame-player is a “pie in the sky” notion. I also don’t care for only looking at statistics achieved before the alleged steroid-use. For instance, even without steroid-use, it is very likely that Bonds would’ve had a good stretch from 2001-2004. It doesn’t make sense to treat those years as a total zero as some choose to do.

The question about whether a player should be a Hall of Famer in lieu of steroid-use really should be about whether any player who took steroids should be admitted into the Hall of Fame. Baseball writers across America are racking their brains trying to figure out whether various players who took steroids are Hall of Famers statistically. They should be discussing whether or not steroid-users should even be eligible for the Hall of Fame. Since there is no way to know just how many more home runs a player hit because of steroids and there is no way of knowing how much healthier a player was because of steroids, statistics should be taken at face value. Some have adopted the “if it’s even close, just say no” philosophy and others have chosen to teach steroid-users a lesson by refusing to vote for borderline steroid-users. If people want to adopt the “teach a lesson” stance, then it should be across the board. Steroid-use should either be a total deal-breaker, or eliminated from the discussion of Hall of Fame-status all together. I can respect either side. I just don’t think it’s reasonable to pick and choose. Voters who fashion themselves as someone who is smart enough to be able to decipher whether steroid-use made someone a Hall of Famer or not are claiming mathematical abilities that as far as I know aren’t even possible. The only acceptable caveat I see with “picking and choosing” is if someone wants to punish the players who lied.

There is no “right” answer but there are “better” answers.

There are a lot of reasonable opinions out there and I don’t envy anyone trying to sort all of this out. If I had to pick a side, I would choose to eliminate “steroids” or “HGH” from Hall of Fame discussions. I don’t have a problem putting an asterisk next to the names of Hall of Fame steroid-users. The future baseball fan has a right to know which players cheated and which players didn’t and the “cheaters” deserve to have their indiscretions acknowledged. Some have argued that it wouldn’t be fair to label a player with an asterisk when we don’t know everyone who took steroids. I don’t understand that logic. The players who got caught shouldn’t be spared because everyone didn’t get caught. That doesn't even make sense. I think that—unless you lie to a Grand Jury—the proper punishment for using steroids should be the permanent-tarnishing of one’s career and legacy.

Some may argue that steroids weren’t against the rules in baseball so taking a hard stance is unfair. I don’t by that for a second. Steroids were very much against the rules in baseball and in every other facet of American life. They were illegal for everyone regardless of affiliation or stature. Those players broke the law to get an advantage and that should not be lost on anyone. Too many people want to place all of the blame on baseball for allowing an environment where drug-use went unchecked. If people want to rail baseball for not being vigilant enough, I have no qualms with that. However, the responsibility ultimately lies with the players who used. They are to blame and they should pay a price. Whether that’s banishment from the “Hall” or just a permanent tarnishing of their legacy is up to you to decide. Keep in mind, other players have cheated. Gaylord Perry "doctored" the ball as did many other pitchers. There is proof of this and there is admission of this. Teams have stolen signs. There is proof of this and admission of this. I’m not suggesting those forms of cheating are better or worse than steroids. I’m just saying there has been a precedent set in the past for “cheating.” That’s something worth considering as well.

Friday, January 11, 2008

The Dunk that wasn't so great

Tyler Hansbrough is a great player. However, the vast majority of college-level “big men” could’ve pulled off his “spectacular” dunk over UNC-Asheville’s Kenny George with the aid of a distance-creating travel or a "running start" as the announcer put it. For those of you who watched the game—or saw the highlight 68 times on Sportscenter—you know what I’m talking about. For those of you who haven’t, Hansbrough clearly traveled. Had he attempted the dunk—or even a shot—after just two steps—the number allowable by rule—George would’ve been all over it.




You might be wondering why I would even write something about this. Players get away with travels all the time. Well, Jim Rome felt it necessary to rip into George for letting Hansbrough “throw one down” on him. This is probably where I need to mention that George is 7’7 and weighs 365 lbs. Rome—without mention of Hansbrough’s blatant travel—mocked George on Jim Rome is Burning. Here is what he had to say:



“Top-ranked North Carolina ran its record to a perfect 16-0, hammering North
Carolina-Asheville 93-81. Obviously, the highlight of the night was Tar Heel
Tyler Hansbrough throwing one down on 7 foot-7 Kenny George! To quote my
colleague Bill Walton. Move your feet in the paint…you have to protect the rim,
big man. This is a man’s game. Played by men…competing for the ultimate prize.

George says that is the first time anyone has jammed on him in at least
three years. Uh yeah! You are 7-7, 360….it’s not going to happen very often. He
says, quote: “I saw him coming to the basket. I just kept my hands straight up.
I had him. I just forgot to jump.”

Of course, Kenny, you’re 7-7. Unless
you’re changing a light in the scoreboard, you don’t need to. My man…he may be a
Player of the Year candidate but a guy nearly a foot shorter than you shouldn’t
be putting you on a ‘poster’.”

Rome tries to play the story up by suggesting that UNC-Ashville got “hammered” in a 12-point-loss on the road against the #1 team in the country (NC won by 31 last year). Asheville didn't get "hammered" and George's 14 points, 11 rebounds, and four blocks were one of the reasons why. Yet, Rome's only mention of George was to lament him for allowing a guy—who needed a travel violation just to pull the play off—to “posterize” him. This is just my opinion but if a guy needs to travel to complete a dunk, that dunk should be a). barred from being called spectacular and b). barred from being on a poster.

Rome is a perfect example why “selling your soul to the devil” is such a bad thing. He rips on anyone and everyone for anything and everything. He has somehow built up “street cred” as a badass, in-your-face interviewer which is something I never thought was possible after the Jim Everett-incident (for the love of God, please click the link). I don’t mind a guy who speaks his mind like Rome. He asks difficult questions and doesn’t let people get away with clichés or “throw away” answers. The part of Rome I can’t stand, though, is exactly the sort of thing that inspired this post. Kenny George got beat by an illegal move on one play in one basketball game during one season of his career. Yet, Rome was all over him as if he had any idea what it's like to be 7'7.

George is an NBA-prospect. He is the best 7’7 player I have ever seen (which really only means he’s better than Manute Bol and Gheorge Muresan). He is bigger, stronger, and more mobile than Bol and Muresan. He will have an NBA career and it won’t just be as a benchwarmer. George has had to deal with acromegaly and two catastrophic knee injuries. This is a guy who should be celebrated, not mocked. That one play is not any more an indictment of George’s basketball "game" as Rome getting bitch-slapped by Everett was an indictment of Rome’s manhood. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. And, people who get dunked on by a guy who blatantly traveled should not be ridiculed.

Apology Accepted

I should’ve mentioned this three weeks ago when it happened but for some reason it didn’t occur to me to put it in a post. As most of you probably remember from a couple posts that I wrote on the matter, Jim Carty—of the Ann Arbor News—took one of my posts to task back in July for suggesting Rich Rodriguez would be a good choice for Michigan. After Michigan named Rodriguez the new Head Football Coach, Carty apologized for his July article. Those of you who read Mlive.com have probably seen the article already. Carty and I have exchanged emails discussing everything. I told him I appreciated his apology and whatnot. However annoying his July-post was, I do think it’s admirable that he took the time to apologize to a lowly blogger. Most media-types—and you can find evidence of this just about every day—don’t respect bloggers enough to even bother with a simple, “my bad.” Anyhow, I’m pretty sure it’s bad form to not follow a public apology with a public acceptance. Carty already knows my thoughts on the matter but I just wanted to pass it along to my readership as well. Hopefully Carty learned a lesson here because if he acts up again, I’ll have to give him more things to apologize for. =)

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Jay Bilas needs two ethics classes

“Guess who’s back? Back again.” Jay Bilas is back for another round of Tommy Amaker-defending Michigan-bashing. This time, though, his story has changed a bit and it’s likely because of two factors; 1). He must have realized that his Bill Martin-bashing doesn’t carry any weight if he actually supports John Beilein which he clearly did three weeks ago when he said, “I think that John Beilein will do a great job, with time” and 2). Bilas can’t exactly continue his assault on Martin because the Michigan AD sent 99.9% of Michigan-supporters into a state of euphoria by hiring Rich Rodriguez. So, “it’s Back to the lab again yo” for a new angle. Bilas must be hard-up for ammunition because his new “angle” directly contradicts his “Beilein will do a great job, with time” claim. Here is his latest gem:

"Beilein makes his players sound so stupid and clueless that it is insulting. First, and I say this as a guy who thinks that basketball is far more complicated than most seem to understand, to refer to your own basketball understanding as 'wisdom' seems a bit much. Knowledge, yes. Wisdom, take a pill. Even John Wooden wouldn't refer to his own knowledge as 'wisdom.' Second, if your system is so complicated that you need to refer to recruited athletes and students admitted to the University of Michigan as the basketball equivalent of toddlers, maybe you should simplify things so you can compete favorably with Harvard, Central Michigan or Western Kentucky."

Bilas—no doubt putting to use that prestigious Duke-degree—deduced that he can’t exactly put heat on Martin for the way he has run the basketball program if he supports his new coach. Thus, we have Bilas taking Beilein to task for “appropriate use of synonyms” and “well-conceived analogies.” Bilas actually attempts to grill Beilein for using the word “wisdom” instead of “knowledge.” Any thesaurus will tell you that wisdom and knowledge are synonyms. Just to help out Bilas here, I will provide the definition. “Synonym: two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context.” Even if we pretend that synonyms don’t exist, what part of a 54-year old basketball coach with 876 basketball games under his belt providing wisdom to 19-year olds is unreasonable? I can’t believe that Bilas had so little faith in ESPN’s readership that he thought he could get by with that kind of garbage without being called out.

Bilas then attempts to rail Beilein for making a poignant analogy that was clearly designed to do two things; 1). Take pressure off of his young basketball team and; 2). Provide realistic expectations for a program undergoing an X’s and O’s overhaul. Only an idiot—or someone trying way too hard to defend a former teammate—would take Beilein’s use of the word “toddler” as an insult.

Bilas goes on to take a dig at Beilein for losing to Harvard and Western Kentucky. But, hold on a second. Bilas made his previous, “Beilein will do a great job, with time,” comment two weeks after Michigan had lost to both Harvard and Western Kentucky. Clearly, a person who thinks those losses were such a bad thing wouldn’t then suggest two weeks after said losses that the coach “will do a great job” without the slightest bit of criticism directed his way. And, if you do think the coach will do a “great job”, then those two losses aren’t a big deal. Apparently Bilas isn’t willing to give Beilein the time that he himself said Beilein would need.

Bilas is all over the map and its equal parts pathetic and annoying. ESPN might want to get a hold of this situation because it doesn’t look good when the lead-announcer of the Michigan/Indiana game—Brent Musberger—throws it back to Bilas in the ESPN studio for unbiased analysis of the same Michigan program that he can’t stop taking unprovoked shots at. In other news, Jay Bilas and Tommy Amaker are friends.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

My Michigan basketball fear

It had never even crossed my mind once—not when Brian Ellerbee was rippin’ it up with Avery Queen and Josh Moore or when Tommy Amaker was going 5-35 in Big Ten road games against teams not named Penn St. and Northwestern—that Michigan basketball would not eventually catch up to—if not surpass—Michigan St. basketball once again. Sparty had a quality basketball program well before Tom Izzo took things to a new level. When I was growing up, though, Michigan had a higher-profile program. It wasn’t until the Ed Martin-scandal hit—which allowed MSU to recruit the state unfettered from 1996-present—that Michigan St. managed to reach elite status. Michigan has been out of the recruiting picture for 12 years and as a result, Sparty has virtually replicated in basketball the same advantage that Michigan has in football. Why would a big-time basketball recruit choose the uncertainty of Michigan over the certainty of Michigan St.? Well, most wouldn’t and that’s why Michigan has had a brutal time working its way back even to respectability. I always thought that once Michigan paid its dues with the probation period and labored through the requisite number of “rebuilding” years, it would regain national prominence. I have to admit that I’m not quite so sure anymore. In fact, I would have to say the odds are considerably against it. Ironically, the possible realization of Michigan’s permanent marginalization only became clear after it hired the best “X’s and O’s” basketball coach that the school has ever had.

I like John Beilein. This post has nothing to do with Michigan's rough start. I have been patient for 10 years and I'm willing to give Beilein as much time as he needs to get things going in the right direction. He was a good choice and I'm confident he will be successful. The program will likely improve to the point of being a perennial upper-half Big Ten-team. Once he gets the right players to run his system, he should have no problem replicating his success at West Virginia. Honestly, that’s all I want at this point. However, I don’t think there is any question that his system is built for less-talented teams. Beilein admits as much. Hiring Beilein was somewhat of a concession by Bill Martin and Mary Sue Coleman that the Ed Martin-scandal had permanently reduced Michigan’s status in college basketball or—at the very least—they were going to act as if it did. I don’t believe that anyone was under the allusion that Beilein was going to come in and out-recruit Tom Izzo. I also don’t believe anyone thought that Beilein was going to come in with anything other than his trademark reliance on three-pointers and his 1-3-1 zone defense. Beilein was brought in to implement his system. With it came a program-shaping tradeoff. The school traded the compromising ways of a “win at all costs" coach and the resulting elite status said coach could bring in exchange for a "by the book" X’s and O’s-wiz who will likely rebuild the program with less-talented players.

A similar—but slightly different—parallel is the situation that Purdue faces in football. It, too, runs a system to mask talent disadvantages. The spread has allowed Purdue to climb into the upper-half of the Big Ten and become a perennial bowl team after a number of dreadful seasons. However, because of the talent disadvantage, Purdue won’t ever be better than what it is now which is a program that has lost at least four games for 10-straight seasons. The spread can be unstoppable at recruiting powerhouses such as Florida and Michigan. It can’t and won’t be that way at Purdue which is why the administration has begun to sour on Joe Tiller. If it pushes Tiller out—a la Minnesota pushing out Glen Mason last year—then Purdue will surely win next year’s “Who do you think you are?” Award. But, that’s for another time. Nonetheless, Purdue doesn’t get good enough athletes to beat elite teams with the spread and thus there is a permanent ceiling keeping the program from being elite. Michigan may now face the same “ceiling” in basketball. If Coach K wanted to run Beilein’s offense at Duke, he probably could without a drop-off in performance. Michigan doesn’t have the recruiting presence at this point to recruit the best players in the country so Purdue football is Michigan basketball’s ceiling. The only difference between the two situations is that Michigan basketball could have a higher ceiling dependent on its coach. Purdue football really has no other options.

In a perfect world—a world that doesn’t take into consideration the negative public image that a scandal casts on an elite academic institution—Michigan would’ve hired Tubby Smith or John Calipari who, in turn, would’ve owned the PSL. Michigan would’ve then resembled the program of the 80s and 90s in which it won because of talent. Michigan was very close to hiring Rick Pitino in 2001 which would’ve reshaped the course of modern Michigan basketball. Pitino chose Louisville and Michigan didn’t recapture the recruiting momentum it badly needed. The only way Michigan was ever going to catch up to Michigan St. was to take over in-state recruiting via Detroit. Unfortunately, Beilein’s offense is so specific that it only requires certain skill-sets. Recruits realize this which means that the majority of the better players in the PSL will likely continue to look elsewhere or Beilein won’t look at them at all. The average highly-touted Detroit recruit is not the type of player Beilein prefers (meaning they aren’t the greatest shooters). That means he’ll have to put together his team by recruiting lesser-tier players or players who don’t necessarily fit his system. That will magnify the “Purdue effect” even more.

Michigan St. plays tough, physical basketball. It also gets out on the break. It rebounds and plays aggressive defense. It also shoots the three-point shot effectively. The way Michigan St. plays basketball is ideal. It can have a bad shooting night and still win. It would be nearly impossible for Beilein’s offense to have a bad shooting night and still beat an elite team. Michigan St. is versatile enough that it can attack the post and get second-chance points when its shots aren’t falling. Beilein’s team is set up where the inside-game isn’t much of a factor and second-chance opportunities are few and far between. So even if Beilein is able to make Michigan a national recruiting-power on par with Michigan St., his system’s design makes it nearly impossible to beat Michigan St’s versatility on a regular basis. Not being as good as Michigan St. isn't the worst thing in the world. The adage, "shoot for the moon and if you miss, you'll still be among stars" comes to mind. Using Michigan St. as a measuring stick can only help things. That's just not what I had in mind for the last 10 years.

This is a disappointing revelation on my part. I had always felt that if I just remained patient (which hasn’t been easy by the way), the day would come when Michigan’s recruiting classes would once again resemble the eye-popping classes that were commonplace back in the day. The talent has been in Detroit to make it happen. That clearly isn’t the problem. The list of players who have escaped the city over the last few years is sad. I don’t think there is any doubt that Michigan could’ve owned Detroit again—and potentially overtaken Michigan St. again—if it had focused on recruiting with a Tubby Smith or Calipari-type coach. Since that is what got the program into trouble in the first place, that was deemed undesirable by Martin and Coleman and I can understand why they would think that way. To borrow a golf phrase, Michigan “laid up”. That isn’t such a bad idea when you’re ahead. The problem is that Michigan was trailing. In the end, that approach usually ends up being good enough for a good—not great—score. I certainly hope I'm wrong but my fear is that everything I just wrote is true.

Thursday, January 03, 2008

A three-for-one special

First and foremost, I hope everyone out there is off to a great start to the New Year. I don’t mind sounding cliché by saying, “Operation: lose gut” starts today. I’m sending out an open invitation to Shaun Rogers. If he wants in on my New Year’s resolution, he’s more than welcome. There are a number of things on my mind related to the Detroit sports scene. I can’t decide what I want to focus on right now so I’ll give you a three-for-one…


Carr Finally Opens up the Offense in Game 162

Michigan’s win over Florida in the Capital One Bowl Citrus Bowl was unexpected for a million reasons that have nothing to do with the talent of either team. In ESPN’s Bowl Mania, 91% of the 300,000 participants picked Florida to win with an insane amount of confidence. In some ways, Michigan’s win only reaffirms what many have felt for quite a long time: Michigan has underachieved too often because of poor coaching. I’m happy for Lloyd Carr and the seniors. This game will go down in Michigan history as one of the most meaningful. But, I can’t help but to ask where that game-plan has been before now. I also can’t help but to think that Carr only had the courage to install such a game-plan because it was his last game. It was almost as if he finally said, “What do we have to lose? Let’s go for it.”

Well, what did Michigan ever have to lose? Carr has always had the athletes to open things up. The option to pass-first and run-second has always been there. Instead, Carr tortured fans for a number of years with a stale game-plan that minimized Michigan’s talent advantage. For years, I’ve pined for Michigan to start off games in the two-minute type offense that has yielded so many scores during second-half comeback attempts. Michigan fans have begged for Carr to abandon the ineffective run-first mentality for a pass-first mentality that opens up the running game. Michigan fans have pleaded for Carr to take advantage of his annual wide receiver bounty by using the middle of the field and throwing vertical instead of the annoyingly ineffective horizontal patterns that have plagued his offensive game-plans. For all of those things to finally be implemented during his last game—just before the program was about to undergo a major facelift—is akin to Carr saying, “F U!” to every Michigan-fan.

Michigan showed everyone in the Citrus Bowl that the lofty expectations that have been placed on the program by fans and media have not been unreasonable. They were simply unattainable without the proper game-plan. Carr never could’ve opened up the offense for the long-term. It was only a one-time deal. That is why it was time for him to retire. Rich Rodriguez is going to do a lot of good things at Michigan. I don’t know what the extent of his success will be but I can assure you that he won’t wait until the last game of his career to give his team the best chance to win. I enjoyed the game for a multitude of reasons but it was bitter-sweet for just as many.


This Pistons-team Looks Familiar

The Pistons are playing at an unbelievable level right now. The weird thing is that despite the team being considerably better than it was last season, there hasn’t been a single ounce of improvement in the starting five. Those guys have been their consistently-good selves. The change in the team’s potency has been entirely due to the bench. I don’t have a problem admitting that I like watching the bench more than the starters. Joe Dumars deserves all of the credit in the world for making the Pistons championship contenders again without the aid of a significant trade. It was evident after last season that the Pistons weren’t good enough to win a championship in their current form. In fact, the future looked downright gloomy as the Pistons were bounced from the playoffs in embarrassing fashion for the second consecutive year. Joe D explored trade opportunities but didn’t find anything to his liking. He didn’t take .50 on the dollar for one of his stars when nothing was available which is certainly commendable.

Instead, he focused on improving the bench and he has done a miraculous job at doing so. Dumars started by drafting Rodney Stuckey and Arron Afflalo in the first round. Both players are playing big roles. Stuckey is a Dwyane Wade-type player in his ability to get by his defender. He has tremendous athleticism which allows him to get to the hole and finish or draw a foul. He can run the point despite spending his college career as a shooting guard. Stuckey will play a crucial role in the playoffs but he’ll be a bona fide starting combo guard (i.e. Wade) in the NBA within a few years. Afflalo came out of UCLA as a ready-made NBA player; it’s just that nobody knew it at the time. He is as fundamentally solid as a rookie can get. He knows exactly what he can and can’t do. He is an above-average defender who can shoot. Stuckey and Afflalo were godsends for the Pistons and provide hope for the future beyond Chauncey and Rip.

Jason Maxiell’s development continues to improve exponentially. He is one of the best rebounders in the league. He can shoot from 15’. He is as explosive around the rim as any player in the league. He is unquestionably my favorite player to watch. His dunk-backs are thunderous and demoralizing for the defense. He is already better and more effective than Ben Wallace ever was and that’s not meant to be a dis on Ben. I don’t think most people feel comfortable admitting that because Ben was such an icon in Detroit but Ben was also a “system” player who was one of the worst offensive players in the history of the league. Max does everything well. The Pistons don’t need him to start but if he did, I think it would be evident to everyone that he is a better all-around player. Amir Johnson is finally getting some minutes because the Pistons have handed out so many beat-downs over the last month. I think he will continue to improve. I’m not sure where his ceiling is but he should be a solid contributor off the bench as the season moves along.

The best bench player might just be Jarvis Hayes who Dumars quietly added for the bottom dollar price of $1.2 million just before the season started. Hayes is extremely versatile. He struggled with his shot after a good start to the season but he has bounced back big-time. At 6'8, he is extremely effective posting up smaller players. He can hit the “three” at an impressive rate (42%). Most people would be surprised to know that Hayes was a top ten pick just four years ago. He is probably what Dumars was hoping for when he signed Maurice Evans two years ago. Lindsey Hunter is still a defensive hound. Come playoff time, he’ll combine with Stuckey and Afflalo to give teams fits. When that second unit gets in there, it is like a pack of wild dogs. That sort of tenacity is what Hunter and Mike James provided the Pistons in 2004 on their way to the NBA title.

The bench was dynamite even before Dumars flipped Nazr Mohammed for Walter Herrmann and Primo Brezec. Neither player puts the Pistons over the top but both have ability. Herrmann is a dynamic player who mysteriously lost out on playing-time in Charlotte after averaging 18 points per game over the last 17 games of the 2006 season. Brezec is a big-body who seems to love diving for loose balls that have already gone out-of-bounds. Most importantly, Dumars was able to dump the remaining four years of Mohammed’s unfriendly salary. I didn’t think there was any way the Pistons could improve this season without moving one—if not more—of the starters for a superstar. Dumars proved me wrong by overhauling the bench. Now, the Pistons are playing the best basketball in the NBA while simultaneously playing their starters an average of three minutes less per game than last season.

An amazing side-note: the Pistons don’t have a single player making enough money to crack the top 30 salaries in the league. The Pistons also boast and underwhelming payroll of $65 million which is good for 17th in the league. One point that needs to be underscored is that while the moves Dumars has made have greatly enhanced the bench and freed up payroll obligations, they also give the Pistons a bevy of commodities if/when he wants to pull the trigger on a major trade. That won’t need to happen this season but Maxiell, Stuckey, Johnson, and Afflalo could be put together in some sort of combination to net a supreme player. Hopefully, the Pistons will never need to do that but it’s better to have the option just in case. Having highly sought after commodities is something new for the Pistons. I’m not sure how this season is going to end but I can say—with certainty—that the Pistons actually have a chance at the championship which is more than I can say for last year’s team. And as usual, we owe it all to Joe Dumars.


The “Genius” has Mercifully Left the Building

For every 50 things the Lions do wrong, they do one thing right. That one thing came in the form of firing Mike Martz. There has never existed a more un-genius genius in the history of geniuses. Martz single-handedly destroyed the Lions offense in 2007 by making it a no-trick pony. I’m not going to try to convince anyone that Jon Kitna is a great quarterback or that the Lions had anything short of a terrible offensive line. However, never running the football is idiotic regardless of personnel. Martz followed up his brilliant 2006 campaign in which he produced a 32:68 run/pass ratio with an almost equally inept 34:66 ratio in ’07. The Lions had the fewest rushing attempts in NFL history in 2006 and the 6th fewest in 2007. No team in history has run the ball less over a two-year stretch. As you might have guessed, that sort of ridiculous ratio combined with a brutal offensive line meant Lions quarterbacks were sacked 54 times which was one off the league-lead. To be fair, that was quite an improvement from the 63 sacks given up in 2006. So, yay for that! Despite the miraculous nine-sack improvement orchestrated by Martz, Kitna was battered all year. The offense was ambushed every game as if because the defense knew what was coming. Martz’s ineptness was never more evident than it was at Arizona in a must-win game for the Lions. The Cardinals defense dominated the Lions from the first snap to the last because Martz allowed the Cardinals to rush the quarterback every play without consequence.

Part of the allure of throwing first is the idea that it will make it easier to run by keeping defenses honest. Martz didn’t care whether they were honest and evidently didn’t care how terribly predictable and inept he had made his offense. When word started to come down that Martz was going to be axed, I read more than a few complaints defending him by suggesting that he turned Kitna into a 4,000 yard-passer as if only a genius could do such a thing. What good is 4,000 yards anyways if it’s accompanied by an 80.7 QB rating? It would be incredibly difficult for Kitna not to throw 4,000 yards with a 32:68 run/pass ratio. Martz also effectively sidelined Calvin Johnson for the entire season which accomplished absolutely nothing. Martz was a plague. He certainly wasn’t the only thing that was wrong with the Lions. But, aside from William Clay Ford, Matt Millen (Here is a good one: Jeff Backus was the 5th highest paid player in the NFL in 2006; please don’t wait for the punch-line because that wasn’t a joke), and Shaun Rogers’ strict no-cardio workout regiment, he was the most obvious thing that was wrong. With Martz out of the picture, the Lions can now shed the whole “it takes a quarterback three years to learn the system” angle. That means a new starting quarterback in ’08 is a possibility.

The worst thing the Lions could do is trade a first and third-round pick for Derek Anderson (signing him as an RFA would also mean the Lions would have to give up a first and a third so that’s pretty much the price if the Lions want him this season) as suggested by Tom Kowalski who calls that a low-asking price. Huh? Randy Moss was traded for a 4th round pick. He is one of the greatest players in NFL history. Anderson has played one full-season. He had an 82.5 rating this year. Scott Mitchell had an 84.5 rating the year before the Lions were sold on him. I’m not bashing Anderson. He may have a bright future. However, a first and third has never been a “low asking price.” The Lions would be lucky to get more than a third-round pick for Shaun Rogers who is one of the most dominant defensive linemen in the league. Dre' Bly—one of the top corners in the league—netted the Lions two hot dogs and a fifth-round pick. Nobody gets a first and a third for anyone.

Plus, it’s time for everyone to stop acting as if the Browns have any leverage. They face the exact same situation that San Diego faced two years ago. The Chargers drafted Phillip Rivers when they already had Drew Brees. They couldn’t keep both and they eventually had to let Brees go for nothing. The Browns are in the same situation. Brady Quinn can’t sit on the bench forever making the kind of money that he makes. Anderson—having actually played—has more value of the two so the Browns will try to move him. If they can’t, they’ll lose him for nothing next season just like the Chargers lost Brees. There isn’t much leverage there. When teams don’t have leverage, they don’t get a first and third round pick for a first-year starting quarterback who was drafted in the 6th round just two years ago. Even the great Tom Brady—a 6th round pick—might not have netted that after his first year as a starter.

The Lions need a new signal-caller. This upcoming draft class is incredibly deep at quarterback. The Lions could have an opportunity to take Andre Woodson from Kentucky. He destroyed the SEC this season with 40 touchdowns and only 11 interceptions. Since the Lions are drafting at 15, they might have a shot at Woodson. They’ll also have the opportunity to trade up by dangling Rogers in front of teams in the top ten. Regardless of who is available, the Lions are much better off drafting a quarterback with their first round pick and keeping their third than they are in trading both picks for Derek Anderson. Then again, who cares?
 

Powered by Blogger