Dez Bryant isn't unfamiliar with the spotlight. Whether torching defensive backs or special teams at both Oklahoma State and now for the Dallas Cowboys, or seeing his name for off-the-field incidents, Bryant's name appears often in newspapers.
And in the past two weeks, it has been Bryant's issues away from the gridiron that has raised more eyebrows. A couple of weeks back, he was issued a no trespassing citation from a mall after a security officer told his friend to pull his pants up and Bryant argued with the officer. Eventually Bryant apologized and the mall revoked the citation. But writers were quick to add this to a building list of questionable decisions by Bryant.
Bryant now finds himself in the midst of two civil lawsuits totaling almost $900,000 between two different jewelry companies in New York and Texas. Filed one day apart, the lawsuits demand the repayment of purchases that Bryant made on credit, some when he was still a sophomore at Oklahoma State.
Three incidents in two weeks added on to a long list of controversial moments in Dez Bryant's short career thus far. This isn't exactly the type of behavior that the Dallas Cowboys hoped for when they drafted Bryant in the first round in 2010. The attitude is especially unwelcome given the expectations surrounding Bryant's arrival, with many analysts and fans penciling him in as a top receiver for Dallas.
At what point do the Dallas Cowboys step in? I suspect that they will wait for more details to emerge regarding the lawsuits, but I bet they have a close eye on the situation. Bryant's behavior has been childish and immature, distracting to a team that already struggled mightily last year. As the Cowboys attempt to bounce back, I would not be surprised if the organization assigns Bryant a mentor, similar to Tony Dungy and Michael Vick.
If no action is taken, fans shouldn't act surprised if they see Bryant's name again in the papers, but not for catching passes. But maybe a lighter wallet, after he clears these lawsuits up, and a little guidance might help Bryant get back on the right track.
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Monday, 28 March 2011
Sullinger Returning, But Will The NBA?
After a heart-breaking loss for Ohio State in the Sweet 16 against Kentucky, Jared Sullinger approached the podium. Sullinger is the Big Ten freshman of the year and a lock for an All-American spot. His 6-9, 280 pound frame allowed him to average a double-double for the previously #1 Ohio State. And, most importantly, Sullinger was a lock for a top five pick in the NBA draft in June.
But Sullinger won't be entering the draft next year. Sure, his reason about wanting to stay and win a national championship is nice, but should we really believe him?
The 2011 draft is shaping up to be one of the worst drafts in recent memory. With no clear #1 pick emerged at almost the end of March, the field appears weak. Sullinger, whether he is ready or not, was in the discussion for the number one overall pick. Not often do you see players in that position pass up that opportunity.
To me, this is just the first clue that the NBA CBA discussions are worse than the public thinks. Call me cynical, but I believe at this point that most players see college as just a hoop they must jump through before making it to the pros. For Sullinger to decide to stay another year, I am willing to bet that he's been talking to some NBA folks and sees the writing on the wall. No NBA season next year, no reason to enter the draft.
Perhaps I am reading into this a little too much. Maybe Sullinger really does want to stay another year, dominate the Big Ten, and win a national championship. And you know what? Compared to waiting around for labor negotiations to end, not receiving paychecks, not practicing with the team that drafted you and spending a year away from the sport you love, I'd stay in college another year too. I hope that a few more players use their heads like Sullinger and wait it out one more year when there actually will be an NBA season.
But Sullinger won't be entering the draft next year. Sure, his reason about wanting to stay and win a national championship is nice, but should we really believe him?
The 2011 draft is shaping up to be one of the worst drafts in recent memory. With no clear #1 pick emerged at almost the end of March, the field appears weak. Sullinger, whether he is ready or not, was in the discussion for the number one overall pick. Not often do you see players in that position pass up that opportunity.
To me, this is just the first clue that the NBA CBA discussions are worse than the public thinks. Call me cynical, but I believe at this point that most players see college as just a hoop they must jump through before making it to the pros. For Sullinger to decide to stay another year, I am willing to bet that he's been talking to some NBA folks and sees the writing on the wall. No NBA season next year, no reason to enter the draft.
Perhaps I am reading into this a little too much. Maybe Sullinger really does want to stay another year, dominate the Big Ten, and win a national championship. And you know what? Compared to waiting around for labor negotiations to end, not receiving paychecks, not practicing with the team that drafted you and spending a year away from the sport you love, I'd stay in college another year too. I hope that a few more players use their heads like Sullinger and wait it out one more year when there actually will be an NBA season.
Friday, 25 March 2011
When Sports and Cranky Old Men Collide
"As we near the exciting conclusion of 'March Madness' -- which would more accurately be described as the 2011 NCAA Professional Basketball Championships -- it's time we step back and finally address the myth of amateurism surrounding big-time college football and basketball in this country."
That would be former presidential candidate Ralph Nader. Would someone like to explain to me how the NCAA Tournament is more representative of players who are professionals than amateurs? Nader wants to claim that because the school is paying for their education, then these players should lose their amateur status. Unfortunately, this claim holds little credence to it.
First, I generally wonder if Nader wants to eliminate all athletic scholarships, or if he is just focused on the two sports that keep athletic departments afloat across the country: men's basketball and football. The removal of all athletic scholarships affects the woman's field hockey team as much as it does those two. Nader wants the athletic department to run as an unrelated business outside of the university.
If the university runs the athletic department outside of the school, what would stop them from investing ALL of their money into basketball and football, causing other smaller sports to suffer. Athletic scholarships exist to in part to help balance athletic funding by the school, preventing them from loading the football and basketball teams. Isn't that why we have Title IX?
Second, paying for four years of college academics (assuming that the player has a full ride) does not even come close to the amount of money that professional players make in ONE year. The NBA average: 4.9 million. The NFL: 1.3 million. The NHL: 1.8 million. The MLB: 2.5 million. Let's assume that a player attends an elite university, there is no way he is receiving more than 225k in scholarship money and that is spread out over four years.
College athletes do receive a per diem, yes, but that number is paltry. It is never more than enough to supply the player with his meals while they are traveling. Not exactly the almost $30,000 dollars per away game that the average NBA player makes.
Finally, the removal of athletic scholarships makes little sense because these athletes are just as responsible, if not more so than those receiving academic scholarships, for university recognition. Since 1999, when Gonzaga made a run to the Elite Eight, application inquires have increased 150%. After George Mason made the Final Four in 2006, applications received increased 25%. Research shows that after a team wins the NCAA Tournament or the football National Championship, applications increase approximately 8%.
And I would be remiss, as a Boston College student from the West Coast, if I didn't thank Doug Flutie for putting us on the map with a Hail Mary against Miami in 1984. How do I know if Boston College even registers a small interest on my part if I hadn't seen that clip hundreds of times?
Nader's vision of a world without athletic scholarships is short-sighted and lacking support. College scholarships provide thousands of kids with the opportunity to attend college when they otherwise would not have. In return, college athletics help promote university recognition, which results in more interest and applications at the school.
Drop the crusade, Ralph. Let the players keep playing.
That would be former presidential candidate Ralph Nader. Would someone like to explain to me how the NCAA Tournament is more representative of players who are professionals than amateurs? Nader wants to claim that because the school is paying for their education, then these players should lose their amateur status. Unfortunately, this claim holds little credence to it.
First, I generally wonder if Nader wants to eliminate all athletic scholarships, or if he is just focused on the two sports that keep athletic departments afloat across the country: men's basketball and football. The removal of all athletic scholarships affects the woman's field hockey team as much as it does those two. Nader wants the athletic department to run as an unrelated business outside of the university.
If the university runs the athletic department outside of the school, what would stop them from investing ALL of their money into basketball and football, causing other smaller sports to suffer. Athletic scholarships exist to in part to help balance athletic funding by the school, preventing them from loading the football and basketball teams. Isn't that why we have Title IX?
Second, paying for four years of college academics (assuming that the player has a full ride) does not even come close to the amount of money that professional players make in ONE year. The NBA average: 4.9 million. The NFL: 1.3 million. The NHL: 1.8 million. The MLB: 2.5 million. Let's assume that a player attends an elite university, there is no way he is receiving more than 225k in scholarship money and that is spread out over four years.
College athletes do receive a per diem, yes, but that number is paltry. It is never more than enough to supply the player with his meals while they are traveling. Not exactly the almost $30,000 dollars per away game that the average NBA player makes.
Finally, the removal of athletic scholarships makes little sense because these athletes are just as responsible, if not more so than those receiving academic scholarships, for university recognition. Since 1999, when Gonzaga made a run to the Elite Eight, application inquires have increased 150%. After George Mason made the Final Four in 2006, applications received increased 25%. Research shows that after a team wins the NCAA Tournament or the football National Championship, applications increase approximately 8%.
And I would be remiss, as a Boston College student from the West Coast, if I didn't thank Doug Flutie for putting us on the map with a Hail Mary against Miami in 1984. How do I know if Boston College even registers a small interest on my part if I hadn't seen that clip hundreds of times?
Nader's vision of a world without athletic scholarships is short-sighted and lacking support. College scholarships provide thousands of kids with the opportunity to attend college when they otherwise would not have. In return, college athletics help promote university recognition, which results in more interest and applications at the school.
Drop the crusade, Ralph. Let the players keep playing.
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Sweet Heavens, It Is The Sweet 16
It is still March, meaning that we still have a host of NCAA tournament games to play. I'm not exactly the biggest proponent of college basketball, but I'll tip my hat to this tournament. The players and coaches have treated the fans to some (dare I say it?) quality basketball, with the notable exception of the Pitt and Butler game which was the single worst ending of a basketball game I've ever seen. But here is to hoping that the games stay exciting and the upsets continue. Let's take a quick look at the four games that are today.
#1 Duke vs. #5 Arizona
A popular pick for the Sweet 16, Arizona made fans sweat it out last weekend against Texas. They arguably stole a game straight from the hearts of Texas. Duke, on the other side, had no easy task with Michigan last round either, only squeaking out a two point win. So what should we expect of these two teams that barely won their second round games? Arizona's team is Derrick Williams. He's long, strong and finishes with impunity. Unfortunately for him, Duke has a platoon of big men to throw at him and wear him down. Irving, Nelson and Singler pour in the points and the Evil Empire continues to roll.
Winners: Duke
#2 San Diego State vs. #3 UConn
San Diego State: a team that is new to the tournament, has not seen later round games before, little coaching experience in tournament games. UConn: a lock for the tournament each year, several National Championships, and one of the longest tenured coaches in the ranks. As far as I'm concerned, SDSU is a bigger cinderella than the likes of Butler or Marquette. Given their little tournament experience, I am shocked they didn't drop one of their first two games. I suspect Kemba and co. will roll through SDSU and into the Elite Eight.
Winners: UConn
#2 Florida vs. #3 BYU
I will try to set my personal bias for Jimmer aside and look at this objectively. As a two seed, Florida is ranked too high. As a three seed, BYU is ranked too high to be relying so heavily on one player. So we're stuck watching a game of two teams that are not as good as their seeds indicate. I am now considering revising my statement about this NCAA tournament being so great. But in all seriousness, I think that BYU will have trouble keeping up with the athleticism displayed in Florida's full-court press. Florida has some tremendous athletes who will ball-hawk the BYU guards into turnovers. Jimmer will keep BYU in this for most of the game before Florida wears the Cougars down and advances.
Winners: Flordia
#4 Wisconsin vs. #8 Butler
The media tries to warn us saying that Butler was overlooked at the start of the tournament. A team that made it to the National Championship game last year and only lost one starter ended up as an eight seed? How could they not make a deep run? Meanwhile, Wisconsin limped into the tournament after losing in the quarterfinals of the Big10 Tournament to Penn State 36-33. What have these two teams done since then? Wisconsin rolled Belmont, a popular first round upset, and then pounced on Kansas State, another popular pick to make it to the Final Four. Butler needed a miracle finish against Old Dominion and a preposterously stupid foul by Pitt to make it to the Sweet 16. I'm picking the Badgers based on previous results and the fact that my bracket depends on it.
Winners: Wisconsin
Those are my first half of the Elite Eight: Duke, UConn, Florida and Wisconsin. Traditionally strong basketball programs advancing as most expected in this watered-down field. But, then again, you may not want to hear the predictions from the guy who has only 10 of his 16 left.
#1 Duke vs. #5 Arizona
A popular pick for the Sweet 16, Arizona made fans sweat it out last weekend against Texas. They arguably stole a game straight from the hearts of Texas. Duke, on the other side, had no easy task with Michigan last round either, only squeaking out a two point win. So what should we expect of these two teams that barely won their second round games? Arizona's team is Derrick Williams. He's long, strong and finishes with impunity. Unfortunately for him, Duke has a platoon of big men to throw at him and wear him down. Irving, Nelson and Singler pour in the points and the Evil Empire continues to roll.
Winners: Duke
#2 San Diego State vs. #3 UConn
San Diego State: a team that is new to the tournament, has not seen later round games before, little coaching experience in tournament games. UConn: a lock for the tournament each year, several National Championships, and one of the longest tenured coaches in the ranks. As far as I'm concerned, SDSU is a bigger cinderella than the likes of Butler or Marquette. Given their little tournament experience, I am shocked they didn't drop one of their first two games. I suspect Kemba and co. will roll through SDSU and into the Elite Eight.
Winners: UConn
#2 Florida vs. #3 BYU
I will try to set my personal bias for Jimmer aside and look at this objectively. As a two seed, Florida is ranked too high. As a three seed, BYU is ranked too high to be relying so heavily on one player. So we're stuck watching a game of two teams that are not as good as their seeds indicate. I am now considering revising my statement about this NCAA tournament being so great. But in all seriousness, I think that BYU will have trouble keeping up with the athleticism displayed in Florida's full-court press. Florida has some tremendous athletes who will ball-hawk the BYU guards into turnovers. Jimmer will keep BYU in this for most of the game before Florida wears the Cougars down and advances.
Winners: Flordia
#4 Wisconsin vs. #8 Butler
The media tries to warn us saying that Butler was overlooked at the start of the tournament. A team that made it to the National Championship game last year and only lost one starter ended up as an eight seed? How could they not make a deep run? Meanwhile, Wisconsin limped into the tournament after losing in the quarterfinals of the Big10 Tournament to Penn State 36-33. What have these two teams done since then? Wisconsin rolled Belmont, a popular first round upset, and then pounced on Kansas State, another popular pick to make it to the Final Four. Butler needed a miracle finish against Old Dominion and a preposterously stupid foul by Pitt to make it to the Sweet 16. I'm picking the Badgers based on previous results and the fact that my bracket depends on it.
Winners: Wisconsin
Those are my first half of the Elite Eight: Duke, UConn, Florida and Wisconsin. Traditionally strong basketball programs advancing as most expected in this watered-down field. But, then again, you may not want to hear the predictions from the guy who has only 10 of his 16 left.
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
I Cheated In Science Class And Barry Bonds Knows
When I was in fifth grade, my class was in the middle of its section on oceanography for science. I was a fairly good student, but the discussion of oceanic trenches and the mysterious animals that lived there didn't exactly pique my interests. Needless to say, I paid little attention and when the test approached, I started to worry.
One of my friends came up to me and asked me if I liked surprises. As any curious 5th grade boy, of course I was interested so I asked him what he had. He handed me over a piece of paper but didn't say what it was. I looked closely and it appeared to be a test on the subject material. He just said that a friend last year still had the test and it would help out for our upcoming one.
Was it cheating? Absolutely. Do I feel badly about it? Well, not really since it was grade school and everyone knows that it doesn't matter in the long run.
Barry Bonds claims he was unknowingly given steroids. Right, and I unknowingly used the old test to get a good grade. Bonds suspected that his trainer provided him with arthritis cream and flaxseed oil about as much as I thought my friend wanted me to have some light leisure reading.
The steroid era has forever tainted baseball's image in America's eyes. Bonds is doing nothing to repair that image. According to ESPN's legal analysts, Bonds likely won't take the stand and consequently the prosecution will have a difficult time convincing the jury he is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. He'll walk away clean, but the lasting damage of his denial will continue to haunt Major League Baseball.
Bonds is an example for all athletes of what not to do. Stop perpetuating the negative stereotypes of athletes. When you've been caught and accept it, it will hurt and the fans will feel betrayed. But they'll come back, they always do, especially when you admit to your mistakes.
Clearly that won't happen though. All that arthritis cream and flaxseed oil made Bonds' head just a little too big for that.
One of my friends came up to me and asked me if I liked surprises. As any curious 5th grade boy, of course I was interested so I asked him what he had. He handed me over a piece of paper but didn't say what it was. I looked closely and it appeared to be a test on the subject material. He just said that a friend last year still had the test and it would help out for our upcoming one.
Was it cheating? Absolutely. Do I feel badly about it? Well, not really since it was grade school and everyone knows that it doesn't matter in the long run.
Barry Bonds claims he was unknowingly given steroids. Right, and I unknowingly used the old test to get a good grade. Bonds suspected that his trainer provided him with arthritis cream and flaxseed oil about as much as I thought my friend wanted me to have some light leisure reading.
The steroid era has forever tainted baseball's image in America's eyes. Bonds is doing nothing to repair that image. According to ESPN's legal analysts, Bonds likely won't take the stand and consequently the prosecution will have a difficult time convincing the jury he is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. He'll walk away clean, but the lasting damage of his denial will continue to haunt Major League Baseball.
Bonds is an example for all athletes of what not to do. Stop perpetuating the negative stereotypes of athletes. When you've been caught and accept it, it will hurt and the fans will feel betrayed. But they'll come back, they always do, especially when you admit to your mistakes.
Clearly that won't happen though. All that arthritis cream and flaxseed oil made Bonds' head just a little too big for that.
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
The Carmelo Trade: One Month Later
Last night, the New York Knicks somehow managed to blow a game against the Boston Celtics that should appeared locked up. Leading by as many as 18 points, the Celtics clawed back and closed the game on a 23-4 run over the last eight minutes of the game. The loss drops the Knicks to .500, one game behind Philadelphia for the 6th seed, and a measly 7-9 since trading for Carmelo one month ago. So much for all the media hype, huh?
Meanwhile, quietly and without the media distraction, George Karl has the Denver Nuggets playing some of their best basketball of the year. The Nuggets have gone 10-4 since trading Carmelo away and reloading their roster with an arsenal of weapons.
Carmelo may be one of the best pure scorers in the league, but one would find it hard to argue that facing the Nuggets' lineup right now would pose bigger threats than the Knicks'. The Nuggets have a plethora of options of the offensive end, using their size, speed and shooting to create mismatches at almost every position. The Knicks have isolation plays for Carmelo and a poorly-run pick and roll between Billups and Amar'e.
One of the biggest differences between these two teams is their approach on defense. The Nuggets post a defensive efficiency of almost two full points higher than the Knicks. Carmelo and Amar'e lead a Knicks team that ranks 21st in the league in defensive efficiency and their efforts in games reflect that statistic. The Nuggets also top the league in offensive efficiency as well. They are scoring more points and giving up fewer on the defensive end, all with seemingly less talent in the media's eyes.
Somewhere George Karl is smiling. I can't imagine that when he heard the news of the trade he was thrilled with the results. But as a true testament to his coaching abilities, Karl has taken this eclectic team and transformed it into a first-round nightmare. The Knicks will likely face either the Celtics or the Heat in the first round. Given their meltdown last night and overall inability to play cohesively, should either one of those teams be worried?
Unless there is a serious attitude adjustment in the areas of defense and playing a team-first offense, the New York Knicks will not make any noise in the East. On the other side of the trade, I pity the team that has to face the Denver Nuggets in the first round.
Meanwhile, quietly and without the media distraction, George Karl has the Denver Nuggets playing some of their best basketball of the year. The Nuggets have gone 10-4 since trading Carmelo away and reloading their roster with an arsenal of weapons.
Carmelo may be one of the best pure scorers in the league, but one would find it hard to argue that facing the Nuggets' lineup right now would pose bigger threats than the Knicks'. The Nuggets have a plethora of options of the offensive end, using their size, speed and shooting to create mismatches at almost every position. The Knicks have isolation plays for Carmelo and a poorly-run pick and roll between Billups and Amar'e.
One of the biggest differences between these two teams is their approach on defense. The Nuggets post a defensive efficiency of almost two full points higher than the Knicks. Carmelo and Amar'e lead a Knicks team that ranks 21st in the league in defensive efficiency and their efforts in games reflect that statistic. The Nuggets also top the league in offensive efficiency as well. They are scoring more points and giving up fewer on the defensive end, all with seemingly less talent in the media's eyes.
Somewhere George Karl is smiling. I can't imagine that when he heard the news of the trade he was thrilled with the results. But as a true testament to his coaching abilities, Karl has taken this eclectic team and transformed it into a first-round nightmare. The Knicks will likely face either the Celtics or the Heat in the first round. Given their meltdown last night and overall inability to play cohesively, should either one of those teams be worried?
Unless there is a serious attitude adjustment in the areas of defense and playing a team-first offense, the New York Knicks will not make any noise in the East. On the other side of the trade, I pity the team that has to face the Denver Nuggets in the first round.
Monday, 21 March 2011
Time For A Breakup
Dear Notre Dame,
I'm sorry that I have to tell you this, but I think that we are through. And no, this is not just a temporary break. I opened my arms and heart to you, and you knocked me down for the count. People warned me about you, told me that you would probably cause me anguish. I even knew to be weary of you. But something told me to push through that and take a chance on you. Unfortunately, it only takes on screw up and we're done.
How could I have been so naive? Notre Dame making a run to the NCAA finals? When I told your best friend, Michael Payne, about our future together, he texted me a warning: "I love your optimism, but you'll probably not last two rounds together." Sure, I thought, like we need to worry about the winner of Florida State and Texas A&M. But apparently you didn't want to put in the effort needed to sustain this relationship. And after losing to Florida State by 14, it is clear that you just didn't want this to work that badly.
Maybe it is my fault for being so trusting. I've never liked you. In fact, in my life, I've actively rooted against you. But somehow you charmed your way into my life through your sweet three stroking. I thought we had a chance together. I thought we could ride the momentum together and actually preserve a relationship. But I fear that we are done and not just for a small time. Forever.
Don't call me and I won't pick you for anything. Perhaps a few years down the line, we'll run into each other again in the brackets and we can rekindle what we once had. Who knows? But I'd be surprised if it happened. Sometimes it only takes one heartbreak.
Sincerely,
Peter Mertens
I'm sorry that I have to tell you this, but I think that we are through. And no, this is not just a temporary break. I opened my arms and heart to you, and you knocked me down for the count. People warned me about you, told me that you would probably cause me anguish. I even knew to be weary of you. But something told me to push through that and take a chance on you. Unfortunately, it only takes on screw up and we're done.
How could I have been so naive? Notre Dame making a run to the NCAA finals? When I told your best friend, Michael Payne, about our future together, he texted me a warning: "I love your optimism, but you'll probably not last two rounds together." Sure, I thought, like we need to worry about the winner of Florida State and Texas A&M. But apparently you didn't want to put in the effort needed to sustain this relationship. And after losing to Florida State by 14, it is clear that you just didn't want this to work that badly.
Maybe it is my fault for being so trusting. I've never liked you. In fact, in my life, I've actively rooted against you. But somehow you charmed your way into my life through your sweet three stroking. I thought we had a chance together. I thought we could ride the momentum together and actually preserve a relationship. But I fear that we are done and not just for a small time. Forever.
Don't call me and I won't pick you for anything. Perhaps a few years down the line, we'll run into each other again in the brackets and we can rekindle what we once had. Who knows? But I'd be surprised if it happened. Sometimes it only takes one heartbreak.
Sincerely,
Peter Mertens
Friday, 18 March 2011
There Is Crying In Basketball
After Princeton's heartbreaking loss to Kentucky in the opening round yesterday, fans who saw the post-game press conference with Sydney Johnson had the opportunity to see true, raw emotion from a head coach.
Brandon Knight, freshman point guard for Kentucky, who had been held to zero field goals for 39 minutes and 58 seconds, scored the game-winning basket, giving Kentucky a 59-57 lead. This prevented the Wildcats from being the second #4 seed to lose to the Princeton Tigers, leaving UCLA in 1996 with that title. And 15 years and 3 days since then, it truly appeared that Princeton would notch Kentucky on their belt of upsets as well.
But after Knight's basket, the dream of advancing was over, sending the Tigers packing back to New Jersey. Nobody appeared to take the loss harder than Princeton's coach, Johnson. Breaking down into tears during his interview with the media, Johnson granted the world a peek at how significant one game truly is.
Princeton was a significant underdog. The majority of brackets would've been messed up worse than they are now (a big ol' screw you to Louisville and St. John's) because so many picked Kentucky to make a deep run in the tournament. I'm sure that Johnson entered this game hoping to keep it close and avoid an embarrassment on national television.
When the game was winding down, these two teams entrenched in a back-and-forth assault, Johnson's expectations probably transformed rapidly. They didn't just have a chance to win the game; they probably should've won the game. When they ultimately lost, Johnson no longer had the mindset of "let's just keep it close." He was crushed as if he'd thought they would win the whole time.
The national media loves to analyze why players or coaches cry after games. People post on blogs, Twitter, and Facebook about it. More frequently than not, the majority response is criticism for an emotional display. Why though? I argue that I would much rather see players and coaches in tears after big games rather than the typical monotonic, disinterested interviews fans usually see after these events.
I can only hope that if BC finds itself in a similar position that I see Donahue act in a similar fashion. A coach crying, even over a game that he entered expecting to lose, shows me he truly cares about his job and his team. And that is the kind of person I want leading my school.
Brandon Knight, freshman point guard for Kentucky, who had been held to zero field goals for 39 minutes and 58 seconds, scored the game-winning basket, giving Kentucky a 59-57 lead. This prevented the Wildcats from being the second #4 seed to lose to the Princeton Tigers, leaving UCLA in 1996 with that title. And 15 years and 3 days since then, it truly appeared that Princeton would notch Kentucky on their belt of upsets as well.
But after Knight's basket, the dream of advancing was over, sending the Tigers packing back to New Jersey. Nobody appeared to take the loss harder than Princeton's coach, Johnson. Breaking down into tears during his interview with the media, Johnson granted the world a peek at how significant one game truly is.
Princeton was a significant underdog. The majority of brackets would've been messed up worse than they are now (a big ol' screw you to Louisville and St. John's) because so many picked Kentucky to make a deep run in the tournament. I'm sure that Johnson entered this game hoping to keep it close and avoid an embarrassment on national television.
When the game was winding down, these two teams entrenched in a back-and-forth assault, Johnson's expectations probably transformed rapidly. They didn't just have a chance to win the game; they probably should've won the game. When they ultimately lost, Johnson no longer had the mindset of "let's just keep it close." He was crushed as if he'd thought they would win the whole time.
The national media loves to analyze why players or coaches cry after games. People post on blogs, Twitter, and Facebook about it. More frequently than not, the majority response is criticism for an emotional display. Why though? I argue that I would much rather see players and coaches in tears after big games rather than the typical monotonic, disinterested interviews fans usually see after these events.
I can only hope that if BC finds itself in a similar position that I see Donahue act in a similar fashion. A coach crying, even over a game that he entered expecting to lose, shows me he truly cares about his job and his team. And that is the kind of person I want leading my school.
Thursday, 17 March 2011
Christmas Come Early
Here we go, the first day of the NCAA tournament. As I mentioned two days ago, I am significantly more partial to the NBA due to its superior level of play, but nobody can deny that a sport packs as much high-paced entertainment as March Madness does in its first two weeks (sorry, once it gets to the Elite Eight, it sllllloooowwwwwsssss way down).
After the Superbowl, I wrote how irritated I was because the game has transformed into a spectacle rather than a sporting event. A few people found it to be a bit stuffy and pretentious. Well, frankly, I agree it was although I think the post conveyed that more than I meant to have it.
But what does that have to do with the NCAA Tournament? The bracket allows for the same experience as the Superbowl, as in the assembling of people to watch games, the inclusiveness of everyone, without the same gimmicky nonsense of the Superbowl. I'd be willing to bet good money that when I look around my classes today, I will see girls, guys, and probably even professors with games open on their computers and keeping track of their brackets.
And no matter how much you know about NCAA basketball, you just can't pick some of the upsets. I've been in tournaments pools with girls before where I was just SMASHED in picking correct teams after I spent probably hours pouring over the stats. At the end of the day, they just don't matter that much. Any team is capable of a miracle (except you four 16 seeds, you aren't), creating a feeling of unease in fan's stomachs concerning their brackets that is too similar to the feeling of the players before games. Talk about the ultimate experience of empathy.
So on a day when everyone is a little Irish (Happy St. Patrick's Day everyone!), the NCAA Tournament is a chance for everyone to be a basketball expert with a little luck and clever picking. Enjoy the two greatest days of the year, the opening rounds!
After the Superbowl, I wrote how irritated I was because the game has transformed into a spectacle rather than a sporting event. A few people found it to be a bit stuffy and pretentious. Well, frankly, I agree it was although I think the post conveyed that more than I meant to have it.
But what does that have to do with the NCAA Tournament? The bracket allows for the same experience as the Superbowl, as in the assembling of people to watch games, the inclusiveness of everyone, without the same gimmicky nonsense of the Superbowl. I'd be willing to bet good money that when I look around my classes today, I will see girls, guys, and probably even professors with games open on their computers and keeping track of their brackets.
And no matter how much you know about NCAA basketball, you just can't pick some of the upsets. I've been in tournaments pools with girls before where I was just SMASHED in picking correct teams after I spent probably hours pouring over the stats. At the end of the day, they just don't matter that much. Any team is capable of a miracle (except you four 16 seeds, you aren't), creating a feeling of unease in fan's stomachs concerning their brackets that is too similar to the feeling of the players before games. Talk about the ultimate experience of empathy.
So on a day when everyone is a little Irish (Happy St. Patrick's Day everyone!), the NCAA Tournament is a chance for everyone to be a basketball expert with a little luck and clever picking. Enjoy the two greatest days of the year, the opening rounds!
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
A Man's Character Isn't Always On The Court
For those of you who follow the NBA, let's play a quick game. I'll name a player, and you say the first word that comes to mind. Okay, how about Corey Maggette?
For those of you who don't follow the NBA, I'll give you a taste of the answers that many people probably arrived at: lazy, selfish, black hole, bad teammate, arrogant. Not exactly the collection of descriptors that presents a positive character.
What if I told you that in 2004, Corey Maggette found out that one of his assistant coaches had prostrate cancer that was spreading at an alarming rate and paid for the $70,000 dollar surgery out of his own pocket? Would that change your perception of him?
Because that is what happened with Kim Hughes, former assistant and head coach of the Los Angeles Clippers, and it runs contrary to what most associate with Maggette. This serves as a sharp reminder that the player's conduct on that court is not always an accurate reflection of their character. Too often players are negatively labeled for how they conduct themselves while in the heat of the moment. But even a widely-regarded bad teammate proves that that doesn't necessarily make him a bad person.
Next time a friend or parent makes a snap-judgment of a player, think back to Maggette. What you see on the court isn't what you always what you get in the real world. And that is where their real character matters most.
Maggette helps pay for Hughes' surgery - ESPN
For those of you who don't follow the NBA, I'll give you a taste of the answers that many people probably arrived at: lazy, selfish, black hole, bad teammate, arrogant. Not exactly the collection of descriptors that presents a positive character.
What if I told you that in 2004, Corey Maggette found out that one of his assistant coaches had prostrate cancer that was spreading at an alarming rate and paid for the $70,000 dollar surgery out of his own pocket? Would that change your perception of him?
Because that is what happened with Kim Hughes, former assistant and head coach of the Los Angeles Clippers, and it runs contrary to what most associate with Maggette. This serves as a sharp reminder that the player's conduct on that court is not always an accurate reflection of their character. Too often players are negatively labeled for how they conduct themselves while in the heat of the moment. But even a widely-regarded bad teammate proves that that doesn't necessarily make him a bad person.
Next time a friend or parent makes a snap-judgment of a player, think back to Maggette. What you see on the court isn't what you always what you get in the real world. And that is where their real character matters most.
Maggette helps pay for Hughes' surgery - ESPN
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
The Biggest Losers of the Tournament
Alright Pete, spring break is over. Time to get back on that horse and start blogging. Although, I am going to try and change it up a little bit. Sometimes I have a tendency to be a little...wordy with my posts. So during the week, I will try to keep my posts a little shorter, more frequent, and still on a variety of topics. But on the weekend I will do more of a feature post that will be longer because, let's face it, none of you really have the time to read 1200 words on why I think the CBA will screw the players in the NBA (as to the question of if any of you care, well I'm electing to ignore that one and live in blissful ignorance thinking it is the most important issue in the world to all of you). So let's get to it.
March Madness. The most wonderful time of the year. As an NBA purist, I find it difficult to watch large amounts of college basketball. But, without fail, I am able to catch as many tournament games as humanly possible. The upsets, the comebacks, the Cinderella stories. March Madness is honestly the single best sporting event in the US because it gives everyone an opportunity to be a fan. Fill out a bracket, sit back and watch the pandemonium unfold.
But lost in all this excitement is the bigger picture. I'm not entirely sold on the idea of paying college athletes to play, but if there were ever a better argument other than March Madness for why they should, I'd love to see it. Advertisers spend millions of dollars for commercial spots, endorsement deals, and anything where they can get their logo near the courts. Television companies spend even more. Through 2024, Turner Sports and CBS will pay more than 11 billion dollars to carry the tournament. That money funnels directly into the schools participating and the NCAA's pocket.
Ever wonder why so many players get caught receiving improper benefits? Situations like this are exactly why. So many players are one-and-done because money that they never see in college is waiting for them in the pros. While you sit there and watch billions of dollars being invested in these college players, think about where that money goes and consider how much of it the players see.
It certainly doesn't detract from the significance of the event, but it should make people wonder about how fair it really is to the players at the end of the day.
March Madness. The most wonderful time of the year. As an NBA purist, I find it difficult to watch large amounts of college basketball. But, without fail, I am able to catch as many tournament games as humanly possible. The upsets, the comebacks, the Cinderella stories. March Madness is honestly the single best sporting event in the US because it gives everyone an opportunity to be a fan. Fill out a bracket, sit back and watch the pandemonium unfold.
But lost in all this excitement is the bigger picture. I'm not entirely sold on the idea of paying college athletes to play, but if there were ever a better argument other than March Madness for why they should, I'd love to see it. Advertisers spend millions of dollars for commercial spots, endorsement deals, and anything where they can get their logo near the courts. Television companies spend even more. Through 2024, Turner Sports and CBS will pay more than 11 billion dollars to carry the tournament. That money funnels directly into the schools participating and the NCAA's pocket.
Ever wonder why so many players get caught receiving improper benefits? Situations like this are exactly why. So many players are one-and-done because money that they never see in college is waiting for them in the pros. While you sit there and watch billions of dollars being invested in these college players, think about where that money goes and consider how much of it the players see.
It certainly doesn't detract from the significance of the event, but it should make people wonder about how fair it really is to the players at the end of the day.
Monday, 7 March 2011
The NBA Lockout: Part Three
So here we are, having covered both the owners and the players in the current CBA discussion. But ultimately the main question on all of their minds is: what is going to happen when the Herby Hancocks are signed.
The way I see it, the players are in some trouble. The draft age will stay the same, but as I stated already, the players only seek to negotiate that down because they know if they don't, the owners will attempt to push the age to twenty. Winners: Push
The salary cap is a tough issue because it is one of the more contested issues. I see one of two things happening in this area. Either the cap is going to be reduced significantly, with greater penalties for exceeding the cap. That, or the NBA will institute a hard salary cap, where teams are entirely unable to exceed the salary cap. This means shorter, smaller contracts for players. Winners: Owners
I want to take one more paragraph to explain the significance of this because it may not be entirely evident. These shorter contracts will help ensure a more competitive league because players will not be able to sign 5-6 year deals and then proceed to not give a damn. Shorter contracts make sure that the right players are being paid the right amount of money. And on a larger scale, it will help distribute the talent across the league more effectively. In the past ten years, only four different teams have won the NBA championship. The league has devolved into 6-8 team league where the smaller market clubs cannot compete with the likes of Boston, LA and Miami. Smaller contracts and a hard(er) cap will certainly allow teams, albeit in the future, to begin competing more frequently.
The final point of contention is the revenue sharing at the end of the year. Right now, players receive 57% of the cut, which is significantly different than two decades ago when the owners saw the majority of the money. I expect that the players will see a reduction in the amount of revenue sharing they receive, but they'll maintain their majority status. Winners: Players
But how long will all of this take to figure out? Too long, unfortunately. David Stern is a proficient businessman who knows how to get what he wants. Billy Hunter, the players' representative, is a loud-mouth who fires from the hip. I think it will be a knock down, grind-it-out type of negotiation, but ultimately cooler heads will prevail. The owners will really stick it to the players in the end, but at the expense of the 2011-2012 NBA season.
The way I see it, the players are in some trouble. The draft age will stay the same, but as I stated already, the players only seek to negotiate that down because they know if they don't, the owners will attempt to push the age to twenty. Winners: Push
The salary cap is a tough issue because it is one of the more contested issues. I see one of two things happening in this area. Either the cap is going to be reduced significantly, with greater penalties for exceeding the cap. That, or the NBA will institute a hard salary cap, where teams are entirely unable to exceed the salary cap. This means shorter, smaller contracts for players. Winners: Owners
I want to take one more paragraph to explain the significance of this because it may not be entirely evident. These shorter contracts will help ensure a more competitive league because players will not be able to sign 5-6 year deals and then proceed to not give a damn. Shorter contracts make sure that the right players are being paid the right amount of money. And on a larger scale, it will help distribute the talent across the league more effectively. In the past ten years, only four different teams have won the NBA championship. The league has devolved into 6-8 team league where the smaller market clubs cannot compete with the likes of Boston, LA and Miami. Smaller contracts and a hard(er) cap will certainly allow teams, albeit in the future, to begin competing more frequently.
The final point of contention is the revenue sharing at the end of the year. Right now, players receive 57% of the cut, which is significantly different than two decades ago when the owners saw the majority of the money. I expect that the players will see a reduction in the amount of revenue sharing they receive, but they'll maintain their majority status. Winners: Players
But how long will all of this take to figure out? Too long, unfortunately. David Stern is a proficient businessman who knows how to get what he wants. Billy Hunter, the players' representative, is a loud-mouth who fires from the hip. I think it will be a knock down, grind-it-out type of negotiation, but ultimately cooler heads will prevail. The owners will really stick it to the players in the end, but at the expense of the 2011-2012 NBA season.
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
The Jimmer: Myths and Realities
With the news of Brandon Davies', BYU's second-leading scorer and leading rebounder, dismissal from the team, the focus will immediately be on whether Jimmer Fredette can shoulder any more weight on this BYU team. He already leads the NCAA in points per game, bombarding teams from what is now referred to as "Jimmer range." He'll pull up from anywhere on the court, fading, off the dribble, around a screen, pretty much whenever he feels like it.
When you score as prolifically as him, and for a historically poor program like BYU, you are going to garner some national attention. And the Jimmer has been in the spotlight the entire year, sprinting up the draft boards and residing just outside the lottery currently. But heed my warning general managers: the one of you who drafts Jimmer will be throwing away a pick. Honestly, save it for the 7-foot European small forward whose name you can't pronounce. It will be a better investment.
Sometimes I just don't understand NBA scouts. The problem is that they watch ESPN analysts too much and fall in love with a player as much as the media does. That is why you hear all of them rationalizing how Jimmer's game can translate to the next game. Fear not, I am here to dispel a few of those myths.
Myth: Jimmer's shot and range will allow him to compete on the next level as an off-guard.
Reality: If you think that NBA coaches will draw up plays where Jimmer rolls off a screen and pulls from 30 feet, you have never watched an professional game before. He will hit the bench before the shot clangs off the rim. The other part of this is that NBA two-guards will D up Jimmer from that far. Nobody will slip under screens when he is out on the perimeter.
Myth: Jimmer is just like Steph Curry, he can learn to play point guard in the NBA and make the jump.
Reality: Jimmer and Steph have one thing in common: they became the darlings of the NCAA after impressive tournament appearances, each decided to return for another year and were the headline story of the year. That is where the comparisons end. Steph Curry was already an NBA-ready scorer after his sophomore year at Davidson. He returned for his junior year to explicitly work on his point guard abilities, hoping to prove to scouts that he could make it as a point guard in the NBA.
Jimmer returned for his junior year and has remained as one-dimensional as last year. As a point guard, Jimmer struggles to run an efficient offense. Yes, his teammates are abysmal, but Steph wasn't exactly surrounded with All-Americans at Davidson. Jimmer is close to Steph on his shooting abilities, but nowhere near him in creating his own shot or running an offense. Can we please stop insulting Steph Curry with this comparison now?
Myth: If Jimmer can't make it as a point guard, he can be a JJ Reddick type of player.
Reality: An even worse myth than the first one. First, Reddick is less one-dimensional than people think he is. Yes, in the past months, he's had two of the most embarrassing ankle-breaks that I can remember, but he had the good fortune of playing under one of the best college basketball coaches all-time, Coach K. Reddick is an incredibly smart player who makes few mistakes and does the little things as well as anyone in the league. Not to mention, being the number two all-time leading scorer in the ACC is significantly more impressive than anything on Jimmer's resume.
Jimmer also lacks the size and athleticism to play as an NBA two guard. I cannot imagine Jimmer trying to go by the likes of Aaron Afflalo or Wes Matthews, both better-than-average defensive guards, but still nowhere near the level of Kobe or Wade.
I want you all to take a second to recall the last player who unconsciously scored on a nightly basis, playing for a mid-major and people clamoring about how high he should be taken on draft night. Now who did you think of? If you selected the colossal bust, Adam Morrison, then you are thinking like I am. One dimensional players do not have a place in the NBA. What does that tell you about Jimmer?
When you score as prolifically as him, and for a historically poor program like BYU, you are going to garner some national attention. And the Jimmer has been in the spotlight the entire year, sprinting up the draft boards and residing just outside the lottery currently. But heed my warning general managers: the one of you who drafts Jimmer will be throwing away a pick. Honestly, save it for the 7-foot European small forward whose name you can't pronounce. It will be a better investment.
Sometimes I just don't understand NBA scouts. The problem is that they watch ESPN analysts too much and fall in love with a player as much as the media does. That is why you hear all of them rationalizing how Jimmer's game can translate to the next game. Fear not, I am here to dispel a few of those myths.
Myth: Jimmer's shot and range will allow him to compete on the next level as an off-guard.
Reality: If you think that NBA coaches will draw up plays where Jimmer rolls off a screen and pulls from 30 feet, you have never watched an professional game before. He will hit the bench before the shot clangs off the rim. The other part of this is that NBA two-guards will D up Jimmer from that far. Nobody will slip under screens when he is out on the perimeter.
Myth: Jimmer is just like Steph Curry, he can learn to play point guard in the NBA and make the jump.
Reality: Jimmer and Steph have one thing in common: they became the darlings of the NCAA after impressive tournament appearances, each decided to return for another year and were the headline story of the year. That is where the comparisons end. Steph Curry was already an NBA-ready scorer after his sophomore year at Davidson. He returned for his junior year to explicitly work on his point guard abilities, hoping to prove to scouts that he could make it as a point guard in the NBA.
Jimmer returned for his junior year and has remained as one-dimensional as last year. As a point guard, Jimmer struggles to run an efficient offense. Yes, his teammates are abysmal, but Steph wasn't exactly surrounded with All-Americans at Davidson. Jimmer is close to Steph on his shooting abilities, but nowhere near him in creating his own shot or running an offense. Can we please stop insulting Steph Curry with this comparison now?
Myth: If Jimmer can't make it as a point guard, he can be a JJ Reddick type of player.
Reality: An even worse myth than the first one. First, Reddick is less one-dimensional than people think he is. Yes, in the past months, he's had two of the most embarrassing ankle-breaks that I can remember, but he had the good fortune of playing under one of the best college basketball coaches all-time, Coach K. Reddick is an incredibly smart player who makes few mistakes and does the little things as well as anyone in the league. Not to mention, being the number two all-time leading scorer in the ACC is significantly more impressive than anything on Jimmer's resume.
Jimmer also lacks the size and athleticism to play as an NBA two guard. I cannot imagine Jimmer trying to go by the likes of Aaron Afflalo or Wes Matthews, both better-than-average defensive guards, but still nowhere near the level of Kobe or Wade.
I want you all to take a second to recall the last player who unconsciously scored on a nightly basis, playing for a mid-major and people clamoring about how high he should be taken on draft night. Now who did you think of? If you selected the colossal bust, Adam Morrison, then you are thinking like I am. One dimensional players do not have a place in the NBA. What does that tell you about Jimmer?
CBA Part Two: The Players
So yesterday I outlined the NBA collective bargaining agreement from the standpoint of the owners. Quick summary: no guaranteed contracts, hard salary cap, and a bigger share of the revenue at the end of the year. If they managed to get all of that, the players would stand to lose millions of dollars. You can bet that Billy Hunter, head of the player's union, and Derek Fisher, president of the players, will bring all their heavy artillery to the table.
The ace in the hole that the players hold is that in the event of the lockout, the players, particularly the stars, can jet across the sea and make their way to the European leagues. Just as when Josh Childress made the jump and many European teams began to salivate at the thought of a Kobe or a Dirk coming over, the sharks smell blood in the water once again. The star players should expect the European owners to open up their pocketbooks, even if only for one or two year contracts. The role players may not have as much success finding work, but the league is more concerned with generating revenue from its stars, not players 3-12 on a roster.
The players want to maintain the status quo. They see no issue with their contract situations, the salary cap, nor the revenue sharing. And why should they? They are the ones who risk their bodies on a daily basis, when one bad injury can devastate a career. Why should their future be jeopardized? The players also contest that since the owners are the ones responsible for accepting contracts, the burden of fiscal responsibility falls upon them. Market forces may influence an owner's decision to sign a player to a new contract, but ultimately nobody forces them to sign it.
One change that the players will bargain for is the removal of the age restriction on the NBA draft. Currently, players must have spent one full year out of high school before they are eligible for the draft. The players want this to return to just having to be 18 to enter, while the owners and David Stern, the NBA commissioner seeks to raise the draft age to 20. My speculation is that the players do not truly want the limit reduced, they just need to combat the owners trying to raise the age requirement again.
Unfortunately for the players, that is about the extent of their powers. They will rely heavily on the likes of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Dwight Howard, etc. to put pressure on owners by threatening to play in Europe in the event of the lockout. However, this can only take them so far and I expect the players to lose heavily in the new CBA.
Tomorrow, exactly what I expect to happen in the CBA discussions along with what it means for the league moving forward in the next decade.
The ace in the hole that the players hold is that in the event of the lockout, the players, particularly the stars, can jet across the sea and make their way to the European leagues. Just as when Josh Childress made the jump and many European teams began to salivate at the thought of a Kobe or a Dirk coming over, the sharks smell blood in the water once again. The star players should expect the European owners to open up their pocketbooks, even if only for one or two year contracts. The role players may not have as much success finding work, but the league is more concerned with generating revenue from its stars, not players 3-12 on a roster.
The players want to maintain the status quo. They see no issue with their contract situations, the salary cap, nor the revenue sharing. And why should they? They are the ones who risk their bodies on a daily basis, when one bad injury can devastate a career. Why should their future be jeopardized? The players also contest that since the owners are the ones responsible for accepting contracts, the burden of fiscal responsibility falls upon them. Market forces may influence an owner's decision to sign a player to a new contract, but ultimately nobody forces them to sign it.
One change that the players will bargain for is the removal of the age restriction on the NBA draft. Currently, players must have spent one full year out of high school before they are eligible for the draft. The players want this to return to just having to be 18 to enter, while the owners and David Stern, the NBA commissioner seeks to raise the draft age to 20. My speculation is that the players do not truly want the limit reduced, they just need to combat the owners trying to raise the age requirement again.
Unfortunately for the players, that is about the extent of their powers. They will rely heavily on the likes of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Dwight Howard, etc. to put pressure on owners by threatening to play in Europe in the event of the lockout. However, this can only take them so far and I expect the players to lose heavily in the new CBA.
Tomorrow, exactly what I expect to happen in the CBA discussions along with what it means for the league moving forward in the next decade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)